2 Samuel 1:1 Now it came to pass. During the last few days events had been crowding fast upon one another. Living as fugitives at Ziklag, in the land of the Philistines, David and his men, unfit for the peaceful occupations of agriculture, had been driven to seek their maintenance by raids upon the wild tribes in the desert. Of these the chief were the Amalekites, whose home was the bare region lying between the south of Judah and Egypt. We have ample proof that this race was utterly hostile to all order and quietness; it lived by the plunder of others, and, sheltering itself in the recesses of the wilderness, broke out thence on every opportunity to carry, ravage and ruin into all the neighbouring districts. The Amalekite was thus every man’s enemy, and the object of universal dislike; and the cruelty which he habitually practised would justify to David’s mind the barbarity with which he put to death all whom he found, man and woman alike. But his object was not justice. His cruelty was the result of selfish motives. For it was necessary for him to keep tidings of his real doings from the ears of Achish, who naturally would not approve of David’s military activity. He very probably had put him there upon the borders to protect his realm from incursions; but David in the Amalekite war was the assailant, and was, moreover, practising his men for ulterior objects. Achish most probably received a share of the captured cattle; but his inquiries were met with an equivocation (1 Samuel 27:10-12), which made him suppose that David, with the usual bitterness of a renegade, had been harrying his own tribesmen. And the falsehood soon entangled David in most painful consequences; for Achish, nothing doubting of his fidelity, and of his bitter hatred of Saul. determined to take him with him in the grand army of the Philistines, which was slowly moving northward for the conquest of the land of Israel. David had God’s promise of ultimate safety, and he ought not to have deserted his country. As a deserter to the Philistines, he had to descend to falsehood, and now treason seemed inevitable. His only choice lay between betraying his country or the king who had given him so hospitable a refuge. The jealousy, or rather the good sense, of the Philistine lords (1 Samuel 29:4) saved him from this dreadful alternative, and he was sent back, to his great joy, to Ziklag. But it was a dreadful sight which there met his view. With strange mismanagement, he had left no portion of his men to guard his little city, and the Amalekites had made reprisals. The news of the Philistine army upon its march upwards would be quickly carried through the desert, and the wild tribes would be sure to take the opportunity for gathering plunder far and wide. So undefended: was the whole country, that they met nowhere with resistance. And David saw, on his return, only the smoking ruins of the little city where for many months he had dwelt. His wives, Ahinoam and Abigail, the wives and children of his men, had all been carried away for the Egyptian slave market. So secure were the Amalekites, that they had no fear about encumbering their march with a vast multitude of children and cattle. And to add to his distress, his men, indignant, and not without reason, at David’s want of precaution, were threatening to stone him as an alleviation for their distress. Never had David’s fortunes fallen so low as at that moment; but quickly they were to rise again. By energetic action he not only recovered the spoil and the captives taken from Ziklag, but also won the immense wealth gathered by the Amalekites in a wide raid made at a time when there was no one to resist them. His own share of the spoil was so large that he was able to send valuable presents of sheep, oxen, and camels to his friends in Judaea, probably not without some prescience that the way to his return might be opened by the events of the war between the Philistines and Saul. The dangerous issues of that war could not be hidden from him; but he would find solace for his anxieties in the active work of restoring order at Ziklag, and in providing hasty shelter for the women and children whom he had brought back to their desolated homes. But his suspense did not last long. For when David had abode two days in Ziklag, news came which confirmed his worst fears. The battle had Been fought; Israel had been routed; and Saul and Jonathan, the friend who had been to him more than a brother, lay among the slain. 2 Samuel 1:2 On the third day. This means the third day after David’s return with the spoil and captives recovered from the Amalekites. If we study the data, we find that David had marched with Achish as far as Aphek in the plain of Jezreel (1 Samuel 29:1), opposite to which, on the rising ground near Gilboa, Saul had posted his army. A march of three days had brought him back to Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:1), and after the shortest possible delay he had started in pursuit of the Amalekites. The rapidity of his movements is proved by so large a proportion of his hardy men falling out of the ranks at the brook Besor; but nevertheless some time must have been lost at Ziklag in discovering the greatness of their disaster, in searching for any who might possibly have escaped, in getting food, and in mustering again together for the pursuit. Near the brook they seem to have found the Egyptian slave who became their guide, and who had been abandoned three days before David found him. It follows, therefore, that the Amalekites were then three days’ march in advance, and however rapidly the pursuit was urged on, we cannot allow less than five days for it, and one for the battle (2 Samuel 1:12, 2 Samuel 1:13, 2 Samuel 1:17). The march homeward would take a longer time, as David was now encumbered with flocks and herds, women and children. If it took eight days, the time occupied in it by the Amalekites, the whole period that had elapsed since David was sent away from Aphek by the Philistine lords would be eighteen or nineteen days; and it is thus evident that the Amalekites were plundering Ziklag at the very time when he was being dismissed, half angry, half rejoicing, at the slight put upon him, but little thinking of the sad need there was for his presence elsewhere. Now, the messenger from Gilboa, if an active runner, weald easily traverse in two days the distance which David and his men had travelled in three. And thus it follows that the battle at Gilboa was fought on the very day of David’s happy return from the pursuit, and about nineteen days after the review at Aphek. If the word "tomorrow" in 1 Samuel 28:19 seems to imply a more rapid march of events, we must remember that the meaning of the word in Hebrew is more indefinite than with us (comp. Genesis 30:33; Exodus 13:14). With his clothes rent, and earth upon his head. Though the Amalekite came out of the camp, yet we are not to suppose that he had been one of the combatants. Every army is followed by a vast number of vagabonds, intent upon gain, purchasing of the troops their booty, plundering wherever they have the chance, and carrying on a lucrative but illicit trade. He was more probably a sort of gipsy sutler than, as many suppose, the slave of some Israelite. He professes, however, to be upon Israel’s side, and appears with the usual marks of sorrow. By so doing he hoped to commend himself to David, whom he knew to be too patriotic to rejoice at the defeat of his countrymen, though he doubted not that he would hear with joy of the death of so inveterate a personal enemy as Saul. On this account, and because the way would now stand open to David’s ambition, he evidently felt sure of receiving a large guerdon for his news. There is, moreover, a further interest in his conduct; for it demonstrates the existence of a widespread popular feeling that David was destined to be Israel’s king. It was this conviction which made him give David kingly honour; for he fell to the earth, and did obeisance. And all Israel, on the morrow after the defeat, would probably have done the same, but for David’s own conduct. Israel was too high-spirited a nation to take at once for a king a man who had marched with their enemies to fight against them, even though they knew that the voice of prophecy had appointed him to inherit Saul’s throne. 2 Samuel 1:3 Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped. Non-combatants would hang about the army, watching, as soon as the battle had begun, the fortunes of the day, and immediately that they saw the impending defeat of their own side, would think chiefly of their personal safety. But for an active young man the opportunity would then have come for booty. The Philistines, in pursuit of the enemy, would soon leave the battlefield in their rear, and multitudes would quickly prowl about it to plunder the dead. While so busied, the Amalekite falsely represents himself as having come by chance upon the wounded, but still living, Saul. 2 Samuel 1:6 As I happened by chance upon Mount Gilboa. The story of the Amalekite is at variance with the account of Saul’s death given in the last chapter of the preceding book. There, sore pressed and wounded by archers, hopeless of escape, and unable to make any further resistance, in sore distress at the death of his sons and the loss of the battle, Saul and his armour bearer fall upon their own swords. Here, closely pursued by chariots and horsemen, the king is so utterly deserted by all his body guard that he cells to a vagabond prowling about for booty to slay him. Naturally, Ewald and his followers, who regard the books of the Bible as mere patchwork, find here the marks of different narrators, whose stories the compiler of the Book of Samuel pieced together without having the shrewdness to observe that they were utterly irreconcilable. Some modern commentators have, however, attempted to harmonize them with little success. Really, the story of the Amalekite is a most improbable fiction, and utterly untrue. He knew nothing as to the manner of Saul’s death, but found the body, probably some time after the king had fallen; and he was able to strip it because the pursuing Philistines were hurrying forward to make their victory complete, without being aware of what was the crowning glory of their success. As the pursuit advanced it would soon become safe for the Amalekite and others like him to try and secure some of the booty before the Philistines returned. Archers shooting from a distance might easily so distress Saul as to make him despair of escape—and it appears from the first narrative that they had not recognized him; for Saul is afraid lest they should do so, and, having taken him alive, should "abuse," or make a mock of him. Here chariots and horsemen are in close pursuit, and the king faces them grimly; nevertheless, they allow a stranger, who would not have dared to mix himself up with the battle, to rob them of their prize. We may feel sure that it was not until the tide of battle had moved onward in pursuit that the Amalekite ventured upon the field to rob the dead. When so occupied he came upon a corpse, now for some brief space dead, and at once recognized the tall form of the king, whose identity was made more plain by the golden circlet upon his helmet. At Once he saw the chance of larger gains, and hastily tearing off the royal crown and the bracelet from the fallen monarch, without a thought of rescuing the remains from the indignities which the Philistines were sure to inflict upon them, he hurried away with his tidings. Of course, he knew nothing of David’s recent conduct, nor that for some time he had accompanied the invading army, nor that Ziklag had just experienced rough treatment from his own countrymen. Still, if he had told the truth, he would have fared well; for he brought news of great importance. But truth was not a virtue much practised in those days, and, fancying that the treatment he had met with from Saul would fill David’s heart with bitter rancour against him, the Amalekite invented this story of his having slain the king with his own hands, in the expectation that it would win for him a double reward. 2 Samuel 1:9 Anguish. This word, which occurs only in this place, comes from a root signifying to entwine or knot together. On this account Jewish commentators explain it of cramp, which often follows upon loss of blood; but it is equally possible that it means vertigo, or giddiness, when things seem to dance or interweave themselves together before the eyes. The next words signify, For yet is my life whole within me, and give the reason why Saul asked the Amalekite to slay him. The story is at least plausible. It represents the king as deserted by his army, even to the last man, and with the Philistine cavalry and chariots in close pursuit. He is not mortally wounded, but, as giddiness prevents his escape, there is danger of his falling alive into the enemy’s hand; and as they would probably not have killed him, but carried him in triumph through their cities, the way would still have been blocked against David’s succession. The fear of this indignity would account for Saul’s earnest appeal to the Amalekite to slay him, and, so requested, it seemed right to put him to death, instead of trying to carry him off to a place of safety. But all this was merely to keep up appearances, and in his heart he doubted not that David would regard it as a signal service that his enemy was put out of the way. 2 Samuel 1:10 After that he was fallen; Hebrew, after his fall; that is, his defeat; for Saul was standing and supporting himself with his spear. The crown, probably, was a narrow band of gold encircling the royal helmet. Bracelet. We read of "bracelets" in Numbers 31:50, in the enumeration of the spoil taken from the Midianites, and there too apparently they were the ornaments of warriors. In the Assyrian monuments chiefs are generally represented with ornaments upon their wrists and arms (see Layard, ’Nineveh,’ etc; pl. 18). 2 Samuel 1:12 They mourned, and wept, and fasted. The sight of Saul’s royal insignia was clear proof of Israel’s disaster; and this sorrow of David and his men shows how true their hearts were to their country, and how unbearable would have been their position had not the prudence of the Philistine lords extricated them from the difficulty in which they had been placed by David’s want of faith. But David had other reasons besides patriotism for sorrow. Personally he had lost the truest of friends, and even Saul had a place in his heart for he would contrast with his terrible death the early glories of his reign, when all Israel honoured him as its deliverer from the crushing yoke of foreign bondage, and when David was himself one of the most trusty of his captains. Otto von Gerlach compares David thus weeping over the fall of his implacable enemy with David’s Son weeping over Jerusalem, the city whose inhabitants were his bitter foes, and who not only sought his death, but delivered him up to the Romans, to be scourged and spitefully intreated, and slain upon the cross. 2 Samuel 1:15 Go near, and fall upon him. This was no hasty sentence, for they had "fasted until even." And before pronouncing it David asks, "Whence art thou?" that is, he makes more full inquiry into his condition and previous doings. He knew that he was an Amalekite, and most probably had seen clearly enough that his whole story was false; but before deciding upon his fate, he desired fuller information as to the man’s previous life. His question elicits from him that he was a subject of Saul. For the word "stranger" means a settler, who had withdrawn from his own country and joined himself to Israel. Moreover, it was the Amalekite’s father who had done this, and probably he was one of many, who, finding their old nomad life too dangerous, had sought a home in the southern districts of Judah; but when the war broke out, the old instinct of these Bedaween made them follow the army for pilfer and trade in spoil. But as the son of a settler, the Amalekite owed by birth allegiance to Saul, and, should the occasion arise, was bound to render him loyal aid. Now, according to his own account, he had found Saul in no immediate danger of death, "for his life was still whole within him." Escape was at least possible with the Amalekite’s aid, but he is eager to hill him. And David’s question, "How wast thou not afraid …to destroy the Lord’s anointed?" virtually means, "How wast thou not afraid to kill thy own king?" The Lord, that is, Jehovah, was no name of power to any outside the covenant people, nor in settling in Judea did the Amalekites accept the national religion. But the words would show even to a stranger that Saul was Israel’s lawful and consecrated king. Commentators, with strange perverseness, have found in these words an outbreak of selfishness on David’s part, and have supposed that he wished to guard his own person against future treason by making a wholesome example. But this is both to misunderstand the examination of the culprit summed up in 2 Samuel 1:13, 2 Samuel 1:14, and also to put aside all account of the deep and agonizing sorrow which was rending David’s heart. What would have been an Englishman’s feelings if news had come that we had lost, for instance, the battle of Waterloo, and if the fugitive who brought the information had said that he had killed the wounded commander-in-chief? In David’s case, besides deep distress at the disaster which had befallen his country, there was personal grief for the death of Jonathan and of Saul’s other sons, who were David’s brothers-in-law; and the words really prove his loyalty to Saul himself. He was still Jehovah’s anointed, whatever his conduct might have been; and we have found David on previous occasions actuated by the same generous respect for duty when clearly it was contrary to his own interests (see, for instance, 1 Samuel 26:9). David put the wretch justly to death for meanly murdering one whom he might possibly have saved. And the man’s very purpose was to suggest to David, in a covert way, that escape really was possible, but that he had made all things sure, and so deserved a large reward. As a matter of fact, he had not killed Saul, but had invented the story because, judging David by his own immoral standard, he had supposed that he would regard the crime as a valuable service. 2 Samuel 1:17 David lamented with this lamentation. The Hebrew word for "lamentation" is kinah, a technical term for an elegy or poem commemorative of the dead. Thus Jeremiah wrote a kinah in memory of King Josiah (2 Chronicles 35:25); and there is little doubt that the "lamentations" there spoken of were a collection of dirges, in which probably this ode written by David held an honoured place. In 2 Samuel 3:33, 2 Samuel 3:34 we have a short kinah in Abner’s honour, which possibly formed part of a longer poem, of which those two verses only are quoted as sufficing to prove, not only David’s innocence, but also his indignation at Joab’s foul deed. In both these places we have remains of David’s secular poetry, and find it marked by the same strong emotion and the same sublimity of thought as distinguish his psalms. We observe also the nobleness of David’s nature in his total silence concerning himself, and his generous eulogy, not of Jonathan only, but also of Saul. The mean envy and the implacable jealousy of the latter are no more remembered, and he sees in him, not the personal foe, but the brave king who has fallen in his country’s cause. 2 Samuel 1:18 Also he bade them teach the children of Judah [the use of] the bow. The old view is that given by the inserted words, and is well put by Ephrem Syrus in his commentary upon the passage. He says that, as Israel’s defeat at Gilboa was the presage of a long struggle, and as the Philistines had gained the victory there by their skill in archery, David used his utmost authority with his own tribe to get them to practise this art for their protection in future wars. This explanation would be plausible were it not that we have reason for believing that the Israelites were already skilful in the use both of the sling and the bow, in both of which the Benjamites especially excelled (1 Chronicles 12:2). The modern view is that given in the Revised Version, where the inserted words are "the song of" the bow. "The Bow" is thus the name of the elegy, taken from the allusion to Jonathan’s skill in the use of that weapon; and the meaning is that David made his own tribesmen, who were probably ill disposed to Saul and his family, learn this dirge, not so much for its preservation, as to make them give the fallen king due honour. Similarly Exodus 3:1-22. is called "The Bush" in Mark 12:26. The book of Jasher. See on this book Joshua 10:13, where the Syriac Version calls it "The Book of Canticles," and understands by it a collection of national ballads commemorative of the brave deeds of Israelite heroes. Jasher literally means "upright," and the Book of Jasher would be equivalent to "Hero book," the Hebrews always looking to the moral rather than the physical prowess of their great men. 2 Samuel 1:19 The beauty of Israel. The word zebi means both "beauty" and also "the gazelle." Ewald takes it in the second sense, and explains it of Jonathan. "everywhere the first in courage, in activity, and speed; slender also and of well-made figure, and whose personal beauty and swiftness of foot in attack or retreat gained for him among the troops the name of ’the gazelle.’ The Syriac Version also translates ’gazelle,’" but Ephrem says that the whole Israelite nation is meant, the flower of whoso manhood lay slaughtered on Mount Gilboa. Which signification we take must really depend upon the meaning we attach to the words, "thy high place;" and these in the Authorized Version have nothing to refer to, and so become unmeaning. The Revised Version follows the Vulgate in taking Israel as a vocative, sad renders, "Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places." The sense would thus be that given by Ephrem, Israel’s glory being its "mighty" men or heroes, its warriors slain upon Mount Gilboa with their king. But 2 Samuel 1:25 makes it plain that the "high places" are Jonathan’s, and not those of the nation; and the more correct rendering is "O beauty [or, ’gazelle’] of Israel, slain upon thy high places! how are the heroes fallen!" Thus Jonathan is certainly meant, and the heroes are the young, prince and his father; and as the hunted antelope is said to return to its lair in the mountains, and there await its death, "gazelle" is probably the right rendering. In a dirge in honour of Saul and Jonathan we may be pretty sure that Jonathan would be referred to in its opening words, and the camp name of his friend would bring back to David’s mind many a brave feat wrought together, and many a pleasant hour of companionship in past years. 2 Samuel 1:20 Gath … Askelon. By thus localizing the triumph, and bringing before the mind the thought of multitudes in these well-known places rejoicing with dance and song over the news of their victory, a more affecting picture is produced by the contrast with Israel’s distress than could have been effected by mere generalizations. Probably, too, there was present in David’s mind the remembrance of scenes which he had witnessed in these towns. In course of time, "Tell it not in Gath" became a proverb (Micah 1:10). The daughters. It is the custom in the East for the women to celebrate the prowess of the nation’s warriors (Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6; Psalms 68:11 Revised Version). Uncircumcised. For some unknown reason, this word is used as a term of reproach, especially of the Philistines (1 Samuel 14:6; 1 Samuel 17:26). 2 Samuel 1:21 Fields of offerings; Hebrew, fields of terumoth. The terumoth were heave offerings (Leviticus 2 Samuel 7:14, 32), and the Vulgate, regarding these as thank offerings, translates, "Fields of firstfruits." The sense would thus be, "Fields of corn such as was used for heave offerings." Still, this gives us no suitable meaning; for Gilboa was not a place fit for the growth of corn; and Theodoret, in his version, has preserved a different reading, which is probably right, namely, "Ye fields and mountains of death." The shield … is vilely east away. This rendering contains a classical idea derived from the Greeks and Romans, among whom it was a disgrace for a soldier to return without his shield. But this imputes personal cowardice to Saul—a reproach which is entirely undeserved; for he did not east away his shield, but remained steadfast unto death. The right translation is, "For there the shield of heroes, yea, the shield of Saul, was defiled," stained, that is, with blood. We have no proof whatsoever that the Israelites had the same notion as the Greeks, and if they had, David would certainly not have put such a stigma upon the fallen king. [As though he had] not [been] anointed with oil. By rejecting the inserted words, we get the original, with all its simplicity, but with all its difficulty. "There the shield of the heroes was defiled: The shield of Saul not anointed with oil." The interpretation put upon these words in the Authorized Version is taken from the Vulgate, no mean authority, but it is one which cannot be reconciled with the Hebrew, where it is not Saul, but his shield, which is referred to. It was a Jewish custom to anoint the shield with oil before a battle (Isaiah 21:5), in order probably to make the missiles of the enemy glance off from it without injury. And bearing this in mind, David now contrasts the sad issue of the battle with the hopes with which the warrior had in old times gone forth to war. Then his shield glistened brightly; now it was defiled with blood. In the Revised Version the rendering, "vilely cast away," is retained, the Revisers not having perceived that "defiled," which they have placed in the margin, is absolutely required for the text by the contrast with "the shield not anointed with oil." 2 Samuel 1:22 From the blood of the slain. In old time, Saul and Jonathan had been victorious warriors, who had returned from the battlefield stained with the blood of their enemies: from this battle they return no more, and their weapons have lost their old renown. 2 Samuel 1:23 Lovely and pleasant. The words of the Authorized Version contain a beautiful antithesis, which, however, does not exist in the Hebrew, which celebrates the close union of father and son in life as well as in death. "Saul and Jonathan, the lovely and pleasant, Neither in their lives nor in their death were they divided." Notwithstanding Saul’s rash vow, Jonathan had ever been his father’s faithful friend and companion, nor had his affection for David made him untrue to the ties of natural affection. And David generously commends his friend for thus acting. 2 Samuel 1:24 Ye daughters of Israel. In old time, the women of Israel had celebrated Saul’s triumphs (2 Samuel 1:20), but now it is their sad office to bewail his death. And a touching reason is given for their sorrow. During Saul’s reign the condition of the women had greatly improved. When a nation is in the miserable plight described in 1 Samuel 13:19-22, there is neither safety nor comfort for the weak; but when the strong arm of Saul had won freedom for Israel, the women were the first to reap the benefit, and "their scarlet clothing with delights," that is, their delightful or delicate clothing of bright colours and their golden ornaments, prove that the nation had made a great advance in prosperity and culture during the happier years of Saul’s reign. 2 Samuel 1:26 Thy love to me was wonderful. Never was there a purer friendship than that of Jonathan for David. It began just after the combat with Goliath, when the young prince, instead of seeing in David a rival, who had equalled his own feat of valour, took him to his heart, put upon him his own robe and armour, and thus presented him to the army as his friend and brother. Nor did his father’s hatred of David, nor the knowledge that David was to inherit the kingdom, interfere with his love. He remained a dutiful son to his father, and accepted his inferior position with magnanimity, without once seeing in David cause for blame; and it surpassed the love of women, because, to requite their devotion, they look for protection and homage, the more delightful because it is paid by the strong to the weak. But here the lives of the two friends could not combine in one happy fusion of mutual union. Their hearts were bound together, but a hard fate, of which they were fully aware, made the ruin of the one the certain result of the happiness of the other. Nevertheless, Jonathan, with everything to lose, and David with everything to gain, remained true and loyal friends. 2 Samuel 1:27 How are the mighty fallen! This lament, which occurs three times, is the central thought of the elegy. Glorious and noble in their pest lives, the heroes had now fallen, not as Wolfe fell at Quebec, with the shout of victory in his ears, but in the lost battle. And David seeks relief for his distress in dwelling upon the sad contrast between the splendid victories which Saul had won for Israel when first chosen to be king, and the terrible defeat by which life and kingdom had now been lost. 2 Samuel 1:1-10 The facts of this section may be stated thus: 1. David having retired to Ziklag during the conflict between Israel and the Philistines, a messenger from the seat of war comes to pay him homage. 2. David, being as yet in ignorance of the event on Gilboa, and being impressed by the signs of mourning on the stranger, is prompted to ask whence he came. 3. Eager to ascertain further information, he learns from the Amalekite, not only that Saul and Jonathan were dead, but that, according to the stranger’s story, the former had been killed by the hand of the narrator. 4. In evidence of the truth of his story, the man produces Saul’s crown and bracelet. Waiting on Providence. David’s retirement at Ziklag is to be regarded in connection with his well-established conviction that he was the chosen servant destined to occupy a foremost place in establishing the kingdom of God, and his persistent resolve not to take a single step of his own devising that would seem to force on the removal of Saul from the throne, in order to secure thereby his own elevation. Events had forced him into a quasi-public position as the rival of Saul, much as he disclaimed all rivalry; and now, in a foreign land, with a following not of his own seeking, and sensible that a crisis was at hand, he felt that he could do nothing but maintain a resolute inactivity, leaving the issue of impending events to Providence. A belief in Providence is very common; in word men express their dependence on it, and there are seasons in human life when, perhaps, all we can do is to wait on Providence. There is, however, a false, even wicked, waiting, which is but another name for idleness or fatalism, or vague looking for some lucky chance. Considering the case of David, we can trace some of the features of a true waiting on Providence. There is— I. DEEP OF BEING DEVOTED TO A HOLY CAUSE. Life is devoted to a Divine, not a merely human, purpose. This was pre-eminently characteristic of David at this time. He was conscious of being personally identified with the working out of God’s holy purpose towards mankind. He had passed out of the realm of self-seeking into the kingdom of God, and in public and private lived for God. Here lies the beginning of our right and privilege to wait on Providence. As our Lord’s life was a nobler instance of consecration to a holy cause than was David’s, so now ours may be an instance less conspicuous than his, though in our measure as real. It is possible for us to be one with Christ and his kingdom—absorbed, amidst even private and domestic life, with the purpose dear to his heart. Our life gains power and glory only in proportion as we are enabled to cherish a well-founded conviction that we are not living for merely temporal and material considerations, but for God, and in that sense are his chosen servants for specific purposes, as truly as was David when, in retirement at Ziklag, he knew he was the chosen King of Israel. II. FREEDOM FROM SELFISH AND DESIRES. David desired not elevation for the sake of personal gratification; nor did he desire disaster for Saul that a great obstacle to his own advance might be put aside. Men consecrated to God are open to the subtle temptation of desiring events to move on so as to promote their own personal ease at the cost of much that is sacred. Under plea of greater usefulness, we may long for Providence to open a pathway for us, when, if motives are severely scrutinized, there is discovered a secret longing for personal gratification. The interlacings of human life are such that the displacement of one may be a prerequisite to the freer action and wider usefulness of another; and one whose course is hampered by obstacles may almost unconsciously cherish the wish that some event may happen which, by the trouble and loss it brings to another, will promote his own interests. No one truly waits on Providence who cherishes this spirit. The man of business who, amidst difficulties, looks out eagerly for the downfall of others as a means of his own improved chance in competition, must not flatter himself that all along he has been quietly waiting on Providence. It often requires very high religious principle to labour on in obscurity, blessed by apparently few results, with a calm trust in God untainted by the desire that others, possibly less worthy in character, may be swept away by resistless events to make more room for ourselves. David’s sentiments towards Saul, who stood in his pathway, are full of instruction to all. III. OF GOD’S CONTROL OVER , AND OF HIS . Most probably David’s followers, knowing as they did that Saul stood between him and the throne, often marvelled at his patient inactivity. But by a keener spiritual vision than they possessed, he recognized the perfect control of the God he served, and had amazing faith in the sure though slow unfolding of his purposes. Hence he could wait and be still. This quality has always entered largely into the character of those who have done great service in the interests of truth and righteousness. Our Saviour, during his earthly life, was a conspicuous instance. He was despised, rejected, of the people there were none with him, and events seemed to the minds of his disciples (John 14:1; John 16:19-22; Luke 24:21) to be disastrous to his cause; and yet all through he never distrusted the Father, and in fulness of confidence could anticipate the results of a steady unfolding of the Divine purpose (John 10:16). So likewise we in secular and spiritual affairs may be said to wait on Providence when, in spite of difficulties that almost crush out our life, we, being conscious of oneness with Christ, stagger not in our belief in the all-controlling wisdom and power, and rest in the certainty of an order of things which is being directed towards the realization of the Divine purposes with which our entire life is identified. "Have faith in God." He slumbers not; he sleeps not; he works, and who shall let? IV. FOR ACTION, BY RESOLVE ONLY TO ACT IN HARMONY WITH HIGHEST LAW. David was ready to act whenever occasion offered; but he would not create occasion, and that because he saw that, in the continuance of Saul’s life and reign, there was involved a great principle. For had he not been chosen by God? and was not God now allowing him to work out his own chastisement in harmony with far-reaching moral laws? David could only act in harmony with the Divine law which seemed to be expressed in Saul’s sad life—namely, the removal of the unworthy by a natural process. There was a reserve of power in Christ during his life among men which could have accomplished startling results had he put it forth—just as David could have precipitated events by putting forth his strength against Saul—but he restrained himself. He was patient, and abstained from any action that would run counter to the moral and physical laws by which God was then governing mankind. On the same principle he now carries on his work in the world. Men do not understand him when they look for an extension of Christianity in violation of the laws of moral and social life which God has ordained. We are entrusted with more power than it is fit to put forth. Its exercise is to be regulated by regard to law. Especially in embarrassed circumstances, when it seems as though, in our business, our domestic affairs, or Church action, we could make marked advance by a vigorous effort in a given direction, does it become us to ask whether such action would be in harmony with the law of righteousness. During the sorrows of the Church (Luke 21:9-21), when it seemed as though active resistance by the sword was essential to self-preservation, the disciples were to be patient, and not run counter to the law of the gospel by endeavouring to maintain a kingdom of peace by carnal weapons. We must wait for God, be ready to act when action will harmonize with the holy laws of God’s government. V. USE OF TIME, AS BY THE OF OUR . David could not act against Saul; he could not benefit Israel by seeking to rid them of an unworthy ruler; but he could seek to remedy the evils caused by the Amalekites at Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:1, 1 Samuel 30:26), and also discipline and organize his adherents (1 Chronicles 12:1-40.), and so put himself and his men in a position to move towards Palestine when God opened the way. The disciples of Christ were powerless to act on the world for some weeks after his death, but they cherished faith in their Lord, and, till the time appointed by Providence came, they wisely kept together for prayer and mutual encouragement (Acts 1:14; cf. Acts 2:1-13). The Christian Church may believe itself called to enter on a great missionary enterprise in an at present inaccessible country. It must not violate the laws of God by rushing into disaster under plea of promoting a good cause, hut must gather up materials and become ready to enter in when a higher power opens the way. The same principle applies to our extension of business, our entering on new or wider professions, and especially if we are ambitious to consecrate ourselves to the work of the Christian ministry. Those who, after the example of David, wait on Providence, will find in the end that the ways of God, though apparently slow and often trying to patience, are indicated by the issue. A subtle temptation. The Amalekite who came to David may be regarded as an instance of a quick-witted cunning man, observant of facts affecting the interests of others, and swiftly ingenious to work them up into a plausible form, ostensibly for the advantage of strangers, but really for his own advancement and material gain. He knew just enough of the outward development of the kingdom of God to see m events an opportunity for making them subservient to his own purposes. Like some of the present day, who are aliens to the spiritual Christian commonwealth, but who scruple not to make a profession of some interest in it a means of attaining to social position and material prosperity, so did he pay honour to the chosen servant of God for what he could gain thereby. But the main point in his conduct centres on David. He came practically in the form of a tempter to one who had long been under the force of strong temptation to desire and seek the removal from position, if not from life, of one who had been both an ungrateful enemy and an obstacle to the carrying out of his life’s mission. We have seen in our comments on the First Book of Samuel bow bravely David had withstood all the influences which urged to action against Saul. He had triumphed, and was now calmly waiting on Providence at Ziklag. But now the hand of Providence was being manifested without any action of his own. For does not this stranger declare the great news that the miserable king was fallen; that by an act of his own he had saved Israel from the shame of his dying directly under Philistine hands; and that the crown—the symbol of authority—was now within David’s own camp? Is there not here, then, release from the severe tension of self-restraint which for years had been put on thought and deed? Now surely David may breathe freely, and even bless God and take courage! Gratitude to such a newsbearer was surely due, and a sobered gladness may legitimately be cherished! Let us, then, consider the nature of subtle temptations. I. THEY MAY SPRING FROM FOR SOURCES, AND SO TAKE US OFF OUR GUARD. Who would have supposed that an Amalekite—a man whose tribe had been in conflict with David—would have appeared before him as bearer of news most momentous as affecting his future career? The apparent disinterestedness of one who could not be a partisan would render David open to the natural effect of the tidings on an ordinary heart. So in our life subtle temptations, calling us to no ostensible act of wrong, spring up we know not how, and take us by surprise. It may be an evil thought is suddenly obtruded in a line of ordinary thought; or a friend hints at a possibility without suggesting a deed or a feeling; or a set of facts start before the observing faculty, conveying, by their convergence on a matter of special interest to us, an impulse to cherish a definite class of feelings which, when examined in cool moments, is found to be essentially unholy. "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation," was an exhortation based on a profound knowledge of the manifold avenues along which subtle promptings to evil may enter into and possess the soul. II. THEY MAY NOT CALL TO ANY ACTION. In this case David was even relieved, by the fact of the tidings, from the pressure that had so long been on him to take action for his own advancement. Whatever appeal there was in the temptation was simply to the seat of feeling. The constitutional weakness of man is to feel satisfaction when an enemy is removed, and, though conventional custom may lead us to say that that satisfaction is tempered by sadness, it is to be feared that in this there is more of form than reality. Many men would not see any temptation in this narrative. They cannot see that character lies in feeling cherished, more than in acts that manifestly violate some law of God or man. Incitements to deeds of open vice do not form the most dangerous evils of our lot. Satan ruins more by undermining than by direct assault. The weakening of the inner seat of purity and kindliness alone need not involve any deed or word known to our fellow creatures. III. THEY MAY PRESENT UNDER COVER OF OF . Judging from the standard that governs the lives of most men, the Amalekite imagined that his story would gratify David for two reasons—one, that hopes long cherished of being of service to Israel were soon to be realized; the other, that Saul was set aside by other hands than his own. There can be no doubt but that, in proportion to the strength of his hope of some day being the means of raising Israel from the sorrows which had come by the misrule of Saul, so would be the tendency to rejoice in its speedy realization; and this he knew would be legitimate. Hence, although, as a kindly good man, he might well abstain from cherishing any secret satisfaction at the disaster which had befallen Saul, yet, in view of the beneficial issues about to flow from the event, would there not be valid ground for so doing? Was not the welfare of the nation of more importance than sentiment for an individual? And could he not distinguish between malicious joy, and satisfaction in the rising of public good out of personal disaster? It is thus easy for one nation to find, by a swift process of thought, plausible pretext for satisfaction in the calamities of another nation. Possibly our Church life is not free from the subtle temptation, when we observe, in the decay of rival parties or denominations, a probable increase to the strength of our own. Business men may argue that benefits to society arise from the downfall of houses trading on an insecure basis, and so cover the real character of the personal satisfaction entertained. We need to be much on our guard when the reasoning powers are stimulated to justify sentiments which in their simple nakedness would be instinctively abhorred by a very holy and loving nature. In moral matters the first judgments are safest. IV. THEY DO NOT REVEAL OR SUGGEST THE AND REMOTE OF . The point of the temptation, as it fell on David’s nature, was simply to develop a certain feeling of satisfaction that, as he could not and would not raise a hand against Saul, some one else, in a natural course of events, had been permitted by Providence to do so, and thus had secured the opening of the door for which he had been waiting. Now, this feeling, so natural to many men, so commonly cherished under kindred circumstances, even though a human weakness, was simply a private transitory sentiment passing over the inner life, and forming no feature in conduct. It seemed to begin and end there and then. Its presence, if permitted, was a trifle, and inflicted no injury on society. Thus, while other temptations on presentation startle the ordinary mind by being associated at once with damage to social position, or to family or nation, temptations of this class do not reveal or suggest at the time their consequences. Of course, evil is to be resisted as evil apart from effects; and a pure mind will immediately detect the essentially immoral nature of any internal incitement to transitory impurity of sentiment. But it is easier to many to detect and resist temptations of the other class. No doubt every deterioration of feeling does issue in disastrous consequences, as surely as do open acts of vice, only the subtle process escapes notice. Consequently many good men, forgetting this, often entertain suggested transitory feelings of evil, which, did they hut duly consider the necessary deterioration of their entire life which thereupon sets in, they would carefully watch against and resist. LESSONS. 1. We ought to act at all times under the influence of the fact that at no hour are we free from the possibility of being subjected to very subtle temptations. 2. The more cultivated and tried our piety, the more likely is it that the trials of our religious purity will come in forms not suggestive of open acts of transgression. 3. Whenever the reasonings of expediency come in to justify the indulgence of sentiments of which doubt may have arisen as to their moral quality, we may safely be suspicious of fallacy, and so should close the debate at once. 4. It is very possible that a long season of persistent temptation to actual wrong, as in the case of David for years past, may culminate in a temptation more severe, because more difficult of detection, and which, if yielded to, would virtually undo the work of years of resistance. Therefore we need to be specially watchful when the end of our trials is near. 2 Samuel 1:11-27 The facts of the section are: 1. Having become assured, through the testimony of the Amalekite, of the defeat of Israel in the death of Saul and Jonathan, David and his men spent the rest of the day in mourning. 2. On the morrow David examines the Amalekite as to the particulars of Saul’s death, and being shocked at the sin and shame of slaying the Lord’s anointed, he condemns the man to death. 3. Being left to his own reflections on the sad event which had happened to Israel, he composes an elegy, as an expression of his own feelings and for the use of Israel, in which he refers in impassioned language to (1) the greatness of the calamity; (2) its possible humiliation and shame to Israel should it become freely known in Philistine cities, and its future mournful associations with the locality in which it occurred; (3) the better qualities of Saul and Jonathan in their relation to their country and to each other; (4) the reason for sorrow even among the non-fighting members of the community, as they reflect on the improved Personal comforts incident to Saul’s reign; and (5) his special friendship with Jonathan, as the joy and solace of bygone years. The teaching of these facts and expressions of feeling may be summarized by embracing the public act of mourning for Saul and the poetic lament under one conception, and unfolding the various truths thus contained. But, in order to secure more consecution in dealing with those two items, we may consider first the teaching embodied in the conduct of the Amalekite in its contrast with that of David; and this can perhaps be best expressed by retting forth a contrast of states of mind. Hence notice— Secularity and spirituality of mind in contrast. The conduct of the Amalekite was very natural, as we find men in general. So far as he had a policy, it would have commended itself to multitudes. Observant, shrewd, and on the alert for an advantage, he evidently was well aware of the feud between Saul and David; and knowing how of late David had smitten his own countrymen, he judged it more prudent to conciliate him by performing an act conducive to his elevation to a throne, than by simply purloining jewels on a battlefield. The story concocted about his actually slaying Saul was told with the utmost self-complacence, as though no one could doubt the mercifulness and the utility of the act; and no one could have been more amazed than himself when David represented the act as most shocking, and condemned him to die for such Wicked temerity. On the other hand, David’s conduct is the reverse of what would have been generally pursued. For Saul had been a most bitter and unrelenting enemy; had charged him with crimes most heinous; had driven him into a painful exile; had returned generosity by increased hatred; and was, as David knew, the only living obstacle to his return to Israel and elevation to the throne. And yet, not only had David been unwilling to do a single deed that might be construed as tending to weaken Saul’s legitimate authority, but he now even deplores the reported action of this his would be foreign helper, and charges him with having committed, on his own showing, a most shocking crime. Now, the contrast of the conduct and views of the two men is to be found in the utter dissimilarity of their respective habitual states of mind. The one was intensely secular, and the other intensely spiritual. Consider— I. IN WHAT AND OF MIND CONSIST, AND HOW THEY EXPRESS . 1. The one consists mainly in the tendency to look at things out of their spiritual relations, and the other to look at them in those relations. As a matter of fact, we know that, consequent on the existence of a supreme Being and a moral government which he exercises over spiritual beings, the whole universe is comprised of two distinct yet interrelated spheres—the material and perishable on the one hand, and the spiritual and imperishable on the other. As men necessitated to work out the first lines of our destiny under material conditions, and therefore in incessant contact with the perishable, we are, through the bluntness of our superior perceptions, superinduced by sin, prone to regard all events as pertaining to our fleeting earthly experience. This is secularity of mind—the mind that sees only the lower side of man’s life, and takes no note of the higher destiny of which he is capable. On the other hand, spirituality of mind, while recognizing the value and Divine source of our common lot as creatures of struggle under material conditions, perceives the reality of the higher invisible sphere, and estimates all things in the lower according to its relation to the great facts and dominating laws of the higher. The Amalekite looked on Saul as simply a man belonging to a mundane order of things, in which other men were striving for the mastery with him. David saw the existence, alongside the mundane order, of an invisible kingdom, and he recognized in Saul an embodiment of a Divine principle—an institution of Divine authorization. For was he not the Lord’s anointed? Was there not more in his existence than was comprised in range of Amalekite vision? Here lies the dividing line between the two great classes of men. The one sees a passing age, with its wants and struggles appropriate to that age; the other sees an invisible and enduring spiritual order, and that man is to be viewed in relation to that order. The one, therefore, is carnal, restricted in range, utilitarian, and in league with practices that "pay;" the other is religious, wide as infinity in range, pervaded by conscious supremacy of holy principles, and in alliance with only what is pure and pleasing before God. 2. In accordance with their essential nature, they will respectively manifest themselves at times, the one in a use of sacred things for personal gain, and the other in self-abnegation out of reverence for what is Divine. It was the purely secular mind of the Amalekite that led to his endeavour to make gain out of the death of the Lord’s anointed, and that, too, without supposing that he was doing anything remarkable. It was David’s high-toned spirituality that led him to ignore all the wrongs he had experienced at the hand of Saul, and to pass by the faults and follies of the unhappy monarch, and, instead of finding pleasure in prospect of his own coming promotion, to feel as though in the act done by the Amalekite a violence had been perpetrated against the most holy of institutions. So has it been in all ages, and is still. Men can barter religious professions for gain; or calmly and irreverently handle sacred subjects as though of common import; or behave in the presence of sacred realities as though treading on unhallowed ground. Judas, Simon Magus, the revilers at the cross, have their counterparts in those who seek gain by complying with the will of godless authorities, professional zealots for Christianity, and cynics who make sport of sacred things. 3. But, also, it is a tendency which in each case gives colour to the entire life. It was not a new thing for the Amalekite thus to think and feel concerning Saul and his relation to Israel and David; for all along Saul had been to him simply one of many rulers among men, and the conflict of the past years had been only a trial of human strength and skill. And, also, David’s profound reverence for the Divine idea in Saul’s kingship, and his faith in the reality of a Divine purpose for men being incorporated with it, had permeated his life during the weary days of exile. The two men were always governed by their respective tendencies. The one life was narrowed, rendered gross and hard by persistent secularity; the other was broadened, refined, and beautified by constant communion with the unseen and eternal. The whole domestic and private as well as public life of men is affected for the worse or better as they are secular or spiritual in tone. Spirituality is favourable to every phase of human experience. Secularity means debasement. Were society pervaded by so pure, unselfish, and spiritually perceptive a temper as was David’s, and more so, David’s greater Son, how smoothly would the machinery of life move on, and what music would there be in its roll! II. THE FINAL RESULT OF IN THESE STATES OF MIND. AS a fact, the Amalekite’s zeal brought him disappointment—death. David’s fine perception of the sanctities of life, his habitual reverence for Divine institutions as seen in all his relations to Saul, his consciousness that God was establishing his own kingdom in his own way,—all this issued in elevation to a position where spirituality of mind could be exercised for the greater good of Israel. Prophetic is this of the end of all secularity and spirituality. The one must end in disappointment—in loss of those things which it was thought would be gained, and even in judicial separation from the pure in heart (Matthew 16:26; Matthew 7:21-23). The other is an education by which we become qualified to rise in the kingdom of God, to exercise over others a higher and wider influence than otherwise could be obtained (1 John 3:2, 1 John 3:3; Matthew 25:23; 1 Timothy 6:11, 1 Timothy 6:12; Romans 3:21). GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It is a dangerous thing to form our estimate of what others may do from the ideas and feelings that govern our own actions. The Amalekite could not conceive of any one not rejoicing in the death of a foe. 2. Dull perception of spiritual realities is a real impoverishment of life, as truly as is an affliction of blindness or deafness. 3. Regard for Divine institutions is to be cultivated irrespective of the imperfect character of men who act in connection with them. 4. The exposure of a base spirit is sure to be the result of a direct judgment of the Son of David when we are called to stand before him. 5. Any attempt to court the favour of the chosen King in Zion by deeds and spirit not in harmony with the holy laws of his kingdom, will inevitably end in banishment from his presence (Luke 6:46; Luke 13:25-27). Sorrow for the miscarriage of life’s great purpose. Contrary to what ordinary men would have imagined, the news of the death of Saul at once diverted David’s thoughts from his own personal advantage accruing therefrom, and at once developed an extraordinary sorrow. It must not be concluded that the setting apart of the rest of the day for purposes of mourning (2 Samuel 1:11, 2 Samuel 1:12) was simply compliance with custom in paying outward respect for the memory of a deceased monarch and his son. No doubt such an act could be decently performed by one who saw in the disaster an occasion of personal joy; indeed, a heartless rival, who cared alone for his own elevation to the throne, would, as a matter of mere policy, encourage the observance of tokens of public sorrow; for history testifies to the presence of a large element of hypocrisy in the elaborate manifestations of grief that have characterized the obsequies of rival rulers. But David was not a man of ceremony; and the elegy penned for the expression of his own anguish of spirit—so tender and pathetic as it is—must be accepted as the interpreter of the act of public mourning in David’s camp. None but a deeply earnest and sincere man could thus write of the woe which came to men on the heights of Gilboa. Tested by the principles that govern the secular mind, the elegy is perfectly unaccountable, especially considering Saul’s long-continued persecution of David and the open pathway to the throne which the defeat at Gilboa laid open to him. But there was a wonderful spiritual unity in David’s life; and to those who have followed our interpretation of his conduct and motives as set forth elsewhere, there can be no difficulty in perceiving in this public act, and in the elegy, a culmination of the intense and painfully loving interest with which he all along had watched the downward course of the unhappy monarch. There were, indeed, several items entering into his sorrow. He thought of the kingless nation, and mourned for the bereaved "house of Israel" (2 Samuel 1:12). He thought of the chosen people, distinguished above all nations as the channels of a great and merciful Divine purpose to the world, and he mourned for "the people of the Lord." He could not forget the man whose love to him had been "wonderful, passing the love of women," and he wept for Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:12, 2 Samuel 1:26). But, most of all, he thought of one great in position, great in responsibilities, who once had set before him the possibilities of a grand destiny in connection with the unfolding of God’s merciful purpose to mankind; and he mourned with an overwhelming sorrow that he had fallen on the field a defeated, ruined man, covered with the shame and misfortunes of a woeful miscarriage of his life’s mission. I. FAILURE IN LIFE’S MISSION IS THE GREAT OF LIFE. David knew that death came to all men, and that the removal from earth of one who has figured before our vision disturbs the whole current of feeling. Had Saul died under some circumstances David would have sorrowed, but the pang of this his sorrow would not have been experienced. He had known Saul as the chosen of God, equipped for high enterprise in the kingdom of God, and in a position to prepare the pathway for the coming of a mightier king. Splendid opportunities arose; strong influences were brought to bear; but all in vain. Life’s mission failed. The noble work was not done. Fine abilities were wasted. Dishonoured, abandoned by God, covered with shame—the shame of an abortive life—he passed away. Simple death would have been glory and blessing as compared with this. What was true of Saul may be true of others and, unhappily, is too often the fact. God has a purpose in the life of every human being, and our business in this world is to comprehend the nature of that purpose and realize it in our experience. It is an unutterable disaster if, knowing why we are here, and possessing all the appliances and means of carrying out God’s will, we nevertheless pass away as unprofitable servants (Matthew 25:26-30). There are instances of frequent occurrence in which splendid abilities, robust health, excellent social position, fine openings for usefulness, are all wasted by the dominance of unholy passions, and men have to witness the sad spectacle of early promise issuing in a dishonoured name and premature grave. Those who believe that all who are born amidst Christian influences are sent into the world to work out for themselves and others a pure and blessed destiny, and that this can only be secured by our personally falling in the line of Christ’s purpose and becoming one with him in the deepest spiritual sense, as Saul was expected to fall in the line of God’s great purpose to man through Israel, and live in its spirit,—such persons recognize a terrible miscarriage of life when men live, it may be, in ease and wealth and respectability, but alien in heart to Christ, and then die in the same condition. They have not laid up treasure for the future. Nations and communities are also charged with their respective life work, and it is a fearful thing when, through unfaithfulness, their mission is abortive. Jeremiah’s wail over Judah (Jeremiah 9:1-26.), our Saviour’s lamentation over Jerusalem, and his prospective sorrow over the Church at Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-20), were based on the same view of miscarriage of life’s purpose as was David’s lament over Saul. II. The sorrow felt for a miscarriage of life’s purpose is BY THE OF ITS EFFECT ON THE AND OF THIS KINGDOM OF GOD. Saul was not simply a monarch maintaining his own special interests as one among the many kings of the earth; he was regarded by David as, and in fact was, the official representative of the theocracy—the kingdom of God in its early stage of development. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 2:1 Unto Hebron. As soon as David had assuaged his grief, his thoughts would naturally turn towards his country. Fuller news would reach him every day respecting the movements of the Philistines, who, after so decisive a victory, would quickly overrun all the central districts of Palestine, where the battle had been fought. And very bitter must David’s feelings have been. Had he continued in Israel, he and his six hundred men would now have hastened to the rescue, and all the braver warriors of the land would have gathered round them. As it was, he was too entangled with the Philistines, and too much distrusted by the northern tribes, to be of much use. Still, we learn from 1 Chronicles 12:1-40; that brave men did continually swell the number of his followers. Detachments of the tribes of Gad and Manasseh, instead of joining Saul at Gilboa, went to David as he withdrew to Ziklag. And while he remained there a considerable body of men from Benjamin and Judah came to him under the command of Amasa, David’s nephew. So numerous were they as to alarm David, who went out to meet them, fearing lest they had come to betray him; and glad was he to hear their answer, "Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse." Thus even as it was, his forces daily grew more numerous; for "from day today there came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like the host of God" (l Chronicles 12:22). But there was no national acknowledgment. With his numbers thus continually increasing, David was encouraged to make some attempt for the deliverance of Israel; but his position was one of serious danger. Great was the risk, but he knew where to go for guidance, and determines, therefore, to put the matter into God’s hand. He summons Abiathar with the ephod, and, in the presence of his captains, asks for permission to go up to some city of his own tribe. The answer is favourable, and Hebron is the city selected. It was a place of ancient sanctity, was well situated in the mountains of Judah for defence, and as the Philistines bad not yet invaded that region, but probably would soon try to ravage it, the people would be sure to welcome the presence of one who brought with him a powerful body of trained men. 2 Samuel 2:3 They dwelt in the cities of Hebron. Not only had David wives, whom he took with him to Hebron, but many of his warriors were married, and thus they and their households formed a numerous body of people, for whom Hebron could scarcely find accommodation. Moreover they had flocks and herds captured from the Amalekites, for which they needed pasturage. And therefore David dispersed them in the towns and villages of which Hebron was the capital, posting them in such a manner as to render it easy for him to summon them together, while taking care that they did not injure his tribesmen, or dispossess them of their lauds. We may feel sure that he consulted the chief men of Hebron as to these arrangements, and obtained their approval. 2 Samuel 2:4 They anointed David. Samuel’s anointing (1 Samuel 16:13) had been private, and, if we may judge by the manner in which Eliab treated David (1 Samuel 17:28), even his own family had not attached much importance to it. It was nevertheless the indication of Jehovah’s purpose, and now the anointing of David by the elders of Judah was the first step towards its accomplishment. And this was an independent act, though the knowledge of Samuel’s anointing had prepared the way for it; and David thus acquired a legal right and authority by the nation’s will, which Samuel could not have given him. So Saul’s anointing by Samuel, and his election to be king at Gilgal, were independent acts; and while the former gave the king his sacredness, the latter conferred upon him jurisdiction and power. King over the house of Judah. How came the Philistines to allow this? When subsequently he was again anointed, and became King of all Israel, the Philistines gathered their hosts at once; not because he captured Jerusalem, which was then a mere hill fort belonging to the Jebusites, but evidently because they thought him dangerous. But why did they not crush him now? One reason, probably, was that Judaea was a difficult country for military operations. The tribe, too, had stood aloof from Saul, and its strength was unbroken. But the chief reason apparently was that David maintained friendly relations with Achish, and paid him tribute. This explains the curious fact that Ziklag continued to be the private property of the house of David (1 Samuel 27:6). The doings of a vassal of the King of Gath were regarded as of little importance. Had he not even marched with them to Aphek, as one of the servants of Achish? But when he endeavoured to restore the kingdom of Saul, they first made a hasty rush upon him, and, when repelled, they gathered their forces for as formidable an invasion as that which had ended in their victory at Gilboa. 2 Samuel 2:5 David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-Gilead. This was David’s first act as king, and it was worthy of him. Some suppose that when David was told of their deed, it was with a view of prejudicing him against them. But this is not credible. By this time all men knew how loyal and affectionate were David’s feelings towards his former king; and moreover the men of Jabesh were bound to Saul by no ordinary ties of gratitude (1 Samuel 11:1-15.). Nor could David wish that Saul’s remains, and those of Jonathan, should be subject to indignity. We may well feel sure that information respecting Saul was eagerly welcomed at Hebron, and the valiant men there would all rejoice at finding that the high spirit of the nation was not quenched. But in sending to thank them, in premising to requite them, and in bidding them persevere in similar conduct, David was acting as the head of the nation; and, to justify his action, he informs them that the men of Judah had made him their king. 2 Samuel 2:8 Abner. This hero had been present at the battle of Gilboa, and probably had rallied many of the defeated Israelites, and made as much resistance as was possible to the onward march of the Philistines. And as soon as he had effected his retreat into the region beyond the Jordan, his power would be supreme. There was no one there to oppose the commander-in-chief of what remained of Saul’s army. Certainly all that remained of Saul’s body guard of three thousand men would gather round Abner, and as the Philistines did not push their pursuit further than the Jordan, he was free to do as he chose. Nor would there be any opposition. Abner was bound to do his best for Saul’s family, and the people would feel this, and approve of his conduct in standing up for the children of their king. Moreover, David by his conduct had made himself an object of suspicion to all the valiant men who had formed Saul’s army, and these would be the more embittered against him by their defeat. Ishbosheth. This name signifies "man of shame," that is, "man of the shameful thing," the idol. Originally he was named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33; 1 Chronicles 9:39), that is "man of Baal," the word esh being merely a dialectic variation for ish, equivalent to "man." At this early date Baal was not the specific name of any idol, but simply meant "lord," "master," "husband." In the earlier books of the Bible we find the word used of many local deities, who were lords of this or that, but had nothing in common with the Phoenician Baal, whose worship Ahab attempted to introduce into Israel. From that time Baal became a term of reproach, and Bosheth, "the shame," was substituted for it in the old names of which it had formed part. Thus Gideon is still called Jerubbaal in 1 Samuel 12:11, but the title is transformed into Jerubbesheth, or more correctly, Jerubbosheth, "let the shame plead," in 2 Samuel 11:21. Originally, therefore, the name Ishbaal had no discreditable meaning, but signified, "man of the Lord," or, as Ewald supposes, "lordly man." It was not till long afterwards, when Israel had been horrified by Jezebel’s doings, that Baal, except in the sense of "husband," became an ill-omened word. Jonathan, whose own name, "Jehovah’s gift," in Greek Theodore, is proof sufficient that Saul’s family were worshippers of the true God, called his son’s name Meribbaal, "the Lord’s strife" (1 Chronicles 8:34). In some strange way this was altered into Mephibosheth, that is, "from the face of the shameful thing" (2 Samuel 4:4. etc.). Possibly it is a corruption of Meribbosheth, but it is remarkable that a son of Saul by his concubine Rizpah also bore the name (2 Samuel 21:8). Among the ancestors of Saul, the simple name Baal, "Lord," occurs (1 Chronicles 8:30). Mahanaim. Abner chose this town because it was on the eastern side of the Jordan, and so beyond the range of the Philistines, who never seem to have crossed the river. It was situated on the borders of the tribe of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, from both of which valiant warriors had joined David; hut the people generally were not ill affected to the house of Saul. As having been assigned to the Levites (Joshua 21:38), it had a quasi-religious character, inherited from the vision of angels seen there by Jacob (Genesis 32:2). As a safe, out of the way place, David subsequently took refuge there (2 Samuel 17:24). 2 Samuel 2:9 Make him king over. A different preposition is used with the first three names from that employed afterwards, as though Ishbosheth’s reign over Gilead and Jezreel was a reality, but that he had only a shadowy claim to dominion over Ephraim, Benjamin, and all Israel. Gilead. As Mahanaim lay upon the borders of Gad and Manasseh, Abner would easily control these two tribes, and Reuben, which was never an active or enterprising tribe, would follow their lead. Of the Ashurites nothing is known, and the reading is uncertain, as the LXX. has "Thasir," and the Vulgate and Syriac "Geshur." The Chaldee paraphrase boldly gives "the house of Asher;" but this tribe lay close to Phoenicia, on the extreme northwest. There are two places called Geshur (see on 2 Samuel 3:3), but neither of them seems meant, and more probably it was some place the name of which was uncommon, and so was wrongly copied by scribes until the present confusion arose. Jezreel. The name of this place, as specially subject to Ishbosheth, is surprising; for the town, at this time of no importance, lay in the wide plain between the mountains of Gilboa and the little Hermon. But this district was the prize won by the Philistines, and was a region where their cavalry and chariots gave them a great advantage. For Ishbosheth to have had even a nominal dominion over Jezreel, he must either have become a tributary, or Abner must have maintained a not unsuccessful struggle there after the battle of Gilboa. The latter is the more probable. In safe possession of all the country east of the Jordan, Abner was not likely to consent to anything so humiliating as submission to the Philistines; while David’s connection with Achish made it neither so galling to him nor so disadvantageous. As the Transjordanic tribes assembled at Hebron to make David king to the number of one hundred and twenty thousand men (1 Chronicles 12:37), Abner plainly had large resources at his command, and, though the people were not very earnest in the cause of Saul’s house, yet they would probably assemble in considerable numbers after the battle of Gilboa, to prevent any irruption of the victors into their country. At their head Abner probably gained some advantages over the Philistines, and thus became powerful enough to proclaim Ishbosheth king, and as Ephraim and Benjamin acquiesced, he became nominally ruler over all Israel. 2 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 2:11 Ishbosheth …two years … David … seven years and six months. Where are we to place the five years and a half of difference? The usual assumption is that David was made King of Israel immediately upon Ishbosheth’s murder; but this is wrong. We cannot believe that Abner would allow so long a period as five years to elapse before asserting the claims of Saul’s family, especially as David was already made King of Judah at Hebron. Still, as the war with the Philistines was the first object of his care, and as some form of popular ratification was necessary, some months may have passed before Ishbosheth was publicly installed as king, though Abner must have acted in his name from the first. The main interval of five years before David’s accession must have been after Ishbosheth’s death. That murder, and still more so the murder of Abner, must have made David an object of great suspicion to all Israel. Shimei, when he called him "a bloody man" (2 Samuel 16:8), was but uttering a slander commonly current among the people. Gradually most of them would become convinced of his innocence; and all, as they contrasted the anarchy which prevailed in their country with the peace and security won by David for Judah, would regard his election as the best course under the circumstances. As the Philistines immediately resented their action, and endeavoured to crush the king before he could concentrate his power, it is probable that during these five years they had again obtained practical command of the more fertile districts of Palestine. Ishbosheth … was forty years old. In the previous narrative Jonathan always appears as the most important of Saul’s sons, and naturally it is assumed that he was the firstborn; yet his child was but five years old at his father’s death, while Ishbosheth, his uncle, a younger brother of Jonathan, is described as a man of forty. Some think that Ishbosheth was the eldest son, but in 1 Chronicles 8:33 he is placed last, and, though a weak man, was not so feeble as to have been set aside from the succession. But confessedly the chronology of Saul’s reign is so full of difficulties, that it is impossible altogether to explain it (see note on 1 Samuel 13:1). 2 Samuel 2:12 Abner … went out. This is a further proof of considerable success on Abner’s side. Encouraged by the result of numerous skirmishes with the Philistines, and the gradual restoration of the king’s authority in Ephraim and Benjamin, Abner determined to make the attempt to win back Judah also. There David had been content with protecting Judah, and establishing good order; and, following his constant custom, had taken no steps to obtain for himself the kingdom "over all Israel." The war was of Abner’s choosing, and shows him to us in the character of an able but ambitious and restless man. 2 Samuel 2:13 The pool of Gibson. As Gibeon, which lay about six miles northwest from Jerusalem, was twenty-six miles distant from Hebron, and about the same distance from Mahauaim, it is plain that David knew of Abner’s march. Possibly he had been summoned to yield his kingdom up to Ishbosheth as the rightful lord, but, while taking no measures to extend his rule, he felt himself justified in defending his election to be king ever Judah. The pool of Gibeon is described by Robinson (’Researches,’ 2.136) as "an open tank about a hundred and twenty feet in length and a hundred in breadth, surrounded by a grove of olive trees. Above it, excavated in the rock, is a subterranean reservoir, to receive the water from a copious spring, from which the overflow descends into the tank below." As neither party was willing to shed the first blood in a civil war, of which the Philistines would reap the benefit, they both halted in sight of one another on opposite sides of the hill, with the tank below them in the middle. 2 Samuel 2:14 Let the young men now arise. "Now" is not an adverb of time, but is hortative, and therefore rightly translated in the Revised Version, "I pray thee." It is by no means certain that Abner meant that this single combat should decide the war; for similar preludes before a battle are not uncommon among the Arabians, and serve, as this did, to put an end to the mutual unwillingness to begin the onslaught. So, too, games often preceded outbreaks of Scandinavian blood feuds. And this was probably Abner’s object. He was the assailant, but now found that his men shrank from mortal combat with their brethren. There is thus no comparison between this combat and that of the Curiatii and Horatii described in Livy, 1. 10.25. Let them play. The word is grim enough, though intended to gloss over the cruel reality. On each side twelve of the most skilful champions were to be selected, who were to fight in stern earnest with one another, while the rest gazed upon the fierce spectacle. The sight of the conflict would whet their appetite for blood, and their reluctance would give place to thirst for revenge. The request was too thoroughly in accordance with Joab’s temper for him to refuse, and his immediate answer was, Let them arise. 2 Samuel 2:16 His sword in his fellow’s side. The absence of the verb in the original sets powerfully before us the rapidity of the whole action. But what an action! Twenty-four experienced men each take the other by the head, and, without any attempt at self-defence, thrust their swords into their opponents’ side, and leave their own sides exposed to a similar thrust. Were they, then, unskilful in the use of weapons? Impossible. Were they blinded by hatred of one another? But no rancour would make a man forget his skill in defence. Here there is no variety, no checkered fortune of the combatants, but all twenty-four do and suffer just the same; and it is remarkable that they had swords only, and no shields. With shields on their arms, they could not have seized one another by the hair. It seems certain, therefore, that this mutual butchery was the "play;" nor can we conceive of a more murderous and savage proceeding. Abner, at the head of his fierce Benjamites, thought, perhaps, that Joab had no men among his followers willing to throw life away in so senseless a manner. But Joab was as ready as Abner, and possibly some code of false honour, such as used to make men practise duelling, required the acceptance of the challenge. And so, with their appetite for blood whetted by the sight of twenty-four murders, they hastened to begin the fight. Helkath-hazzurim. Literally this means "the field of flints;" but as the flint is constantly used for any hard rock (Psalms 78:20), the Authorized Version has admitted into the margin a paraphrase taken from the Vulgate, which supposes that by flints are meant "strong men," and renders, "the field of strong men." So in Isaiah 26:4 "the flint," or rock, "of ages," is even translated "everlasting strength." Flints, however, were constantly used by the Israelites for knives whenever extreme sharpness was required. Thus for the circumcising of Israel, Jehovah commanded Joshua to prepare knives of flint (Joshua 5:2); and in course of time the sharp or whetted edge of a weapon was called its flint. Thus in Psalms 89:43 we read, "Thou hast turned back the flint of his sword." The name therefore probably means "the field of the sharp knives", and refers to the short swords with which they murdered one another. 2 Samuel 2:17 A very sore battle. The purpose of Abner was thus gained. Excited by the spectacle of merciless slaughter, the armies manoeuvred no longer, but rushed fiercely to the attack, and fought with fury. But the mighty men of David were irresistible. Only nineteen of his warriors fell, while Abner lost three hundred and sixty, and was forced to flee. 2 Samuel 2:19 Asahel pursued after Abner. This episode is fully narrated, both because of Asahel’s rank as David’s nephew, and also because of its tragical consequences to Abner himself. Asahel was a son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, and, while his own brothers were of little use to him, his nephews, Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, were the mainstays of David’s throne. As their father’s name is never mentioned, but only the mother’s, Zeruiah was probably a woman of great ability, and her sons inherited it from her. Possibly she had married beneath her station, or her husband had died early; but certainly her sons, thinking more of her than of their father, had soon thrown in their lot with David her brother (but see note on 2 Samuel 2:32). The youngest of the three, Asahel, was remarkable for his personal accomplishments, and especially for swiftness of foot, for which he was compared to the Zebi, the camp name of Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:19). It now caused his death. For conscious that Abner was the sole support of Ishbosheth’s party, and indignant at his challenge to useless slaughter, he pursued after him, allowing nothing to divert him from his object, and hoping to end the war by slaying the veteran commander. But though he had the fleetness of an Achilles, he had not his robust strength, and Abner, knowing that the combat was unequal, remonstrated with him, and bade him turn aside, and be content with winning the spoils of some meaner warrior. It is evident from this that Abner saw in this defeat in a battle of his own choosing, the certainty of the near downfall of the house of Saul, and, as he would then be in Joab’s power, he was unwilling to have a blood feud with a man of such determined character. "How," he asks, "should I hold up my face to Joab thy brother?" It would be his duty, as the avenger of blood, to slay me. Apparently, during this conference, he was standing with the butt end of his lance held towards Asahel, to ward off his blows, but, as the spearhead was turned the other way, Asahel forgot that even so it might be used for offence. For it was pointed, that it might be stuck in the ground at night (1 Samuel 26:7), and possibly shod with iron, though it is more likely that it was only hardened by being thrust into the fire. So when he saw that his words had no avail, and that Asahel was not on his guard, he suddenly struck him with it so violent a blow that it pierced his body right through, and Asahel fell down dead. It is probable, from the merciless force used, that there was a sudden outburst of anger on Abner’s part. 2 Samuel 2:23 The fifth rib. This rendering here and in other places arises from the derivation of the word from the numeral five, but this notion has long been abandoned, and the word is now known to be formed from a verb signifying "to be fat or stout." Really it means the abdomen, and is so translated in the LXX. and Vulgate, while the Syriac gives only the general sense, and renders "the breast." In the same place; Hebrew, under him; that is, immediately. So violent was the blow that Asahel dropped down dead without a struggle. So tragic was his fate, and so great the affection of David’s men for the young warrior, that the pursuit ceased, and all, as they came up, remained standing by the side of the corpse. 2 Samuel 2:24 Josh also and Abishai pursued after Abner; really, but Joab and Abishai pursued, and so the Revised Version. The sight of their slaughtered brother made them only the more determined in the pursuit, and doubtless, at their command, the soldiers would leave Asahel and follow their commanders. Of the "hill of Ammah" and Giah we know nothing; but it is evident that no halt was made until sunset. 2 Samuel 2:25 The children of Benjamin … became one troop. Benjamin was probably the only tribe that entered keenly into Ishbosheth’s cause; for the maintenance of the kingdom in the family of Saul meant the continuance of that favouritism which had enriched them at the expense of the community (1 Samuel 22:7). They were, too, a very warlike tribe, and Abner was one of themselves, and probably, therefore, the main body of his army, and certainly his most trustworthy men, were Benjamites. Profiting by the delay caused by the halting of David’s soldiers round tile body of the fallen Asahel, Abner had rallied his men, and posted them on the top of the hill, where they were prepared now to fight on more equal terms. 2 Samuel 2:26 Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end! The Vulgate renders this, "Art thou not aware that desperation is dangerous?" This is a very obvious truth, but probably Abner had in his mind something more statesmanlike. The struggle was for the empire over all Israel, and whoever won would be king over both sides. But every man slain meant a blood feud, which would continue even after the kingdom was united; and Abner probably felt that his own slaughter of Asahel that day would render his position in David’s realm difficult and dangerous. Among the Arab tribes quarrels are very common, but bloodshed rare, because of the blood feud which follows. Moderation was thus necessary on both sides, while cruelty and the immoderate use of victory would sow the seeds of future trouble. 2 Samuel 2:27 Unless thou hadst spoken, surely then in the morning the people had gone up; or as the Revised Version renders, had gone away, nor followed every man his brother. The Revised Version makes the sense more plain. Joab throws the whole blame, and rightly so, on Abner. David would under no circumstances have attacked Ishbosheth, and Joab with his men had marched to the tank of Gibeon simply to repel an invading force. When there, Joab, doubtless by David’s orders, had remained strictly on the defensive, and so unwilling were both armies to fight, that Abner had to resort to a most cruel scene of butchery in order to inflame their passions and force them to begin a conflict of brother against brother. But for Abner’s challenge, both armies would have separated as friends. And Joab still acts upon the same principle of forbearance, and gives the signal for stopping the pursuit. He was not a man of a tender heart, but he was wise and sensible, and fully aware that the slaughter of Abner and his men, even if he could have destroyed them all, would only have rankled in the minds of all Israel, and set them against David and his rule. 2 Samuel 2:29 And Abner and his men walked all that night. At the end of the chapter we learn that Joab did the same. Each army had about twenty-six miles to march, and the night was less exhausting for a long walk than the day. As soon, then, as Abner saw Joab and his men occupied with the removal of Asahel’s body, he withdrew from the hill of Ammah, and, passing through the Arabah, or plain of Jordan, crossed the river by the same ford which he had used when starting on his unfortunate errand, and so returned home. The phrase, all Bithron, shows that this was a district, but nothing more of it is known. 2 Samuel 2:30, 2 Samuel 2:31 Nineteen men … three hundred and three score men. Though David’s "mighties," as they were called, excelled in the use of arms, yet the disparity of numbers is remarkable; for the Benjamites were also famous warriors. We can only account for it by the superiority of the tactics of Joab, who was a man of consummate military skill, and who knew both how to gain a victory and how to use the advantage which the pursuers have over the pursued to the full. If we sometimes wonder that David endured Joab so long, we ought to remember how much he owed to his nephew’s genius, and that Joab was always faithful to himself. 2 Samuel 2:32 The sepulchre of his father, which was in Bethlehem. The Name of Zeruiah’s husband is never mentioned, but he was evidently of the same town as his wife, and at his death, when probably still young, he had received honourable sepulture. As Bethlehem is about eleven miles distant from Gideon, Joab probably marched thither straight from the battlefield, anti spent the next day in paying the last tribute of respect to his brother, and in refreshing his men. At nightfall he resumed his march to Hebron, which was fifteen miles further to the south, and where he would arrive on the morning following that on which Abner reached Mahanaim. 2 Samuel 2:1-7 The facts are: 1. David, knowing that time was come for action, and being in doubt as to what movement would further the end in view, seeks guidance of God. 2. Not only does he obtain sanction to enter Judah, but is even instructed to make Hebron his headquarters. 3. Entering the district around Hebron with his family and attendants, he is anointed by the men of Judah over the tribe of Judah. 4. Being informed of the kind and valiant act of the men of Jabesh-Gilead (1 Samuel 31:11-13), David sends them a message of thanks, and assures them of the Divine blessing and of his own grateful remembrance. 5. He also reminds them that the crisis in the affairs of the nation, in the death of Saul on the one hand, and his own elevation by the men of Judah on the other, required of them to be true to their reputation as men of courage. There are several themes suggested by these facts. Among them, consider— The beginnings of prosperity. As the Second Book of Samuel introduces a turn of affairs in the national experience, so this second chapter introduces a turn n the personal experience of David. He passes from the bitter trials of the past, through the anguish depicted in the first chapter, into the more prosperous and easy circumstances of free public activity. Undoubtedly he was conscious of a sense of relief from burdens almost more than he could bear (1 Samuel 27:1); and being naturally buoyant and hopeful in spirit, the hitherto restrained powers of his nature were now eager to manifest their energy. His day had come after a long night of waiting. The promises of the past were about to be fulfilled. Jonathan’s dream of his beloved friend being a more worthy successor than himself was coming true. In one sense David had always, even during his exile and sufferings, been a prosperous man, for he was God s chosen servant, blessed with a good conscience and the favour of the Eternal; but now he was all that with the additional circumstance of being about to enter on a position of commanding influence among the people of God. We have a counterpart to David’s position at this juncture in some of the circumstances of our life; for in youth, in business, in Church work, and in national affairs we sometimes meet with a similar beginning of prosperity. In so far as the passage before us affords teaching on this subject, observe— I. E OF IS A TIME OF DANGER. In reading the narrative of David’s trials on the one side, and of his prosperous circumstances on the other, we feel at once that in so far as his religious life is concerned there was far more hope of him under the former. The spiritual uses of adversity are very valuable, while on the other hand the spiritual dangers of prosperity are subtile and manifold. And likewise the transition from the one to the other is a time of peculiar danger. For David the occasion for dependence on God was not so obvious; and the demand for action would lay him open to mistakes and sacrifices of principle new in his experience. The dangers of such a time may perhaps be summarized thus. There arises a new and fascinating diversion of thought and feeling from God; a corresponding absorption of mental energy in the externals of life. The self-culture which consists in the watchful and constrained subordination of every feeling and motive to the will of God becomes somewhat relaxed. The free play of a much greater variety of feeling, passing out toward the attractive objects present in an opening success, lays us open to the insinuating flatteries of events, and the consequent encouragement to substitute expediency for stern principle. The presence or the prospect of a more abundant supply of material comforts cannot but give vitality to whatever of latent power there may be in the lusts of the flesh. The conscious elevation which awaits us is sure to appeal to that deeply seated human pride which, when developed, looks on others with more or less of disdain, and in proportion as the human lot is now or prospectively free from care does the heart care less for the blessings of a future life. The youth passing from the restraints and discipline of years into the wider sphere of life, and so enjoying the first taste of freedom and of manly dignity, stands in a slippery place. Churches passing from the trials of persecution into the ease of toleration cannot be sure of the old fidelity. Nations springing into prominence may contract habits of indulgence and arrogance in strange contrast with their former self-control and devotion to duty. Private Christians when emerging from the struggles of their early convictions may cease to watch and pray as heretofore, and soon lose the vigour of their former faith. II. THE MORAL DURING SEASONS OF WILL SHOW ITSELF IN ON THE AND OF GOD. Unquestionably David was a much stronger man, as a consequence of the protracted trials of past years, than he would have been had there been no waiting for the realization of hopes enkindled by the promise of God (1 Samuel 16:13). In the spiritual sphere, as in the material, reserves of force are gathered, by the action of special laws, in view of a demand to be made at a later stage of development. David in the wilderness and caves, Paul in the retirement of Arabia (Galatians 1:17, Galatians 1:18), other good men during seasons of discipline and culture, fulfilled the Divine law of acquisition of moral power prior to expenditure. And the reality of this acquisition in the case of David appeared at once in the promptitude with which, under all the distracting and diverting influence of a sudden elevation to importance, he acknowledges his need of the guidance and blessing of God. There is a natural necessity, not identical with true godliness, which causes men to turn to God in their troubles. It is the instinct of a genuine piety alone which prompts towards God when troubles cease and success begins. It is a blessed omen when men, on the dawning of their prosperity, and when flushed with the prospect of realizing long-cherished hopes, go straight to God, and in prayer both acknowledge his goodness and seek his special help for the occasion. Thus the subtile temptations and perils of the new circumstances are met by a wise use of that spiritual strength which bad been stored amidst the trying influences of adversity or deferred hope. No doubt the apostles during their early ministry, on and after the Day of Pentecost, were giving out some of the spiritual power gathered into their nature during the three years of discipline and restraint under their visible Lord; in like manner men who go forth to successful encounter with evil owe much to the spirit trained to honour God in all things. III. THE HOPE OF COMING , WHEN BY PIETY, INDUCES CAUTION AND FOR OTHERS. Not only is continuous prosperity very perilous to man’s higher life, but the prospect of it, after a season of trial, is likely to be charged with elements of danger which only a well-nourished piety can neutralize. David could not but think much of himself now as a free man, an object of public interest, on the high road to affluence, and about to enter on activities that would render him the chief object of interest. There would thus arise a new and perilous self-consciousness. The sobrieties, caution, and self-restraint acquired in adversity might now seem to be virtues suited to a bygone time. A profound knowledge of the world and of self would correct this judgment; but still the risk would be considerable, for man at his best estate is morally weak. It is just here that a sincere, well-cultured godliness comes in as a support to the dictates of a purely moral judgment and the suggestions of expediency. The man after God’s own heart, because of being such a man, looks out on his opening prospects with a careful eye, and moves with as much caution and deference to a higher will as in the former days of trouble; and the comfort of his household, as well as the advancement to comparative ease and plenty of the men who had shared his sufferings, engage his thought, and they become the first partakers of the fruits of his improving fortunes (2 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 2:3). The same moderating influence of piety is seen in the life of Joseph. The principle involved is taught by our Lord in his perfect freedom, even amidst growing honours, from self-absorption. With the measured step of sobriety he marches on to full dominion, and with tender regard for the welfare of all who have known the "fellowship of his sufferings." The same mind in us will tone down the dangerous excitement of successes, and induce a broad and generous consideration of the claims and requirements of others. The following GENERAL LESSONS naturally flow from this subject as exhibited in the life of David: 1. The consciousness of our being God’s servants, living supremely to effect his purpose in the world, gives great moral power to our conduct. David lived and moved as a "man of God." Blessed is he who can go forth daily with that conviction! 2. The assurance that God has a definite will in reference to our daily movements is warranted, not only by philosophic considerations, but also by the record of his actual dealings with his servants. David, the "sparrow," and the "hairs" of our head are means of illustrating that nothing in our life is too insignificant for Divine care, and therefore for matter of supplication (Matthew 10:29-31). 3. The true policy of man is another name for what is the will of God. No doubt in this case it was humanly expedient to go first up to Hebron; and because God knew it was best under the circumstances, he willed David to go. In the higher moral sphere, God’s will is not a judgment based on knowledge of circumstances; but, though absolute, yet it always coincides with true policy. 4. The means of ascertaining the main lines of right action are within reach of a good man. God speaks in providence, conscience, and his Word. 5. There is immense moral support to our action when we have deliberately sought and have learnt the will of God. Firm is the step of such men, steady is their eye. The uses of partial success. David’s advancement to the throne of Judah was a great step towards the realization of the ideal which, ever since the day of his anointing, had drawn him on in the path of patient endurance; but it was far from being all that he wished. As compared with the understanding arrived at, and encouraged by all that God had said and done during the past years of exile, it fell below what he had a right to expect, for he was chosen of God to be ruler over the whole of the people; but, at the same time, it so far was satisfying that it became a pledge of still further advances till the original promise should be literally and in its entirety fulfilled. There is no indication here or elsewhere in the Psalms that David was vexed and fretful because he did not all at once succeed Saul as king of the entire nation. There were doubtless in the circumstances of the case sufficient pleas for an unfilial spirit to indulge in the language of disappointment; but the past discipline of this true child of God had manifestly wrought in him such confidence in the order of Providence, and such breadth of view with respect to Divine methods, as to render him deaf and indifferent to unhallowed suggestions. His cheerful acceptance of an instalment of fulfilled promise is in keeping with his former patient endurance of deferred hope. I. THERE ARE MANY LINES IN OUR SUCCESS IN THE SERVICE OF GOD. The true final success of David’s career lay in his becoming the beloved and honoured ruler of the entire chosen race. But a fact of this kind means the adjustment, over a considerable period, of countless subtile human relationships, the kindling of apparently divergent interests, and the physical removal of barriers by the action of natural causes directed by a controlling mind towards a single issue. Not only must Saul be put aside and Jonathan be rendered willing to give place to another, but the mass of the nation must be won. The hand that had won over Jonathan and removed Saul now operates silently on the hearts of the men of Judah—David’s own kindred; and their recognition of him as king at Hebron was preliminary, in the order of Providence, to the acquisition on the part of David of the experience that would qualify for sovereignty over the entire nation, and to the gradual creation in the various tribes of confidence in his character and abilities, as also the gradual annihilation by a natural process of the interest which men very properly felt in surviving members of the family of Saul. As many lines converted on his reaching the throne of Judah, so this elevation was the opening up of new lines that would ultimately converge on the complete realization of the Divine purpose in his life. While absorbed in our own individual experience, we do not see how the line we have to follow is what it is because of being one of many terminating in a common issue. Later on we are able to take the position of a geographer, who surveying the watershed of a region, sees the convergence, after all the circuitous windings round rugged mountains and through wild gorges, of various watercourses into one calm and majestic stream. Thus we now interpret the lives of Jacob and Joseph, and, above all, the varied earthly experiences of our Saviour. We thus have warrant for believing that there are more forces working toward the goal of our life of godliness than we can at present trace. We ought to cherish faith in God’s silent action on the spirits of men for the furtherance of the ends for which we, as his servants, live and strive. David could obey, be patient and step forward when occasion offered; but meanwhile God could dispose the minds of Judah towards him, and educate the rest to recognize in due time his fitness to be their king also. The courses of nature are on the side of good men. The social world is not a chaos; there is a Power which subdues all things unto itself. This should comfort and strengthen us in all our efforts to see Christ recognized as King of kings. II. SUCCESS IS BOTH A PLEDGE OF DIVINE AND A CALL TO HIGHER AND MORE SERVICE. The elevation to the throne at Hebron was certainly a great success in the long and weary, and, so far as David was concerned with Saul, bloodless conflict. It must have given to the act of anointing by Samuel a fulness of meaning hitherto not realized. The venerable records of God’s faithfulness to Abraham and Jacob after many a severe trial, which doubtless he was accustomed, at this period of his history, to read and meditate upon (Psalms 1:2; cf. Psalms 119:97, Psalms 119:99), were seen to be but counterparts of what he now could write. He had waited long; he had abstained from violent means and forced providences, and so could take heart and believe that the Lord forsaketh not his saints, but bringeth to pass that for which they wait (Psalms 38:1-4). And yet this partial success was to him the starting point from which he was to advance still further in the fulfilment of life’s purpose; it demanded of him more skill, more watchfulness, more caution, than ever. A new set of qualities would find scope for development; different and more subtile temptations would arise; the final triumph would depend on present use of partial success. Now, the case of David reigning at Hebron over part of the nation is the case of all who, like him, are engaged in maintaining the honour of God in a sinful world. What they have attained to, either in personal self-conquest or in subduing men to the obedience of faith, may be taken as pledge of the faithfulness that remains yet to be proved, while it opens up wider reaches of exertion and exposes to new and very dangerous forms of temptation. The history of the Church up to the fourth century, and its subsequent career till it recovered its tone in the time of the Reformation, furnishes abundant illustration of this double aspect of partial success. Our modern missionary achievements furnish distinct pledges of God’s faithfulness, but they impose further and very serious obligations with a view to consolidation, and at the same time expose us to peculiar temptations which find no room in the season of early enthusiasm and sturdy endurance, The same applies to our own personal religion and the bringing of our entire nature into subjection to Christ (Luke 10:17-20; 1 Corinthians 10:11, 1 Corinthians 10:12). III. SUCCESS FOR GREATER . The acquisition of Hebron as the seat of government, some twenty miles south, of Jerusalem, and situated among hills that rendered both defence and administration. more feasible, furnished solid ground for the expectation that some day the morn important city would become the centre of a greater kingdom. The memorable historic associations of the place (Genesis 23:2-20; Joshua 10:36; Joshua 14:6-15; Joshua 15:13, Joshua 15:14; Joshua 21:11-13) could not but create in the mind of David the feeling that he was succeeding men who were substantially engaged in the same cause as himself, and who prospered therein. The natural position of the city, and the wise measures which thence would go forth for the government of a compact tribe, would naturally consolidate his power, and, in due course, issue in a contrast between his judicious rule and that of rivals in Israel, which would tend to break down prejudices against him, and give force to his claim when an opening occurred for his assumption of sovereignty over the twelve tribes. Using well his moderate gains, he would convert them into agencies for complete triumph. Herein is the law of solid advance. In the organic world higher and more beautiful forms are built up by means of the powers latent in the lower forms already in being. Mental life becomes wide in range and profound in thought by conversion of partial knowledge acquired into means of further development. Social weal may proceed by stages, in which for a time progress may seem to be checked; but the institutions and habits consolidated soon become points from which other, and better, are formed. The growth of the spiritual life of the Christian means the successive attainment of points of advantage, which, though far from satisfying the earnest soul who seeks to subdue all to Christ, yet render the subjugation of the entire man to the Law of Christ more easy and certain. Christian enterprise often lays hold of some Hebron, in the heathen world, or in the midst of our non-Christian civilization, and working thence, with memories of past success to cheer and encourage, gets nearer to the goal of all prayer and effort—the bringing of the entire race into cheerful submission to Christ, the true King in Zion. Therefore, like David in Hebron, we all should gratefully accept what is vouchsafed as the reward of effort and patience, and apply our new resources and acquired position to higher issues. An instructive episode. The sacred narrative is in the main concerned with the great national events which point on to the coming of the permanent King in Zion; but here and there it introduces a personal incident, which forms a pleasing and instructive episode amidst the public transactions which are the staple of the history. So here, while describing the important facts connected with David’s elevation to the throne, and the consequent advance in the unfolding of the process by which at last the Christ should appear, the writer relates a circumstance of a more private character, and that both reveals noble qualities in David and sets forth truths of general interest. Observe, then— I. THAT, IN A TRUE MAN, AFFAIRS OF STATE DO NOT THE MORE TENDER AND REFINED OF LIFE. TO become monarch by a people’s choice and in accordance with Divine purpose involves the pressure of heavy responsibilities, the absorption of energy in onerous duties, and the exposure of the spirit to manifold temptations to selfish aggrandizement. It is to the honour of David that he retained, amidst all these new and perilous conditions, his old tenderness of feeling and noble generosity. He found time and faculty for thinking lovingly of his once relentless but now buried foe, and for cherishing gratitude and respect for the men who had, at much personal risk, striven to pay honour to the dishonoured corpse (verses 5, 6). He was not spoiled as a man of generous sentiments by becoming a king. He nourished private feelings amidst public cares. He would have the men of Jabesh-Gilead know how fondly he cherished the remembrance of their kindness to one now no more. How unlike many who have gained a throne through the disasters brought on rivals! How free, natural, and simple the expression of feeling as compared with the formal courtesies which sometimes society requires toward even the detested dead! In these respects David is a type of the greater One, who, amidst all the cares of life, cherished in his heart only pure, kindly, generous feelings towards even those who by others would have been forgotten. In like manner it is well that we strive to keep the heart fresh and warm when promotion comes, or public affairs absorb, or temptations arise to be indifferent to the minor claims of life. II. THAT A TRUE MAN WILL EXHIBIT IN HIS CONDUCT THE OF HIS LIFE’S PURPOSE. There is an obscurity in the exhortation sent to the men of Jabesh-Gilead arising from its laconic character (verse 7). But, read in the light of what we know to have been David’s faith in the coming kingdom of God ever since the anointing by Samuel, it means this: "You are perplexed and anxious about the interests of the people of God and their future. Do not yield to that state of mind. Be true men; do your part as patriots in this time of change; for Saul, your master, is dead, and every man, therefore, should do his best for the common weal. I have been made king over one section of the people of God, and I, therefore, am in a position to do my part. Let us, then, work as brave men for the bringing on of the better time." Thus, in the but partial fulfilment of the prediction by Samuel, and amidst the private affairs of life, David cherishes clear and full faith in the onworking of the Divine purpose towards final realization. His destiny as king over all the chosen race, in God’s Name, was still the predominant thought. All along during those bitter days of exile and persecution the thought was uppermost, and nerved him with patient courage; and even now, when more than half the people did not want him to be king, he keeps the thought clearly in view. So was it with our Saviour. He came knowing he was to be Lord of all—Head of a united people. "For the joy that was set before him"—in prospect of this—"he endured the cross, and despised the shame;" and when only partially recognized as Lord by a few, he still had faith in the outworking of Divine purposes, and believed that to him "the gathering of the people" would be, and that there would be "one flock and one Shepherd." Those, also, who enter into the Saviour’s Passion likewise keep the spiritual purpose of life clear above all earthly things, and adjust the partial successes, the deferred hopes, and even the private intercourse of life to the one absorbing ideal. Blessed men, who thus see Christ’s final triumph before it is realized! What tone, elevation, and patience does it give to life! III. THAT TRUE MEN IN EXALTED GIVE TONE TO SOCIETY. During exile, David was at the head of a band of men, and now he became the ruler of a people with title of king. As leader and chief his spirit had influenced his followers. Now that he is king, the people told him of the men of Jabesh-Gilead burying Saul. Why? Was it that he might be revenged on men who had done honour to a persecuting enemy? Not thus had they learnt of their leader. They knew him of old as generous to Saul (1 Samuel 26:9-12); they had heard his pathetic lament over Saul (Psalms 1:1-6:17-27), and they were sure that he would be comforted in knowing how poor Saul’s corpse had been cared for. Obviously, the leader had given a nobler, more generous tone to men beneath him. In ordinary life, such men would have rejoiced in the death of a foe. It is doubtless true that the lone of society proceeds largely from the higher to the lower in position. A good monarch affects the peasant and the peer. The lower grades of society get their tone very much from what prevails in ranks above them. If our rulers and persons of position display kindliness, temperance, and piety, they do much. thereby to fashion the character of others. The same principle applies to thought. Ideas are wrought out by the highest minds, and gradually permeate the thinking of the undisciplined and uncultured. Hence the serious responsibilities of station! 2 Samuel 2:8-17 Fanatical patriotism. The facts are: 1. By degrees, and with the aid of Abner, those parts of the country not subject to David, and which, during the decay of Saul’s power, had come under the control of the Philistines, now became consolidated under the rule of Ishbosheth. 2. The jealousy between Israel and Judah, owing mostly to the hostility of Ishbosheth’s adherents to David, assumes threatening form, and the leaders on each side, attended by a small army, come together face to face, probably to consider the points in dispute. 3. The political questions not being solved by discussion, Abner proposes (2 Samuel 2:13, 2 Samuel 2:14; cf. 2 Samuel 2:27) as alternative a settlement by a combat of twelve select men from each side. 4. The combat issuing in mutual destruction, the main forces come into conflict, and Abner suffers defeat. The men who entered into the strife here recorded doubtless prided themselves on the zeal they felt for their country, and were ready to justify in words the deeds of the sword. It is customary to credit people with patriotism, and to that extent condone their savage passions. But too often the plea of patriotism is only a cover for a lack of reason and a domination of inferior impulses. I. TO KING AND COUNTRY IS TO A HIGHER LAW. Considered in the abstract, such attachment is worthy only of admiration, and it forms an element in a people’s well being. But human feelings, with their corresponding acts, are parts of a great complex whole and their worth in any particular concrete instance depends on antecedent and concomitant facts. There is a gradation of obligations, and virtues in name cease to be virtues in reality when they appear in isolation, or consequent on a disregard of a higher law. The men of Israel were bound to love their country, and to show love to it by asserting the rights of their ruler. But at the same time they were bound to follow the guidance of God; to submit to his supreme will; and, making this the standard of feeling and action, to modify the form of expressing love to country and ruler accordingly. Now, the men of Israel, especially the leaders, ought to have known, from the events and words of Samuel’s life, and, indeed, from the manifest interposition in favour of David and against Saul, that it was the Divine will that they should not oppose David; that, in fact, love of country was to show itself in accepting whom God had chosen. Any personal interest, therefore, which they may have felt in a son of Saul, and any regard top what they deemed the good of their native land, should have shaped its form of expression in harmony with their primary and higher obligation. The principle is of wide range. Any passion for our country and sovereign must be exercised within the limits of a higher love. If so-called patriotism involves hatred of men as men, or injustice to them, or national selfishness, then it is a violation of the second great commandment. If upholding a ruler and seeking to subdue a neighbouring ruler involves a contravention of God’s will, revealed in the order of manifest Providence or Scripture, then it is a spurious patriotism. Human feelings are not the tests of truth. II. BLENDED AND PASSION ENTAIL AND SLOW IN LIFE. Had Israel been alive to the lessons which God was teaching them all through the life of Saul, by means of Samuel and David and Jonathan, they would never have allowed the sentiment of interest in a monarch’s son to have developed into a strong aversion to David and a passionate effort to expel him from Judah. Considering all the facts of the case, there is no valid excuse for their ignorance, and, therefore, none for their feelings, even though patriotism be pleaded. Thus we see how neglect to gather up and use the lessons of Providence, slight an evil as it may seem to be at the time, really is the seed sowing of the innumerable miseries of a civil war. If, during those painful years of contention, the energies of men are diverted from industrial channels into the wasting channels of war, and if, consequently, national progress is retarded, the cause is to be found in the domination of ignorance and passion. So has it been again and again. That vox populi has always been vox Dei is little less than blasphemy. Generations looking back on their ancestors see how wars and strifes took their rise in stupidity; and yet, too often, there is an unwillingness to pause lest the same evil be repeated. The woes that have come upon nations in consequence of war are a dark foil, setting forth in wondrous light the wisdom and sweet reasonableness of the gospel of Christ. If peoples would find the clue to progressive national development, let them accept and put into practice the sober, generous precepts and principles of the New Testament. This harmony of Christ’s religion with economic law is no feeble strand in the evidence of its Divine origin. III. THE GREAT ERROR OF LEADERS TOO OFTEN LIES IN THEIR TO TRACE OUT THE OF THE HIGHER LAW. Abner’s suggestion that the dispute should be settled by combat of twelve on each side was an appearance of humanity and sobriety as compared with the indiscriminate use of force. But in the light of reason it is absurd; for right cannot be constituted by chance superiority of might. The complication in which he found himself was simply the result of previous indisposition to find out the Divine meaning of Samuel’s dealings with Saul and of Jonathan’s compact with David (1 Samuel 13:11-16; 1 Samuel 15:24-31; 1 Samuel 16:6-13; 1 Samuel 20:12-17; cf. 16:57; 1 Samuel 26:3-16). It had been easier to follow the family feeling and official impulse (1 Samuel 14:50; 2 Samuel 2:8, 2 Samuel 2:9) than to look at private and public interests in the light of such revelations of God’s will as were then available. It is a good maxim in moral questions that first promptings are best. The voice of conscience is quick to speak, even though in low tone, Most probably Abner recognized that voice telling of God’s will in David. But where there is an unwillingness, because of personal or other interests, to give heed to that voice, it soon becomes easier to follow the lower impulses; and when once on the slippery incline of lower impulse, every movement adds to the momentum downwards. Herein lies the danger of our public men. They especially need the "light of the Lord." Expediency and wrong principles gain on them unconsciously in so far as they lose the primary sensitiveness of conscience. The contagion of their spirit and conduct affects the lower orders. They will have no difficulty in finding men willing, under the cover of patriotic sentiment, to enter the "field of sharp edges," and kill and be killed. Hence, it behoves preachers and all good men to bring the light of the higher law of life to bear with all its clearness and directness on the minds of those in authority. 2 Samuel 2:18-32 The facts are: 1. Asahel, a younger brother of Joab, taking part in the pursuit, fixes his eye on Abner, and keeps on his track, and, being swift of foot, soon overtakes him. 2. Abner, conscious of superiority in arms, and remembering the high family connections of the rash youth, chivalrously urges Asahel to try his prowess on some one else. 3. The counsel being proudly disdained, Asahel falls under the spear of Abner. 4. At the close of the day the scattered men of Israel concentrate on one spot, and pause, while Abner, perceiving the folly and misery of the civil war, appeals to Joab for a cessation of hostilities. 5. Joab, reproaching Abner for his having brought on the conflict by his own acts and words in the morning, sounds the recall to his men, and henceforth they cease to fight their brethren. 6. Abner and his men retire to the east of Jordan, while Joab and his men bury Asahel, and proceed to David’s seat of government. Instructive youthful imprudence. The historian here gives considerable prominence to the rash conduct of Asahel and its sad consequences. Without at all straining the narrative, or indulging in fantastic methods of interpretation, we may call attention to the following considerations naturally suggested by the narrative. I. THE ON WHICH THE INTO THE SACRED HISTORY WERE . The Bible is a history formed by a selection of a few materials out of many. The unwritten history of a people is more ample than the written. The question naturally arises—On what principle did the sacred historians proceed in accepting some items of fact, and rejecting others equally true? Many a noble youth besides Asahel must have fallen in the course of the ages traversed by the biblical story, but their name and deeds are unrecorded. The theory that the different writers of the historic fragments which from time to time appeared in Jewish life, and now make up the whole Bible, were literary artists or philosophical historians, is not tenable. There is in the narratives an entire absence of the art and the philosophy which may be traced in such writers as Thucydides, Niebuhr, Macaulay, and Froude; while, running through these fragments, there is a unity equal to anything found elsewhere. The case of Asahel is an illustration of the whole. The somewhat detailed reference to the occasion of his death is obviously connected with the subsequent reference to the occasion of the death of Abner, and the death of Abner is closely connected with the removal of the most influential barrier to David’s consolidation of the entire kingdom, and David’s life and reign are, we know, important in Hebrew history, because of their bearing on the line of providence by which "David’s greater Son" at last came to reign in the true Zion. Here, then, we get a clue to the principle on which, by the unconscious guidance of the Spirit of God, facts were culled from Hebrew annals and incorporated in the sacred history. Direct or indirect beating on the redemptive purpose in Christ was the criterion of incorporation. Not that everything related to that purpose is incorporated, but only such as is. The same doubtless applies to the principle on which the evangelists were, unconsciously perhaps, guided to select out of the mass of fact connected with the life of Christ such items as we have in the four Gospels. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 3:1 There was long war. As Ishbosheth reigned only two years, and as "the house of Saul" is the phrase used, it seems probable that after Ishbosheth’s murder, during the five years before David’s election to the throne of all Israel, the house of Saul had some puppet representative at Mahanaim, and some commander in Abner’s place. But after the death of this able man matters would go from bad to worse, and, though David probably remained on the defensive, yet the contrast between the peace and good government of Judah and the misery in Israel made all the tribes wish to put an end to a harassing civil war. It is plain, too, that the Philistines, repelled at first by Abner’s skill, had again gained the ascendant, and regarded themselves so completely as the rulers of the country, that they resented immediately with summary violence the bold act of the northern tribes in choosing David to be their common king. 2 Samuel 3:2 Unto David were sons born. This increase of his wives is mentioned as a proof of David’s prosperity. For though contrary to the Law (Deuteronomy 17:17), it was yet looked upon as part of the state of a king, and as such had been practised by Gideon (Judges 8:30), who approached more nearly to the royal dignity than any other of the judges. But it is the rule of the Books of Samuel that they generally abstain alike from praise and ’blame, and allow facts to speak for themselves. But never did a history more clearly deserve the title of ’A Vindication of the Justice of God.’ Alike in Eli, in Saul, and in David, their sufferings were the result of their sins, and to the polygamy and lust of the last are due both the crimes which stained his character and the distress of the last twenty years of his life. (For Amnon, his first born, see 2 Samuel 13:1-39.) 2 Samuel 3:3-5 Chileab. The Midrash explains Chileab as meaning "Quite like the father." He is called Daniel in the parallel genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:1, and this was probably his real name, and Chileab a name of affection. He must have died young, for Adonijah appears as David’s eldest son after the death of Amnon and Absalom; and it is thus natural that he should still be known by the name he bore as a child. Geshur. The word signifies "Bridgeland," and is the name of two districts, one of which formed the northern part of the tribe of Manasseh, and extended on both sides of the Jordan, from the little Hermon to the sea of Gennesareth (Deuteronomy 3:14; Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:13). The other was in Syria (2 Samuel 15:8), and probably was situated upon some river, though its exact position is not yet known. Talmai, its king, now gave his daughter to be one of David’s wives, and though he was probably only a petty prince, still it is a proof of David’s growing power that a potentate living at so great a distance was willing to make an alliance with him. Of the other wives and their sons nothing is known except of Adonijah, who inherited, on the death of Absalom, the dangerous position of firstborn; and who, after trying to make his rights good, was put to death by Solomon (1 Kings 2:25). As Eglah is especially called David’s wife, the Jewish interpreters hold that she was the highest in rank in his household, and therefore identical with Michal, who was restored to David while at Hebron. But she was childless; and more probably the words are to be taken as simply closing the narrative, and as belonging, therefore, equally to each of the six. 2 Samuel 3:6 Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul. The Hebrew really means that until this miserable quarrel about Rizpah, Abner had been the mainstay of Ishbosheth’s throne and dynasty. She is proved to have been a noble woman, with a warm and devoted heart, by the narrative in 2 Samuel 21:8-11. But the harem of a deceased king was looked upon as the special inheritance of his successor; and Absalom, by taking David’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:21, 2 Samuel 16:22), treated his father as a dead man, and committed so overt an act of treason as made reconciliation impossible. So Solomon put his brother Adonijah to death for asking Abishag to wife (1 Kings 2:23-25). Still, as Bathsheba there saw no impropriety in Adonijah’s request, and as Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Joab to death for complicity, as we must conclude, in Adonijah’s request, it was probably part of some scheme of conspiracy, and that, if granted, it would have been used by Adonijah as a proof that the kingdom really was his. Here there was no plot, and as Rizpah had probably always lived apart from Ishbosheth, Abner may have expected that the king would see no difficulty in the matter. 2 Samuel 3:8 Then was Abner very wroth. This extreme indignation on Abner’s part is not easy to understand; for he could scarcely have expected Ishbosheth to endure quietly what at least was a great insult. But probably the question, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine? does not mean a mild expostulation on the king’s part, but the purpose to degrade Abner and strip him of his office. Probably after the defeat by Joab at Gibeon, the army was less satisfied with its leader, and his detractors may gladly have encouraged the king to use this opportunity for bringing Abner down to his proper place. Weak kings often try to play the strong man; but the attempt here only drove the imperious soldier to put the matter to the proof, and show that the strength was his. We know that David groaned all his life through under Joab’s iron will, and, though he tried, yet that he never succeeded in throwing off the yoke. But Joab never behaved unfaithfully to his sovereign as Abner did here, and his crimes were deeds of violence committed in David’s cause. Am I a dog’s head, which against Judah, etc.? The words literally are, Am I a dog’s head that is for Judah? and are rightly rendered in the Revised Version, Am I a dog’s head that belongeth to Judah? Am I at once worthless and a traitor, a thing of no account, and on the side of thy enemies? In the words that follow he protests, not so much his innocence as his great deserts. This day—that is, at this very time—I am showing kindness unto the house of Saul … and this day thou wouldest visit upon me—that is, punish me for—the fault about this woman. I make and maintain thee as king, and thou wouldst play the king upon me, the kingmaker! 2 Samuel 3:9 As the Lord hath sworn to David. This not only shows that the prophetic promise of the kingdom to David was generally known (see note on 2 Samuel 1:2), hut that Abner regarded it as solemnly ratified. There is no express mention of any such oath, but Abner was a man of strong words, and possibly only meant that Jehovah’s purpose was becoming evident by the course of events. 2 Samuel 3:11 He could not answer Abner. Though the reply was one of open treason, and was spoken with violence, yet Ishbosheth did not venture to bring the matter to an issue. Perhaps he looked round upon his officers to see if any would take his side, and, when all were silent, he was too feeble to dare to order the arrest and trial of his too powerful captain. 2 Samuel 3:12 Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf; Hebrew, under him. The Revised Version renders this "where he was;" but the phrase really means "immediately" (see note on 2 Samuel 2:23). And this agrees with the haughty temper of Abner. Without waiting for advice, or allowing his anger to cool, he at once sent trusty envoys to open negotiations with David. Whose is the land? Abner’s meaning in these words is plain. You, David, he seems to say, will answer that the land is mine; for Jehovah has promised it to me. But, as a matter of fact, much of the land is mine (Abner’s), or at least belongs to the house of Saul, whose prime minister I am. Yours is an abstract right; mine is actual possession. Come, let us make the two agree. Give me fitting assurances of safety and reward, and I will make your claim a reality. 2 Samuel 3:13 Except thou first bring Michal. Besides David’s affection for Michal, there were political reasons for demanding her restoration. Saul’s despotic act in giving her in marriage to another man (1 Samuel 25:44) had been a public disavowal of David as the son-in-law of the royal house, and equivalent to a proclamation of outlawry. David’s rights were all declared null by such an act. But now Ishbosheth must with equal publicity reverse his father’s deed, and restore to David his lost position. It must have been a most painful humiliation to him to be driven thus to cancel his father’s decree, and declare thereby to all Israel that he was unable to refuse hie assent to whatever his rival demanded. And for this reason David sent his messengers directly to Ishbosheth, because the importance of Michal’s surrender to him lay in its being a public act of the state. For Michal, in 2 Samuel 21:8, we ought to read Merab (see note there). 2 Samuel 3:14 A hundred foreskins. This was the number which Saul had required (1 Samuel 18:25), and David acted rightly in not boasting that he had really given twice as many (1 Samuel 18:27). As he had paid her father the stipulated price, Michal, by Oriental law, was David’s property. 2 Samuel 3:15 Phaltiel the son of Laish. In 1 Samuel 25:44 he is called Phalti. This word, in Hebrew lexicons, is usually regarded as a contraction for Phaltiyah, "Jehovah is deliverance," while Phaltiel means "El is deliverance." The substitution of El for Yah is one of those changes which arose out of the superstitious reverence for the sacred name which to this day causes the word LORD to be read in our Bibles where in the Hebrew are the four consonants Y, H, V, H, which, by attaching to them the vowels belonging to the Hebrew word edonay (or, adonay, lord) we make into "Jehovah" (Yehovah). 2 Samuel 3:16 Her husband went with her along weeping behind her. "Along weeping" is a very awkward rendering of the Hebrew phrase, "going and weeping." The Revised Version is far better, "weeping as he went and followed her." Phaltiel had been Michal’s husband for eight or nine years, and his sorrow at losing her excites sympathy for them both. They had evidently loved one another, and she was now going to be but one of many wives; and though David may have desired her restoration because he valued her and cherished the remembrance of their youthful affection, yet there was a large admixture of political motive in his conduct. At Gallim she had been Phaltiel’s one jewel, and had been loved for her own sake; at Hebron she would have many rivals. But women of royal rank have often to pay the price of sacrificed affections for the ends of statecraft. Near Bahurim, on the road from Jerusalem to Gilgal, in the valley of the Jordan, the convoy approached the borders of Judah, and Abner will not allow the weeping husband to enter David’s dominions. Painful as was his fate, he had himself done wrong in marrying another man’s wife; and if he was weeping now, we may well believe that David had felt equal anguish when Michal was torn from him and sold to another,—for fathers in those days received instead of giving a dowry upon the marriage of their daughters. Saul in this matter was most to blame, and if he had not committed this wrong, David might never have sought an evil solace in multiplying to himself other wives 2 Samuel 3:17 And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel. Most probably this had taken place before Abner escorted Michal to Hebron, and that he paid David but one visit—that recorded in 2 Samuel 3:20. He would probably not take so decided a step as the surrender of Michal without sounding the elders, that is, the local sheikhs, and finding out how far they were inclined to support David as king of all Israel. When everything was ready he would take Michal to Hebron, and so have the opportunity of arranging with David for future action; and though Ishbosheth would dislike the matter and suspect Abner of ulterior purposes, yet he could not refuse so specious a plea as the escorting of his sister. His previous failure, too, had taught him that Abner was master. We may further be sure that David had everywhere many adherents. All Israel knew that he was marked out by prophecy to be their king, and, moreover, "all Israel and Judah loved him" (1 Samuel 18:16). But when Abner says, Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you, he makes it probable that, at some time after the defeat at Gilboa, the attempt had even been made to elect David king. But Abner had then opposed it, and his success in resisting the Philistines, and David’s unfortunate entanglement with those inveterate enemies of Israel, had made the attempt fail. And now Abner’s attempt was to be equally unsuccessful. 2 Samuel 3:18 The Lord hath spoken. Here again Abner’s statements go far beyond the text of anything recorded in Holy Scripture, but probably they give the popular interpretation of the prophecies respecting David. It will be noticed also that Abner endeavours to meet the general prejudice against David by asserting that he was Israel’s destined deliverer from Philistine oppression. As Abner’s speech is virtually an acknowledgment of failure, we may also be sure that he had found himself unable any longer to make head against the Philistines on the western side of the Jordan, and that Judah was the only tribe there that enjoyed tranquillity. Everywhere else they had once again established their supremacy. Though a brave soldier, Abner was inferior, not only to David, but also to Joab, both as statesman and general; and the weak Ishbosheth was no help to him, but the contrary. 2 Samuel 3:19 In the ears of Benjamin. This tribe alone, probably, was really loyal to the house of Saul, their kinsman. But since the withdrawal of the court to Mahanaim, they got but little good from it, and were left to resist the predatory bands of the Philistines as best they could. So warlike a tribe too would despise Ishbosheth, and long for a braver man to aid them in fighting their enemies. 2 Samuel 3:20 Twenty men with him. These, we may feel sure, were not common soldiers, but chieftains selected from those elders who were on David’s side; and, though the honourable escort of Michal was the pretext, yet Ishbosheth must have felt sure that more was intended. Most of them, however, would join Abner on the road, especially those who represented Benjamin and the western tribes. On arriving at Hebron they were honourably received, and, after a feast, they settled the conditions on which David was to be made king of all Israel; and Abner then departed in peace, after giving the assurance that all the tribes would now gladly assemble, and by solemn compact and covenant make David their king. The terms of the league, and the conditions agreed upon for Ishbosheth, are not mentioned, because upon Abner’s death the whole plan fell to the ground, and David had to wait for many years before his hopes were fulfilled. But we gather from this covenant and 2 Samuel 5:3 (where see note) that the early kings of Israel were not absolute monarchs. 2 Samuel 3:22 From pursuing a troop. This gives a wrong idea, as though Joab had been repelling an attack. The Revised Version is right in rendering "came from a foray," the troop being a company of men sent out on a predatory excursion. It is not unlikely that David had arranged this expedition in order that his interview with Abner might take place in Joab’s absence; and as he returned with "great spoil," he had probably been away for some nine or ten days, during which he had penetrated far into the country of the Amalekites. Had David acted frankly and honourably, Joab would not have stood in the way of his master’s exaltation, and the blood feud between him and Abner might have been arranged. But it is evident that David secretly disliked and chafed under the control of his strong-willed and too-able nephew. 2 Samuel 3:24, 2 Samuel 3:25 What hast thou done? David’s secret dealing makes Joab see a personal wrong to himself in the negotiation with Abner. There could be no room, he feels, for both of them in David’s army, and David meant, he supposes, to sacrifice himself. In hot haste, therefore, he rushes into the king’s presence, and reproaches him for what he has done, but covers his personal feelings with professed zeal for his master’s interests. Abner is a mere spy, who has come on a false pretext, and with the real intention of learning David’s going out and coming in, that is, his present manner of life and undertakings. All that thou doest; literally, all that thou art doing; all that is now going on, and thy plans and purposes. Abner would not only judge by what he saw, but in his interview with David would lead him on to talk of his hopes and prospects. David had little time to explain the real object of Abner’s coming, nor was Joab in a mood to listen to anything he said. He had detected his master in secret negotiations, and would regard his excuses as tainted with deceit. And after giving vent to his auger in reproaches, he hurried away to thwart David’s plans by a deed of most base villainy. Had David acted openly, all would have been done with Joab’s consent and approval. 2 Samuel 3:26 The well—Hebrew, cistern—of Sirah. Josephus (’Ant.,’ 8. 1. 5) says that this cistern was situated about two miles and a half north of Hebron. There was probably a caravanserai there, at which Abner halted, intending to continue his march homewards as soon as the coolness of evening set in. Here Joab’s messengers overtook him, and, speaking in David’s name—for otherwise Abner would not have fallen into the trap—asked him to return for further conference, mentioning, perhaps, Joab’s arrival as the reason. In this way Abner’s suspicions would be set at rest, and it would seem quite natural for him to find Joab waiting for him at the gate. 2 Samuel 3:27 Joab took him aside in the gate. As we read in 2 Samuel 18:24 of David sitting "between the two gates," and of "the roof over the gate," and in 2 Samuel 18:33 of "the chamber over the gate," Ewald’s idea of there being a roofed inner space, with a guard room over it, as in the mediaeval gate towers in German towns, is probably right. As the "two gates" would make the space between them gloomy, the spot would just suit Joab’s purpose. He meets Abner, therefore, in a friendly manner, and drawing him aside, as if to converse with him apart from the people going in and out, there assassinates him. The place was so public that the deed must have been witnessed by multitudes, though the gloom, felt the more by them from the contrast with the bright glare of sunshine outside, had given Joab the opportunity of drawing his sword without Abner’s observing it. For the blood of Asahel his brother. Joab’s act was in accordance with Oriental feeling; and the duties of the avenger of blood might with some straining be made to cover his retaliation for an act done by Abner in self-defence (Numbers 35:26, Numbers 35:27). It is remarkable that Hebron was itself a city of refuge (Joshua 20:7), and this may have led Joab to murder him in the gate, before he had actually entered. Still, Abner did not expect any such retribution, and supposing that Joab knew of the purpose that had brought him to Hebron, he could not suppose that he would be so indifferent to his master’s interests as to put a summary stop to the negotiations for uniting the tribes under David. As it was, this deed brought upon David an evil name, and four or five years had to elapse before the tribes could be induced to take him for their king. Even then his hold over them was far less than it would otherwise have been; for though the shock was gradually got over, yet the suspicion still dung to him. And if the deed was Joab’s own act, still David had contributed to it by underhand dealings. His very fear of Joab had caused him to wrong his able general, and given him just cause for resentment. 2 Samuel 3:28 I and my kingdom are guiltless. By this David means, not his royal house, but the people generally, who too often have to pay the penalty for the sins of their rulers (see 2 Samuel 21:1). Necessarily this is the case, wherever the crime is a state crime; but David protests that Abner’s murder was a private crime, for which Joab and Abishai alone ought to suffer. 2 Samuel 3:29 Let it rest on the head of Joab. The Hebrew word is very strong, "Let it roll itself," or throw itself upon Joab’s head. The force of the expression thus indicates the great excitement under which David was labouring; yet even so it was no slight matter to utter so bitter a curse upon a man so powerful, and whose military skill was so essential to the maintenance of his throne. To a man of David’s strong sense of justice, it was a small matter that by Abner’s murder the kingdom of the ten tribes was lost perhaps forever; what he hated was the wickedness of this mean act of personal revenge. And thus his imprecations are all such as would be humiliating to a family so distinguished for great physical as well as mental gifts, as the house of Zeruiah. Nor was David content with this; for we gather from 1 Chronicles 11:6 that during the intervening years Joab was deprived of his office, and that he regained it only by an act of daring bravery. (For the miserable condition of one suffering with an issue, see Leviticus 1 Chronicles 15:2, etc.; and for that of a leper, Leviticus 13:1-59; Leviticus 14:1-57.) Instead of one that leaneth on a staff, some translate "a distaff holder," that is, a poor effeminate creature, fit only for woman’s work. The true sense is probably a cripple—one who needs a crutch. That falleth on the sword; more correctly the Revised Version, that falleth by the sword. The two last imprecations mean that if any of the race of Joab and Abishai escape these personal blemishes, yet that his fate shall be, in war an inglorious death, and in peace a life of poverty. This curse of David is regarded in the Talmud (’Sanhedr.,’ 48.2) as very sinful. Undeniably it was uttered in violent anger, and while Joab’s act was utterly base and perfidious, yet he had the excuse for it of Asahel’s death and David’s double-dealing. The latter made him conclude that the man who had killed his brother was also to usurp his place. Possibly this suspicion was not without reason. As David was strong enough to deprive Joab of his command, it is plain that he had nothing to fear from telling him his plans. Joab would have assented, the blood feud have been appeased by a money payment, and all gone well. But David, it seems, wished to hold Joab in check by giving at least a share in the command to the veteran Abner. 2 Samuel 3:30 Joab and Abishai his brother. Nothing is said of Abishai having taken part in the murder, but the words suggest that it was a premeditated act, and that Abishai was privy to it. 2 Samuel 3:31 David said to Joab. The excuse of the blood feud made it impossible for David to punish Joab further than by depriving him of his command; but he made him condemn his own deed by taking part in the public mourning for the man he had murdered. This mourning consisted in going in solemn procession, clad in sackcloth, before Abner’s body, carried on a bier to the grave, while David followed as chief mourner; and the emphatic way in which he is called King David suggests the thought that he went in royal state, so as to give all possible dignity to the funeral. His tears and lamentations with uplifted voice were so genuine and hearty as to move the people to a similar outburst of grief. But while all those at Hebron had proof that David was innocent, the people generally would know only that, when Abner was escorting the king’s wife back to him, and arranging for his election to rule over all Israel, he was treacherously murdered at the gate of Hebron by one who was chief over David’s army and also his nephew. 2 Samuel 3:33 The king lamented. The word is the same as that used in 2 Samuel 1:17. The word rendered "fool" is nabal (for which see 1 Samuel 25:25). The idea contained in the word is not that of mere silliness, but of worthlessness also; and thus in Psalms 14:1 we find that the nabal is also an atheist. 2 Samuel 3:34 Thy hands were not bound. Abner had been put to death by Joab for killing Asahel. But there had been no legal process. He had not been brought in fetters before a judge to be tried for the crime alleged, but murdered for private ends. And thus, "As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so had he fallen," that is, by crime, and not by law. These words s re probably the refrain of the dirge, like those in 2 Samuel 1:19, 2 Samuel 1:25, 2 Samuel 1:27, and were followed by the celebration of Abner’s bravery, but they alone are recorded, because they contain the main point. Abner’s death was not, like the sentence upon Baanah and Rechab, an act of justice, but one of lawless revenge; and by this poem David proclaimed, not only his innocence, but also his abhorrence of the crime. 2 Samuel 3:35 The people came to cause David to eat meat. The Jewish commentators, Philippson, Cahen, etc; consider that the occasion for this was given by the custom of taking food after a funeral (Jeremiah 16:7; Ezekiel 24:17), which in time degenerated into the giving of a costly banquet (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 2. 1). To this day, at a Jewish funeral in Germany, the bearers are regaled with eggs, broad, and wine. While, then, others were partaking of the food that had been provided, David remained apart, and when urged by the assembled multitude to join them in their meal, he protested that he would continue fasting until sunset. He thus proved that his sorrow was genuine, and the people were convinced of his innocence, and pleased at the honour which he thus did to the fallen soldier. 2 Samuel 3:36 Whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. This is a tribute to the king’s conduct generally. The people would have been grieved and astonished if David had been guilty of this mean murder; but his indignant disavowal of it was in accordance with his usual justice and uprightness, and so it confirmed their high opinion of him. Thus while the more distant tribes condemned David, those who had the best opportunity for forming a judgment gave their verdict in his favour. 2 Samuel 3:37 All Israel understood. The twenty men who had accompanied Abner would be witnesses of all that David did, and would carry their report of it home, and of the high estimation in which his character was held at Hebron. And this gradually would be told throughout the tribes, and the final verdict of all well-disposed people would be in David’s favour. 2 Samuel 3:38 A prince and a great man. David pronounces this high estimate of Abner’s worth to his servants, that is, to his officers, and especially to the six hundred mighty men. His conduct is bold and open, and must have greatly humiliated Joab and Abishai. But though the six hundred approved of David’s conduct, and respected him for it, yet probably, as Abner had killed Asahel, they would not have consented to any further punishment than the disgrace inflicted on Joab by his being deprived of the command of David’s warriors. 2 Samuel 3:39 I am this clay weak … the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me. David would gladly have had Abner as a counterpoise to Joab’s too-great power. As it was, though an anointed king, he had but one tribe loyal to him; the rest were the subjects of a rival; and the Philistines were oppressing all alike. Had Abner’s enterprise been carried out, all the tribes would have been united under his sway. He could thus have made head against the Philistines, and Abner, in command of the Benjamites and other tribes, would have curbed the fierce self-will of Joab. As it was, the sons of Zeruiah might be reprimanded, and could not treat David as Abner had treated Ishbosheth; but they were indispensable. David had a strange set of men around him in those outlaws (1 Samuel 22:2); and Joab, brave, skilful, and unscrupulous, was a man after their own heart. They had just returned with great booty from a foray under his command; and it was a brave and manly thing in David to reprove him so openly, and dismiss him from his command. Had he attempted more, and Joab had stood upon the defence, there were plenty of "men of Belial" (1 Samuel 30:22) to side with him, and David might have met with the fate threatened him at Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:6). As it was, he proved himself to be king, and Joab, in spite of everything, remained a most faithful officer, and the right hand man in his kingdom, and one even trusted with perilous and disgraceful secrets (2 Samuel 11:14). 2 Samuel 3:1-11 Rival interests. The facts are: 1. A desultory war is carried on between the house of Saul and the house of David, in which the latter has the advantage. 2. David has six sons born to him while at Hebron. 3. A quarrel arises between Abner and Ishbosheth, consequent on an accusation resented by Abner. 4. Abner charges his master with ingratitude, and threatens to transfer his allegiance to David. 5. In seeking to give emphasis to his threat, Abner indicates his knowledge of the Divine will concerning David. The object of the historian in 2 Samuel 3:1-5 is obviously to give a representation, from a political point of view, of David prior to the action of Abner in his favour; and in 2 Samuel 3:6-11 to state the circumstance that led to a transfer of Abner’s support from one side to the other. The general effect of the war between the two royal houses and the growth of David’s domestic establishment are the two prominent items of the situation prior to Abner’s change of policy. Judged solely by the standard of the age, they pointed in the direction of advancing influence, but looked at in the light of a higher standard they suggest a qualified prosperity. The general truths embodied in this account of rival interests may be set forth as follows. I. ACTION IN A JUST CAUSE IS THE BEST POLICY. That the cause of David was just is evident to every believer in the truth of the First Book of Samuel, and, as seen there and in the Psalms, the conviction of this governed his conduct. From a purely human point of view it might seem contrary to natural justice to set aside the son of the late king; and the effort of Ishbosheth to urge, by force of arms, his own claim may be a natural sequence of thought and feeling. But kings have no rights apart from the will of God; and, as the sequel shows (verse 10), both the young king and his general were not unacquainted with the Divine purpose. The right being with David, it might seem strange that he did not press his claim to entire dominion by aggressive war. His skill and valour, the coherence of his following, and the enthusiasm created by his personality, to say nothing of the demoralizing effect on Abner of his own infidelity to conscience, could not but have speedily made him master of all Israel. Instead of that, we find David simply authorizing such conflict as would suffice to hold his own and check the aggressive efforts of the house of Saul. It is interesting to see here the same David as of old, who had such faith in God and the gradual unfolding of his purposes that he would never raise a hand against Saul, or do anything, except in necessary self-defence, that could be construed into hostility. Had not Abner’s evil counsels prevailed with Ishbosheth, David would have lived in peace at Hebron till a mightier hand than his own cleared the way to the throne of a united people. Statesmen would do well to take such an example in many of the painful contingencies that arise. To a just man it is half the victory to be calm and strong in the conviction of his rectitude and the righteousness of his position. There is a watchful Providence cherishing the good and frustrating the evil. Forces under the direction of an evil genius are sure to wear themselves out if only the objects of their hate can hold their own; and the wasting of their strength means the final triumph of the cause of truth and justice. There are seasons in Church life when this policy of pure defence is wise; for at such times God has ends to effect which work in with the scope of more aggressive endeavours. II. A RIGHT WILL COME TO A NIGHT ISSUE. "David waxed stronger and stronger." Of course he did. It could not but be so, for he was a chosen servant, not seeking or doing his own will, but simply placing his life in the hands of God, to work out for his people and for future ages, purposes the precise nature of which he could not understand. No weapon formed against him could prosper. He who contended against him fought against God. The forces of nature were on his side. Never did mortal more vainly contend against late than did Ishbosheth contend against David. The principle involved in this instance is of wide range. Right is sure to prevail in the issue. The disturbing element introduced by sin into the universe causes strife of the most grave character. The whole line of Divine government, so far as we can trace it, seems to be a line of conflict between right and wrong, holiness and sin. The antagonism taken up in Eden runs on and becomes more acute on Calvary, and is apparent now in a "long war" between the children of light and the kingdom of darkness. Time is in favour of righteousness. There is an endurance in truth which cannot be affirmed of error. As perhaps the friends of David thought those years of war very tedious and dispiriting, and sometimes even inconsistent with rightness of claim and purpose, so we may be weary in the greater strife and become disturbed by cruel questionings; yet the issue is sure. "Stronger and stronger" may be affirmed of the kingdom of righteousness on earth. For even the seeming failures and delays only become, in the hands of Providence, the means of acquiring the hardier and more enduring virtues by which at last the final victory shall be won. The same is true of any conflicts in which character is at stake. Our "righteousness shall be brought forth as the light," and our "judgment as the noonday." The parallel may be seen also in the conflict of the "old" End the "new man." The one is on the way to perish; the other is "renewed day by day." III. THE WOES OF LIFE ARE VERY REAL. "There was long war." The sentence is brief, and understandable by a child. It is repeated with careless ease. As a rule, it connotes to the ordinary reader only a general idea of men seeking to slay one another. But to read history aright we ought to bring the faculty of imagination into full play; and it is only as we exercise the historic imagination that we get a glimpse of the sad facts embodied in this simple form of expression. Subjected to the vitalizing power of this faculty, what unexpressed woes rise up to view! What harsh and fierce dispositions! What weary marchings and watchings! What murderous blows and bleeding wounds and agonizing deaths! What widows’ wailings and orphans’ tears! What losses to homes and nation of strong men and productive toil! This, which applies to the brief statement of the sacred narrative, is equally true of greater woes. Men read of great battles very much as they read algebraic symbols. The real items indicated are not vivid to the mind. Men read also of the banishment of the wicked to outer darkness in the same mechanical way. The hurry of life leaves no time for the imagination to lay hold of the actual facts connoted. Hence the power over the will of mere visible, present realities. Hence the difficulty of getting the "powers of the world to come" to influence motive. Hence, also, the necessity of each man making an effort to bring his mind into actual view of the facts covered by language, and of the preacher and teacher rendering the aid of well-chosen speech to further this effort. IV. MAY BE AN OF MORAL . The historian tells us of the growth of David’s domestic establishment at Hebron. Estimated by the customs prevalent in the East at that time, this acquisition by David of wives and sons was supposed to add to the splendour and stateliness of his regal position. All the paraphernalia of a court, the wide-reaching influence of family connections, and the imposing show of a large household would lead ordinary men to regard him as among the great ones of the earth. The accidental surroundings of life form a delusively important part of what is deemed to be human greatness. We are all children in so far as we are influenced in our judgments on social position and weight of character by the circumstantials of life. Even the more educated are prone to either identify or associate greatness with large establishments. This kind of conventionalism plays an important part in human affairs; but it is not God’s standard. David’s polygamous habits were consistent with the conventional morality of the age, and his domestic establishment projected his public position before the eye of the people in a form accordant to princely fashion; but we know that beneath all the signs of wealth and greatness there were influences at work which could not but weaken his moral three and mar the beauty and sweetness of his private life. Oriental splendour and conventional moralities were indulged in at great moral cost. David in Hebron with many wives and their accompaniments could not be as morally robust as was David in earlier days. The same danger attends all who conform to customs not based on strict principles of purity and godliness. Fashion cannot make righteousness. Goodness may live amidst habits essentially alien to the welfare of the individual and to saints, as surely as life may continue in an atmosphere charged with malarious poisons; but the enervation of the one will be as certain as of the other. The insensibility of the man to the subtle action of the evil is only an aggravation of its action and in no wise a palliation. Modern Christians should severely scrutinize the moral quality of the circumstances and habits in which conventional usage allows them to live. This can only be done by making use of tests absolutely given by God apart from the colouring which custom is apt to give even to Divine laws. V. MEN PAY HOMAGE TO . There can be no question but that Ishbosheth knew well the nature and validity of David’s claims; for the theocratic rule was a reality in Israel during and subsequent to the life of Samuel. It was, therefore, wrong for him to put forth any personal claim of his own. Jonathan’s example had been lost upon him; and yet this man recognized the evil done by Abner in lustful indulgence, and even ventured to protest against it. On the other hand, Abner, while being unrighteous enough to indulge in sinful lust and to abet the invalid claim of Ishbosheth, nevertheless is fired with indignation that the love of gratitude should have been violated by the young monarch. Thus men, pursuing a course which they know to be contrary to the will of God, become, when personal and family matters are involved, zealous, each in his own fashion, for what is right and proper. Truly, man is a strange compound of moral light and darkness. The psychological explanation is a study. It is the habituation to the wrong which renders men so dull to appeals, so insensible to the real demerit of their actions, and it is the latent force of conscience which saves them from being parties to a course on which they have not taken the initial step. Hence our Lord’s reference to the "gnat" and the "camel." The prevalence of this state of moral confusion is very wide even in Christian society. In the same individual may be found great sensitiveness and great obtuseness. The holding of slaves and gain by the sale of them has coexisted with a profound regard for religious worship. Licentious men have had a dread of dishonesty. Multitudes who rob God of the love and obedience due to him are indignant if an ordinary business debt is not paid. The Pharisees could conspire to kill Jesus Christ, and yet feel very unhappy if they omitted any of the ceremonials of religion. It is a common thing for men and women to indulge in envy, jealousy, and ill will, while extremely careful to keep up an external conduct conformable to the requirements of the Decalogue. There is much scope for searching of heart on this subject; and in dealing with it the preacher needs to exercise great discrimination and delicacy of reference. Abner must be made to see himself as Ishbosheth sees him, and vice versa. "Man, know thyself," is a maxim of immense importance to every one. VI. PASSING EVENTS MAY SERVE TO UNVEIL THE OF . Viewed from a distance by the people, Abner seemed to be a man who all along was conscientiously and faithfully subordinating his life to the maintenance of a just cause. So far as we can see from the narrative, he had been reticent concerning the mental processes of which he was daily conscious. But the incident of Ishbosheth’s accusation of immorality was as the removing of a veil whereby the actual thoughts of Abner stood revealed. "So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him." Thus Abner had known all along that it was God’s will to give the kingdom to David. The ideas and compunctions connected with this central fact had evidently been covered up and suppressed. The real inner life of struggle against right and God was now exposed by his own act. In the case of every man there is always an inner life necessarily hidden by himself from ordinary view. It is a necessity of social existence that each man should be more unknown than known to his fellows. Only where there is perfect holiness would perfect knowledge of others be helpful to love and confidence. But in the case of men pursuing a deliberate course which seems to others to be conscientious, but is known to themselves to be contrary to right, there is a rigid and designed concealment of their self-condemnation. They gain the reputation of being upright, though perhaps misguided, men, while their own conscience gives the lie to this public judgment. An incidental reference, an unguarded hasty admission of fact, an effort to justify an action, may be as a sudden rent in the covering of the real life within, exposing to the view of others a guilty violation of truth, a perpetual conflict against the well-ascertained will of God. This frequent concealment of aft inner guilty life and its possible unveiling by incidental events should be a guide in forming an estimate of conduct, and a warning to evil doers. The self-exposure, also, however incidental, is to be taken as a preintimation of the final exposure when God shall bring hidden things into judgment. 2 Samuel 3:12-21 The facts are: 1. Abner, disgusted with Ishbosheth’s conduct, opens negotiation with David for the transfer of the kingdom to him. 2. David consents to discuss the question on condition that Abner first of all undertakes to restore unto him Michal, Saul’s daughter. 3. Concurrent with Abner’s efforts to bring this to pass, David makes a demand on Ishbosheth for the restoration of Michal. 4. Abner, taking charge of Michal on her return to David, effects the final separation from her weeping husband. 5. Reminding Israel and Benjamin of their former preference of David, Abner seeks to bring them over to his cause. 6. Charged with instructions from the people, he pro-coeds to Hebron as a legate to arrange the business with David. 7. As a result of the interview, it was left to Abner to complete the formal submission of all the people to the authority of David Faithfulness in small things. The passage here in reference to David and Michal brings out a feature in the character of the king which was prominent from first to last. According to the common estimate of things, the a priori belief would be that, when a ruler desires the subjugation of a kingdom, he will readily accept offers of submission and of all powerful aids to bring it to pass. To obtain supremacy over Israel was the one thing above all others on which David’s mind was set, and the cooperation of so influential a man as Abner was a virtual realization of the king’s purpose. To an astute unprincipled man like Abner it was doubtless a cause of amazement that, when the kingdom was within the king’s grasp, he should practically refuse to have it unless a certain private affair was first arranged. The great affairs of the nation were made to wait on the settlement of what seemed to be a mere matter of sentiment and personal interest. Few monarchs in the East would thus have dealt with the chance of gaining the ends of long-cherished political ambition. In David’s case the stipulation was consistent with his character, lie was ever generously careful of maintaining the rights of individuals and of sacrificing his own ambition to the justice due to others. He was faithful in that which is least. I. THE CLAIMS OF THAT WHICH IS LEAST ARE VALID AND ARE PARTS OF A VAST SYSTEM OF . Michal was David’s wife, bound to his heart and life by ties sacred and memorable (1 Samuel 18:17-30). To political schemers it would seem absurd to set a woman, not seen for many years, and known to be living in forced matrimony with another man, ever against a whole kingdom. But wrong done to her (1 Samuel 25:44) had not invalidated her claim on David’s affection. It was due to her, due to the memory of her father in spite of his follies, due to the force of his Own character on others, and due to the old love (1 Samuel 18:20-28) which changing fortunes had not changed, that she should have justice done her on the very first opportunity of enforcing it. David’s vision was clear enough to see that, if his claim to be king over all Israel was valid because of the appointment of God, so equally the claim of this banished woman on his love and care was also valid, because based on principles which God had ordained for the regulation of domestic life. The same Divine wilt was in both; and, moreover, they were equally parts of the great system of obligations which covers the whole area of human activity, and which is productive of highest good to man when the different parts are equally held as sacred and are rigidly observed. In human affairs there is often an apparent collision of what are called small and great obligations. In reality there is no such thing. There may be a question of order in which actions shall be done; but obligation, in the moral sense, can never clash with obligation. To love the Lord with all the heart is the prime, the chief duty, hut it does not destroy the duty of love to our neighbour. To take part in public affairs may be an obligation, but the care of home is a valid claim which cannot be ignored. There are duties which, entering into the minutiae of life or pertaining to the home rather than to public affairs, may be regarded as relatively small, but inasmuch as they are not the creation of custom but proceed from the will of God and form parts of the great scheme of life, they are to be regarded as sacred and binding as those which figure more largely before the public eye. II. THE ABOUT OF GREAT EVENTS MORE CHANGES THAN LIE WITHIN OUR OWN ACTION, AND TAKES CARE OF THEM. The event of all Israel submitting to David would imply manifold influences brought to bear on the elders of the people, and through them on the masses, and in such a process of change there might arise many a circumstance adverse to the desired issue. It was not in David’s power to effect this by any personal action. All he could do was to set agencies at work through Abner, and trust in Providence for disposing the hearts of men aright. It was right doubtless for the people to own him as king, but it was not in his power to establish this right. On the other hand, it was in his power to do justice to a banished woman, and demand, as a prior step, that she be restored to his heart and home. There is always an uncertainty attending our efforts to bring about great issues in the world’s affairs, even though those issues be predicted and included in the Divine purpose; for our actions are but a few among myriads of forces for and against the end for which we strive, and for ages the goal may not be reached. It is our duty to do what we can, just as it was David’s to use means for winning Israel over to the allegiance which had been predicted and was part of the theocratic purpose; but we have to act in faith that an overruling Providence is at work above us and above all forces, and that the great issue will in some unknown way and time be brought to pass. The statesman cannot make the nation great and strong; he can only set in motion social and material forces which in due course may accomplish the purpose in view. The missionary can but contribute an item of force towards rendering the whole earth submissive to Christ. The parent can contribute but some of the elements which in the end will tend to form the final character of his children. The far-reaching aims of life are binding on us, but their realization is not all in our power. It is absolutely within our power to perform single acts of justice and consideration as occasion offers. As the products of will, they may fill but a small place in the world in comparison with the realization of those other wider aims which are products of many wills; yet they afford opportunities for proving our fidelity to truth and righteousness as surely as do the great events to bring about which we can only contribute our part. David’s profound regard for what was right shone forth in his care for a single individual, just as truly as his faith in Providence appeared in subordinating the attainment of his political ambition to this act of justice. III. HUMAN DUTY IS PLEDGED TO THAT WHICH IS KNOWN AND . David knew that Michal was his wife, that she had been forcibly separated from him in the day of adversity, and that as a good man he was bound to amend her wrongs as soon as occasion offered. Though a king, he saw that domestic were prior to political obligations. There may have been, as a matter of fact, policy in showing his regard in this way for the house of Saul, but the evident motive was to do a right deed as soon as it was seen to be right and scope offered for its performance. In morals, prompt action is homage to righteousness. A known duty and scope for its performance should never be deferred. As air, in obedience to the law of its action, rushes in to fill a vacuum, so does a just mind at once seize opportunity for doing what is clearly known to be right. If men linger and hesitate to do specific acts discerned to be just, it is clear evidence that they are defective in righteousness of principle. Their inner life is pro tanto alien to that of God. This explains, in one way at least, how it is that some men do not at once turn from positive sins and surrender themselves to Christ. They see what is the right thing to do, but defer it till some great scheme of their life is completed. IV. IN THAT WHICH IS LEAST GIVES MORAL POWER FOR OTHER ACTS. Having discharged this more private domestic duty, and so satisfied his conscience in reference to an obvious obligation in which a sufferer was concerned, David was a stronger man for carrying through whatever might be useful for realizing the great purposes of Providence. A good conscience is a moral tonic. The impression produced on Abner and others by this regard for what is right in the more private sphere of life, could not but be favourable to the public interests of the king. Evil men are awed by pronounced goodness, and the halting are won to allegiance. History presents many instances of influence augmented by conscientious attention to duties in private and domestic life. The habit formed by such carefulness to do the right thing in minor matters gives momentum to the action of the will when it is called to act in reference to great questions in the face of strong opposition. Many men become morally enervated by careless inattention to obligations of a private nature, yet lying close at hand and clear as daylight. Their influence on great public questions is weakened by their consciousness of neglect, and by the disgust with which men regard public separated from private righteousness. Policy without principle. The Bible narratives do not enter into details concerning the inner motives of those whose actions are recorded; they rather state outward facts, and leave them to produce their natural impressions. The strange and apparently irreconcilable procedures of Abner are no doubt resolvable into some one governing feeling which, with unvarying consistency though in varying form, shaped his entire public actions. The whole facts from first to last reveal the operation at the base of his conduct of one master passion—the love of pre-eminence; and it is in the working out of this powerful feeling that we find a remarkable illustration of a policy in life apart from principle. I. A LOVE OF PRE- IS OFTEN A CLUE TO MUCH IN LIFE THAT IS . It certainly does seem strange that a man of Abner’s abilities, brought up in full knowledge of the special relation of David to Samuel and Jonathan, and therefore fully aware of the reason why, after the exile from Palestine, David should assume royal state at Hebron and claim dominion also over the entire house of Israel, should give up his services in favour of David’s rival. In the light of mere custom and regal order it would seem to be patriotic and manly on his part to identify his life with the interests of a son of the reigning house, and probably he flattered himself that ordinary men would put this interpretation on his conduct. But the best solution of all the facts of his life is to be found in the hypothesis of his passionate love of preeminence. With so strong a man as Joab on David’s side, and the reputed zeal of the other sons of Zeruiah, there was little chance of his rising to the position of power which alone would satisfy his ambition. Although his ordinary sense must have assured him, to say nothing of the latent truth recognized by the conscience (2 Samuel 3:9, 2 Samuel 3:10), that Ishbosheth could never successfully compete with so brave and active a rival as David, yet, on the principle that it is "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven," he found it more congenial to throw in his lot with a man over whom he could exercise chief influence and in whose cause he would be the principal figure. This policy void of principle ran through, as we shall soon see, the actions of his entire course. There lies, also, at the spring of every man’s conduct, be he a public character or only a private individual, some master passion to which all other feelings and aims are subordinate, and it is good for each one, and necessary to the true interpreter of life, to find out what it is. In public affairs there can be no question that in very many instances it is not fear of God, not pure patriotism, not regard for human interests as such, but open or disguised love of pre-eminence which furnishes the main incentive to conduct. The form of conduct may be such as would result from the action of higher and better feelings, but that is simply the result of policy. This feeling, which finds its scope in the rivalry and struggle of individuals, is but the social form of the generic feeling known as selfishness, or, as modern theologians term it, selfism, which in its essence is sin and probably the metaphysical explanation of sin itself, and which, moreover, is the solution of the fact that men do not recognize the eternal King, but prefer to belong to an inferior order of things. To please self, men will even consent to lose moral rank, and become foes rather than friends of the Righteous One. II. MORAL MAY MODIFY THE FORM OF POLICY, BUT THEY WILL NOT DESTROY THE MASTER PASSION. To an aspiring man, as was Abner, it was intensely mortifying to be charged with wrong doing by one nominally his superior, and the moral sting of the charge probably lay in its truth. This was, on the part of Ishbosheth, a virtual assumption of both moral and legal superiority; and, as such, was a blow at that secret, unexpressed sense of superiority which Abner had all along felt in relation to the weak young man whose cause he had patronizingly advocated. In even bad men the moral sense is strong, if not in leading to right courses, yet in making them wretched for wrong doing, inwardly and morally Abner was now weak in the presence of his royal master. The soul that is humiliated does not like to be reminded of its humiliation, and, if possible, the occasions of such reminders must be avoided and punished. The change wrought in Abner lay in the deep region of unexpressed and inexpressible feelings. The old love of pre-eminence was untouched by the collision with Ishbosheth. The masterful springs of human life are not easily dried up or supplanted. The immediate effect was simply to raise up a minor yet strong personal feeling, which came as a dam between the old love of pre-eminence and the interests of Ishbosheth, and caused it to flow with widened channel in another direction. Emotions stimulate thinkings, and personal feelings arouse ingenuity. Swift as lightning Abner saw that he could be a yet more important personage than ever, and, at the same time qualify his moral humiliation by the sweets of revenge. In spite of Joab and the other son of Zeruiah, he would figure as the means of placing the crown of a united people on David’s head. It should be seen that what war could not do Abner had the power to do. The names of David, Israel, and Abner would henceforth be indissolubly associated in the annals of the time. Instead of pre-eminence at the court of Ishbosheth, there would be pre-eminence at the court of David, and in the judgment of a compact nation. There have been other instances of statesmen, under the influence of resentment, changing their course, and apparently, but not in reality) their principles. The policy in all such cases has been to subordinate public interests to certain cherished feelings. A form of sound principles may be adopted for the very same reason as previously it was rejected. Evil men are prone to do the same in ecclesiastical affairs. In private life men have been known even to assume a form of godliness—to quote the Divine truth (2 Samuel 3:9, 2 Samuel 3:10)—as a means of better subserving their purpose. It were well if rebuke of sin (2 Samuel 3:7, 2 Samuel 3:8) always produced the godly sorrow that leads to genuine repentance, and then the adoption of the true principles of the kingdom would be, not as a policy, but as a matter of conviction. The case of Saul of Tarsus in relation to the spiritual kingdom stands out in sharp contrast to that of Abner in relation to the temporal kingdom (cf. Acts 9:5-20). III. DURING THE WORKING OUT OF THE MASTER PASSION THE TRUTH OF GOD ABIDES AS A WITNESS. That Abner should have so explicitly referred to the Divine purpose (2 Samuel 3:9) cannot be ascribed to information recently received, but must be accounted for on the ground that he had all along had the truth suppressed in his own mind. He here unwittingly unveils his own conscience and condemns his past course as a violation of solemn obligations rising far above social considerations and personal preferences. To the people he, perhaps, seemed to be a man upheld by a sense of right, but to himself he was known as a rebel against God. The Divine truth asserted inwardly its own reality. Its light revealed to himself, whenever he calmly reflected on his conduct, the dark and damaging characters of his public career. And though he was now adopting right principles, and so would in future escape the pain of knowing that his actions were not running counter to their direction, yet, being conscious of adopting them for unprincipled reasons, he could not avoid the conviction that he was doing the right thing for David, not because of a love of God, but for personal ends. The sense of right would thus reveal to him the essential crookedness of ways that were ostensibly straight. The man who does right things from bad motives never knows the blessedness of the just. Probably there is no determinate course of wrong doing in which the light of truth does not bear some witness more or less distinct. Even those who, following lower passions, change the glory of the incorruptible God into images after their own likeness (Romans 1:23), at times find within a protest against their conduct (Romans 2:15). No man who has heard the claims of Christ to universal dominion as clearly and authoritatively set forth as ever Abner had heard of the Divine right of David, can live opposed to him, or, as a mere matter of policy, fall in formally with his rights, without being sensible at times of a voice which tells him of his dangerous position and worthless character. Many a converted man has borne testimony that, for years previous to his conversion, the truth of God bore faithful witness as to what was the will of God concerning him in his relation to the Anointed One. IV. THE WORKING OUT OF A POLICY CHANGED IN OUTWARD FORM BUT NOT IN NATURE AND ENSURES MUCH ZEAL AND . The change of allegiance was, for Abner, a momentous step. For onlookers it meant on his part a judgment, and self-respect demanded that that judgment should be justified by every possible means. His policy being the same along an altered course, he must so act as to make it appear that he had come into the possession of new and true principles, and so get the credit of acting on principle and not on policy void of principle. Of course, a man who sincerely came to the belief that God had purposed David to be king, and loved the doing of the will of God, would at once go and offer his services to David. Abner did this. Of course, he would be eager to fulfil all conditions that might be specified by David in bringing to pass the will of God (2 Samuel 3:13-16). This was true of Abner. And as to gaining over others to his new view of things, no pains would be spared to show the reasonableness of the course now to be taken. Abner made out a case before the elders of Israel and the more sturdy Benjamites, and was able to report to David complete success (2 Samuel 3:17-21). What zeal and ingenuity were implied in all this may be imagined by those only who know how hard it is to justify sudden changes of conduct and get one’s followers to entertain new ideas. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 4:1 When Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead. The news of Abner’s death must have had a doubly depressing effect upon Ishbosheth; for he learned, not only that the mainstay of his kingdom was slain, but that even he, in despair of a successful issue, had been engaged in treasonable negotiations with his rival. All the Israelites were troubled. Their trouble was caused rather by uncertainty than by fear. Abner’s plans had fallen through, and the fact of his murder threw grave suspicions on David. Had he now attacked Israel, the chiefs would most probably have stood loyally by Saul’s house. But he did nothing, and his innocence slowly but gradually was made clear. They were thus in a state of suspense, and waiting till some brave man arose to lead them to a decision. Unfortunately, a fresh crime threw everything back into hopeless confusion. 2 Samuel 4:2 Saul’s son had two men captains of bands. The bands mentioned were light-armed troops, used in forays, such as that mentioned in 2 Samuel 3:22. Their captains would be men of importance with Ishbosheth, who is here described somewhat contemptuously, not as king, nor by his own name, but as "Saul’s son." Beeroth. This place, literally the Wells, was one of the four towns reserved for the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:17), though nominally belonging to Benjamin (Joshua 18:25). The note, that it was reckoned to Benjamin, suggests that it had until quite lately been occupied by the Canaanites, whose flight to Gittaim had no doubt been caused by Saul’s cruel attack upon them referred to in 2 Samuel 21:1, 2 Samuel 21:2. It was thus remarkable that the destruction of Saul’s dynasty was the work of the Gibeonites of Beeroth. As we find another of these Beerothites, Naharai, holding the office of armour bearer to Joab (1 Chronicles 11:39), it seems probable that many of them saved themselves from expulsion by becoming soldiers. But among David’s worthies a large number were strangers, and some even men of foreign extraction. Beeroth, however, was probably seized in Saul’s reign by the Benjamites, by force, and occupied by them, as its citizens returned in large numbers from the exile (Ezra 2:25), and are counted as genuine Israelites. Moreover, by thus dispossessing the natives, Saul was able to give his tribesmen "fields and vineyards" (1 Samuel 22:7), which otherwise would have been in violation of the Mosaic Law. 2 Samuel 4:3 Gittaim. This word is a dual, and means "the two Gaths;" the one being, probably, the acropolis, or upper town, at the foot of which nestled a new Gath, protected by the ancient stronghold. It is mentioned as belonging to Benjamin in Nehemiah 11:33; but could not have been an Israelite town at this time, as the Beerothites are described as sojourners, that is, dwellers in a foreign country. When expelled from Beeroth, they probably seized Gittaim by force, and, on the reconciliation effected by the execution of Saul’s sons, returned to their allegiance to Israel. 2 Samuel 4:4 Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son. This is mentioned to show that Saul’s lineage virtually became extinct on Ishbosheth’s death. Mephibosheth, the heir, was a cripple, and physically incapable of reigning. Saul had, indeed, sons by a concubine, and grandchildren by his daughter Merab (2 Samuel 21:8). But throughout the history there is no hint that any of these were regarded as the representatives of Saul’s house. (For the name Mephibosheth, see note on 2 Samuel 2:8.) 2 Samuel 4:6, 2 Samuel 4:7 As though they would have fetched wheat. Not only is the narrative confused, but the versions offer extraordinary varieties of reading. The murder of Ishbosheth is fully described in 2 Samuel 4:7, and is there in its place, while it is out of place in 2 Samuel 4:6. And that the captains would themselves fetch wheat, instead of having it carried from the granary by their men; and that they would go through the king’s chamber to obtain it; are both improbable. The very act of going to get wheat at midday, when everybody was having his siesta, would itself be suspicious. The Syriac says nothing about wheat, but that these "wicked men took and smote him." The Vulgate and LXX. lay the blame on the woman who kept the door, the narrative of the latter being as follows: "They entered into the house of Ishbosheth in the heat of the day, and he was asleep in his midday chamber And behold, the woman that kept the door of the house had been winnowing wheat, and she slumbered and slept. And the brothers Rechab and Baanah entered the house without being noticed, and Ishbosheth was asleep on his bed in his chamber, and they smote him," etc. There is, confessedly, considerable confusion in the text, but the versions do not altogether clear it up; and until we have better materials for forming a judgment, we must be content to wait. In 2 Samuel 4:5, instead of "who lay on a bed at noon," the Hebrew has "as he was taking his noonday rest." In 2 Samuel 4:7 the bed is the divan, or raised bank, which in an Oriental house runs along the wall, and is supplied with pieces of carpet, or cushions, on which to sit cross legged or recline. For sleep, the corners were the favourite places. Even the public rooms had these divans. But Ishbosheth had probably retired for his siesta into a private chamber, where the captains knew that he would be alone. The plain through which they fled was the Arabah, or Jordan valley, as in 2 Samuel 2:29. 2 Samuel 4:8 Which sought thy life. Saul had sought David’s life, but Ishbosheth was innocent of any such attempts. Still, had he been victorious, David, as his rival, would certainly have been put to death. Jehovah hath avenged my lord the king. The ordinary language of the East is so religious that these words imply nothing more than that these wicked men saw in their base act a step towards the carrying out of a Divine purpose. But in thus referring to the common belief that David’s kingdom was assured to him by Jehovah, they evidently intended to commend their deed to the really devout mind of the king. 2 Samuel 4:9, 2 Samuel 4:10 And David answered. David’s answer is worthy of him. His appeal to Jehovah, as One that had saved him in all time of adversity, was a declaration that he had no need of criminals. And throughout he had carefully abstained from taking any steps to bring about the accomplishment of God’s will, and had been upright and forbearing alike to Ishbosheth and Saul. How noble his conduct was we see by the contrast with Macbeth, whose better nature was poisoned and spoiled by the hope that he should be king hereafter. At the end of the verse the force is weakened in the Authorized Version by the insertion of irrelevant words. What David said is, "I slew him in Ziklag, and that was the reward I gave him for his tidings." 2 Samuel 4:11 A righteous person. Ishbosheth was probably a weak rather than a wicked man; but David is not speaking of him generally, and, as regards Rechab and Baanah, he was quite guiltless, and their crime was not in revenge for any wrong done them. 2 Samuel 4:12 They out off their hands and their feet. This was not intended for the purpose of mutilation, but to carry out an Eastern idea of retaliation. The hands were cut off because they had committed the murder; the feet, because they had brought the head to Hebron. Still, David was violating the spirit of the Mosaic Law. It ordered that the body of a man who had been put to death should be buried the same day (Deuteronomy 21:23). In the face of this humane enactment, it is wonderful that the laws of Christian countries should have allowed the mutilation of the bodies of traitors, and the hanging on gibbets of criminals convicted of smaller crimes. Remembering, therefore, the customs of our fathers, we must not blame David much for suspending the bands and feet of these murderers at the pool of Hebron, that all, when coming for water, might know of their punishment. The head of Ishbosheth was honourably buried in Abner’s grave (see 2 Samuel 3:32). 2 Samuel 4:1-12 The facts are: 1. On the death of Abner, consternation seizes Ishbosheth and his friends. 2. The only other representative of the house of Saul was a mere boy, whose age and bodily infirmity rendered his coming to the front out of the question. 3. Two of Ishbosheth’s officers, forming a secret design, visit Ishbosheth as though on business connected with their duties, and slay him. 4. Stealing away by night, they carry the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron, and think to satisfy thereby his love of revenge. 5. David, eagerly reminding himself that God had always delivered him without his having recourse to bloodshed, reminds his visitors also of the punishment he had inflicted on others in a similar case at Ziklag, and denounces their deed as even more atrocious. 6. Thereupon David causes the murderers to be executed, and their limbs to be exhibited in Hebron as a warning to the wicked, and meanwhile he bestows funereal honours on the head of Ishbosheth. Worldly blindness the parent of sorrow and wrong. The whole of the events of this chapter proceed from the inability of men to read the high principles that governed the conduct of David. The general truth may be developed as follows. I. THE BODINGS OF FILL A LARGE SPACE IN THE LIVES OF SOME MEN. When it is said that Ishbosheth and his people were paralyzed and troubled by the news of the death of Abner, the question comes—Why? Was it because now the healing policy of Abner and David (2 Samuel 3:17-21) would yield to the more fierce policy of Josh? Did the young king and his followers imagine that now it was simply a question of best terms, and that submission was inevitable? Or were they apprehensive that, although David made terms with Abner for the sake of securing his aid, now, when that aid was no longer available for the consolidation of his power, he would take revenge on all who had supported the Cause of Ishbosheth? In any case, their fears were not warranted by the governing facts of the situation. Their safety and welfare rested with David, and had they known him, had they read his principles aright, they might have been quite at ease in allowing events to take their course in his supremacy. Their forebodings of trouble sprang from ignorance of the man they had to deal with. They formed their estimate of his possible future conduct on the standards familiar amongst themselves. His life was too lofty in tone and aspiration for them to understand. How much of human life is spoiled, is charged with sorrows and fears, which would have no place were our vision clearer and our estimate of others more just and true! Men too often judge of the thoughts and ways of God by their own standard, and so apprehend what never need have troubled them. Our ignorance of coming events exercises a larger influence over our feelings than is proper; for though we do not know exactly what win occur, we ought to know that all things are in the wisest and kindest of hands. In human relationships men make troubles by supposing their fellow men, often, to be otherwise affected than they actually are. Even the disciples were troubled in consequence of their blameworthy ignorance of the wisdom and power of their Master, and they were challenged to get rid of the sorrows bred of ignorance by reposing in him a trust as absolute as they, pious Hebrews, were wont to repose in the Eternal (John 14:1, John 14:2). II. THE OF MEN NOT IS OF . The attachment of the sons of Rimmon and others to the cause of Ishbosheth was based on anything but enlightened views of the theocracy, or a clear interpretation of the events of the life of Saul and David, which must have been well known. Indeed, as in the days of "David’s greater Son" the mark of distinction among men lay in the spiritual recognition of him as Divine amidst his sorrows and trials, so in David’s time only true unworldly men, whose eyes were open to see the spiritual element in his life, formed political attachments on superior knowledge. That which is earthly partakes of the instability of earth, and, however outwardly zealous the supporters of Ishbosheth may have been and even sincere according to their light, they were open to the influences to change which are sure to arise in times of trouble, but which could never move a mind that saw the higher principles involved in David’s claim. The historian seems to imply this in his reference to the age and infirmity of Mephibosheth, as much as to say there was no one else of the house of Saul around whom men might rally in case Ishbosheth’s cause should fail. No resort was left but to abandon the young king in his troubles, and form new and more promising attachments. Imagine a Jonathan slackening his attachment to David in his time of stress! or a Paul losing interest in Christ when persecutions arose! On the other hand, there are many instances in which the weakened attachment of the sons of Rimmon, proceeding as that attachment did from low and mere conventional views, finds a counterpart in human life. Companionships based on community of sensual enjoyments are held by bonds which perish in adversity. Friendships are perishable in so far as they are pervaded by a worldly element. Whatever ties are formed on any feelings, interests, or considerations than those which make us all one in Christ, cannot but vanish as we pass from the earthly scene into the world where alone the spiritual bond endures. And in the Church militant the adherence of numbers lacks a permanence to be counted on in proportion as it is based on custom, convenience, fashion, superstition, defective knowledge of Scripture, and dimness of spiritual apprehension. Plate was not far from the truth in saying that knowledge and reality were one. Scripture everywhere gives prominence to the unifying, ennobling power of spiritual perception. The distinction of children of light and of darkness proceeds thereon. The "spiritual man judgeth all things." The rejection of Christ was connected with blindness to the higher and more spiritual qualities of his life (1 Corinthians 2:8-16). III. MEN OF VIEWS ARE, BY REASON OF THEIR , OPEN TO , AND MAY BE CARRIED AWAY TO EVIL BY THE LOWER OF THEIR NATURE. These sons of Rimmon, like others, began to consider what course would be most advantageous to themselves, now that the cause of Ishbosheth seemed to be on the wane. Looking on the position of the two kings as simply the consequence of purely worldly forces coming into competition, and caring most of all to be on the winning side, they asked themselves what conduct on their part would be sure to win the favour of David, the stronger of the two. Had they at that juncture in the process of thought conceived of David as a man of God, of high spiritual aims, destined to work out a Divine purpose on principles of righteousness, and ambitious to translate the purest principles of private life into the affairs of his kingdom, they would only have thought of doing some deed of justice and mercy, such as a man of that character would delight in. But being destitute of these spiritual perceptions, regarding all things on the low base level of a worldly expediency, and judging David to be much such a man as themselves, there arose in their process of thought fair opportunity for the cruellest and basest propensities of their nature, to put forth their strength and suggest the murder of the unfortunate king as an act of present wisdom. It takes many impulses and thoughts of advantage and disadvantage to bring about a great crime, and it is difficult, in analyzing the mental antecedents of the crime, to assign to each its exact influence; but it is obvious in this case that worldliness of view, lack of spiritual apprehension, undue estimate of a lofty character, rendered the crime possible, and even cleared away the barriers of reason against its accomplishment. They judged David to be as themselves, and they acted accordingly. The belief that he would be glad inspired the concoction of the plot, and gave tone of exultation in their approach to him with the head of the murdered man. Their darkness was dense, and in this sense theirs was a deed of darkness. It is often that men fall into the snare of the devil in consequence of their lack of spiritual perception. The false is glossed, the true is veiled. Even disciples, not clearly perceiving the purely spiritual character of their Lord’s mission, desired fire from heaven to destroy the unbelieving. During the "dark ages" men perpetrated dreadful deeds to please Christ, not rising to a true appreciation of his character and methods. Low conceptions of the nature of the kingdom of Christ as it is in the world, now induce men professing an interest in it to render service in forms that would never be entertained were his kingdom regarded as he regards it—one of purity, of love, and of righteousness. And as this worldly mindedness was a sore cause of sorrow and trouble to David, and hindered the establishment of his authority, so the same evil militates much against the final triumph of our Lord. Hence the need of teaching and the power of the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of the blind, that they may appreciate and regulate their actions by the high principles embodied in the character and kingdom of Christ. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. Destitution of the power of spiritual apprehension and appreciation is a radical evil of human nature, and can never be removed by any other means than those which God has provided in his truth and the grace of the Holy Spirit. 2. If we would have men knit in imperishable bonds of affection and common interest, we must seek to get them to see Christ as he is, and enter into relationships on the basis of his kingdom. 3. In all our dealings with men we should be careful not to put forward our own feelings and aims as a standard by which to judge them. Clustered truths. It is not easy to weave all the teaching of this chapter on one line, and yet the various incidents recorded all centre in the disaster which befell the King of Israel consequent on the secession and death of Abner. It may thus be advantageous, for the sake of securing unity of form, to look at the remaining leading truths of the chapter as clustering around this sad event. I. THE SMALLER FIGURES OF HISTORY. Mephibosheth here figures as an insignificant person in the narrative of persons and events connected with the gradual unfolding of the purposes of God. A mere boy, lamed by a careless nurse, a son of one who had renounced all claim to the throne! His name and misfortune are mentioned, and the tide of events moves on. Now and then we meet with such incidental references in the Bible history. They are but specimens of multitudes equally insignificant who played a small part in the affairs of the world, and are unknown forever. Their selection for brief allusion is doubtless part of a vast providential method by which the historians were unconsciously guided to refer to whatever might illustrate the process of elimination by which God at last accomplished his purpose in first raising up David to supreme dominion of his people, and afterwards the true David of the present dispensation. The poor lad little knew that he was an element in the working out of a great purpose, and that, small as was his figure in life, it served as a foil to God’s greater characters. Modern science teaches us that nothing is really lost, that all small items are used up in the great development of things towards a future higher condition. So the humbler forms of human life are not all lost. They play their part, and to some extent modify all that comes after them. In the Church of Christ, the little ones, feeble and uninfluential in a worldly sense, have some part to perform in the great spiritual development which God is working out. Our Mephibosheths are not lost to mankind. The smaller figures of life render the totality of life more varied, and develop qualities which uniform greatness could never originate. II. . These sons of Rimmon have won for themselves a notorious immortality. Had it not been for their base and cruel deed, their names would never have appeared on the page of history. Their crime has given them a prominent place as compared with wiser and better men. In this case, the reason of it is doubtless to be found in the circumstance that their deed served to bring out into more distinctness the character of the kingdom which God was then establishing by means of David, and so, incidentally, it forms one of the links in that singular chain of events by which at last the Christ found a way prepared for him to dwell among men. There is a base passion in some men for this kind of notoriety. Some criminals have gloried in it, and have seemed to derive some satisfaction from the thought that, at all events, they have created a sensation, and will for a time, and perhaps forever, figure in history. Miserable consolations of sin! The utter delusiveness of sinful reasoning! The charm and delight could only be for a few days; the anguish and shame would come when the eye saw the world no more and the ear ceased to listen to the hum of the people, and then abide forever. The curse of the righteous rests on the notoriety, and so it becomes a very occasion of deep and recurring disgrace. In modern times incalculable injury is done by a low literature that feeds this morbid love of notoriety of evil, and in the education of youth too much care cannot be given to secure them from the infection. III. OF . When these sons of Rimmon went to David with the head of Ishbosheth, no doubt openly and even boasting before they reached his presence, they by that act implicitly cast on his character the foulest and most painful aspersions. It was in act a declaration to men that David was a man of blood, that he looked on the son of Saul as a foe to be got rid of by any means, and that if only supremacy could be obtained over all the people, he cared not particularly as to the means. To David this was the interpretation of the act, and the people about him could not but regard it in that light. Character may be aspersed by deeds in various forms, and by people who do not see that there is aspersion in their conduct. The flatteries of some men are virtually reflections on purity of life. The requests of some men for a certain line of action are founded sometimes on a supposition of character that would be repudiated and scorned. IV. . David at once saw the varied bearing of the conduct of these sons of Rimmon; its base treachery, its cold cruelty, its political treason, its disregard of the claims of misfortune, its foolish policy, and, not least, its false and wicked misrepresentations of his own character. To the man called of God, who had in all his adversities trusted in God, whose mission was to establish a rule more wise and just than that of Saul, and to raise the ideas of the people to a higher level and prepare them to perform a part in opening the way for the great Messiah, this insult must have been agonizing. His quick spiritual sensibilities were at once stirred, and yet his indignation was the more strong and impressive in that he selected words wherewith to show to them the enormity of their guilt, and then delivered them to the execution they deserved.. Apart from his natural aversion to "bloody men," and his regard for the sacredness of human life even in the case of those who injured him, he could not but dwell in his own private reflections on the shameful insult offered to himself in the supposition that he could glory in such a deed. A fire burned in his soul. All good men, who regard purity and righteousness of life as above all things, will fully sympathize with David. Have we not here a clue to the Saviour’s anguish when evil men supposed that he performed miracles by means of the power of Beelzebub? And was not this, perhaps, the deadly sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:24-32)? V. TO MEN. David was a man rich in noble feelings. His proud indignation at the insult paid to him was accompanied with immediate regard for the unfortunate king whose life had been brought to so untimely an end. For him he cherished true pity. He regarded him as the son of Saul the anointed of the Lord, a man forced probably into a position of danger by stronger wills, and at least mistaken in his views as to what was best for the tribes on the death of his father; and hence, with the generosity so characteristic of him, he had his few remains buried with all honour in the sepulchre of his distinguished captain. Here comes out the unworldliness of David’s character. Success in life and rise to a high position too often render men indifferent to those on whom fortune has not smiled. There are many like Ishbosheth men who have been pushed into positions for which they were unfitted, or have been swayed by feeble reasons of their own into a course of life not useful, or have striven in vain against great social obstacles, and so have come to disappointment and grief. As our Lord was compassionate and considerate of the lowly, so all who cherish his spirit will find out means of showing kindness to the unfortunate, even though they may have been in the position of opponents. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 4:1-3 (.) The unhappy lot of Ishbosheth. Of the varied types of character which these chapters furnish, that which appears in Ishbosheth (Eshbaal, 1 Chronicles 8:33) is a most pitiable one. The last surviving son of Saul, he bore little resemblance to his heroic father; owed his life to his incapacity for military enterprise; was the legitimate successor of Saul according to the law of Oriental succession; after the brief suspense in which the elders of Israel seemed disposed to accept David as king (2 Samuel 2:7; 2 Samuel 3:17), was taken under the patronage of Abner; at the end of five years was fully recognized, being forty years old; and reigned two years (2 Samuel 2:10). It is uncertain how far he was aware of David’s Divine designation to the throne, and consciously opposed its fulfilment; and, since the latter was not chosen by the elders, he was not guilty of usurpation. Although David could not speak of him as king, he called him "a righteous person" (2 Samuel 4:11)—"a man who had done no one any harm" (Josephus)—in the same magnanimous spirit as he always exhibited toward the house of Saul. He was: 1. Raised to a position for which he was unfit. "The Scripture presents in him a living example of how the sacredly held right of legitimate inheritance has no root when it is not ennobled by vigorous personality. When the Divine calling is lacking, no legitimate pretensions help" (Cassel). He was destitute of mental force, courage, and energy; ambitious of royal honour and ease; not of royal service and beneficence. The highest offices should be held by the best men. In an ideal state of society it cannot be otherwise; but in its actual condition we often see "servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth" (Ecclesiastes 10:7). He who seeks or consents to occupy a position of influence and responsibility for which he is unfit, and those who seek or accept his appointment to it, inflict a serious injury upon themselves and one another. The rule of the "bramble" results in the destruction of all the trees of the forest (Judges 10:15). 2. Deprived of the support on which he relied. "Abner was dead;" by whom he had been exalted and sustained, and to whom, rather than to God, he looked for counsel and help. Although he had alienated him by imprudent remonstrance (2 Samuel 3:7), yet "he may have hoped to obtain an honourable satisfaction by his mediation" (Hengstenberg). This hope was now cut off. "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man," etc. (Jeremiah 17:5; Psalms 143:3, Psalms 143:4). 3. Reduced to a condition of extreme weakness. "His hands became feeble." Nothing remained but unconditional submission or ineffectual and hopeless resistance. He was prepared for neither, and surrendered himself to despair; suffering the consequences of his own "foolishness" (Proverbs 19:3). 4. Contributory to the distress of a whole people. "And all Israel was troubled"—agitated, alarmed, confounded, desponding; having no confidence in his ability, participating in his fears, and, like him, experiencing the effects of former errors. "By his death the treaty with David was broken off; or there was no one to manage it with such authority and prudence as Abner had done" (Patrick). 5. Exposed to the villainy of unfaithful servants. "And Saul’s son had two men," etc. They belonged to his own tribe, and, should have been his protectors; served him in prosperity, when he could reward them; but turned against him in adversity, when he could no longer serve their interests; and, although they had suffered no wrong at his hands (2 Samuel 4:11), acted toward him unjustly and with "treasonous malice," craft, and cruelty. 6. Smitten at a season of apparent security. "At noon, in his own house, upon his bed;" where he sought a brief repose, and slept to wake no more. He was left unguarded, and perished "unawares" (Luke 21:34). His head was buried "in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron;" and the opposition to "the house of David" was at an end. None survived of "the house of Saul" save an afflicted son of Jonathan (2 Samuel 4:4), who could be supposed to have any claim to the crown. 7. Removed as the last obstacle to the accession of a worthier man. And herein the overruling providence of God again appears in bringing to pass "the word of the Lord by Samuel" (2 Samuel 1:1, 2 Samuel 1:2). "It is significant that the destruction of Saul’s house and kingdom should have issued from Beeroth, the Gibeonite city (2 Samuel 21:1, 2 Samuel 21:2)" (’Speaker’s Commentary’).—D. 2 Samuel 4:4 (GIBEAH.) An unfortunate prince: a sermon to children. Mephibosheth was the only son of Jonathan, the friend of David and eldest sort of King Saul. When he was five years old the country was invaded by the Philistines (1 Samuel 29:1), his father went forth with the king from Gibeah to fight against them in Jezreel, and he was left at home in the care of a nurse (his mother probably being dead). They waited anxiously for news of the conflict; and at length there came a messenger saying that the battle was lost, the king and Jonathan were dead, and the terrible Philistines were coming to plunder and burn the place. The nurse caught up the child, and carried him away on her shoulder; but in her flight across the hills she stumbled, and the little prince fell, was hurt in both his feet, and became a helpless cripple for the rest of his days. I. IS BESET BY MANY PERILS. No other creature on earth is weaker, more helpless or dependent at the commencement of life, than a child. He is peculiarly liable to accident and susceptible to disease; incapable of defending himself from harm or preserving his own life; and is cast entirely upon the care of others. A little neglect on their part may prove fatal. More than a fourth of all the children that are born die before they are five years old. There is the still greater danger to your souls of being allowed to grow up in ignorance and led into "the way of transgressors," stumbling and perishing therein (Matthew 18:6). Be thankful to your parents, nurses, and teachers for their care over you; still more to your heavenly Father who has taught them such care, appointed his holy angels to be your guardians, sent his Son to bless you, and himself loves, preserves, watches over you, and seeks your salvation (Matthew 18:10-14). II. EVEN A PRINCE IS NOT FREE FROM . You may sometimes wish that you belonged to a royal or wealthy family, lived in a palace, and had numerous servants to wait upon you; supposing that you would be happier than you are. Well, here is a prince; yet motherless, fatherless, homeless, helpless, and hopeless. How much better is your condition than that of this poor little orphan cripple! No condition of life is above the reach of trouble; none beneath the possession of enjoyment. Envy not the lot of others, nor fret and be dissatisfied with your own. Hear a fable of three little fishes that dwelt in a beautiful stream. On being asked what they wished for, one said, "Wings," and when these grew he flew away so high and so far that he could not get back, sank exhausted, and breathed his last; another said, "Knowledge," and when he obtained it, became anxious and fearful, and durst not touch a fly or a worm or eat any food, lest it should contain a fatal bait, pined away and died; the third said, "I wish for nothing, but am contented with my lot," and this little fish had a long and happy life. Have you not heard of the apostle who was a prisoner for Jesus’ sake, and said, "I have learned in whatsoever state [am therewith to be content" (Philippians 4:11)? "There is a cross in every lot, And an earnest need for prayer; But a lowly heart that leans on thee Is happy anywhere." When a little blind girl was asked the reason of her affliction, she replied, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." III. THE ARE NEVER LEFT WITHOUT A FRIEND. And "a friend in need is a friend indeed." What became of Mephibosheth? He was carried beyond the river Jordan, out of the reach of the Philistines; found a home "in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar" (2 Samuel 9:4; 2 Samuel 17:27), in the neighbourhood of Mahanaim, among the mountains of Gilead; was treated with kindness; and dwelt in a place of safety until he became a man. Only a few persons knew where he lived, or whether he were alive; and when King David heard of him, he invited him to Jerusalem, that he might show him kindness "for Jonathan’s sake." Affliction appeals to our pity, and tends to call forth our sympathy and help. We should never despise the unfortunate nor mock at their misfortune; but always try to do them good. Above all, in our trouble we should trust in God, in whom "the fatherless findeth mercy" (Hosea 14:3). "When my father and mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up" (Psalms 27:10). IV. A GREAT OFTEN PROVES A GREAT . If Mephibosheth had not been made lame by the accident of his childhood, he would have been tempted to aim at the crown, and might have rushed into ambitious and godless enterprises as others did, and perished in like manner. As it was, he spent his days in quietness and peace. His affliction was the means of making him humble, thankful, patient, and devout. His father’s property was restored to him by his father’s friend; and he had an honourable place assigned to him at the royal table (2 Samuel 9:13). How often is an orphan taught by the loss of his father to seek his father’s God! The hand of God overrules evil for good. And all earthly trouble, when endured in a right spirit, is a preparation for a heavenly home.—D. 2 Samuel 4:5-8 (.) Assassins. "And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron" (2 Samuel 4:8). 1. What useful purpose can the record of the atrocious deeds of such men serve? To throw light upon the condition of the age in which they occurred. To confirm inspired testimony concerning human depravity (Psalms 14:1-7.). To exhibit the tendency of the evil principles and passions by which these men were actuated, and incite hatred and abhorrence of them. To show that the wickedness of the wicked is subject to restraint and returns upon their own heads in significant punishment. To make us grateful for our preservation from crime and from calamity; thankful for the improved condition of society, and zealous for its farther advancement. 2. The crime of the two brothers, Baanah and Rechab, which has given them an infamous immortality, was not an ordinary murder. What their former course had been, and whether they were influenced by any other motive besides the love of gain, we know not. But in taking away the life of the head of their tribe, the ruler under whom they held their position, and in their subsequent conduct, they acted disloyally, ungratefully, deceitfully, basely. Notice their— I. TREASON. Having lost the feeling of reverence and obligation, they marked the helplessness of Ishbosheth, and resolved to take advantage of it; consulted together as to the time and means of effecting their design; "went, and came about the heat of the day," etc. (2 Samuel 4:5); "and behold, the woman who kept the door of the house winnowed wheat, and she slumbered and slept. And the brothers Rechab and Baanah got through unobserved," etc. (LXX.). 1. In proportion to the duty of men to do good to others is their guilt in doing them evil. 2. Premeditated sin greatly aggravates its guilt. 3. Those whose hearts are set on crime are lured on by circumstances to its commission. II. CRUELTY. "He lay on his bed in his bed chamber," taking his midday siesta, "and they smote him" etc. (2 Samuel 4:7). Men of violence, with more than the ordinary fierceness of their tribe, they "murdered sleep, the innocent sleep," without pity and without compunction, being "past feeling;" escaped with their ghastly trophy; and "gat them away through the plain [of the Jordan] all night" to Hebron (a distance of sixty miles), knowing not that they were swiftly pursued by nemesis with unerring aim, and hurrying to their doom (Acts 28:4). III. . "Behold the head of Ishbosheth thine enemy," etc. (2 Samuel 4:8). In order to gain the favour of David they hesitated not to blacken the character of their former master by attributing to him feelings of personal revenge; called him their lord the king; and represented their crime as an act of judgment performed by them under the sanction of Jehovah. How often do ungodly men profanely and hypocritically use the name of God when it suits their purpose; and even paint their shameful villainies as praiseworthy virtues! "Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue." IV. . Like the Amalekite (2 Samuel 1:2), they sought, not David’s welfare, but their own interest (2 Samuel 4:10). Hence "their feet were swift to shed blood" (Isaiah 59:7; Romans 3:9-18), and "their mouth was fall of deceit" (Psalms 10:3-10). "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person" (Deuteronomy 27:26). For thirty pieces of silver Judas betrayed the Lord. V. SELF-BLINDED . They were probably acquainted with the manner in which Abner had been treated (2 Samuel 3:20) and with the impunity of his murderer; and not unnaturally supposed that whatever promoted the interests of David would be pleasing to him. The nature of the wicked is ever to measure others by themselves. Their ruling motive gives its colouring to their views of everything, and leads them to attribute to the same motive actions which are due to one entirely different. Their delusion is sometimes suddenly dispelled, and they fall into the pit which they have digged (Psalms 7:15; Psalms 37:15). "Hell is truth discovered too late." VI. JUSTLY DOOM. (2 Samuel 4:12.) "David acted with strict justice in this case also, not only to prove to the people that he had neither commanded nor approved the murder, but from heartfelt abhorrence of such crimes and to keep his conscience void of offence toward God and toward man" (Keil). "Indeed, in a war of five years’ continuance, which followed upon Saul’s death, David never lifted up his sword against a subject; and at the end of it he punished no rebel; he remembered no offence but the murder of his rival." "Though Mephibosheth (the next avenger of blood) was lame and could not overtake them, yet God’s justice followed and punished them when they little expected" (Wordsworth).—D. 2 Samuel 4:9-11 (HEBRON.) A good man’s motto. "As Jehovah liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity," etc. 1. An oath, such as David took, is properly an act of worship—a direct and solemn appeal to God as a witness, in confirmation of an assertion or of a promise or expressed obligation. There is implied an imprecation of Divine displeasure if the truth be not spoken or the engagement be not fulfilled. It was customary from ancient times (Genesis 14:22; Genesis 21:23); often enjoined in the Law (Deuteronomy 6:13; Exodus 22:10); and served important purposes (Hebrews 6:16). Nor is it absolutely prohibited under the Christian dispensation (Matthew 26:63; Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Philippians 1:8). "The Saviour forbids absolutely such oaths only as are hostile to the reverence that is due to God" (Tholuck, ’Serm. on the Mount;’ Hodge, ’Syst. Theology,’ 3:307; Paley; Dymond, ’Essays’). 2. Baanah and Rechab virtually claimed the Divine sanction to their deed, which, they said, was an act of judgment on David’s enemies, and a means of preserving his life. But David could not admit their claim, and would have no part in their crime, however it might seem to promote his interest; and (lifting up his right hand toward heaven, Deuteronomy 32:40) he appealed to the living God, on whom, and not on man, least of all on man’s wickedness, the preservation of his life depended, in confirmation of his purpose to inflict upon them the punishment of death, which was more richly deserved by them than by one on whom he formerly inflicted it when he confessed to a similar deed. 3. His appeal, considered with reference to the principles and feelings it involved, may be regarded as a statement of the motto of his life and expressive of— I. BELIEF IN THE LIVING GOD. "Living (is) Jehovah," equivalent to "as surely as Jehovah liveth" (Judges 8:19; Rth 3:13; 1 Samuel 20:3; 1 Samuel 25:34; 1 Samuel 29:6; Jeremiah 38:16, "who has made for us this soul"). "Along with the name of God, the person swearing would at the same time designate his other attributes, his power and greatness, or whatever else of the essence of this God appeared to him at the moment of swearing of special significance" (Ewald, ’Antiquities’). "Jehovah liveth" (2 Samuel 22:47; 1 Samuel 17:26). A godly man believes in: 1. His actual existence and self-originated, personal, independent life. With him "is the fountain of life" (Psalms 36:9). He "hath life in himself" (John 5:26). He "only hath immortality" (1 Timothy 6:16). The life of all creatures he gives, sustains, or takes away as it pleases him. 2. His immediate presence and accurate observation of everything as it really is, every thought, word, and action; and his approbation or disapprobation of it, according to its moral character. He is "a true and faithful Witness" (Jeremiah 42:3; Isaiah 65:16). 3. His active intervention in human affairs, with wisdom and might, justice and mercy. "He is the living God, and an everlasting King" (Jeremiah 10:10), and gives to every man his due reward (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is not merely a general persuasion of these sublime truths, but also an intense realization of them, and a personal surrender to their influence. It is "an intelligent conviction of the truth, a hearty affection for the truth, and a practical submission to the truth." II. FOR PAST . "Who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity"—an expression often on the lips of David (1 Kings 1:29; Psalms 25:22; Psalms 34:22; Psalms 103:4; Psalms 116:8), and never uttered without thankfulness to God. 1. The path of even a good man is beset by many dangers. What a scene of peril was David’s life from his youth upwards (2 Samuel 19:7)! 2. He traces his deliverance from them to the hand of God, and sees therein an evidence of his loving, constant, and distinguishing care for his "soul." 3. He is wont to cherish the recollection of such deliverance; and is incited thereby to "speak the praise of the Lord." Nothing is more becoming or beneficial than a thankful spirit; but it is by no means a common possession. "Some murmur when their sky is clear And wholly bright to view, If one small speck of dark appear In their great heaven of blue; And some with thankful love are filled, If but one streak of light, One ray of God’s good mercy, gild The darkness of their night." (Trench.) III. OF PRESENT . A good man feels that he is accountable to God; not impelled by forces over which he has no control, nor liberated from moral law; but, whilst free to act, bound by the highest motives to obey. His faith in the living God quickens his conscience, and shows him plainly the way of duty; his gratitude for past deliverance incites him to walk therein. 1. By abhorring that which is evil, and avoiding it. 2. By sincerity of heart, speaking the truth, and doing what is just and right. 3. By using the authority and power entrusted to him, not according to his own will and for selfish ends, but according to the will of God, and for his honour and the welfare of men. His motto is Ich dien ("I serve"). He ever lives under a sense of obligation, and finds in faithful service his strength and joy (John 4:34). "I must work" (John 9:4). "Remember now and always that life is no idle dream, but a solemn reality; based upon eternity, and encompassed by eternity. Find out your task: stand to it: the night cometh when no man can work" (Carlyle). IV. IN FUTURE . The path of peril is not yet past. But a good man looks to God rather than to men to protect him against the wrath of men and deliver him from all evil. And his confidence is strong, because of: 1. His conviction of the Divine faithfulness. "Jehovah liveth," to fulfil both his promises and his threatenings. 2. His experience of the Divine favour (see 1 Samuel 17:32-37). 3. His obedience to the Divine will, and express assurances of safety and of a "crown of life" to every faithful servant. "The righteous hath hope in his death." "Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord God of truth" (Psalms 31:5). "The foundation of David’s character is a firm unshaken trust in Jehovah, a bright and most spiritual view of creation and the government of the world, a sensitive awe of the Holy One of Israel, a striving ever to be true to him, and a strong desire to return after errors and transgressions" (Ewald).—D. 2 Samuel 4:12 (HEBRON.) The reward of the wicked. This book contains an account of many sudden and violent deaths (in addition to those that took place in battle) by assassination, suicide (2 Samuel 17:23), the direct judgment of God (2 Samuel 6:7), the judicial sentence of man. Capital punishment for murder was of old deemed right and necessary and divinely sanctioned (see 2 Samuel 1:13-16). In this execution, we see that: 1. The agents by whom the purposes of God are effected (2 Samuel 4:8) without his commission and from selfish motives are not entitled to the reward of faithful service, although they sometimes expect to obtain it, being turned aside by "a deceived heart." 2. The reward which wicked men obtain for their wickedness is the opposite of that which they expect (2 Samuel 4:10). Even if they gain their immediate object, they fail to find therein the happiness they anticipated, and sooner or later suffer loss and woe. 3. The guilt of the crime which such men commit against a fellow man is aggravated by his innocence and the circumstances under which the crime is committed. "A righteous person in his own house upon his bed." 4. The authority to which they vainly appeal in justification of their conduct surely requires their condemnation. "He will by no means clear the guilty" (Exodus 34:7). What they did as private persons to Ishbosheth without Divine commission, David, as king and "minister of God," was commissioned to do to them, and "take them away from the land" which the Lord had given, but which they had polluted and were unworthy to enjoy. "Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life with bloody men" (Psalms 26:9). 5. The example afforded by a severe and signal punishment is sometimes necessary to maintain public justice; to manifest the evil of sin and the certainty of retribution; to deter others from wrong doing. The hands that did the deed and the feet that "ran eagerly for reward" were cut off, and their bodies exposed to open shame. "He that’s merciful Unto the bad is cruel to the good." 6. The termination of strife in a land is usually attended with melancholy circumstances. "And they took the head of Ishbosheth," etc. 7. The saddest events are often succeeded by a season of gladness (1 Chronicles 12:40) and prosperity, and even directly conducive to it. With the death of Ishbosheth "the whole resistance to David’s power collapses;" and "thus at last, not by his own act, but through circumstances over which he had no control—allowed by him who gives liberty to each man, though he overrules the darkest deeds of the wicked for the evolving of good—David was left undisputed claimant to the throne of Israel. Faith, patience, and integrity were vindicated; the Divine promise to David had come true in the course of natural events; and all this was better far than even if Saul had voluntarily resigned his place or Abner succeeded in his plans" (Edersheim). "Thus God will make all the sins of evil men to be one day ministerial to the extension and final settlement of the universal dominion of Christ" (Wordsworth).—D. BY G. WOOD 2 Samuel 4:4 A lifelong affliction. Wars inflict innumerable evils which find no place in the history of them. This verse affords an illustration. When news reached the household of Saul that he and his sons had been slain in battle, a grandson, a boy of five years, was hurriedly borne away by his nurse, and, failing, was lamed in both feet. His lameness continued throughout life, and involved him in serious disadvantages and troubles. There are many who, like Mephibosheth, are weak and suffering from childhood to death. Either inheriting weakness of constitution, or deriving it from some early attack of disease, or injured through accident or the carelessness of those in charge of them when children, they are permanently disabled more or less. With reference to such troubles, notice— I. THE EVILS THEY INVOLVE. 1. Sometimes constant bodily suffering. 2. Always many privations. Incapacity for active employments and their emoluments. Yet it is wonderful how far this may be conquered. The writer knew a lady who was one of many pupils who learnt drawing from a teacher born without arms or legs, but who, by indomitable perseverance, became proficient in the art. Such affliction also involves inability to share in many enjoyments. 3. Much dependence on others. And hence liability to be neglected, ill treated, imposed upon, robbed, etc. Ziba’s conduct to Mephibosheth is an instance (2 Samuel 16:3, 2 Samuel 16:4; 2 Samuel 19:24-27). 4. Various temptations. To despondency, spiritlessness, indolence; to discontent, murmuring, fretfulness; to resentment against those who may have occasioned the affliction; to envy of such as are free from similar trial. II. THE DUTIES THEY IMPOSE. 1. Trustful resignation and patience. However they may have arisen, they are the appointment of the infinitely wise and good Father, who thereby calls for and exercises faith and submission. If active service of God be impossible, the service of patient endurance is not, and may be equally acceptable and useful. 2. Thankfulness. For the blessings which remain, and those of which the affliction is a channel; and for the affliction itself, as a sign of God’s fatherly love and care. 3. Watchfulness against the peculiar temptations of such a condition. 4. Endeavours after the good which is attainable notwithstanding, or by means of, the affliction. III. THE AND BY WHICH THEY ARE OFTEN . 1. Larger enjoyment of spiritual blessings. If the earthly is a good deal closed by such a trouble, the heavenly is all the more open and accessible. The needs of the soul may be the more constantly felt, and their supply the more habitually sought. Reading, reflection, and prayer may be more practised. The grace of God may be more abundantly enjoyed. Constant affliction brings the Christian into fuller communion with the sufferings of Christ, and larger participation of his Spirit and realization of his love and salvation. The consolation received may outweigh the suffering. 2. Hence a higher Christian life and more beautiful Christian character are often attained by those who are so afflicted. They become more fully "partakers of God’s holiness." 3. Human sympathy and kindness are usually enjoyed in greater measure and continuance. A source both of pleasure and profit. 4. Even the power for good over others is often increased. The increased Christian intelligence and force and beauty of character, the patience, cheerfulness, and thankfulness displayed, move the hearts of others towards him who is their source. The habitual sufferer might often adopt St. Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:10-12; 2 Corinthians 12:9, 2 Corinthians 12:10. His weakness may be made the occasion of the more powerful manifestation of the living energy of Christ through him for the spiritual profit of relatives and friends. IV. HOW THEY SHOULD BE AND TREATED BY OTHERS. 1. With pity and sympathy. 2. With practical assistance. The weak and suffering are especially commended by our Lord to the care and kindness of the strong. His example enforces his words. To minister consolation, and, where necessary and practicable, material assistance, blesses him that gives as well as him that receives. The lifelong affliction of one may thus become a lifelong discipline and blessing to his benefactors. But to treat the feeble with hardness or contempt, or to take advantage of their weakness for our own selfish purposes, is peculiarly base, and will not be forgotten by him who will condemn, in the day of judgment, even the neglect of the poor and suffering (Matthew 25:41-46). Finally: 1. If we enjoy freedom from lifelong afflictions, or at least serious ones (for few, perhaps, are quite free from them), thankfulness should impel us to care the more for those who are burdened with them; and if we suffer from them, our sympathies should be the keener with fellow sufferers, and such help as we can render be all the more cheerfully given. 2. Let those who suffer much and long in this life make sure that their life hereafter shall be free from suffering, and that their afflictions shall work out for them an eternal greater glory (2 Corinthians 4:17). These unspeakable blessings are the portion of those who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, receive his teaching, and follow his directions.—G.W. 2 Samuel 4:9 Redemption from all adversity. "As the Lord liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity." An expansion of the form of oath common with the Hebrews, "As the Lord liveth." By adding the words, "who hath redeemed," etc; David reminded himself of the goodness of God to him, and kept alive and expressed his gratitude. The same form of oath as used by him occurs in 1 Kings 1:29 (where the words of the original are precisely the same). Occurring thus at the beginning and the end of his reign, we may reasonably conclude that it was employed in the intervening years, reminding him, in the height of his prosperity and power, of the days of adversity which had preceded them, and of him who had rescued and exalted him. This representation of God would probably be more helpful to the piety of David than grander but more general conceptions of him. So shall we find it well to include in our thought of God what he has been to us and done for us individually (comp. Genesis 48:15, Genesis 48:16). As to the words: "redeemed" is not to be taken here in the signification suggested by its etymology, "bought back," "ransomed," but simply "delivered:" The use of the words, "my soul," must not lead us to suppose that David is thinking of the "redemption of the soul" in the spiritual sense. He refers to his deliverance from the perils, hardships, and anxieties of his previous life, through the enmity of Saul and his attempts to destroy him. The phrase is substantially equivalent to "me," though it may suggest that the seat of all the "distress" that attends adversity is the soul. The words are suitable to be used— I. IN VIEW OF ACTUAL FROM VARIED OR . As David used them. They recognize and call to mind: 1. The extent of the deliverance. "From all adversity." The reference is to the past. David did not mean that he had done with adversity. Nor can we in this world use the words in that sense; but as from time to time troubles arise out of which we are delivered, be they adversities in the ordinary sense, or troubles of the soul strictly (temptations, conflicts, falls, pangs of remorse, fears, insensibility, gloom), let us mark and record our deliverance. 2. The Deliverer. "The Lord," Jehovah, the God who "liveth." Not self, not men, but God. David had employed his own great powers of thought and action, and had been well served by human helpers, but he does not ascribe his deliverance to the one or the other, but to God. He well knew that all power for self-help, and all human helpers, are the gift of God; that they are effectual through his working with them; and that apart from them God operates in ways transcendental and inexplicable. The greatness and variety of his troubles, the imminence of his perils, the wondrous special incidents which had contributed to his deliverance, all rendered conspicuous the hand of God. To him, therefore, he gave the glory. Most of our lives will, if carefully reviewed, furnish similar proofs of the operation of the living God, not merely of matter and dead laws, and of friends. And we should gratefully recognize and confess his goodness. Hence will spring humility, continuance and increase of thankfulness, and also confidence and hope in respect to future adversities (see 2 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Timothy 4:17, 2 Timothy 4:18). II. IN VIEW OF THE FROM ALL EVIL FOR US BY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. The word "redeem" will in this case have the full signification of "ransom by payment of a price." We have "redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." In redeeming us from our sins, he redeemed us from all kinds and degrees of evil. All who accept him as their Redeemer and Lord are thus assured of complete deliverance from all that now distresses them, and from all in the future world that would have distressed them but for his redeeming work; and, in the certainty that the purposes of his death will be accomplished, may speak of their deliverance as already effected. Nor can they fail to remember with unutterable thankfulness and perpetual thanksgiving the redemption thus wrought for them. III. BY THOSE WHO HAVE FINAL AND FROM ALL THE EVILS OF THIS PRESENT WORLD. What a blessed thing it will be to look back on all the evils of this present state, including death itself, as actually past! and to look forward to an eternity of complete freedom from evil, of full enjoyment of good! No sin, no want, no sickness, no pain, no sorrow, no peril; but perfect peace, perfect service of God, perfect communion with him, "fulness of joy" and "pleasures forevermore" (Psalms 16:11; Revelation 7:14-17; Revelation 21:4). And evermore will the "redeemed from the earth" be mindful of their Deliverer, and unite in praise of God and the Lamb. In view of this glorious and complete redemption: 1. Let Christians be patient and thankful while enduring the adversities which belong to their condition on earth. 2. Take heed lest, redemption being effected, you fail to attain to its actual experience. To reject Christ is to reject deliverance from death and misery.—G.W. 2 Samuel 5:1 Then came all the tribes of Israel. As Ishbosheth reigned only two years, and David’s reign at Hebron lasted for seven years and a half, there is an interval of more than five years to be accounted for; and we have given reason for believing (see note on 2 Samuel 2:10) that it must be placed after the death of Ishbosheth. The treacherous murder of Abner, and the tragic fate of Ishbosheth following upon it so rapidly, must have filled all Israel with horror, and made them look upon David as "a bloody man" (2 Samuel 16:8). But gradually his innocence became clear to all except inveterate partisans, and as the prejudice against him passed away, the evident advantage of union under so able a ruler would force itself upon their attention, and their decision would be hastened by the advantage which the Philistines would be sure to take of their anarchy. How much they had profited by it we gather from the haste with which they endeavoured to crush David’s kingdom. The enormous gathering at Hebron to anoint David king proves not merely the unanimity of the tribes, but that his election was the result of long preparation and arrangement. We have fuller details of it in 1 Chronicles 12:23-40, where we learn that the people assembled in large numbers, the total being computed in the ’Speaker’s Commentary’ at 348,222; and it is remarkable that of this vast array only sixteen thousand nine hundred came from the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, which were situated in the neighbourhood of Hebron. On the other hand, the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes sent no less than a hundred.and twenty thousand men, and the three unimportant tribes of Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali mustered a hundred and eighteen thousand; while Issachar was content to send only two hundred, who were all, however, "men that had understanding … and their brethren were at their commandment." These words suggest the probable explanation of the disparity in the numbers, which to many seems so strange that they think they must be corrupt. Each tribe settled for itself in what way it would be represented, and the more distant sent a large proportion of their men of military age on what would be an enjoyable holiday. As they spent three days at Hebron, the expedition would occupy, even for those most remote, little more than a week; and it was well worth the while of the tribes thus to come together. It made them feel the value of unity, and gave them a knowledge of their strength. Their tribal independence during the time of the judges had made them too weak even to maintain their liberty; but now, welded by the kingly power into a nation, they soon, not only won freedom for themselves, but placed their yoke upon the shoulders of their neighbours. As for the difficulty of supplying them with food, all would bring victuals from home; and the neighbouring tribes showed great hospitality. Especially we read that those who were nigh unto Hebron, "even as far as Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of meal, cakes of figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep in abundance: for there was joy in Israel" (1 Chronicles 12:40). It was a grand national festival, joyously kept because the people saw in the election of David an end to all their troubles; and so vast a gathering overbore all opposition, and gave both to them and their king the consciousness of their might. But while we find in the Book of Chronicles the account of this mighty multitude, it is here (1 Chronicles 12:3) expressly said that it was the elders who made a league with David, and anointed him king. The people by their presence testified their joyful assent to what was done; but David’s election was made legitimate by the decision of the constituted authorities in each tribe. It would be most interesting to know the various steps taken, and how the agitation grew and spread from tribe to tribe, until all hesitation and resistance were overcome. But the object of this book is to show us the great qualities, the sin, the repentance, and the punishment of the man who added to the old routine of sacrifice bright services of song, and who was the author of that book of devotion which to this day best expresses the feelings of the heart, as well in the joys as in the sorrows of life. The manner of his election throws no light upon his character, and is passed over. Enough to know that in those five years after Ishbosheth’s murder David won the approval of all Israel, and that his appointment to the kingdom was by the free choice of the tribes, acting in a legitimate manner, and sending each their elders to Hebron to notify to David their consent; and that their decision was ratified by this joyful gathering of a mighty multitude from all parts of the land. Three reasons are given by the elders for David’s election, and we may be sure that they represent the arguments used in their popular assemblies. The first, that they were David’s bone and flesh. In other words, the tribes were all of one race, and united by the closest ties of relationship. For the descendants of a common ancestor to be at war with one another was both morally and politically wrong. The second, that David had been their actual leader in war even in Saul’s time. His personal qualities, therefore, justified their choice of him to be their deliverer from the evils which had overwhelmed the land after the disastrous defeat at Gilboa, when Saul had no longer the aid of David’s presence. The third, that Jehovah had by the mouth of his prophet given the throne to David. It is remarkable that the elders place this last. Their view probably was that the Divine command must be proved by outward circumstances, that so reason might confirm faith. So Saul’s public appointment by Samuel was ratified by the people only after he had shown himself worthy to be a king by the defeat of the Ammonites. 2 Samuel 5:2 Thou shalt feed. In biblical language the pastoral office is that of the civil and not of the spiritual ruler. Captain; Hebrew, nagid, prince; so the Revised Version (and see note on 1 Samuel 9:16). The word refers not to military matters, but to the civil administration. David had proved himself a competent leader in war when Saul was king. What Jehovah now gives is the government of Israel in time of peace. The Authorized Version renders "captain" from not perceiving that the Divine promise ensured to David far more than a military chieftainship. 2 Samuel 5:3 A league. The early kings of Israel were not invested with despotic power. Thus, on Saul’s appointment, "Samuel wrote in a book the manner of the kingdom". The revolt against Rehoboam was the result of the too great extension of the royal power in the days of Solomon (1 Kings 12:4). Though subsequently the kings seemed to have retained their supremacy, yet when the good and patriotic Jehoiada restored the family of David to the throne, he reverted to the old ways, and "made a covenant between the king and the people" (2 Kings 11:17). Besides personal rights, the tribes, accustomed to their own leaders, and unused to yield obedience to a central authority, would certainly stipulate for a large measure of tribal independence, and the management of local matters by themselves. They anointed David king. This was the public ratification of Samuel’s anointing, and by it David became de facto, as well as de jure, king. The prophets could not give any right over the people without the consent of the people themselves. But all religious men would see in the Divine command an obligation upon their conscience to accept as their king the man whom the prophet had anointed; and Saul acted in an irreligious manner in seeking to frustrate God’s will. And this impiety culminated in his murder of the priests at Nob, which was the open avowal that he would trample all scruples of conscience underfoot. 2 Samuel 5:4 David was thirty years old. As David was probably about eighteen or nineteen years of age at the time of his combat with Goliath, the events recorded in 1 Samuel 17-31, must have occupied about ten or eleven years. 2 Samuel 5:6 The king and his men went to Jerusalem. This expedition took place immediately after David’s coronation, and probably he was moved to it by the presence of so large a number of the warriors of Israel. He had long foreseen the arrival of the time when he would be king of all the tribes, and must have debated in his mind the problem of his future capital. He could not remain in Hebron, as it was too far to the south, nor would haughty tribes such as Ephraim have consented to be merged into Judah. On the other hand, he could not move far away, as Judah was his main strength. But living in its neighbourhood, he must often have noticed the remarkable position of the city of Jebus, and admired its rock girt strength (Psalms 48:2). Though the Jebusites had been conquered by Joshua (Joshua 11:3), and Jerusalem captured (Judges 1:8), yet, as the children of Judah did not occupy it, but "set the city on fire," it seems to have been soon repeopled by its old inhabitants, who there maintained their independence, and, owing to the impregnable nature of its site, could not be treated as Saul treated the Gibeonite inhabitants of Beeroth. Even subsequently, the Jebusite chief who possessed what probably was Mount Moriah, still bore the titular rank of king; for the words in Joshua 24:23 literally are, "All this did Araunah the king give unto the king." The explanation of this long independence of the Jebusites is to be found not only in the feebleness of the tribes during the troubled times of the judges, but even mere in the conformation of the site of their stronghold. Jerusalem is situated on the edge of the precipitous wall which forms the western boundary of the valley of the Jordan, and occupies a promontory, on three sides of which are ravines so abrupt and steep that, were it not for their vast depth, they might seem to have been the work of man. On the north side alone it is open to attack, but even there, when the besieger has obtained an entrance, he finds the city divided by another ravine into two parts; whereof the western portion contains the strong citadel of Mount Zion, while the eastern and smaller portion contains the less elevated mountain of Moriah. Though actually raised above the sea level several hundred feet less than Hebron, it seems to the eye more emphatically a mountain-city; and being well nigh encircled by the valleys of Ben-Hinnom and Jehoshaphat, it seems to sit enthroned above the Jordan valley, compared with which it enjoys a cool and refreshing climate. To its inhabitants it was "beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth" (Psalms 48:2, Revised Version); to the exiles it was "the city of God," to which their hearts ever turned; to us Christians it is the type of Christ’s Church on earth, and of his kingdom in heaven. It was an act worthy of David’s genius to foresee the great future of the place, and to inaugurate his kingdom by its capture. We gather from Ezekiel 16:45 that at the time when the Hittites were the dominant race in Syria, Jerusalem was one of their fortresses. The name is a dual, literally Yerushalaim, and probably the town was so called because it consisted of two parts—the upper and the lower city. Shalaim means the "two Salems," thus carrying our minds back to the city of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18). In Psalms 76:2 Salem is apparently contrasted with Zion, and so would be the lower town, containing Mount Moriah. Of the other part of the word, Yeru, numerous derivations are given, of which the only probable one is that which connects it with "Yehovah-yireh"—"God will see to it," the name given to the spot where Abraham on this mountain offered a vicarious sacrifice for his son. We must, however, bear in mind that towns retain the names which they bore in primitive times, and that the name of a Hittite fortress belongs probably to the language of that people. Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither. These words have been a sore puzzle to commentators, and many strange explanations have been given. Rashi says that the blind meant Isaac, and the lame Jacob, and that the words referred to an old compact by which Abraham gave Jerusalem to the Jebusites, and that Isaac and Jacob had confirmed this agreement. Unless, then, David was prepared to violate this covenant, he must abstain from the attack. We get no help from 1 Chronicles 11:5, as the words are there omitted, probably because they were not supposed to have any important meaning. The Orientals delighted in dark sayings, and possibly there was here some local reference which the people of Jerusalem would understand, but which is lost for us. But evidently it was a boastful defiance, and may mean that the Jebusites pretended that it would be enough to post only their feeblest men, the blind and the lame, for defense, and that David would try in vain to break through them. Thinking; Hebrew, to say; answering to our phrase "that is" It should be translated, "meaning." 2 Samuel 5:7 The stronghold of Zion: the same is the city of David. Zion was the hill on the southwestern side of the city; but we learn from 2 Samuel 5:9 that the Jebusites had not occupied the whole of it, but a part only, which was their stronghold, round which there would be scattered dwellings, as the whole tribe dwelt there. The total area of the hill top was about sixty acres, and it was now quickly covered with houses, and called "the city of David," after its captor. The view of Dr. Birch and others, that the stronghold of Zion was Ophel, is rendered untenable by the fact that this southern tongue of Mount Moriah is completely commanded by other parts of the hill. According to Gesenius, Zion means "sunny;" others render it "the dry hill;" others, "lofty;" and Furst, "the castle." None of these derivations is of any real value, as the word is probably Hittite. 2 Samuel 5:8 Whosoever getteth up to the gutter. The word rendered "gutter" occurs elsewhere only in Psalms 42:7, where it is translated "waterspout." Josephus thinks that it was an underground passage or drain. Ewald argues that it was a precipice, and others that it was a dent or hollow in the rocky face of the ravine, which David had noticed and thought practicable. The view of Josephus, suggested to him probably by his knowledge of the way in which the site of Jerusalem is honeycombed by tunnels, has been wonderfully confirmed by the discoveries made by Sir C. Warren. At the northern end of the Pool of Siloam he found an arched passage gradually narrowing down from a considerable height, till finally there was a passage of only fourteen inches, and as there was a depth of ten inches of water, there were left but four inches of space for breathing. But through this his men struggled, and, at the end of four hours’ labour, they reached the light of day at the spring called the Virgin’s Fount. Beginning here on a subsequent day, they went along a passage sixty-seven feet in length, and came to a perpendicular shaft leading up through the solid stone of the hill; and, having scaled this, they next came upon a sloping passage, which finally conducted them to a spot on the hill of Ophel within the fortifications. Now, there are reasons for believing that this passage is older than the wall built by Solomon, and through it, or some such tunnel, Joab and a few men may have worked their way, and so have effected an entrance into the city, which otherwise was impregnable. It was probably the entrance near the Virgin’s Fountain which they had observed, and David’s words mean, "Whoever will undertake this dangerous enterprise, let him try this underground passage, and when he has entered the fortifications by its means, let him smite the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul," because of the beast of the Jebusites, that their cripples were a match for his heroes. It must be noticed, however, that the K’tib, or written text, has "who hate David’s soul;" and as this is what the Jewish Massorites found in the manuscripts, it has more authority than their correction. These Jebusites had probably, in their boastful insult, spoken of David with contempt, and even said, like Goliath, that they would give his flesh to the vultures (1 Samuel 17:44). We learn from 1 Chronicles 11:6 that David promised the office of commander of the host to the man who undertook this exploit; and when Joab had volunteered and succeeded, he regained thereby the post which he had forfeited by the murder of Abner. The blind and the lame shall not some into the house. The proverb is one of contempt for these poor cripples, and forbids the exercise of hospitality to them. Such people, if they took to mendicancy, were to meet with refusal, though at their own homes they were fit objects of charity. This way of describing tramps as "the blind and lame" arose, we are here told, from this Jebusite taunt. 2 Samuel 5:9 David dwelt in the fort. It was the stronghold or citadel of Zion which David took for his abode; but as he needed space for the dwellings of his mighty men, and for those who would soon flock for trade and security to the capital, David proceeded to fortify the whole of the summit. His works began from "the Millo," rendered "the citadel" by the LXX. Many, deriving the name from a Hebrew root signifying to fill, think that it was a mound, but Nature had herself supplied fit heights for defence, and it is evident that the place was called "the Millo" when David captured the city. We find "Beth-Millo" also in Judges 9:6, Judges 9:20, where it signifies those who held the citadel of Shechem; and this Mills at Jerusalem was without doubt the old Jebusite keep, and the explanation of its name must be sought in the Jebusite language. As it formed one of the strongest defences of the city, it was rebuilt by Solomon (1 Kings 9:24; 1 Kings 11:27), and repaired by Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 32:5) in preparation for the Assyrian attack. Probably it stood at a corner, whence the phrase, "round about from the Millo and inward," or, as it is expressed in 1 Chronicles 11:8, "from the Millo inward," that is, starting from. the Millo, the walls enclosed the space behind it. In the parallel place (1 Chronicles 11:8) we find an interesting addition to the narrative, namely, that "Joab repaired the rest of the city." It appears from this that the Jebusites had occupied a good deal of the ground with their habitations, though probably the number of the tribe was not great; or possibly there remained old buildings which were the remains of the Hittite city, and which, being of massive construction, were easily made fit once again for human habitation. We see also proof of Joab’s great ability in peace as well as in war. He it was who had captured the stronghold, and it was now his office to arrange the streets and plan of the city, and to assign dwellings to David’s mighty men. This would be a work sure to cause jealousy and heart burnings, and no one but Joab, their old commander, could have satisfied them. We find that he assigned to one of them, Uriah the Hittite, a space of ground for a dwelling close to the royal palace. We may suppose, then, that David was now fully reconciled to the "hard sons of Zeruiah" (2 Samuel 3:39), and in the stern wars which followed David’s election, he needed and had the full benefit of their vigour and ability. 2 Samuel 5:10 David went on, and grew great. This is the Hebrew phrase for "David grew greater and greater." In this and the six following verses (10-16) we have a summary of David’s reign, telling us how he increased in prosperity because of the blessing of "Jehovah God of hosts." The birth of Solomon even is recorded in it, though it took place long afterwards. The insertion in this summary of Hiram’s acknowledgment of David proves that this event made a great impression upon the minds of the people. 2 Samuel 5:11 Hiram King of Tyre. At first sight it seems as if the Hiram who so greatly aided Solomon in the building of the temple was the same person as David’s friend (1 Kings 5:10; 2 Chronicles 2:3), but this identification is disproved by the express statement in 2 Chronicles 2:13, and by the chronology. For granting that this account of Hiram’s embassy occurs in a general summary, yet David would not long defer the erection of a palace, and in the history of Bathsheba we find, as a matter of fact, that it was then already built (2 Samuel 11:2). But as Solomon was grown to manhood at his father’s death, David’s sin must have been committed not more than nine or ten years after he became king of all Israel. Now, we are told by Josephus (’Contr. Apion,’ 1.18), on the authority of Menander of Ephesus, that Hiram reigned in all thirty years. But in 1 Kings 9:10-13 we have an account of a transaction with Hiram in Solomon’s twentieth year. In another place (’Ant.,’ 8.3. 1) Josephus tells us that Hiram had been King of Tyre eleven years when Solomon, in the fourth year of his reign, began the building of the temple. He would thus have been a contemporary of David for only the last seven or eight years of his reign. But the history of this embassy is given as a proof of David’s establishment in his kingdom, and cannot therefore be referred to so late a period in his lifetime, when it would have lost its interest. The improbability of two successive kings having the same name is not, after all, so very great, especially as we do not know what the word Hiram, or Haram, exactly means. Nor is Menander’s statement conclusive against it, where he says that Hiram’s father was named Abibal—"Baal is my father." This would probably be an official name, borne by Hiram as the defender of the national religion, or as a priest king. There is, therefore, no real reason for rejecting the statement in 2 Chronicles 2:13 that Hiram, or as he is there called Huram, David’s friend, was the father of the Huram who was Solomon’s ally. Cedar trees. Cedar wood was greatly valued both for its fragrance and durability, owing to the resin which it contains preserving it from the attacks of insects. Its colour also is soft and pleasing to the eye, as may be seen in the Jerusalem Chamber in Westminster Abbey, the panels of which are of cedar. It did not grow in the Antilibanus, or eastern part of Lebanon, which belonged to Israel, but only in the western part, which belonged to Tyre. Cedar from the time of David became the favourite material at Jerusalem for the interior of houses (Jeremiah 22:14), and Isaiah charges the people of Samaria with pride for not being content with the native sycomores which had satisfied their fathers, but substituting for it this costly foreign timber (Isaiah 9:10). Carpenters and masons. The necessity of importing "workers of wood, and workers of stone for walls," as the words literally mean, proves how miserable was the social state of Israel in David’s time. Though they had been slaves in Egypt, yet at the Exodus the Israelites had men capable of working in the precious metals and jewelry, in weaving and embroidery, in wood carving, and even in the cutting of gems (Exodus 35:30-35). During the long anarchy of the judges they had degenerated into a race of agricultural drudges, whom the Philistines had debarred from the use of even the simplest tools (1 Samuel 13:19). Possibly in Saul’s time there was a faint restoration of the arts of civilized life (2 Samuel 1:24); but when we find Joab killing Absalom, not with darts, but with pointed stakes (2 Samuel 18:14), the weapons probably of most of the foot soldiers, we see that not much had been done even then in metallurgy; and here earlier in his reign David has to send to Tyre for men who could saw a plank or build a wall. When, then, we call to mind the high state of culture and the magnificence of Solomon’s reign, we can form some idea of the vigour with which David raised his subjects from a state of semi-barbarism. 2 Samuel 5:12 And David perceived. We may well believe that David had many seasons of despondency and misgiving after he became king. His subjects were brave and energetic, but turbulent, unwilling to obey, and but half-civilized. His election had put an end to civil war at home, but only to arouse the hatred of the enemies who had long oppressed them. The tragical fate, too, of Saul, who, after so many heroic struggles, had seen the earlier glories of his reign fade away, and had sought deliverance from his misery by suicide; all this must have often depressed his spirits. But gradually his fears passed away; and when he had twice defeated the Philistines, and been able to establish his rule, and with it some degree of orderly government throughout the twelve tribes, David saw in all this, and in the embassies from foreign nations, the proof, not of his own ability, but of Jehovah’s purpose to exalt his kingdom for his people Israel’s sake. In this David was still a man after God’s own heart, in that he felt himself to be only an instrument for the doing, not his own will, but the purpose of his Divine Master. 2 Samuel 5:13 David took him more concubines. Thus with increase of power came also the increased gratification of David’s weakness and sin. Well for him would it have been if, like Saul, he had been content with one wife. But this enlargement of his harem was gradual, and the list includes all the sons born at Jerusalem. Of these four, namely, Shammuah, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. were his children by Bathsheba (see 1 Chronicles 3:5, where the names are differently spelt). Besides a variation in the spelling, two sons are mentioned in Chronicles, Nogah and an earlier Eliphelet, whose names are not given here, perhaps because they died young. From 1 Chronicles 3:9 we learn that only the names of the sons of wives are given in these tables. 2 Samuel 5:17 But when the Philistines heard. After the battle of Gilboa the Philistines became the virtual rulers of much of the country west of the Jordan, and probably even David and Judah paid them tribute. On its eastern bank, though Abner kept them from molesting Ishbosheth’s kingdom, yet the rule of Saul’s house in Ephraim and Benjamin must have been nominal only, and the Philistines would have seen him with pleasure wasting his strength in civil war. After Ishbosheth’s death they had tightened their grasp over the central districts of Palestine, though probably content with exacting tribute. They must now have seen with displeasure the consolidation of the tribes under one able ruler. Even in their divided state, the natural strength of the country and the bravery of the people had made it a task too great for the Philistine power entirely to crush Israel’s independence. But if they could destroy David before he had had time to establish himself in his kingdom, they would at least prolong indefinitely that feebleness of Israel which had made it so long subject to their dominion. Of this supremacy the Philistines have handed down a token forever in giving to the whole country the name of Palestine, the Philistines’ land. David … went down to the hold. Many commentators identify the hold with the cave of Adullam, and certainly the account of the brave deed of three of David’s heroes, in breaking through the Philistine garrison of Bethlehem to bring him water thence, gives great probability to this view. For we read there that "the Philistines were encamped in the valley of Rephaim, and that David was then in the hold" (2 Samuel 23:13,2 Samuel 23:14, where note that the word "hold" has the definite article). There are, however, many difficulties connected with this view; for the cave of Adullam was in the valley of Elah, on the road from Hebron to Philistia (1 Samuel 22:1), but the valley of Rephaim is close to Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8), abutting, in fact, upon the valley of Ben-Hinnom. Baal-Perazim also is in the same neighbourhood, being the rocky height which forms the border of Ben-Hinnom, and bounds the valley of Rephaim on the north. Still, the passage in 2 Samuel 23:13, 2 Samuel 23:14 seems too precise to be lightly set aside, and we must suppose, therefore, that the Philistines, alarmed by the gathering of half a million of men and women at Hebron, sent messengers throughout their country to assemble their warriors. It was the weakness of ancient warfare that its vast hosts of people melted away as rapidly as they had gathered. For provisions were soon spent, and the men had to return to their farms and their cattle. Thus David, having used some of that large concourse of strong men for the capture of Jerusalem, was left immediately afterwards with no other protection than that of his "mighty men." Saul had endeavoured to have always round him three thousand trained men (1 Samuel 13:2), and David subsequently had probably quite as many (2 Samuel 15:18); but at this early stage he had probably not many more than he had brought with him from Ziklag to Hebron. He could not, therefore, make head against the Philistines coming with all the militia of their land; but, leaving his wives and the wives of his mighty men in the Jebusite stronghold of Jerusalem, we may well believe that he sped away to gather the warriors of Israel. But what seems strange is that he should have gone to the rear of the Philistines, especially as they had come in such vast numbers as to occupy the whole country—a garrison, for instance, being posted at Bethlehem, and doubtless at other fit spots. Still, this country was well known to David, and he could gather there old friends, whose bravery he had often tried before. And while thus waiting for the mustering of such as God would move to help him, in deep distress at so terrible a reversal following so quickly upon his exaltation, a strange longing for water from the well of his native town seized him. He was suffering apparently from fever of body as well as from distress of mind, and soon there was relief from both. For three of his heroes heard the words burst from his parched lips, and, hastening to Bethlehem, broke through the Philistine garrison, and filled a waterskin from the well at the gate of the city. Such an act naturally made a great impression upon David. What room was there for despair when he had such men around him? Pouring out, then, the water as a drink offering to Jehovah, his heart was now filled with hope, and inquiring of the Lord whether he might attack the Philistines, he received the assurance which he had already gathered from the exploit of his heroes, that God would deliver them into his hand. 2 Samuel 5:18 The valley of Rephaim. This fruitful valley (Isaiah 17:5) is about three miles in length, and two in breadth. Occupying it in vast numbers, the Philistines sent out bodies of men to plunder the whole country, while a sufficient force watched Jerusalem, intending to take it by famine. The Rephaim were an aboriginal race, first mentioned in Genesis 14:5, and evidently in early times very widely spread in Palestine. The idea that they were giants has no more to be said in its favour than that they were ghosts—the meaning of the word in Isaiah 26:14, Isaiah 26:19. No sensible philologist will endeavour to explain the names of these primitive races and of their towns by Hebrew roots, though there has been too much of this craze in past times. The Rephaim seem. however, to have been physically a well-developed people, and several races of Canaan of great stature are described in Deuteronomy 2:11 as having belonged to them, as did Og, who was a man of extraordinary dimensions (Deuteronomy 3:11). 2 Samuel 5:20 Baal-Perazim; literally, possessor of breaches, that is, the place where the attack burst forth. It is called Mount Perazim, "the hill of breaches," in Psalms 28:1-9:21, and as we have seen, it was the rocky height on the north of the valley of Rephaim. David must, therefore, have stolen round the army of the Philistines, creeping, probably by night, up to this ridge of Ben-Hinnom, and thence at the dawn of day have rushed down upon the camp. And his onset was sudden and irresistible, like the rush of the waters of some mountain lake when, swollen with rains, it bursts through the opposing dam, and carries hasty destruction to everything that lies in its way. 2 Samuel 5:21 They left their images. This is a further proof of the suddenness of the attack, and the completeness of the Philistine discomfiture. For images we find "gods" in the parallel place in 1 Chronicles 14:12, and the word used here is rendered "idols" in 1 Samuel 31:9. As the Philistines supposed that these images of their deities would ensure their victory, they would set great store by them, as the Israelites did by the ark (1 Samuel 4:4), and the French by the oriflamme. Their capture, therefore, was a feat as great as the winning of the eagle of a Roman legion. David and his men burned them; Hebrew, took them away. This translation of the Authorized Version, made to force the words into verbal agreement with 1 Chronicles 14:12, is utterly indefensible; and, like most wrong things, it is absurd. The Bible cannot be improved by frauds, and really the two narratives complete one another. David and his men carried off these images as trophies, just as the Philistines carried off the ark (1 Samuel 4:11). But the ark proved mightier than the Philistine gods, and in terror the people restored it to Israel. But no avenging hand interfered to rescue these gods, and, after being paraded in triumph, they were made into a bonfire. 2 Samuel 5:22 The Philistines came up yet again. Their first defeat had probably not been accompanied by much slaughter; for David’s men were few in number, though brave as lions. Retreating then to some distance, the Philistines called in their garrisons, and waited also for reinforcements from home, and then advanced again to the same spot. And as David was prepared to attack them in front, he also must now have gathered round him the chivalry of Israel. 2 Samuel 5:23 Thou shalt not go up. The attack in front is forbidden, and the answer shows that the priest with the ephod did more than give a mere affirmative or negative reply. For David receives full instructions. Taking advantage of the valleys, he is to creep round into the rear of the Philistines, and approach them under cover of a thicket of baca trees. Mulberry trees; Hebrew, baca trees. This suggests the idea that David’s place of attack was the Baca valley (Psalms 84:6), and that there was such a valley, though this is not certain. For the Revised Version translates "valley of weeping," concluding that baca is not there a proper name. By baca trees the LXX. and Vulgate "pear trees," but as bacah means "to weep," it is probably some balsamic shrub, from which a resin exudes. The Revised Version puts here in the margin, "balsam trees." Dr. Tristram thinks it was a sort of aspen, but the authority of the.Vulgate is great in such matters, as Jerome obtained his information in Palestine itself. 2 Samuel 5:24 The sound of a going; Hebrew, a marching. Under the cover of this thicket David was to wait until he heard the sound as of the regular tramp of an army in the tops of the baca trees. It would be in the morning that the wind would shake the treetops, but the sound was to be something more than the soft whispers of a gentle breeze. A gale was to put them into sudden motion, and then the soldiers would know that their Jehovah had gone forth to battle, and David must immediately bestir himself. The enthusiasm of his men must not cool down, but as soon as the wind rustled he must charge the enemy, and his warriors, feeling that they were going with the host of God, would break down all resistance by their impetuous onset. 2 Samuel 5:25 From Geba until thou some to Gazer. In 1 Chronicles 14:16 "Gibson" is substituted for "Geba," and it is one of those corrections which a commentator is inclined to adopt, because it makes all things easy. For Gibeon lay directly on the road from the Rephaim valley towards Gazer, and the armies must have passed it in the fight. But if "Geba" be the right reading here, then the battle must have been most sternly contested. For it is the "Gibeah of Benjamin," Hebrew, "Geba of Benjamin," described in 1 Samuel 13:16. The Philistines had a garrison there in Saul’s time (1 Samuel 13:3), and had probably again occupied it as a military post after their victory at Gilboa. To reach it the line of retreat would go nine miles northward over difficult ground; but this was not disadvantageous to a retreating army as long as it remained unbroken, and the Philistines would expect to be able to make a successful defense at a strong citadel like Geba, held by a garrison of their own troops. But when driven by David’s "mighty men" from this fortified hill, being hemmed in by the defile of Michmash on the east, they would have no choice but to hurry down the valleys to the west, and, still passing by Gibson, so flee to Gazer. Thus the reading "Geba" implies a stout and long resistance ending in a most complete victory. And confessedly this was a decisive battle, fought with larger forces, and causing far larger loss to the Philistines than that at Baal-Perazim, where, attacked by only a few men, they were seized with panic, and saved themselves by a headlong flight. Gazer lay upon the border of Ephraim, and was one of the royal cities of the Canaanites, and so strong that it was left in the hands of its old possessors (Joshua 16:3, Joshua 16:10; Judges 1:19). Subsequently Solomon fortified it (1 Kings 9:17), as being the key of the defiles which led from Ekron and the plain of Philistia up to Jerusalem. We also find it mentioned as an important military post in the days of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 9:52). The pursuit would naturally stop here, as the fugitives would now be in their own country, and succour would be close at hand. Probably, too, the Canaanites who held the fortress were friendly to them, and gave them shelter. 2 Samuel 5:1-10 The facts are: 1. The tribes of Israel come to Hebron to formally acknowledge David as rightful king. 2. They assign three reasons for their united action. (1) That David was of their kindred. (2) That he had rendered valuable services in times of need. (3) That God had expressed his will. 3. A solemn league being made between David and the tribes, they anoint him king over Israel. 4. The question of the crown being settled, David applies himself to the acquisition of Jerusalem as the seat of government. 5. Being proudly defied by the Jebusites, on account of the strength of their position, he challenges his officers to take the lead in the subjugation of the fortress. 6. Acquiring possession, he calls the place after his name, and extends the fortifications. 7. The continued favour of God ensures to him great prosperity. The triumph of patient fidelity. The first three verses bring into view the realization of David’s most cherished desires, the ripe consummation of all his wearying toils and cares. The goal on which Samuel had directed his eye (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 16:1-13) was now attained. The wisdom of his self-restraint when persecuted, and of his trusting more to Divine care than to human weapons, was now fully justified. The historian places together the human popular view of the situation, and the Divine purpose that had to be effected. The being bone of their bone, and the great services rendered to Israel in days of trial, were the natural and political facts which warranted the great gathering at Hebron on that day; and the treasured up saying of the Lord that this very man should feed his people and be their captain, was the Divine declaration now seen by them to harmonize with the natural and political facts. There is here the language of expediency, and a kind of apology for past opposition to David; for the fact that God had so spoken ought from the first to have prevented all controversy and rendered the nation one in enthusiasm for the divinely chosen man. The acceptance of the authority of the declaration is not absolute, but because they now see what they profess not hitherto to have seen—that by nature and services he is fit to be the shepherd and captain of Israel. I. GOD’S ARE BASED ON NATURAL . The selection of David out of the sons of Jesse was not a mere arbitrary act warranted by no considerations of propriety and fitness. He was the best of the family and of the nation for the specific purpose to be wrought out. His qualities were not bestowed after the call to the position though grace would abound for development of what was already possessed; they were in him by nature. God uses up what he has prepared in the working out of ordinary natural processes. When the people said, "We are thy bone and thy flesh," they were referring to one prominent instance of natural fitness for the position of authority then assigned to David; his common kinship with them would ensure the sympathy which ought ever to exist between ruler and ruled. The Divine appointment rested, among other fitnesses, on this natural basis. The formal fitness lay in the fact of kinship; but God saw also that in the case of this man the sympathies natural to the fact of kinship were exceptionally strong and deep and broad. There was also a Divine recognition of those other natural qualities of statesmanship and valour and generosity, which would render a decree that he should be king but the formulation of a natural adaptation plus the information to men that the Supreme Being will so regulate affairs that this natural adaptation shall manifest itself. We may be sure that the same holds good of all that God ordains. He uses up what is best in nature for the ends in view. Abraham was the fittest man to be commissioned to found a family through which Messiah should come. The choice of Moses to lead the people out of Egypt, and administer law among a people hitherto without law, was evidently based on his natural and acquired qualities. That which may seem to be an exception to this rule is no exception, namely, the appointment of plain and unlettered men to first establish the kingdom of Christ after his ascension. For looking at the spiritual nature of the kingdom, that it is diffused by the spiritual renovation of men by the power of the Holy Spirit, it was befitting that men who had no brilliant gifts wherewith to dazzle others, and so induce the impression that the new cause was one in which human wisdom prevailed, should become the channels through which the power of God might assert itself (1 Corinthians 1:23-31; 1 Corinthians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 2:5). The most illustrious instance of the truth before us is that in the case of our Saviour. By condescending to become bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, made like unto his brethren, there is laid a natural fitness for his becoming the Feeder of his people and the Captain of our salvation. The sympathy of nature thus rendered possible sets forth the wisdom which appointed him to be a Prince and a Saviour. History reveals no exceptions to the rule. II. THE TO MEN OF DIVINE WILL LIE IN . The original Divine appointment of David was prior even to his appearance before Goliath; for God’s purposes are not the product of changes in time, and the declaration by Samuel to David was only for his guidance and encouragement in view of the troubles that were coming. David had to act so as to render the words of Samuel credible to the people; he had to make his "calling and election sure" by a line of conduct that would destroy the supposition that possibly Samuel the prophet, in this instance, was mistaking the surmisings of his own mind for the purpose of God. Those long years from the day he left the sheepfold to the death of Ishbosheth, formed the period in which he was to bring out before men the great wisdom of God in his selection. As the other Anointed One later on lived among men in such a way as to show to them that he was from the Father, that he had a work to do for the people of God, and was, in fact, appointed to be the Redeemer of the race, so David had to justify all that Samuel bad said, and all that was implied in the prior Divine choice. It is a noble thing when a man believes that God has ordained him to a work in the world, and strives to so regulate his life that every act shall be a demonstration of the wisdom and fitness of the Divine appointment. How David did this, by sympathy with all classes, by carrying on his heart the sorrows of his people, by deeds of valour which broke asunder the chains of Philistine oppression, by gentle forbearance toward those who sought his life, by abstention from pride and acts of violence to further his interests, also by patient trust in the covenant keeping God during days of terrible suffering, as by wise administration among his own followers,—the history of his early life fully records. However obstinate, for personal and political reasons, men were in refusing him as successor to Saul, they could not but yield at last to the force of evidence that he was the man for the position, and so far demonstrated to be the chosen of God. By a similar method, Christ is creating history which will be the vindication of his claim to be Lord of all. Likewise the Church, as the body of Christ, answers to her calling and duty only so far as she does deeds and manifests a spirit that will furnish unanswerable evidence of the Divinity of the Christian religion. "By their fruits ye shall know them." The test of salt lies in the presence of its peculiar savour. III. THE OF GOD’S PURPOSE THROUGH THE LOYALTY OF HIS IS ONLY A OF TIME. It would have seemed that when Samuel made known the will of God it would have been enough at once to have secured the abdication of Saul and the hearty concurrence of the chosen race. But there was the same free way of dealing with Divine declarations, the same perversity of understanding, as in the days of Christ; so that men did not thoroughly accept and act upon what was said. Jonathan and a few elect souls read aright the Divine intent, and rejoiced therein; but the rest found reasons for doubt, as men always can when the spirit is not thoroughly humble and devout. Occasionally, as we have seen in the case of Abner (2 Samuel 3:9, 2 Samuel 3:10), there was a recognition of truth generally suppressed. A man of less faith than David would have despaired of witnessing the day when the whole nation would, by a solemn act of coronation, fall in with the purpose of God. But through the loyalty of David and the few devout men who were the companions of his heart, the issue was brought to pass. It was not a question of truth or falsehood, of national policy or individual striving; the word of God had gone forth, true and unchangeable, that so it was to be; whether scheming politicians fell in with it or not, the course of nature was the course of God. Time would prove to be the element for solving all. Faithfulness to God has the power, in a mysterious way, of winning over the forces of nature and society to its side. The hour came when all Israel simply met to do what God all along intended should be done. Herein do we see, on a small scale, what is yet to be illustrated on the grandest scale. It is a question of time. The hour is coming when every knee shall bow to the Anointed of the Lord, and every tongue confess that he is the Christ, to the glory of God the Father. The world will then simply recognize, as a whole, what now the faithful followers of Christ know to be true. In spiritual firings the world does not acquire truth; it simply comes to admit to be true what Christ’s people all along have affirmed is true. The Church is not outstripped; its conclusions are accepted. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. We cannot fully estimate the cumulative force of Christian consistency in bringing about the final triumph of Christianity. 2. There is a parallel between our modern religious conflicts with unbelief and the struggle of many in Israel against the revealed purpose of God, and we may rest assured that the truth with us, long resisted, will in the end be accepted. 3. It behoves every Church and private Christian to consider how much the solution of our modern difficulties depends on our own faithfulness in daily life. 4. It is helpful to the observance of obligations that we recognize them with the solemn sanctions of religion, "before the Lord" (2 Samuel 5:3). The acquisition and building up of Zion. This narrative exhibits David as a new man—free from the old trials and embarrassments, and with a clear course before him to raise up the government which should embody the religious principles of the theocracy, and be prospective of a grand spiritual development in the distant future. As one relieved from great cares and conscious of vast unexpended energy, he at once applies himself to the adoption of the means which at that stage of affairs seemed most conducive to the attainment of ulterior issues. The principles on which he acted, while excellent for the circumstances of the time, admit of a wider application to human affairs, and with this in view we may indicate the wisdom of his conduct and the bearing of the narrative on other matters by a succession of single terms suggestive of both facts and principles. I. . All along, even in exile, David had learnt to regard his life as linked in the providence of God with some great events in the far distant future. His mission to the world and his own nation was understood to be the raising of his own people to such a position of social order and righteousness as should fit them to be most perfectly instrumental in hastening on the latter day glory. Now that he was made king, and had the confidence of the people, he devises those initiatory measures which, being well planned and executed, will render the attainment of remoter ends more probable. The record tells us of the facts, and we have to fill in the mental processes by which David was led to the particular course recorded. His work was great, far reaching, and, full of energy and faith and confidence, he makes a beginning in the work of consolidation and administration. The first movement was born of faith in his call to service—faith in the bearing of his life’s work on the destinies of men, faith in the existence of a Divine purpose which had to be wrought out in connection with the chosen race, faith in the value of human labour in relation to Divine purposes, and faith in the presence and help of God in all undertaken in his service. How wisely and broadly the foundation was now about to be laid we may notice further on; the fact here to be noted is the laying of a foundation in deeds for subsequent efforts. All wise rulers and governments, when entering into recognized power, take initiatory measures as their wisdom may suggest. The first stages of action bear an important relation to what follows. The same holds good of other departments of human activity. This reminds us of the initiatory work of the kingdom of Christ; how his life, sufferings, death, and resurrection may be regarded as the initiation of that long course of activity by which the king in Zion will wondrously affect the destinies of the world. We know with what clear prevision, what sense of being sent of God, what faith in the value of human effort and in the presence and blessing of the Eternal, all that was done which constituted the beginning of the reign of the Anointed of the Lord. II. . In making a survey of the inheritance into which, as king, he had come, David saw that the presence of alien Jebusites, defiant of himself and worshippers of blind and lame idols, was an evil which ought at once to be got rid of. For such an alien element to occupy a stronghold in the very heart of the country was a most galling thought to one intensely patriotic and brave, and could not but have suggested to him the defective courage and faith of his ancestors in Israel, who allowed such a thing to be possible. It was no mere love of fighting, no desire to create a diversion on acceding to power, that induced him to challenge his best men to seize the position; it was statesmanship, regard for the purity of the national life, and the honour of him who originally gave the land to Israel for an inheritance. The people of God must be separate from the heathen. Powers of darkness must not dwell in the land of light. A beautiful example this to all who have an inheritance to hold for Christ. Our nature is a holy land, in which he alone is to be honoured, and it is a prime duty that we take strenuous measures—call upon the cooperation of our best powers—to cast out the evil elements from the centre of our nature, so that there may be nothing within that defileth, or is an abomination, or that maketh a lie. The work may be difficult, the forces strong and defiant, and faint hearted rulers may suffer the evils to remain from sheer lack of courage and confidence; but their removal at an early stage of life is a condition of a prosperous government, in the name and service of God, of the powers that make up our human nature. In one respect also we see an analogy in our Lord’s work. His mission in its widest reach is to gather into one all things in himself (Ephesians 1:10), to sway a blessed sceptre over a perfected humanity, to maintain a kingdom of peace and righteousness that shall never end (Psalms 72:1-20.); and his first work on ascending the throne is to seek the casting out from the heart and life of humanity of the alien spirit, the Jebusite, that so long has usurped the place of influence, and done serious injury to all. The work is now going on, and the Jebusite will be cast down from his stronghold, and the entire world won at last to the Prince of Peace. III. . In reformation and restoration there is a negative and a positive side. David had to clear out the foe of his people, and so secure free scope for their activities and their happiness. But a positive work had to follow the removal of the evil forces. Hence, in his sagacity, he resolved to construct on the site cleared of the alien a stronghold that should serve the important ends of commanding the entire country from an impregnable position, of giving local prominence to his seat of government, and of facilitating the administration of affairs. The possession of Zion, and the immediate development of its military advantages, were positive advances in the rearing of the stable state which was to stand out so markedly in contrast with the disintegration and weakness of Saul’s time. True wisdom is constructive. Evil is destructive and disintegrating. Men prove their capacity to lead and govern by what they can gradually build up. The aim and effort of David all through his reign evidently was to form a national life on solid foundations, and richly developed in all that constitutes true greatness. How truly typical of the Son of David, who, by supremely wise acts in the establishment of his kingdom, laid the foundation for a superstructure of human good which is ever going on toward perfection! How suggestive of the true wisdom of missionary enterprise—laying solid foundations, in central positions, with a view to bless whole lands with the peace and blessedness of the gospel, and then gradually adding to the first work by positive developments of the same stable character! Likewise in education and in individual self-culture in godliness, construction should be ever aimed at, ever going on, proceeding upon definite solid foundations of success, laid with care in the very centre of the heart and intellect. Hereby also do we learn the extreme importance of getting supreme mastery of those powerful central forces of our nature which are to the details and outward aspects of our personal life what the stronghold of Jebus was to the varied hills and valleys of the land of Israel. IV. . The step taken by David was the natural outflow of his own enthusiasm. The force was latent in him, and now came the occasion for its manifestation. It was a new thing for the tribes to see a man of spirit, conscious of a high destiny to work out and urged, as by a Divine inspiration, to dare deeds not dreamt of for many generations (Joshua 15:63; Judges 19:10-12). The man rose with his position. The consciousness of new and heavy responsibilities developed heroism. Even the barbarous occupants of the stronghold (2 Samuel 5:8) seemed surprised that any one should dream of touching them. The strong expression, "hated of David’s soul," only reveals the high and all commanding spirit that could not brook the defilement of the holy land by idolatrous feet. But the infection of an enthusiastic spirit is rapid, and this action of the king at once raised the national tone. It made men feel that, as a people, they were entering on a new era; the possibilities of a great future opened before them; an ambition of a lofty kind was enkindled; the dismemberment of the nation, the low political status of Saul’s time, when they could scarcely hold their own against heathen tribes, must cease to be imagined, and the great ideas of Abraham and of Moses once more must become regnant in their minds. Possibly on that day of coronation, when the elders of the tribes would come into close conference with David, he would speak out from his own clearer vision of their function in the world as the people of God and his own strong faith in the presence of Jehovah, so that the deeds on Mount Zion would illustrate in impressive form words of power (Psalms 40:9, Psalms 40:10). Likewise the inspiration given to the Church in days of the founding of the kingdom of Christ has raised the tone and put a strong and masterful confidence in the heart of man. None can fully estimate the widespread and mighty influence exerted by the lofty spirit displayed by our Lord. It has raised new hopes, developed a bolder courage, fixed men’s eyes more steadily on the glorious future, and produced the feeling that the faithful are engaged in an enterprise not only sanctioned by God, but pervaded by the very life giving presence of the Lord of all power and glory. In so far as we each enter on our appointed work for Christ in the same spirit, we carry on the inspiration and swell the moral forces that are to win the world for God. V. . David, as we know from his early experience and from the Psalms, was a man of much meditation—one who was well versed in the memorials of his nation and deeply imbued with the spirit of devotion. Was it nothing to him that the seat of Melchizedek’s reign as King of Salem was possibly this spot where now the impious Jebusites dwelt? Could he forget that here it was Abraham displayed the marvellous faith which, more than anything, won for him the name ever to be cherished, "father of the faithful"? It was creditable to his religious instincts and to his sagacity that one of the first acts of his reign was to recover a place so sacred to the memory, and to gather the associations of the place around his own seat of government. Piety, poetry, and statesmanship are here combined. Great and hallowed associations tend to beget corresponding deeds; and doubtless it was with the fond hope that as king he might still further consecrate that sacred spot, that he made it the centre of his administration. History tells us how age after age memories clustered more and more richly and often sadly, yet instructively, around that holy hill, until the name of Zion has become, perhaps, more rich in pathetic story and suggestive splendour and bliss than any word in human language—next, of course, to the one "Name that is above every name." "Glorious things of thee are spoken, Zion, city of our God; He whose Word cannot be broken Formed thee for his own abode." 2 Samuel 5:11-25 The facts are: 1. The King of Tyre, being friendly with David, supplies him with means of building his house on Mount Zion. 2. David regards the varied successes of his enterprises as confirmation of his belief that he was indeed appointed by God to reign over Israel. 3. He establishes a court on a larger scale, after Oriental style. 4. The Philistines, hearing of his accession to the throne, prepare for an attack upon him, whereupon he seeks guidance of God, defeats them at Baal-Perazim, and destroys their images. 5. Subsequently the Philistines come to a second attack, but on inquiring of God, David is not allowed to assail them in front. 6. Adopting the strategy recommended him, David secures the overthrow of the enemy unto Gazer. Divine favour vouchsafed to imperfect men. The Bible teaches that the hearts of kings and people are in the hands of the Lord, and that he turns them so as to advance the great purpose he is working out. The friendly attitude of so important a personage as Hiram must be regarded as a mark of God’s favour to David. To us the record makes clear that David was indeed called of God, and had the special help of the Almighty, and yet 2 Samuel 5:12 suggests that there were hours when he himself felt the need of confirmatory signs. Some of the Psalms indicate the same. He is here represented as overcoming any doubts and fears arising from his own deep consciousness of moral imperfection, by considering the unmistakable blessings wherewith his efforts so far were crowned. It was all of the Lord. He was not in error in supposing that he was in the path of duty. And yet the very next verses of the narrative (verses 13-16) tell us of a weakness in David’s character—an inferiority to much that later on was attained to by others—so that we cannot but note this conjunction of great and manifold favours conferred on one whose standard of moral and social life was, relatively to ours, very inferior. To the right understanding of this we have to observe ― I. ARE MATTERS OF . Moralists distinguish rightly between obligations moral in their own nature and obligations created by precept. Obviously there is not the same kind of obligation for a man to have only one wife as there is to love God with all his heart. The one depends on considerations subsequent to the existence of more than one person; the other holds from the very nature of the feeling, and cannot but be the right thing. That it is wisest, best, most conducive to personal moral perfection and to social welfare that men should not have plurality of wives, is certain; but that arises from the constitution of society and the particular purposes God intends to work out by means of the domestic institution, and consequently the prohibition to have more than one wife partakes of the nature of a positive precept. Had man not been told what he should do, he would not have felt and known absolutely that only one wife must be taken. Had he not been told what he should do, he would nevertheless have felt and known that to love not God, to disobey God, to prefer vileness to purity, was wrong. David, left to himself, would see evil in aversion to God, but he would not so distinctly and certainly see evil in having many wives. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 6:1 And David gathered together. The long subjection to the Philistines was at an end, and David’s first care is to bring the ark of Jehovah from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem. In this he had a twofold object. For, first, it was an act of piety, testifying David’s gratitude to God, who had so quickly raised him from the condition of a despairing fugitive hiding away in the cave of Adullam to that of a victorious king reigning over an independent and free people. But David had also a political purpose. The weakness of Israel in the past was the result of its divisions, he would heal this by giving it a capital, whither the tribes would come up for worship, and where they would feel that they formed one nation. David had seen the evils of a divided sovereignty, when he and Ishbosheth were wasting the strength of Israel in civil war. For more than half a century he remedied this, but before there had been time for the union of the tribes to be cemented by the gradual influence of religion. Solomon’s oppressive levies of unpaid workmen, forced to labour in his costly buildings, and the despotic stupidity of Rehoboam, broke up united Israel into two feeble states, which henceforward had to struggle hard for a mere existence. The condition of Israel was very similar to that of the United States of North America before their great civil war; except that their president, elected by all the people, and their Congress at Washington, were far stronger bonds of union than any that were possessed by the Israelites. But when there was danger of even these failing to keep them together as one people, the statesmen of the north put forth their utmost powers, and spared neither life nor treasure, because they saw clearly that the victory of the south meant the breaking up of their empire into a multitude of feeble governments, which, by their mutual jealousies, would paralyze and thwart one another. With equal discernment David endeavoured to counteract the jealousy and separate action of the tribes, which was bringing about the disintegration of Israel, by giving them a point of union. Had he gone further north for his capital, he might, perhaps, have overawed the stubborn tribe of Ephraim, which was always the most unmanageable of the sections of Israel. But the situation of Jerusalem upon the borders of Benjamin and Judah, on a hill-top which neither had really possessed, and which was marked out for noble use by its wonderful natural conformation, fully justified David’s choice; and it has had the assent of mankind ever since. David then made this unrivalled spot his capital, and placed there, first of all, his royal residence, whereby it became the centre of all public business and of the administration of law; and, secondly, as a matter of still higher importance, he made it the headquarters of their national religion and the abode oF their God. We see the weight of this religious influence in the anxiety of Jeroboam to counteract it, and in the strength given to Rehoboam by the migration into Judah of those who valued the temple services more than their worldly prosperity. Even Saul had valued the national religion, and had established its headquarters at Nob; but, giving way to the ungoverned anger of a despot, he had destroyed his own work. It was left to one who to the bravery of a soldier added the discernment of a statesman to consolidate the tribes into a nation by establishing their religion upon a sure and influential basis. For this reason also he made their services full of delight and enjoyment by the institution of choral chants and the use of instruments of music; while the psalms which his singers recited were so spiritual and ennobling that we to this day use them in our solemn worship. Granting that there are expressions in them harsher and more intolerant than a disciple of the loving Jesus would now apply to any earthly enemy, yet, as a whole, the Psalms, written in these rough far off times, still form our best book of devotion! In the parallel place in the First Book of Chronicles we have the narrative of this re-establishment of the Mosaic Law given as looked at on the Levitical side, and with many interesting additions. Here the narrator looks at it with the eye of a statesman. We must not, however, suppose that the history there given is arranged in chronological order, as, if so, the two victories in the Valley of Rephaim would have both taken place in the three months during which the ark was resting in the house of Obed-Edom. If this were so, then David would first have had more than three hundred and forty thousand warriors with him at Hebron to anoint him, and with their aid would have captured Jerusalem. lie would next have assembled thirty thousand picked men to bring the ark up to Zion; and yet would have had only his body guard of "mighty men" wherewith to fight Israel’s battles and win its independence. Most probably the order, both here and in Chronicles, is not chronological, and the course of events was as follows. With the help of the men gathered at Hebron David captures Jerusalem. As soon as it is made safe they withdraw, and leave him occupied with planning out and building his city. Alarmed at the vast concourse at Hebron, and made angry by David’s seizure of a strong fortress, the Philistines hastily pounce upon him in numbers too vast for him to resist. He escapes, leaving but a few men to defend Jerusalem, and hides in his old fastness. Encouraged there by finding three of his mighties more than a match for the garrison at Bethlehem, he gathers the mere valiant spirits, and makes a sudden attack upon the Philistines, who were engaged in ravaging the country as a punishment for its rebellion. They are defeated, but with no great loss; and so with uubroken strength they again invade the country, and march up once more to Jerusalem, prepared to fight a pitched battle, and seize that fortress as the prize of victory. Again, David, with far larger forces, surprises them, and, driving them from ridge to ridge, so utterly vanquishes them that the power of Philistia was destroyed forever. It was after this double victory that Hiram, King of Tyre, whose dominions bordered upon the Philistines, and who had found them disagreeable neighbours, made a close alliance with David; and so at length, free from all fear at home, and honoured abroad, he was able to turn his thoughts to the consolidation of his kingdom and the establishment of Jehovah’s worship. And in the Book of Chronicles we have the details of that spiritual service of psalmody which David added to the Levitical routine of sacrifice, and which bears the significant name of "prophecy," as being the expression of the moral and spiritual side of the Mosaic Law (1 Chronicles 25:1). Instead of "Again David gathered," the words of the Hebrew are" And David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel." The first gathering was at Hebron (2 Samuel 5:1), and before they came David must have given his consent to their wishes, and invited their presence at his anointing. They soon gather together a second time to endow their new kingdom with the safeguards necessary for their spiritual welfare, and the maintenance among them of morality and virtue and the fear of God. Chosen men. This usually means picked men fit for war. But doubtless on this occasion the eiders and all good men possessed of power and influence would be present to strengthen the king’s hand. Thirty thousand. A large number, but not too large. David probably chose one of the great feasts for the occasion, and by the presence of a large number of warriors, and the display of much military pomp, he would impress upon the minds of the people the value of religion. They would thus learn also to respect their new capital as being the place where was the presence of their Deity, and where they were to come to worship him. 2 Samuel 6:2 From Baale of Judah. We learn from Joshua 15:9, Joshua 15:60 that Baalah, or Kirjath-Baal, "the city of Baal," was the old Canaanite name of Kirjath-jearim, the "city of woods." It lay about eight miles westward from Jerusalem (see 1 Samuel 6:21; 1 Samuel 7:1, 1 Samuel 7:2). The preposition "from" is very startling, as really David went to Baale. Yet all the versions have it, but they put on Baale an incorrect meaning. Baal means "lord," "master," and they render, "David went with all the people that were with him from [or, of] the citizens of Judah," understanding by "master" a householder, one who was master of a family. The real explanation probably is that the narrator wrote according to the sense, and not according to the grammar. The thought in his mind was the bringing up of the ark from its long resting place, and not the prior physical necessity of going down to the place where it was. With all the people. David had consulted with "the captains of thousands and hundreds, and every leader" (1 Chronicles 13:1), and it was with their good will that he drew the ark of God out of its long concealment. A select body of these nobles, or sheiks, would accompany the king, while the rest, with their attendants, would be posted along the eight miles of road. Whose name is called by the name. In the Hebrew, the word "name" is twice repeated, the words literally being, the ark of Elohim, whereon is called the Name, the Name of Jehovah of Sabaoth. Most of the versions omit the second Name, and the translators of the Authorized Version also felt it to be a difficulty, which they have tried to escape by inserting words between the two. Really it is a most interesting sign of the existence at this early date of a special reverence for the name "with four consonants" which we call "Jehovah." Subsequently it was never pronounced, but the word "Lord" was read instead, in the Revised Version, the importance of the passage is well brought out by the first Name being written with a capital, of the use of which the Revisers are very chary. With their usual inconsecutiveness, they retain Lord for Jehovah, though this is "the Name," and though they have restored the word Jehovah in several less important places. 2 Samuel 6:3 And they set the ark of God (Hebrew, made it ride) upon a new cart. This was contrary to the Levitical Law, which required that only Levites should bear the ark, and that it should be veiled even from their eyes (Numbers 4:15). But this mistake is not surprising. It is easy enough for us to turn to our Bibles, and see what the exact letter of a command was. But such reference was no easy matter when the Law was contained in manuscripts which were rare and costly. We cannot imagine that David or even Abiathar carried a manuscript about with them in their wanderings. David very probably had a considerable knowledge of the Pentateuch, gained in Samuel’s schools, and stored up in his memory, as was the custom in old days when books were scarce. But this knowledge would be chiefly of its narratives and doctrines, and would comprise such portions as Samuel thought most fitting to influence the lives of his scholars. Abiathar probably added to this a knowledge of all such ritual as was in daily use in the sanctuary at Nob. He had fled thence in terror, escaping alone from the cruel destruction of the priests by Saul’s decree; but even there the restoration of the Levitical services had been too recent to have given time for much study of the old Law. We can quite believe that the murder of the priests at Nob, following upon the catastrophe at Shiloh, had reduced the knowledge of the priests to a very low ebb. Now, the exact way of bearing the ark was a matter that had long been dismissed from their memories, but they would call to mind that it had been brought to Abinadab’s house in a new cart drawn by oxen; and they would take this as a precedent, which would justify them in acting in the same manner a second time. But in so solemn a matter the priests ought to have made diligent search, and have gone for instruction to the copies which they possessed of the Divine Law. David did so subsequently (1 Chronicles 15:2), but possibly there was no such copy at present in Jerusalem, and they would have to go to Ramah, where Samuel would deposit whatever records he had saved from the ruin of Shiloh, and where the great work of the prophets was to study the sacred books, and even copy them. But this want of inquiry and easy assumption, that as the ark was brought in a cart to Abinadab’s house, so in a cart it should be carried away, was an act of great irreverence, and all the guilty were punished. The heaviest blow fell on the house of Abinadab, which lost a dear son. Entrusted for seventy years with the care of so sacred a symbol of Jehovah’s presence, Abinadab and his family ought to have made a special study of the taws concerning it. Apparently they left it very much to itself; for it is never said that God blessed them for their care of it as he did Obed-Edom. And David also was in fault; for he ought to have commanded the priests to make diligent search. His punishment was the breaking out of the Divine wrath, terrifying the people, and turning the joy of the day to mourning. The house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah; really, that was upon the hill. Uzzah and Able, the sons of Abinadab. "Sons" in Hebrew is used in a large sense, and these two men were probably the grandsons of Eleazar, the son of Abinadab, who had been set apart to keep the ark. For seventy years, as it seems, lind passed since the ark was hurriedly put in Abinadab’s house, namely, twenty during the Philistine supremacy up to the battle of Ebenezer, forty during the reign of Saul, and about ten since. As Eleazar must have been thirty years of age for his consecration to be legal, he must have died long ago, and his sons would be old and decrepit men. His grandsons would be in the prime of life. 2 Samuel 6:4 Accompanying (Hebrew, with) the ark. The verse is evidently corrupt, and we have no aid from the parallel place in Chronicles, except the fact that it is omitted there. The most probable explanation is that the first half of the verse has been repeated from 2 Samuel 6:3 by the error of some copyist, and that the original words were "Uzzah and Ahio drove the new cart with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark." While Uzzah walked at the side, Ahio went before the oxen to guide and manage them, as the Basques may be seen at the present day doing in the south of France. 2 Samuel 6:5 Played. The word does not mean "played on a musical instrument," but "danced and rejoiced." On all manner … of fir wood. The Hebrew literally is, with all cypress woods. In 1 Chronicles 13:8 we find "with all their might, even with songs," etc. Gesenius, in his ’History of the Hebrew Language,’ describes this as a mere guess at a misunderstood text, and Maurer ridicules it as a stupid emendation. More sensibly Thenius regards it as the right reading, and the words here as a corruption of it, caused by some scribe misspelling the words, which are nearly identical. In our version the ambiguous meaning of the word "played" makes the passage less startling. For "they danced with all cypress woods" is unintelligible. The musical instruments mentioned here are the harp, Hebrew chinnor, a guitar; the psaltery, Hebrew nebel, a kind of harp of a triangular shape, with the point downwards; the timbrel, Hebrew tof, a tambourine or small drum; the cornet, Hebrew mena’na’, a bar on which were a number of loose metal rings, which were shaken in time to the music, but others think that "castanets’’ are meant, which are pieces of wood beaten in time. The Revised Version adopts this rendering. And finally cymbals. For "cornets" we find in the parallel place "trumpets," whence the translators of the Authorized Version took their rendering; but the Hebrew word means "things to shake." 2 Samuel 6:6 Nachon’s threshing floor. In the parallel place (1 Chronicles 13:9) we find "the threshing floor of Chidon," and "Chidon" is proved to have been a proper name by the feebleness of the attempts made to find for it a meaning. We therefore gather that "Nachou" is also a proper name, but otherwise we should certainly have translated it "a fixed threshing floor." The people did indeed thresh or trample out their corn often on summer threshing floors (Daniel 2:35), that is, on fitting spots in the fields themselves. But as a large quantity of earth was sure in this cash to be mixed with the corn, they preferred to use places with solid floors or pavements, which lasted for many generations, and.often became well-known spots (Genesis 50:10). Even if "Nachon" be a proper name, this would be a permanent floor, paved with stones, the approaches to which would be worn and made rough by the tracks of the carts bringing the corn. Here the oxen shook it; Hebrew, stumbled, and so the Revised Version. Nothing is said of the ark being in danger. Uzzah’s act was one of precaution. The ground was rough, the oxen stumbled, and he put forth his hand to hold the ark till the cart had reached level ground. If the threshing floor was formed in the natural rock, those who have been in Spain, and seen how the tracks in the Pyrenees are worn by the native carts into deep ruts in the solid stone, can well understand that the neighbourhood of this much-frequented spot would need very careful driving. 2 Samuel 6:7 Error. The word so translated is one quite unknown, and Ewald renders it "unexpectedly." The Revised Version puts "rashness" in the margin. But all three alike are mere guesses, of which "error" is that approved by Keil and others. The Syriac has the same reading here as that found in 1 Chronicles 13:10, namely, "because he put his hand to the ark." This would require the insertion of four or five letters in the Hebrew. By the ark. The word translated "accompanying the ark" in 1 Chronicles 13:4. 2 Samuel 6:8 David was displeased; Hebrew, David was angry. Neither David nor his people had intended any disrespect, and so severe a punishment for what was at most a thoughtless act seemed to him unjust. Uzzah’s death was probably caused by apoplexy, and the sudden effort of stretching forth his hand and seizing the ark had been its immediate cause. So tragic an event spoiled the happiness of the day, filled all present with disappointment, made them break off in haste from the grand ceremonial, and placed David before his subjects in the position of a malefactor. He had prepared a great religious festival, and Jehovah had broken in upon them as an enemy. In his first burst of displeasure he called the place Perez-Uzzah, the word "Perez," or "Breach," conveying to the Hebrews the idea of a great calamity (Judges 21:15) or of a sudden attack upon a foe (2 Samuel 5:20). The historian adds that the place bore this name unto his day; but we cannot tell whether these are the words of the original compiler of the Book of Samuel, or, as is more probably the case, those of some subsequent editor or scribe. Many such remarks are supposed to have been inserted by Ezra and the men of the great synagogue. 2 Samuel 6:9 David was afraid. This was his next feeling. Neither he nor Uzzah had offended wilfully, and so severe a punishment for an "error" made him dread the presence of so dangerous a thing as the ark seemed to be. Instead, therefore, of taking it into "the city of David," he turns aside and leaves it in the house of the nearest Levite. In both his anger and his dread David manifests himself to us as one whose ideas about God were somewhat childish. He regards Jehovah as a powerful and capricious Being, who must be appeased. He had attained to juster views in Psalms 16:1-11. and other such trustful hymns. 2 Samuel 6:10 Obed-Edom. We find two Levites of this name among David’s officials—one belonging to the family of Merari, a singer and doorkeeper for the ark (1 Chronicles 15:18, 1 Chronicles 15:21, 1 Chronicles 15:24); the other of the family of Korah (1 Chronicles 26:4, 1 Chronicles 26:5). And as it is there said that "God blessed him," he probably it was into whose house the ark was taken. He is called a Gittite, because he belonged to Gath-Rimmon, a Levitical city in the tribe of Dan (Joshua 19:45; Joshua 21:24). 2 Samuel 6:11 Jehovah blessed Obed-Edom. So far from there being anything unlucky in the ark, its presence brings with it a manifest blessing, and thus David’s fears are allayed. But before he returns to his purpose, he commands that proper inquiry be made. The priests must examine the holy book, and, having learned from it where his former conduct was wrong, he assembles the people once again to carry the ark to its home (1 Chronicles 15:2, 1 Chronicles 15:12-15). 2 Samuel 6:12 With gladness. The words mean, "in a joyful procession with music and dancing." 2 Samuel 6:13 When they that bare the ark of Jehovah had gone six, paces, he sacrificed oxen and fatlings; Hebrew, an ox and a fatling. Many suppose that David sacrificed an ox and a fatling every six paces along the whole way from the house of Obed-Edom, which was probably near or even in Jerusalem, unto the tent prepared for the ark in Zion. "Evidently the way to the holy city was a way of blood. The stained streets of Zion, the rivers of blood, the slaughtered heaps and the blaze of altar fires formed a strange contrast to the dancing, the singing, and the harping of the multitudes who crowded the city". It is not necessary to suppose, with some objectors, that the ark waited till each sacrifice was completed, or that the road thus lined with victims was many miles in length. The ark did not remain at Perez-Uzzah, but was carried in silent awe to the house of a Levite; and such a house probably was not to be found until they were inside the city walls. There were no country houses in a region lately twice ravaged by the Philistines. But there is an objection to this view, namely, that it is not the sense of the Hebrew. What is there said is that at starting, after stepping six paces, David sacrificed an ox and a fatling (by the hands, of course, of the priests), to ask a blessing upon the removal of the ark, and avert all misfortune. In Chronicles we read nothing of this, but of a sacrifice of seven bullocks and seven rams, offered by the Levites. The one was David’s offering made at the beginning, to consecrate the removal; the other was made at the end, and was a thank offering of the Levites, because they had carried the ark safely (1 Chronicles 15:26). The Vulgate has a remarkable addition to 2 Samuel 6:12, taken doubtless by Jerome from manuscripts which existed in his day. It is as follows: "There were with David seven choruses and a calf as victim." The fact is not in itself improbable, and means that the musicians and dancers were divided into bands which mutually relieved one another. And as a sacrifice was also a feast, each band had a calf provided for it. The LXX. omits the thirteenth verse altogether, and substitutes for it, "And seven choruses accompanied him. bearing the ark, and a calf and Iambs as a sacrifice." 2 Samuel 6:14 And David danced. The word used means the springing round in half circles to the sound of music. Conder has given a very interesting account of the dancing of the Malawiyeh, which consisted in turning round in whole circles, resting on the heel of the left foot. As David danced with all his might, he was evidently strongly excited with religious fervour. We have the expression of his feelings in the psalm composed for this occasion (1 Chronicles 16:7-36); subsequently it seems to have been rearranged for the temple service, as it is broken up into Psalms 96:1-13. and Psalms 105:1-15. Dancing was usually the office of the women (Exodus 15:20; Judges 11:35; Judges 21:21; 1 Samuel 18:6); but men may also have often taken part in it, as Michal’s objection was that it was unbefitting a king. David was girded with a linen ephod. David wore this as a tightly fitting garment, which left him free to exert himself in the dance. So far from the use of it being an assumption of the priestly office, it was regarded by Michal as an act of humiliation, as it was a dress worn even by a child when admitted to service in a priest’s family (1 Samuel 2:18). Probably David did mean to rank himself for the time among the inferior servitors of the ark. He might have claimed more. In the theocracy he was the representative of Jehovah, and his anointing was a solemn consecration to a religious office. To have burned incense or offered sacrifice would have been to invade the priestly office, an office parallel to "the administration of the Word and the sacraments," denied, in the Thirty-Seventh Article of the Church of England, to princes. To wear the garb of a servitor was to do honour both to Jehovah and to his priests. 2 Samuel 6:16 Michal Saul’s daughter. Possibly these words are merely to identify Michal, but they suggest the thought that, as a king’s daughter, she valued her royal dignity. The procession evidently passed near David’s palace, and his wives and children would be eager spectators. 2 Samuel 6:17 In the midst of the tabernacle (i.e. tent). This tent would he arranged as nearly as possible like that erected by Moses in the wilderness. The ark would be placed in the holy of holies, a shrine probably of cedar-wood, and the burnt offerings and peace offerings would then be offered and would consecrate the whole. When it is said that David offered them, it means that the sacrifices were at his cost and by his command. 2 Samuel 6:18 David … blessed the people in the name of Jehovah of hosts. Blessing the people was an important priestly function, for which a special formula was provided (Numbers 6:22-26). But this did not deprive the king, who was Jehovah’s anointed representative, of the right of also blessing them, and Solomon, at the consecration of the temple, followed his father’s example in a very solemn manner (2 Chronicles 6:3). 2 Samuel 6:19 A cake of bread, and a good piece … and a flagon. Of the first of the three gifts there is no doubt. It was the round dough cake baked for sacrificial meals (Leviticus 8:26). So, too, there is no doubt of the third; it means "a cake of raisins" (see So 2 Samuel 2:5; Hosea 3:1, in which latter place raisins, or dried grapes, are expressly mentioned, boldly rendered in the Authorized Version "wine"). The Revised Version has given the correct rendering of the passage. The second word occurs only here, but the rendering of the Authorized Version is that of the Jews; and as it is some common domestic term not likely to be found in literature, but well known in every kitchen, they are most probably right. On the same sort of local authority Jerome renders it in the Vulgate "a piece of beef for roasting." As it is coupled with the bread and the raisin cake, we may feel sure that it was a portion of the flesh of the animals which had been killed in Sacrifice, and which the people were now permitted to take to their homes. 2 Samuel 6:20 To bless his household. David, in the midst of his public duties, was not forgetful of the nearer claims of his own family. Doubtless there also a joyful feast would be prepared, and all be gathered together to praise God and rejoice with one con sent. Who uncovered himself … as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! David’s offence in the eyes of Michal was, not his dancing, but his divesting himself of his royal robes, and appearing before his subjects clad in the dress of an inferior class. The Levites were to occupy a humble social position (see Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy 26:12), and Michal’s words are a proof that such was in David’s time the case. The language of Michal is that of a woman vexed and irritated. After reminding David of his high office as "King of Israel," she reproaches him for appearing on a grand public occasion without the upper and becoming robe in which an Oriental enwraps himself. And this he had done before the female slaves of his own servants, with no more self-respect than that shown by the "vain fellows." "Vain" is the "raca" of Matthew 5:22, and means "empty," void of virtue, void of reputation, and void of worldly means. The Hebrews, when expressing the greatest possible contempt for a man, called him an "empty," and no word could be found better conveying the meaning of thorough worthlessness. 2 Samuel 6:21 It was before the Lord. The Hebrew is much more forcible than the confused rendering of our version. "Before Jehovah, who chose me above thy father, and above all his house, to appoint me prince over Jehovah’s people, over Israel, yea, before Jehovah I have rejoiced" (Authorized Version, "played;" but see notes on 2 Samuel 6:5). The preference of David over Saul was proof that that king’s affectation of royal state, and his self-importance, were not pleasing in God’s eyes. 2 Samuel 6:22 And of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. These words have been variously interpreted, but their simplest meaning is also the best; that even the most uneducated women, though surprised at first at David’s want of stateliness, would, on reflection, be led to a right understanding of the greatness of God; and would then feel that even a king was right in owning himself to be nothing in God’s presence. 2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal. The Hebrew is, and Michal had no child, Michal’s barrenness was long antecedent to this outburst of pride, and was not a punishment for it. It is noticed as a proof that the blessing of God did not rest upon her; and as such it was regarded by the people, and doubtless it lessened David’s affection for her. We must not, however, suppose that he imposed upon her any punishment further than this verbal reproof. Nor does the interest lie in Michal’s conduct, but in the glimpse which the narrative gives us of David’s tender piety towards God, so exactly in agreement with the feelings which animate very many of the psalms. To unite with this a harsh bitterness to the woman who was his first love, who had so protected him in old time, and whom he had summoned back at the first opportunity because of his affection for her, is a thing abhorrent in itself, and contrary to David’s character. His fault in domestic matters rather was that he was over fond, not that he was unfeeling. A little more sternness towards Amnon and Absalom would have saved him much sorrow. As for Michal, the story sets her before us as earing a great deal for David, and not much for Jehovah. She could not have approved of such a number of rivals in David’s household, but she had not lost her love for him. And the narrative represents her as not having Jehovah’s blessing in a matter so greatly thought of by Hebrew women, and as valuing too highly royal state, and forgetting that above the king was God. But she did David no great wrong, and received from him nothing worse than a scolding. In the parallel place (1 Chronicles 15:29) the matter is very lightly passed over; and the reason why it holds an important place in this book is that we have here a history of David’s piety, of his sin and his punishment. In itself a slight matter, it yet makes us clearly understand the nature of David’s feelings towards Jehovah. It is also most interesting in itself. For David is the type of a noble character under the influence of grace. Michal, too, is a noble character, but she lacked one thing, and that was "the one thing needful." The removal of the ark is a matter so important as to call for careful consideration. For the time it established two centres of worship—one with the ark at Zion, the other at Gibeon. The ark in Saul’s days had been forgotten (1 Chronicles 13:3). It had long lain in the house of a simple Levite in the city of woods, and Saul’s religious ideas were too feeble for him to be capable of undemanding the importance of establishing a national religion. Still, such as they were, they made him summon Ahiah, the grandson of Eli, to be his domestic priest (1 Samuel 14:3); and subsequently he even set up at Nob the tabernacle with its table of shewbread, and other holy furniture, saved somehow from the ruin of Shiloh, with Ahimelech as high priest (1 Samuel 21:1). But when in a fit of senseless jealousy he destroyed his own work, the nation was left for a time without an established religion. Gradually, however, this primary necessity for good government and national morality was supplied—how we know not; but we find a tabernacle at Gibeon, with the altar of burnt offerings, and the morning and evening sacrifice, and apparently the same service as that erewhile set up at Nob; only Zadok of the line of Eleazar is high priest (1 Chronicles 16:39, 1 Chronicles 16:40). He thus belonged to the senior line, while the last survivor of the race of Ithamar, Abiathar, Eli’s great-grandson, was with David. Gibeon was in the centre of the tribe of Benjamin, some few miles from Jerusalem, with Nob lying halfway between; and probably Saul had permitted this restoration of Jehovah’s worship at Gibeon, both because he half repented of his deed, and because the worship there was ministered by priests not allied to Ahimelech and Abiathar. But now the ark, which was Jehovah’s throne, had been brought out of its obscurity, and solemnly placed in a tabernacle in Zion, with Abiathar, David’s friend, the representative of the junior line, as high priest; and probably the only difference in the service was that David’s psalms were sung to music at Zion, while the Mosaic ritual, with no additions, was closely followed at Gibeon. There was thus the spectacle of two high priests (2 Samuel 8:17), and two rival services, and yet no thought of schism. Zadok had been one of those foremost in making David king of all Israel (1 Chronicles 12:28); he and Abiathar were the two who moved Judah to bring David back after Absalom’s revolt (2 Samuel 19:11). The whole matter had grown out of historical facts, and probably David always intended that Zion should absorb Gibeon, and be the one centre required by the Levitical Law. But he was content to wait. Had he acted otherwise a conflict would necessarily have arisen between the rival lines of the priesthood, and between Abiathar and Zadok, the two men who represented them, and who were both his true friends. We find even Solomon doing great honour to the tabernacle at Gibeon (2 Chronicles 1:3, etc.), but after the temple was built it passed away; and the race of Ithamar, weakened by the calamity at Shiloh, and still more by the cutting off of so many of its leading members at Nob, never recovered itself after Abiathar was set aside by Solomon for taking part with Adonijah. The line continued to exist, for members of it returned from Babylon (Ezra 8:2); but though it produced a prophet, Jeremiah, it never again produced a high priest, and therefore only the line of Eleazar, to which Ezra himself belonged, is given in 1 Chronicles 6:1-81. Thus Abiathar’s misconduct and the growing fame of Jerusalem put an end to all fear of schism. We easily trace in the Psalms the increase of the nation’s regard for Zion. In Psalms 24:1-10; written probably by David to celebrate the entry of the ark thither, it is simply "the hill of Jehovah … his holy place." In Psalms 9:1-20. it is "his dwelling," but in Psalms 20:1-9. a higher note is struck. Zion is "the sanctuary" whence Jehovah sends "help" and "strength;" and in Psalms 48:1-14; written at a later date, Zion is found installed in the very heart of the people’s love. Thus the Divine blessing rested fully upon David’s work. To Jehovah’s worship he gave a grand and noble centre, which from his day has had no rival, unless it be in some respects Rome. The city of David’s choice has been, and continues to this hour to be, the most holy spot upon earth alike to the Jew and to the Christian, though to the latter it is so because of David’s Son. At Zion, moreover, David’s spiritual addition to the Mosaic ritual has given the Church its best book of devotion and the brightest part of its services; forevery hymn sung to God’s glory, and every instrument of music played in God’s house, is but the continuance of the prophesying with harp, psaltery, and cymbal (1 Chronicles 25:1), first instituted by David, though, like all that was best in David personally and in his institutions, it grew out of Samuel’s influence and the practices of his schools (1 Samuel 19:20). Finally, the temple services were doing much to weld the discordant tribes into one nation, and would have succeeded in so doing but for the unhappy degeneracy of Solomon’s latter years, and the obstinacy of his son. Yet even so, Jerusalem remains forever a memorial of the genius and piety of this extraordinary man, and the symbol of "Jerusalem the golden, the home of God’s elect." 2 Samuel 6:1-11 The facts are: 1. David, deeming the time to be come for reorganizing the religious services, raises a select force wherewith to bring the ark from its obscurity at Kirjath-jearim. 2. Providing a new cart, the ark is set thereon, and brought out of the house of Abinadab under charge of his two sons. 3. David and the people move in joyous procession before the ark to music from all manner of instruments. 4. Arriving at a certain place, Uzzab, putting forth his hand to steady the ark, is smitten for his rashness, and dies before the ark. 5. Thereupon David’s spirit is much troubled, and is filled with dread at the thought of taking charge of so sacred and terrible a treasure. 6. David is restrained by this apprehension from his purpose, and meanwhile leaves the ark in the house of Obed-Edom. 7. The sojourn of the ark in the house of Obed-Edom for three months proves an occasion of great blessing to him and his family. The remarkable events of this section naturally arrange themselves in a threefold order—the bringing up of the ark; the judgment on Uzzah; and the suspension of the undertaking. We here find three topics, which we will take in succession. Religious restorations. I. IS THE OF . This is the interpretation of David’s action in seeking to bring the ark out of its obscurity to the central seat of government. From the time when the ark was captured by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:1-22.) and its deposit at Kirjath-jearim (1 Samuel 6:21), all through the reign of Saul, with the exception of the brief revival at Ebenezer, the religion of the nation had been at a low ebb. That so sacred a treasure should have been left in obscurity, without the forms and order of worship enjoined in the Law of Moses, was an indication of spiritual decadence, and goes far to account for the political weakness of the nation during the life of Saul. David saw clearly that the elevation of his people depended chiefly on two things—vigorous, enlightened statesmanship, and fidelity in all things to their covenanted God. The establishment of a strong centre of government at Jerusalem was one step; but he saw that, if the nation was to fulfil its highest destiny, the prosperity he desired must also rest on a strictly religious foundation. Hence the effort to restore religious life by bringing up the ark of the covenant. Leaving out of view the particular form of religion, and the symbolism appropriate to that stage in the development of God’s revelation, we can see how profoundly wise David’s judgment was. The human activities developed in national civilized life can only be counted on to run into right and safe channels, and to avoid mutual destruction, when they are pervaded by the spirit of true godliness. Wealth, art, science, commerce, military display, free and easy interchange of thought,—these are not self-preservative, these do not give rest to the heart, these do not check the tendencies that carry in themselves the germs of decay and death. Only when the national mind is purified, rendered calm, self-restrained, and God-like in feeling by knowledge and worship of the Holy One is there a guarantee that all will go well and endure. This is taught in the history of Greece, Rome, and other lands where God was not honoured by proper worship, and his Spirit not cherished in daily life; and it is the strenuous teaching of prophets and apostles, and especially of the Saviour, who makes clear what is the light of the world and the healing of the nations. II. THE OF IS AN EVENT OF GREAT JOY. The very idea of a restoration of the piety of former days was to David an inspiration. His calling the chief men from all quarters of the land, his expounding to them his sense of what was due to the symbol of God’s presence, his grand processional march, and the exuberant delight with which he sang and danced,—reveal the high appreciation he had of the great turn now coming in the religious, life of the nation. The awakening of a new enthusiasm by his influence certainly was a remarkable incident in the national life regarded in contrast with the stolid indifference of the age of Saul. The power of a new and healthy religious emotion over all the faculties, and consequently over all departments of activity, is very great, giving elevation, spring, and purpose to all that is done or attempted. In this case there were special elements entering into the joy. The ark was the symbol of God’s presence; it contained the overshadowed mercy seat, which told of forgiveness and communion; it was the exponent of covenant relationship, and the prophetic indicator to the devout mind of a glory yet to he revealed, and of a covenant on wider basis and embracing vaster blessings. Ezra knew something of this joy of restoration of religion to its proper position. There was joy also when, after centuries of error and wrong, the attention of men was directed once more by Luther and his coadjutors to the mercy seat where men could find a new and living way of access to the Father. No greater occasion for joy could arise for our own land than a full national enthusiasm for those sacred deposits of truth and holy influence which God has given us in his revelation and in the institutions of his Church. What is thus true of restorations on a large scale holds of our own lives, when, after seasons of dreary separation from our God and cold miserable observance of occasional acts of worship, we go forth with all our soul after the living God, and welcome him afresh to our love and trust as the God of our salvation. III. TO A OF . It is instructive to see how, in the providence of God, great movements have sprung out of individual consecrations. The soul of David, purified, elevated, and aroused to grasp spiritual realities, was the human spring of this great change. Of course his official position would secure attention to his requests and commands; but it depended on the bent of his mind as to the form and scope of his commands. This reformation proceeded from him, but not entirely by direct personal influence. His tone and manner, his habits of devotion and strict regard for God’s will, would tell on those in direct contact with him; but that was not enough. Hence in his sagacity he summoned select men from all parts of the land, and through them sought to act on the thousands who could not leave their homes. This call from all towns and villages would awaken thought there, would lead to explanations, would quicken conscience, would disseminate his ideas and the enthusiasm of his spirit, would create the feeling that a holier and wiser time was at hand; and when, subsequently, the thirty thousand returned home, they would further diffuse the influence caught by contact with the godly king, and contribute elements of good to their respective localities. The great reformations of the world have all been effected thus. Few come into direct personal contact with the originators. The multitude get the secondary influences. Nor can we tell how far our influence may thus be diffused. The wave moves on in proportion to the susceptibility of those who first receive its impact. The question of indirect influence deserves much consideration on the part of Churches and individuals. IV. A TIME OF IN MUCH FEELING NOT PURELY . Although a great interest was awakened by David’s zeal in the restoration of the more regular worship of God, yet we must discriminate between such devout feelings and clear views of spiritual things as were true of him, and the vague sentiments of the multitude. If Psalms 68:1-35, and Psalms 132:1-18, may be taken as indicative of his real state of mind, we are not to suppose that all the rest who joined in the procession or were stirred to excitement in their homes rose to the same height in the religious life. Men cannot help being roused when powerful religious minds put forth their energies; and in some instances they are awakened to a really new spiritual life; but contagion of thought and sentiment and fervid interest in a great public movement are not the same as vital godliness. They may be better than dull indifference, and may even serve as a step to a higher and more permanent elevation, yet if they be all the reformation is very superficial. Forming an estimate on the general rules that govern human action, we may be sure that many who sang and danced before the ark were only nominal worshippers, and had but slight sympathy with the deep meaning of the words of the psalmist. The same was true of the Protestant Reformation. Multitudes took an interest in doctrinal discussions and in the freedom from priestly domination who knew little of that inner spiritual life which, in the case of Luther and the leaders, found its core in personal union with Christ. Our modern revivals are to be estimated in the same way. We may be thankful that crowds flock to sing and hear and welcome ostensibly the true Ark of the covenant, and many, no doubt, sing with the understanding and rejoice in spirit, but the mass have still to be regarded as relatively strangers to the new and deeper life. Human judgments on Divine acts of judgment. The part of the narrative referring to the conduct of Uzzah and the consequences to himself always awaken in the reader a feeling of surprise at the apparent disproportion of the punishment to the offence. Sympathy is felt with the feeling of David, who was "displeased," and could no further carry out his project of conveying the ark to Jerusalem. Evil minded men have not been alone in pointing to this record as an evidence of what they would call the unworthy representations of the Divine Being contained in the Old Testament. It is well to look this difficulty fully in the face, and see, if possible, how far man is warranted to express a judgment at all upon an event so terrible and seemingly inexplicable, on such principles at least as govern human acts of justice. Note here— I. THE REASONS FOR DIVINE ARE NOT ALWAYS TO MAN, AND YET MAY BE MOST VALID. It is a first principle that the "Judge of all the earth" cannot but do right. That is the solid rock on which to rest when events occur in providence that do not admit of explanation. It is, further, a sound position that God locks at the inner life of men, and knows exactly the tone and spirit concealed from human view; and it is this condition of the inner man, and not the bare outward act, which constitutes the real character and determines the moral value of the action in the sight of God. Also, incidental actions are incidental in their form because of passing circumstances; but the state of mind out of which they spring is permanent; for given two minds of different spiritual tone and bias, they will, when placed under pressure of the same external circumstances, produce totally different actions. Now, we have a right to assume, prima facie, that, if there are no adequate reasons for the sudden terrible punishment discoverable in the bare and apparently well-disposed act of Uzzah, there must have been, in his habitual state of feeling towards the symbol of God’s presence and the whole events of the day, something determinately evil, and of which that which seemed to others to be an innocent act was known by God to be the natural outcome. That was the case in the destruction of Dathan and Abiram. The falsehood of Ananias Was outwardly only like other falsehoods, but we are told that God saw something more than the ordinary antecedent of a lie in common life. There have been judgments on nations and families and individuals, and are still, which do come in the providence of God, but the hidden reasons of which only eternity will reveal. As our Saviour during his earthly life often spoke to the unuttered thoughts of men, and not to meet definite words, so here and in other cases the Divine act was doubtless to meet an unuttered, a permanent, not fully expressed state of mind, of which Uzzah was conscious, but of which men knew little. The same will be true of future judgments of God; they will be based, not on the ostensible act merely, hut on the tenor of the whole life (Matthew 7:22, Matthew 7:23; Matthew 25:40-46). II. THE GUILT OF ACTIONS IS VERY MUCH ON ENJOYED. The Philistines had handled the ark (1 Samuel 5:1, 1 Samuel 5:2), and no immediate evil came to them for so doing. Their subsequent affliction seems to have been owing to their detention and mockery of the ark (1 Samuel 5:3-7), not to the fact of touching it. But it was a positive injunction that the Levites should not touch the sacred thing (Numbers 4:15); and the particular injunction was illustrated and rendered more significant by the regulation that the ark should always be carried on staves, thus not needing the touch of any hand. The Philistines were men "without law;" Uzzah was a man "under law." The whole history of his people in relation to ceremonial had been full of instruction of the same kind. The guilt of a deed depends on previous knowledge or means of obtaining knowledge. Capernaum is not judged by the same rule as the people of Sodom. The Jew is pronounced inexcusable because of his superior light (Romans 2:1-29.). Severer punishment comes on those who, possessing gospel light, do deeds worthy of darkness (John 3:19; Hebrews 10:29). Judgment may fall on the "house of God" which would not come on those not in the house (1 Peter 4:17). III. TO DIVINE LAWS IS . The disregard of the well-known injunction in this case was probably the culmination of an indifference which had been growing for a long time. An evil tendency or mental habit may be in process of formation, and may constitute a state of actual spiritual degeneracy, a long time before an occasion occurs for its manifestation in any overt act that is distinctly in violation of positive law. The degeneracy which was far too common during the reign of Saul doubtless had penetrated to the home of Uzzah, and the neglect of honour paid to the ark during those long years of its stay in his father’s abode, together with the kind of familiarity with it bred of its presence as a relic of a former elaborate ritual, could not but have resulted in a rather decided insensibility to the sacredness of minute regulations. The act of touching the ark may have been a consequence of this condition, and the "error," or "rashness," spoken of (Psalms 132:8) may indicate that there was not in him that quickness of spiritual sensibility which would at once have seen that no casual circumstance can set aside a command based on a great and Divine order of things. There is not a more subtle evil of our life than this gradual deepening of indifference arising from neglect of spiritual culture and encouraged by unthoughtful familiarity with sacred things. The conscience passes through stages of degeneration till we come to do things without compunction which once would have caused us anguish of spirit. How far our children are in danger from constant familiarity with religious phrases and usages is a serious question. The same applies also to ordinary worshippers in our sanctuaries. IV. THERE IS IMPIETY IN GOD’S FOR THE SAFETY OF HIS OWN GLORY. The ark was the visible symbol of God’s presence. His glory was there, so far as it could be manifested in visible form to man at that stage of his religious education. The command that no Levite should ever touch it was among the arrangements made for its stay among the people. All such arrangements of God are made on full prevision of every possibility. To say that circumstances might arise when the command would he inadequate to the maintenance of the ark in its integrity among men, would be an impeachment of the Divine wisdom and power. The command had reference solely to human action, and did not reveal what reserve of power and appliance there might be for securing the safety of the ark at all times. Common sense, to say nothing of religious faith, ought to have taught that the Eternal would take care of his own if he declined the aid of man, or at least that it was his will that his own should suffer temporary injury now and then. It was irrational and impious, therefore, to distrust his provision for securing his own ends. The putting forth of the hand in contravention of the command may have been the expression of this. The same applies equally to the New Testament manifestation of the glory of God in Christ. For times of danger and of seeming safety he has enjoined on us certain conduct in relation to the kingdom of Christ, which proceeds on the presupposition that he has means of securing the integrity of that kingdom on the basis of our restricting our conduct to that prescribed order. By prayer, by truthfulness, by spirituality of mind, by love, by persuasive words, by blameless, meek lives, by quiet faith in the invisible power of the Spirit, we are to do our part in relation to the preservation of the integrity of the kingdom, and to its processional march to final triumph. If, when supposing it liable to suffer, or when observing a great shock arising from the circumstances of its position in our time, we depart from the order laid down, and trim to the world and become unspiritual and untruthful, or depend less on faith in the invisible power of the Holy Spirit than on mere human science and social influences, then we virtually fall into this view of the sin of Uzzah, we distrust God’s provision for securing in the world those interests that are bound up with the work and Person of Christ. Man is responsible for the observance of what is enjoined, not for imaginary temporary consequences that will ensue from an observance of what is enjoined. Here is the clue to hosts of failures of duty and wretched expediencies. V. AS AN ELEMENT OF IS OF PRIME IN AND LIFE. No great character is formed without profound reverence as a chief feature. Men are mean, weak, morally low, in so far as they are trifling and destitute of awe. The spirit of levity, which treats all things as common and fit subjects for free and thoughtless handling, never reads the great lessons of existence, and never wins respect. A reverent man alone forms a true estimate of himself in relation to the vast order of things of which he is but a part. An irreverent nation lacks the strong, sober qualities which alone grow out of reverence as their root, and which alone can produce noble, strenuous actions. Now, the whole drift of the Mosaic ritual and commands was to develop and foster reverence in the people. The solemnities and details in reference to the ark, the sanctuary, the altars, the sacrifices, the cleansings, and assemblies were rational in their specific relations. The great gathering at the foot of Sinai, and the solemn restrictions there laid down (Exodus 19:1-25.), were evidently designed to develop a becoming "fear of the Lord" and profound regard for sacred things. The judgment on Dathan and Abiram was a check on a tendency to irreverence. The very hope of the people depended on the due maintenance of this reverent spirit. All had understood the command not to touch the ark in that light, and the judgment on Uzzah for the violation of that command was only another solemn way of impressing the people with the prime importance of this feeling. Hence, also, our care to encourage such forms of worship as best foster reverence of spirit, and such styles of teaching as exhibit the facts and principles from the recognition of which reverence will naturally arise. Hence, again, our appreciation of those providential events, such as sickness, bereavement, and stupendous manifestations of untraceable wisdom and power, which awaken or strengthen the feeling, "Great and holy is the Lord: who shall stand in his presence?" VI. THERE IS AN IN . The dull heart of man often needs something more than the still small voice and quiet order of events to arouse it to a sense of what is due to God and what is wisest and best for man. In every judgment—say of Sodom, of Pharaoh, of Dathan, of Ananias—there is pure justice; no wrong is done to the individuals concerned; but the acts have a reference beyond the persons affected thereby. The contemporaries of Abraham, the Egyptians, Israel in the desert, and the primitive Church, were instructed by what occurred in their midst. Many judgments are connected with the explicit statement that "the nations may know." The judgment on Uzzah formed part of the educational process by which God was bringing the people out of their low spiritual condition to the elevation in tone which would render them more effective in carrying out Divine purposes in the world. We cannot fully estimate how much we owe to the influence over us of the record of God’s judgments contained in his Word. Nor is it enough to say that they are repressive in their influence, and not conducive to the developing of love and filial trust and the free joy of a superior life; for the repression and restraint of evil tendencies is requisite in creatures strongly under their influence, and, while checking from what would soon be utter, hopeless ruin, they open the way for the action of other gentle, tender influences which do develop the free joyous spirit of the obedient child. VII. THE AND OF GOD ARE AND OFTEN COEXIST. It is had theology based on defective knowledge of Scripture to represent God in an exclusive aspect of mildness. Though we need not become material in our conceptions, and think of contrary attributes in him as so many quasi-physical forces contending one against the other or finding an outlet at the expense of one another, yet the very conception of love, when just, implies a rigid, severe guardianship of the order of things on which the welfare of the holy depends. This combination shines forth in the death of Uzzah. In case he was a really devout man, and simply in an unguarded moment of unwatchfulness put forth his hand, then his sudden death—though necessary to the maintenance of the ritual which we have seen was based on the principle of inculcating reverence, and useful, as an educational act, for the People—would not include, necessarily, loss and ruin in the next life. He might be saved, though as by fire. This combination of severity and goodness shines forth most conspicuously in the work of our Saviour, in whose life and death the reprobation of sin and the outflow of mercy to sinners form the two elements which render the cross a mystery of justice and mercy. Distrust a foil to faith and love. it is said that David was displeased, and in his displeasure there arose a fear hitherto unknown to him, and, as a consequence of these, the enterprise on which he had entered with so much joy and confidence was abandoned till, as we shall see further on, the reward which came to Obed-Edom’s faith and love, standing in contrast with David’s gloomy imaginings, brought him round to a better mind. I. WITH THE ORDER OF FROM A OF SELF-WILL AND . David was dissatisfied and vexed in spirit with what had occurred to interrupt the joyous carrying out of his programme. It was not so much dissatisfaction with what Uzzah had done, or pare that he was dead, but annoyance that for such a deed the great terror of death should have come on them all. Had he spoken out all his feelings and thoughts, he would have said that such an event was undesirable, out of proportion to the deed, and an intrusive disturbance of a great and important ceremonial. Had he been at the head of authority, no such calamity as that should have interfered with a grand national undertaking. Possibly, apart from frustration of his own immediate plans for festivity, he may have been apprehensive of the effect of such a dreadful doom upon the mass of the People whom he was anxious to interest in the restoration of religion. But we can now see how all this was the outcome of self-will and ignorance. He wanted things to go on in his own way; he did not know, as he might have known on more profound reflection, that to maintain the authority of law and inculcate reverence and check national tendencies to levity were for the highest good of the People, and that these could be most assuredly promoted by this sad event. We have here an instance, in conspicuous form, of the very common circumstance of men secretly complaining of the order of events which Providence chooses. A rainy season, a sweeping earthquake, a transmission of evil consequences from parent to child, the destiny of the wicked, and many other things which do come in consequence of the constitution of the physical and moral worlds, often raise within the heart the feeling that some other arrangement would surely have been better, and that had we our way such things would not be possible. This is really self-assertion, love of our own way, ignorance of the innumerable ramifications of single events and acts, and inability to penetrate into the conditions on which alone a permanent and generally beneficial order of things can be secured. The psalmist rose to wiser thoughts and holier feelings (Psalms 73:13-22; Psalms 92:4-6; cf. Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:26; Romans 11:33, Romans 11:34). II. STRONG UNHOLY FEELING IMPAIRS THE OF TRUTH AND DUTY. That David’s annoyance with the order of Providence was a decidedly unholy feeling is obvious—it was the opposite of that meek, loving acquiescence in the ways and acts of God, even when they are most painful, which characterizes the truly filial spirit; and that it was strong is seen in the fact that from that moment he failed, under its action, to see the glorious truth enshrined in the symbol before him, and was moved to abandon the work to which he had committed himself and the people. Psychologically it can be proved that all emotion affects more or less the steadiness of intellectual perception. Morally it is a matter of experience that an emotion of anger, distrust, or annoyance always interferes with a clear perception of spiritual truth. Plato was right in affirming that the νοῦϚ unaffected by the storms or’ passion and sense alone can see reality. The god of this world, by engaging and exciting feelings, blinds the minds of men, so that they see not the glory which shines in the face of Christ. David’s fear of the ark, his dread lest something should happen (Psalms 132:9), was contrary to all he had felt before. Hitherto the ark had been to him the symbol of that blessed presence which had brought joy and comfort to his heart—a reminder of the mercy which endureth forever. It was not possible to see this precious truth through the mists of unholy feeling that had been permitted to rise in his soul. And this shrinking from what had once been reverently regarded as the spring of purest joy and satisfaction at once weakened the resolve be had formed to bring the blessed symbol to his seat of government and give it there the honour due. Duty gave way to the disgust and disappointment and foolish apprehensions generated by his own proud will. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 7:1 When the king sat in his house. The order is not chronological; for the words, Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies round about (so the Revised Version, rightly), imply the successful termination, not of all wars necessarily, but certainly of something more than that with the Philistine invaders in the Rephaim valley. A general summary of all David’s wars is given in 2 Samuel 8:1-18; and it was probably after he had subdued the Philistines and Moab, and his throne was now fully established, that in some time of peace, possibly before Hanun forced him into wars which won for him an empire, David sent for Nathan, and told him his full desire. Its position here immediately after the account of the bringing of the ark to Zion has a higher unity than that of chronology. It shows that David had always a larger purpose than the mere placing of the ark in its feint; and, as soon as a period of tranquillity arrived, he confided his thoughts to the prophet. Thus, with only one step taken towards his whole plan, David exercised a wise moderation in leaving the service at Gibeon unmolested. As regards the word "rest," we have to distinguish between the first series of wars, which established David firmly on his throne, and the second series, which gave him widespread dominion. 2 Samuel 7:2 A house of cedar; Hebrew, cedars. As these trees were sent by Hiram, and as the house was built, and David now settled in it, some considerable time must have elapsed since his accession. Moreover, the league with Hiram would be the result of David’s successes recorded in 2 Samuel 8:1; for the bond of union between the two was their mutual fear of the Philistines. As we have seen before, the alliance with Tyro had a very civilizing effect upon the Hebrews, who were far inferior to the Tyrians in the mechanical arts; and David’s house of hewn cedar logs was marvellous in the eyes of a people who still dwelt chiefly in tents. David purposed to build even a more sumptuous palace for Jehovah, and advised with Nathan as his chief counsellor, and the person to whom subsequently the education of Solomon was confided. Within curtains; Hebrew, the curtain; that is, the tent. The tabernacle prepared by Moses for the ark was formed of ten curtains (Exodus 26:1), but the significance lay, not in their number, hut in the dwelling of Jehovah still being a mere temporary lodging, though his people had received from him a settled land. 2 Samuel 7:3 Go, do all that is in thine heart. Nathan rashly approves. The king’s purpose seems so pious that he does not doubt its acceptance by God. 2 Samuel 7:4 The word of Jehovah came unto Nathan. Not every word of a prophet was inspired, and only a very few of the prophets, and those only upon great and solemn occasions, spake under the direct influence of the Spirit of God. In his usual relations with the king, Nathan was simply a wise, thoughtful, and God-fearing man. In giving his approval he probably meant no more than that a permanent dwelling for Jehovah was what all pious men were hoping for. But from the days of Samuel to those of Ezra, there was never wanting one or even more holy men who were, on fit occasions, commissioned to bear a message from God to man; and as these generally belonged to the prophetic order, men too often now confound prophecy with prediction. So inveterate is this confusion that even in the Revised Version Amos is made to say, "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son," whereas the Hebrew distinctly is, "I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son [that is, one trained in the prophetic schools], but I am a herdsman" (Amos 7:16). But though not a prophet by profession, yet Amos was discharging a prophet’s higher duty in testifying against wickedness and impiety, and was acting under a special Divine call. Still, he did not belong to the prophetic order, nor wear the garment of black camel’s hair, which was their professional dress. On the present occasion, Nathan, in approving, had spoken as a man, but now a Divine message comes to him. How we know not. but in verse 17 it is called a "vision;" and it is also said that it came "that night." 2 Samuel 7:5 Shalt thou, etc.? The question implies an answer in the negative; but there is no disapproval of David’s purpose as such; but only the deferring of its full execution unto the days of his son. There is more than this. The idea which runs through the Divine message is that the dwelling of Jehovah in a tent was a fitting symbol of Israel’s unquiet possession of the laud. It was David’s mission to give them tranquillity and security in the region which they had conquered long ago, but wherein they had never hitherto been able to maintain their liberty unimpaired. Then, upon the accomplishment of David’s special duty, his son, Shelomo, i.e. the peaceful, was to build the solid temple, as the proof that Jehovah had now taken permanent possession of the land. We find also a further thought, namely, that the building of the temple signified "the making for David of a house." In its full significance this means that the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David were now chosen by God as the ancestors of the Messiah. 2 Samuel 7:6 I have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle; literally, I have walked continually; that is, I have ever been a wanderer, first, in the wilderness, and subsequently at Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon. Instead of a "tabernacle," the Hebrew has a "dwelling." This may refer to the houses of Abinadab and Obed-Edom, but the words more probably signify "a tent that was my dwelling." 2 Samuel 7:7 In all the places wherein I have walked; Hebrew, in all wherein I continued walking; that is, in all my walking, in all the whole time wherein I have been a wanderer. Instead of tribes, the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 17:6) reads "judges," the words in the Hebrew being almost identical. "Judges" is, of course, the more easy and natural reading, but "tribes" gives a fuller sense, and is supported by all the versions. For in the troubled anarchy which lasted until Saul’s reign, first one tribe and then another was called to the front, and had a temporary ascendancy; but neither did Jehovah give it any command to provide a settled place for his worship, nor did any one of the judges conceive the thought of making his tribe permanently the chief, by providing a fixed abode for the ark and for God’s worship within its borders. To feed my people Israel. The shepherd, in biblical language, is the ruler, and to feed is to govern, yet in a kindly way, going in front as the shepherd before his flock, to bear the brunt of danger, to clear the road, and to guide into the safe pastures. So tribe after tribe had been called to bear the brunt of war, and, after winning deliverance, it became its duty to guide anti lead the people. In 1 Kings 8:16, 1 Kings 8:18, 1 Kings 8:25, and still more remarkably in 1 Chronicles 22:8, 1 Chronicles 22:9, we find large additions made to the account here given. It follows that we have in this place only a brief summary of the message brought by Nathan, but one containing all the chief points. 2 Samuel 7:8 I took thee from the sheepcote. There is in Nathan’s message a marked advance upon the words of all previous prophecies. Hitherto God’s promises had been general, and no tribe, and much less any special person, had been chosen as the progenitor of the Messiah. The nearest approach to the selection of a tribe had been the prediction of Judah’s supremacy until Shiloh came (Genesis 49:10); but it was not even there expressly declared that Shiloh should be of Judah’s race. But now David is clearly chosen. Jehovah takes him from the sheepcote; Hebrew, "the meadow" (see Psalms 78:70). It was in the meadows, the Naioth, round Ramah, that Samuel had gathered the young men of Israel to study their ancient records, and raise their country to a sense of its high calling. In those meadows David had been formed for his high vocation; but he had returned from them to Bethlehem, to feed his father’s sheep. And now, "from following the ewes that gave suck," Jehovah takes him to be "his servant," a word of high dignity, applied to but few persons in the Old Testament. It signifies the prime minister, or vicegerent of Jehovah, as the theocratic king, and is the special title of Moses among God’s people, and, among the heathen, of Nebuchadnezzar, as one summoned to do a great work for God. But it is in the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah that the title reaches its full grandeur. For there, first of all, Israel is called Jehovah’s servant, because it was Israel’s office to be the witness for the oneness of God amidst the debasing polytheism of all the nations round. And then, finally, the servant is Messiah, as being the personal Representative of God upon earth. The title is now given to David as the type of Christ’s kingly office, and also as the sweet singer, who added a new service to the worship of God, and made it more spiritual, and more like the service of angels round God’s throne. 2 Samuel 7:9 I have made thee a great name. The widespread conquests of David, and his great empire, were not for the sake of mere earthly dominion. It was, first of all, a type of Messiah’s reign, to whom God has premised the heathen for his inheritance, and that his gospel shall be carried to the ends of the earth. But, secondly, if Messiah was to be "David’s Son," it was necessary that that king should hold a special place in the hearts of all Israelites. In the fables and tales of the Arabs, it is Solomon who holds the foremost place. Just as our forefathers showed the native qualities of the race by making Arthur’s court the abode of prowess and chivalrous bravery; so the Arabs made Solomon’s court the representative of that dazzling splendor and magnificence which they so admired; and invested him with superhuman knowledge and magical power, such as made janns and ifreets the humble slaves of his will. In the Old Testament no king is "Jehovah’s servant" but David; no king is ever connected with Messiah but David. The religious fervent of the people may gather round a Hezekiah or a Josiah, and prophets may encourage them in their work; but no prophet sees in either of them the ancestor of Christ. It is, however, in the Psalms that we learn the full meaning of Nathan’s words. Here a veil is partly drawn over them. But it would be a wilful closing of the eyes to read this message and not bear in mind the clear light with which every word is illumined by the inspired outpouring of David’s own heart. He thoroughly understood the fulness and blessedness of God’s revelation, and has taught us that it all looked onward to Christ. 2 Samuel 7:10, 2 Samuel 7:11 Moreover I will appoint … will plant. For "moreover," the Hebrew has "and." The tenses also continue the same: "And I have appointed … and have planted." It is all part of the same act. As regards the second verb, the past tense alone makes sense. Jehovah was not about to plant Israel in a place of their own, hut had just done so completely. For David’s kingdom had given them security, and with it the power of doing for God that duty which was Israel’s special office in the world. Had the anarchy of the times of the judges continued, and the energies of the nation been spent in a hard struggle for existence, that rapid advance in literature which followed upon the institution of Samuel’s schools, and which filled David’s court with poets and chroniclers, never could have existed, and prophecy would have been impossible. The age of Hezekiah was apparently the culminating period of Hebrew civilization, after which came the depressing influences of the Assyrian invasions, and then long exile, followed by a second weary struggle for existence. If writing was at first a mystery and an art known only to priests, it became throughout the monarchy the possession especially of the prophets, who were Israel’s learned men. At the head of their roll stands the matchless Isaiah, and to render it possible for his genius to display itself, not only Samuel’s schools, but the security of David’s era of conquest, and the long peace and magnificence of Solomon’s reign, were all necessary. When "God had given David rest from his enemies round about," he had thereby finally appointed a place for Israel and had planted them there. There is, perhaps, some difficulty in the verb forms at the end of verse 11, but none in the meaning. The reign of David marks an era in the national life. Under him Israel obtained secure possession of the place appointed for it; and now, having no longer to waste its energies in perpetual fighting, the national life grows upwards, and attains to culture, to thought, and civilization. Canaan is now their own, and instead of being mere warriors, they develop national institutions and a national character. What could men do that belongs to a higher and nobler life who were in daily fear of being swept away by Canaanites and Midianites, by Philistines and Ammonites? This miserable period is described as "beforetime," and as "since the day that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel." And here a colon should be placed; and the Hebrew will then proceed, "But now I have caused thee to rest from thine enemies, the anarchy and its attendant weakness is over; "and Jehovah telleth thee that Jehovah will make thee a house." Rest has been given; the establishment of David’s family as the Messianic lineage is to follow (see on this promise, 1 Samuel 2:35). 2 Samuel 7:12 Thy seed … which shall proceed. As the son is to be established in the kingdom and to build the house, he must be Solomon, who plainly, therefore, was not as yet born (see note on 2 Samuel 7:1). 2 Samuel 7:13 I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. The temple which Solomon was to build was the symbol of the new development of Israel, and naturally these words suggest a meaning not unworthy of so great an advance in the accomplishment of the nation’s mission. Had we, indeed, only this passage, we might be content to take it in a popular sense, as signifying that, whereas Saul’s throne (and subsequently that of the many usurpers in Samaria) had but a brief existence, Solomon’s descendants should hold for many centuries undisputed possession of the kingdom of Jerusalem. But in Psalms 89:29 we read, "His (David’s) seed will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven." And again in Psalms 89:36, Psalms 89:37 a continuance is assured to it as lasting as that of the sun and moon. We can scarcely, therefore, be wrong in the conviction that these promises pointed onwards to the establishment of Christ’s kingdom, and that the great importance attached to the building of the temple finds its explanation in its relation to him. This full establishment after so long a delay of the Mosaic typical ritual, the addition to it of psalmody, giving it a spiritual side, and making the worship that of the heart, the bestowal of empire, and the rapid development of the people under David and Solomon, were all steps in that wonderful series of special providences which made the Jews fit to be the progeniters of the Messiah, which surrounded him during his ministry with companions capable of understanding and recording his teaching, and provided for him, after his death, missionaries, not merely with zeal enough, but with intellectual gifts sufficient to enable them to persuade both Greece and Rome to listen to tidings so wonderful and mysterious as that God for our salvation had become man. Keil also well points out that the temple was a symbol of Christ’s incarnation; for it meant the dwelling of God on earth. "I have surely," says Solomon, "built thee a house of habitation, a place for thee to dwell in forever" (1 Kings 8:13). The same thought was in St. John’s mind when he said, "The Word became flesh, and dwelt as in a tabernacle among us" (John 1:14). For the verb used by him, literally "tabernacled," is a comparison between Christ’s life on earth, and the dwelling of God in "the tent of meeting." But there is more than this. Christ himself calls his body "the temple" (John 2:19, John 2:21). At the Resurrection he raised up again the temple of his body which the Jews had destroyed, and at the Ascension it was removed from the earth, to be reserved in heaven until his second advent. His reign now is spiritual, and his temple is not a building made with hands, but is the heart of the renewed believer (1 Corinthians 6:19). And this indwelling of Christ in the heart will continue unto the end of the present dispensation. For Christ’s indwelling is that also of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16); and the gift of the Spirit continues unto the end of the world. "The Father shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever" (John 14:16). 2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his Father, and he shall be my son. Between father and son there is not only love, but oneness. Whatsoever the father hath, that belongs also to the son by natural right. But this sonship is magnified in the Psalms beyond the measure of Solomon or any natural limits. The Son there is "the Firstborn," which Solomon was not, "higher than the kings of the earth" (Psalms 89:27); and he must have "the nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession" (Psalms 2:8). Psalms like the second and seventy-second belong, not to Solomon personally, but to him as the type of the prince of Peace; and they help to show us what is the true meaning and fulfilment of the words here. The rod of men; that is, such punishment as men fitly receive for their faults. David’s natural posterity was to be exempt neither from human depravity, nor from punishment, nor from the changes and chances of mortal life. With them, as with men generally, there would be a tangled skein, of virtue and sin, of folly and wisdom, of terrible fall and penitent recovery. But there was to be no blotting out of David’s lineage. Great earthly houses, in the long course of events, one after another become extinct, and even the tabernacle of David was to fall (Amos 9:11), but not forever. God would "raise up its ruins’ in Christ, and "build it as in the days of old." So in Isaiah 9:1 there is the same thought of the complete down-hewing of David’s earthly lineage, yet only to rise again to nobler life and vigour, in the Branch, or Sucker, that was to spring from the fallen trunk. 2 Samuel 7:15, 2 Samuel 7:16 Before thee. This does not refer to time, but means "in thy presence," or "before thy face," that is, "as thou hast thyself been witness." There is a strong contrast between the fate of Saul’s house and this eternal endurance promised to that of David. The lineage of Saul might have made a new start in Jonathan, and even when he died at Gilboa, he left a son behind him. Still, no one ever locked upon Mephibosheth as having any title to the throne; and though Shimei (2 Samuel 16:5) may have conceived the hope that, if David were overthrown, the kingdom might return to Saul’s family, yet, as a matter of fact, among the many vicissitudes of the ten tribes, the attempt never was made to search for a descendant of Saul to be Israel’s king. Saul’s was a royalty for one generation; David’s throne was to be established forever. Not because David was sinless. His character is sullied by crimes of the darkest hue. But he never sank into a mere tyrant, such as Saul was towards David and towards the priests at Nob. Nor did David ever become an irreligious man (1 Samuel 22:18, 1 Samuel 22:19; 1 Samuel 28:15), though there is in him a strange and painful mixture of great good and great evil. The salt that preserves his character is his genuine sincerity and earnestness both towards God and man; and these qualities make him not unworthy of the high place he holds among God s people. Still, the premise was not because of David’s deserts, but because from him was to come the Christ, who is blessed. forevermore. 2 Samuel 7:17 Vision. This word does not imply that Nathan saw anything with the natural eye, but signifies that sort of prophecy which was vouchsafed to a "seer." Thus the prophecies of Isaiah, of Nahum, and of Obadiah are called "visions." Probably the word is taken from the fixed gaze, with which the seer looked into the far off world with unmoved eyes, yet seeing not with them, but with the spiritual sight within. It would thus be an intellectual process accompanied by a rigidity of the natural organs, caused partly by intensity of feeling, but chiefly by mental preoccupation, which left no faculty at liberty to discharge its ordinary function. 2 Samuel 7:18 David … sat before the Lord. The word "sat" is usually explained by commentators as meaning "tarried." The rabbins give the word its ordinary meaning, and say that it was the privilege of kings to pray in a sitting posture. But we cannot possibly believe that kings at this early stage had established a special etiquette for observance in prayer, and the difficulty is merely imaginary. Because the Jews prayed standing, and we moderns pray kneeling, we both assume that to pray sitting was an irreverent act. It was not so, nor are we to think of David as sitting at ease in a chair. He sat upon the ground, as was the Oriental custom, with his feet doubled under him, and his head bent forward; and in this posture meditated upon Jehovah’s message, and then poured out his thoughts. As it is expressly said that "he sat before Jehovah," the place must have been the outer court of the tabernacle. Who am I, O Lord Jehovah! In the Authorized Version Jehovah is rendered "God," because it has the vowels of the word Elohim; usually it is rendered "Lord," because the Masserites attached to it the vowels of Adonai, "lord," equivalent to Dominus. As Adonai here precedes Jehovah, the Massorites were driven from their usual practice, and were so superstitious as to suppose it more reverent to pronounce the name Elohim than that of Jehovah, to which the Jews attached magical powers. David’s words are not so much a prayer as a meditation, full of thanksgiving, and even of wonder at the greatness of God’s mercies to him. In it he first acknowledges his own unworthiness and the meanness of his father’s house compared with the high dignity which God is bestowing upon him. For not only has he raised him to the kingly office, but promised him the continuance of his house "for a great while to come." Whether David understood as yet that he was now placed in the same position as Abraham of old, in that "in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed," is uncertain, and depends upon the interpretation put upon the following words. This only we may affirm, that whet he says in this place of his house remaining until a distant future falls far short of the meaning of the passages quoted above from the Psalms. 2 Samuel 7:19 And is this the manner of man, O Lord God? Hebrew, and this is the law of man, O Lord Jehovah. In the parallel passage (1 Chronicles 17:17) the Hebrew has, "And thou hast regarded me according to the law of a man of high degree." The rendering of the Authorized Version here, which, by making the clause interrogative, implies a negative, gives absolutely no sense; but some commentators render, "And this is the manner of men, O Lord Jehovah," understanding thereby that God was acting towards David in a human manner, that is, as an earthly friend and benefactor would do. But though the Revised Version favours this rendering, the Hebrew word torah never has this meaning, and, unless, the attempt be made to amend the text, for which the versions give no help, we must take torah in its usual sense, and understand that this continuance of David’s house into the distant future has now become a human law, that is, a divinely constituted ordinance, which must now take its place among the laws which govern human affairs. The words are undoubtedly difficult, and we feel that David was speaking in an ejaculatory manner, in sentences but half expressed, breaking forth from him bit by bit, under the pressure of deep excitement within. We notice too that, while there is no direct reference to the Messiah in David’s words, yet that the Psalms indicate that he did connect the duration of his house with the Messiah’s advent; and this ejaculation may have sprung forth, if not from a fully formed conviction, yet from the feeling that the permanence of his house was for the purpose of a higher kingdom than that of Jerusalem; and so the promise was a "law of man" and the promulgation of a decree which affected the whole human race. This may be the meaning of the Vulgate, which renders "a law of Adam," that is, one embracing within its scope all Adam’s race, 2 Samuel 7:20 Thou, Lord. God, knowest thy servant. The Hebrew throughout has Lord Jehovah, except in 2 Samuel 7:22, 2 Samuel 7:25, where it has "Jehovah God," the title of Deity used in Genesis 2:1-25. The repeated use Of this covenant and personal name of God is very emphatic; and the appeal to Jehovah’s knowledge of his heart reminds us of similar outpourings of David’s consciousness of his sincere devotion to his Maker, as for instance in Psalms 17:3. 2 Samuel 7:21 For thy word’s sake; In 1 Chronicles 17:19 we read, "For thy servant’s sake." The phrase seemed, perhaps, to the Chronicler difficult, but it does not mean "because of thy previous promise," for no such promise had been given, but "because thou hast now said it." Nor does it imply pre-existing merit in David, but that God had now chosen to declare his will, and what was according to his own heart. It thus makes God’s own good will and pleasure the cause of the great honours bestowed upon David. Instead of these great things, the Hebrew has this great thing; that is, the lasting continuance of David’s family. 2 Samuel 7:22 Wherefore thou art great. God’s goodness is to David a proof of his greatness, and he sees it displayed, not only in his dealings with himself, but also in the past history of the Jewish nation. There is in this a depth of evangelic piety. An unconverted heart would see the greatness of God in the majesty of creation, or in severe dealings with the impenitent. David saw it in acts of mercy and kindness. We look upon Elijah as the very type of sternness, yet he too recognized the presence of God in "the still small voice" of gentleness and love (1 Kings 19:13). 2 Samuel 7:23 And what one nation, etc.? The translation should be, And who is like thy people, like Israel, the one nation upon earth which God went to redeem for himself to be his people, and to make for him a name, etc.? Israel both was and remains to this day a nation unique in its history, both in those early dealings of God with it, and also in its later history and its marvellous preservation unto this day. It is remarkable that in this place the word for "God," Elohim, is followed by a verb plural, the almost invariable rule in Hebrew being that, though Elohim is itself plural, it takes a verb singular whenever it refers to the true God. In the corresponding passage (1 Chronicles 17:21) the verb is in the singular. No adequate reason has been given for this deviation, but probably the usage in these early times was not so strict as it became subsequently. It is the influence of writing, and of the eye becoming conversant with writing, that makes men correct in their use of language and in the spelling of words. In the Syriac Church, God the Word and God the Holy Ghost were at first spoken of in the feminine gender, because "Word" and "Spirit" are both feminine nouns; but grammar soon gave way to soundness of thought and feeling. So probably in colloquial language Elohim was often used with a verb plural, but correct thinking forbade and overruled grammar. We may regard this, then, as one of the few passages in which the colloquial usage has escaped correction, and attach no further importance to it. For you. "You" is plural, and refers to the people. The Vulgate has "for them," which is in accordance with the greater exactness of modern grammar. But sudden changes of person are very common in Hebrew, which follows the rules of thought rather than of written composition; and so David speaks of Israel as you, because they seemed to him to be present. We must note, however, that in the words that follow, for thy land, and thy people, the pronoun is singular, and refers to God. From the nations and their gods. Both the Authorized Version and the Revised Version, by inserting "from," which is not in the Hebrew, take "nations" as in apposition with "Egypt;" but a moment’s consideration shows that this is untenable, as "nations" is plural. But the whole verse is so full of grammatical difficulties as to make it extremely probable that the text is corrupt, and that we ought to supply the verb "to drive out," which is actually read in 1 Chronicles 17:21, or even to substitute it in the place of "for thy land," which is omitted in the parallel passage. The nations which God drove out had nothing to do with Egypt, but were the seven dominant tribes of Canaan; and the bestowal upon Israel of their territories was as essential a part of Jehovah’s dealings with his people as the Exodus itself. Thus the reading will be, To drive out before thy people, whom thou purchasedst for thee from Egypt, nations and their gods. 2 Samuel 7:24 For thou hast confirmed. The word means "thou hast firmly and securely established Israel to "be thy people." This plainly refers to [he settlement in Canaan, now at last completed by David’s victories, and not to the deliverance from Egypt. In the words that follow David recognizes the spiritual importance, not only of the permanent continuance of his house, but also of the empire given unto him. For Israel is now to be a people forever: and thou, Jehovah, art become their God. It is very necessary to retain here the personal name, Jehovah, as it is in the Hebrew, and not dilute it down to the Lord of the Septuagint. For now, to David’s mind, the covenant seemed complete, and ratified forever. Israel is to have an everlasting existence—a promise belonging to it in its full sense only spiritually. For as long as the world lasts, it is against the spiritual Israel that the gates of hell shall never prevail. And next, first as the theocratic people, and then as the Church, it is to hold a unique relation to Jehovah, who is to be its God. For Israel, that is, the Jewish and the Christian Church, worships, not the God of nature, Elohim, but Jehovah, the God of grace; and they learn his attributes, not from philosophy, nor by metaphysical inquiry, but from his own revealed will, in which he teaches us what he is, what we are, and how we are to become one with him. 2 Samuel 7:25, 2 Samuel 7:26 And now, O Lord God; Hebrew, Jehovah God. Similarly, in 2 Samuel 7:26 the Hebrew is "Let thy Name be magnified forever, saying, Jehovah Sabaoth is God over Israel." The special relation of Jehovah to Israel is throughout kept constantly in view; for Jehovah is the Name of Deity in covenant with his people, and it is in the confirmation and permanence of the covenant that David sees the true value of the lasting continuance of his own house. 2 Samuel 7:27 Thou hast revealed to thy servant; Hebrew, thou hast uncovered the ear of thy servant. (see note on 1 Samuel 9:15). Hath thy servant found in his heart; Hebrew, hath found his heart. The word "heart" has a wide meaning in Hebrew, embracing both our intellectual and our moral powers. Here it simply means "courage," as in, 1 Samuel 17:32. The Revised Version puts this in the margin: "Therefore hath thy servant been bold to pray this prayer." 2 Samuel 7:28 And now, O Lord God, thou art that God. The pronoun rendered "that" is really a personal pronoun used as the copula, which the Authorized Version inserts in italics. As this grammatical usage, which is common to all the Semitic languages, was not understood at the time when our version was made, we find all the parts of the verb "to be" constantly printed in italics, as though absent, while really they are expressed in the Oriental way. This has the advantage, however, of reminding the reader that wherever the verb "to be" is printed in Roman characters it has a much stronger meaning than the mere union of subject and predicate. Thus in Genesis 1:2 the first "was," in Roman type, means "existed," or possibly "became;" the second "was," in italics, is simply the copula. Here the correct translation is, And now, O Lord Jehovah, thou art the God; i.e. the one real, true God. 2 Samuel 7:29 Let it please thee to bless; or, begin and bless. Literally, the verb signifies to make up the mind and set about the doing of the thing purposed. Thus David prays that the blessing may now at once begin to take effect. It is often rendered "please" in our version, because the verb is one used only of a determination resolved upon of the free will of the purposer. Its force is well seen in Job 6:9, where what Job prays for is that God would deliberate no longer, but decide the matter and set about destroying him. The Authorized Version was led, by the use of this verse "please," to adopt the optative form. Really, it is the language of firm faith, and should be rendered, And now [there is no "therefore"] begin of thy own good will, and bless the house of thy servant. 2 Samuel 7:1-11 The facts are: 1. David, being settled in his kingdom and furnished with a permanent place of abode, is dissatisfied that the ark of the Lord should remain in a frail tent. 2. He sends for Nathan, and intimates his desire to build a fitting house for the Lord, and receives encouragement from the prophet. 3. During a vision of the night Nathan is directed to inform David that his desire cannot be realized; that all along it had been God’s will to move from place to place in a tent (2 Samuel 7:6); that it was never his purpose to have any other abode while Israel was unsettled (2 Samuel 7:7). 4. He is further to inform David that the dwelling in a tent, and his own call from the sheepcote (2 Samuel 7:8) to be a leader of Israel, were both parts of one design, and that the success vouchsafed to him (2 Samuel 7:9) was evidence of this. 5. Also, David is to know that, in pursuance of the same purpose, God gave his people a land of their own, and planted (these verbs to be taken as perfects, not as converted into futures) them in a permanent abode, free from the embarrassment of such powerful assailants as annoyed them in the time of the judges, and from which they now have rest. 6. The good desire of David, though not to be now realized, is acknowledged by the assurance that God has further purposed to establish his house in Israel. Commendable but unseasonable zeal. Every reader of the narrative at once feels how natural and beautiful it was in David to desire, for the symbol of God’s presence among his people, an abode somewhat commensurate with its glory and suggestive of permanence. It was in keeping with all the antecedents of his life, and there was manifested an exquisite spiritual sensibility in mentioning first of all so important a subject as a change in the abode of the ark to the prophet who represented the Divine source of guidance as distinguished from civil authority. What are the elements which render such zeal commendable and at the same time unseasonable? I. THERE IS A IN THE OF GOD’S KINGDOM AMONG MEN. God’s kingdom among men was the great fact to be emphasized and illustrated in the life of the chosen race, suggestive of a more developed kingdom in later times. This fact had absorbed the energies of Moses, but was somewhat obscured when the people, weary of the existing form of the theocracy, asked for and obtained king in Saul. From the first David had, in his own life, restored the idea of the Divine kingdom to the distinctness of Mosaic times, and counted himself to have no function in the world apart from seeking to realize it in the national experience. For it he lived and ruled; for it he prayed, and of it he sang. This was the fountainhead of all his zeal, and the key to the communication made to Nathan. Herein also is the secret of all acceptable Christian zeal. We are right in feeling and purpose only in so far as our entire life is one with Christ’s. Human life rises to its highest level only when it causes all its strength to flow in with the great stream of spiritual force which one day is to cover the earth. It is not patronage of institutions, study or criticism of Christian forms of thought and action, friendly feeling towards workers in mission fields, but personal identification with the interests of Christ’s kingdom as the most vital and precious of all interests. This is a practical illustration of the phrase, "We have the mind of Christ." II. THERE IS A FEAR LEST PRIVATE AND SECULAR SHOULD . David was blessed with great prosperity in home and in state. In clearer, more reflective moods, he saw that this was connected with the furtherance of the great purpose of God in the world; but amidst the hurry of life and inevitable weaknesses of the moral nature, it was liable to produce a feeling of selfish content with his own condition. The dangers of prosperity are proverbial. His words to Nathan, contrasting his own permanent dwelling with the slender covering of the ark, revealed the thoughts and feelings of a man sensible of a grave spiritual danger, and anxious not to fall into it. It is sometimes, in the course of doing God’s work, or what may be called secular work in a Christly spirit, that Providence grants men secular prosperity. Then comes the testing time of the religious life. Many fall under the spell, and undue absorption in temporal personal comfort robs the kingdom of Christ of much thought and energy it otherwise would have received. The pleasures of the "house of cedar" shut out the condition of the spiritual kingdom. But where zeal is sound, watchfulness is maintained, and spiritual growth keeps pace with worldly prosperity, there will be cherished a wholesome dread lest the blessings which come from God should in any measure wean the heart from him and the supreme interests of his kingdom. III. THERE IS A OF THE OF . Spiritual instinct led David to feel that the tent was not suited as the abode in perpetuity of the eternal, unchangeable God. There was an incongruity between the nature of the occupant and the frailty and transitoriness of the dwelling place. Apart, then, from the contrast with his own "cedar house," he saw that the arrangement which had received Divine sanction through many generations was not to be considered as perfect and unalterable. This was confirmed by the faith he cherished that the presence of God among his people was in pursuance of the great historic promise made to Abraham (Genesis 22:17, Genesis 22:18), and preparatory to some further unfolding of the plan which embraced within its scope all the nations of the earth. So far his zeal in seeking a permanent abode for the ark was enlightened. And this is a characteristic of all true zeal. It does not merely proceed from impulse and strong feeling; it has respect to the nature of the kingdom of Christ and the variability of its outward appliances according to the stages of its development. The visible forms and arrangements adapted to one state of society may need revision and change more or less radical to render the deposit of truth more effective in its influence on a different state of society. A mere love of change is not identical with commendable zeal; a bare feeling that simple variation in outward forms will strengthen the power of religion is no sure guide; but a distinction between the permanent truth centring in Christ, and the transitoriness of the setting of that truth, will lead to a desire, when occasion offers, to make such modifications in the circumstantials of religion as may best accord with the nature of the truth on the one side and the development of human society on the either. IV. THE OF THE ZEAL MAY LIE IN THE ERROR AS TO . In this case all seemed right and sound, in accordance with the purest love and devotion, both to David and to Nathan. Subsequent light from God himself showed that here feeling was right and thought also up to a given point, but that the zeal was inappropriate by reason of a defective knowledge of the specific purposes of God. There were reasons in the Divine mind why David, at this juncture, should not build a house for the Lord. Probably his work of consolidation was not sufficiently advanced, and either then or later on he was reminded that a man of peace was alone suited for such work (1 Chronicles 22:8; 1 Chronicles 28:3). The defectiveness of the judgment even of good men is cause of much mistake in altering the institutions and visible agencies of the Church. There are times when neither David nor Nathan may depend on their present feelings and knowledge, but more light must be sought from the Head of the Church. However sound the principle that forms and circumstantials do not possess the permanence belonging to the central truth they cover, still a busy zeal eager to introduce something new as more suited to a later development, even though shown by the most sincere of men, must be regarded with distrust unless Providence, by some means as good to us as was Nathan’s vision to David, makes it quite clear that the time has come when the old should give place to the new. Holy desire, even when conjoined with knowledge of a limited experience, may not be fitly realized because God’s time is not quite come. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. Where there is sincere piety there will be jealousy lest the cause of God should not receive its due consideration. 2. It will be a mark of prosperous piety amidst prosperous circumstances when men deliberately study how they may more worthily serve God and give him the honour due to his Name. 3. We should always anticipate that, as time advances, there will be fresh opportunities for manifesting our devotion, even though our specific methods be not wisest. 4. It is a noble ambition to seek to render the house of God as perfect as human means can make it, and in this often we see contrasts in character (2 Samuel 7:1-3; cf. Haggai 1:2, Haggai 1:5). A good man’s life’s work attains completion in so far as he combines, with advancing secular prosperity, regard for the prosperity of religion. The historic development of God’s purpose concerning man. In 2 Samuel 7:4-11 we have an exposition of the grounds on which God declined to accept David’s proposal to build a house for him. The motive was good, and there was a certain perception of propriety in the design, but as its unseasonableness resulted from imperfect knowledge of the Divine will, that will is here made known. I. GOD HAS A PURPOSE MAN. This is the basis of the declaration to David. It may, indeed, be said that there is a Divine purpose in the existence of every atom and form of force, since each is what it is by the will of God, and is related to all the rest of the universe in a definite way, so as to issue in a progressive order. Every change is thus the working out in the material world of a purpose of the eternal mind. But while this is true of man also considered as an organized creature in the world, it is further true of him that there is a purpose in the eternal mind of which he is the object, and to work out which all other things are means and agents. God has something to effect for man as well as by man. The New Testament informs us that it is spiritual in its nature, and abounding with good to man and glory to God.. II. GOD’S PURPOSE MAN IS WITH HUMAN AFFAIRS. It is pointed out to David that the history of his ancestors in Egypt and under the judges, and also his own personal history, have been the vehicle through which this purpose has been gradually working. God’s thoughts for man assume concrete forms. They enter as the golden thread into the rough web of human life. Human wills work in their own free way, but another will works with them, and uses them in their free course for the manifestation of itself. Abraham’s domestic life, Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and the desert, the struggle for existence during the period of the judges, and the raising up and fall of Saul, and the exploits of David, were occasions and forms by which that redemptive purpose revealed itself which later on in Judaea, in Pilate’s hall and in the ages of Christendom, became more distinct and yet more one with human interests. III. IN THE OF THE PURPOSE ARE CREATED. The ark and the tabernacle were the creation of the Divine purpose working along the line of human history. They were the product of two things—the purpose and the incidents of Israel’s existence. David was right in viewing the tabernacle as essentially temporary; but he is reminded (2 Samuel 7:6) that it expressed the Divine will for the time because of the human element through which that will was working onwards. A succession of temporary expedients is traceable from the first to the second Adam. One by one they disappeared before the approach of the true Light. Many of the modern expedients of the Church will prove their temporary character in so far as Christ’s holy will works its way into the heart of the world, and men, possessing this life, become in the best sense a law to themselves (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). IV. THE DIRECT CONTROL OF GOD SECURES FROM STAGE TO STAGE. The words to David were, "I brought up the children of Israel;" "I have walked in a tent;" "I commanded to feed;" "I took thee from the sheepcote;" "I have appointed a place." Thus men were free, and history was formed by the free action of man; but, still, in pursuance of the Divine purpose, an unseen hand so fashioned the sum of human free action that captivity in Egypt yielded to a settled home, and a good shepherd appeared to care for the flock in that settled home. It was this recognition of the actual control of God so as to shape the items of human history and secure a succession of transitions towards a definite goal that distinguished the teaching of the prophets. It is this which gave such assurance to apostles (Romans 8:22, Romans 8:28, Romans 8:31). The contending forces of each age are subject to him who by his mighty working can subdue all things unto himself (Philippians 3:21). V. THE VALUE OF MEANS IN THE WORKING OUT OF THE PURPOSE IS . David’s pious dissatisfaction with the tabernacle as an abode for the ark was met by the assurance (2 Samuel 7:6, 2 Samuel 7:7) that God was not dissatisfied, but had shown his approval of his servants who were identified with its maintenance. The tabernacle may have been inadequate to the later stage, but it was perfect in its adaptation to the early stage of God’s method of working. He never complained of disrespect to his Name; he even honoured his servants who served him with such humble means. This applies to the methods by which, in different ages, revelations came to men—agencies for diffusing and preserving the truth, the condition of the Churches by which his will is still done and the individual efforts of Christians to bring on the final triumph of Christ. Those who will not approve of action and appliances and methods till they meet with what is absolutely perfect, do not know history, or else, knowing it, are unwilling to accept its lessons. In an imperfect world where perfect holiness has to be attained through means inferior, and out of perfect relation to the end in view, we have to estimate each method and agency by its fitness to raise us to a stage above the present, and in which it may be dispensed with for something that will be a stepping stone to a still higher point. VI. THE WHOLE OF THE STAGES TEND TO THE OF GOD WITH MAN; David was fight in his ambition and faith. To have God permanently among Israel was the perfection of holy desire. All hitherto had pointed in that direction; and though in the visible sense in which David desired it his wishes were not to be granted, yet he was pointed on to the reality of a "house" (2 Samuel 7:11), which we know involved the raising up of Immanuel. This is the goal of all Old Testament revelations and ancient forms of instruction and discipline. And now that God has been visibly manifest in the flesh, the process is going on by which spiritually the dwelling of God with man in permanent union is to be realized (2 Corinthians 3:7-11; cf. Ephesians 2:18-22). GENERAL LESSONS. 1. Life should be conducted on the principle that God is with man and working with and for him. 2. The comparison of events illustrated by the Bible teaching will enable us to trace out the line of God’s Working. 3. Although occasions may arise, as during periods of Israel’s history, when the signs of God’s working are obscured (Isaiah 45:15), our faith should rest on the general revelation. 4. However unable we may be sometimes to see the unity of God’s working, Providence will throw light upon it, and by some explicit "I have walked," "I took thee," our confidence will be confirmed. 5. All our desires and efforts and methods should, in their nature, have reference to the great issue—God’s habitation of the Church through the Spirit. Consolation in disappointment. Although 2 Samuel 7:11, 2 Samuel 7:12 of Psalms 132:1-18, make it clear that the psalm was written after the date of Nathan’s visit to David, it is highly probable that the sentiments expressed in Psalms 132:3-5 of that psalm were cherished before the king unbosomed himself to the prophet. In the fallibility characteristic of prophets when not authorized to speak by God, Nathan piously encouraged his king in his cherished wishes, and it is certain that that night David went to rest believing that now, with the concurrence of so good a man, the great ambition of his heart would soon be realized. The authorized revelation of the prophet on the following day must have brought with it a disappointment corresponding in bitterness to the previous elevation of feeling. But the gentle, kindly way in which it is allowed to fall is a beautiful instance of God’s tenderness toward his people. I. GOD US AS HIS OWN. There was balm in the words, "tell my servant David." In the beginning of his career David knew that he was called of God, but many a year had passed, and many a sore spiritual conflict with varied success had been endured. It was then refreshing to his spirit to be thus distinctly acknowledged to be the servant of the Most High—one honoured in heaven and identified with the carrying out of God’s will on earth. To be owned of God, to have the witness of his Spirit with ours that we are his, to know on good evidence that our life is moving along the lines of his purpose,—what more satisfying and comforting when some cherished desire is denied? Paul’s thorn in the flesh and consequent disappointment of holy ambition was even welcome when the Lord sent a message assuring that he was his "servant"—to do some work in the world, though not in the form desired. It is much in life if, amidst many failures of character and frustration of cherished desires, a man is permitted to know that God is not ashamed of him, and still honours him with a place among the great body of coworkers with himself. II. MAKES CLEAR, IN PART AT LEAST, THE WISDOM OF THE . The first note of Nathan’s message brought sorrow and even anguish of spirit. Fond hopes of joyous activity in a blessed cause were crushed. The dream of holy hours vanished. Loving toil was rejected. The heart sank. But by degrees, as the message unfolded and the course of Providence in reference to the tabernacle and settlement of Israel were unfolded, and probably reference made to wars yet impending (Psalms 132:6-10; cf. 2 Samuel 8:1-8; 1 Kings 5:3, 1 Kings 5:4; 1 Kings 8:19), the reasons of the Divine conduct became manifest, and the troubled heart could rest in an unerring wisdom alone. A similar course was taken with the apostles when their Lord soothed their disappointment at his expected departure by partially expounding the reason of his conduct (John 14:1-4). Sometimes Christian workers who have, through sickness, failing opportunities, temporal disasters, and defective holiness of life, been denied the privilege of accomplishing all that was in their heart for Christ, have had to dwell in dense darkness for a while; but gradually events have occurred and light from God’s Word has come which have shown how just and even kind it was that, under all the circumstances of the ease, the disappointment came. The day will come when the bitter experiences of life will be so seen in their varied relations to ourselves and others as to give occasion for thankfulness. III. THERE IS THAT GOD WILL USE US IN OTHER WAYS. "My servant" meant to David that there was yet noble work to do for God. Human choice of the old form of work is not always best. In the great kingdom that is being established there is scope for many energies in manifold forms; and as the kingdom is one, every worker is honourable and every work essential. To keep the door of the sanctuary, to wash the feet of weary pilgrims, to give a cup of cold water, to feed the hungry, to place a mite in the treasury, and visit the widow and fatherless, are services honoured as truly as erecting a temple and as necessary to the perfection of the kingdom of God on earth. The Apostle Paul could not charm men by unfettered eloquence, but he could bless the universal Church by his example of loving acquiescence in the Lord’s will (2 Corinthians 12:8-10). Even the very ambitions that have not been gratified may be used up by God as means to inspire others with generous aims and lofty aspirations. IV. GOD REVEALS TO THE SPIRIT A . It was a repayment of David’s loving devotion in his own kind when the prophet was instructed to reveal to him that God would "make him a house." To an Oriental monarch, especially after the sad failure of Saul, there could not have been a more coveted distinction than being blessed with a posterity that should hold his place in the kingdom. The blessing in this case, we know, carried with it also a spiritual significance embodied in the expression applied to Christ, "the Son of David." This cannot be regarded simply as a reward for the design to build a house for the Lord—it was part of a great purpose from the beginning; but it was clearly brought in here as a matter revealed for the soothing of David’s spirit in a season of disappointment. In this way the future blessedness of the faithful is revealed in order that they may have abundant consolation. Good men do not live and labour for future rewards, but from love of Christ and passionate sympathy with the purposes of his heart; nevertheless, the pastor, missionary, and parent whose hopes sometimes seem blighted, rejoice to be able to think of an issue of their life which, in spite of all appearances, redounds to the glory of God. "Here am I, and the souls thou hast given me," is to be true of multitudes. God will give a godly seed, "a house" better and more enduring than any we could build for him (Psalms 126:5, Psalms 126:6; Matthew 19:29). 2 Samuel 7:12-29 The facts are: 1. The prophet declares to David (1) that he shall have a seed who shall build a house for the Lord; (2) that this successor shall be regarded as a son, and, while the subject of discipline, if needed, shall not be cast off as was Saul; and (3) that the house and kingdom thus established shall endure forever. 2. David, in response to the message, acknowledges ,the condescension and bounty of God in what he had done and promised. 3. He confesses that all is of the free unmerited loving kindness of God, and regards this wonderful superhuman goodness as being an illustration of the existence of a love transcending all that is known to man. 4. He recognizes the blessedness of Israel in being under the care and guidance of One so supremely good, and in being honoured to be distinctively his people. 5. He prays that the good and glorious things said of his house and of Israel may come to pass, and so bring out into public view and forever the glory of God. 6. He concludes with a prayer, based on the faithfulness and goodness of God, that grace may be bestowed on the house of David, so that it may fulfil the purpose so graciously formed and now more explicitly revealed. The testing period, and its rewards. We have here brought out a contrast between Saul and David. Both were accepted of God (1 Samuel 9:15-17; 1 Samuel 16:7-12, 1 Samuel 16:13). A period of testing was assigned to each of them, and Saul failed in his (1 Samuel 13:13, 1 Samuel 13:14), while David succeeded (2 Samuel 7:8-12, 2 Samuel 7:15). The whole facts show that for each of them, in his official capacity, there was a probation or testing time, which was not coextensive with the duration of life, but sufficient to prove fitness for being the instrument for the furtherance of the Divine purpose of redemption through the Messiah. David was found fit for Divine use, and hence, in the prime of his days, he was assured of the completion of his life’s work and of issues most glorious. I. THE EARLY STAGES OF A CAREER ITS ISSUE. From his call and anointing up to his desire to build a house for the Lord, David had been taking the first steps of his public life; on the whole, he had been wise, devout, loyal to God, zealous for the Divine kingdom among men. The great work of his entire life was thereby virtually ensured. All future successes were now germinal. Saul’s future was blasted because the early testing years were unimproved; David’s future was made sure because his trial had proved his sterling qualities. The years of early manhood carry in them the future of the man. A Christian "found faithful" enters on a wider ministry (1 Timothy 1:12). The Church that has kept true in trial is safe in view of future perils (Revelation 3:10-12). The proper use of five talents carries with it the promise of use of ten talents. According to the development of Christian character in the early stages of religious life will be its power and victories unto the very end. The beginnings of things are the ends of things in miniature. Character is a prophecy. Ultimate successes lie hidden in first adjustments. II. THE BLESSED ISSUES OF A ARE IN THE ORDER OF NATURE. The bestowment of the honour of being founder of a great line of kings on David was an act of Divine favour, marking approval of his fidelity during the testing time of life; but it was not a mere artificial, arbitrary arrangement. It was the announcement of the fact that God had so ordered things that he, by faithfulness, thus far had acquired the qualities which a holy God could and would use up in bringing to pass his great purposes. Saul was proved naturally unfit to inaugurate a permanent line; David was proved naturally suited for that end. This runs through all things. A sapling that has, in spite of storms, passed well through the ordeals of early life contains within itself the vital qualities which will develop into a perfect tree. It is by force of the virtues and acquirements of the testing time Of early manhood that subsequent achievements are won. The spiritual characteristics of the man "counted worthy" of a ministry explain the triumph of his life’s work; for, though the blessing of God is essential, yet it is the order of nature in the religious sphere that the blessing comes where those characteristics find exercise. The future blessedness of the saints is the outgrowth of the individual character acquired during the earthly period of trial. Continuity, order, and, in proper sense of the term, nature, characterize the succession of events in individual and Church experience from first to last. III. THE OF FINAL SUCCESS HELPS A TRUE MAN TO ITS . The promise of a "house" and a permanent "kingdom" would not excite vanity and presumption’ in David, because he was a true man of God. There is an adaptation in the assurance given to the tested character of the man. It was to David as the warm sun and gentle dew to the good seed hidden in good ground. A true heart responds to God’s love and bounteous gifts by increased devotion. Thus the assurance has a natural tendency in a true heart to fulfil itself. Wherever other tendencies appear, it is evidence that the heart is not right, anti that the assurance is not intended for the individual. The free grace of God and abounding assurances that he will keep his people from falling are never abused except by those who are not children of God (Romans 6:14, Romans 6:15; 2 Corinthians 5:14, 2 Corinthians 5:15). The blending of the temporal and the eternal. The prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 is not as be regarded as a sudden and isolated revelation of the purpose of God, which burst upon the mind of one who had no previous conceptions of a great purpose being wrought out in the line of human history. All along David was aware of his being used for more than ordinary issues in relation to the great promise made to Abraham. The Aurora Borealis seems, to ignorant men, a disconnected unaccountable phenomenon, but others know it to be a natural occurrence in a beautiful order of things correlated to all else in the material world. In like manner, we now know that this prophecy is part of an order of revelation, coming in at just the right time, and interpretable on principles well ascertained. The temporal and eternal are blended— I. IN THE ORDER. The results of research into the constitution and order of material things show that the visible, changeable forms of matter coexist with a permanent something which works in and through them. They vary; it abides. They prepare the way for others of kindred nature and form; it uses up the old and the new and marks out its eternal course by means of them. Men call it force. Possibly, probably, there is a persistent something answering to that name—the correlative of our exertion of will power—but it, at all events, is only the mode in which the Divine purpose works itself out into visible forms and changes. The temporal and eternal are ever blended. II. IN THE OF MAN. The changeful form, the visible appearance, is ever associated with the permanent invisible spirit; the one exists for the other, and is used by the other for expressing its thoughts and purposes. "Mortal and immortal" may be written of man. He comes forth and passes away: he abideth forever. Paradox is true, because the perishable and imperishable coexist and work one through the other. III. IN THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. Our Saviour was frail, subject to death; and yet the strong, unchangeable, deathless Son of God. The temporal and eternal were most mysteriously united in him, and the visible and perishable were the vehicle through which the unseen and eternal worked out our redemption. There is language by which men, if they will, can prove his simple humanity, and other language by which they can prove his true Divinity. It is the ignoring of this blending of the temporal and eternal which accounts for certain heresies and perversities of thought. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 8:1 David smote the Philistines. In the previous chapter we have seen that the empire of David not only marked an era in the development of Israel nationally, but was also the reaching of a new stage in the preparation for the advent of the Messiah; and we saw that without this the development of prophecy would have been impossible, and the people have remained unfit for the high mission to which they were called as the witnesses to the unity of Cod. We have in this chapter a brief summary of the wars which raised Israel from the position of a struggling and oppressed race to the possession of widespread empire. With this narrative the first history of David ends, and in the subsequent narratives many of the events referred to here are more fully detailed, and given with additional incidents. David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines. Metheg-ammah means "the bridle of the mother city." We learn from the parallel place (1 Chronicles 18:1) that the city of Gath is meant by this phrase. Gath was at this time the metropolis of Philistia, and had reduced the other four chief towns to a state of vassalage. Thus by taking Gath, his old city of refuge (1 Samuel 27:2), David acquired also the supremacy which she had previously exercised over the whole country, and by placing a strong garrison there, as previously the Philistines had done in the towns of Israel, he kept that martial race in awe. It denotes great progress in the arts of war that David could besiege and capture a town so strong as Gath. 2 Samuel 8:2 He smote Moab. In the previous history we find David and Moab on such friendly terms that he entrusted his father and mother into their king’s keeping (1 Samuel 22:3, 1 Samuel 22:4). Now he not only subjugates them, but puts two-thirds or, according to the ancient versions, half of the captured combatants to death. Compared with the custom of the Romans, and with the attempt to destroy all the males in Edom, this was mild treatment; for we find Caesar in his Gallic wars putting all his prisoners to death, and using for their execution the mere phrase, "he counted them in the number of enemies," as if the killing of enemies was a matter of course. The customs of the Israelites in war were not so cruel, and this treatment of the Moabites seems to be mentioned as showing that they received exceptionally severe treatment. The justification of this is found by Jewish commentators, on the authority of the Midrash, in the supposed fact that the King of Moab had put David’s father and mother to death. But as Philippson adds, even so it was an instance of the extreme barbarity of ancient warfare. Casting them down to the ground; Hebrew, making them to lie down on the ground; and so the Revised Version. It is plain that those who were made to lie on the ground were combatants who had been made prisoners, and the Hebrew seems to mean that, while they were thus prostrate, they were measured off into three divisions, whereof two were put to the sword, and one permitted to live. All the versions, however, understand that only half were put to death, making the sense to be that he measured them with two cords, one to kill, and one full cord—one, that is, of larger size, to save alive. We get no help from 1 Chronicles 18:2, where this treatment of the Moabites is omitted. It is probable that it was in this war that Benaiah slew "two lion-like men of Moab" (1 Chronicles 11:22), who were its champions and perhaps members of the royal house. They brought gifts means that they paid an annual tribute; but the phrase shows that, though now they were David’s servants, that is, subjects, yet that they were left in possession of their independence, and that their internal affairs were managed by native authorities. 2 Samuel 8:3 Hadadezer. The name is spelt Hadarezer in 2 Samuel 10:16 and in 1 Chronicles 18:3, and such is the reading of the versions here and of many Hebrew manuscripts. The other reading has been defended on the ground that Hadad is the name of the Syrian sun-god, but the cuneiform inscriptions show that his real name was Hadar. The King of Syria, mentioned in 1 Kings 20:1, is called in Assyrian Ben-Hidri. Zobah. Ewald identifies Zobah with the "Sabo" mentioned by Ptolemy. This is uncertain, but evidently Zobah lay northeast of Damascus and south of Hamath, in the region between the rivers Orontes and Euphrates. In 1 Samuel 14:47 it appears as a powerless country governed by a multitude of petty kings; but evidently now Hadarezer had made himself supreme, and become a powerful monarch whose authority extended even across the river into Mesopotamia (2 Samuel 10:16). Having crushed his rivals at home, he had next endeavoured to extend his dominion abroad. As he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. The word "Euphrates" is inserted in the Authorized Version, because the margin says, "Euphrates read but not written." In the Revised Version it is omitted, because the unauthoritative nature of these directions to read something not in the text has been demonstrated. Technically these readings are called K’ri, and the written text K’tib. In 1 Chronicles 18:3 the reading is, "as he went to stablish his dominion by the river"—a change which involves the alteration of only one letter, as the word rendered here "his border," and in 1 Chronicles 18:3 "his dominion," is the same, signifying literally, "his hand." For this reason the Revised Version renders it correctly in both places "his dominion." Now, David never had possessed up to this time any dominion upon the Euphrates, but in the fuller narrative in 1 Chronicles 10:1-14. we learn that these Syrians of Zobah had sent powerful reinforcements to the Ammonites in their war with David; and he might reasonably, therefore, determine to follow up his victory over. them by extending his power up to the river, so as to guard the fords, and prevent all future invasions. And this Hadarezer would resent. As an able and enterprising man, he had succeeded in making Zobah a powerful realm, and was not likely to submit to having a bridle put upon his adventurous spirit by the posting of an Israelitish garrison on the borders. We learn from 2 Samuel 10:19 that David’s object was to prevent aid coming to Ammon from Zobah, and that he succeeded in putting a barrier in Hadarezer’s way. We can scarcely doubt, therefore, that the reading in the Chronicles is to be preferred. In 1 Samuel 14:47 we read that Saul had waged war with Zobah, and as David had probably served in it, he would have thereby acquired both a knowledge of the country, very useful in this present more serious expedition, and also have learned the necessity of guarding his dominions against perpetual invasions from that quarter. 2 Samuel 8:4 David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen. The word "chariots" is inserted in the Authorized Version after "thousand," from the parallel place in 1 Chronicles 18:4, where also it is said that David captured seven thousand horsemen. The numbers of the Chronicler are more in proportion to one another than those mentioned here, provided we assume that the word "chariots" ought to be supplied, which, as it is not the only difference, is uncertain. Until the Arabs invented our present system of notation, the ancient methods of representing numbers were so liable to error that little dependence can be placed upon them. The Hebrews used their letters for numerals, but after 400 their system breaks down. Any number higher than 400 can be represented only by long sums in arithmetic, or by an intricate system of points above and below, which were sure to get into confusion. David houghed all the chariot horses. There is good reason for concluding that the word used here, recheb, is a collective, and signifies animals used either for riding or driving. What David reserved was not a hundred chariots, but a hundred riding horses, which would be useful to him for rapid communication, and could scarcely be regarded as a violation of the command in Deuteronomy 17:16. Both the Authorized and Revised Versions are wrong, but the Authorized Version at least makes the word recheb have the same meaning in both clauses, whereas the Revised Version makes it signify chariot horses in the first clause, and the chariots themselves in the second. The defeat by David, with infantry only, of an army provided with so powerful a force of cavalry and chariots, proves his great military skill, and their capture hears even more emphatic testimony to his generalship. In the Psalms we find horses often referred to as objects regarded with terror, and which gave a great advantage to their enemies (Psalms 20:7; Psalms 33:17; Psalms 76:6; Psalms 147:10), but over which they had triumphed by Jehovah’s aid. This method, however, of rendering them useless, though practised by Joshua (Joshua 11:6), was most cruel; as the poor things, unable to move about with the sinews of their hind legs severed, would perish of hunger. 2 Samuel 8:5 The Syrians of Damascus; Hebrew, Aram-Dammesek; that is, Aram-Damascus. The inhabitants of these regions and of Mesopotamia were descended from Aram, the son of Shem (Genesis 10:22), and bore his name. Thus Zobah is called Aram-Zobah in the title of Psa 60:1-12. As members of a kindred race, and speaking the same language, all the clans of the Aramean family would naturally combine to check the growing power of Israel. 2 Samuel 8:6 Garrisons. This is the word used in 1 Samuel 10:5 and 1 Samuel 13:3. The Arameans were left free to manage their internal affairs themselves, but they had to pay tribute (see on 1 Samuel 13:2); and to prevent the assembling of troops to contest David’s authority and shake off his yoke, garrisons were stationed in such places as commanded the country. The Philistines had done the same in Israel when they were masters there. 2 Samuel 8:7 Shields of gold. Probably they were plated with gold, and were borne by Hadarezer’s bodyguard. But it is very uncertain whether shields are really meant. The word in Syriac means "quivers." Jerome evidently could not at first find out what it signified, as he in this place translates in the Vulgate "arms," but subsequently he became better, informed. The LXX. renders "bracelets," and adds that they were carried away from Jerusalem by Shishak in the days of Rehoboam. There is no contradiction in this with what is said in 1 Kings 14:26, as what Solomon made were undoubtedly shields, such being the certain meaning of the word in the Hebrew, and its rendering in all the versions. No version renders the word used here "shield." In the parallel place (1 Chronicles 18:7) the Syriac and Vulgate render it "quivers," the LXX. "collars," and the Arabic "plates of gold hung on the trappings of the horses." As they were captured from a Syrian king, they probably retained their Syriac name, and if so they were "quivers." 2 Samuel 8:8 Betah … Barothai. Of these cities nothing certain is known, and in 1 Chronicles 18:8 the names are changed to Tibhath and Chun. An interesting addition is made there, inserted also by the LXX. in this place, that it was from this brass (that is, copper) that Solomon made the great laver, the pillars, and many other vessels for the temple service. 2 Samuel 8:9 Toi, called in Chronicles Tou, King of Hamath. This was a famous city upon the river Orontes, afterwards called by the Greeks Epiphania, and was situated upon the northernmost boundary of Palestine. Its interest in the present day lies in its having been the capital of the Hittites—a race whose very existence was doubted a few years ago, in spite of the testimony of Holy Scripture; but whose marvellous empire has been lately proved to be historical by Egyptian records on the one side, and cuneiform inscriptions on the other. Unfortunately, inscriptions which they have themselves left behind have not yet found any one capable of deciphering them. In the twelfth century B.C. they were the paramount power from the Euphrates to the Lebanon. For many centuries they contended with the Pharaohs for the possession of Egypt, and while Rameses II. had to make an inglorious peace with the Kheta, as they are called, and marry the king’s daughter, Rameses III won a great victory over them, and saved Egypt from thraldom. In the cuneiform inscriptions we find the record of a struggle between Assyria and the Hittites, lasting for four hundred years, during which Shalmaneser made thirty campaigns against them, but they were not finally conquered until B.C. 717, during the reign of Sargon. Fuller details will be found in Dr. Wright’s ’Empire of the Hittites,’ published by Messrs. Nisbet. 2 Samuel 8:10 Joram. In 1 Chronicles 18:10 he is called Hadoram, and this was apparently his real name, Joram being merely the substitution of the nearest Hebrew word for something foreign and therefore unintelligible. So among the descendants of the French refugees settled in England similar changes are common. Thus Pillons becomes Pillow; Chevallier, Shoveller; St. Amour, Stammers. As Hamath bordered upon Zobah, and apparently had waged unsuccessful war with the vigorous Hadarezer, Tel was grateful to David for smiting his rival, and sent this embassy of congratulation for the purpose of ensuring the conqueror’s friendship. For this end he also sent rich presents; and as a present is called in the Hebrew a blessing, the phrase used here, to bless him, contains the idea, not only of congratulation, but of offerings. There is something admirable in this high Oriental courtesy. The material value of the gifts is left in the background. Their worth lies in their being the acknowledgment of the Divine favour resting upon David, and in the prayer that that favour may continue. In Psalms 18:43, Psalms 18:44 we have proof of the great pleasure which this embassy from so great a nation gave to David. 2 Samuel 8:11 Which also King David did dedicate. The blessing became more blessed by this use of it, and it shows how strong were David’s feelings, that he thus gave to God’s house, not only the spoils of war, but also gifts of friendship. It was in this way that he accumulated those large stores of the precious metals enumerated in 1 Chronicles 29:1-30; and employed in making the sacred vessels of the temple. Their vast amount is the more remarkable because Palestine previously was almost destitute of them. Wherever the armies of Israel went, they made diligent search after everything that would serve towards the building of their sanctuary. 2 Samuel 8:12 Of Syria; Hebrew, Aram. The reading in 1 Chronicles 18:11 is Edom, which differs from Aram in only one letter. The two words are constantly confused in manuscripts, and "Edom" is probably right here, first, because it is coupled with Moab and Ammon, which were its neighbours; but chiefly because the spoil of Hadarezer, mentioned at the end of the verse, is the spoil of Aram. It would not be enumerated twice. 2 Samuel 8:13 From smiting of the Syrians; Hebrew, of Aram. Here "Edom" is certainly right (see 1 Chronicles 18:12), unless we accept Keil’s conjecture, and suppose that "he smote Edom" has dropped out of the text, and must be inserted. In the superscription of Psalm we find the wars with Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia) and Aram-Zobah coupled with this smiting of Edom in the valley of salt, which lay to the south of the Dead Sea, and was a fatal place to the Edomitos in their war subsequently with Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7). Such a double victory over the Arameans first, and immediately afterwards over Edom, would account for the "name," that is, the reputation, which David gained. The course of events seems to have been as follows. The Edomites, believing that David was engaged in a struggle beyond his powers with the Syrians, took the opportunity to invade Israel. But the campaign in Aram was quickly decided, and David was able to send Abishai with a detachment of his forces to repel the Edomites. On hearing of his approach, they retired before him, and, making a stand in their own territories, were defeated in the valley of salt, with the loss of eighteen thousand men (1 Chronicles 18:12). In this place the victory is ascribed to David, because it was won by his general acting under his orders. For some unexplained reason, the feelings of the Israelites against Edom were very vindictive, and Joab followed with larger forces, and not only slew twelve thousand in a second battle (Psalms 60:1-12, title), but remained six months in the country, ruthlessly putting every male to death (1 Kings 11:15, 1 Kings 11:16). From this time the Edomites and Israelites were implacable foes, and in later Jewish literature the Jews gave vent to their intense hatred of the Roman empire by giving it the name of Edom. 2 Samuel 8:14 Throughout all Edom put he garrisons. In a country naturally so strong as Edom, and with neighbouring states ready to give shelter to their fugitives, Joab’s attempt would cause great misery, but only a moderate loss of life. And as soon as he withdrew, the exiles would return to their old homes. To keep them, therefore, in entire subjection, the country was. held by strong garrisons, and the Edomites became David’s servants, being apparently deprived for the present of any form of independent government. We have, then, in this chapter, a brief summary of David’s wars, whereby he established his supremacy ever the extensive region from Hamath on the north to the salt plains on the south of the Dead Sea, and from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. 2 Samuel 8:15 David executed judgment and justice. There was very little real truth in Absalom’s fault finding with the administration of justice (2 Samuel 15:3, 2 Samuel 15:4), unless we suppose—what is only too probable—that David, after his terrible crimes of murder and adultery, became lax in the discharge of his judicial duties. Here, at this period of his life, he was a zealous judge at home, as well as a brave and skilful general. He was one of those many sided characters who are great in a multitude of ways. Like Julius Caesar and our own Alfred, he was as distinguished in the arts of peace as in those of war. And thus, while his first care was for the establishment of religion, and while even the singing in the sanctuary was not beneath his notice, he also, even in the midst of dangerous wars, gave careful attention to the orderly government of his kingdom and the maintenance of right and law. We have already seen with what consummate skill he selected a capital immediately that he was made king of all Israel. Saul had done much in war. Though finally defeated at Gilboa, he had taught the Israelites their strength, and laid the foundations of David’s empire; but he had done nothing to consolidate the tribes, or provide tribunals for the settlement of disputed legal rights or the punishment of crimes. Israel was as loose an aggregate of discordant atoms at his death as it was at his appointment; and the maintenance of order was left to the caprice of local sheiks. Samuel had done far more for the internal development and consolidation of the people than Saul; but it was David who made them into a nation. The continuance of his work was frustrated by the extravagance of Solomon, the folly of Rehoboam, and the ambition of the restless tribe of Ephraim; but the two parts into which his realm was broken at least held together, and there never again was danger of such anarchy and threatened disintegration as existed in the times of the judges. 2 Samuel 8:16 Joab … was over the host. Twice in this book we have lists of David’s chief officers—here and at the end of 2 Samuel 20:1-26. The present lint belongs to the period of David’s greatest prosperity, when all went well with him in peace and war, and when Jehovah had elevated him to the unique rank of Messianic king—a distinction which belonged to him personally, and was inherited by none of his successors. Between it and the second list there lies a tragic tale of sin and shame, of crime and merited punishment, of the realm rising in rebellion against the adulterous king, and of his own family breaking away from the bends of godly discipline, and giving way to licentiousness, to bloodshed, and to parricidal ambition. But probably David’s character had then gained in spirituality and singleness of heart; whereas now prosperity must already have begun its work of sapping the foundations of his moral nature. Joab, who had been stripped of his command for the murder of Abner, had regained it by his bravery at the capture of Jerusalem. We have seen also that David entrusted to him the building of Jerusalem, and apparently he was prime minister in all matters except probably the king’s judicial functions. Jehoshaphat … was recorder; literally, remembrancer. It was his office to reduce the king’s decrees to writing, and also to see that they were carried into execution. Probably after they had been committed to writing, they were laid before the king for his approval, and, when confirmed by his hand or seal, were entered in the book of remembrance. 2 Samuel 8:17 Zadok … and Ahimelech … were the priests. We have already seen that this was contrary to the letter of the Mosaic Law, and yet that there was no schism, and that by patience matters came back to the right groove. Zadok, of the elder line of Eleazar (1 Chronicles 6:4-8, 1 Chronicles 6:50-53), was high priest at Gibeon, and Ahimelech, of the junior line of Ithamar, was the high priest at Jerusalem. Instead of Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, the Syriac transposes the names, and reads, "Abiathar the son of Ahimelech" This agrees with the list in 2 Samuel 20:25, and it is certain that Abiathar outlived David (1 Kings 2:26), and that he was David’s high priest throughout his reign, though Zadok is not only constantly associated with him, but is placed first, as the man of higher rank (2 Samuel 15:24-35; 2 Samuel 17:15; 2 Samuel 19:11; 2 Samuel 20:25). It is also remarkable that our Lord makes Abiathar the person who gave David the shewbread (Mark 2:26), whereas in 1 Samuel 21:1-15. he is repeatedly called Ahimelech. As both the LXX. and the Vulgate support the Hebrew against the Syriac, and as the reading "Ahimelech" is confirmed by 1 Chronicles 18:16 and 1 Chronicles 24:3, 1 Chronicles 24:6, 1 Chronicles 24:31, we must reject the emendation of the Syriac, and conclude that there was a double tradition respecting these names, some manuscripts making Abiathar the father, and others giving the seniority to Ahimelech. Our Lord made Abiathar the father, but the scribes, in their editing of the Hebrew text, gave that place to Ahimelech, yet did not carry out their restoration so thoroughly as not to leave proof that the names probably ought to be reversed. Seraiah was scribe. His office was similar to that of a secretary of state with us. For Seraiah we have Shavsha in 1 Chronicles 18:16, Shisha in 1 Kings 4:3, and Sheva in 2 Samuel 20:25. This illustrates what has just been said as to the uncertainty about proper names. They are always most difficult to read, as the sense gives no aid, and these various forms of a name that does not occur elsewhere really bear witness to the high antiquity of the manuscripts uses by the scribes in settling the text of the Old Testament; and also to their self-restraint in not making them all forcibly agree. 2 Samuel 8:18 The Cherethites and the Pelethites. As we have already seen (1 Samuel 30:14), the Cherethim were an insignificant tribe inhabiting the southern part of the country of the Philistines. Nor is that place the only proof of this fact; for they are connected with the Philistines also in Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5. David made their acquaintance when at Ziklag; and probably the Pelethim dwelt in the same neighbourhood, and were a still more unimportant clan or family. Much ingenuity has been expended in finding for their names a Hebrew derivation, and Gesenius explains them as meaning "cutters and runners," though for the latter signification he has to go to the Arabic, where he finds a verb falata, "to run away," "flee." But this craze of explaining the names of aboriginal tribes and their towns by Hebrew words is not only absurd in itself, but bars the way to sounder knowledge. For it is possible that, by the study of names not belonging to the Hebrew language, we might arrive at some correct ideas about the races who had previously occupied Palestine. Instead of this, the whole system of derivation is corrupted, and philology made ridiculous. What can be more ludicrous than to explain these Pelethim as "runners away," unless it be the notion that the Rephaim took their name from the Hebrew word for "a ghost"? In his "mighties" David had a powerful bodyguard of native Israelites, and Saul previously had formed a similar force of three thousand men, not merely for the protection of his own person, but to guard the land from marauding incursions of Amalekites and other freebooting tribes. Such a body of men was of primary importance for police purposes anti the safety of the frontiers. How useful such a force would be we can well understand from the history of the marches between England and Scotland (see also note on 2 Samuel 3:22); but I imagine that the Cherethites and Pelethites were used for humbler purposes. While "the mighties" guarded the frontiers, and kept the peace of the kingdom, these men would be used about the court and in Jerusalem, to execute the commands of the king and his great officers. Native Israelites would refuse such servile work, and the conquered Canaanites might become dangerous if trained and armed; while these foreigners, like the Swiss Guard in France, would be trustworthy and efficient. As for the true-born Israelites, they probably did not form the mass of the population, but, like the Franks in France, were the privileged and dominant race. We read that even from Egypt, besides their own dependents, there went up with Israel "a great mixture". In Numbers 11:4 these are even contemptuously designated by a word which answers to our "omnium gatherum;" yet even they, after the conquest of Palestine, would be higher in rank than the subjugated Canaanites, from whom, together with another "mixed multitude" spoken of in Nehemiah 13:3, are descended the felahin of the present day. David’s armies would be drawn from the Israelites, among whom were now reckoned the mixed multitude which went up from Egypt, and which was ennobled by taking part in the conquest of Canaan. In the army "the mighties" would hold the chief place; while the mercenaries, recruited from Ziklag and its neighbourhood, which continued to be David’s private property (1 Samuel 27:6), would be most useful in the discharge of all kinds of administrative duty, and would also guard the king’s person. In 2 Samuel 20:23 for Cherethi we find Cheri, which word also occurs in 2 Kings 11:4, 2 Kings 11:19. In the former passage the spelling is a mistake, the letter t having dropped out, and it is so regarded by the Jews, who read "Cherethi." The versions also translate there just as they do here, namely the Vulgate and LXX; "Cherethi and Pelethi;" and the Syriac by two nouns of somewhat similar sound to the Hebrew, and which signify "freemen and soldiers." In the latter place in Kings it is probable that some other tribe supplied the bodyguard in Queen Athaliah’s time. David’s sons were chief rulers; Hebrew and Revised Version, priests. Similarly, in 2 Kings 20:1-21:26, "Ira the Jairite was David’s priest," Hebrew, cohen; and in 1 Kings 4:5, "Zabud was Solomon’s priest." Gesenius and others suppose that they were domestic chaplains, not ministering according to the Levitical law, but invested with a sort of sacerdotal sacredness in honour of their birth. But if we look again at 1 Kings 4:5 we find "Zabud was priest, the king’s friend;" and the latter words seem to be an explanation of the title cohen, added because the word in this sense was already becoming obsolete. In 1 Chronicles 18:17 the language is completely changed, and we read, "and David’s sons were chief at the king’s hand." We may feel sure that the Chronicler knew what was the meaning of the phrase in the Books of Samuel, and that he was also aware that it had gone out of use, and therefore gave instead the right sense. Evidently the word cohen had at first a wider significance, and meant a "minister and confidant." He was the officer who stood next to his master, and knew his purpose and saw to its execution. And this was the meaning of the term when applied to the confidential minister of Jehovah, whose duty it was to execute his will according to the commands given in the Law; but when so used it gradually became too sacred for ordinary employment. Still, there is a divinity about a king, and so his confidants and the officers nearest to his person were still called cohens; and we find the phrase lingering on for another century and a half. For Jehu puts to death, not only Ahab’s great men and kinsfolk, but also "his cohens," the men who had been his intimate friends (2 Kings 10:11). 2 Samuel 8:1-18 The historic mirror. The narrative relates a succession of victories and conquests over the Philistines, the Moabites, the Zobahites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, the Amalekites, and the Edomites; the placing of garrisons in Syria and Edom; the voluntary recognition of David’s supremacy by the King of Hamath; the military, ecclesiastical, and civil appointments of the kingdom; the dedication of treasure won in conquest and diplomacy to the service of God; the maintenance of a righteous administration throughout Israel; and the safe keeping of David in all his undertakings. History is a record of human acts. Sacred history is a record of human acts in some special relation to the working out of the spiritual issues of the kingdom of God. In all history we see mirrored human thought and feeling. It gives us a glimpse of an invisible world of energy, that is ever seeking to find full expression for itself. In this portion of sacred history we see mirrored not only the strivings of the inner nature of men, but also outlines of truth pertaining to the invisible kingdom which is ever being extended over men. The early and lower developments in Davidic times indicate permanent truths for all Christian times. I. THERE ARE GRADES OF SERVICE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. The conquest of these alien peoples, the rough and thorough crippling of their powers (2 Samuel 8:2, 2 Samuel 8:4, 2 Samuel 8:8, 2 Samuel 8:14), and the distribution of office among competent men (2 Samuel 8:16-18), was a form of service far below, in the feelings involved, in the tone running through it, the other service rendered by David in the form of a holy, just life amidst his people, and a contribution by speech and song to the spiritual education of Israel. Yet this lower form of service was necessary, and had its proper place in the great scheme of government whereby God was preparing the world for the Prince of Peace. The actual state of mankind, and not some hypothetical state of perfection, conditioned the means by which gradually the final blessing should come. God is not responsible for the imperfect feelings with which David and others may have done certain work. He allows men in his service to apply themselves to the actual circumstances of their position according to the light they have, and then makes their general course of action subservient to the development of his own gracious purposes. The same is true now. In the Church there are higher and lower forms of service. In consequence of the imperfection of some of the workers and of their surroundings, the service draws out, not the highest feelings of which man is capable. There are rough men for rough work. Superior men may do such work, but they are not so much at ease in it as when engaged in purely spiritual efforts. It was more congenial to David to write psalms than to hough horses. The actual state of the world required both just then. II. THE OF EVILS SHOULD GO ALONG WITH . The first aim of David was, as we have seen, to restore unity, justice, peace, and religion to Israel. He worked on the central spring of national life. But the heathen and restless foes around were an incessant trouble as long as the political and military strength of Israel under the new regime were untested. Their subjugation was therefore the necessary complement of the internal consolidation. Taking the Davidic kingdom as representing in general features the kingdom of Christ, we see the same truth. Its settlement among men means internal change, reformation, and consolidation of all that is good; but it is bound, for its own peace and extension, to make war on all that is alien to the mind of Christ. Hence his Church is militant. He is our Captain. We are soldiers sworn to preserve our heritage and extend his domain by actual destruction of the forces of evil that lie around. The same applies to our own life viewed as a domain over which Christ rules. Internal harmony should be accompanied by an effort to overcome everything in our daily circumstances which, if not overcome, may mar our peace, and possibly gain an unhallowed influence over us. III. THE OF WEALTH TO THE SERVICE OF GOD IS AN OF GODLY WISDOM. The prohibition to apply the spoils of war to private uses (Joshua 6:19; cf. 1 Samuel 15:23) was a wholesome restraint on a low class of human feelings. There was a strong temptation for David to enrich himself by conquest, and, reasoning as an ordinary man, he could have made out a good case for himself. But he was a man of God; he saw things, as it were, with the eyes of God, and therefore, apart from specific injunction for each case, acted in harmony with the mind of God. It was godly wisdom thus to devote to the service of God what had been acquired by his own strong arm; for very great wealth brings very great spiritual dangers (Matthew 19:23, Matthew 19:24). The blessed temporal condition does not lie in abundance (Proverbs 30:8, Proverbs 30:9; Luke 41:15). The possession of great wealth, combined with slender gifts to the cause of Christ, reveals a lack of spiritual perception and of sympathy with the heart and purpose of Christ. The devotion of wealth to Christ is the safest investment, for it brings blessings on the donor and on others through all ages. The spiritual results of material wealth, well employed, are beyond calculation. It is said of the true King in Zion, "To him shall be given of the gold of Sheba" (Psalms 62:1-12:15). He also is "worthy to receive riches" (Revelation 5:12). There are thousands of ways in which wealth may now be dedicated to God. The earnest heart will find out the right channel for its devotion. The demand for sanctuaries, labourers, and the claims of Christ’s poor, are ever before the rich (cf. Haggai 1:4-6; Matthew 9:36, Matthew 9:37; Romans 10:14,Romans 10:15; Matthew 25:35-40). In so far as Christians enter into the spirit of their Lord will they rejoice in consecrating wealth to him (2 Corinthians 8:9; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:13-15). IV. THE OF GOD IN OUR IS THE OF SUCCESS. It is said twice (2 Samuel 8:6, 2 Samuel 8:14) that God "preserved David whithersoever he went." It is obvious that these various enterprises were full of danger to a man like David—danger to his life, his spirituality of mind, his moral conduct, his political reputation. His natural qualities of courage, thoroughness, and his laudable ambition as a monarch, might urge him on to positions of extreme peril; and the incidents of warfare are proverbially prejudicial to piety. The secret of his success lay in his being kept of God. The servant of God, doing rough, dangerous work, not for self-aggrandizement, but for God and his people, is surrounded by an unseen shield which no dart can penetrate. Here we see a truth ever being realized in private and public life—a true man of God, a man of undivided heart, setting himself to necessary but undesirable work, pressing on every day amidst dangers to life and religion, keeping the one thought of pleasing God clear before him, and ever everywhere guarded by him whom he serves. Till our work is done no "arrow that flieth by day" can touch us. It is a fact which should be much insisted on, that God does preserve his saints (Psalms 37:23, Psalms 37:24, Psalms 37:28). No outward sign was visible, yet God was with David. The absence of visible signs with us is no evidence that God is not our Shield and Helper. The chief thing for us is to see that we are his, that we do his will and not our own, and that we have a holy method in our enterprises, be they strictly spiritual or related to ordinary affairs. V. THE GLORY OF AN ACTIVE MAN LIES IN HIS BEING TRUE TO HIS CALLING. David was a king, bound by virtue of his position to rule in equity and righteousness. A greater distinction could not have been awarded to him in that office than that conveyed in the declaration that "he executed judgment and justice unto all his people" (2 Samuel 8:15). He was true to his vocation. No man can rise higher than that. The glory of a man does not lie in being or doing as others have been and done, for talents, opportunities, and occupations differ; but in performing the part to which Providence has called him thoroughly well. Every star is perfect in its own full lustre. Every man is noble when his whole nature is developed in harmony with the purpose of his Maker. "Well done, good and faithful servant," is said of the lowliest of Christ’s servants who has been faithful in "a few things" (Matthew 25:22, Matthew 25:23). A monarch, a bishop, a pastor, a Sunday school teacher, a pious domestic servant, and a day labourer, may each be distinguished by faithfulness to the work in hand. True spiritual honour lies more in the spirit of loyalty to our divinely appointed calling than in the specific deeds transacted. Hence the moral prospects of all Christ’s servants. It is extremely important to impress this on the young, and on those who are prone to be discouraged by reason of the lowliness of their position in society and in Christian endeavour. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. The disorganization produced in the world by the action of sin renders it inevitable that much human suffering, much collision of man against man, be endured even in the historical processes of Providence, by which the blessings of redemption are finally brought into full operation. The woes of the Moabites (2 Samuel 8:2) and of others were humanly necessitated incidents in the ages, giving birth to the promised Christ; and much suffering will yet be endured ere the full triumph of good over evil is achieved (Romans 8:18-22). 2. The most certain of the promises of God should be embraced in full confidence, and yet the most strenuous exertion on our part to bring about their fulfilment is reasonable. David’s kingdom had been assured (2 Samuel 7:27). But, nevertheless, he set garrisons in defence of his heritage, and took pains to organize his administration on a judicious basis (2 Samuel 8:16-18). Fatalism or presumption is irreligious as truly as is unbelief. 3. Resources obtained from men not religious may be used in the service of God (2 Samuel 8:9-11). The deference paid by Toi to David is similar to that paid by many men destitute of vital godliness to Christians, and their gifts, though not in the most enlightened spirit, may be employed for the holiest of purposes. 4. There is a prophetic truth in the turning of the golden shields and other instruments of the heathen into the peaceful uses of the sanctuary (2 Samuel 8:7, 2 Samuel 8:9, 2 Samuel 8:10). As a fact, the weapons and splendour of kings will some day be turned into uses subservient to the reign of Christ, the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 2:2-5; Isaiah 60:5-11). BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 8:1-14 (1 Chronicles 18:1-13). (.) David’s wars and victories. Summary (1) The Philistines (2 Samuel 8:1). (2) The Moabites (2 Samuel 8:2; Numbers 24:17). (3) The Ammonites (2 Samuel 8:12; 2 Samuel 10:1-19.). (4) The Syrians of Zobah, under Hadadezer 2 Samuel 8:3; 2 Samuel 10:15, 2 Samuel 10:16). The point here touched (2 Samuel 10:4) in the struggle appears to have been after the Ammonites had commenced hostilities, aided by Hadadezer, (5) the Syrians of Beth-Rehob, (6) the King of Maachah, and (7) the men of Tob; and bad been defeated (in a first campaign) by Joab and Abishai at Medeba (2 Samuel 10:1-14). Hadadezer now recruited his forces in Mesopotamia, and made immense preparations; but he was defeated by David, who took the field in person (in a second campaign), at Helam; his general, Shobach, being slain (2 Samuel 10:15-19). (8) The Syrians of Damascus (2 Samuel 10:5, 2 Samuel 10:6). (9) Toi, King of Hamath (2 Samuel 10:9, 2 Samuel 10:10). "Thus the Aramean supremacy, which had in previous centuries become so formidable to the Hebrews, and even to the Ammonites, was now broken once more by the heroic arm of David" (Ewald). (10) The Edomites, in league with (11) the Amalekites (2 Samuel 10:12) and others, threatening to render previous victories fruitless, overcome (in a third campaign) by Abishai and by Joab (2 Samuel 10:13, 2 Samuel 10:14; 1 Chronicles 18:12; 1 Kings 11:15; Psalms 60:1-12; inscription). "David himself came at the close of the campaign to arrange the conquered territory" (Stanley). (12) The siege of Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites, which still held out, by Joab (in a fourth campaign), while the king remained at Jerusalem (2 Samuel 11:1); and its capture by David (2 Samuel 12:26-31; 1 Chronicles 20:1-3). These wars of Israel with surrounding nations were not ordinary wars (2 Samuel 2:24-29). They were a special embodiment of the great conflict which was ordained from the beginning (Genesis 3:15) and of which the sacred history is a record. They involved principles and issues of vast importance; and they must be considered in the light of the peculiar position of the people of Israel, the measure of Divine revelation vouchsafed to them, and the "ruling ideas in early ages," in order that they may be judged of correctly, and just inferences drawn from them in relation to the conduct of Christian nations. They were waged— I. WITH . Numerous, varied, confederated, selfish, proud, and "delighting in war" (Psalms 68:30). The Ammonites (1 Samuel 11:1-15) first attacked Israel (as the Philistines and others had previously done), assisted by the Syrians, "for reward." "The first recorded example of mercenary warfare" (Kitto). They "succeeded in girdling the whole eastern frontier with steel." They were idolaters, fought against Jehovah, sought to exterminate his people, and Would have been satisfied with nothing short of their entire subjugation. Never had their peril been more imminent. It was such as is described by the psalmist— "Why do the nations rage, And the people imagine a vain thing? Kings of the earth set themselves up, And rulers take counsel together Against Jehovah, and against his anointed: Let us burst their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us!" (Psalms 2:1-9.) II. ON GROUNDS. For: 1. The defence of person and property, and the preservation of the worship of Jehovah (2 Samuel 10:12). The right of self-defence is a law of nature, extending to the relations of states and kingdoms, as well as of individuals. Without its exercise the destruction of Israel by their fierce and powerful enemies could have been averted only by a continuous miracle. 2. The punishment of evil doers, and the execution of a Divine judgment upon the heathen and their gods. Of this David deemed himself an appointed agent, fulfilling a Divine commission, like that given to Saul concerning Amalek, and the command under which Joshua acted in the conquest of the land. 3. The attainment of the destination of the chosen people to rule over the nations according to former promises and predictions. "The chief aim of the writer is to show the growth of God’s kingdom". Psalms 9:1-20.,’ The righteous Judge of the heathen’— "I will praise thee, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will recount all thy wonderful works. Arise, O Jehovah, let not mortal man he defiant; Let the heathen be judged in thy sight. Put them in fear, O Jehovah; Let the heathen know that they are but mortal men!" (Psalms 9:1, Psalms 9:19, Psalms 9:20.) III. IN A DEVOUT SPIRIT. Faith in the immediate presence of God, reverence for his righteous laws, dependence upon his mighty arm, zeal for his universal honour; prayerfulness, confidence, thankfulness. "The whole nation was at once a nation of soldiers and a nation of priests. They were the soldiers of God, pledged to a crusade—a holy war; pledged to the extermination of all idolatry and all wickedness wherever existing" (Perowne, in Psalms 110:1-7.). Psalms 20:1-9; ’Going forth to battle’— "Jehovah answer thee in the day of distress; The Name of the God of Jacob set thee up on high. We will shout for joy because of thy salvation, And in the Name of our God will we raise our banners. O Jehovah, save the king! May he hear us in the day we call." (Psalms 20:1, Psalms 20:5, Psalms 20:9.) In a reverse, such as may have taken place just before the overthrow of the Edomites, they turned to God in supplication, and girded themselves afresh for the conflict. Psalms 60:1-12, ’Confidence in disaster’—"the most martial of all the Psalms"—partially repeated in Psalms 108:7-14. "O God, thou hast east us off, thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry, restore us again. Thou hast given to them that fear thee a banner, That they may muster (around it) from before the bow, Who will conduct me into the fortified city? Who will bring me into Edom? Through God shall we do valiantly; And he will tread down our adversaries." (Psalms 60:1, Psalms 60:4, Psalms 60:9, Psalms 60:12.) IV. WITH SUCCESS; in which the hand of God was manifested, especially in the preservation of David "whithersoever he went" (Psalms 108:6, 14), and was recognized in the dedication to Jehovah of the spoils of war (Psalms 108:7, Psalms 108:10-12) amidst general thanksgiving and praise. One victory rapidly succeeded another until the whole region from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18) was subdued, peace was established, and Israel occupied a position of unrivalled power and glory. "David erected, on Joab’s return (Psalms 108:13), a monument of thanksgiving for his victory; and we may imagine how brilliant was the triumphant procession in Jerusalem when we recollect the hundred war chariots with their horses which were spared when Hadarezer was conquered" (Ewald). Psalms 21:1-13; ’Returning in triumph’— "O Jehovah, in thy strength shall the king be glad, And in thy saving help how greatly shall he exult! Be thou exalted, O Jehovah, in thy strength; So will we celebrate with voice and harp thy might." (Psalms 21:1, Psalms 21:13.) V. NOT WITHOUT . Even when waged on justifiable grounds and from religious motives, war is associated with manifold evils. It was not the loss of life that occurred, nor the cruel severities that were practised (Psalms 21:2; 2 Samuel 12:31), characteristic of the age, in the wars of David, which wrought the mischief, so much as the fierce passions, the pride, ambition, luxury, and vice they engendered, the heavy burdens they imposed, and the neglect of the humbler pursuits and more orderly virtues they involved. "The one blot upon the time is David’s lust of war, bringing men like Joab to the front, and debasing David’s own character If ever God wrote his verdict plainly upon ambition and aggressive war, he wrote it upon the wars of David. They brought the stain of two foul crimes on David himself; ruined his own domestic peace and happiness; ruined, by the possession of too-great power, the one of his sons who started so wisely and well; and ruined the kingdom, which broke asunder of its own weight". Yet these effects. have not always been considered in later times; while the record of his successes has sometimes been regarded as affording a sanction and an incentive to the martial spirit under different circumstances and a better dispensation. "It was among the Teutonic race that the Church first manifested warlike propensities. They were emphatically men of blood. The chief difficulty of the Church was to teach them to love peace. According to a well-known story, the Gothic bishop, Ulphilas, showed his special sense of the special weakness of his Teuton converts by refraining from translating the Books of Samuel and Kings into their language, as he did the rest of the Scripture. His reason, we are told, was that they contained ’the history of wars;’ and the nation was already very fond of war, and needed the bit rather than the spur so far as fighting was concerned". Nevertheless, the wars and victories of David (allowed for "the hardness of men’s hearts" until "the times of reformation")— VI. NOBLER AND by One greater than David—the Prince of Peace, and his faithful followers (1 Samuel 13:1-7; 1 Samuel 17:47); in which the elements of good that existed therein are retained and perfected, and those of evil set aside; "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but" spiritual (truth, righteousness, love) and "mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds" of error and unrighteousness (2 Corinthians 10:4; Luke 9:56; John 18:36); and the effects, enduring peace, security, and happiness Isaiah 9:5, Isaiah 9:6). "Since the time that Jesus Christ said, ’Put up thy sword into its scabbard,’ Christians ought not to go to war, unless it be in that most honourable warfare with the vilest enemies of the Church—the inordinate love of money, anger, and ambition. These are our Philistines, these our Nebuchadnezzars, these our Moabites and Ammonites, with whom we ought never to make a truce; with these we must engage without intermission till, the enemy being utterly extirpated, peace may be firmly established. Unless we subdue such enemies as these, we can neither have peace with ourselves nor peace with any one else. This is the only war which tends to produce a real and lasting peace" (Erasmus).—D. 2 Samuel 8:11 (.) Dedication of property to God. According to the custom of the time, the most valuable of the spoils of war became the property of David; and these, along with the presents brought to him, he devoted to a sacred use—in preparation for the building of the temple (1 Chronicles 18:8). The spirit which he displayed had been shown at the erection of the tabernacle (Exodus 35:29); and it was participated in by many (1 Chronicles 26:26-28; 1 Chronicles 29:5-9). Other instances occurred at a much earlier period (Genesis 14:1-24:30; Genesis 28:22). David’s act was: 1. Unselfish. The evil of selfishness specially appears in undue attachment to earthly possessions; "which is idolatry," and "a root of all evil." It ofttimes increases with the increase of worldly good, "like the Indian fig tree connecting itself vitally at a hundred spots, with the soil over which it spreads." Hence the injunction, "If riches increase," etc … 62:10). A good man receives that he may give, and feels that "it is more lessed to give than to receive." 2. Grrateful. David recognized the hand of God in his victories; and herein testified his thankfulness to his Divine Helper and Benefactor. Wealth is his gift; so is the power to acquire it (Deuteronomy 8:17, Deuteronomy 8:18). But how often are its possessors forgetful of this, proud, and unthankful! "All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee" (1 Chronicles 29:14). 3. Faithful. Earthly good is not an absolute gift, but a trust; it is put into our power only for a brief season; its possession involves the responsibility of its employment according to the will of the Owner; and its faithful use is conducive to the possession of "the true riches" (Luke 16:9-12). Whilst it should be altogether employed according to his will, a due proportion of it should be set apart as sacred to the claims of the needy, the support of Diane worship, and the spread of the gospel. It would appear that every Jewish family in ancient times devoted as much as a fourth part of its income to religious and charitable purposes. But inasmuch as no definite rule is now enjoined, every man must determine the proportion for himself by earnest thought and prayer, without reference to what others may do, and with a view to giving, not as little, but as much as possible. It has been stated that more wealth has been made in England during the last fifty years than during the preceding eighteen centuries. But notwithstanding numerous examples of noble beneficence, how small a part of it comparatively has been devoted to the highest ends (Deuteronomy 16:17; Proverbs 3:9, Proverbs 3:10; Luke 19:13; 1 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Corinthians 16:1; 2 Corinthians 8:1-24; 2 Corinthians 9:1-15.; 1 Timothy 6:17-19)! 4. Devotional. David’s offering was religious; in it he offered himself to God; and sought to fulfil his purposes concerning the welfare of his people and the promotion of his honour and glory in the earth. This is the highest motive; and those who are actuated by it obtain an unspeakable blessing both here and hereafter (Malachi 3:10; Matthew 25:21). "Largely thou givest, gracious Lord, Largely thy gifts should be restored; Freely thou givest, and thy word Is, ’Freely give.’ He only, who forgets to hoard, Has learnt to live." (Keble.) 2 Samuel 8:14 God’s preserving care. "And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went" (2 Samuel 8:6; 1 Chronicles 18:6, 1 Chronicles 18:13). The providence, of God (his preservation, and government of all things), which embraces the creation in general (Psalms 36:6; Nehemiah 9:6) and man in particular (Psalms 8:4, Psalms 8:5; Luke 12:7), is exercised with special regard to the good of those that love him (Matthew 6:32; Matthew 10:29, Matthew 10:30). This is evident from his relation and love to them (Deuteronomy 32:9; Luke 12:32), the promises and declarations of his Word (Psalms 37:25; Psalms 121:8), and the facts of observation and experience (Genesis 45:5; Esther 6:1). The life of David is full of illustrations thereof (1 Samuel 19:10; 1 Samuel 23:28). "The Lord preserveth the faithful" (Psalms 31:23)— I. IS LOYAL to his will, such as David exhibited. "For he will give his angels charge over thee, To keep thee in all thy ways." (Psalms 91:11.) i.e. the ways of duty; not of presumption, like those which the tempter (omitting these words in his quotation) sought to induce the Son of man to pursue (Matthew 4:6). "He that walketh uprightly walketh surely" (Proverbs 10:9), and "shall be saved; but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once" (Proverbs 28:18). We must keep the commandments of God if we would be "kept by the power of God." "Who is he that wilt harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?" (1 Peter 3:13; 1 Peter 4:19). II. AMIDST PERIL, arising from attacks of numerous foes; which must often be met in the path of duty, and cannot be avoided without sin (2 Samuel 4:9-11). "And, indeed, there is a great deal of reason why we should respect him that, with an untainted valour, has grown old in arms and hearing the drum heat. When every minute death seems to pass by and shun him, he is one that the supreme God cared for, and, by a particular guard, defended in the hail of death" (O. Felltham). There is a holy strife (Philippians 1:27; Jud Philippians 1:3; Ephesians 6:12), and in it We may sometimes be exposed to as great danger as David was (2 Samuel 21:16); but the eye of God sees it and his hand wards it off. "No weapon," etc. (Isaiah 54:17). "O Jehovah Lord, thou Strength of my salvation, Thou hast covered my head in the day of battle." (Psalms 140:7.) III. BY MEANS. Not without prudence and effort on the part of men; not by direct, extraordinary and miraculous interposition; but by: 1. The salutary influence of a devout spirit on conditions favourable to safety. 2. Special impressions on the minds both of the good and of the bad, conducive to the preservation of the former. 3. A peculiar concurrence of circumstances having the same effect; and other ways, still more wonderful, and not less effectual (Proverbs 21:31). Nothing is more mysterious to our partial comprehension of them than the methods of providence by which God accomplishes his designs. "A mighty maze! but not without a plan." IV. FOR ENDS. Not only "the good of his chosen" (Psalms 106:5), whom he preserves; but also the good which they may effect on behalf of others, the manifestation of his great Name, the complete establishment of his kingdom. "We know that all things work together for good," etc. (Romans 8:28). "This is the sun in the heaven of all the promises."—D. 2 Samuel 8:15-18 (1 Chronicles 18:14-17). (.) David’s administration. From the wars and victories of David we turn to contemplate his administration of the internal affairs of the kingdom. By his skill and energy, united with the services of many eminent men, and aided by the favour of Heaven, he raised the nation, in an incredibly short period, to a position of extraordinary power and glory. "More than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished for the tribes of Israel" (W.M. Taylor). What is here recorded (taken along with what is elsewhere stated) affords an illustration of— I. A JUST REIGN. "And David executed judgment and justice unto all the people" (1 Samuel 7:15-17; 1 Samuel 10:24). It was as important a part of his office to judge them as to lead them forth to battle (2 Samuel 15:2-4); and, in its fulfilment, he acted: 1. According to the laws of Jehovah, the supreme King and Judge, whose servant he was. 2. With proper discernment, strict equity and impartiality, and great diligence. 3. So that, either by his own decisions or those of judges appointed and superintended by him, right was done to all his subjects, wrongs redressed, and wrong doers punished. He was a king who "In the royal palace gave Example to the meanest of the fear Of God and all integrity of life And manners; who, august yet lowly; who, Severe yet gracious; in his very heart Detesting all oppression, all intent Of private aggrandizement; and, the first In every public duty, held the scales Of justice, and, as the law which reigned in him Commanded, gave rewards; or with the edge Vindictive smote now light, now heavily, According to the stature of the crime." (Pollok, ’The Course of Time.’) II. A SKILFUL , indicated by the mention of the chief officers of state, who formed the king’s council and acted as his confidential advisers, along with his sons (2 Samuel 8:18), the prophets, and others (see for later enumeration, 2 Samuel 20:13-26; 1 Chronicles 27:32-34). 1. Military. (1) The host (1 Chronicles 27:1-15), or national militia (under Joab), consisting of all the males capable of bearing arms, and arranged in twelve bodies of twenty-four thousand each, whose turn of service came every month. (2) The bodyguard (under Benaiah), Krethi and Plethi (lictors and couriers; Cretans or Carians, and Philistines), "formed at Ziklag, and afterwards recruited from foreigners (2 Samuel 15:18; 2 Samuel 20:23), having their quarters in Jerusalem, not far from the royal castle" (Ewald). (3) The heroes (Gibborim), mighty men or veterans (under Abishai); the old guard, who had gathered to David in his wanderings, constituting "the first standing army of which we have any special knowledge," the number six hundred being maintained, "divided into three large bands of two hundred each, and small bands of twenty each; the small bands commanded by thirty officers, one for each band, who together formed ’the thirty,’ and the three large bands by three officers, who together formed ’the three’" (Stanley). 2. Civil; pertaining to the registering and publication of the royal edicts, the regulation of judicial, financial, and other matters, the management of the royal demesnes, etc. (1 Chronicles 27:25-31), from which the revenue was largely derived. "Each tribe had still its prince or ruler, and continued under a general superintendence from the king to conduct its local affairs (1 Chronicles 27:16-22). The supreme council of the nation continued to assemble on occasions of great national importance; and, though its influence could not have been so great as it was before the institution of royalty, it remained an integral part of the constitution. Without superseding the tribal governments, David greatly strengthened them by a systematic distribution through the country of a large number of Levites (six thousand) as officers and judges (1 Chronicles 26:20 -33). It is extremely probable that this large and able body of Levites were not limited to strictly judicial duties, but that they performed important functions also in the education, the healing, and the general elevation of the people" (Blaikie). 3. Ecclesiastical; the Levites (1 Chronicles 23:1-32.); the priests, in twenty-four classes, and their attendants (1 Chronicles 24:1-31.); the choristers, in twenty-four courses (1 Chronicles 25:1-31.); the porters and officers (1 Chronicles 26:1-32.). "Order is Heaven’s first law." It is an essential condition of peace, safety, and power. "The solemn transfer of the ark of the covenant, at which almost all the people were present, had made a deep impression on their minds, and had awakened them to a sincere adoration of Jehovah. These favourable dispositions David wished to strengthen by suitable regulations in the service of the priests and Levites, especially by the instructive and animating psalms, which were composed partly by himself, and partly by other poets and prophets. By such instructive means, David, without using any coercive measures, brought the whole nation to forget their idols, and to worship Jehovah alone" (Jahn, ’Heb. Com.’). III. AN ABLE . The best organization avails little unless there be men of ability to carry it into practical effect. David’s reign was singularly rich in such men. 1. Warriors like Joab, Abishai, Benaiah, and other "heroes who had vied with him in valour and self-sacrifice for the community of Israel and the religion of Jehovah," and "whose names lived on, linked forever with his memory" (2 Samuel 23:8-39). 2. Ministers like Jehoshaphat, Sheva, Adoram, Ira the Jairite; counsellors like Ahithophel and Hushai. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 9:1 Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul? As Mephibosheth was five years old at his father’s death (2 Samuel 4:4), but now had a son (2 Samuel 9:12), a sufficient time must have elapsed for him to grow up and marry; so that probably the events of this chapter occurred seventeen or eighteen years after the battle of Gilboa. As David was king at Hebron for seven years and a half, he had been king now of all Israel for about nine years. But during this long period he had been engaged in a weary struggle, which had left him little repose, and during which it might have been dangerous to draw the house of Saul out of obscurity. But he was at last firmly established on the throne, and had peace all around; and the time was come to act upon the promise made to Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:14, 1 Samuel 20:15), and which we may be sure David had never forgotten. 2 Samuel 9:2 A servant whose name was Ziba. It is evident from this that David was not certain that Jonathan had left behind him a son; but not because of the change of name from Meribbaal (1 Chronicles 8:34); for Baal retained its innocent meaning of "lord" until the time of Jezebel. It then became the title of the Phoenician sun god; and Jezebel’s shameless worship of this deity, and her cruelty to Jehovah’s prophets, made the people henceforth change the name Baal into Bosheth, "the shameful thing" (see note on 2 Samuel 2:8). Mephibosheth had not changed his name, but had lived in obscurity in the wild region beyond Mahanaim. Meanwhile Ziba had probably taken care of Saul’s property in the tribe of Benjamin. There is no reason to doubt that he had been steward there for Saul, and after his master’s death had continued in possession of the estate. David, we may feel sure, would not interfere with it, and Ziba would hold it for Saul’s heirs, who could not themselves take possession. To him David now sends, not because he expected to hear of a son of his dear friend Jonathan, but because he was ready to show kindness to any representative of the fallen monarch. 2 Samuel 9:3 The kindness of God. That is, extraordinary kindness. The devout mind of the Orientals saw in everything that was more than common a manifestation of God, and thus the epithet "of God" came to be applied to anything that was very great. David would show Saul’s seed kindness as wonderful as are God’s dealings with man. 2 Samuel 9:4 Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar. Of Lo-debar nothing is known, but it must have been east of the Jordan, near Mahanaim. Of Ammiel we read again in 2 Samuel 17:27, where we find that he was a man of wealth, who helped to supply the wants of David and his men during the rebellion of Absalom. Possibly this kindness of David towards one for whom he had feelings of loyalty, as representing a royal house to which he had remained faithful, won his heart. There was a magnanimity about it which would commend it to a man who was himself generous and true. 2 Samuel 9:6 He fell on his face. Mephibosheth probably expected the fate which in the East usually befalls the members of a dethroned dynasty. Subsequently in Israel each new line of usurpers put to death every male relative of its predecessor, and it was with difficulty in Judah that one babe was rescued from the hands of its own grandmother, Athaliah, when she usurped the throne. Looked at, then, in the light of Oriental policy, David’s conduct was most generous. 2 Samuel 9:7 All the land of Saul thy father. David probably restored to Mephibosheth not only the lands at Gibeah, which Ziba had managed to hold, but Saul’s estates generally. There seems, nevertheless, to have been on Ziba’s part a grudge against Mephibosheth for thus getting back from the king what he had hoped to keep as his own. The privilege of being the king’s friend, and eating at his table, was an honour that would be more highly prized than even the possession of the estates. 2 Samuel 9:8 A dead dog. At first sight this extreme self-humiliation makes us look on Mephibosheth as a poor creature, whom early misfortune and personal deformity had combined to depress But really this is to impose on an Oriental hyperbole a Western exactness of meaning. When in the East your entertainer assures you that everything he has to his last dirhem is yours, he nevertheless expects you to pay twice the value foreverything you consume; but he makes his exaction pleasant by his extreme courtliness. So Ephron offered his cave at Machpelah to Abraham as a free gift, but he took care to obtain for it an exorbitant price (Genesis 23:11, Genesis 23:15). Mephibosheth described himself in terms similar to those used by David of himself to Saul (1 Samuel 24:14); but he meant no more than to express great gratitude, and also to acknowledge the disparity of rank between him and the king. 2 Samuel 9:9 Thy master’s son. Strictly Mephibosheth was Saul’s grandson, but words of relationship are used in a very general way in Hebrew. 2 Samuel 9:10 That thy master’s son may have food to eat. Instead of "son," Hebrew ben, some commentators prefer the reading of a few Greek versions, namely, "house," Hebrew, beth. But the difficulty which they seek to avoid arises only from extreme literalness of interpretation. Though Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table, he would have a household to maintain—for he had a wife and son—and other expenses; and his having "food to eat" includes everything necessary, as does our prayer for "daily bread." He would live at Jerusalem as a nobleman and Ziba would cultivate his estates, paying, as is usual in the East, a fixed proportion of the value of the produce to his master. Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants (slaves). He had evidently thriven; for, beginning as a slave in Saul’s household, he had now several wives and many slaves of his own, and had become a person of considerable importance. He would still remain so, though somewhat shorn both of wealth and dignity in becoming only Mephibosheth’s farmer. 2 Samuel 9:11 As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he, etc. These words are difficult, because they make David say the same thing thrice. The text is probably corrupt, as it requires the insertion of some such phrase as the "said the king" of the Authorized Version to make it intelligible. Of the many emendations proposed, the most probable is that of the LXX. and Syriac, which make this clause an observation of the historian pointing out the high honour done to Mephibosheth in placing him on an equality with David’s own sons. It would then run as follows: So Mephibosheth ate at the king’s table as one of the king’s sons. 2 Samuel 9:12 Micha. This son of Mephibosheth became the representative of the house of Saul, and had a numerous offspring, who were leading men in the tribe of Benjamin until the Captivity (see 1 Chronicles 8:35-40; 1 Chronicles 9:40-44). 2 Samuel 9:1-13 The facts are: 1. David, remembering his love for Jonathan, inquires whether there were any survivors of the house of Saul; and being informed of the proximity of Ziba, an old servant, he sends for him. 2. He is told that a son of Jonathan, lame of foot, is a sojourner in the house of Machir. 3. Being sent for, Mephibosheth, on appearing before the king, falls on his face and pays reverence, but is spoken to kindly. 4. Being assured by David that there was no need for fear, that kindness for his father’s sake was in store, and that all his grandfather’s property should be restored, he expresses by deed and word his sense of unworthiness. 5. David informs Ziba of his decision as to the property, and orders him to act as steward for the benefit of Mephibosheth, who was to be henceforth a guest at the royal table. 6. The arrangements are carried out, and so is explained the fact of Mephibosheth’s residence in Jerusalem. The power of hallowed associations. Scripture, in common with all history, usually gives us the outward facts of life, leaving to be inferred the private mental and moral processes which must have lain in their rear. There is an abruptness in the transition of the historian from an account of David’s victories and general administration to this record of an act of personal kindness. But if the laws of the human mind were the same then as now, we may be sure there was no such disconnection in the inner course of David’s experience. During the few years of public activity in seeking the consolidation of his power, covered by the preceding chapters, there had often risen up in his mind memories of former days of trial, and of names of friends and foes now no longer among the living; and if thought breeds emotion, he would, on these occasions, experience feelings corresponding to the subject-matter of his thoughts. Among these thoughts, with their corresponding feeling, were doubtless those relating to his beloved Jonathan; and what the historian here places before us in the narrative concerning Mephibosheth is simply the ultimate welling up, from the depths of the memory, of the old associations clustering around the name of Jonathan in such strength as to issue in the deeds here recorded. I. ARE A GREAT POWER IN LIFE. Human life is not determined in its condition or conduct at any particular hour by what is purely new in thought, in feeling, or in circumstance. The past furnishes the seed on which the present acts as new environment, and the nature of that past is a more potent element in determining the conduct than is the new environment. The chief clue to David’s later character is to be sought in his earlier experiences. The mightiest inner forces that thus influence life are those which centre in strong and sacred associations. The memory of Jonathan’s love worked unconsciously as a spell throughout David’s career. Every man is subject to this law of life. As a rule, the early mental associations of our life give tone and colour to all that comes after. The power lying in the memory of a mother’s love over even the vagaries of later years is proverbial. The mention of a name may suffice to flood the eyes with tears and break down the stoutest heart. David never knew how much of restraint, of tenderness, of noble aspiration, and of fidelity to truth and honour he owed to the associations carried in his memory with the name of his friend Jonathan. So to us the "Name that is above every name" is the centre of associations as powerful as they are blessed; and the more we can enrich our nature with kindred associations, the richer and more Christlike will our lives become. II. THERE ARE WHEN CAN EXERT THEIR PROPER . During the first few years of his reign David seems to have been utterly absorbed with the work of restoring the civil and religious order of his kingdom, and of securing it against the pressure of surrounding foes. A consideration of the actual state of things consequent on the misgovernment of Saul, and of the enormous labours involved in an absolute monarchy when its obligations are faithfully carried out, will account for the apparent neglect of Jonathan’s house till the present date. It is only reasonable to suppose that David had sometimes thought of this matter, and the manner in which it is introduced in 2 Samuel 9:1 suggests that now was the time to give effect to his own previously cherished desires. It might have been politically unwise, and to Saul’s descendants personally injurious by placing them in the way of temptation to conspiracies, had he sought to reinstate any of them during the rebellion of Ishbosheth and immediately on his decease. The safe and full establishment of his authority was evidently the occasion for the old and piously cherished associations with the no, me of Jonathan to put forth their strength. We all have within us a reserve power in the hallowed associations we cherish. They are never without an unconscious influence; but there may come seasons when we may do well to open the doors and let them come forth in full force to sway our conduct. Thus at Easter and Christmas do Christians give free scope to blessed memories. Thus our family birthdays, and days sacred to the memory of those now more blessed than ourselves, are times when our nature becomes enriched with holy feelings, and our vows become more influential. Sometimes, apart from our will and special seasons, by the spontaneous force of mental laws, sacred memories pour forth into our barren experience streams of blessing; and if by pressure of secular business the channels of thought and emotion are clogged, it is well now and then to pause, and, by an effort in quiet solitude, to open some sacred spring within our nature, so that it shall send forth its blessed streams to quicken and beautify our spiritual life. III. A TRUE HEART WILL SEINE FOR THE POWER OF . The occasion arose in the course of David’s public life, and because his heart was still true to God and man, he seized it. The cares of official life and the attractions of exalted position had not yet done him spiritual damage. The David that swore love and fidelity to his friend (1 Samuel 20:13-17, 1 Samuel 20:42) was still alive. The man was not lost in the king. There are sad instances of the reverse. Old friends, former vows, are forgotten in the satiety of wealth or power, or, if not entirely forgotten, no occasion is sought to let the love of former days assert itself. Much of our power over our future lies in the use we are disposed to make of the fountains of holy thought and feeling which have been formed within by the experiences of former days. The pressure of business may cause them to lie unnoticed for months and years; but now and then opportunities will occur which an uncorrupted heart will gladly use for bringing them into the current of daily life. There may be an abuse of "days and seasons;" but a well regulated life will not, on that account, be hindered from taking pains to sweeten and subdue the present, and prepare for a better future, by a distinct and deliberate revival of the most sacred and tender experiences of the past. IV. THIS USE OF SECURES A OF . There was a native force in David’s generous sentiments toward Jonathan in early days which would tend to their continuous assertion. The main elements of a man’s moral life will abide in spite of counteracting evils. Yet as limbs maintain their muscular power by exertion, so the special qualities of David’s character, as seen in his early friendship for Jonathan, would form a continuous feature of his life only in so far as he availed himself of passing opportunities for reviving the sentiments associated with the name of his departed friend. To this habit of allowing the feelings peculiar to such associations to act again and again, as occasion permitted, upon his life, in combination, of course, with other forms and methods of spiritual culture, we may ascribe the freshness and force of the kindly, generous sentiments which were a distinctive feature of his character to the very end. The characters of some men are disjointed. The main qualities of one part of their life are not conspicuous later on. The good has been overlaid, crushed down, by an enormous pressure of thought and sentiment of an adverse kind, and no care has been taken to give new force to latent memories. Their later good qualities are not of the same order as their earlier. This is not true growth. The true continuity of goodness is that seen in David’s case, and is promoted by the same careful use of the power that lies in the best associations of our earlier life. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. Let us see to the storing of the mind in early years with facts and experiences that will be as fountains of blessing to freshen life amidst the carking cares of a busy life. 2. We should be careful to east out low thoughts, lest they occupy, in the mental and moral area, ground on which holy and generous feelings may take root and flourish. 3. It is desirable to make seasons when the best memories of the past are allowed to exercise their full power over us. This seems to be one reason, at least, for the institution of the Lord’s Supper. 4. It is by cultivating the memories of departed friends, and cherishing the sentiments associated with their name, that the communion of the saints on earth and in heaven is promoted. 5. It is by the deliberate cultivation of sacred memories that we shall be able to conserve the more gentle virtues of life, and so give tone and purity to the otherwise hard and unsympathetic life of the world. 6. It behoves us to consider well what sacred vows of our earlier years are yet waiting to be redeemed. 7. In the remembrance of former friendships we may do well to inquire whether there are any in trouble and need on whom the spirit of the old friendship may exercise itself. A spiritual parallel. Great mischief may arise from the endeavour to trace spiritual analogies in the ordinary historical narratives of Scripture, in consequence of the licence of an overactive imagination. It is not a safe canon of interpretation to say that sacred history is throughout an allegory. That an apostle saw an allegory in one or two cases is not proof of a general rule (Galatians 4:24). But, under limitations, we are warranted in tracing parallels between the temporal and spiritual, the earthly and the heavenly: the one may exhibit features which serve to illustrate the other. Much of our Saviour’s teaching partook of this character. In this lies the essence of parable. In this light we may regard the story of David’s conduct toward Mephibosheth: it serves to illustrate the bearing and action of the true King of Zion toward the weak and lowly, Naaman’s cleansing and Mephibesheth’s elevation are historic facts shedding light on spiritual realities. Note— I. A PLEDGE TO BE KEPT. The events here recorded have their root in the free pledge given by David many years before that he would care for the seed of Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:15). He had undertaken to bless when need should arise. In a deeper sense the whole merciful transactions recorded in New Testament history are the outcome of a "covenant ordered in all things." Christ’s interposition on behalf of the fallen was not a casual act called forth by a passing incident in human history. Before the mountains were set fast his "delights were with the sons of men." The purpose and, speaking in human phrase, the. plan of redemption were in the original order; and hence Christ’s coming was, as it were, to redeem his own pledge, to keep his own vow, to fulfil the covenant. "Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me." Virtually he was "slain before the foundation of the world;" for all that happened was consequent on "the eternal purpose" (Ephesians 3:11), though not in violation of human freedom (Acts 2:23). II. A . We have seen that some years elapsed, not only after the vow, before any ostensible steps were taken to fulfil it, but also after David came to the kingdom. In this there is no cause for reflection on his sincerity. Providence has many things to bring about in a monarch’s wise policy, and he may have to wait till events are ripe for certain lines of action. Here, on a small scale, we have an illustration of the apparently deferred fulfilment of the merciful undertaking of our Saviour. Generations passed ere the set time had come when he could, consistently with the working out of other issues, subordinate or coordinate, come to "perform the mercy promised" in the past (Luke 2:1-52:72). Now that we have the complete history of David, we can see the propriety of his not taking measures for the elevation of the seed of Jonathan while his work of consolidation was incomplete; and so now that we have the full record of the Old and New Testaments, we can see the wisdom of the manifestation of the covenanted grace being deferred till the "fulness of time" (Galatians 4:4). Many threads were being woven by the hand of Providence to meet in the revelation of Christ. III. A SEARCH FOR THE FALLEN. David inquired after the seed of Jonathan and Saul. The sons of the distinguished were in obscurity and, in a social and political point of view, lost. As compared with the position once held by their father and grandfather, they were indeed degraded and outcast. Their splendid inheritance had vanished. They had to be sought out. How truly their relative social condition represents our spiritual condition is obvious. We have fallen far below the original state of our great ancestor. The effect of sin on man, in so far as it touches his relative social position in the enduring spiritual world, is to lower him, to render him inferior to the holy beings who constitute the members of the eternal kingdom of God. "Thou hast fallen by thine iniquity" (Hosea 14:1). The mission of Christ, in one aspect of it, is said to be a search for that which is lest—an effort to find and rescue from degradation and shame those who are living below their proper position in the spiritual life (Luke 15:3-10, Luke 15:32; Luke 19:10). This is true of the race; and his work considered as "finished" on Calvary is an effort to find out and save mankind. It is also true of us as individuals that Christ does, like the good shepherd (John 10:16; cf. Luke 15:4), search for us. He follows us in our wanderings, comes near to our loneliness, and calls us by his Word, his providence, and his Spirit. IV. A . "Is there not yet any of the house of Saul, that I may show the kindness of God unto him?" (verse. 3). How this reveals the deep longings of the heart! David is not satisfied with the desire to show ordinary attentions to the fallen house; he must show such kindness as God would show. The thought of Jonathan evidently brought up again the old love; and it must, if possible, pour itself forth in some unwonted form. There can be no question that, in the regal and better qualities of his life, David illustrates the more perfect King who comes to reign in righteousness and save the poor and needy. This strong yearning compassion was conspicuous in our Lord in the days of his flesh, when he was seeking a lost race. In this he is unapproachable. It appears in his deeply pathetic tone whenever referring to sin and sorrow, in his patient unwearying toil, in his pleadings with the weary and heavy laden, in his looking with compassion on the people as sheep without a shepherd, in his tears over Jerusalem, and in the sweet and gentle submission with which he drank the cup in Gethsemane, and poured out his life on the cross. Overflowing love! And he is the same now (Hebrews 13:8). His life, suffering, and death were the revelation of a permanent character, and therefore of an ever-yearning compassion for the fallen. V. A BEARING. Mephibosheth trembled in the presence of David, and was overcome by the sense of his own unworthiness (2 Samuel 9:6-8). No doubt he was surprised at such wondrous conduct on the part of the king as to send for him. But the king in a tone which no written words can indicate, said, "Mephibosheth!" We all know what volumes of meaning may be conveyed by addressing an individual by his name in a certain tone. And, lest this should not suffice, there came the words, "Fear not!" As a brother and friend, on the same level, he speaks to the heart of the weak and troubled one. Foreshadow is this of him who was "meek and lowly in heart;" who would not "break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax;" who touched the outcast leper and inspired the fallen one with hope. No reproach, no coldness of heart, no imposition of impossible burdens, but the gentleness and grace that banish fear and cause the poor outcast to feel that in him there is a tender, loving Friend! VI. AN TO HONOUR. David would be content with nothing less than that Mephibosheth should be a free and constant guest at his table. He was to be raised from social degradation and obscurity to a position of greatest distinction. No mere pension, no formal expression of personal interest, no delegation to others of attention to be paid to him would suit the largeness of the king’s heart. His idea of the "kindness of God" (2 Samuel 9:3) far transcended the best human conceptions of generosity, and this unwonted elevation to honour was but the index of it. What a marvellous change in the condition of this poor, feeble outcast! How contrary to all the usages of monarchs, to the offspring of the fallen, was this overflow of "the kindness of God"! Than this there is not in the Bible a more apt illustration of the exceeding grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, who condescends to our low estate, seeks us out, bows us down in wondering submission by his matchless gentleness, and then raises us to the honour of being members of his household, of free access to his Person and closest fellowship with himself and those most dear to him. "Neither do I condemn thee" (John 8:11; cf. Romans 8:1). He gives "power to become the sons of God" (John 1:12, John 1:16; 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2). The "far off" are made "nigh" (Ephesians 2:13), and are called "friends" (John 15:15), blessed with constant fellowship (1 John 1:3), and even made heirs of "the glory" given to himself (John 17:22-24). It is in the Antitype alone that we find the full and true expression of "the kindness of God" (2 Samuel 9:3). "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). VII. A . A personal guarantee, involving the king’s honour, and backed by all the resources at his command, was given that Mephibesheth should henceforth be regarded "as one of the king’s sons" (2 Samuel 9:11), and that ample provision should be made for all his wants (2 Samuel 9:10). Whatever demands came on him for the sustenance of his dependents, they were met by the arrangement, under royal warrant, with Ziba. Thus all his interests, present and future, personal and relative, social and material, were provided for. The king guaranteed all. Now, this is beautifully illustrative of what Christ does for those whom he raises from degradation to be his friends. He cares for all their interests. He so orders providence that they shall "want no good thing." It is said of them, "All things are yours" (1 Corinthians 3:22); and, to scatter all fear and afford abundant consolation, the King has said, "Because I live, ye shall live also" (John 14:19). Mephibosheth rested under the care of a faithful David. All the power and all the high moral qualities of David were pledged to secure to him all his life long the blessings now enjoyed; so all the power and all the ineffable qualities of Christ are pledged to secure to us the possession and enjoyment of glorious heritage as Christians as long as we live, i.e. forever. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It becomes us to follow the example of David and of Christ, and seek out those who may be in need of blessing, and who may have a special claim on our sympathy. 2. We should make the Divine character and conduct the model of our bearing towards those in trouble. "The kindness of God" is the ideal to be converted into the realities of our life. 3. The lowly and despised may take encouragement from all that is recorded of Christ’s gracious bearing and deeds of kindness. 4. We may trace, in every instance of Christ’s mercy to the fallen, the permanently elevating tendency of Christianity. It is the one element which alone lastingly raises mankind in material and social good. 5. The resources of Christ for securing the fulfilment of his promises are so vast as to remove all fear. He is more to the universe at large than David was to his kingdom. 6. We see the dignity of bearing that becomes those who are honoured with the royal friendship of Christ. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 9:1 (.) For Jonathan’s Sake. David had sworn to his friend Jonathan that he would "not cut off his kindness from his house forever" (1 Samuel 20:15). He had been probably unaware of his leaving a son behind him (for Mephibosheth was born while he was in exile, five years before the battle of Gilboa); or, if acquainted with the fact, supposed that he perished in the destruction of the house of Saul. But surmising, perhaps, from something he heard, that a son of his friend survived, he made the inquiry, "Is there yet any that is left," etc.? It was a practice only too common in the East, on a change of dynasty, for the reigning monarch to put to death the surviving members of the family of his predecessor, in order to make his own position more secure. And the conduct of David, in contrast therewith, evinced his gratitude, fidelity, piety, and noble generosity. "Neither the splendour of victories, nor the pleasures of prosperity, nor the lustre of his crown, could make him unmindful of his covenant and oath to his former friend. A suspicious, faithless tyrant would at least have kept the family that imagined they had a right to his kingdom low enough to have prevented the possibility of their ever disputing it with him; or at least have shut up the heir of it in close imprisonment, or got rid of his fears upon his account by totally destroying him; thinking he might reasonably dispense with his oath to his deceased friend through the necessity of self-preservation, and securing to his own family the peaceable succession to his crown" (Chandler). The words "for Jonathan’s sake"— I. EXPRESS A OF HUMAN CONDUCT. It is not unusual for one person to show kindness to another for the sake of someone else, for whom, whether living or dead, he entertains a high regard, on account of his excellent character or eminent services; with whom the object of his kindness is closely connected, and without whom he would not have shown it. How often has a king exercised his prerogative of mercy toward an offender, or bestowed riches and honour on a subject, for the sake of the faithful service of his father! "The fruit of well doing lives longer than himself who is the doer, and thereby he leaves a blessing and good treasure behind him to his posterity" (Guild). "There are thousands of young men and women who are daily receiving kindness for their fathers’ and mothers’ sakes. And this is, in fact, one of the incidental blessings connected with having parents who, though now dead, were, when living, persons of worthy and estimable life. Their children inherit the advantages which the love of others for their memory can bestow, and many an applicant for some office of trust and emolument would be turned away from the door were it not that his face bears the lineaments of a departed and cherished friend, or his tones call back to memory the voice which will speak no more" (E. Mellor). II. A METHOD OF DIVINE . God deals with men, not merely in their separate individuality, but also in their relationship to one another; spares and blesses them, not only directly and immediately, but also indirectly and mediately, through and on account of each other; and shows kindness to many for the sake of one. This: 1. Occurs in various ways. By means of the hereditary influence of a good man on his descendants, and the moral influence on others of his example, utterances, labours, and sufferings; and (with more special reference to the case under consideration) by granting his intercessory requests, fulfilling the promises made to him on their behalf, and doing them good out of regard to him, or because of something he has done which was necessary to that end. 2. Appears in numerous instances. With respect to individuals, "The Lord hath blessed me for thy sake" (Genesis 30:27; Genesis 19:29; 1 Kings 11:12); families (Genesis 39:5; Psalms 69:26; Proverbs 13:22); Churches, cities, and nations (Genesis 18:26; Exodus 32:14; 1 Kings 8:19); "beloved for the fathers’ sakes" (Romans 11:28); "As the new wine is found in the cluster," etc. (Isaiah 65:8; Isaiah 1:9). So God testifies his love of righteousness, teaches the worth of a good man in relation to the unworthy, and causes his sovereign mercy to abound toward them. 3. Has its highest application in Christ, "the one Mediator between God and man," (1) who is very dear to God (Matthew 3:17; Ephesians 1:6); (2) who is closely allied to men (Hebrews 2:16); (3) who has laboured, interceded, and suffered for us (1 Peter 3:18); and (4) to whom many promises have been made on behalf of those who are in him (Ga:20; 2 Corinthians 1:20). The nature, grounds, and extent of his mediation cannot be fully explained; but the fact is certain, that it is "for Christ’s sake" (Ephesians 4:32), "in Christ" (Revised Version), and "for his Name’s sake" (1 John 2:12), we are forgiven, have access to the Father, and are "blessed with every spiritual blessing" (Ephesians 1:3). "He comprises in his own Person all and everything that is most desirable" (Gregory Nazianzen). III. SUGGEST A GROUND OF DEVOUT . When Mephibosheth appeared before the king, "he doubtless was in fear for his life (2 Samuel 9:6, 2 Samuel 9:7). Such generosity to a fallen rival as David showed in restoring him to his paternal property, seemed to him scarcely credible" (’Speaker’s Commentary’). But the assurance that it was "for Jonathan’s sake" must have inspired him with confidence. And similarly, "for Jesus’ sake" affords a (1) needful, (2) effectual, and (3) abiding ground of hope, and Provides for those who come to God An all-prevailing plea." "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my Name, he will give it you" (John 16:23; John 14:13). IV. A MOTIVE TO , after the example of David and from love to our Divine Friend (2 Samuel 1:26); in: 1. Forgiving each other (Ephesians 4:32). 2. Kind and comforting speech. "Fear not" (2 Samuel 9:7). 3. Generous gifts. 4. Self-denial. 5. Suffering (Matthew 5:11; Philippians 1:29). 6. Prayers (Romans 15:30). 7. Personnel, diligent, and constant service on behalf of "the Church which is his body," and of all "for whom Christ died" (2 Corinthians 4:5; 3 John 1:7). "For his Name’s sake;" "For my sake." This is the Christian’s peculiar, highest, and mightiest motive; implying not only supreme affection toward him who "alone is worthy," but also sincere sympathy with his spirit and purposes; and producing most beneficent effects.—D. 2 Samuel 9:3 (.) Showing the kindness of God. David remembered the request of Jonathan to show him "the kindness of Jehovah" (1 Samuel 20:14, 1 Samuel 20:15); felt the obligation of his former promises and covenants (1 Samuel 24:21, 1 Samuel 24:22; 1 Samuel 23:18); and now purposed, in accordance therewith, to "show the kindness of God," i.e. "love from religious motives, or as God shows it" (Thenius); "in God and for his sake" (Keil); "in the Lord’s sight, and according to the Lord’s example, pure, perpetual love, and not such love as arises from mere human respects and is shown in the eye of man" (Wordsworth); and not simply "great and eminent kindness" (Poole, Patrick). There are benevolent affections in our nature; but they must be imbued with religious motives and principles in order that their exercise may be of the highest kind. "The kindness of God" is such as is shown: 1. Out of reverence for his Name. Holy, just, and true; merciful and gracious; delighting in loving kindness. "God is love;" and the eternal Fountain of love in his creatures. 2. In obedience to his will, as expressed in numerous injunctions to the faithful performance of what has been promised; in the royal law (James 2:8); and in manifold exhortations to compassionate love. 3. From gratitude for his benefits. These had been bestowed on David in abundant measure (2 Samuel 7:18; 2 Samuel 8:6). The acts of kindness which God performs toward men both enable and incite them to perform acts of kindness toward their fellow men. "What goodness the Lord shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee" (Numbers 10:32). Freely ye have received, freely give." 4. In imitation of his example; of faithfulness, goodness, unsought, abounding, unfailing, and everlasting love. David was specially called, as king, to exhibit in his character and conduct an image of the moral excellences of the Divine King of Israel; and to this Christians are likewise celled. "Be ye therefore perfect," etc. (Matthew 5:43-48), "merciful" (Luke 6:36), "imitators of God as beloved children," etc. (Ephesians 5:1). 5. Under the inspiration of his grace, his love, his Spirit; and, indeed, "it is the merciful love of God himself that dwells in the heart of the truly pious, and works therefrom; for he that lives in fellowship with God receives into his heart, through the Holy Ghost, the love that is in God, and lives and moves in that love" (Erdmann). "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:16). He not only reflects the Divine love on others, but is also the medium of its communication to them. 6. With the desire of his approval, of pleasing him rather than men, and of partaking more fully of his loving kindness, which "is better than life." 7. For the promotion of his glory; "that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."—D. 2 Samuel 9:4 (GILEAD.) The kindness of Machir Ben-Ammiel. One of the obscure characters of Scripture. He dwelt at Lo-debar, among the mountains of Gilead, "a favourite asylum for refugees;" was, probably, a descendant of Machir the son of Manasseh; and "the principal man of Gilead" (Josephus). Of his generosity two notable instances are recorded (ch. 4:4; 17:27). From these it may be inferred that he was rich in earthly possessions, and (what is of much greater importance) in: 1. Grateful memories. Like the men of Jabesh-Gilead, he remembered the heroic enterprise of Saul on behalf of his people (1 Samuel 11:9; 1 Samuel 31:11; 1 Samuel 2:4-7). "But, O Saul, do not fail us. Saul. Fail ye? Let the morn fail to break; I will not break My word. Haste, or I’m there before you. Fail? Let the morn fail in the east; I’ll not fail you; But swift and silent as the streaming wind, Unseen approach, then gathering up my force At dawning, sweep on Amnon, as night’s blast Sweeps down from Carmel on the dusky sea." (C. Heavysege, ’Saul: a Drama.’) Hence he afforded ready shelter and hospitality to his grandson, and may have assisted the revival of his house at Mahanaim (2 Samuel 2:8); and when, subsequently, David was in exile at the same place, remembering his kindness to Mephibosheth, rendered him generous aid. 2. Tender compassion toward the orphan, unfortunate add friendless. The sight of human distress drew forth his sympathy; and (like the good Samaritan) he suffered no other considerations to hinder its practical expression. 3. Constant friendship. During many years (verse 12), with all their changes, he provided, apparently "without fee or reward," a peaceful home for the crippled prince, and continued his steadfast protector. 4. Active benevolence. He was "rich in good works" (2 Timothy 6:18). Sensibility, as the word is generally used, is a mere animal instinct, useless when it does not immediately lead to active benevolence; and in such cases not only useless, but pernicious, because it has a tendency to produce a resting satisfied with the emotion and a neglect of the action" (W. Cooke Taylor). 5. Beneficent influence. His conduct could not but produce a good effect on the rude, warlike tribe of which he was chief; and possibly incited others (Shobi and Barzillai) to the like. "Great deeds cannot die: They with the sun and moon renew their light Forever, blessing those that look on them." (Tennyson.) 6. Noble recompense. "The blessing of him that was ready to perish" (Job 29:13), the approval of his own conscience, the enduring memorial of a good name. Although (like that of Abou Ben-Adhem) his name has not been written in the sacred record among "the names of those who love the Lord," but only "as one that loves his fellow men," it could not fail of being divinely honoured. "The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night It came again, with a great wakening light, And show’d the names whom love of God had bless’d, And lo! Ben-Adhem’s name led all the rest." (Leigh Hunt.) D. 2 Samuel 9:5-13 (THE KING’S PALACE.) Mephibosheth before the king. We have here a picture of— I. IS LIFE. A prince by birth, deprived of his father, crippled by a heedless footstep, carried into exile and poverty, recently a helpless dependent in a remote district, is conducted into the presence of one who was once a shepherd boy, afterwards a wandering outlaw, and now the greatest monarch on earth! Such changes: 1. May be largely, though not entirely, traced to moral causes, personal character, hereditary relationships. 2. Are wrought by Divine providence (1 Samuel 2:7, 1 Samuel 2:8; Psalms 113:7, Psalms 113:8). 3. Are designed for human welfare; being not only corrective, but also tentative and disciplinary (Psalms 55:19; Job 23:10; Hebrews 12:6). 4. And should be regarded in an appropriate spirit (James 1:9, James 1:10). II. THE OF . "He fell on his face, and did reverence" (2 Samuel 9:6); "And he bowed himself, and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?" (2 Samuel 9:8). His physical infirmity, combined with long continued dependence, made him not merely humble, but timid, anxious, abject, and self-depreciatory. Hence his language (due in part to Oriental exaggeration) is excusable, though scarcely to be commended (Kitto, ’Daily Bible Illus.’). The natural tendency of heavy affliction to enfeeble and crush the spirit is effectually overcome only by the aid of Divine grace. III. AN OF ; spontaneous, faithful, considerate, magnanimous, practical, enduring, Divine. 1. In gracious and encouraging words. "Mephibosheth!" (2 Samuel 9:6). "Fear not!" etc. (2 Samuel 9:7). To David himself, in a time of dejection, Jonathan had said," Fear not!" (1 Samuel 23:17); and how often has the Lord spoken the same comforting word to his servants (Genesis 15:1; Luke 12:32; Revelation 1:17)! 2. In becoming and beneficent acts; fulfilling what had been promised (2 Samuel 9:9-11), restoring an alienated inheritance, and making a sure, permanent, and abundant provision (2 Samuel 9:12). 3. In honoured, intimate, and abiding friendship. ’"Mephibosheth, thy master’s son, shall eat bread alway at my table" (2 Samuel 9:10, 2 Samuel 9:11,2 Samuel 9:13). Such kindness, like sunshine after rain, and as a visit of "the angel of God" (2 Samuel 19:27, 2 Samuel 19:28), dispersed his fear, alleviated his misfortune, and filled him with grateful devotion; whilst his presence at the royal table would daily remind the king of his deceased friend, and incite him to renewed generosity. IV. THE DEFECTS OF THE MOST EARTHLY . "And he was lame on both his feet" (2 Samuel 9:13). His deformity was incurable; his infirmity became an occasion of complaint and slander (2 Samuel 16:2-4); and his dejection and distress returned "as the clouds after the rain" (2 Samuel 19:24-30). The king himself often longed to flee away and be at rest (Psalms 55:6). And it is vain to expect perfection in character or condition except in the heavenly mansions. "There is a spot in every flower, A sigh in every gale, A shadow in the brightest hour, Thorns in the smoothest vale. "To smile and weep, and weep and smile, To man alternate given; To cling to earth permitted while We learn to long for heaven." 2 Samuel 9:13 Lost and found: a sermon to young people. The story of Mephibosheth may be used as a little parable of the spiritual history of everyone who is restored to God. He was: 1. A prince. To you belongs a more than princely dignity; for you are all "the offspring of God," and bear on you traces of "the image and glory" of "the Father of spirits." 2. Lost. You belong to a sinful and fallen race; and your condition is one of deprivation, helplessness, obscurity, and misery. "A true religion ought to instruct man both in his greatness and his misery" (Pascal). 3. Sought. Infinite piety has sought and is still seeking every one of you, and employs many means to find and save you (Matthew 18:10-14; Luke 15:1-32.). 4. Found; unexpectedly to himself and to the joy of the seeker. So is it when the gracious message of the gospel comes to you, "not in word only, but in power." 5. Self-abased; in the presence of the king. When you see the height of Divine greatness and goodness, you also see the depth of your own unworthiness and shame. 6. Comforted. "Fear not; only believe." 7. Exated; endowed with more than had been lost; and adopted as "one of the king’s sons" (2 Samuel 9:11). The gifts of God are worthy of himself. When one, to whom Alexander gave a city, declined to accept it, on the, ground that it was unsuitable to his condition, he said, "I do not ask what is becoming in you to receive, but what is becoming in me to give" (Seneca, ’De Beneficiis’).—D. BY G. WOOD 2 Samuel 9:3 The kindness of God. David, settled on the throne and in his new metropolis, recalls to mind the fallen house of Saul, not to destroy them, as was usual with Eastern monarchs, but to show them kindness for Jonathan’s sake. In his inquiry after them he uses substantially the same phrase which Jonathan had used (1 Samuel 20:14) when he took an oath of him that he would be kind to himself and his family. "The kindness of the Lord," or "the kindness of God," is an expression descriptive of the highest and best kindness possible to man or angel. It is kindness which— I. FLOWS FROM GOD. This is true of all the kindness which exists amongst men. "Love is of God." All the love of men towards each other streams forth from the fountain of Divine love, and should be thus regarded by those who are the objects of it, he being praised for all. But this is emphatically true of Christian kindness. It originates in, and is a manifestation of, the love of God in Christ. It is produced by the Holy Spirit as given to the disciples of Christ, and by means of the truth respecting him (1 Peter 1:22, 1 Peter 1:23). It is a product of regeneration. It is God’s love dwelling in human hearts and revealing itself in human lives. It is an element of "the Divine nature" of which Christians are "partakers" (2 Peter 1:4). II. IS FROM REGARD TO GOD. 1. It has its root, like all Christian graces, in faith towards God (Galatians 5:6). 2. It springs from gratitude and love to him for all his goodness, especially for his redeeming love (1 John 4:11). 3. It. is practised in obedience to his commandments (lJn 4:21). 4. It aims at his approval 5. It imitates him (Luke 6:36; Ephesians 4:32). Hence it— III. IS GOD-LIKE. As it is: 1. Disinterested. "Seeketh not her own" (1 Corinthians 13:5). Kindness which is exercised with a view to personal advantage is not kindness but policy and commercial subtlety. 2. Expansive. Ready to help all who need, as far as power permits. Not restricting itself to the good and worthy, but "kind unto the unthankful and the evil" (Luke 6:35); nor yet to friends, but extending to enemies (Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:48); nor to one’s own sect in religion, but regarding with love all Christian brethren (1 John 5:1; Ephesians 6:24). Yet it is: 3. Discriminating. The Divine love is united with righteousness, and seeks righteous ends. Hence it cannot be the same thing, and displayed in the same manner, towards the righteous and the unrighteous, the obedient and the disobedient; and it mainly seeks to promote righteousness and salvation in all, and varies its methods accordingly. Christian love and kindness will be exercised with similar discrimination as far as is possible to men; and will seek supremely the moral and spiritual benefit of its objects. Indiscriminate benevolence does more harm than good. 4. Unsparing. "He spared not his own Son" (Romans 8:32), and in him the love of God appears as self-sacrificing (1 John 3:16) and bountiful (Ephesians 1:3). Christian love possesses the same qualities of bountifulness (2 Corinthians 8:2, 2 Corinthians 8:3, 2 Corinthians 8:9-11), self-denial, and self-sacrifice. It "endureth all things" (1 Corinthians 13:7). 5. Constant. The love of God is long suffering, persistent, and eternal (Psalms 103:17; Psalms 136:1-26; passim), His children are like him in this respect also (1 Corinthians 13:4, 1 Corinthians 13:8, 1 Corinthians 13:13). IV. IS BY WITH GOD. The acts and habits of devotion—reading, meditation, prayer, praise—bring us into closer communion with God, secure us more of his Spirit, open our hearts to receive the impress of his character, promote in us all those sentiments and principles towards him which issue in hearty love and kindness towards our brethren. Let us draw nigh continually to him whose name is Love, and we shall find it ever more easy to be loving.—G.W. 2 Samuel 9:13 Eating at the king’s table. David, out of regard to the memory of his dear friend Jonathan, and mindful of his oath to him, not only restores to his son Mephibosheth the forfeited property of Saul, and arranges for its cultivation by Ziba and his sons, but exalts Mephibosheth to the position of a constant guest at his own table, "as one of the king’s sons." So Mephibosheth "did eat continually at the king’s table." The circumstance may serve to remind us of the greater honour which good men enjoy it is theirs to eat continually at the table of the King of kings. I. THIS IS TRUE AS THEIR OF THE GIFTS OF GOD’S . All creatures depend upon him, and he supplies their wants (Psalms 104:27, Psalms 104:28; Psalms 145:15, Psalms 145:16). But the lower creatures partake of his bounty unconscious of the hand which feeds them. They are, in relation to God, rather like the horses in the stable, or the cattle and sheep in the fields, than the children at the table. And what these are through incapacity, ungodly people are through unbelief and forgetfulness. They live on the bounty of God, unmindful of him and unthankful. His children, however, even in the enjoyment of their daily food, "sit at his table." As he provides, so they recognize his care and bounty, and give him thanks. As he is present, so they are conscious of his presence. They regard him as presiding at their meals, and are glad to discern him so near. They ask for his blessing, and receive it. They "eat to the Lord, and give God thanks" (Romans 14:6). They satisfy their appetites and gratify their tastes as in his sight. They aim "to eat and drink … to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). They not only enjoy his gifts, but commune with himself. They talk with him, and he with them. Common meals thus enjoyed become as sacraments and means of grace. Let it be our endeavour to enjoy them thus more than we have done. II. THE WORDS ARE MORE TO THE ’S OF . In this sense, "he eats continually at the king’s table." The image reminds us of: 1. His exaltation. Once, like Mephibosheth, living far away from the king, now brought near, and associated with, yea, made really one of, his children. Still "lame" and otherwise defective, and unfit perhaps for much service, yet admitted to favour and honour. 2. The abundance of the best provisions he enjoys. At the King’s table is plenty, and of the best. At the table of the heavenly King, spread under the gospel, are provisions the choicest and rarest, to be found nowhere else; and which nourish, not for this short earthly life, but for life eternal. The best intellectual food is here; but especially that food which quickens and nourishes the soul, in faith, and love, and hope, and holiness. Divine truth and whatever it reveals and presents—the pardoning mercy and fatherly love of God, the love and sacrifice of Christ, his body and his blood, which are the real food and drink of men. Of these the believing and loving soul may partake at will, anywhere and everywhere. The King’s table is not confined to place; but especially in the house of God and at the Lord’s Supper, the table is spread, and Christians gather together to feed and feast. 3. At the King’s table is the best society. At the table of the Divine King we associate with the Father and the Son, by the Spirit; and by him also with saints and angels, "the excellent of the earth" and the excellent of heaven. The Lord fulfils his promise, "I will sup with him, and he with me" (Revelation 3:20). 4. At the King’s table is gladness. The honour, the provision, the company, all tend to give pleasure. 5. There also is safety. The palace of a king is commonly the securest spot in the land. Far more assured is the safety of those who sit at the table of the heavenly King. Angels guard them; God himself is their Dwelling place and Defence. 6. The privilege of eating at the table of our King is perpetual. As in the case of Mephibosheth. If it is not continually enjoyed, it is our own fault. The privilege enjoyed by Mephibosheth would be a constant solace to him in his helplessness; and the spiritual counterpart is to Christians a constant source of comfort and support under their troubles. III. THE WORDS ARE IN THE WORLD. The future blessedness of God’s people is often compared to a feast (see Matthew 8:11; Revelation 2:7; Revelation 19:9). It is, in fact, the continuance and the perfecting of the blessedness now enjoyed, The King himself is perfectly "manifested." "They shall see his face" (Revelation 22:4); "We shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). His love and favour are so displayed as not to admit of a doubt. The provisions at his table are the same as on earth; but the guests are better able to enjoy them, their spiritual appetite and tastes being freed from all that lessens their fitness to do so. The society is the same, but those imperfect on earth are perfected in spirit and in body (Hebrews 12:23; Philippians 3:21). The security is absolute; the joy unmingled with sorrow; the feast is perpetual and without end. "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God" (Luke 14:15). Who shall partake of that bliss? All are invited by the gospel; and none will be excluded but such as exclude themselves by refusing to accept the invitation, and obtain the necessary preparation for the feast, which consists in reconciliation to the King through Jesus Christ, constant loyalty and obedience to him, and joyful partaking now of his spiritual gifts. To "eat continually at the King’s table" here is the necessary condition of our doing so hereafter, as it is also the preparation for that happiness and the evidence that we shall enjoy it.—G.W. 2 Samuel 10:1 The king of the children of Ammon died. This war is very briefly referred to in 2 Samuel 8:12; but we have now entered upon a narrative, the interest of which is altogether unlike all that has gone before. There we saw David crowned with earthly glory, and made the monarch of a vast empire; he is also a prophet, and, as such, not only restores, but enriches and enlarges, the worship of the sanctuary; and, as prophet and king, he becomes not only the type, but the ancestor of the Messiah. In this narrative he is a sinner, punished with terrible, though merited, severity, and must henceforth walk humbly and sorrowfully as a penitent before God. From 1 Chronicles 19:1 we learn that the king’s name was Nahash; but whether he was the same as the Nahash mentioned in 1 Samuel 11:1 is uncertain. There was an interval of more than forty years between, but Nahash was probably a young man, just seated on the throne, when he attacked Jabesh-Gilead; and Saul, who repelled him, might have been still alive but for the battle of Gilbea. The name means a "serpent," and is used in Job 26:1-14:18 of the constellation Draco. It may thus have been a name assumed by several Ammonite kings, the dragon representing majesty and power, and being the symbol on their seal, just as it is the Chinese imperial emblem now. The phrase, "It came to pass after this," has no chronological significance either hero or in 2 Samuel 8:1. It is simply a form of transition from one subject to another. 2 Samuel 10:2 His father showed kindness unto me. This makes it probable that it was the same Nahash as Saul’s enemy. The smart of the defeat caused by Saul’s energy would make him regard with friendship any one who was a thorn in the side of the man who had so unexpectedly stopped him in his career, and hence his kindness to David. 2 Samuel 10:3 Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father! This insinuation arose probably from ill will, stirred up by David’s success in war; and, with that distrust with which neighbouring nations too often regard one another, they see in his embassy only a purpose of spying into their defences with view to future attack. Rabbah, their city, was a place strong beth naturally and by reason of its fortifications. 2 Samuel 10:4 Hanun … shaved off the one half of their beards. To an Oriental the beard was the mark of his being a free man, and to cut it off on one side was not merely an insult to David’s ambassadors, but the treating them like slaves. Moreover, as only the priests wore underclothing, and as the ordinary dress of men consisted of a tunic and a loose flowing robe thrown over it, the cutting of this robe short up to the hip was a vile and abominable affront. Of course, Hanun intended this as a challenge to war, whereas David had meant peace and friendship. 2 Samuel 10:6 That they stank (see notes on 1 Samuel 13:4; 1 Samuel 27:12). As the Hebrew literally means, had made themselves stink, the Revised Version rightly translates "had made themselves odious." The children of Ammon sent and hired the Syrians. From 1 Chronicles 19:6 we learn that his mercenaries from Aram cost Hanun a thousand talents of silver, or nearly five hundred thousand pounds—a vast sum, especially considering the great relative value of silver in those days. The mercenaries, moreover, were gathered out of numerous districts of Aram—from Rehob, Zoba, Beth-Maacah, and Tob; the margin being right in rendering "the men of Tob," instead of "Ish-tob." So, too, the Revised Version, "The men of Tob twelve thousand men." It was to this land that Jephthah fled (Judges 11:3). The whole number of the allies was thirty-three thousand, with which total the parallel place agrees, as they are described there as "thirty-two thousand, and the King of Maacah and his people," who are here said to have been a thousand strong. The text, however, there must be corrupt, as it describes them all as horsemen (Authorized Version, "chariots;" 1 Chronicles 19:7); here footmen only are mentioned, with which the narrative agrees (see note on 1 Chronicles 19:18). 2 Samuel 10:7 And all the host of the mighty men. The Hebrew is, and all the host, mighty men. By this is meant, not "the mighties," but that the Israelites had now become practised in war, and veterans. 2 Samuel 10:8 The Syrians … were by themselves in the field. We learn from 1 Chronicles 19:7 that the rendezvous of the Arameans was at Medeba, a small town situated upon a hill in the Mishor, or treeless prairie land, called "the plain" in Joshua 13:16. As it was four miles southeast of Heshbon, and more than twenty miles distant from Rabbah, it is plain that they were marching northward, and that Joab was only just in time to prevent a junction of the two armies. The Ammonites, who were expecting their allies, and knew of their approach, had come outside of Rabbah, but had only posted themselves in fighting order "at the entering in of the gate." 2 Samuel 10:9 The front of the battle. The object of Joab was to prevent at all hazards the junction of the Syrians with the Ammonites, and he was only just in time to throw himself between them. This was resolute but dangerous policy, as, in case of defeat, he would have a powerful enemy in his rear. Apparently, however, he was aware that his real work lay with the Syrian mercenaries, who were dangerous enough by themselves, and would become more than a match for him if they were reinforced by the men of Rabbah. He therefore leaves Abishai with such troops as he could spare to watch the Ammonites, feeling sure that they would not hazard an attack unless they saw matters going ill with him; and, taking with him all his bravest men, "the choice man of Israel," he prepares with them to give battle to the Syrians. 2 Samuel 10:11 And he said, etc. Thenius remarks, "We have here the briefest of warlike exhortations, but one most full of point and meaning." Joab recognized the full danger of their situation; for should he meet with any check in his attack on this vast host of mercenaries, he was well aware that the Ammonites, watching the battle with eager interest, would, on the first news of victory, rush upon Abishai with exulting fury; and the men with him, being only ordinary troops, would be disheartened by Joab’s failure, so that without extraordinary bravery on their leader’s part, they would give way, and all would be lost. 2 Samuel 10:12 Be of good courage, and let us play the men. The Hebrew employs two conjugations of the same verb, literally, be strong, and let us show ourselves strong. And need there was for bravery; for the welfare, as he went on to show, of all Israel, and the honour of Israel’s God, were in jeopardy. Finally he adds, The Lord do that which seemeth him good. They are the words not so much of confidence as of determined resolution. Come good or ill, he and Abishai would do their utmost. 2 Samuel 10:14 So Joab returned. It seems strange to us that Joab should have made no attempt to follow up his victory. But as the Ammonites were posted close to the gate of their city, they would withdraw into it without less as soon as they learned that their allies were defeated. There was thus the certainty of a long siege before Rabbah could be taken. We gather from 2 Samuel 11:1 that it was late in the year when Joab won this victory, and it was part of the weakness of ancient warfare that a long campaign was beyond the power of either side. 2 Samuel 10:16 Hadarezer (see note on 2 Samuel 8:3). Hadarezer probably had been well content to let his subjects receive the pay of the Ammonites, and extend his empire at their cost. But as paramount king in Aram, the defeat of the mercenaries obliged him to make the war a national affair, and undertake the management of it himself. He therefore summons troops from all the Aramean states on both sides of the Euphrates, and places his own general, Shobach, in command, and makes Helam the place of gathering. Helam. No such place is known, and the word might mean "their army," in which case the translation would be, "and they came in full force." The Vulgate takes it in this way, but makes the verb the causative singular, and translates, "and he brought their army." On the other hand, the LXX; the Syriac, and the Chaldee make it a proper name here, as even the Vulgate necessarily does in 2 Samuel 10:17, where there can be no doubt. In the parallel place (1 Chronicles 19:16,1 Chronicles 19:17) it is omitted in the first place, and in the second we find in its stead, "upon them." Either, therefore, the chronicler did not know of such a place, or the text is corrupt. Ewald and others suppose that Helam may be identified with Alamata; but we learn from 1 Chronicles 18:3 that the battle was fought near Hamath, and Alamata is on the Euphrates, too far away for David to have made his attack there. 2 Samuel 10:17 David … gathered all Israel together. Some commentators see in this an indication of dissatisfaction with Joab. Really it was a matter of course that in so great a war the king should place himself at the head of his levies. For not only was he possessed of great military genius, but his personal presence would make the men of Israel, a race of sturdy free men, assemble in greater numbers, and would give them confidence. If David himself went there would be no shirking the war and finding excuses to stay at home, and in the camp there would be prompt alacrity and zeal. 2 Samuel 10:18 David slew, etc. (see note on 2 Samuel 8:4). We have seen there that the word translated "chariots" means any vehicle or animal for riding. The numbers here are seven hundred chariots with their charioteers, and forty thousand horsemen; in 2 Samuel 8:4 we have seventeen hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen; finally, in 1 Chronicles 19:18 we find seven thousand chariots and charioteers, and forty thousand footmen. It is impossible to reconcile these conflicting numbers, but as David had no cavalry, the numbers in 2 Samuel 8:4 are the more probable, namely, seventeen hundred cavalry and chariots, and twenty thousand infantry. The Syriac Version gives us here very reasonable numbers, namely, "seven hundred chariots, four thousand cavalry, and much people." 2 Samuel 10:19 The kings … served them. It is evident from this that the petty kings of Rehob, Tob, and Maacah had been subject to Hadarezer; they now acknowledged the supremacy of David, and paid to him the tribute which they had previously paid to Zobah, and would be bound to supply him with a contingent of men in case of a war in their neighbourhood. The wars with Damascus and Edom, mentioned in 2 Samuel 8:5, 2 Samuel 8:13, probably followed immediately upon Hadarezer’s defeat, but are not referred to here, as the interest now centres in David’s personal conduct. 2 Samuel 10:1-5 Rejected friendliness. The facts are: 1. On the death of the King of Ammon, David resolves to send a kindly message to Hanun, in remembrance of favours received from his father Nahash. 2. On the arrival of David’s servants, the chief men of Ammon suggest to the new king that their message of condolence is a piece of trickery on the part of David for political ends. 3. Listening to these insinuations, Hanun shows his contempt for David by cutting off one side of the beard of his ambassadors, and exposing the lower part of their person. 4. On hearing of this humiliation, David sends a message to them on their way home, directing them to remain at Jericho till their beards were gown again. The question as to the chronological order of the events mentioned in this chapter as compared with 2 Samuel 8:1-18. does not affect the character of the facts or the lessons conveyed. The supposition that David deserved the insult he met with at the hand of Hanun, in consequence of showing friendliness to one of Israel’s traditional foes, is not justified, because of the explicit reference to David’s remembrance of acts of kindness. As in the case of Mephibosheth remembrance of Jonathan’s kindness is referred to by way of explaining the conduct described, so here it is evidently regarded as a corresponding excellence in David that he was mindful also of the kindness of aliens. The object of the historian is obviously to bring out into view the king’s broad generosity. In this light, then, we may regard the narrative as showing— I. THE IN HUMAN OF AND ACTS OF . Had not this 2 Samuel 8:2 been written we might never have known that the pagan Nahash had showed kindness to the Lord’s anointed. Possibly few in Israel knew of the actual service rendered by Nahash to David at some period of his exile. No record of it existed save in the king’s memory; and Nahash died before his consideration for one in trouble was acknowledged in regal form. Possibly he may have felt it strange that no notice was taken of the past when David came into power. The fact that we have this incidental reference to the kindness suggests what we often observe to be true, that many kindly deeds are done of which history takes no note, and which in the hurry and strife of life are lost to sight and mind. There is more good in the world than is tabulated. Thousands of considerate friendly deeds, revealing the true brotherhood of man and the latent worth of human nature, are being daily performed, but of which the mass of mankind will know nothing, and which, perhaps, will lie for a long time, through unavoidable circumstances, unrequited. We ought to bear this in mind when we strive to form an estimate of the state of the world, and it should set us at ease if our own generous acts do not figure in the annals of our time, and are to all appearance disregarded and unproductive of reciprocal Conduct. It is the course of life; and yet nothing is lost, nothing is in vain. II. THE OF A TRUE HEART PASSES BEYOND BOUNDS. To some it would seem strange that the King of Israel should cherish kindly sentiments towards an alien monarch, and even go out of the ordinary course to express those sentiments. Bigotry and a narrow interpretation of fidelity to the theocratic principle on which David’s government was based would restrict generous feelings to one’s own nationality. But David saw that man was before citizen, and the law of love before political expediency; and, as the Saviour later on saw a man and brother in the Samaritan and in every human creature, so now David saw in a kindly Nahash a kinship prior to and more radical than even the bonds which held him to his own nation. It is in these goings out of the best hearts of ancient times in kindliness towards the politically alien that we see a prefigurement of the broad evangelical charity which would embrace in its consideration every child of Adam. It is the delight of the good to recognize good in all men. The restrictive influences of sect and party, of nationality and race, are to be guarded against. The conventional is transitory; nature is permanent. The sentiments proper to nature must, if possible, rise above the accidental sentiments springing from the casual and fleeting forms of life. III. IT IS THE OF THE BEST CONDUCT TO BE . David’s conduct was pure in motive, correct in form, and beneficial in tendency; yet it, was regarded by astute men with suspicion, and repaid by the most malicious insult. This was no new thing in his experience. We have seen how again and again, during his early trials, he was misunderstood by Saul, and his very deeds of kindness returned by more bitter persecution. This is the portion of not a few in all ages. The world is dark, and men cannot or will not see the colours of good. It is one of the sad forms of confusion brought about by sin. The merciful Redeemer blessed men, but he was despised and rejected of them. The most lovely character that ever adorned the earth was clothed by the foul imagination of men with the horrible attributes of Satan (Luke 11:15-18). The same treatment in a milder form was to be expected by his disciples (Matthew 5:11; Matthew 10:17, Matthew 10:18). We may be comforted, when the like experience happens to us, that it is all foreseen and provided for. The clouds that pass over the sky are not endued with permanence. They are incident to a changeful atmosphere. IV. THE SOURCE OF THE IS AND MORAL. The men who persuaded Harem to scorn David’s friendliness did not know David. It was ignorance of the actual intentions and the inner character of the king that gave scope for the base moral element to come in and impute to him vile motives (2 Samuel 8:3). They really supposed him to be a man like unto themselves, and, cherishing ill will, they found no difficulty in tracing his conduct to such considerations as would have influenced themselves had they been in his position. There is in all men affected by what is called the spirit of the world, a primary suspicion and distrust of others. It is a sort of first principle in business, in diplomacy, in casual intercourse. In the absence of perfect knowledge of the heart, the imagination is set to work to find out the possible motives at work. The existence of the slightest dislike will assuredly cause the imagination to see something evil, and hence the deeds most worthy in origin and design may be treated as base and deceitful. Ignorance and dislike combined to slay the Lord of glory (John 8:37-45; 1 Corinthians 2:8). If such things happened to the Master, the servants may be patient and trustful should they also happen to them. V. AND FOLLY, BY THEIR , TURN AN ACT OF INTO AN OF . The conceit and ill will of these Ammonites, acting on Hanun, first misjudged David’s conduct, and then, by a natural process of evil, gave rise to a deed which proved the occasion of turning the friendliness of David into retributive anger which issued in their ruin. The men capable of reasoning and feeling as these did were certainly capable of the deed of shameful insult to David in the persons of his ambassadors (2 Samuel 8:4). When men allow an ill-informed mind to be swayed by a malicious spirit, there is no telling to what lengths they may go in sin. Evil deeds are blind deeds. Their folly is parallel with their depravity. The most conspicuous instance of this is in the case of the people who misjudged Christ and rejected his friendliness. That which was to have been a rock on which they could build a great and blessed future became a stone to grind them to powder (Matthew 21:40-44; Matthew 23:37; 1 Peter 2:7, 1 Peter 2:8). It is also the wanton rejection of Christ’s kindness which will prove the occasion of the bitterest woe to individuals (Matthew 10:14, Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:20-24; cf. Proverbs 1:24-27). All rejections of friendliness involve ultimate loss; rejection of Christ’s friendliness involves loss proportionate to his greatness and glory. 2 Samuel 10:6-19 International quarrels. The facts are: 1. The Ammonites, discovering the displeasure of David, hire mercenaries of the neighbouring peoples. 2. As a countermovement, David sends out a strong force under Joab. 3. The opposing forces coming into contact, Joab arranges that he should confront the Syrians, while Abishai deals with the Ammonites. 4. Joab, exhorting Abishai to courage, in dependence on God, arranges also for mutual support, in case of need, in their respective attacks. 5. On the Syrians yielding to the assault of Joab, the Ammonites also flee from before Abishai, whereupon Joab returns to Jerusalem. 6. Another effort of the Syrians under Hadarezer, aided by others from beyond the Euphrates, draws out David at the head of a large army to the eastern side of Jordan. 7. A great battle, issuing in the complete defeat of the Syrians; the tributary kings under Hadarezer make peace with Israel and serve them. We have here a record of quarrels and entanglements, which to the eye of a sacred historian have a bearing on the development of the kingdom of Israel, and consequently on the ultimate advent of the "Prince of the kings of the earth." In that respect the events form a section of the intricate movements of Providence for the furtherance of spiritual interests, and they have their natural place in the Divine moral order, allowing for human freedom, as truly as the formation of the igneous and sedimentary rocks have in the physical order. The narrative may thus be taken as typical of a class. But we may regard the record as suggesting, or illustrating, truths which, while prominent in international quarrels, have also a wider application to human life in general. These chiefly are as follows. I. THE OF HONOUR IS A DUTY. It was right for David to resent the indignity and insult. Meekness and gentleness are qualities consistent with assertion of what is due to self as a man, as a ruler, as a representative of a people and of a Divine institution. A king’s honour is his strength, because of the trust of his people, the sentiment of loyalty, the force of his decrees, his silent restraint of the turbulent, and, in David’s case, also because of the Divine institution of his government. How kings and individuals may best maintain their honour is a question to be decided by the circumstances of the case; in some way the holiest and kindest may do it and ought to do it. II. THE AND OF THE JUST IS ITSELF THE OF . That the Ammonites "stank before David"—a monarch so wise, just, and generous—was a brand on them of demerit, and the natural forerunner of chastisement to come. Whoever by his deeds falls righteously under the displeasure of a just man, is ipso facto branded as base, is classed by his own conscience and all honourable observers as a criminal. This changing of the face of the just towards the wicked is the primary social punishment of sin ordained by God, and, as the gathering clouds precede the storm, it is the token of further providential chastisements. The course of nature in the long run follows in the course of moral right. III. SINFUL FOLLY IS SURE TO BRING ON AND PERILS. No doubt there was great mirth in the court of Hanun when the Hebrew ambassadors were half shorn of their beards and apparel. But the mirth was as "the crackling of thorns under a pot" (Ecclesiastes 7:6). It was soon found that this cheap mirth was, in fact, dearly bought; for the displeasure of so mighty a king as David was soon discovered to mean for them great perplexity and peril. So is it with all sin, which is a sort of moral madness. It may give passing gratification, and all may seem secure, but it leads to perplexities and perils from which there is no escape as long as a Righteous One sits on his throne. The irony of the preacher is painfully true (Ecclesiastes 11:9). IV. ONE EVIL DEED OTHER DEVICES TO SUSTAIN IT. The sinful folly of the Ammonites necessitated the device of hiring mercenary troops to ward off the blow that was impending as a consequence of their sin. It is quite true that in any progressive life action must be sustained by action, but in the case of evil doing the device is to stave off something which ought not to come, and which would not be feared but for the previous wrong. Sin cannot remain sole. If there is not immediate repentance there will be an effort to get out of the self-caused difficulties by other questionable means. The liar has to take ceaseless precautions because of his lie. The man who rejects Christ is conscious of much uneasiness, and has to exercise ingenuity to escape this consequence. Troops of mercenaries are hired. V. WELL STORED ADMIT OF PROMPT ACTION IN . David had during the five years of his reign paid great attention to the administration of the affairs of his kingdom, and, as a consequence, he was now able at once to avail himself of the resources that had been treasured up. He sent "Joab, and all the host of mighty men" (2 Samuel 10:7). The fruits of prescience and care were now available without confusion or delay. In kingdoms, as in homes and in business, providence and orderly arrangement give great advantages for action when unexpected and trying events transpire. The same is true of early education and culture, of Church organization, of the personal spiritual life. The world is evil; events at cross purposes with our plans and adverse to our peace will arise; it is "impossible but that offences come." The moral is, lay up in store continuously, and so be ready for action, and therefore ready for victory. VI. SOUND TO CONDUCT AFFORD MORAL SUPPORT IN TIMES OF GREAT STRESS AND DANGER. Joab showed the better side of his nature when he exhorted Abishai, in face of the foe, to act as a man for the honour and safety of his people and cities, leaving the consequences in the hands of God (2 Samuel 10:12). Not for military display, not for aggrandizement, not for personal gain, but to vindicate a people whose head had been insulted,—this was the principle on which the battle should be fought. In this was duty; consequences were with God, who cares for the just. History reveals instances in which men have been made strong by the just principle for which they contended. A righteous cause is itself equivalent to an armed force, both in the moral tone it gives to those engaged in it, and in the secret depression of those on the other side. It would be interesting to trace out the physical bearings of moral influences. Let us see to it that out’ great efforts are under the guidance of clear moral principles. VII. IN THE OF LIFE AN OF MUTUAL IS A HELP AGAINST . The arrangement for mutual help in case of pressure (2 Samuel 10:11) was helpful, in that it anticipated a possible evil, and it inspired each with the courage that comes of sympathy and support. In human affairs, secular and religious, the possibility of disaster must be taken into account, because of personal imperfection and of the unascertained forces against us. We do not possess the knowledge by which we can always dispose of our strength in the right quarter, and, even when we do possess it, there may be sudden moral paralysis. None of us contend alone, or for self only. Hence we can be mutually helpful, as were Joab and Abishai. More of this in things sacred and secular would save from many a disaster. VIII. UNWISE LEAD ON TO SERIOUS . The Syrians lent themselves for gain (2 Samuel 10:6) to an alliance with the Ammonites. This compact, destitute of sound principle, involved the Syrians in what appeared to them to be the necessity of maintaining their reputation in spite of defeat; and hence further arrangements were made with Syrians "beyond the river." A Syrian war, with the whole of Israel’s army under the leadership of the invincible David, was the consequence. Such difficulties arise when men make unholy alliances against a just cause. If men cannot unite without evil it is better to stand aloof. Nature has formed certain elements to combine, and others to keep apart. Whoever tries to put together what is contrary to nature will get into difficulty. Whoever forms an unholy alliance in human affairs, national or personal, is seeking to bring about advantages which it is in the course of moral order to prevent; and sooner or later greater embarrassments will arise. In moral matters simplicity and direct submission to the moral order are true wisdom. IX. ADVERSE MAY, FOR THE JUST, ISSUE IN GOOD ENDINGS. It is a pain and annoyance to David to have his friendliness so wantonly rejected (2 Samuel 10:4), but the event issued in the extension of his power and the surer peace of his people (2 Samuel 10:18, 2 Samuel 10:19). Man has the beginnings of things in his hand, but a Mightier One works them up towards issues of his own. The persecution of the early Church resulted in the wider diffusion of the gospel. The rejection of Christ by the Jewish nation is to issue in a greater glory. Many things in our personal experience may pain and injure us, but by stirring up our strength, by awakening more trust in God and leading to greater caution and courage, we may in the end achieve conquests once never thought of. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 10:1-4 (1 Chronicles 19:1-4). (RABBAH.) Requiting evil for good. The Ammonites appear to have remained quiet since their defeat by Saul, nearly half a century before (1 Samuel 11:1-15.). Nahash their king (perhaps a son of the former Nahaeh) had rendered friendly service to David. But on the accession of Hanun, his son, the old hostility of the children of Ammon revived, and showed itself in a way that made conflict inevitable. To this the growing power of David and his recent subjugation of their kindred, the Moabites (2 Samuel 8:2), doubtless contributed. Their deliberate, wanton, and shameless treatment of his messengers was the occasion of "the fiercest struggle, and, so far as the Israelitish kingdom of God was concerned, the most dangerous, that it ever had to sustain during the reign of David." In it we see— I. A . David requited the kindness of Nahash with kindness to his son; condolence on his bereavement, congratulation on his accession (2 Samuel 10:2); but Hanun requited the kindness of David with insult and injury to his servants (2 Samuel 10:4; Isaiah 20:4). The conduct of the one displayed gratitude, sympathy, confidence, and benevolence; that of the other ingratitude, contempt, distrust, and malignity. 1. How different in character the men who hold similar positions! David and Hanun were both kings, their heads were pressed by the same "crown of pure gold" (2 Samuel 12:30; Psalms 21:3); but in spirit they were wholly unlike. 2. How different the construction put on similar actions! Such actions are regarded by men as good or evil, according to their ruling disposition; just as the same objects appear of different hue according to the colour of the medium through which they are viewed. Hence what is well meant is often ill interpreted. 3. How different the consequences that flow from similar influences! Kindness is like sunshine, that melts the ice and hardens the clay; causes pleasure to the healthy and torture to the diseased eye. It tests, manifests, and intensifies the good or evil in the heart, and leads to opposite courses of conduct. Its proper tendency is to produce its like; but its actual effect is often the contrary (John 13:27). Even the kindness of God is perverted by hardness of heart to more abounding wickedness (Isaiah 26:10; Romans 2:4, Romans 2:5). If it be sinful to "recompense evil for evil" (Romans 12:17), how much more to recompense evil for good (1 Samuel 25:21)! II. A PUBLIC . It was not a private and personal indignity put on these ambassadors, but an open and national insult offered to their king and people, by Hanun and his court (2 Samuel 10:3), who probably expressed therein the prevalent suspicion and hatred of the children of Ammon. 1. How prejudicial the indulgence of jealousy and suspicion to the maintenance of peace and good will among nations! 2. How pernicious the influence of evil counsel and calumny on the political principles and policy of rulers! "We see in this the bitter fruits which evil counsel to princes, especially to those who are young and inexperienced, produces" (Guild). "The slanderer inflicts a threefold wound at one stroke. He wounds himself by his breach of charity; he wounds his victim by injuring his good name; he wounds his hearers by poisoning their minds against the accused" (St. Bernard). 3. How provocative the exhibition of ingratitude, injustice, and contempt to resentment and retaliation (2 Samuel 10:6)! It turns kindness into wrath, seems to justify the drawing of the sword, and inspires the hope of victory (2 Samuel 10:12). "Thou knowest not what may show itself when thy contempt awakes the lion of a sleeping mind." III. A AND FATAL . It was a challenge by the worshippers of Moloch, confident in their strength and success, to the people of Jehovah; the first step of a renewed attack "against Jehovah and against his Anointed" (Psalms 2:1-12.). The opposition of the ungodly to the kingdom of God, though it slumber for a season, ever breaks forth afresh. 1. How infatuated their hostility! They are heedless of the warnings afforded by the past. 2. How groundless their confidence! "They trust in vanity." 3. How certain their overthrow! "He that sitteth in the heavens laughs, The Lord hath them in derision," etc. (Psalms 2:4-9.) The evil which they do returns on their own heads (2 Samuel 10:14); and "their end is destruction" (2 Samuel 12:31). "These shall make war with the Lamb," etc. (Revelation 17:14). . 1. We should not be deterred from doing good by the fear that it may be requited with evil. 2. Although others may render evil for good, we should render good for evil (1 Samuel 11:12, 1 Samuel 11:13). 3. The noblest victories are those which are gained by patience, forbearance, and all-conquering love (Romans 12:21).—D. 2 Samuel 10:4, 2 Samuel 10:5 (1 Chronicles 19:4, 1 Chronicles 19:5). (JERICHO.) Ridicule. "Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return" (2 Samuel 10:5). It has been the endeavour of men in all ages to make the objects of their aversion appear contemptible and ridiculous. Few things are more painful and humiliating than exposure to popular derision. The fear of it, no doubt, sometimes exerts a salutary influence in restraining from what is unseemly and wrong; but it also frequently exercises an opposite influence in deterring from what is becoming and right. Of ridicule, together with the sense of dishonour (2 Samuel 10:5, former part) which it naturally produces, observe that it is often— I. BY . Like the servants of David, the servants of Christ are made the object of scornful raillery (a common and effective instrument of persecution): 1. In the faithful performance of duty, in obedience to the will of their Lord; conveying his message of kindness, acting as his representatives. "For righteousness’ sake;" "For my sake" (Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11; Matthew 10:22). It is not the suffering, but the cause, that makes the martyr (1 Peter 2:20; 1 Peter 4:15). 2. By those who hate and misrepresent them and him whom they serve, and whose hostility is due to their diverse character and principles. "If ye were of the world," etc. (John 15:19). 3. After the example of the faithful in past time. "Others had trial of mockings" (Hebrews 11:36). "Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him," etc. (Luke 23:11, Luke 23:35, Luke 23:36). II. BY . "And they told it unto David, and he sent to meet them," etc. Those who, in the way of duty, suffer the reproach of the bad, enjoy the sympathy of the good; and especially of the Master himself: 1. Whose sympathy is inexpressibly precious. 2. Who has suffered the same, and is therefore able to feel with them and for them (2 Samuel 6:20). 3. Who also expresses it in the most appropriate and effectual manner. He regards what is done to them as done to himself, affords them wise and friendly counsel, takes them under his protection, and stands ready to defend and avenge them. "They departed,… rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name" (Acts 5:41; Acts 16:25; 1 Thessalonians 2:2). III. BY . "Tarry," etc. They were probably disposed to go up at once to Jerusalem, and proclaim their wrongs; but David, out of consideration for their position in public estimation, bade them remain in obscurity, and "bide their time"—a piece of advice sometimes given (though not always in a like spirit) to persons who are about to attempt something for which they are unfit, on account of their immaturity or want of due preparation; or in which they have already failed. 1. Those who would attain success and honour in any position or enterprise should consider well their ability to accomplish what is necessary for their purpose (Luke 14:28). 2. Inconsiderate and rash endeavours are likely to issue in a result which those who make them neither expect nor desire. 3. The lapse of time soothes many a smart; and the wise and patient employment of it qualifies for and ensures honourable achievements. "Ye have need of patience" (Hebrews 10:36). "Let us learn not to lay too much to heart unjust reproaches; after a while they will wear off of themselves, and turn only to the shame of their authors; while the injured reputation in a little time grows again, as these beards did" (Matthew Henry). IV. BY HONOUR. "And then return" to the holy city, where they would be honoured (instead of being despised) with: 1. The public commendation of the king. 2. The general admiration of the people. 3. All the more because of the indignity and ridicule which they had previously endured. "If ye are reproached for the Name of Christ, blessed are ye," etc. (1 Peter 4:14); "great is your reward in heaven" (Matthew 5:12).—D. 2 Samuel 10:6-11 (1 Chronicles 19:6-12). (MEDEBA.) An agreement of mutual help. "If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou shalt help me: but if the children of Ammon be too strong for thee, then I will come and help thee" (2 Samuel 10:11). 1. On perceiving the effect of their treatment of David s ambassadors (2 Samuel 10:6; "That they had made themselves odious," 1 Chronicles 19:6), the Ammonites obtained, for "a thousand talents of silver," the aid of the Syrians of Beth-rehob and of Zobah (under Hadarezer, the most powerful of David’s adversaries), the King of Maacah and the men of Tob; "who came and pitched before Medeba" (1 Chronicles 19:7), twenty miles southwest cf Rabbah, with their infantry, cavalry, and war chariots. "And the children of Ammon gathered themselves together from their cities" to the capital (Rabbah), and put themselves in battle array before the gate. 2. Hearing of their warlike preparations, David had sent forth "all the host, the mighty men," under Joab (2 Samuel 3:22-30), who now found himself between the two hostile forces; and, selecting a portion of the army, placed himself opposite to the Syrians, whilst he left the rest, under Abishai, to cover his rear and hold the Ammonites in check. He doubtless hoped to defeat the enemy in successive engagements. 3. But fearing a simultaneous attack, he made an agreement with his brother, that if either of them were worsted, the other should hasten to his relief. Such an agreement is prudent, needful, and beneficial among those also who are engaged in spiritual warfare against the enemies of the kingdom of God. It— I. AN OBVIOUS DUTY. For it is plainly the duty of brethren: 1. To consider each other’s condition, to sympathize with each other’s weakness and distress, and not to be concerned about themselves alone. "Not looking each of you to his own things," etc. (Philippians 2:4; 1 Corinthians 10:24). 2. To make use of their power, to "strengthen their brethren," especially when taking part in the same conflict as themselves. The strong should help the weak. 3. To afford them help, opportunely, promptly, with all their might, and even at much sacrifice and hazard to themselves. If the ungodly "helped every one his neighbour; and every one said to his brother, Be of good courage" Isaiah 41:6), much more ought the godly to do the same. "But if ye will not do so, behold ye have sinned against the Lord: and he sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23). And the agreement to render mutual help in time of need makes the obligation to do so more distinct, impressive, and effective. II. A REVERSE. "If the Syrians be too strong for me," etc.; indicating a conviction of: 1. The great power of the enemy and the serious nature of the struggle (1 Samuel 13:1-7). It would he madness to despise them. 2. The possibility of failure in the wisest plans and disappointment in the most sanguine expectations. "We do not hinder our successes by preparing for disappointment." Although those who "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" cannot be generally and permanently defeated, yet particular organizations, methods, and hopes may be overthrown. None, however strong, can be certain of never needing help; whilst the promise of help furnishes the weak with a special claim to it. 3. The necessity of taking every precaution for repairing defect in the weakest part, lest it should issue in disaster to the whole. "Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). III. TO SIGNAL SUCCESS. By: 1. Giving them to feel their mutual dependence, and bringing them into closer union in the spirit of a common enterprise. 2. Affording assurance of the advantages arising from cooperation toward a common end. These advantages are inestimable. "Two are better than one … And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken" (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12). 3. Inspiring them with increased confidence arising therefrom; and inciting them to greater individual effort than they might otherwise have put forth on behalf of each other and their common safety, welfare, and honour. Both the Syrians and Ammonites were routed (Isaiah 41:13, Isaiah 41:14). "It was, perhaps, the first time in his life that Hadarezer suffered defeat" (Ewald); and this defeat was followed ere long by another (by David at Helam) still more overwhelming; so that "all the kings that were servants to Hadarezer made peace with Israel, and served them," etc. (Isaiah 41:15-19; 2 Samuel 8:3, 2 Samuel 8:4).—D. 2 Samuel 10:12 (1 Chronicles 19:13). (MEDEBA.) Martial courage. "Be of good courage," etc. Human life is a warfare, unavoidable, arduous, enduring; and spiritual life, more especially, is a warfare of a similar kind. In this conflict nothing is more needful than manly or martial courage ("virtue," 1 Peter 1:5). It is that quality of mind which meets difficulty, danger, pain, or death, calmly and fearlessly. It has been reckoned by moralists among the four cardinal virtues (prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice), and, in its highest form, it is often enjoined in the Scriptures. "As it is necessarily requisite to the susception of all other virtues, so it is their main support, guardian, and establishment. Without this, every other virtue is precarious, and lies at the mercy of every cross accident" (J. Norris). "All the noble deeds that have beat their marches through succeeding ages have proceeded from men of courage" (O. Felltham) This brief and significant warlike exhortation of Joab was pitched in a higher key than we might have expected; but the devout feeling which it expressed, though genuine, was probably superficial and transient, passing away with the critical occasion which called it forth. We have now to consider, not the character of the speaker, but the import of his words. They indicate the nature, motive, and pervading principle of godly martial courage; that it should be displayed— I. IN TO THE ENEMIES OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. "Be strong" (in spirit), "and show yourselves strong" (in action) in your struggle with numerous and powerful foes; not private, but public enemies; not men as such, but as imbued with principles and devoted to practices which are antagonistic to the righteous and beneficent purposes of God; "principalities and powers," etc. (Ephesians 6:12). "Who will rise up for me against the evil doers?" etc. (Psalms 96:1-13:16). There must be: 1. Firm resistance to their attack. "Whom resist steadfast in the faith" (1 Peter 5:9). 2. Patient endurance of the sufferings which such resistance involves. "Here is the patience of the saints." 3. Active endeavour for their defeat and subjection. "The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits" (Daniel 11:32). "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong" (1 Corinthians 16:13). The chief instrument of this opposition is "the sword of the Spirit." "A humble Christian battling against the world, the flesh, and the devil, is a greater hero than Alexander the Great." II. FROM SINCERE DESIRE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD. Not for pay and plunder (like the mercenary Syrians), nor for glory, nor even for personal safety or life; but "for our people" (to whom we are bound by the closest ties), "and for the cities of our God", imperilled by the attack of his enemies and ours. Pro aris et focis. "Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just"’ This, however, is an appeal, not merely to a sense of justice, but also and chiefly to patriotism and piety, which, in the men of Israel, were inseparably Blended. There is a place for patriotism in the heart of a Christian (1 Samuel 23:1-6). But his love for his country must be held in harmony with and subordination to his love for the Christian brotherhood, united in spiritual fellowship and confined to no nation; "the people of God" (1 Peter 2:9, 1 Peter 2:10), "his inheritance" (Ephesians 1:18), "the Church which is his body" (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28), the light of the world, and the salt of the earth. "I endure all things for the elect’s sakes" (2 Timothy 2:10; Colossians 1:24). 1. The preservation of their faith and holiness, their unity and peace, from corrupting and destructive influences. 2. The maintenance of their privileges and services, their freedom and independence. 3. The promotion of their prosperity and progress. 4. The fulfilment of their purposes, aims, and hopes. "They shall prosper that love thee" (Psalms 122:4-9; Psalms 137:7). III. WITH STRONG IN THE OF THE HELP OF GOD. "And the Lord do that which seemeth him good" (Authorized Version); expressive of humble submission to the Divine will. "It may be understood as the language of: (1) Uncertainly and modesty. (2) A firm persuasion that the event of war entirely depends upon the providence of God. (3) A humble submission to the disposal of Providence, let the event turn out as it would. (4) And it may intimate that, let the event be what it will, it will afford us satisfaction to think that we have done the best we could" (Samuel Davies). But the proper reading is, "And Jehovah will do that which is good in his sight," really good for his people. The root of Christian courage, as of every Christian excellence, is faith in God. 1. In his readiness to cooperate with us, when we strive against the enemies of his kingdom and for the welfare of his people. "The Lord is on my side, I will not fear." 2. In the sufficiency of his might to strengthen the weakest and overthrow the strongest. "Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them" (2 Kings 6:16; 1 Samuel 14:1-15). 3. In the certainty of his affording to his faithful servants all the help they need. Even though he should permit a temporary reverse, he will surely give them the victory over all their adversaries. Such confidence is warranted by his relation to them, his regard for them, his express promises, and his past achievements. "The battle is the Lord’s." "If God is for us, who is against us?" (Romans 9:31 -39).—D. BY G. WOOD 2 Samuel 10:2-4 Kindness misinterpreted and ill requited. "I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war" (Psalms 120:7). It is not probable that these words were written by David, but they might have been with truth. It does not appear that he desired war with the neighbouring peoples; but for a time he was continually at war with one or other of them. Jealous of the growing greatness and power of Israel under his rule, they sought to humble them, but only to their own discomfiture and subjugation. And as the kingdom extended, more distant nations feared for themselves, and were ready to combine against what seemed the common foe. This is probably the real explanation of the transactions recorded in this chapter, including the most serious struggle which the rising kingdom had had to maintain. Nahash, "the king of the children of Ammon," having died, David, to whom Nahash had in some way shown kindness, sent ambassadors to Hanun, his son and successor, with a message of condolence. But the young king, induced by the princes to regard the ambassadors as spies, who had been sent to obtain such knowledge of the city as might facilitate its overthrow, treated them with the grossest contumely and indecency, and so dismissed them. Hence sprang a deadly war, in which the Ammonites were aided by other and more powerful peoples—a war which taxed to the utmost the strength of Israel, and issued in the complete overthrow of their enemies. The first step in all this commotion and destruction was the false interpretation put upon the kind act of David; and, regarding it as an illustration of a too common evil, we take occasion to remark upon the evil itself—misinterpretation of good deeds. I. THE CAUSES OF IT. 1. Knowledge of the world. There is so much evil in it, so much evil which conceals itself under the pretence of good; the actions which at first appear good are so often, on closer acquaintance, discovered to be evil; that experience of the world tends to produce a suspicious spirit, which is slow to believe in the reality of goodness in any particular instance, quick to think the worst of the conduct of others, especially of strangers. 2. Evil in one’s self. Which may be conscious or unconscious. We are indisposed to believe others to be better than we know ourselves to be; and prone to suspect others of motives we are conscious of indulging ourselves. And, without distinct consciousness, we are influenced in our judgments of others by our own character; and may be so far under the influence of evil as to be blind to the good in others. The cold, selfish, illiberal, cannot credit others with the opposite virtues; but suspect the appearance of them to be only a semblance adopted for some unworthy purpose. 3. Enmity. If on any account we cherish ill will towards another, we are ever ready to think evil rather than good of him; and specially slow to think he can intend good to us. If another has failed to show as high an esteem for ourselves as we think we deserve, our mortified pride is apt to vent itself in depreciation of him. Prejudice is one kind of enmity, more or less virulent. It commonly exists in those of one party in religion or politics towards those of the opposite party, and predisposes them to misinterpret whatever they do. 4. Fear. Which was one of the motives that prompted Hanun and his advisers. 5. Conceit of sagacity. A cheap and easy way of appearing very wise, and of obtaining from some a reputation for wisdom, is to affect to discover unworthy motives in good actions. 6. Bad advisers. Such as those of Hanun. Those who might be otherwise disposed to a just estimate of good deeds will seldom want advisers to poison their minds, if they will listen to them. II. THE EVIL OF IT. 1. In itself. It is inherently base. It is contrary to: (1) Charity, which "believeth all things, hopeth all things" (1 Corinthians 13:7), whenever it is not manifestly impossible. (2) Justice. Judgments which seem to be only charitable will often be simply just. (3) Gratitude, in the case of actions kind to ourselves. Better to waste a little gratitude than indulge needless suspicion. (4) The plain commands of our Lord. Such as "Judge not;" "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:12). It involves, further, an assumption of knowledge such as men do not possess, and a usurpation of the office of him who alone searches the heart (1 Corinthians 4:5). We are not, however, required to cherish a blind credulity, nor to trust men with important interests without positive knowledge of their moral worth, still less against plain evidence of the contrary. Prudence is a virtue as well as charity. The Ammonites might have rightly exercised such caution towards David’s messengers as would have prevented their obtaining so much knowledge of the city as would facilitate hostile measures against it, if these were really contemplated. They did wrong in concluding that the seeming kindness was covert hostility. To have returned civility for civility could have done them no harm, and would have prevented the severe retribution for their barbarity which followed. 2. In its effects. (1) On those who are guilty of it. It deprives them of the happiness and other good which they would gain from kindness exercised towards them, were it duly appreciated and acknowledged; and of the benefit which it would impart in the way of example and influence. It strengthens the bad dispositions and habits from which it springs. It prompts to conduct (as in this case) which may work incalculable mischief. (2) On those towards whom it is indulged. Inflicting pain, producing resentment, and perhaps active revenge, and discouraging them in the practice of virtues which are liable to be so maligned. (3) On others. Infecting with unjust suspicions some who would not otherwise cherish them; encouraging disbelief in genuine goodness, and thus loosening the bonds of mutual confidence by which society is held together; disinclining also from good deeds, and so lessening the amount of goodness in the world. III. HOW IT SHOULD AFFECT US. 1. It should not surprise us. Considering what men are, we should regard it as quite possible that any good we may do will be misrepresented, or at least fail to be duly appreciated and acknowledged even by those whose benefit we seek. 2. It should not deter us from doing good. The great motives for good deeds abide the same. They are quite independent of human appreciation. They should be our chief motives, the hope of approval or suitable return from men occupying a very subordinate position. Let us study and labour to be accepted of God (2 Corinthians 5:9), and be content with his approval, let men think what they may. 3. If men misrepresent our conduct, let us exercise charity towards them, hoping, if we cannot confidently believe, that they have sinned through ignorance or inconsideration rather than ill will. If compelled to vindicate ourselves, let us do it with meekness. We should also reflect whether we have given any occasion in the manner of our conduct for misunderstanding of its real quality; and avoid the error in future. And, if we are really reproached for that which is good, without just occasion, let us be mindful that we are fellow sufferers with our Lord and many of the best men of all ages. 4. Let us be watchful against every temptation to depreciate and misrepresent the good which is practised by others.—G.W. 2 Samuel 10:11, 2 Samuel 10:12 Cooperation, courage, and resignation. Joab here appears at his best. A great occasion, involving great peril for the army and the kingdom, calls forth, not only his eminent military qualities, but sentiments of piety and religious patriotism worthy of David himself. He presents an example worthy of imitation by commanders of armies; but we take his words as adapted to guide and animate the soldiers of Christ in their warfare against error and sin. They Call attention to three duties incumbent upon individual Christians, the several bands of each division of the Christian army, and the several divisions themselves. I. MUTUAL HELP. (2 Samuel 10:11.) The servants of Christ are engaged in the endeavour to conquer the world for him, and, in pursuing it, have to fight against enemies of various kinds. In this warfare they ought to cheerfully cooperate, and, as opportunity may arise, help each other. Much mutual assistance they cannot but render, however any might desire to confine the benefits of their activity to their own party. Every hymn book testifies to this. No individual or section can do good work without helping others. But there should be more of conscious and hearty cooperation. 1. Why it should be so. (1) The cause is one—the cause of Christ our King, the defence and extension of his kingdom, the cause of truth and righteousness and human salvation. (2) Christians are comrades in the same army. They should cherish the feeling of brotherhood, realize that they are fighting against common foes, and be glad to encourage and help each other. The success of any is the success of all, and should be so regarded; the failure of any should be a trouble to all; and, if any can aid their brethren to turn threatening defeat into victory, their aid should be cheerfully afforded and joyfully accepted. (3) The need is urgent. The spiritual necessities of men, the special needs in particular cases. The field is extensive; the opposing forces numerous, powerful, and incessantly vigilant and active. The utmost exertions of all are required. To hold back, to refuse cooperation with fellow soldiers because they belong not to our regiment or division of the army, to observe with pleasure the failure of any of them, or to waste energies and resources in fierce conflicts with one another, is to be disloyal to their Sovereign,, unbrotherly to each other, and unfaithful to the souls of men. 2. Why it often is not so. (1) Deficiency of spiritual insight. Incapacity, voluntary or involuntary, to discern: (a) The real nature of the kingdom of Christ. That it is essentially spiritual, consisting in "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost;" that "he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men" (Romans 14:17, Romans 14:18); and that in Christ Jesus nothing avails but "a new creature," "faith which worketh by love," and "the keeping of the commandments of God" (Galatians 6:15; Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 7:19). (b) The essential qualities of Christ’s soldiers, which are not the dress they wear, nor the particular drill to which they are accustomed, but love and loyalty to Christ. (2) Deficiency of spiritual affections. Want of supreme and ardent love for Christ and his kingdom, and for his servants as such. These deficiencies of mind and heart act and react on each other, and they open the way for all kinds of blundering and perversity. Fellow soldiers are mistaken for enemies, and treated as such. The great cause is made practically subordinate to matters infinitely small in comparison. Sectarian rivalry takes the place of Christian cooperation; or a worse thing happens—petty personal ambition and selfishness, or likings and dislikings, dominate, separating those who should be acting together, and introducing low, worldly principles into a region where the spiritual should alone reign. Pride, jealousy, envy, uncharitableness, perhaps the merest avarice, reduce to a fraction, if they do not altogether extinguish, those noble Christian feelings which Christianity inspires, and which would impel brothers to own brothers, cordially to render or receive help in the common work, to rejoice in each other’s successes, and sorrow for each other’s reverses. 3. Who should take the lead in effecting cooperation? Joab addresses Abishai, his fellow commander; and it is just the leaders and commanders in Christ’s army who should be foremost in promoting a good understanding between its various bands, and inducing them to work together. But, alas! they are often foremost in promoting alienation and separation. The people are frequently more disposed to be friendly towards each other than the clergy. II. COURAGE. (2 Samuel 10:12.) In war this is essential to success. In the Christian warfare it is not so obviously or universally required. It is, however, still required in many cases. When unpopular truth has to be proclaimed, when strongholds of sin or superstition have to be assailed, when the evangelization of barbarous tribes is attempted, or perilous climates have to be encountered, the Christian soldier must be prepared to endure hardship, suffering, or death. Even the ridicule which not unfrequently assails the earnest Christian calls for a good deal of courage. Joab sought to inspire his brother, and through him the soldiers under his command, with courage, by reminding him that it was "for our people, and for the cities of our God," that they were about to fight. In like manner Christians may be exhorted to "be of good courage" and "play the men" for the Church of God, and for the sake of the world which they aim to conquer for Christ. Joab might have added, "for our king;" and the strongest and most animating consideration for us is that we are witnessing and working and fighting for our great King, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is worth living for, suffering for, dying for. He has gone before us in the labour and the suffering. He is present with us. His eye is upon each of us. He will overlook no true-hearted soldier of his when he distributes the rewards of victory. "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Timothy 2:12). III. . Those who engage in war, though they may hope for victory, must be prepared for defeat. "The battle" is not always "to the strong" (Ecclesiastes 9:11) or the brave. Nor in the better warfare can we "command success" in this or that particular encounter, however faithful or brave or zealous we may be. We are to recognize, like Joab, that "the Lord" is over all, and be content that he should "do that which seemeth him good." Not that we are required to be resigned to ultimate failure, for we are assured of final and complete victory. "The saints in all this glorious war Shall conquer, though they’re slain." Nor are the courage and devotedness of any single soldier lost. All the faithful contribute to the final triumph, and all shall unite in the song of victory, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ." "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth!" "And he shall reign forever and ever" Revelation 11:15; Revelation 19:6).—G.W. 2 Samuel 11:1 After the year was expired; Hebrew and Revised Version, at the return of the year; that is, as Josephus paraphrases it, "the next spring." It seems quite certain that the war with Hadarezer did not take place in the same year as the defeat of the Syrians at Medeba. For the gathering of his mercenaries by Nahash would occupy a long time, and it was done so leisurely, that not only did news of it reach Jerusalem, but David was able to collect his forces, and instead of awaiting the invasion, could deliver his attack on the enemy’s ground. The battle at Medeba took place in the autumn, and, as it was impossible to keep the field with winter so near, Joab marched back to Jerusalem, intending in the spring to return to the siege of Rabbah. But David quickly had information that a more serious war was impending, and, instead of sending Joab, he now gathers "all Israel," and, after gaining a victory, it is plain that he marched into the Syrian territories, and compelled by his presence the allies of Hadarezer to transfer their allegiance to him. Simultaneously with this war he had to meet the attack of the Edomites, for which purpose he detached Abishai with a portion of his army; and it was necessary also to post garrisons in their country, and in Atom of Damascus. It was while he was thus occupied in the Aramean states that he gathered the "much brass" spoken of in 2 Samuel 8:8. The Ammonites would necessarily be left to themselves while these great events were going on, but now, after a respite of a year and a half, David sent Joab, and his servants, that is, his officers—the word "servant" in Oriental courts being constantly used to designate those, high in rank near the king’s person—and all Israel; that is, an army gathered from all the tribes. In accordance with the cruel customs of ancient warfare, they began by laying the whole country waste, and putting all whom they found to the sword, and thus destroyed the children of Ammon before laying siege to the capital, into which all the people by these harsh measures had been forced to go for refuge. In the Hebrew there is a curious spelling, the word "kings" being written melakim, with an aleph to represent the long a. It is a mistake to suppose that a different word, malakim, "angels" or "ambassadors,’’ is meant, as it is nothing more than an archaic method of spelling, instances of which have been made rare by the extreme fastidiousness of Hebrew scribes. There is, however, another example not far off, where the Hebrew word for "poor" is also written with an inserted aleph. 2 Samuel 11:2 David arose from off his bed. It was usual in Palestine, and remains so in all hot countries, to take a siesta in the heat of the day (2 Samuel 4:5); and, on awaking, David walked backward and forward on the fiat roof of his house (1 Samuel 9:25), to enjoy the cool breezes of the evening. In so doing he was probably following his usual habits; but temptation came upon him, as so often is the case, unexpectedly. We are told that it is regarded in the East as improper for one neighbour to look over the battlement of his house into the inner court of the next dwelling (Philippson). Considering the jealousy with which Orientals guard the female members of their family from intrusion, it was a wrong act on the king’s part to spy into what was going on in the recesses of the adjoining house. But he did so, and suffered for it years of disgrace and misery. For he saw a beautiful woman, the wife of one of his high officers, bathing, probably to purify herself from some legal uncleanness, such as those mentioned in Leviticus 15:1-33. No blame, so far, must be attached to her. The place was regarded as perfectly secluded, and probably neither she nor Uriah had ever suspected that what went on there could be observed from the roof of the king’s palace. 2 Samuel 11:3 Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam. In 2 Samuel 23:34 Eliam is said to be the son of Ahithophel, and thus Bathsheba would be his granddaughter. Mr. Blunt, in his ’Undesigned Coincidences,’ p. 143, et seq; sees in this the explanation of the adherence to the side of Absalom of a man so high in King David’s service. It was the result of his indignation at David’s profligate treat-meat of so near a relative. In 1 Chronicles 3:5 she is called "Bathshua, the daughter of Ammiel." The latter is a transposition of Eliam, both names being compounded of Am, people, and El, God. Uriah the Hittite. We read in 2 Samuel 23:39 that he was one of David’s "mighties," and it is remarkable that we should thus find high in rank in David’s army a member of that grand race who had disputed with Egypt and Assyria the empire of the East. Their head now was Toi, King of Hamath. 2 Samuel 11:4 David sent messengers, and took her. David’s fall seems as sudden as it was complete; but we may feel sure that there had been gradual preparation for it during the previous period of great prosperity. David had always been a man of strong passions, and the large harem he had set up at Jerusalem, so far from satisfying him, only intensified his lust. And now he who had previously shown himself so chivalrous and noble stoops to robbing one of his own officers of his honour. And stern and terrible was the punishment. When he sent those messengers, who were some of the vile people who hang about great personages, ready to minister to their sins, he was preparing the way for his daughter’s disgrace, for the murder of Amnon, for Absalom’s rebellion and death, and for the death of Adonijah. From that day his own house was the scene of horrible crimes, feuds, scandals, and miseries of every kind; and the long interval after his repentance, between the birth of Solomon and David’s death, is passed over in gloomy silence. No act of the penitent king after his restoration to the throne is deemed worthy of record. He was pardoned, but his place henceforward was not in the light of God’s favour, but in shadow and retirement. Men who fall so grievously must be content to be removed into the outer court. Of Bathsheba it must be said that she remained a faithful wife, and bare David four sons besides the one who was the fruit of their adultery, and that she retained her influence over him to the last (1 Chronicles 3:5; 1 Kings 1:15-31). For she was purified from her uncleanness; Hebrew, and she purified herself from her uncleanness; that is, having committed an act of gross immorality, she nevertheless carefully observed the ceremonial enactment commanded in Leviticus 2 Samuel 15:18. She went home unrepentant, and with her conscience defiled, but was all the more scrupulous in performing the rite that purified her outwardly. 2 Samuel 11:5 The woman … told David. Her crime was one that made her liable to the penalty of death (Leviticus 2 Samuel 20:10), and Uriah was a man likely to exact it; consequently she was in great alarm, and the king shared her anxiety. Already was the punishment beginning to be required from both the guilty sharers in the wickedness. 2 Samuel 11:8 A mess (of meat); really, a royal present (see Esther 2:18; Jeremiah 40:5; Amos 5:11, where it is translated burdens of wheat, but really means presents of wheat, forced from the poor); though originally a portion of food sent to a guest from the table of the giver of a feast (Genesis 43:34). Uriah, as one of David’s thirty-seven heroes, would hold a high rank in the army, though the statement given by Josephus, that he was Joab’s armour bearer, is probably a mere conjecture, made with the view of explaining what seemed to him strange, that a foreigner should hold so distinguished a place among the captains of Israel. David sends for him, on the pretext that he wanted full information of Joab’s plans, and the state of the army, and the progress of the siege of Rabbah. And so prompt is Uriah, that he goes to the king still soiled with travel, and without calling at his house. And David makes his inquiries, listens with apparent interest to the narrative of the war, and, after receiving a full report, bids Uriah go home and rest and refresh himself after the journey. He sends him, moreover, a present, such probably as was usual after special service, but large and liberal, so as to put Uriah in good humour. But the old soldier cared for war more than for pleasure, and, instead of going to his house, spent the night in the guard room with the soldiers and others who were in attendance upon the king (see 1 Kings 14:27, 1 Kings 14:28). All would be eager for news of friends and relatives, and it was a far greater delight to Uriah to chat with his old comrades than to be resting luxuriously in his own home. 2 Samuel 11:11 The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents. The presence of the ark with the army in the field is puzzling, and shows us how little we know of the religious practices of the Jews, as, but for this chance mention of it, we should have affirmed that it was never taken out of its place in Zion, and that in previous times the conduct of Eli’s sons in carrying it out of the sanctuary to war was an irregular act. The Jews themselves feel the difficulty, and some of their rabbins affirm that this was not the ark of the covenant, but a chest containing the ephod whereby inquiries were made of Jehovah. Certainly in 1 Samuel 4:3, 1 Samuel 4:4 it is expressly called "the ark of the covenant;" and in 2 Samuel 6:2 "the ark of God." The use in our version of the special word "ark" obliges us to think of the ark of the covenant, whereas really it is a general word, rendered "chest" in 2 Kings 12:9, 2 Kings 12:10. It is said, too, that the war with Ammon was not a holy war, nor was it of such importance as to call for David’s presence at the head of his troops. But, on the other hand, if it was not the ark of God, why did Uriah lay so great stress upon its presence in the field? Moreover, we find the ark with Saul in his war with the Philistines (1 Samuel 14:18), where it is expressly called "the ark of God," and is used for the purpose of inquiring the will of Jehovah. On comparing 1 Samuel 7:2 with 2 Samuel 6:3, we should have imagined that the ark abode uncared for at the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, did we not plainly find it in attendance upon Saul. We are thus compelled to conclude that David sent it, with its attendant priests, with Joab, that he might consult the Deity by its moans. In the Talmud (’Shek. Jerus.,’ 9. 2) the idea of there being an inferior or second ark used for this purpose is condemned. David, in his remonstrance with Uriah, shows signs of displeasure, and the conduct of the latter suggests the idea that his suspicious had been aroused. The war was going on prosperously; he had been summoned home on an honourable pretext to give the king a report of it; and it is, to say the least, strange that he should have cared so little for a wife, to whom apparently he had not long been married, and for his domestic affairs, as not even to go to his house, which was close by. The tone, too, of Uriah’s answer is excited, and his military ardour too warm. David had assumed that, as a matter of course, he would hasten to visit his wife, and Uriah’s unexpected refusal upsets his devices, and leaves him with all his difficulties increased rather than done away with. Very probably, in the conversation in the guard room, Uriah had received hints that his wife was too high in the royal favour. For "tents" the Hebrew has "booths," and so the Revised Version; and for "fields" the singular, "field." The Israelites still lived mostly in tents, and in war were content with very slight and temporary shelter, and if there were any parks, or enclosures, they were called Naioth, while "the field" was the open unenclosed land, which formed the mass of the country. The separate mention of "Israel and Judah" is no indication of the book having been written after the disruption of the kingdom. Uriah had been in David’s service when he was king only at Hebron, and had taken part in the long war between Judah and the house of Saul. 2 Samuel 11:13 He made him drunk. David thus adds sin to sin, and, in order to accomplish his vile end, he degrades the brave soldier whom already he had dishonoured. But even when intoxicated Uriah kept to his determination; and though on this second night there would not be the same pleasure in chatting with old comrades seen again after long absence, he still sleeps in the guard room. And thus there were witnesses that he had not gone to his house. 2 Samuel 11:14 David wrote a letter. David now uses the knowledge he had acquired in the schools of the prophets for vicious purposes. For it to be a blessing, knowledge must be sanctified to holy use. The letter would conceal from Joab the truth, and only let him know that Uriah, during his visit to Jerusalem, had incurred the king’s serious displeasure; and we may be quite sure that Joab would be very indignant when he learned, as he certainly soon would, that David had made him his tool, and caused him to murder one of "the mighties" in order to cover the shame of his adultery. The only fair side of the picture is that it shews the high state of morality among the people. The crimes of kings and great men are usually lightly pardoned, and especially that of adultery. Even in our own and other Christian countries this is the case; but David has to resort to extreme measures rather than face the indignation of his subjects. Unfortunately, the shedding of blood was not looked upon with equal horror. Possibly the leaving it to the relatives to requite it made the suppression of murder the business, not of the state, but of "the avenger of blood." At all events, Joab without much compunction carries out David’s orders, caring to know no more than that Uriah was out of favour. And what is more extraordinary, David remains utterly callous for a whole twelvemonth (see 2 Samuel 12:15), and his conscience does not even smite him for the additional meanness of sending the order for Uriah’s murder by the hand of the injured man himself. 2 Samuel 11:16 When Joab observed the city; Revised Version, kept watch upon the city. This does net mean, as some suppose, that Joab sent a body of men to examine the fortifications with a view to an assault, and so provoked a sally. The verb simply refers to the ordinary operations of a siege, which usually resolved itself into a long blockade, continued until starvation compelled a surrender; and to hasten this the people of the villages were forced into the town, by the rule that all left outside were put to the sword. To maintain the blockade, men were posted at all fit points round the city, and these were constantly assailed by the besieged. Joab then placed Uriah at a post which was especially the object of attack; and when the usual sally took place and was repulsed, Joab seems to have ordered Uriah to pursue them up to the very gate, where they would be exposed to a shower of arrows from the walls. Others fell besides Uriah, and that the loss was considerable, and the result of bad generalship, though designedly such, seems probable from the deprecation of the king’s anger in 2 Samuel 11:20. 2 Samuel 11:18 Then Joab sent. Joab now performs another act in this iniquitous drama, and goes through the form of sending the king a report of the disaster which had followed upon his approaching too near the walls. With well-feigned hypocrisy, he makes the messenger believe that David will be displeased at the loss of life, and will blame him for his want of caution. But it is curious that the messenger is instructed to mention the death of Uriah only after the king has given utterance to his anger. Possibly the meaning of this is that the loss of one so high in rank, and the king’s near neighbour, is so serious a matter that it must be gradually broken to him, lest his indignation at Joab should be too violent. Probably there was also the suggestion that Uriah had been himself too rash, and had incurred his fate by his own fault. The reference to the fate of Abimelech (Judges 9:53) proves that the history of the times of the judges was generally known. Very probably not only records of the several events existed, but the Book of Judges was already written In Samuel’s schools the youth of Israel were instructed in the annals of their country, and men like Nathan and Gad, and ethers who aided Samuel in his work, would be sure quickly to turn their attention to the orderly arrangement and digest of the records in their possession. 2 Samuel 11:21 Jerubbesheth; in Judges 6:32 called Jerubbaal, that is, Gideon. (On the substitution of Besheth, or more correctly Bosheth, for Baal, see notes on 2 Samuel 2:8; 2 Samuel 9:6.) It is remarkable that the LXX; Vulgate, and Syriac all read here Jerubbaal, though, like the Hebrew, they have Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth. Probably the change, which was not made until after the days of Jezebel, was only gradually carried out by the scribes. 2 Samuel 11:23 The men prevailed against us. The real meaning is "the men made a sortie against us in force, and came even to the open field; but we were upon them (and drove them back) unto the entry of the gate, and the archers from off the wall shot at thy servants," etc. 2 Samuel 11:25 Let not this thing displease thee. David professes to be satisfied with Joab’s apology, and bids him, if the war is in the main going on prosperously, not to be too much distressed at a temporary reverse. As for Uriah’s death, of course it is to be regretted, but such is the fortune of war, and the sword devours now one and now another. The last words, encourage thou him, have provoked comment, as though the messenger was to aid and abet Joab. They simply mean "Give him a message of encouragement from me," the exact form of which is left to the messenger, but of which his report would be that the king wished Joab to take courage. 2 Samuel 11:26 And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. There is something pathetic in this repetition of the name of the murdered man, and his close relationship with Bathsheba is dwelt upon by his being twice called "her husband," and she "Uriah’s wife." Having been the cause of his murder, she is careful to make for him the customary mourning. How long it lasted is uncertain. The mourning for Aaron (Numbers 20:29) and that for Moses (Deuteronomy 34:8) were each for thirty days; while that for Jacob at Atad (Genesis 50:10) and that of the men of Jabesh-Gilead for Saul (1 Samuel 31:13) lasted only for seven days. Both these, however, were under such exceptional circumstances as made them no rule; but in Ecclesiasticus 22:12 we read, "Seven days do men mourn for him that is dead," and the national lamentation for Judith lasted the same time (Judith 16:24). Probably, however, the mourning of a widow for her husband would last a month. 2 Samuel 11:27 She … bare him a son. This would be the child whose death is recorded in the next chapter. Afterwards she bare David four sons (1 Chronicles 3:5), of whom one was Solomon, and another Nathan, the ancestor of our Lord. The thing … displeased the Lord. It was probably during the time of David’s victories that success began to work in him its usual results. Too commonly men who have conquered kingdoms have been vanquished by their own strong passions; and David had always evinced a keen appetite for sensuous pleasures. Even at Hebron he had multiplied unto himself wives, and now, raised by repeated victory to be the lord of a vast empire, he ceased to be "base in his own sight" (2 Samuel 6:22), and lost his self control. And, as was to be expected in a man of such strong qualities, his fall was terrible. But this declaration of the inspired narrator is not made solely for ethical reasons, but is the key to all that follows up to the end of 2 Samuel 20:1-26. In this chapter we have had the history of David’s sin; a year’s respite succeeds, as if God would wait and see whether the sinner’s own conscience would waken up, and bring him to repentance; but it slumbers on. Then comes the message of reproof, fellowed by earnest penitence, and severe punishment. It was, perhaps, during this year of hardened persistence in crime that Amnon and his cousin Jonadab also gave the reins to their passions, and prepared the way for the first of the series of crimes that polluted David’s home. An early repentance might have saved the son; but the absence of paternal discipline, the loss of respect for his father, and the evil influence of that father’s bad example, all urged on the son to the commission of his abominable crime. 2 Samuel 11:1-17 The facts are: 1. During the prosecution of the war against Ammon in the spring, David remains in Jerusalem. 2. Walking one evening on his house top, he sees a woman washing herself, and observes her beauty. 3. Curiosity being awakened, he sends to inquire after her, and learns that she is the wife of Uriah. 4. Sending a royal message to her, she, as a loyal subject, waits upon him, whereupon he commits adultery. 5. Discovering in the course of a little time that the fact would come to light, he sends for Uriah from the war, under pretext of gleaning information concerning it, but really that, by Uriah’s sojourn with his wife, the fact may be concealed. 6. Uriah, possibly suspicious of wrong, excuses himself from doing as David desires, on the plea that military duty and patriotism required of him absolute abstention from domestic pleasures. 7. Failing in the first attempt, David makes him drunk, in hopes that, when stupid, he would go to his home; but in this also he fails. 8. Subsequently he sends him back to Joab, with a secret instruction that he would set him in such a position as to ensure his death, which instruction Joab faithfully carries out. The beginnings of great sins. By universal consent the deed of David here recorded is regarded as a great sin—a very great sin, because it was a breach of the commandment which guards the purity of human life, and because committed by one blessed with more than ordinary privileges, and in an abuse of regal authority over a probably unsuspicious subject. The deed is ever base and criminal, but that such a man should commit the crime when God was prospering him in all his affairs, when his people were bravely risking their lives in defence of their country, and after he had spent so long and blessed a life in fellowship with God, is one of the marvels and mysteries of human nature. In the narrative we have set forth the origin and progress of the sin, so far as relates to its ostensible character. Scripture gives us outward facts in their natural order. But we know that in one outward fact of human life there are involved many mental and moral movements, and these are connected in the continuity of life with antecedents which, in part at least, account for their occurrence. It is not difficult, by bringing our knowledge of the laws of mental and moral movement to bear on the facts here recorded, to get a clue to the real beginnings of this great sin, and of great sins in general. I. INTENSE IN AFFAIRS THE ENERGY THAT WOULD GO TO CULTURE. Man, considered physiologically and physically, is a store of energy, and he can give out only what he possesses. The totality of his thoughts and acts is the outcome, and generally speaking the measure, of his store. What portion of it is spent in excess in one direction is just so much taken from another direction. The usual law of forces here applies. For some time David had been intensely absorbed in consolidating his power. The amount of work involved in all the changes he initiated and brought to completion must have been far in excess of what falls to an ordinary monarch, and this in proportion to the utter disorganization of affairs under Saul and Ishbosheth. Such an absorption most probably trenched upon the nervous and moral energy he had at one time concentrated directly on the culture of the spiritual life. Some few men seem gifted with the faculty of sudden transitions of energy, so that, while intensely absorbed in business or secular studies at one moment, they can, by an act of will, become equally absorbed at once in religious pursuits. Possibly David was one of these; but even in their case they cannot escape the weakening effect on the finer sensibilities of a protracted absorption in purely temporal affairs, especially if they are very prosperous. We see many instances of this in the lives of professedly religious men. II. HABITS OF LIFE MAY BE FORMED WHICH A CLASS OF OF . Habits grow in silence and too slowly to be noted, and every unconsciously formed habit brings with it its corresponding class of feelings, which also, rising gradually, are apt to obtain an unobserved permanence in life. The usages of Eastern courts in reference to polygamy acted in a subtle way on David’s life, so that he gradually formed the habits peculiar to that abnormal form of domestic life, and we need no Divine revelation to inform us of the class of inferior feelings that would thereby be surely though slowly engendered. The man in modern times who, by reason of his affluence, combined with a certain habit of body, fares sumptuously every day, does not, while he is getting into the practice of so doing, reflect on the possible effect of all this, in days not far distant, upon his animal tendencies in a certain direction, and his corresponding moral safeguards. There can be no question that the physical, mental, and moral habits of life of a polygamous household are such as would furnish good soil for a sensual temptation, which, in the case of a man unduly absorbed and preoccupied in mere secularities, would be still more perilous. Many a religious man is weak from sources similar to this. Our Lord even warned his apostles, after they had had the benefit of his teaching for two years, to take heed lest at any time their hearts be" overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and the cares of this life" (Luke 21:34). III. LEISURE ON GREAT BRINGS THE WEAKER SIDE OF NATURE INTO . The protracted exertions of years had now issued in a compact kingdom and internal order. Saul’s family was cared for. Administration was organized and labour divided (2 Samuel 8:14-18). The war against the Syrians was in the hands of a powerful force, under a skilful general. David, in Jerusalem, had leisure unknown in former years. Now it is a fact in the history of human nature that, when great energies cease to be in demand, and the force of life no longer goes out in its wonted volume in its ordinary course, then the feelings and tendencies which, meanwhile, have been unconsciously generated by slowly formed habits of social life, are apt to take more prominence, and find less resistance, in consequence of the probably impaired power of the spiritual element (see division I). It is well known among young men that more moral falls occur during seasons of leisure than at any other time. Leisure following on great prosperity requires for its safe use more than ordinary wisdom and spiritual health. Adversity, though taxing energy to the utmost, tends to draw the heart nearer to God, so that when there is leisure from it the soul is in a better condition to guard against the evils incident to such a season. IV. AN DECLINE OF REALITY IN WITH GOD MAY SET IN ON A MAN’S A IN THE WORLD. The subtlety with which spiritual declension sets in is admitted by all who know anything of religions experience. The best of men are the objects of assault from the powers of darkness, clothed, it may be, as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Once let a man, by some subtle insinuation, begin to think that now, having served God so many years and written such useful and sincere utterances of his experience, he has a distinctly recognized position,—then, in that very thought, there is an element of danger. From that hour watchfulness may be less keen, routine may set in, and grey hairs may come "here and there upon him" while he "knoweth it not" (Hosea 7:9). Undoubtedly David had attained such a recognized position in the religious world. His people would accord it; and, in the cessation of strain in civil and political exertions, he might, in an unguarded hour, especially if the lower feelings (see division II.) began to put forth their force, indulge in self-complacence. Communion with God might continue in full form, but its original intense reality would have passed away. Herein, perhaps, is the secret of the decline of religion in many a quondam professor. There are in the Church not a few who have left to them only "the form of godliness." V. UNDER THE THUS FAR COME THROUGH THE SENSES WITH DOUBLE FORCE. There are conditions under which suggestions through the eye, ear, or animal passions fall as powerless as snow on the solid rock. The real power of a temptation through the senses lies in the state of mind which we are in at the time. David had probably seen beautiful women many a time during his exile, and while king in Jerusalem; but the healthy, well guarded spirit was unhurt by the sight. Beauty anywhere is, to a healthy spiritual nature, an object of pure admiration as a work of God. It was because David was not his old self that this sight was as fuel to a smouldering flame. It takes but little to create radical changes and commotions, as seen in chemistry, when the primary elements of things are brought into contact; and so is it when certain elemental conditions of the moral man and his surroundings are concerned. Joseph was pure and spiritually healthy when the suggestion of evil came upon him, and it only produced a recoil (Genesis 39:8, Genesis 39:9). Great stress is laid on this in the Bible. "To the pure all things are pure." "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." VI. THERE IS A FORCE IN CERTAIN BY WHICH REASON, THE WILL, AND ARE . It is a psychological fact that all emotion affects the exercise of the pure reason for the worse. It is in the experience of men that such passions as were aroused in David by the sight he witnessed from the roof of his house, more than any—except, perhaps, those involved in drunkenness—disturb or cripple the action of reason and of the will. Of course, they weaken the spiritual instincts in proportion as they find scope. Thus the powers which may be considered as the guardians of purity, the foes of evil, are not in their normal condition, and consequently the chances are, unless something happens to prevent such an issue, that the unhallowed feelings will gain further ascendency. In this we see that the perfect man is attainable only in Christ. The triumph of spiritual religion in our nature is coincident with the most perfect development of that nature. Hence, also, spiritual power among men is dependent on inner purity. VII. WHEN ONCE THE REIN IS GIVEN TO SUCH , THE FALL HAS TAKEN PLACE IN ESSENCE. When David saw and looked on her, with a certain thought in his mind and feeling in his heart, he had virtually done the deed of which we have a record. In the spiritual sphere, thought and desire are tantamount to deed. The one is but the fuller form of the other. Sin lies in intent and purpose, whether it be actualized in outward fact or not. Hence our Lord’s strong words (Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28). The mystery of David’s sin really lies in the creation within himself of the base feeling indicated in the terms of 2 Samuel 11:2. All that followed was a development of this (James 1:14, James 1:15). It is a question whether Christian people have, as a rule, recognized the solemn truth taught by Christ and seen in David’s case. The seventh commandment has a bearing on the daily mental life. VIII. AN INWARD FALL BRINGS ON , LOSS OF SELF-RESPECT, WITH FURTHER REASON AND WILL-POWER. Such an inward fall as David’s on the roof of his house at once brought a cloud between him and his God, caused him to feel that he was a degraded man, and placed him, in that abandoned mood, under weaker safeguards against the growth of the evil passion. Unless a sudden and sharp repentance—a shocked cry to God for special help—came forth, there was no hope of his being the same man as formerly. Every hour during which the intrusive evil passion retained ascendency only hastened his final overthrow. Men so circumstanced become blind and stupid; they know their degradation, but are under a spell by which it becomes greater; consequences suggested in feeble or strong tones by the reason are not considered; the will, lately crippled for good, now goes over in full strength to the side of evil. Facilis descensus Averni. The particular passion may vary in the different deeds of evil which occasionally shock the religious world, but in every case there is a gradual decline, and it is only the last few stages of it which form the subject of surprise among men. Not murder as seen in Shakespeare’s ’Macbeth,’ nor fraud as seen in occasional modern revelations, nor youthful excesses as when the parent’s heart is broken, are sudden in origin. A series of mental and moral changes precede that which attracts the notice of men and forms the occasion of a social condemnation. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. The fidelity of Scripture writers may be referred to as evidence of Divine inspiration. The cool impartiality with which the best king of Israel is represented as having fallen into the vilest of sins, and this without note or comment, is certainly not of man. 2. Moral causes are deepest and most wide reaching in the sphere of human life; the change here indicated in David’s moral condition was of pernicious influence ever after on his rule, his court, his private life, and the general prosperity of the kingdom. 3. The season of great prosperity in temporal affairs, and of elevation in religious privilege, should, on account of the peril it brings, be a season of keenest and most earnest watchfulness. 4. So powerful are the inferior propensities of human nature, even in the case of most favoured men, that it is possible for them to sweep away in their outburst the reputation built up on the best purposes and actions; and hence the importance of a most jealous guard against everything in appetite, sight, and sound, that may develop their power. 5. Seeing the extraordinary extremes of human experience in the life of David, we may note and weigh well the undeveloped possibilities for good or evil, for joy or pain, for usefulness or harm, that lie within the scope of every human being in the future state, even more than in this. 6. Feminine obtrusiveness, even when no danger is actually perceived in it, may all the time be operating on some one for evil; and hence the duty of the most guarded modesty of manner and personal appearance. We do not fully estimate the harm done to human thought and feeling by the ocular impressions produced by certain forms of dress and bearing. 7. It is good to have leisure from toil, but much grace is needed to use leisure so that in it the tempter may not gain power over us. 8. The dangers of eventide leisure are conspicuous, especially to the young and to the ardent. 9. It adds to the guilt of a man if, being in a position of authority or influence, he exercises his official influence to gain power over others for proposes of evil. The crooked ways of sin. We have in 2 Samuel 11:6-13 an account of the devices by which David sought to escape the human discovery of his guilt. The perhaps sleepless nights spent in painful thought as to what could be safely done are not alluded to—only the product of his thinking. After what was said in 2 Samuel 11:5, it was certain that exposure in the most palpable form would ensue if the woman’s husband remained away at the war. To bring him home, and get him in an apparently natural way to spend a little time with his wife, at once seemed most feasible. The failure of this scheme, either through the patriotism or the awakened suspicions of Uriah, caused another night of thought and scheming, and, as the case was urgent, he was made drunk, in hope thereby his patriotism or suspicions would yield to natural propensities. Once more the force of events is against the scheme; and, as a last resort, seeing that Uriah could not be made out to be the father of the coming child, he must, with as good an appearance as possible, be put out of the way so that the king, in accordance with the rights of Eastern monarchs, might take his wife, and the expected one thus appear to be prematurely born in wedlock. Concerning these crooked ways of sin observe— I. THE FIRST STEP OF THE SINNER IS TO CLING TO HIS SIN. When such a sin as David’s is committed, God is offended, conscience outraged, self-respect disregarded, and human condemnation rendered imminent. The whole of this disruption and confusion in the moral sphere is recognized at once as being a consequence of the deed done. Now, it is obvious that these consequences are not only to be dreaded, and, if possible, to be avoided, but also that the first act of a sound mind would be to abominate and seek to get dissociated, in every sense of the term, from the sin which entailed them. The sin, and not the consequences, is the evil thing—the most terrible and hurtful thing. And the first step of a truly penitent mind would be to shrink from it, to loathe it, to seek to cut it off if possible from self as the accursed thing. But note here that David shows no sign of this. The evil nature adopts the deed, identifies itself with it, seeks to live on in association of thought, feeling, and interest with it. God, purity, conscience, self-respect,—all may go; the soul will have its sin, and, by cherishing this sentiment towards it, virtually persists in its repetition. So did Adam, Achan, and Ananias; and so do all the poor debased souls that sink into iniquity without the grace of true repentance. II. THE SECOND STEP IS TO THE OF BEFORE MEN. The guilty man knows that God is aware of his crime. His action in this respect is a very singular phenomenon. There may be secret dread of God’s coming judgment; the certainty of God’s knowledge and power to punish may be so strong as even to render life inwardly wretched, and to produce the passivity and helplessness proper to an unavoidable fate. Possibly this sort of desperation urges to a warding off of such consequences as would come did men but know as much of the sin as God. At any rate, what the narrative sets before us is not an endeavour to escape from God and his anger; it shows us rather that, as soon as the mind can collect itself after the indulgence in sin, it recognizes the possibility of men becoming acquainted with the deed done. That was the thought which lay at the basis of Achan’s covering up his spoils; that is the thought which starts in the mind of the thief, the liar, the adulterer, the false professor. The fear of man is a very potent influence. The fear of God is real, but it carries with it a hopelessness of effort. This induces gloomy desperation, but not thought and action to prevent discovery. III. THE NEXT STEP IS TO THE MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM HUMAN . A guilty man pays unconscious homage to holiness in that he begins to think how he can prevent men knowing what he has done. David the hero, who trembled not before Goliath, now spends hours in thinking how he may escape the consequences of his own people knowing what he has done in private. Is it simply fear of civil and social loss? Is it merely dread of physical pain? No; even the guilty testify that sin is abominable; that sin is deepest personal disgrace; that sin is too black and ugly to bear even the gaze of imperfect men. No doubt David saw that he would suffer loss of respect among the best of the land; that the force of law would be weakened; that turbulence might arise in his kingdom by reason of others following his example; and that he would no longer be able to figure before the nation as the illustrious reformer of religion. The thousands who daily live in dread of, and consider how they may escape, human exposure! What restless nights! what deep-laid plans! what feverish concern!—all to cover up sin from feeble man! And yet God knows all, and will bring to judgment. Truly sin renders the operation of the mind very perverse. God knows all and judges all, and yet all effort is to keep man from knowing! Nothing is done Godward, except to harden the heart against him, and go on in sullen desperation. This is sin!—this the accursed evil of the universe! IV. IN SEEKING TO ESCAPE HUMAN , THE FIRST IS TO THE ORDER OF ; i.e. to create, by innocent natural means, an order of events that shall have in them and their results an appearance of providential succession. David does not commit another positive sin to cover up the first. The sin-stained soul again, notwithstanding its degradation, pays homage to righteousness, in its deliberate effort to hide its past deed by deeds that are within the province of right; for David had a right to send for any officer to give him information as to the progress of the war (2 Samuel 11:6, 2 Samuel 11:7), and it was only generous to allow him to go and rest at home (2 Samuel 11:8). Lord Bacon has taught us that, by carefully studying the processes of Nature to see how she works, we, on submitting to her ways, become her conquerors, by being able to set her at work in circumstances of our own creation. The scheme of an impenitent sinner, when wishing to hide his sin from the knowledge of man, is very much of that kind. He knows the order of providential events, and he tries to create circumstances by which, in the judgment of men, Providence shall be credited with the deed he himself has done. Uriah, not David, shall be made to appear as the father of the child. How this perverse ingenuity works still is familiar to all who know only a little of mankind. The cleverness with which trains of events are set in motion so as to assuredly direct attention from the doer of evil, is amazing. The devil was always a great schemer, and his dupes catch his spirit. V. THE FAILURE OF SCHEMES NO SIN IN THE DETAILS IS SOON BY DEEDS EVIL. If Providence cannot be simulated, because of the uncontrollable nature of its agents (2 Samuel 11:9-11), then homage to righteousness must cease, and positive evil must be done (2 Samuel 11:13-15). The one desired end—escape from human exposure—must, by good or evil means, be secured. The knowledge that God knows and is angry counts for nothing. The despair of escaping God, combined with a mad identification of one’s interests with the evil committed and still cherished in the heart, seems to operate on the mind in such a way as practically to banish him from thought or care. All thought is on man, and at any cost man must be kept in ignorance. It is against even the conscience, stained and hardened as it is, to do definite evil, if possible—so mighty is the moral law in the worst of men—but preservation of self from exposure is now the first law, to which right, generosity, every true and holy sentiment and obligation, must bow. VI. IN HAVING TO OF EVIL, THERE IS SOME REGARD TO . It is only the very uttermost moral degradation—that, perhaps, of fiends in hell—that can perpetrate fresh evils with utter freedom, and without any reserve of decency or tacit recognition of the majesty of law. Every hour spent by David in elaborating his scheme brought him more within the coil of iniquity, and gradually reduced his moral sensibilities towards zero; but even when in his despair he meditated the death of the man whose life might lead to exposure of his sin, he could not slay him with his own hand, he could not say even to Joab, "Slay him." Appearances must be saved, and some homage paid, by the lingering sense of right, to the Law of God, by a contest being created in the interests of the kingdom, so that in fighting for his country the doomed man might die by the hand of the enemy. Of course, David did not kill him! Of course, it was an incident in the natural order of warlike events! It was not the King of Israel that raised the arm to slay, but the wicked Ammonites! Such is the crooked logic of sin. Our Saviour has described Satan as a liar as well as a murderer (John 8:44). It is evidently very difficult to crush out all light from the conscience. There is a continuous protest in the performance of guilty deeds; but so obstinate and desperate in alliance with sin is the heart of an impenitent man, that this protest, this remnant of light, is only used to grace the performance of positive evil with a semblance of naturalness and innocence. The crooked ways of sin are traversed by all men who in any measure hug their iniquities, and try to avoid the consequences which it is feared would come were the deeds of darkness exposed to view. There are many acting in this way every day. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. Men in positions of power have many means at hand for hiding their sins from public view (2 Samuel 11:6); but they should be warned of their corresponding peril and increased guilt if they use those means. 2. Real hypocrisy lies in doing things with the appearance of right and to give an impression of right conduct, when the real aim is evil, and the present motive is subordinate to that aim (2 Samuel 11:6-11); consequently, just pains should be taken in exposing to men the horrible wickedness of their course, and in getting them to recognize more distinctly, as a governing power in life, the perfect knowledge of God. 3. There are always forces working unconsciously against the designs of hypocritical men, rendering, as the action of Uriah did (2 Samuel 11:11-13), the way of transgressors hard. It is vain to fight against God. 4. The man who, in the day of success and real goodness, scorns the unprincipled and hardhearted (2 Samuel 3:29-39), may so fall as to be glad of such men to carry out his evil designs (2 Samuel 11:15)—a warning this to him "who thinketh that he standeth." 5. He who makes use of another as his instrument of evil henceforth becomes weak in all his relations to him. Masters who employ their servants to carry on evil transactions lose influence over them, and virtually place themselves in their power. 2 Samuel 11:18-27 Complicity in evil. The facts are: 1. Joab, having executed the wicked commission, sends word to David as to the progress of the war. 2. He furnishes the messenger with a means of appeasing the probable wrath of David on his learning that the conflict was more serious than either he or Joab looked for, namely, an announcement of Uriah’s death. 3. The messenger carefully describes the seriousness of the engagement with the enemy, and concludes by referring to the death of Uriah. 4. David sends back an encouraging message to Joab, and professes to acknowledge the inevitable losses and chances of war. 5. On suitable sorrow being shown by the widow, for the loss of her husband, David takes her to himself as a wife. 6. The deed of David is displeasing to God. The narrative here gives us the maturing of David’s scheme, and the general character of the secret negotiations carried on with Joab in order to bring his purpose to pass. We have, then, an instance of accomplices in crime, revealing to us truth, and illustrating facts in connection with human life in all ages. I. MEN INTENT ON A GREAT EVIL ARE FORCED TO BRING OTHERS INTO THEIR WICKED SECRETS. Providence kindly frustrated David’s attempt to cover his sin by means of Uriah’s free action; and it therefore became necessary, in his desperate wickedness, to seek the end in view by means of Uriah’s death. But unless David committed murder with his own hand, which his conscience would not allow, he must find some one whose ingenuity, with his own, would bring it to pass, and save appearances. Such is the logic of evil. God in his mercy has filled the world with obstacles to the committal of sin and to persistence in it when once committed; but such is the baseness of the human heart that this, instead of being regarded as a help in the warfare with evil propensity, is turned into a reason for seeking the aid of another’s wits and agency. It is a further fall in evil when men are thus impelled to drag others into the meshes of their sin. So hardened does the heart become by dalliance with sin and indulgence in it, that even the character and souls of others are to be ruined in order to gratify self and hide iniquity for a few years from human view. II. THERE ARE MEN TO BE FOUND READY TO CARRY OUT THE EVIL OF THEIR . Even in the chosen nation a Joab was to be found, cruel, hard of heart, habituated to acts of severity, and glad to have the opportunity of retorting in spirit, if not in words, the former reproaches of his master (2 Samuel 3:29, 2 Samuel 3:39). It is a sign of the marvellous change that had come over David, that he, who had so bitterly reproached this man for cruelty and hard heartedness, now turns to him for the purpose of using those very qualities for accomplishing his own cruel design. The presence of such a man in Israel for doing the evil work of his superior is typical of a universal fact. There is a vast amount of reserve evil in the world, waiting only for some influential will to draw it out into activity. The power of superiors over subordinates sometimes extends to the moral sphere. In strict fact, a king has only power, in virtue of his office, over the legal actions of his subjects, and a master over the legal actions of his servants; but when a king or a master, in excess of his right, extends his authority into the moral sphere, it too often happens that the subordinate whose conscience is not sensitive allows the authority due to the legal position to pass over to the moral sphere and break down the defences of conscience. This is an abuse of influence on the one side, and an abandonment of most sacred duties on the other. The wicked heart is apt to find excuses in the fact that a superior leads the way, and that, if guilt lies anywhere, it is on him. III. MEN BENT ON AN EVIL DESIGN WILL EVEN RISK THE RUIN OF THE IN OUT THEIR SCHEMES. David knew very well that Joab could not carry out his instructions without, not only exposing Uriah to the certain risk of death, but also placing other men, not concerned in this domestic trouble, in positions of peril; for the meaning of the instructions was plainly to create a position of extreme peril, which in war can only be done by engaging a troop. What if several innocent men fell in this "hottest battle"! Uriah, at all events, would be amongst them! The more the progressive conduct of the king is scrutinized, the more base and abominable does it appear. This dreadful sin is not confined to David. Monarchs and diplomatists, who from motives of vanity or mere love of power bring on war, really cause the death of innocent men and the wailings of widows in carrying out their designs. What if thousands of men fall! Some regal or other obstacle to ambition or pride will at least be got rid of! That is the moral side of too many wars. The same in a measure applies to men who will be rich, though it cost the health, the poverty, and often lives of workmen. What of all that? Wealth must be secured! Other instances are to be found in modern life. IV. MEN IN OUT DESIGNS ARE CAREFUL TO CONFORM TO THE OF OUTWARD LIFE. Bad men understand one another. There is a freemasonry in evil. Joab knew what he was about when he anticipated that David would manifest signs of wrath on hearing of his fruitless attack on the city. Each evil doer played his part with skill. The messenger was to remind David of historic parallels (2 Samuel 11:21), and to tell him that the rash man Uriah, who led the bootless assault, had been punished for his rashness by death. No court martial would be necessary, lamentable as the affair certainly was! Heart answers to heart. The anger ceases; maxims concerning the chances of war come to one’s aid (2 Samuel 11:25); the lessons of failure must be laid to heart; the general at the head of the army must not be discouraged. All this was very proper—in harmony with the proprieties of life. Men doing evil are inwardly ashamed of it, and are compelled to keep up the appearance of doing and being good. It is the outward conformity with the decencies of life that enables wicked men to go on in their evil ways for years. They follow the teaching and example of their chief, who is a liar in deed and word, and who, to perfect his schemes, assumes, if necessary, the form of an "angel of light." V. EVIL MEN BRING THEIR DEVICES TO A ISSUE WITH ONE NOTABLE . The success of David was complete. Uriah was safely put away; Bathsheba was the king’s wife within a date to prevent convincing exposure; the army and the people were kept in ignorance of actual facts; the future was hopeful; but there was one fact on which the infatuated king did not reflect—the Lord was displeased. The brethren of Joseph seemed to succeed in getting rid of a troublesome brother, but God saw their wickedness, and this counted for more than they then imagined. The wicked husbandmen succeeded in freeing themselves from annoyance when they killed the heir (Matthew 21:38); but there was One to reckon with of whom they did not think. The conspiring scribes and Pharisees doubtless congratulated themselves that their plans for getting rid of the "babbler" who caused them so much trouble were wonderfully successful; but there was One whose "power" was not secured to their side (Acts 2:23, Acts 2:24). Kings and diplomatists and exactors of unjust labours and secret defrauders, and evil livers may succeed in keeping up appearances, in passing as honourable men, and in securing their heart’s desire; but there will always be one factor in the case with which they some day will have to reckon—the displeasure of the Lord. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It is a disgrace to a master to be in league with a servant, and it puts the master within the servant’s power. Many a subordinate is in possession of secrets which, if used, would blast character and ruin earthly prospects. The coils of iniquity! 2. Every new device to hide sin, and every effort to keep up appearances, only blinds the mind the more to the actual state of the soul in its relation to God. 3. In all our affairs, and especially when tempted to persist in courses of sin, we should endeavour to remember that we shall have to reckon with One who knows all and is already displeased. 4. That a man professing religion can go on in a secret course of sin without giving due heed to the knowledge which he must possess of God’s knowledge of himself and deeds, is a striking sign of the utter deterioration of his spiritual sensibilities and his being nigh unto perdition. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 11:1-5 (THE KING’S PALACE.) David’s fall into sin. "But David tarried still at Jerusalem" (2 Samuel 11:1; 1 Chronicles 20:1). 1. He was about fifty years of age; had been reigning in Jerusalem upwards of twelve years; dwelt in a stately palace on Mount Zion; and possessed numerous sons and daughters, a splendid court and a powerful army. He had been "preserved whithersoever he went," subdued his enemies, and returned in triumph. His natural gifts and fervent piety (Psalms 24:4; Psalms 101:7) were even more extraordinary than his material prosperity; and he now stood on the pinnacle of human greatness and glory. 2. "We might well wish, in our human fashion, that, as he stood at this elevation, he had closed a life hitherto (as far as was possible before Christianity) almost entirely spotless, and bequeathed to posterity a wholly unclouded memory, and the purest type of true royalty. But the ascent of the dizzy height is always attended by the possibility of a slip and then of a headlong fall" (Ewald). 3. "Rising from the couch where he had indulged in his noonday siesta to an undue length, David forthwith ascended to the roof of his house. So ambition commonly follows excess; nor do they whom the contagion of luxury once corrupts readily seek after moderate and lowly ways. But that ascent of David, alas! was a prelude to his deplorable downfall. For he ascended only that he might fall, beholding thence, as from a watchtower, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, and immediately becoming passionately enamoured of her". 4. It was the turning point of his career, which was henceforth marked by a long series of calamities. And "it is sad to think that the cup of life, alter being filled for him by God and made pure and sweet by previous suffering and self-restraint, should have been recklessly poisoned by his own hand" (Binney). "His steps were turn’d into deceitful ways: Following false images of good, that make No promise perfect." (Dante.) His fall occurred (serving as an instructive warning to others)— I. AT A SEASON OF . In the spring of the year, "when kings go forth to war," instead of going forth with his army to complete the subjugation of Ammon, "David sent Joab," etc; and abode in Jerusalem. Formerly, when "the Lord had given him rest" (2 Samuel 7:1), he spent his leisure in a worthy manner, and displayed an ardent and even excessive zeal; but now, in choosing rest for himself, he showed a lack of zeal, and his unhappy choice was followed by disastrous consequences. "His actual fall into sin seems to have begun by the abdication of his functions as captain of Israel" (Maclaren); which was itself the effect of "previous relaxation of the girded loins and negligence of the untrimmed lamp." Inactivity (voluntarily chosen, without adequate reason, and regardless of opportunities of useful service) is commonly: 1. Induced by a course of successful enterprise, and the attainment of great prosperity. If adversity has slain its thousands, prosperity has slain its tens of thousands. "When his pillow was the rock and his curtain the cave; when his sword, under Providence, procured him his daily bread from the foes of his country, and the means of existence formed the object and pursuit of life,—he was pious and immovable; he must have been active or he must have resigned his life. But now the case was widely different. He had not only all the necessaries, but all the luxuries which the most refined voluptuousness could devise, attending in rich profusion around him. He had certainly the duty of his charge to impress its importance on his mind; but then he had the opportunity of neglecting it, and even David, it appears, was not proof against the solicitations of this opportunity" (Thompson, ’Davidica’). 2. Indicative of a state of spiritual declension. (1) Of a gradual decay of faith and neglect of watchfulness and prayer, and so leaving his hold of God; (2) of a defective sense of responsibility to God; (3) of pride and security, "mortal’s chief enemy," so that the self-denying labours and hardships of the battlefield seemed no longer necessary; and (4) of undue love of ease and sensuous pleasure, fostered in David’s case by polygamy. "The sense of delicacy and chastity, which has such a purifying and preserving influence on the life, could not flourish side by side with the polygamy in which he permitted himself" (W.M. Taylor). The majestic forest tree falling suddenly beneath the blast excites our surprise; but, on examination, it will be found to have been undergoing at heart a gradual process of decay, which at length brought the giant to the ground. 3. Conducive to the indulgence of sinful propensities; exposing to the peril of falling into "the snare of the devil." Want of proper occupation tends to develop the hidden evil of the heart. "Standing waters gather filth" (Matthew Henry). "Idle hours bring forth idle thoughts, and idle thoughts are nothing but dry kindling wood that waits only for a spark to be suddenly ablaze" (Disselhoff). "The industrious man hath no leisure to sin; the idle hath no leisure or power to avoid sin" (Hall). David "may have been quite unconscious of bad habits of mind; but they must have been there growing in secret. The tyrannous self-will, which is too often developed by long successes and command; the unscrupulous craft, which is too often developed by long adversity and the necessity of sustaining one’s self in a difficult position;—these must have been there. But even they could not have led David to do the deed he did had there not been in him likewise that fearful moral weakness which comes from long indulgence of the passions—a weakness which is reckless of conscience, of public opinion, and of danger either to earthly welfare or everlasting salvation" (C. Kingsley). "This single act can only be regarded as the expression of his whole disposition of mind" (Hengstenberg). II. UNDER THE OF STRONG ; or the desire of self-gratification. For "each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust [desire], and enticed," etc. (James 1:13-15). "Lust is egoistic desire under the incitement of impulse. But the action is not yet performed; it still lies with the man to combat the lust, or by the free choice of his will to yield himself to it" (Martensen, ’Christian Ethics’). It: 1. Arises in most cases from impressions made upon the senses by external objects. "And it came to pass in an eventide," etc. (2 Samuel 11:2). The eye is the most common inlet of temptation. "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food," etc. (Genesis 3:6). Achan first saw, then coveted and took (Joshua 7:21). "David at this time had forgotten the prayer, ’Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity.’ We see, therefore, how dangerous a thing it is to suffer the eyes to wander. Job made a covenant with his eyes" (Wilier). "They who abuse the eye deserve to have the inward eye darkened" (Gregory). 2. Derives its force from various circumstances; such as (1) the unexpected, sudden, and deceitful manner of its occurrence; (2) the power and opportunity of its gratification; (3) the temperament, predisposition, and besetting sins of its subject; (4) the entertainment of it in the fancy, which forms false images of good, and invests them with a perilous fascination; and (5) the delay of endeavour to overcome it, wherein there always lies peculiar and most imminent danger (Genesis 39:9). 3. Becomes by such means an absorbing passion (Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29); blinding the mental vision, perverting the moral judgment, and influencing (though not absolutely compelling) the choice of the personal will, by which sin comes into actual existence. "There is a black spot, though it be no bigger than a bean’s eye, in every soul, which, if once set a-working, will overcloud the whole man in darkness, and something very like madness, and will hurry him into the night of destruction" (Arabic saying). To escape this fatal issue there is need, not merely of resolute resistance and fervent prayer, but also of instant flight. "The temptation of the flesh is overcome and impure passion mortified by flight, and not by fighting face to face. He then who flies fastest and furthest is most sure of victory. Once more I say to thee, Fly! for thou art as stubble. Therefore fly, fly, if indeed thou wouldest not be overtaken, led captive, and slain!" (Scupoli). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 12:1 Jehovah sent Nathan unto David. Though David had remained unrepentant for nearly a year, for we read in 2 Samuel 12:14 that the child was born, yet we are not to suppose that there had been no compunctions of conscience. A man could scarcely pass from utter callousness to a state of mind so tender as that depicted in Psalms 51:1-19 without some preparation. Assuredly David had suffered much mental distress, but he had given no outward sign of contrition, and possibly, but for Nathan’s message, he might have overpowered his conscience, and his self-reproaches have become less frequent and agitating. More probably he was slowly ripening for repentance, and Nathan’s words let loose the agonizing feelings which had more and more struggled within him against his baser lusts. And the prophet’s apologue was exactly suited to rouse up that strong sense of justice which was so noble an element in David’s character. Doubtless it was framed for this purpose, and Nathan knew what was the right chord to touch. But we must not, because he was wise and skilful, refuse Nathan our fullest admiration for his manly courage. It is a very dangerous thing to tell princes of their sins, and especially when that prince is an absolute monarch, and his sins adultery and murder. But the position which Nathan held in David’s court made it his duty so to do, and there is no stronger testimony to the power of religion and of God’s grace than that it makes men so brave in doing their duty. We may feel sure that Nathan had long grieved over David’s fall, and reflected upon the steps which ought to be taken for his admonition. And now, in answer to prayer, the command came from Jehovah bidding him go and bear his testimony. Nathan’s parable is admirably adapted for its purpose. While making no direct reference to adultery or murder, it puts very strongly the injustice and heartlessness of the oppression of the weak by the strong, as exemplified in the deed of the rich man. On many occasions David had shown a warm and generous indignation at injustice, and a righteous pity for those wronged. Would such a feeling be called out now? David’s conduct was had enough, and if there was no outburst of anger at the base deed reported to him, and no welling up of pity for the poor man robbed of his one joy, then was his case hopeless, and Nathan must withdraw in despair, and leave David to his fate. But his better feelings were not destroyed, and when Nathan saw them deeply stirred, he broke in with the stern application to the king’s own sin, "Thou art the man!" The courage and the skill of the prophet are alike admirable. 2 Samuel 12:3 Was unto him as a daughter. The Orientals are excessively fond of pet animals, and, as the dog is with them unclean, its place is taken by fawns, kids, or lambs. The description, therefore, is not overcharged, for in many an English home the dog or cat takes its place as one of the family. The Revised Version preserves the tenderness of the original in translating "it did eat of his own morsel." 2 Samuel 12:4 A traveller, … wayfaring man,… man that was come to him. Nathan probably used these three terms chiefly to diversify his language, but it has served as a handle for much allegorizing. Thus Rashi explains it of covetousness, which comes at first as a mere "passer by," the literal meaning of the word rendered "traveller." But, if admitted, it grows into "a wayfaring man," who comes and goes on business, and stays a longer time. Finally it changes into "one who has come to him," and remains permanently. Such allegorical interpretations are common in the Fathers, and thus Augustine compares the three stages of sin to our Lord’s three miracles of raising the dead. The sinner is at first like Jairus’s daughter, just dead, and repentance can restore him immediately to life; but, if sin be persisted in, he becomes like the son of the widow of Nain, carried away to burial; and finally like Lazarus, given over to corruption. 2 Samuel 12:5 Shall surely die. It is strange language to declare that a man shall be put to death and then fined four lambs; But David says nothing of the sort, but that the man is "a son of death," that is, a wretch who deserves to die. The Revised Version correctly renders, "is worthy to die." The sentence actually passed, of fourfold restitution, is exactly in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:1), but the moral turpitude of the offence was far greater than could be atoned for by the legal penalty. Rightly, therefore, David expressed his indignation, and regretted that the sentence was so light; but a judge must not strain the law, which necessarily has regard chiefly to the outward offence. 2 Samuel 12:7 Thou art the man! Abruptly and with sudden vehemence comes the application to David himself. So skilfully had the parable been contrived, that up to this point David had had no suspicion that he was the rich man who had acted so meanly by his poorer neighbour Uriah. And now he stood self-condemned. Yet even so self-love might have made his indignation break forth against Nathan; but probably the reproof only completed a work that had long been secretly in progress, and brushed away the last obstacles to repentance. I anointed thee. The solemn anointing made David the representative of Jehovah, and thus his sin was aggravated by the degradation in the eyes of the people, beth of the kingly office and also of Jehovah himself. Rank and authority are given to men that they may lead others to do right; it is a fearful misuse of them when they give prestige to sin. 2 Samuel 12:8 I gave … thy master’s wives into thy bosom. These words probably mean that, as the whole possessions of his predecessor belonged, by Oriental custom, to the next occupant of the throne, David might have claimed the entire household and the wives both of Saul and Ishbosbeth as his own, though apparently he had not done so. As far as we know, Saul had but one wife (1 Samuel 14:50) and one concubine, Rizpah (2 Samuel 3:7). Of Ishbosheth’s family arrangements we know little, but his harem, if he had one, would become the property of David. But independently of this, the permission of polygamy had made it possible for him to take any of the daughters of Israel and Judah to wife, and he had freely availed himself of this licence. Yet, not content, he had lusted after a married woman, and had got rid of her husband by murder, meanly using the sword of the Ammonites to accomplish his own criminal purpose. The word used in this clause, and rendered "thou hast slain him," is a very strong one, and literally means "thou hast murdered him," though the sword was that of the enemy. 2 Samuel 12:10 The sword shall never depart from thine house; that is, thy crime shall not be expiated by one slaughter, but by many, so that thy punishment shall cease only at thine own death. This sentence was fulfilled in Amnon’s murder (2 Samuel 13:28), who had been encouraged in his crime by his father’s example. Upon this followed Absalom’s rebellion and death (2 Samuel 18:14); and finally, when in his last hours David made Solomon his successor, he knew that he was virtually passing sentence on Adonijah, the eldest of his surviving sons. But what a fearful choice! for had he not done so, then Bathsheba and her four sons would doubtless have been slain, whereas there was some hope that Solomon might spare his brother. That Adonijah was unworthy we gather from the fact that he had ceased to be cohen, and that this office was conferred, after Absalom’s rebellion, on Ira the Jairite (2 Samuel 20:26), Solomon being then too young to hold such a position. Until he committed this crime, David’s family had probably dwelt in concord, and it was his own wickedness which broke up their unity, and introduced among them strife, mutual hatred, and the shedding of blood. 2 Samuel 12:11 He shall lie with thy wives. Fulfilled for political purposes by Absalom, under the advice of Bathsheba’s grandfather (2 Samuel 16:22). The punishment was thus complete. For the murdered Uriah there was fourfold restitution, according to David’s own sentence. First there was Bathsheba’s child lately born, then Amnon, thirdly Absalom, and lastly Adonijah. For the adultery there was open disgrace wrought upon his royal dignity "before the sun," in open daylight. As he had brought shame and dishonour upon the family relations of his neighbour, so were his own family rights violated by his rebellious son. And, as is often the case, the sins which followed were worse than those which prepared the way. Vice begins as a small stream trickling through the opposing dam. but it quickly breaks down all moral restraints, and rushes along like a destroying flood. 2 Samuel 12:13 I have sinned against Jehovah. Saul had used the same words, and had meant very little by them; nor had he added "against Jehovah," because his purpose was to appease Samuel, and prevail upon him not to disgrace him before the people. David’s confession came from the heart. There is no excuse making, no attempt at lessening his fault, no desire to evade punishment. Psalms 51:1-19 is the lasting testimony, not only to the reality, but to the tenderness of his repentance, and we may even feel here that confession was to him a relief. The deep internal wound was at length disclosed, and healing had become possible. Up to this time he had shut God away from his heart, and so there had been no remedy for a soul diseased. It was because his sorrow was genuine that comfort was not delayed. Jehovah also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Now, death was the legal penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), and though it might not be easy to exact it of a king, yet, until it was remitted, David would be in the eyes of all "a son of death" (see on Psalms 51:5); and how could he administer justice to others while the death sentence for a capital crime was hanging over himself? Had not the prophet been authorized to use his dispensing power as the mouthpiece of Jehovah, David could not have remained king. And we can see no reason for supposing, with Ewald and others, that a substantial interval of time elapsed between David’s confession and Nathan’s absolution. The sole conceivable reason for such a view would be the supposition that David’s repentance began and was completed with the one stab of shame which pierced through him when he heard Nathan’s sudden reproach. Such a mere thrill, following upon such persistent callousness, would have merited little attention. But if months of brooding sorrow and secret shame had been humbling David, then his open confession was the proof that the Spirit’s work had reached the goal, and was now complete. And we gather from Psalms 51:3 that such was the case. "My sin," he says, "is ever before me." It had long haunted him; had long occupied his thoughts by day, and broken his rest at night. Like a flood, his iniquities had gone over his head, and threatened to drown him; like a heavy burden, they had pressed upon him so as to break him down (Psalms 38:4). Both these psalms tell of long continued sorrow of heart; but with confession had come relief. He had offered to God the sacrifice of a broken spirit, and knew that it had not been despised. We shall see subsequently that his time and attention had been much occupied with the Ammonite war, and this had probably helped him in evading the secret pleadings of his own conscience. 2 Samuel 12:14 Thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of Jehovah to blaspheme; Hebrew, thou hast made the enemies of Jehovah to despise; that is, to despise Jehovah’s government, the theocracy, of which David was the visible head and earthly representative. Jehovah’s enemies are not the heathen, but Israelitish unbelievers, who would scoff at all religion when one in David’s position fell into terrible open sin. But the death of the adulterous offspring of David and Bathsheba would prove to these irreligious men that Jehovah’s righteous rule could reach and punish the king himself, and would thus vindicate his justice from their reproach. 2 Samuel 12:16 David … went in. He went, not into the sanctuary, which he did not enter until after the child’s death, but into some private room in his own house. There he remained, passing his nights stretched on the ground, and fasting until the seventh day. His fasting does not imply that he took no food during this long interval, but that he abstained from the royal table, and ate so much only as was necessary to maintain life. Now, what was the meaning of this privacy and abstinence? Evidently it was David’s acknowledgment, before all his subjects, of his iniquity, and of his sorrow for it. The sickness of the child followed immediately upon Nathan’s visit, and we may feel sure that news of his rebuke, and of all that passed between him and the king, ran quickly throughout Jerusalem. And David at once takes the position of a condemned criminal, and humbles himself with that thoroughness which forms so noble a part of his character. Grieved as he was at the child’s sickness, and at the mother’s sorrow, yet his grief was mainly for his sin; and he was willing that all should know how intense was his shame and self-reproach. And even when the most honourable of the rulers of his household (Genesis 24:2), or, as Ewald thinks, his uncles and elder brethren, came to comfort him, he persists in maintaining an attitude of heart stricken penitence. 2 Samuel 12:20 Then David arose from the earth. If David’s grief had been occasioned by love for the child, then its death and the consciousness that, while his guilt had caused its sickness, his prayers had not availed to save it, would have aggravated his anguish. There was much personal regard for the child, which had been made the more precious by these very eyelets. But David’s sorrow was, as we have seen, that of penitence, and not that of natural affection. When, therefore, the threatened penalty had been paid by the death of the child, David felt it to be his duty to show his resignation, and therefore he went into the sanctuary and worshipped, in proof that he acknowledged the justice of God’s dealings, and was content to bear the punishment as his righteous desert. 2 Samuel 12:22 God; Hebrew, Jehovah, usually rendered "Lord." Similarly in Genesis 6:5 in the Authorized Version we find God in capital letters, as here, for the Hebrew Jehovah. 2 Samuel 12:23 I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. These words indicate, first of all, much personal feeling for the child. Hence some have supposed that, as Solomon is placed last of Bathsheba’s four sons in 2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 3:5, three other sons had already been borne by her, and that consequently this child, the fruit of their adultery, would now have been seven or eight years of age. It is certainly remarkable that in 1 Chronicles 3:16 David calls him "the lad" (so the Hebrew), though in every other place he is styled "the child." On the other hand, we gather from 1 Chronicles 3:14 that probably he was as yet the only child, and this is the more reasonable view, even if Solomon was the youngest son (but see note on 1 Chronicles 3:24). But secondly, the words indicate a belief in the continued existence of the child, and even that David would recognize and know him in the future world. Less than this would have given no comfort to the father for his loss. Now, it is true that we can find no clear dogmatic teaching in the early Scriptures upon the immortality of the soul. Job could give expression to no such hope in Job 7:6-10, and the belief in a world to come would have solved the difficulties of himself and his friends, which really are left unsolved. Even in the Psalms there are words that border on despair (see Psalms 6:5; Psalms 30:9; Psalms 88:11; Psalms 115:17); nor had Hezekiah any such belief in continued existence as could solace him in the expectation of an early death (Isaiah 38:18, Isaiah 38:19). This hopelessness was not unnatural at a time when the doctrine had not been as yet clearly taught. On the other hand, in Psalms 17:15 and Psalms 16:9-11 We find proof that David did believe in his own immortality. For though the latter words have a second and higher meaning, yet the primary sense of Psa 16:10 is that David’s own soul (or self) would not always remain in Sheol, the abode of the departed, nor would he, Jehovah’s anointed one, see such corruption as would end in annihilation. 2 Samuel 12:24 He called his name Solomon. It is rashly assumed that Solomon’s birth followed next in order after that of the deceased child. More probably there was a long interval of time, and son after son was born, with little increase of happiness to the family polluted by Amnon’s sin and troubled by its miserable consequences. While we must not lay too great stress upon Solomon calling himself "a little child" (1 Kings 3:7) after his accession, yet it forbids our believing that he was more than just grown up, It was the remarkable ability of Solomon, his goodness and precocious talent, which made him so great a comfort to his parents, and which received Jehovah’s seal of approval in the name Jedidiah. This name would scarcely be given him until his good and great qualities were developing; and as it was a sort of indication that he was the chosen and elect son of David, and therefore the next king, we shall probably be right in believing that this second mission of Nathan, and this mark of Divine favour to David’s youngest child, did not take place until after Absalom’s death, possibly not until Solomon was ten or twelve years of age. The name Solomon means "the peaceful," and answers to the German Friedrich. It was given to the child in recognition that David’s wars were now over, and that the era of quiet had begun, which was to be consecrated to the building of Jehovah’s temple. It was the name given to the infant at his birth, and was a name of hope. Alas! this peace was to be rudely broken by the rebellion of the son whom David, in vain expectation and with all a father’s pride, had named Absalom, "his father’s peace." 2 Samuel 12:25 He sent. Some commentators make David the subject of the sentence, and translate, "And he, David, sent in the hand of Nathan, and called," etc. They suppose that this means that Nathan was entrusted with Solomon’s education; but "in the hand" is the ordinary Hebrew preposition, meaning "by," and the sense plainly is that God sent a message by Nathan. David had already called the child Solomon, and now Jehovah, some years afterwards, gives him an indication of his special favour by naming him Yedidyah. The word is formed from the same root as David, that is, "lovely," with the addition of the Divine name. As we have already pointed out, this was no slight matter, but the virtual selection of Solomon to be David’s successor, and probably, therefore, was delayed until he had given indica of his great intellectual gifts. His elder brothers would not be passed over without valid reasons. 2 Samuel 12:26 Joab … took the royal city. As the siege of Rabbah would be conducted by the slow process of blockade, it might easily be prolonged into the second year, and so give ample space for David’s sin and its punishment by the death of the child. But more probably the narrator, having commenced the history of David’s sin, completes the story before returning to his account of the war. Thus the capture of Rabbah would occupy some of the interval between David’s adultery and Nathan’s visit of rebuke, and would lessen the difficulty, which we cannot help feeling, of David remaining for nine or ten months with the guilt of adultery and murder resting upon him, and no open act of repentance. Some short time, then, after Uriah’s death, Joab captured "the city of waters." This is not a poetical name for Rabbah, but means the "water city," that is, the town upon the Jabbok, whence the supply of water was obtained. The citadel, which occupied a high rock on the northwestern side, must, therefore, soon be starved into submission, and the whole of "the royal city," that is, of the metropolis of the Ammonites, be in Joab’s power. He therefore urges David to come in person, both that the honour of the conquest may be his, and also because probably the blockading force had been reduced to as small a body of men as was safe, and the presence of a large army was necessary for completing the subjugation of the country, which would follow upon the capture of the capital. 2 Samuel 12:30 Their king; Hebrew, Malcam. This is another mode of spelling Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, and is found also in Zephaniah 1:5, and probably in Jeremiah 49:1, Jeremiah 49:3; Amos 1:15. Strictly, Milcom or Malcom is a proper name for the supreme deity, formed from the word melec, a king, or, as it was pronounced in other Semitic dialects, Moloch. Grammatically, Malcam also means "their king," and even so belongs to Milcom. For the crown weighed a hundred pounds, a ponderous mass, which no man could possibly bear, and, least of all, when making, as was the case with the Ammonite king, his last stand for his life. But after the capture of the city, it was lifted from the head of the idol, and placed formally upon David’s head, and held there for a few moments, as a sign of victory and of rejoicing over the fall of the false god. There is no reason for supposing that there is any exaggeration in the weight, nor will the Hebrew allow us to understand the talent of gold as referring to its value. 2 Samuel 12:31 The people that were therein. The cruel treatment described in this verse was inflicted, first of all, upon those who had defended Rabbah, now reduced to a small number by the long siege; but David next proceeded through all the cities, that is, the fortified towns of the Ammonites, inflicting similar barbarities. They were confined probably to the fighting men, and most of these would make their escape as soon as resistance became hopeless. The general population would, of course, scatter themselves in every direction, but the misery caused by such a breaking up of civil life, as well as by the cruel bloodshed, must have been terrible. Instead of "he put them in a saw," we find, in 1 Chronicles 20:3, "he sawed them with a saw." This reading differs from what we have here only in one letter, and is plainly right, as the translation, "under saws," "under harrows of iron," etc; found both in the Authorized and Revised Versions, is simply an expedient, tendered necessary by the corruption of the text. If we restore the passage by the help of the parallel place, it runs on thus: "He sawed with a saw, and with threshing sledges of iron, and with cutting instruments of iron." What exactly the second were we do not know, as the word does not occur elsewhere. The Vulgate renders it "wains shod with iron," meaning, apparently, those driven over the corn for threshing purposes, and now driven over these unfortunate people. The barbarity is not more horrible than that of sawing prisoners asunder. He made them pass through the brick kiln. Both the Septuagint and Vulgate have "brick kiln," Hebrew, malban, which the Massorites have adopted, but the Hebrew text has malchan. No commentator has given any satisfactory explanation of what can be meant by making the Ammonites pass through a brick kiln; but Kimchi gives a very probable interpretation of the word really found in the Hebrew, and which, not being intelligible, has been corrupted. For the Malchan was, he says, the place where the Ammonites made their children pass through the fire to Moloch. He thinks, therefore, that David put some of the people to death in this way. We cannot defend these cruelties, but they unhappily were the rule in Oriental warfare, and would have been inflicted on their enemies by the Ammonites. We have proof in l Samuel 1 Chronicles 11:2 and Amos 1:13 that they were a barbarous race; but this did not justify barbarous retaliation. 2 Samuel 12:1-14 The facts are: 1. God sends Nathan the prophet to David, who tells him a story of the greed of a wicked rich man, who, to satisfy his avarice, took away and slew the pot ewe lamb of a poor man. 2. David, accepting the story as a matter of fact, is very angry with this man, and swears that for his deed and lack of compassion he ought to die and restore fourfold. 3. Nathan thereupon reveals the parabolic character of his narrative, by saying unto David, "Thou art the man!" 4. He then proceeds to state (1) the goodness of God to him in anointing him king, in delivering him from Saul, in giving him the royal succession, and in guaranteeing all else that might be needed; (2) his despite to the commands of God—his murder of Uriah, and his taking possession of Uriah’s wife. 5. He also declares, by way of punishment, that war would arise in his own house; that the purity and safety of his domestic life would be invaded; and that the punishment of his secret sin would be open. 6. On David confessing his guilt, Nathan assures him that the Lord had so far put away his sin that he should not die, but that the child of his guilt should. Nathan’s parable. This remarkable parable is, perhaps, the most exquisite Genesis of the kind in the Old Testament. Its beauty and pathos are enhanced by the plain matter of fact way in which the historian narrates, in Genesis 11:1-32; the fall of David and his subsequent crime. Apart from its specific purpose, it indicates to us the occasional functions of the prophets in those times as admonishers of kings and rulers, and consequently as representatives of the Divine element in the history of Israel. The great variety of teaching in this parable may be briefly indicated thus— I. A DOUBLE LIFE. At least ten months had elapsed from the date of David’s fall to the visit of Nathan. During that period many public and private acts had been performed by the king in the ordinary course of life, in addition to those referred to in 2 Samuel 11:14-27. It was his policy to keep up a good appearance—to be in administration, in public worship, in regard for religious ordinances, and in general morality all that he had ever been. He passed still as the pious, just ruler and exemplary man. That was one life. But inwardly there was another. The conscience was dull, or, if it spoke plainly, was constantly being suppressed. The uncomfortableness of secret sin induced self-reproach and loss of self-respect. He was an instance of a man "holding the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). This double life is the experience of every good man who falls into sin and seeks to cover it up. He knows too much to be really happy, but he is too enslaved by his sin to be truly godly. The outside is fair; within is desolation. II. IN SIN. David and Bathsheba shared in a fellowship of sin. They, most probably without words, communed with each other over their guilt, and so far strengthened the chains of iniquity. Two individuals in possession of a dreadful secret do not, dare not, speak about it. There is simply a common understanding and a mutual support in keeping up the appearance necessary to social reputation. It is a pitiable sight before God and holy angels! It is a case of the fallen, the defiled, the inwardly wretched, and the prospectively condemned, seeking to find comfort and strength in each other’s sympathy. The channels of sympathetic feeling are filled by a polluted stream of affection and interest. III. A LOST CHARM. It is well known that a pure disposition and a clear conscience lend a charm to personal life; much more does such deep and strong piety as once characterized the "man after God’s own heart." If we, in reading the historic narrative of David’s early years, and the psalms, in which his best thoughts are embodied, feel the spell of his spirit, we may be sure that those in daily converse with him recognized a charm of the most exalted kind. But all that was now gone, because the honesty and the purity from which it sprang were no more. In vain did he strive to maintain the form of godliness; in vain his careful discharge of official duties and kindly bearing towards his friends. The "secret of the Lord" was lost. The salt had lost its savour. To truly spiritual men he would not be as in former times. This loss of a spiritual charm always takes place when good men fall into sin and cover it up. The light of the spiritual eye is dim. The pure ring of the voice is gone. The "form of godliness" is left, but the "power" is no more. IV. THE DIVINE RESERVE. At least ten months elapsed before Nathan was commissioned by God to speak to David. The lustful look, the secret deed, the scheme for concealment and for the death of Uriah, were allowed to pass and issue in seeming success without one act of a decidedly positive character, as far as we know, on the part of God either to smite with punishment or bring to penitence. The "workers of iniquity" flourished, and the innocent perished unavenged (Psalms 92:7; cf. Psalms 12:5; Proverbs 1:11-19). That conscience uttered its protest, and that the laws of mind as constituted by God worked misery from the first in the inner life of David, is no doubt true; but there was no open justice, no obvious interposition on behalf of the oppressed, no distinct and proportionate chastisement, no special call to repentance. Human nature took its course, and human society remained in relation to the sinner unchanged. Yet God is not indifferent. He slumbereth not. Government does not relax its hold on each man. The explanation is that God is in no haste in what he does; he reserves his action for a while for reasons more complicate and far reaching than we can trace. The very reserve only renders the judgment, when it comes, more impressive. Human nature is evidently favoured as a free power, which must have certain scope both for origination of evil, maturing of evil, and filling up its own measure of chastisement. There is a patience, a goodness, in the reserve which need to be studied (Romans 2:4-9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9, 2 Peter 3:15). This reserve attends many a modern sinner’s cause. V. THE DIVINE OF . Had David been left to himself the probability is that the coils of iniquity would have been formed around him more and more as time advanced; for the law of habit here holds good. It is instructive to observe that the first step towards a change in his condition was on the Divine side. God sent his prophet Nathan, charged with a merciful purpose, though mercy was to be tempered with judgment. Certainly David might well say in days subsequent, "My salvation cometh from him" (Psalms 62:1, Psalms 62:7). Here we have an illustration of the great truth that God is the Author of our salvation. He seeks us. He comes to us in our low estate. This is true of mankind as a whole (John 3:16, John 3:17; 1 John 4:9, 1 John 4:10), of each one brought from the ways of sin (1 John 4:19), and of the backslider (Psalms 23:3). It is all of grace. Our Saviour’s earthly life of pleading and seeking was a visible and audible illustration of the outgoing of the heart of the Father towards the fallen. VI. THE OF . The elaborate simplicity of Nathan’s parable, in order to reach the conscience and heart of David, suggest to us the fact of a certain defensive attitude of David’s mind, which had to be broken down. It is a special weapon in a "holy war," designed to attack a peculiar line of defence. It is well known how men, when they have done a wrong, are on the qui vive lest the wrong should be detected and brought home to them; and the resources of reason, ingenuity, and cunning are employed to ward off any approach to the inner life. Any attempt to touch the springs of penitence or remorse, or to arouse the fears which attend conviction, is neutralized by some counter move of thought or resolve. Hearers of the gospel knows if they would only testify honestly, how they too often fortify themselves against statements, arguments, and appeals. The failure of some ministers and teachers lies in their not knowing enough of human nature to direct their statements so as to meet the actual mental attitude of those who live in sin. A study of this subject is of extreme importance to all who seek to convince and to save men. There are various avenues to the conscience and heart. Some are so utterly closed and guarded that it is a waste of power to seek to penetrate through them. A fortress should be attacked in its weakest point, and only a very special survey can find out where it is. Nathan had reconnoitred the position, and assailed David along the best line. VII. THE USE OF THE GOOD ELEMENT IN MAN. Nathan approached David in friendliness, recognizing him as a man generally mindful of his people, pitiful towards the poor and weak, and a lover of justice. He knew that there were still elements of good in the fallen saint. The great transgression had not obliterated all trace of the noble qualities of former days. Where these did not come in the way of the one selfish lust which had for the time gained dominion, they were not only cherished, but were at hand for expression when occasion required. In proportion as these could be strengthened and utilized, there would be hope of bringing them to bear, by a reflected light, on the one deed in which they had been suppressed. By a flank movement, and using a piece of history as the instrument, he hoped to turn the whole force of David’s better qualities on the cherished secret sin. It was an instance of a wise setting of one part of a man’s nature against another part, so that, by a sort. of moral dynamic, the worse should be forced out. In dealing with men we ought to avail ourselves of their good qualities and bring them to bear on the removal of the bad. When Christ dealt with publicans and sinners he did not make a direct attack on their sins. There was a something in them which he made the ground of appeal. In the vilest sinner there is some human love, or kindliness, or sense of right. Who is wise to win souls? What are the methods, according to varying temperaments, education, habits, and indulgences? VIII. GOD’S BY . History is a mental reflector. In Nathan’s story, which was not a parable to David when he heard it, David saw a sin and a judgment. He was true to his better qualities when he denounced the sin and pronounced sentence of death. The story became to David a parable the moment the prophet said to him, "Thou art the man!" The whole figures then become specific, and he was the one most conspicuous against whom the judgment was pronounced. The psychological and moral changes involved in this we cannot now deal with; the point is that, when David’s aroused righteous indignation pronounced judgment on the evil man, the human conscience really forestalled the judgment of God on David’s sin by declaring its deserts. God does not, in providence or on the day of judgment, declare anything really new to the impenitent sinner. Conscience some time or other has virtually given the sentence of condemnation. Those who worked themselves up to a state of self-delusion (Matthew 7:22, Matthew 7:23) knew a time when the conscience witnessed against the formalities which issued in its being seared (Ephesians 4:19; 1 Timothy 4:2). It is this assent of conscience which will render the sense of injustice impossible in the future judgments God may see fit to bring on those who "hold the truth in unrighteousness." GENERAL LESSONS. 1. We should take warning from the instances in the Bible, and not presume on God’s silence, or think that, because we are left to pursue our own courses, it will always be so. 2. There are always in existence agents or agencies by which in due time sin will be rebuked and exposed either in this life or in the life to come (Matthew 10:26; 2 Corinthians 5:10). 3. In dealing with the lapsed we should not act on the same rule in all cases, but deal with each according to his peculiar character. 4. It will repay parents, teachers, and evangelists to study human nature and the records of biography and sacred history to find out the best methods of reaching the conscience of the impenitent. 5. We should be ready, as was Nathan, to carry through the most painful duties when God calls us in his providence to them. The convicted sinner. The fitness of the parable is revealed in its sequel. Nathan, laying aside the character of a friendly visitor relating a story of wrong, now assumes the functions of the prophet of God, and turns the whole light and force of David’s just indignation in upon himself, and, with an incisiveness most irresistible, brings an accusation of guilt without naming the actual deed done; states the aggravating circumstances arising out of the exceeding goodness of God in the past; declares the retribution about to come; and, on witnessing the true penitence of the sinner, announces the fact of forgiveness, but qualifies the announcement by foretelling an event of blended justice and mercy. The commission of sin is unhappily common enough, and also, we may thankfully admit, the conviction of sinners is an event of frequent occurrence. Few sins exhibit the peculiar aggravations of this one of David, and few convictions are more sudden and thorough than his; but as there are common qualities in all sins and true convictions of sin, we may regard this case of David’s as setting forth features in human experience and Divine procedure universally true. I. THE FACT OF SIN IS BROUGHT HOME TO THE . David all along knew of the existence of the sin, but had conducted himself as though it were not. In general terms he would doubtless speak of sin as an evil of deepest dye, and desire its banishment from mankind. Such sentiments were at the base of his deep interest in Nathan’s story, and gave rise to the outburst of indignation. Sin was evil, the sinner ought to be punished, the doer of this deed must come under the ban of law. All this was quite correct. It was orthodoxy. The friendly visitor could not but admit its force. But it was just here, when David was dealing with generalities, and was eager to see general principles applied to a particular case, that Nathan brought him away from the general to the particular, from others to himself. "Thou art the man!" This was a straight charge. Nathan held a twofold position—he was a man in Israel, a subject and neighbour, a pious friend of David’s; he was also a prophet, a representative of God, and in that capacity a superior to David. When, then, the friendly visitor said, with an unrecordable tone and gesture, "Thou art the man!" it was evident to David (1) that his deed, long kept secret, was known to his most influential and incorruptible subject and friend; and (2) that God was speaking straight to his conscience. Even so far as related to Nathan as a good man in Israel, the revelation of his acquaintance with the deed was startling and astounding; but the most potent element in the utterance was the direct charge of God. A sinner cannot look on the Holy One—he dare not. The conscience knows the awful voice of God, and, when that voice speaks straight to it, all thought of men and opinions vanishes, and the soul in its solemn individuality feels itself in the actual presence of the Eternal. In true conviction the man "comes to himself." The deed of evil is brought home. In a light not of earth, self is seen to be undone, because the sin, hitherto professedly not a reality, is now forced on self as its own offspring. II. THE OF SIN IS SET FORTH. As soon as the charge is brought home, and before the paralyzed man can speak, the prophet, in the name of God, with swift words reminds him of his privileges and the manifold blessings and honours God had showered on him or was ready to grant if needed. He was a chosen servant of the Eternal, called to perform a part in the working out of a great future for the world; he had filled a position of honour and influence; he had been charged with high and holy duties; he had been blessed with plenty, and more than ordinary provision for the necessary cravings of nature (2 Samuel 11:7, 2 Samuel 11:8). Yet, "Thou art the man!" None can doubt that here was sin of the most aggravated character. No sin is excusable or free from Divine condemnation; otherwise it were not sin, but weakness or fault. But some sins are worthy of being punished with "many stripes" because of being committed under special circumstances, e.g. the possession of religious light and feeling; the occupation of a position of power, and the being recipient of manifold tokens of Divine care and love. But be the privileges many or few, when God brings home the guilt to the conscience, the sin is revealed in the light of past mercies. The swift review of David’s advantages by Nathan finds its analogue in the swift floating before the mind of the circumstances of one’s position which render the sin so utterly inexcusable. Men see in a few moments the reasons for their utter shame and self-abasement. This is a feature in all true conviction, and tends to the proper prostration of the soul before God. Saul of Tarsus knew this. It is an unspeakable mercy that God does set our sins in the light of his great goodness. III. THE HEART IS PROBED TO REVEAL THE CAUSE OF SIN. "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord?" (2 Samuel 11:9). No sooner did the light flash on the conscience to set forth the aggravated character of the sin, than with unrelenting incisiveness the "wherefore" followed to probe those depths of the heart from whence the evil sprang. The question really contains an inquiry and a statement. Why? "Thou didst despise." The eye of the sinner is turned in upon himself, to search out and behold those vile feelings and false principles out of which issued the preference of self-will over the holy will of God, which had been so clearly expressed in the Law of the Lord and in the special intimations of Providence. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" The time of conviction is a time of probing and searching. It is well for men under conviction to face the real facts, and get at the causes that lie out of sight. There must be some dreadfully subtle evils lurking within to induce a man to "despise" the august majesty of God’s will by setting it aside. Was it not in reference to this probing, and probably in reference to this very deed, that the psalmist said, "Search me, O God" (Psalms 139:23; cf. Psalms 51:5, Psalms 51:6, Psalms 51:10)? IV. THE OF SIN IS BROUGHT TO MIND. The prophet ceases not; without giving the convicted man time to speak, he passes on to tell of the retribution that is sure to come by the will of God. The man of whom Nathan once spoke such good things (2 Samuel 7:12-17) is now informed of coming trouble in life; that this trouble will be the same in kind with that of his sin—murder and adultery; that it will not be secret, as was his, in performance, but open, to his disgrace; that it will arise out of his own house, consequent in a measure on the mischief wrought by his own sin on his domestic life. Had David not fallen, he would have been a different man, and consequently his private influence at home among his children would have been more holy and powerful; his relation to his kingdom would have been more satisfactory, and therefore moral and political circumstances would probably, arise of so important a character as to have prevented the creation of the conditions out of which the troubles now recorded in his later history arose. He was to reap according to his sowing. In the conviction of sin, the recognition of personal guilt is the chief element, as we have seen (division I.); but just as here the messenger revealed the aggravation of the guilt, probed the heart for causes, and referred to coming retribution, so in the simple processes of mind attending true conviction there is an anticipation of punishment—an assurance that evil is coming on the soul as a consequence of sin done. Sin is transgression of law; law involves authority to vindicate its righteousness; and, as soon as the conviction of sin is real, the logic of conscience points to coming judgment. Whether it be a temporal judgment, as in Old Testament references, or eternal, as in New Testament references, the experience is virtually the same. V. THE OF GUILT IS . The guilty king sat in silence till the prophet had delivered his charge. The time was brief, but the power accompanying the words was Divine. Swifter than lightning the spell of hypocritical concealment was broken. The bonds in which the unholy passion had long held the soul were snapped asunder. The eye of conscience, turning in upon self, gave fresh life to the old suppressed loyalty to righteousness and God, and, as a consequence, the confession came, "I have sinned against the Lord." The question as to whether the historian here simply gives a summary of what passed, and intended to include also the fifty-first psalm, or whether literally this is all that was said and done, does not affect our purpose. There is here a recognition prompt, unqualified, of sin, not as a fault, a weakness, but of sin as known by conscience and stamped with the curse of God and man. It is also a recognition of sin as against God, not as a wrong done to Uriah, Bathsheba, or Israel, or his own family. The conscience is not indifferent to the injuries done to men, but when fully aroused, and face to face with sin as sin, it seems to see only God. Hence the expression in Psalms 51:4. Again, there is pain and shame, not because of what men may say or do, not because personal influence will now be weakened, but because it is sin. It is the sin which troubles and appals the truly convicted soul. Moreover, there is abstention from all claim to consideration; no excuse, no palliation. The convicted one can only say, "I have sinned." There is obviously an inward bowing of the spirit before the holy God; an absolute surrender as undone, condemned, helpless, lost. The very brevity of the confession bespeaks the depth of penitential woe. Contrast the wordy confession (1 Samuel 15:17-25; cf. Luke 15:18, Luke 15:19; Luke 18:13). VI. IS FREE, FULL, BUT . How long Nathan stood by the prostrate silent king, and whether this confession was the literal whole or not, we do not know; but he saw enough to enable him to say in the name of God, "The Lord bath put away thy sin"—a statement clear and unreserved, intended to go home to the smitten heart. The forgiveness of sin has to do with a personal relation of God to man. It is the restoration of the personal relation of favour and fellowship which had been inter rupted by sin. It is conditional on true repentance, the objective ground being the sacrificial death of Christ—under the Old Testament dispensation by anticipation (Romans 3:25), and under the New by retrospective reference. God is the sole Judge of the reality of repentance. He looketh at the heart. He knew that David’s conviction had issued in the state’ of mind known as true repentance, and foreseeing this before it occurred, he commissioned the prophet to "declare and pronounce" to David "being penitent," the remission of his sin. "Thy sins are forgiven thee!" Blessed words! How often brought to penitents since our Lord uttered them! But the pardon left untouched the natural consequences of sin referred to in Psalms 51:19, 20, because a personal relation does not alter the course of the forces which a man sets in motion on earth by his sin. Also, the child born must die, not to its injury, but gain, yet in judgment, so that the father should not find comfort in the fruit of his sin, and in mercy, lest there should be a living memorial of his guilt and shame to which men might point and further blaspheme the Name of the Lord. The same holds good of our forgiveness; it is free, full, but qualified by the continuance of some ill consequences which chastise us all our days. The sinner never entirely gets rid of all the earthly effects of his sin while on earth; they work in his flow of thought and feeling, and often in the checks on his influence, and possibly on the character and health of others. The full redemption comes with the glorified body and the new heavens and earth. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. The first thing to be sought in men in order to their salvation is a due recognition of themselves as sinners in the sight of God. A general recognition of the evil of sin as distinct from consciousness of personal guilt may really be a cover for unpardoned sin. 2. The tendency and drift of God’s messages to men living in sin is to bring them to a right mind in reference to their personal position in his sight, as a preliminary to their seeking forgiveness. 3. Much will be found to depend, in respect to religious views and action, on the apprehension men have of what Sin really is and their own guilt. A prepared state of mind is necessary to get good out of gospel statements. 4. The Christian religion especially lays stress on intense individuality in our relationships to God and to good and evil, and aims to bring us to a true self-knowledge. 5. It is an astonishing illustration of the tremendous power of our lower tendencies that they may even gain ascendency over men of most exalted privileges and whose very position would suggest superiority to them. 6. It behoves Christian people living in the enjoyment of many advantages to consider well their conduct in comparison with that of others less favoured. 7. The essence of sin abides in all times, though the form may vary; for as Adam preferred the suggestion of the evil one and so despised the word of the Lord, so did David; and on this method did Satan seek to win over Christ in the wilderness. 8. It is of extreme importance to remember that we may carry about with us deep laid and subtle tendencies which may assert their power in an unguarded hour; and hence we should often probe our heart, and search and see by the help of God whether there be any evil way within us. 9. It should operate as a deterrent to know that our sins will entail unavoidable social and physical troubles as long as life lasts. 10. We are authorized in speaking to the truly penitent of the free and full forgiveness which God has in store for them, and which through his abounding grace they may have at once. 11. In the fuller sense of the words it may be declared to the penitent that they shall not die (John 3:16). 12. The evil deeds of professors are a stumbling block to other men, and give occasion to them to blaspheme, and as this must be a most bitter element in the life of the restored backslider, so it is a warning to all Christians to take heed lest they fall, and so bring occasion for reproach on the Name which is above every name. 2 Samuel 12:15-31 The facts are: 1. The child born to David becoming very sick, he entreats God for its life by prayer and fasting. 2. He persists in refusing the consolations which the elders of his household offer him. 3. The child dying on the seventh day and David observing the whisperings of his servants, at once ascertains by direct inquiry the certainty of it. 4. His servants noticing that, on ascertaining the fact of the child’s death, he lays aside the tokens of grief and resumes his wonted manner, are amazed at his conduct. 5. Whereupon he justifies his conduct, and intimates his expectation of some day going to the child. 6. Bathsheba is comforted by David, and bears to him another son, Solomon. 7. Joab, carrying on war against Rabbah of the Ammonites, and being about to bring the war to a conclusion, urges on David that he should come and enjoy the honour of taking the city. 8. David, complying with this request, takes possession of Babbah, and acquires the king’s crown with much spoil. 9. He completes his conquest of the Ammonites by causing some of them to endure great sufferings. Providence and natural affection. The mercy of God to David was immediate, and it continued throughout his life; the judgment with which it was tempered was chiefly to come in days hence, but it began in the severe sickness of Bathsheba’s child. It is not an unusual thing for a father to have to face the loss of an infant; in such cases natural affection will manifest itself in unmistakable forms. The extraordinary way in which David’s feelings were excited by the apprehended death of this child is to be accounted for by reasons springing out of the peculiar circumstances of his position. These will appear as we proceed to consider the struggle between natural affection and the order of Providence. I. THERE IS A CERTAIN IN THE OF NATURAL AGAINST WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE OF GOD. The declaration of the prophet (2 Samuel 12:14), that the child should die, was accepted by David as an ordination of God, and the severe sickness which came on soon after Nathan’s departure was interpreted by the king as the first stage in the execution of it. But David was not conscious of a rebellious spirit in the exhibition of such distress, and in such earnest entreaty that the intended cause of providential judgment might be averted. Human affection is as much a part of the order of Nature as is the law of gravity, and its spontaneous action is as natural as is the falling of a weight to the earth. Affection is nothing if it does not feel. There is no law requiring it to be annihilated, if that were possible, in presence of the inevitable. To the pious Hebrew all charges in nature were brought about by God; they were the outcome of his will, as surely as would be the death of this child according to the word of the prophet. Divine ordinations were silent and spoken. Yet the silent ordinations in daily providence were modified by prayer and to meet new conditions; and why, then, might not this spoken one be modified at the entreaty of an agonized parent? As a father, he could not help thinking of this infant as a severe sufferer in being deprived of the blessing of life through no fault of its own. If spared, the child might be a perpetual memorial of befitting sorrow and shame, and so would help to keep him lowly and penitent. Nor could he but feel for the poor woman cruelly sinned against, and whose grief would be consequent on her husband’s sin. Moreover, precedents were not wanting in the case Of Abraham (Genesis 18:20-33) and of Moses (Exodus 32:30-35), in which men pleaded against what seemed to be inevitable. Subsequent to David’s time, we know that men were permitted to pray against the apparently inevitable (Joe 2:12-14). Our Saviour gave utterance to human sensibility when he prayed that, if possible, the cup might pass from him. God has never expressed displeasure at the utterance of the sorrows which spring from natural affection, for feelings often struggle thus with the course of providence. Stoicism has no place in Christianity. The physical order is subordinate to the moral. II. INTENSE FEELING IS WHERE OUR SINS HAVE TO DO WITH THE . The intensity of David’s anguish arose, not from the fact that he was a father, but from the knowledge he had that the providence that was bringing death to his child was connected with his own sin. That another should suffer for his sin, and this other a little child, was indeed a bitter reason for pleading with God. Although the course of providence, which connects the suffering of offspring with the sins of parents, is in the widest moral bearings of the fact, both just and merciful, yet it is not always seen to be so. Nevertheless, the great anguish of the evil doer on that account is not a protest so much as a lament over his own sin, and a prayer that, if possible, this organic issue of sin may, by some intervention, be prevented or modified. The educational value of that feeling on the life of a repentant sinner is of great worth in itself, and really leads to the formation of a character that shall, in the order of providence, do much to lessen the evils that otherwise would arise. III. THE RESORT OF NATURAL WHEN AGAINST THE ORDER OF IS TO GOD. A great change had recently come over David. The alienation of the backsliding heart was gone. As of old, so he now brings his sorrows and troubles to his God. The overwhelmed heart flies to the Rock that is high. He sits not with the scornful, mocking at the ways of Providence, and seeing evil where only there is mysterious judgment. The best and tenderest feelings of human nature, where sanctified by the spirit of piety, turn instinctively to God for help, and they find prayer as the form in Which their yearnings are expressed. Some men fancy that they only see and feel the apparent severities of the providential order, and that sullen vexation and displeasure ate the only appropriate conditions of mind in relation to it. Christians see and feel quite as much, but their bruised spirit finds refuge in him who ordains all in justice and mercy, and implores him, so far as may be wise and good, to let the penitent, entreating heart count for something among the elements which determine the ultimate issues. IV. WHEN THE COURSE OF IS FOUND TO BE , NATURAL IS TO THE HIGHER OF IN THE WILL OF GOD. David was right in feeling as he did, in expressing his feeling in earnest prayer, in waiting as long as there was hope of reversal of the sentence. He acted as a father, as a husband, as a penitent. But when once the human desire and human view of wisdom and kindness were proved, by accomplished fact, not to be in accord with Divine wisdom, then, as became a trustful, restored child of God, David ceased to plead and to be in anguish. "Not my will, bat thine be done!" was the spirit of his action. It was his duty and privilege now to rest in the Lord, and believe that he will bring to pass the kindest and wisest issue. The death of the child is accepted as the best thing, and the evils once supposed to issue from the event are now believed to be qualified by a love which maketh all things work together for good. It is the sign of an enlightened mind when a man can thus rise from his griefs, and conform his mental and moral-and social life to the unalterable will of God. It takes time for a good man to recover from the natural, and, therefore, reasonable, outflow of his feelings; but when he does recover, he retains all the sanctity and softening influence of his anguish in combination with a calm spirit, concerned now in ministering to the consolation of others (2 Samuel 12:24), and cheered by the hope of a time when the breaches caused by sin will be healed (2 Samuel 12:23). GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It becomes us to regard all death in our homes as connected with sin, and we should always give due weight to its moral causes in our consideration of the course of providence. 2. There may exist high moral reasons why intense earnestness in prayer is not always successful; and yet it may be true that God does answer fervent prayer. 3. Men not familiar with the secret life of a Christian are not in a position to understand his conduct on special occasions, just as David’s servants could not understand his conduct in relation to the death of the child. 4. We should avail ourselves of such light concerning the future as may be vouchsafed, in order to obtain consolation amidst the bereavements of life (2 Samuel 12:23). 5. The doctrine of recognition in heaven is certainly in accord with sanctified instincts, and may be held as variously hinted at in Scripture (2 Samuel 12:23; cf. Matthew 17:3, Matthew 17:4; 1 Thessalonians 2:19). Tokens of restoration. In 2 Samuel 12:23, 2 Samuel 12:24 we have two statements which incidentally reveal the reality and completeness of the restoration of the fallen king to the favour and care of God. (1) The name (Solomon) given by himself, probably at circumcision, to his son; (2) the name (Jedidiah) which the prophet was instructed to give to the son, not as a substitute, but as a supplement. The one indicated David’s sense of peace with God and in himself, the other God’s abiding favour. Here, then, we may observe— I. THAT TO GOD AFTER A FALL IS A REALITY. It is not a state rendered problematical by the observance of conditions extending over a long period. David was at peace with God, and God did regard him with unqualified favour. Old things had passed away—the displeasure of God, the fear and apprehension of the man; the relation of complacent delight and tender care on the one side, and filial love and trust on the other, was now complete. It is important to keep this truth clear. It is bound up with the great doctrine of justification. God once accepting and forgiving a sinner becomes and remains to him a gracious God, forgetting all the past and cherishing only love and tender interest. It is a misreading of the gospel, and implies an ignorance of the most blessed Christian experience to imagine that a really forgiven one is kept in suspense and dread, or that God is holding back the fulness of his favour till we have repented a little more, or more fully perfected our general life. We are accepted in Christ. When he "restoreth" our "soul" (Psalms 23:3), it is actual, not possible, germinal restoration. II. THAT THE TOKENS OF VARY TO , The inward token in David’s case was the assured peace of a conscience purged by the grace of God (Psalms 51:7-10, Psalms 51:12), which came in answer to his penitential cry. The outward token was the life of another child, the peaceful order of the kingdom, and especially this welcome message of the prophet (2 Samuel 12:25). The reality of restoration was known as soon as the almighty word of pardon was spoken, the confirmatory signs of it—to strengthen the heart and ward off subtle temptations of the evil one-came in process of time. No doubt fallen Peter found pardon during the dark night of his penitence; but the outward token, which was also an instruction to the other disciples not to distrust and shun him, came in the gracious message of the angel of the Lord, "Tell his disciples, and Peter" (Mark 16:7), and again in the exhortation and encouragement given in the presence of those who might otherwise have distrusted him, "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). The ordinary sign of full restoration is in the "witness of the Spirit" (Romans 8:14-16), and the outward care and blessing vouchsafed to our work of faith and labour of love (John 15:7, John 15:8). God will be sure to give his people some "token for good" (Psalms 86:17). III. THAT SIGNS OF GOD’S FAVOUR SHOULD BE GIVEN IS AN OF HIS FOR HIS PEOPLE. There is something truly wonderful in this grace shown to David. Not only is he forgiven and treated in all things spiritual as though he had not sinned; not only permitted to reign over Israel, and enter into close, though it may be very subdued, fellowship with God; but God goes, as it were, out of the ordinary course of providence, and sends a messenger to give him, in this other name for his child, a special sign of full restoration. Thus the occasional doubts suggested by the evil one, the possible distrust of the prophet in Israel and those under him, and the sneers of the profane, are all anticipated by the love that slumbers not and that cares most tenderly and minutely for all the need of the reconciled ones. "How excellent is thy loving kindness, O God!" (Psalms 36:7); "He is rich in mercy, and plenteous in redemption." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 13:1 After this. This phrase, as we have seen on 2 Samuel 10:1, has little chronological force, but the date of the sad event which formed the second stage in David’s punishment can be settled with considerable certainty. Tamar was the daughter of Maacah, a princess of Geshur, and David’s marriage with her, while still at Hebron, is mentioned as a proof of his growing power, and consequently some time must have elapsed after his appointment as king before this alliance took place. As Absalom was apparently older than Tamar, if she were now fifteen or sixteen years of age. David would have been king of all Israel at least thirteen or fourteen years, and would have reached the summit of his glory. His wars would be over, Rabbah captured, and his empire firmly established. For twenty more years he must sit upon his throne, but as a culprit, and bear the many sorrows resulting from his sin. Amnon was David’s firstborn, the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel; and probably he would never have committed his shameless crime had not David’s own sin loosed the bonds of parental authority. As it was, he hesitated, but was encouraged to it by his cousin, who was too subtle a man not to weigh David’s character well before coming to the conclusion that Amnon might safely gratify his lusts. The name Tamar means "palm tree," and both she and Absalom were remarkable for their personal beauty. 2 Samuel 13:2 Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick. The Hebrew literally is, and it was narrow to Amnon, even to becoming sick. To an Oriental a feeling of narrowness means distress, while in joy there is a sense of largeness and expansion. Our words for distress have lost this picturesque force. That Amnon thought it hard does not mean that he had any feeling for his sister’s disgrace, but that he knew that his attempt was difficult. He did not see how he could get Tamar into his power, and feared the consequences. The wives had each her own dwelling, and the daughters were kept in strict seclusion. 2 Samuel 13:3 Jonadab, the son of Shimeah. He is called Shammah in 1 Samuel 16:9, and is there described as Jesse’s third son. A brother of Jonadab, named Jonathan, is mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:21 as a valiant soldier who slew one of the Philistine giants. Subtil is not used in a bad sense, but means clever, ready in devising means. 2 Samuel 13:4 Why art thou, being the king’s son, lean? The Hebrew is, Why, O son of the king, dost thou pine away morning by morning? There was probably a gathering of friends every morning at the young prince’s house, and his cousin, attending this levee, noticed Amnon’s melancholy, and, having forced a confession from him, is unscrupulous enough to suggest a plan that would make Tamar her brother’s victim. 2 Samuel 13:5 When thy father cometh to see thee. While the daughters lived in Oriental seclusion in the dwellings of their mothers, the sons seem to have had separate apartments assigned them in the palace. And David evidently was an affectionate father, who even went to the abodes of his sons in a loving and unceremonious way, to see how they fared. But Jonadab abused the king’s affection, and made it the very means of removing the obstacles in the way of his daughter’s disgrace. And like the whole tribe of flatterers and time servers, he employed his cleverness to gratify his patron’s momentary passion, indifferent to the miserable consequences which must inevitably follow. For the least punishment which Amnon would have to bear would be exclusion from the succession to the crown, besides disgrace and his father’s anger. Absalom, who was three or four years younger than Ashen, he despised, and counted for nothing. 2 Samuel 13:9 She took a pan. Many of the words are difficult because, being the names of ordinary domestic articles, they do not occur in literature. A man may be a good French scholar, and yet find it difficult in France to ask for things in common use. Here the Syriac is probably right in understanding, not a pan, but the delicacy Tamar had been cooking. In 2 Samuel 13:8 the word rendered "flour" is certainly "dough," and is so rendered in the Revised Version. The cakes were a kind of pancake, fitted to tempt the appetite of a sickly person. The picture is a very interesting one: the palace parcelled out into separate dwellings; the king kindly visiting all; the girls on friendly terms with their brothers, yet not allowed to go to their rooms without special permission; and finally Tamar’s skill in cookery—an accomplishment by no means despised in an Oriental menage, or thought unworthy of a king’s daughter. 2 Samuel 13:12 Do not force me; literally, do not humble me. It is to be regretted that the word should be changed, as it bears testimony to the nobleness of the Hebrew women, who regarded their chastity as their crown of honour. The word folly is used in the sense of unchastity in Genesis 34:7 and elsewhere, and it is noteworthy that the Jews thus connected crime with stupidity. Vain, that is, empty persons were the criminal part of the population (Judges 9:4), and to call a man "a fool" was to attribute to him every possible kind of wickedness (Matthew 5:22). The thought which lay at the root of this view of sin was that Israel was a peculiar people, sanctified to God’s service; and all unholiness, therefore, was not merely criminal in itself, but a proof that the guilty person was incapable of rightly estimating his privileges. Tamar urges this upon her "empty" brother, and then pathetically dwells upon their mutual shame, and, finding all in vain, she even suggests that the king might permit their marriage. Such marriages, between half-brothers and half-sisters were strictly forbidden, as tending to loosen the bends of family purity (Le Genesis 18:9; Deuteronomy 27:22); but possibly the Levitical code was occasionally violated, or Tamar may have suggested it in the hope of escaping immediate violence. 2 Samuel 13:15 Anmon hated her exceedingly. Ashen had not really ever loved Tamar; his passion had been mere animal desire, which, by a well known psychological law, when gratified turned to hatred. Had he possessed any dignity of character or self-respect, he would have resisted this double wrong to one so near to him, and whom he had so terribly disgraced; but he can only remember the indignant words she had spoken—her comparison of him to "the fools in Israel," and her obstinate resistance to his wishes. With coarse violence he orders her away; and when, humbled and heartbroken, she begs for milder treatment, he adds insult to the wrong, and bids his manservant push her out, am! belt the door after her. By such an order the manservant and all Amnon’s people would be led to believe that she was the guilty person, and Ashen the victim of her enticements. 2 Samuel 13:16 There is no cause. This is certainly not a possible translation of the Hebrew, which is probably corrupt; and though Tamar’s words may have been broken and hysterical, we cannot suppose that the narrator intended to represent her sobs. The text is rendered by Philippsohn, "And she said to him respecting the evil deed, Greater is this than the other." Similarly Cahen renders it, "au sujet de ce mal." Flat as this is, no better rendering is possible; but the Vatican copy of the Septuagint has a reading which suggests the line of probable emendation: "Nay, my brother, this evil is greater than the other." It was greater because it east the reproach upon her, refused her the solace of his affection, and made her feel that she had been humbled, not because he loved her, but for mere phantasy. He has had his will, and, careless of her sorrow, he scuds her contemptuously away, indifferent to the wrong he has done her, and piqued and mortified at her indignant resistance. However much we may disapprove of Absalom’s conduct, Amnon richly deserved his punishment. 2 Samuel 13:18 A garment of divers colours. This was probably a long tunic with sleeves, so woven as for the colours to form patterns like those of the Scottish tartans (see on Genesis 37:3). The next sentence is probably a note, which has crept from the margin into the text, and which literally is, "For so king’s daughters, while unmarried, wore over mantles" (me’ils; see note on 1 Samuel 2:19). Both the Authorized Version and the Revised Version so render as if the coloured chetoneth and the me’il were the same; but the meaning of the note rather is to guard against the supposition that the princess, while wearing the close-fitting long tunic with sleeves, had dispensed with the comely mantle. It is, indeed, possible that, while busy in cooking, she had laid the me’il by, and now rushed away without it. But it was the tunic with its bright colours which made both Amnon’s servitor and also the people aware that she was one of the king’s daughters. 2 Samuel 13:19 Tamar put ashes. There was no concealment of her wrong, but, thrust out of the inner chamber into which Amnon had enticed her (2 Samuel 13:10), she cast ashes upon her head from the very fire which she had just used in cooking, and, rending her garment, hastened away with her hand on her head, and with cries of lamentation. If David had foreseen this sad sight when giving way to his passion for Bathsheba, he would have felt that sin is indeed "folly," and that its pleasure is followed by shame and bitter anguish. 2 Samuel 13:20 Hath Amnon? The Hebrew has Aminon, a diminutive, which some authorities regard as expressive of contempt. More probably it is an accidental variety of spelling. Hold now thy peace. We must not suppose that Absalom did not comfort his sister, and make her conscious of his love. He was, in fact, so indignant at her treatment as to have purposed the sternest vengeance. But this he concealed from her, and counselled patience, net merely because she would have dissuaded him from a course so full of danger to himself, but because it was the duty of both to wait and see what course David would take. Where polygamy is permitted, it is the duty especially of the brothers to defend their sisters’ honour (Genesis 34:31). But David was both her father and the chief magistrate; and, moreover, he had been made an instrument in his daughter’s wrong. They must be patient, and only if David failed in his duty would Absalom’s turn come. Meanwhile, Tamar dwelt in his house desolate, as one whose honour and happiness had been laid waste. 2 Samuel 13:21 David … was very wroth. The legal punishment for Amnon’s crime was "the being cut off in the sight of the people" (Leviticus 2 Samuel 20:17). But how could David, who had himself committed crimes for which death was the appointed penalty, carry out the law against his firstborn for following his example? Still, he might have done more than merely give Amnon words of reproof. Eli had done as much, and been punished with the death of his sons for his neglect of duty (1 Samuel 2:34). The sin of David’s son had been even more heartless than theirs; and could David hope to escape the like penalty? It would have been wise to have given proof that his repentance included the suppression of the crime to which his previous conduct had given encouragement. But David was a man whose conduct was generally governed by his feelings. He was a creature of warm and often generous impulse, but his character lacked the steadiness of thoughtful and consistent purpose. 2 Samuel 13:22 Absalom spake …neither good nor bad. (On this phrase, see Genesis 24:50; Genesis 31:24.) Absalom’s outward demeanour was one of utter indifference, concealing a cruel determination. It is strange how unlike the son was to the father. 2 Samuel 13:23 Absalom had sheep shearers in Baal-hazor. The sheep shearing was a usual occasion for feasting and holiday keeping (see 1 Samuel 25:2, 1 Samuel 25:8). Baal-hazor was apparently the name of Absalom’s estate, situated near the town Ephraim (2 Chronicles 13:19), which, according to Eusebius, lay about eight miles north of Jerusalem. As Ephraim was near the wilderness of Judah, it was probably the same town as that to which our Lord withdrew (John 11:54). The phrase beside, literally, near, Ephraim, shows that it must be the town, and not the tribal territory, which is here meant. Two full years; Hebrew, years of days. 2 Samuel 13:25 But blessed him. These words, in the courtly language of the East, not only mean that David parted from Absalom with kindly feelings and good wishes, but that he made him a rich present (see note on 1 Samuel 25:27, where the same word occurs; and observe the nature of Abigail’s blessing described there). David’s court had evidently become lavish, when thus a visit from him to his son’s farm would be too costly for the young prince’s means; but had he so increased his present as to have made it reasonable for himself and his chief officers to go, Absalom must have deferred his crime. As it was, the invitation put David off his guard, and, forgetting the fatal consequences of his good nature in permitting Tamar’s visit to Amnon, he allowed his sons to go to the festival. Nor must we blame him for his compliance. He had probably at first been full of anxiety as to the course Absalom might pursue, but his silence and forbearance made him suppose that Tamar’s wrong had not caused her brother any deep sorrow. Himself a man of warm feelings, he had expected an immediate outburst of anger, but such stern rancour persevered in for so long a time with such feline calmness of manner was beyond the range of his suspicions; and the invitation, first to himself and then to all his sons, made him suppose that Absalom had nothing but affectionate feelings toward them all. 2 Samuel 13:28 Smite Amnon. The order was given before the banquet began, and every arrangement made to render the attack successful. Though Tamar’s wrong was the mainspring of Absalom’s conduct, yet neither he nor his men would forget that Amnon stood between him and the crown; and Amnon, entirely off his guard, never very wise at his best, and with his senses made dull by wine, seems to have fallen an easy prey. And as soon as the murder was committed, the rest of the king’s sons, though all had attendants with them, fled in dismay, not knowing what might be the extent of Absalom’s purpose. It is said that they fled on mules, this being the first place in which this animal is mentioned, as the word so translated in Genesis 36:24 really means "hot springs," and is so translated in the Revised Version. The breeding of hybrids was forbidden in Le Genesis 19:19, and probably they were procured, as were horses, by trade. Up to this time the ass had been used for riding; but now David had a favourite mule (1 Kings 1:33), and Solomon received mules as tribute (1 Kings 10:25). Horses seem to have been used chiefly for chariots. 2 Samuel 13:30 Tidings came. Some of the servants seem to have fled immediately that the attack was made, and in their terror reported, not what had really happened, but what they assumed was Absalom’s purpose. It shows, however, how thoroughly Absalom had dissembled when thus they entirely forgot that he had a grudge against Amnon. And David, in utter misery, tears his robes, and throws himself prostrate on the ground, while his courtiers, with rent garments, stand speechless round him. But the guilty Jonadab guesses more correctly the truth. He had probably watched Absalom closely, and distrusted his silence. Nothing, perhaps, had happened to justify his suspicions, but as soon as the tidings came he divined the real meaning. And, wicked as he was, he could never have supposed that Amnon would turn upon the woman he had wronged, and insult and disgrace her. He probably imagined that Amnon really loved her, and that the matter would be patched up. But when the wretched youth acted so shamelessly, Jonadab probably felt sure that Absalom would sooner or later take his revenge. 2 Samuel 13:32 By the appointment; literally, for upon the mouth of Absalom it was laid from the day he humbled Tamar his sister, "Mouth" is not the word we should have expected here, and the Syriac instead has "mind," and the Chaldee "heart." But the mouth often expresses determination, and Jonadab may have noticed Absalom looking at his brother with compressed lips. More probably, however, it is a colloquial phrase, with no special application to Absalom; and the Syriac gives the true sense. 2 Samuel 13:34 But Absalom fled. These words break the form of the narrative, but complete the sense. They briefly state that Jonadab was right; for, so far from molesting any of the rest of the king’s sons, Absalom had no other thought than for his own safety. He had avenged his sister, but had at present no other sinister design. It was David’s method of treating him which drove this youth, with a nature fit for treachery, into schemes of rebellion. The way of the hillside behind him. This may mean "from the west," as, in taking the points of the compass, the Hebrews looked to the east, which would thus be "before them." Compare "the backside of the desert," that is, "the western side," in Exodus 3:1; and "the Syrians before and the Philistines behind," that is, on the east and west (Isaiah 9:12). But the versions differ so strangely in their renderings that they could scarcely have been made from our present text. 2 Samuel 13:36 The king also and all his servants wept very sore. The narrative sets very clearly before us the great terror of the king, who at first supposes that all his sons are murdered; there is then suspense while Jonadab suggests that one only has been sacrificed to private vengeance; then quickly comes the watchman’s report of the appearance of much people rapidly descending the hillside, and this is followed by the hasty rush of the fugitives into his presence, and the terrible certainty that one son has, with long premeditated malice, murdered his brother. And as he wept, David, we may feel sure, thought of Uriah, murdered because of his own base passions, whereas Amnon had brought death upon himself by following, alas! the example of his own father. He would think, too, of the words of his sentence, that "the sword should never depart from his house." It had claimed one victim, and who could now stop the outburst of angry passions in a family which previously had dwelt in kindly friendship? Probably, too, he reproached himself for not punishing Amnon. Had he done so with sufficient severity to have satisfied Absalom, he would have saved the life of his firstborn, and not have driven his second son into terrible crime. He had not done so because his own sins had tied his hands. Yes; David had good reason for weeping sore. 2 Samuel 13:37, 2 Samuel 13:38 So Absalom fled. The triple repetition of these words, and the fragmentary style, make it probable that we have hero an abridgment of a longer narrative. So in 2 Samuel 13:35 the words probably are a summary of a more circumstantial account of Absalom’s doings after his young men had slain Amnon. (On Talmai and Geshur, see notes on 2 Samuel 3:3.) 2 Samuel 13:39 And (the soul of) king David longed to go forth unto Absalom. This translation has the support of the Jewish Targum, and, as the verb is feminine, the insertion of the added word is possible, though the sense seems to require "anger" instead of "the soul." But the versions all give the verb its ordinary meaning of "ceasing," and, though there is something harsh in taking it impersonally, yet their authority is too great for us to say that such a mode of rendering it must be wrong. And if the grammar be difficult, the sense put upon the words by the versions is excellent. Literally they are, As to King David, there. was a ceasing to go forth after Absalom; for he was comforted, etc. At first he had demanded of Talmai the surrender of the offender, and, when Talmai refused, David tried other means; but in time, when his grief for Amnon was assuaged, he desisted from his efforts. But even so it required much subtlety on Joab’s part to obtain Absalom’s recall, which would scarcely have been the case if David’s soul was longing for his son’s return; and, even after his coming, David long maintained an unfriendly attitude. Amnon was his firstborn, and evidently dearly loved, but David’s culpable leniency had borne bitter fruit. And again he acts without thoughtful sense of justice, and though at first he would have given Absalom merited punishment, yet gradually paternal feeling resumed its sway, unhappily only to be miserably abused. 2 Samuel 13:1-22 The firstfruits of iniquity. The facts are: 1. Amnon entertains an improper affection for his half-sister Tamar, and meditates evil. 2. Making known his secret passion to Jonadab, he is prompted to a device for securing a personal interview with her. 3. The king, visiting Amnon in his pretended sickness, kindly arranges that Tamar should wait upon him with special focal in his chamber. 4. Seizing an opportunity in the absence of attendants, he accomplishes his purpose in defiance of her protests and pretexts. 5. By a sudden revulsion of feeling, he now hates her, and causes her to be driven away in disgrace. 6. Her trouble becoming known to the king and to Absalom, the one is very wroth and does nothing, and the other conceals his cherished hatred and revenge. The rather long account given of the base sin of Amnon is no doubt intended to show how the chastisements pronounced by Nathan (2 Samuel 12:10, 2 Samuel 12:11) were brought about. In this way the spiritual character of the narrative shines through all the details, which in themselves seem worthy of being forever lost in oblivion. It is in connection with the evil, and often through the evil, of life that the righteousness of God is historically revealed. Those who object to such passages as these in the Bible know not the principle on which it, as a book, is constructed. It is not the deeds that are the object of thought and instruction, but the fulfilment of the righteous judgments of God, brought to pass in the fact and consequences of their occurrence. In the deeds here recorded we have a graphic description of the firstfruits of the dreadful sin of David. I. ALL SIN SOONER OR LATER BEARS FRUIT IN HUMAN SOCIETY. "Sin" is a term descriptive of the moral quality of thought or action. It is a demonstrable fact in the sphere of mind and life, that every distinct thought and mental act, to say nothing of the outward expression of it, is a power or force contributed towards a modification of the existing forces at work in the world. No mental life is the same after a given thought has been formed as it would have been had some other been in its place. The law of dynamics, by which every wave of motion produces an effect forever, holds good in the mental and moral sphere. Sin is a wave of evil, a force in an oblique direction, or as a seed to germinate and reproduce its kind. David’s dreadful deed could not but be an instance of this inevitable law. Other counter-influences of good might arise, but they would not annihilate the fact of the evil influence, and social life would not be the same as it would have been in case his energy had all gone in the line of good, and the energy of the counteraction had been, not counteractive, but supplementary to the force of his unbroken holy life. It is an awful fact that the universe, after sin, is a changed place, and that the trace of the curse in some form, though not necessarily active, will ever be found in the thought and constitution of society. II. THE ACTION OF SIN IS TO WEAKEN THE ON EVIL . There are always in the human heart propensities urgent for activity, and they are kept back very much by reason of the force of goodness in the good, as well as by the natural action of conscience. There can be no question that Amnon was, like many, prone to the lusts of the flesh, and that the fact of David’s fall had lessened the restraints upon him. The secrecy encouraged by Jonadab might well be stimulated by the previous secrecy of David in his sin, so far as it was known to his family. The influence of David’s sin on the mind of Joab could not fail to render court life more corrupt in its springs; for it is a mournful fact that, while we by our sins set a new force for evil at work which gives momentum to those already active, we do not convey to society the blessedness which subsequently may come to us in a free pardon. A notorious sin in high stations is the foster parent of kindred sins. A parent by his known sin sheds influences around his children that tend to develop the worst elements of their nature. It is fuel to fire. III. THOSE WHO HAVE OPEN SINS MUST FEEL THE PAIN OF THE FRUIT OF THEIR DEEDS. The enlarging family of David offered wider scope for the ill effects of his conduct to work upon. The addition of Bathsheba to the harem under the peculiar circumstances could not but awaken jealousies, and among the various children loosen the bonds of restraint on the lower tendencies of life. He who had so cleverly sought to cover sin in the case of Uriah and his wife, could not detect the secret plot covered by the sickness of his son, whom he with paternal kindness visited and comforted (2 Samuel 13:6). The iniquity thus coming to maturity at last came to his knowledge in a form little suspected. Its distinctly incestuous character, and the cool cunning with which it was prepared for and perpetrated, must have given intense pain to David, apart from the evil of the act, inasmuch as it would forcibly remind him of days and nights of scheming to accomplish a horrid crime, and compel him to see that the son has learnt too well to imitate the deeds of the father. The mere sincere his recent penitence, and the more perfect his restoration to God’s favour, the more keen the anguish that now would fill his spirit; for he would see and feel as a holy reconciled man only can. A similar experience is that of parents who witness in their sons, it may be, bolder forms of the sin to which they were once the victims. There are such in Christian society. Their peace with God may be real through the merits of Christ, but their pathway is beclouded by a terrible sorrow. The terrible evils of sin in this life, even to the good! Bitter is the firstfruit! IV. THOSE WHO HAVE OPEN SIN ARE IN THEIR ACTION TOWARDS SINS OF THE SAME . It is said that when David learnt the full facts of Amnon’s conduct towards Tamar, he "was very wroth" (2 Samuel 13:21). No doubt. Every kind and holy feeling of the restored man would be outraged by this vile conduct. But it is significant that nothing further is said. No action of a legal character was taken. The sentence of the Mosaic Law was not enforced. The remembrance of his own sin unfitted him to deal with Amnon as was due. Direct action on his part for his punishment would, he thought, be met by the reproach of his own deeds. "Physician, heal thyself," had a paralyzing meaning for him. The reference to Absalom nourishing revenge till occasion offered is an historical set off to David’s inactivity. There is nothing unusual in David’s conduct. It is repeated every day. The liar’s tongue is deprived of its power in reproving lies in others. The deceiver in business affairs cannot with energy and force warn others against fraud. Men who have openly indulged in the lusts of the flesh speak with bated breath and act with indecision when public questions concerning the suppression and punishment of licentiousness are discussed. They may be sincere in their expression of pain, and be intensely angry if any of their offspring fall into vile ways, but they are conscious of a secret force checking the action which otherwise would have been taken. None can speak and act on moral questions as the pure. Our Saviour’s words on all moral subjects carry with them the force of his unsullied life. Herein is an example for teachers and taught. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. There should be an avoidance of all customs in society that in any way tend to strengthen, and give occasion for the development of, the baser feelings of human nature. Oriental harems may have their counterparts in certain usages of Western life. Whatever weakens the feelings of purity and chastity is a positive evil. 2. Care should be taken to avoid the company and services of men clever in evil. There are Jonadabs in society, whose services are ready, but are fraught with woe. 3. The man who can make use of the kindly sympathies of others in order to encompass their ruin is already far gone towards perdition; and inasmuch as there are many such still in society, men who abuse the tenderest affections for lustful ends, their persons should be abhorred and shunned by all Christian people. 4. The selfishness and cruelty of sin is a universal quality (2 Samuel 13:15-17), and as such it deserves the utmost detestation. All sin is self against God and God’s holy order. The adulterer in his lust, the defrauder in his deceit, the extortioner in his greed, the rebellious son in his disobedience, know this too well. Their deeds are damage to the universe for sake of self. 5. There is always being treasured up somewhere retribution for those who seem to escape the punishment due to their sin. Absalom’s self-control (2 Samuel 13:22) is suggestive of restraint on the forces which at last cannot but overwhelm the wicked with destruction (2 Peter 2:3; Jude 2 Peter 1:15). 2 Samuel 13:23-39 The facts are: 1. Absalom, holding a sheep shearing festival at Baal-hazor, invites the king and his sons. 2. The king, declining to go on account of being unnecessarily burdensome, gets rid of Absalom’s entreaty, and bestows on him a parting blessing. 3. After some persuasion, Absalom obtains permission for all the king’s sons to accompany him. 4. During the festivities the servants of Absalom, in obedience to their master, smite Amnon, whereupon all the other of the king’s sons flee. 5. A false report having reached the king that all his sons were slain, he gives vent to his grief in most distressing form, until Jonadab, who was in the secret of the affair, informs him of the actual facts of the case. 6. Absalom flees, and the rest of the sons return home, and join their father in lamentation over the event. 7. During Absalom’s exile for three years, David, while recovering from his grief over Amnon, was in a mind to go out after him, were it possible. Home troubles. The words of the prophet were being swiftly and terribly fulfilled in the experience of the king. His own crimes of adultery and murder by stealth were now bearing retributive fruit in his own family in the form of adultery and murder, with the increment of incest. That these young men acted as free agents and were responsible for their deeds makes no difference to the fact that, in relation to the previous conduct of their father, it was a terrible retribution in the order of providence. God does chastise his people with the human rod. The blessed covenant made with the chosen one was not broken—his soul was delivered from the mouth of destruction (Psalms 89:33-36); but a harvest of evil had to be reaped in the place where the dreadful seed had been sown—in the family. Never, perhaps, has this family trouble been paralleled in the experience of good men; but though its precise features are mercifully exceptional, we may see mirrored in this family trouble elements of evil found in some form or other in other domestic circles. I. AND HATREDS ON DEEDS OF WRONG. There were signs of ill feeling in this home sprung from an Oriental harem, before the vile deed of Amnon was perpetrated; but this act developed and intensified whatever feeling of that character was in existence. In the most imperfect and unhappy homes a positive deed of wrong to a member of the family is sure to be resented by some other member whose temperament or sympathies flow in a certain direction. The world does not see the acts of harshness and even cruelty sometimes done within the sphere of home; these acts are the parents of a brood of ill feelings, which rankle and burn, waiting for occasion to vent their force on some marked object of hatred. And as the love of home is the tenderest and sweetest of all loves, so, when it is lost, there rises in its place the bitterest and most irreconcilable of hates. The best wine makes the sourest vinegar. II. PARENTS . Reading between the lines of this piece of domestic history, we can see that the past conduct of David was not only known, so far at least as Bathsheba was concerned, but that it had not escaped the critical observation of his sons. How could it? A father’s domestic conduct is in open light to his children, and, although natural reverence may sway their bearing toward him, they cannot help making critical observations on anything that undermines the respect due. A really pious son would have wept in solitude over the father’s sin, and have tenderly covered his shame; but the base tendencies of such young men as Amnon, and the pride of an Absalom, would only have given keenness to the critical spirit. It is a sad prophecy of trouble when children begin to criticize a parent’s conduct, and it is moral ruin in a home when a father does deeds which his children, even with their slight knowledge of things, cannot but deplore. Once break down respect for moral conduct, and the home is open to the invasion of numberless ills. III. PARENTS’ . There is always some room for apprehension in connection with domestic life; for the powers of evil are active, and the best guarded home may be occasionally invaded from without by a foul spirit. But, as a rule, where prudence in management is combined with correctness of conduct and a spirit of true practical godliness, confidence is in the ascendant. The blessing of God is on the abode of the faithful. In David’s house at this time, consequent on the influence of his recent sin and the crime of Amnon, there was evident fear in the father’s heart (2 Samuel 13:26, 2 Samuel 13:27). He had secret reasons for not going or wishing Amnon to go to the feast. Fears of business failures, and of possible changes in domestic material comforts, are common and not to be altogether avoided, yet they may carry with them no secret sting; but anticipations of possible moral disasters and complications in the home life are of all things most fearful burdens to bear, and their gravity is the greater when they are felt to be connected with one’s own misconduct. Fathers and mothers should take care that they lay no foundation for painful apprehensions concerning the conduct of their children in deeds of their own performance. IV. OF . The spirit of David was evidently troubled by observing the strained relations between his sons Amnon and Absalom. The probability is that they were not on terms of familiarity, and seldom visited each other. The ill feeling created by the ruin of his sister had been secretly but steadily cherished for two years, and the treasured revenge at last broke forth in the murder at the festival of sheep shearing. It is the pain of a father still sometimes to witness the development in violent and distressing forms of passions which he either, through loss of personal influence, could not or would not seek to remove or tone down. The first part of the prophet’s prediction had now been fulfilled two years; the other part was on its way, and only awaited the maturity of the forces that were being secretly gathered. When domestic troubles, having a root in moral evil, begin in a home, it is hard to say how long it will be before the powers of evil assume a portentous development. David was fearful, but he scarcely looked for such an issue of a family festival. Literally, in this, as in other cases, sin when it is finished brought forth death (James 1:15). The harvest came after the sowing and germinating of the seed. V. A FATHER’S DEEDS THE OF EVIL. The bitterest element in David’s domestic trouble was not simply the death of an incestuous son, sad as the death of a firstborn always is, but the knowledge that his own conduct was, in the mind of Absalom, the justification of the murder. Absalom seems to have reasoned thus: "Amnon has done a guilty deed worthy of death; no severe punishment has been inflicted on him by my father, perhaps because of his own previous adultery with Bathsheba, or because this is his firstborn; shame has been brought by this crime on the entire family as the brother of the disgraced and ruined woman, I am her legitimate avenger in the failure of law; and as the injury has been an open one in the centre of the family life, the doom shall be open, in the presence, if possible, of father and brothers." If David was the man of discernment now as formerly, he could scarcely have failed to see that there was something like this current of thought in the mind of his son Absalom, and that it formed a specious justification of his daring deed. Rightly or wrongly, some do reason in defence of their rash and evil deeds, and it is the most serious element of the domestic trouble when the foundation of their reasoning is found in the deeds or neglect of their parents. The devil encourages those who do wrong to get all possible support from the actions of those professing to be good. VI. A OF AND EVIL. One of the troubles in David’s homo life was the presence of an influential double-faced man, who, being in the secrets, entered as adviser into the schemes of some of the family, and was instrumental in promoting incest, and then, on his own showing, knew that it was a settled thing to murder the incestuous man (2 Samuel 13:3-5; cf. 2 Samuel 13:32, 2 Samuel 13:33). This cunning man, who had not the courage or honesty to tell David of the design of Absalom, was a moral plague in David’s family connection. It is an instance of how much evil may come to a home by cultivating the friendship and intimacy of unprincipled or cowardly relatives. Alas! for the home (and there are such in our country) that is invaded by the pestilential influence of men who trample under their feet chastity, love, and, if need be, life itself! There are vipers and dragons in the world still (Matthew 3:7; cf. Psalms 91:13). GENERAL LESSONS. 1. We see the wonderful contrast in domestic life where piety is maintained in unfading beauty. Instead of jealousies and hatreds, parents blamed by sons and full of fear, evil feelings maturing into developed deeds of violence and cruelty, justified by reference to parental conduct, and stimulated or connived at by base friends, we shall see love and consideration, reverence for parents, confidence in children, generous sentiments ripening into holy deeds, encouragement for kind actions found in parental example, and friendships formed conducive to peace and harmony. 2. We learn the danger of deliberately nourishing feelings of revenge even when wrong has been done. It is for God to vindicate his own justice (Romans 12:9). Just sentiments of anger may, unless guard be kept over them, burn into more questionable forms. 3. The festive scenes of wicked men should be avoided, because of the evil communications which corrupt good manners, and the possible incidental evils arising therefrom. 4. When men are known to be proud and imperious and revengeful, they are likely to be credited with more evil than they have really done (2 Samuel 13:30); hence avoid such a spirit. 5. It is a shame to a man to be in the secrets of those intent on evil (2 Samuel 13:3-5; cf. 2 Samuel 13:32); and, though such may escape punishment in human society, God will visit their sins on their own head. 6. Rulers and parents who show an unwise partiality (2 Samuel 13:21, 2 Samuel 13:22) in not adequately chastising evil doers, only defer the day of trouble and increase its sorrows (2 Samuel 13:36). Lost and exiled. The closing verses of this chapter are very obscure in their construction and meaning. The sense most probable, and which we here proceed upon, is that Absalom’s asylum with the King of Geshur was a reason why David did not follow after him with a view to his apprehension and chastisement, and that while at first he mourned for Amnon every day, he was in process of time able to bear up under his loss. The calamity brought on by his own sins (2 Samuel 12:9-12) had now culminated in one son lost and another in exile. I. THERE IS A NATURAL IN THE ON SIN. The first temporal human trouble attendant on David’s sin was dislike and aversion of his other wives, and this small beginning was followed by his being put under the power of Joab (2 Samuel 11:6, 2 Samuel 11:18-21), his exposure to others, the incest of his children, the loss of influence by refraining from duty (2 Samuel 13:21, 2 Samuel 13:22), and now it came to a climax in the firstborn being in his grave, and the second son being banished as an exile. It is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God, the more so according to the station and privileges of the sinner. A firstborn lost! A young man cut down with, so far as we can see, the vilest sins unforgiven on his head! The flower of the family, the man of spirit, and avenger in daring way of a sister’s wrong, in a foreign land, finding refuge from a father’s wrath with the heathen! Fathers and mothers, lead the lesson well, and seek for grace to be in the home pure and wise and loving, like unto the holy Saviour. II. THERE IS SHEER IN FACE OF THE ON SIN. David could only mourn over the lost one. And what bitterness in the mourning! The dire chain of moral causes ending in that wretched death could not be broken; for an inscrutable and just Providence had welded them to the first adulterous link of his own manufacture. Whatever anger was cherished against the brother assassin, and whatever desire to vindicate the law against him, policy and other considerations prevented his going out after him to drag him from the asylum afforded by another king. It was a time of correction in righteousness when the hitter but wholesome lessons of his life were to be taken to heart. It is fortunate if men, having by a succession of faults and sins brought themselves face to face with hard unalterable facts, apply their hearts with all earnestness to God for his sanctifying grace. III. THE OF THE DUTIES OF LIFE BECOMES WHEN THE JOYS OF HOME LIFE ARE . Though dwelling in distinct abodes in Jerusalem, the royal family had a common home life, and, under hallowed influences, this might have been to David a source of strength in the administration of affairs. Now, however, the joy of his heart was gone. Energy was spent in sorrowful memories and thoughts concerning the possible future efforts of the ambitious and now reckless exile, which otherwise would have gone in the direction of cheerful daily work for the nation. Fears of yet further troubles, and passionate desire to remove the public reproach of letting crime in his house go by default, were not helpful to calm effort for public good. Many a man loses energy for business consequent on the loss of domestic joys. Home is the proper place for weary men to find refreshment after toil, and cheer for new endeavours. We may truly pity the man whose domestic troubles come in such form as to impair his strength for the battle of life. If he has not the grace of God in his heart, it is not surprising if he yields to temptation and seeks relief in sinful pleasures. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 13:1-33 (.) The crime of Amnon. The chastisements which David experienced came upon him chiefly through his family. The misconduct of his sons was largely due to his own "in the matter of Uriah," and his defective discipline (lSa 2 Samuel 3:13; 1 Kings 1:6) in connection with polygamy (2 Samuel 3:1-5). "This institution is the absolutely irrepressible source of numberless evils of this description. It ever furnishes a ready stimulus to unbounded sensual desire in the sovereign, and, should he be exalted above it, is likely to introduce a dissolute life among the very different children of different mothers, by bringing the pleasures of sense so prominently and so early before their eyes. The subsequent troubles with Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah were all connected with this fundamental wrong; and on the same thread hung many of the evils which were felt under David’s successors" (Ewald). "Having grown up without strict paternal discipline, simply under the care of their different mothers, who were jealous of one another, his sons fancied that they might gratify their own fleshly lusts, and carry out their own ambitious plans" (Keil). Amnon his eldest son was now about twenty years of age. "His character and conduct were doubtless affected by the fact that he was the firstborn son, and of a mother apparently not of the noblest birth." In him (regarded as a warning especially to young men) we notice— I. IMPURE , springing up in the heart, and not repressed, but fondly cherished. His passion was contrary to the Divine Law, not merely because the object of it was his half-sister (2 Samuel 13:13), but also because of its licentious nature (Matthew 5:28). His subsequent conduct indicates that it was not "True love, that ever shows itself as clear In kindness as loose appetite in wrong." (Dante.) It is not improbable, from his ready entertainment of it, and the question of Absalom (2 Samuel 13:20), that already he had given himself to unrestrained indulgence of his passions. When once "reason by lust is swayed," the heart becomes a congenial soil for all unholy affections. And the only sure safeguard is to "keep the heart with all diligence;" by giving no place to an impure thought, avoiding every incentive to "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul," the exercise of habitual self-denial, and prayer for Divine grace (Matthew 5:29; Matthew 15:19). II. INWARD MISERY, proceeding from restless passion and fretful discontent at hindrances and restraints in the way of its gratification (2 Samuel 13:2). It is well that such hindrances and restraints exist (in Divine Law, public opinion, providential circumstances); for they afford opportunity for reflection, conviction of its sinful nature, and the adoption of all proper means whereby it may be overcome. Where it is still cherished, its strength increases and its force is felt more powerfully, as that of a river appears when a rock opposes its progress (Romans 7:7). "There is no peace to the wicked." "Amnon here neglected, indeed, the right means; viz. in time to have resisted his affections and not to have given way unto them; to have given himself to abstinence and some honest exercises which might have occupied his mind; then by some lawful matrimonial love to have overcome his unlawful lust; and to have prayed unto God for grace" (Willet). III. , displayed in crafty devices, adopted in accordance with evil suggestion, in order to selfish indulgence. He who suffers a sinful desire to reign within him is peculiarly susceptible to temptation, and readily yields to it; sometimes pursues a course of guile, and takes advantage of affection, kindness, and unsuspecting confidence. "The seducer is brother to the murderer." Blinded and infatuated, he resorts to the most subtle and contemptible expedients. And, alas! he too often succeeds. IV. WILFUL in wickedness, notwithstanding the strongest inducements to the contrary (2 Samuel 13:12, 2 Samuel 13:13). "It is enough to suppose that the king had a dispensing power, which was conceived to cover even extreme cases." When persuasive craft is employed in vain to entice into sin, and the slave of passion meets with another merciful check by the opposition of virtue and piety ("in Israel"), he is driven on to more brutal, though less diabolical methods of accomplishing his base designs. The dishonour done to the highest claims (of God, religion, his people), the disgrace incurred, the misery inflicted, should be sufficient to deter from "foolish and hurtful lusts;" but with him they are of no avail. "The unjust knoweth no shame" (Zephaniah 3:5; Isaiah 26:10). Then one evil passion is replaced by another. "Sweet love, I see, changing his property, Turns to the sourest and most deadly hate." (Shakespeare.) "He hated her, but did not hate his own sin. Thus he showed that the love he had professed to her was not love, but lust; that it was not of God, but of the evil one" (Wordsworth). "It is characteristic of human nature to hate whom you have injured" (Tacitus). "Such are the baits and allurements of sin, which have a pleasant taste at the first, but in the end bite like a serpent; therefore one saith that pleasures must be considered, not as they come, but as they go" (Wilier). "He feedeth on ashes," etc. (Isaiah 44:20). The victim of evil desire becomes an object of bitter aversion, is pitilessly thrust away, maliciously defamed, and thus more grievously wronged: the true picture of many a desolated life! "What men dignify with the name of love is commonly a base sensual inclination, entire selfishness, which triumphs over the conscience and the fear of God, and without pity consigns its object to irreparable disgrace and misery for the sake of a momentary gratification! How different from that love which the Law of God commands! yea, how contrary to it!" (Scott). V. , arising from the persuasion that secret iniquity may escape retribution. The transgressor thinks, perhaps, that it cannot be proved, no one will venture to call him to account for it, and that it is not worse than other crimes that go unpunished. Whatever fears (2 Samuel 13:21) or suspicions he may at first entertain, are laid asleep by the lapse of time (2 Samuel 13:23). He is not led to repentance by the long suffering of Heaven, and he heeds not its wrath. But "judgment lingereth not," etc. (2 Peter 2:3). VI. SUDDEN , inflicted by an unexpected hand (2 Samuel 13:20, 2 Samuel 13:28, 2 Samuel 13:32). Where public law fails to do justice, private hostility finds means to take vengeance. One sin produces another, and is punished by it; craft by craft, violence by violence, hatred by hatred. "The way of trangressors is hard" (Proverbs 13:15; Proverbs 6:15; Proverbs 29:1).—D. 2 Samuel 13:3 (.) A false friend. "And Jonadab was a very subtil man." Every virtue has its counterfeit. As there is a friendship which is true and beneficial, so there is what appears to be such but is false and injurious. Of the former we have an instance in David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-4), of the latter in Amnon and Jonadab (his cousin, a son of Shammah, 1 Samuel 16:9; 2 Samuel 21:21), "one of those characters who in great houses pride themselves on being acquainted and on dealing with all the secrets of the family" (Stanley). In Jonadab, the daily companion of Amnon (2 Samuel 13:4), we see the kind of friend that should not be chosen. 1. He is distinguished for subtlety, not for virtue and piety. "In the choice of a friend, let him be virtuous; for vice is contagious, and there is no trusting of the sound and the sick together" (Seneca). "Friendship is nothing else but benevolence or charity, under some modifications, viz. that it be in a special manner intense, that it be mutual, and that it be manifest or mutually known. It cannot be but between good men, because an ill man cannot have any true charity, much less such an intense degree of it as is requisite to friendship" (J. Norris, ’Miscellanies’). A companion is sometimes chosen solely for his cleverness and insinuating address; but his superior intelligence (however desirable in itself), unless it be combined with moral excellence, enables him to do all the greater mischief (Jeremiah 4:22). 2. In professing concern for another’s welfare he seeks only to serve his own interests; his own pleasure, gain, influence, and advancement (2 Samuel 13:4). True friendship is disinterested. Jonadab appears to have cared only for himself. Hence (to avoid getting himself into trouble) he gave no warning to others of what he foresaw (2 Samuel 13:32). "This young man, who probably desired to make himself of some importance as David’s nephew, was clever enough to guess the truth from the first; but it is sad to think that his thought and his advice were never founded on anything but a knowledge of the devil in man" (Ewald). 3. When he is acquainted with the secret thoughts of another, he fails to give him faithful counsel. (2 Samuel 13:5.) Such acquaintance is often obtained by flattery—"thou a king’s son"—and frequent questioning; but it is not followed, in the case of improper desires and purposes, by admonition. "No flatterer can be a true friend." "Had he been a true friend, he had bent all the forces of his dissuasion against the wicked motions of that sinful lust" (Hall). "Faithful are the wounds of a friend." 4. Whilst he devises means for another’s gratification, he smoothes his way to destruction. His aim is only to please. He advises what is agreeable, but what is morally wrong; and thus incites to sin; for which, with all its consequences, he is, in part, responsible. "In wise counsel two things must be considered that both the end be good, and the means honest and lawful. Jonadab’s counsel failed in both." "The rapacious friend, the insincere friend, the friend who speaks only to please, and he who is a companion in vicious pleasures,—recognizing these four to be false friends, the wise man flies far from them, as he would from a road beset by danger" (Contemporary Review, 27.421). "A companion of fools shall be destroyed" (Proverbs 13:20; Proverbs 1:10).—D. 2 Samuel 13:7 Tamar. A princess; the daughter of David and Maacah (of Geshur), and sister of Absalom; distinguished for her beauty, modesty, domesticity, obedience (2 Samuel 13:8), tender heartedness, piety, and misfortunes. In her we see an illustration of (what has often occurred): 1. Purity pursued by licentious desire (2 Samuel 13:2). 2. Simplicity beset by wily designs (2 Samuel 13:5). 3. Kindness requited by selfish ingratitude (2 Samuel 13:9, 2 Samuel 13:10). 4. Confidence exposed to enticing persuasions and perilous temptation (2 Samuel 13:11). 5. Virtue overpowered by brutal violence (2 Samuel 13:14). 6. Innocence vilified by guilty aversion (2 Samuel 13:17). "So fair had she gone forth on what seemed her errand of mercy, so foully had she been driven back" (Edersheim). "Let no one ever expect better treatment from those who are capable of attempting their seduction; but it is better to suffer the greatest wrong than to commit the least sin" (Matthew Henry). 7. Sorrow assuaged by brotherly sympathy (2 Samuel 13:20). 8. Injury avenged with terrible severity (2 Samuel 13:28).—D. 2 Samuel 13:21 Impunity. "And King David heard of all these things, and was very wroth;" but "he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn" (LXX.). And he did not punish him (1 Samuel 3:13); which must be looked upon as— I. AN OF DUTY. If he had been only a father, he would have been bound to chastise his children for their misbehaviour; but, being also a king, he was under still stronger obligation to punish the guilty. To do this: 1. Properly belonged to the authority delegated to him. 2. Was expressly enjoined in the Divine Law (Leviticus 2 Samuel 20:17). 3. Urgently demanded by the sense of justice. 4. Indispensably necessary to the protection of his subjects. "Kings, then, have not absolute power to do in their government what pleases them; their power is limited by God’s Word; so that if they strike not where God has commanded to strike, they and their throne are criminal and guilty of the wickedness which abounds upon the face of the earth for lack of punishment" (John Knox). II. BY REASONS. In Israel (as in Persia and other Eastern countries) the king, as vicegerent of heaven, had a large discretionary power of dispensing with the penalties of the Law; but it behoved him to exercise it without partiality and on sufficient grounds. Although David’s omission to punish is not expressly condemned, yet the consequences by which it was followed show that it took place (not, as some have supposed, on "principle," or because it was "impossible" for him to do otherwise, but) without such grounds. 1. The affection of a father. This, however, ought not to have prevented punishment by a father or judge; as it did, being inordinate and blamable, in Eli (1 Samuel 2:22, 1 Samuel 2:30). 2. The rank of the offender; the king’s son, his firstborn, heir to the crown. But he was not above the law; nor less guilty than another of inferior position would have been. "God is no respecter of persons." 3. The transgression and forgiveness of the king himself. Nevertheless, whilst both may have exerted a pernicious influence, Amnon was responsible for his own conduct; and David’s exemption (only from legal punishment) rested on grounds which did not exist in the case of his ungodly and impenitent son. The king’s wrath proves his full conviction of Amnon’s guilt and his moral abhorrence of its enormity: his failure to "grieve," or inflict suffering upon him, indicates his own weakness and dereliction of duty. "Punishment is an effort of man to find a more exact relation between sin and suffering than this world affords us. A duty is laid upon us to make this relationship of sin to suffering as real, and as natural, and as exact in proportion as it is possible to be made. This is the moral root of the whole doctrine of punishment. But if the adjustment of pain to vice be the main ground of punishment, it must be admitted that there are other ends which society has in view in its infliction. These secondary elements in punishment appear to be (1) the reformation of the offender; (2) the prevention of further offences by the offender; (3) the repression of offences in others". III. OF EFFECTS. 1. It does not appear to have produced any other effect on the offender than to confirm him in recklessness and fancied security. "Punishment connected with sin operates towards reform in two ways: (1) by the association of ideas—the linking together of that from which our nature shrinks with that from which it ought to shrink, so that the temptation to sin recalls not only the pleasure of sin, but the pain of suffering; (2) by the shock to the habits of thought and of practice which suffering produces, by the solution of continuity in the man’s life which it causes, by the opportunity for reflection and thought which it thus affords" (Lord Justice Fry). 2. On others, also, it was injurious; weakening respect for royal authority and public justice, causing the law to be despised, furnishing grounds for private revenge, leading to further impunity (2 Samuel 13:39; 2 Samuel 14:24, 2 Samuel 14:33), more daring crimes (2 Samuel 15:7; 2 Samuel 16:21), widespread disaffection and rebellion. 3. On the king himself. Further impairing his personal, moral, kingly energy, and accumulating "sorrow upon sorrow" (2 Samuel 13:31, 2 Samuel 13:37; 2 Samuel 15:13). It was another link in the chain of painful consequences resulting from his great transgression; naturally, slowly, effectually wrought out under the direction and control of the perfect justice of the supreme King; accomplishing a beneficent end, in purifying his heart, restoring him to God, averting his final condemnation, and teaching, warning, benefiting mankind. "The dark sin of which he had been guilty spoke of a character that had lust its self-control, its truthfulness, its generosity. His penitence was not able to undo all its consequences and to bring back the old energy and life. Over and above its direct results in alienating the hearts of his most trusted counsellors, and placing him at the mercy of a hard taskmaster, that dark hour left behind it the penalty of an enfeebled will, the cowardice of a hidden crime, the remorse which weeps for the past, yet cannot rouse itself to the duties of the present. He leaves the sin of Amnon unpunished in spite of the fearful promise it gave of a reign of brutal passion, ’because he loved him, for he was his firstborn.’ Half suspecting, apparently, that Absalom had some scheme for revenging the wrong which he had failed to redress, he has no energy to stop its execution. He shrinks only from being present at a meeting the meaning and issues of which he does not comprehend, and yet dimly fears. When the exaggerated report is brought back that Absalom had slain all his brothers—sure sign, if it had been so, that he was claiming the throne, and marching to it through the blood of his kindred—David’s attitude is that of passive, panic stricken submission". Who can say that he sinned with impunity? "Thenceforward the days of his years became full of evil, and if he lived (for the Lord caused death to pass from himself to the child by a vicarious dispensation), it was to be a king, with more than kingly sorrows, but with little of kingly power; to be banished by his son; bearded by his servant; betrayed by his friends; deserted by his people; bereaved of his children; and to feel all, all these bitter griefs, bound, as it were, by a chain of complicated cause and effect, to this one great, original transgression". "It often falls, in course of common life, That right long time is overborne of wrong; Through avarice, or power, or guile, or strife, That weakens her, and makes her party strong. But justice, though her doom she do prolong, Yet at the last she will her own cause right." (Spenser.) D. 2 Samuel 13:22-29 (BAAL-HAZOR.) The revenge of Absalom. "Absalom hated Amnon." References: 1. Third son (Chileab, probably, being dead) of David, by Maacab, daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur; born at Hebron, his name ("father of peace") indicating, perhaps, the hope entertained at his birth (2 Samuel 3:1-5). "The young handsome hero must have been conspicuous among the soldiers of Israel, and taken his place among the sons of David, who were ’chief rulers.’" 2. Hatred (when about eighteen years old) and murder (after two years). 3. Flight to Geshur (2 Samuel 13:38) and residence there (three years). 4. Return (2 Samuel 14:23, 2 Samuel 14:24) and partial reconciliation (during two years); married about this time, and father of three sons (dying in infancy, 2 Samuel 14:27; 2 Samuel 18:18) and one daughter (Tamar, named after his sister). 5. Full reconciliation (2 Samuel 14:33; 2 Samuel 15:1-11) and preparation for revolt (four years). 6. Conspiracy in Hebron (2 Samuel 15:12, 2 Samuel 15:13). 7. Occupation of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 15:37; 2 Samuel 16:15-19), possession of the palace (2 Samuel 15:20-23), anointed king (2 Samuel 19:10), consultations (2 Samuel 17:1-14). 8. Pursuit of David, and defeat in battle (2 Samuel 17:24-26; 2 Samuel 18:1-8). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 14:1 The king’s heart was toward Absalom. Again there is a diversity of view as to the right rendering. The preposition does not usually mean "toward," but "against," and is so rendered in 2 Samuel 14:13. The whole phrase occurs again only in Daniel 11:28, and certainly there implies enmity. The whole attitude of David towards Absalom is one of persistent hostility, and, even when Joab had obtained his recall, for two full years he would not admit him into his presence. What has led most commentators to force the meaning here and in 2 Samuel 13:39 is the passionate burst of grief when news was brought of Absalom’s death following upon the anxious orders given to the generals to be careful of the young man’s life. But David was a man of very warm affections, and while this would make him feel intense sorrow for the death of a son by his brother’s hand, and stern indignation towards the murderer, there would still lie deep in the father’s heart true love towards his sinning child, and Absalom’s fall was sad enough to cause a strong revulsion of feeling. David’s grief would be not merely for the death of his son, but that he should have died so miserably, and in an attempt so shameful. Was not, too, the natural grief of a father made the more deep by the feeling that this was the third stage of the penalty denounced on his own sin, and that the son’s death was the result of the father’s crime? 2 Samuel 14:2 Tekoah. This town, famous as the birthplace of the Prophet Amos, lay upon the borders of the great wilderness southeast of Jerusalem. As it was only five miles to the south of Bethlehem, Joab’s birthplace, he had probably often heard tales of this woman’s intelligence; and, though he contrived the parable himself, yet it would need tact and adroitness on the woman’s part to give the tale with tragic effect, and answer the king’s questions with all the signs of genuine emotion. If her acting was bad, the king would see through the plot, and only by great skill would his heart be so moved as to three him to some such expression of feeling as would serve Joab’s purpose. 2 Samuel 14:4 When the woman of Tekoah spake. All the versions and several manuscripts read, as the sense requires, "when the woman of Tekoah came." There is an interesting article in De Rossi, fixing with much probability the twelfth century as the date of this error. Though Absalom subsequently (2 Samuel 15:4) complained of the lax administration of justice in the realm, yet evidently this woman had the right of bringing her suit before the king; and we may be sure that Joab would take care that nothing unusual was done, lest it should awaken the king’s suspicions. But possibly there was a want of method in judicial matters, and very much was left in the hands of the tribal officers, such as we find mentioned in Joshua 24:1. 2 Samuel 14:7 The whole family. This does not mean the kinsfolk, in whom such a disregard of the mother’s feelings would have been cruel, but one of the great divisions of the tribe. In 2 Samuel 14:15 she rightly calls them "the people." We have thus a glimpse of the ordinary method of administering the criminal law, and find that each portion of a tribe exercised justice within its own district, being summoned to a general convention by its hereditary chief; and in this case the widow represents it as determined to punish the crime of fratricide with inflexible severity, and we may assume that such was the usual practice. The mother sets before David the other side of the matter—her own loneliness, the wiping out of the father’s house, the utter ruin of her home if the last live coal on her hearth be extinguished. And in this way she moves his generous sympathies even to the point of overriding the legal rights of the mishpachah. In modern communities there is always some formal power of softening or entirely remitting penalties required by the letter of the law, and of taking into consideration matters of equity and even of feeling, Which the judge must put aside; and in monarchies this is always the high prerogative of the crown. And we will destroy the heir also. The Syriac has the third person, "And they will destroy even the heir, and quench my coal that is left." This is more natural, but there is greater pungency in the widow putting into the mouth of the heads of the clan, not words which they had actually spoken, but words which showed what would be the real effect of their determination. There is great force and beauty also in the description of her son as the last live coal left to keep the family hearth burning. In another but allied sense David is called "the lamp of Israel". 2 Samuel 14:9 The iniquity be on me. The king had given a general promise to help the widow, but she wants to lead him on to a definite assurance that her son shall be pardoned. Less than this would not help Absalom’s case. Instead, therefore, of withdrawing, she represents herself as dissatisfied, and pleads for full forgiveness; and as this would be a violation of the letter of the Levitical Law, in order to remove David’s supposed scruples, she takes upon herself the penalty. 2 Samuel 14:11 I pray thee, let the king remember, etc. Thenius says that the woman plays well the part of a talkative gossip, but really she was using the skill for which Joab employed her in bringing the king to give her son a free pardon. Nothing short of this would serve Absalom, who already was so far forgiven as to be in no fear of actual punishment. It is remarkable that David does not hesitate finally to grant this without making further inquiry, though he must have known that a mother’s pleas were not likely to be very impartial. Moreover, while in 2 Samuel 14:9 she had acknowledged that there might be a breach of the law in pardoning a murderer, she now appeals to the mercy of Jehovah, who had himself provided limits to the anger of the avenger of blood (see Numbers 35:1-34.). He had thus shown himself to be a God of equity, in whom mercy triumphed over the rigid enactments of law. The words which follow more exactly mean, "That the avenger of blood do not multiply destruction, and that they destroy not my son." Moved by this entreaty, the king grants her son full pardon, under the solemn guaranty of an oath. 2 Samuel 14:13 Against the people of God. Very skilfully, and so as for the meaning only gradually to unfold itself to the king, she represents the people of Israel as the widowed mother, who has lost one son; and David as the stern clan folk who will deprive her of a second though guilty child. But now he is bound by the solemn oath he has taken to her to remit the penalty; for literally the words are, and by the king’s speaking this word he is as one guilty, unless he fetch home again his banished one. She claims to have spoken in the name of all Israel, and very probably she really did express their feelings, as Absalom was very popular, and the people saw in Tamar’s wrong a sufficient reason for, and vindication of, his crime. 2 Samuel 14:14 Neither doth God, etc. This translation is altogether wrong. What the woman says is, "God taketh not life [Hebrew, ’a soul’] away, but thinketh thoughts not to banish from him his banished one." Her argument is that death is the common lot, and that there is no way of bringing back the dead to life. But though death is thus a universal law, yet God does not kill. Death is not a penalty exacted as a punishment, but, on the contrary, he is merciful, and when a man has sinned, instead of putting him to death, he is ready to forgive and welcome back one rejected because of his wickedness. The application is plain. The king cannot restore Amnon to life, and neither must he kill the guilty Absalom, but must recall his banished son. The argument is full of poetry, and touching to the feelings, but is not very sound. For God requires repentance and change of heart; and there was no sign of contrition on Absalom’s part. The power of the woman’s appeal lay in what she says of God’s nature. He is not intent on punishing, nor bent on carrying out the sentences of the Law in their stern literalness; but he is ready to forgive, and "deviseth devices" to bring home those now separate from him. There is also much that is worth pondering over in the distinction between death as a law of nature, and death as a penalty. The one is necessary, and often gentle and beneficial; but death as a penalty is stern and terrible. 2 Samuel 14:15-17 Now therefore that I am come, etc. The woman now professes to return to her old story as the reason for her importunity, but she repeats it in so eager and indirect a manner as to indicate that it had another meaning. Instead, too, of thanking the king for fully granting her petition, she still flatters and coaxes as one whose purpose was as yet ungained. The king’s word is, for rest: it puts an end to vexation, and, by deciding matters, sets the disputants at peace. He is as an angel of God, as God’s messenger, whose words have Divine authority; and his office is, not to discern, but "to hear the good and the evil," unmoved, as the Vulgate renders it, by blessing and cursing. His mission is too high for him to be influenced either by good words or by evil, but having patiently heard both sides, and calmly thought over the reasons for and against, he will decide righteously. Finally, she ends with the prayer, And may Jehovah thy God be with thee! By such words she hoped to propitiate the king, who now could not fail to see that the errand of the woman was personal to himself. 2 Samuel 14:19 Is the hand of Joab with thee in all this? The "not," inserted by the Authorized Version, must be omitted, as it alters the meaning. The king really was uncertain, and asked dubiously, whereas the Authorized Version admits only of an. affirmative answer. David had seen the general drift of the woman’s meaning, but she had involved it in too much obscurity for him to do more than suspect that she was the mouthpiece of Joab, who was standing by, and whose face may have given signs of a more than ordinary interest in the woman’s narrative. She now frankly acknowledges the truth, but skilfully interweaves much flattery in her answer. And her words are far more expressive than what is given in our versions. Literally they are, By thy life, O my lord the king, there is nothing on the right or on the left of all that my lord the king has spoken. His words had gone straight to the mark, without the slightest deviation on either side. 2 Samuel 14:20 To fetch about this form of speech; correctly, as in the Revised Version, to change the face of the matter hath thy servant Joab, etc. The matter was that referred to in 2 Samuel 14:15, which the king now understands to refer to Absalom. For in the earth, translate in the land. The Hebrew has no means of distinguishing the wider and narrower significations of the word; but while the king would be flattered by the supposition that he knew all that happened in his dominions, the assertion that he knew all that was done in all the world was too broad and general to be agreeable. The Authorized Version has been misled by the thought of what an angel might know; but while it was a compliment to ascribe to the king an angel’s intelligence in his own sphere, it would have been bad taste and unmeaning to ascribe to him omniscience. Nay, it is an assumption without proof that even an angel knows "all things that are in the earth." 2 Samuel 14:21 I have done this thing. This is an Oriental form of assent, just as we say in English, "It is done," that is, as good as done, now that the order is given. A few manuscripts, nevertheless, support a Massoretic emendation (K’ri), namely, "Thou hast done this: go therefore," etc. But both the Septuagint and Vulgate agree with the written text (K’tib), and it is less flat and commonplace than the supposed emendation. 2 Samuel 14:22 In that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant. Keil concludes from this that Joab had often interceded for Absalom’s pardon, and that this had made the king suspect him of being the prime mover in the affair. But this is to force the meaning, Joab now stood confessed as the person who had brought the woman before the king, and had employed her to gain a hearing. Had he been allowed to plead freely, her intervention would not have been necessary. We have seen, too, that the king’s suspicions have been made in the Authorized Version much stronger than they really were. Many commentators also assume that Joab had a friendship for Absalom, but there are few traces of it in his conduct, and more probably Joab was chiefly influenced by politic motives. It was injurious to the well being of the nation that there should be discord and enmity between the king and his eldest son, and that the latter should be living in exile. The K’ri, thy servant, placed in the margin, is to be decidedly rejected, with all other attempts of the Massorites to remove little roughnesses of grammar. 2 Samuel 14:24 Let him turn to his own house, etc. This half forgiveness was unwise, and led to unhappy results. It seems even as if Absalom was a prisoner in his house, as he could not leave it to visit Joab. Still, we must not assume that even kind treatment would have made Absalom a dutiful son, or weaned him from his ambitions purposes. The long plotted revenge, carried out so determinately, gives us a low idea of his character, and probably during these two years of waiting, he had brooded over David’s criminal leniency, and regarded it as a justification for his own foul deed. And now, when allowed to come home, but still treated unkindly, thoughts condemnatory of his father’s conduct were cherished by him. It seems, too, as if a protracted punishment is always dangerous to the moral character of the criminal. And must we not add another reason? Absalom, we may feel sure, saw with indignation the growing influence of Bathsheba over the king. A granddaughter of Ahithophel, she was sure to be an adept in those intrigues in which the women of a harem pass their time; and even if, upon the whole, we form a favourable judgment upon her character, yet undoubtedly she was a very able woman, and could have no affection for Absalom. 2 Samuel 14:26 Two hundred shekels after the king’s weight. Unless the royal shekel was smaller than the shekel of the sanctuary, the weight of Absalom’s hair would be six pounds. But we cannot believe that the king’s shekel was not full weight; for to imagine this is to suppose that the king had tampered with the coinage; for the shekel was a coin as well as a weight, being originally a fixed quantity of silver. As a matter of fact, David had amassed too much silver to have need of resorting to what is the expedient of feeble and impoverished princes. Nor can we grant an error in the number; for the versions all agree with the Hebrew, so that any mistake must, at all events, be of great antiquity. Josephus says that Solomon’s body guard wore long hair powdered with gold dust, and undoubtedly Absalom’s hair was something extraordinary (2 Samuel 18:9). But six pounds is so enormous a weight that it is just possible that some ancient copyist has enlarged the number, to make it accord with a legend current among the people, in which this feature of Absalom’s beauty had been exaggerated. 2 Samuel 14:27 Three sons. Their names are not given, because they died early (see 2 Samuel 18:18). Of his daughter Tamar, named after her aunt, and, like her, possessed of great beauty, the Septuagint adds that she became the wife of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijah. In 1 Kings 15:2 we are told that Abijah’s mother was "Maachah the daughter of Abishalom;" and in 2 Chronicles 13:2 that her name was "Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah." We thus gather that Tamar married Uriel, and that it was the granddaughter of Absalom who became Rehoboam’s queen. It is strictly in accordance with Hebrew custom to call Absalom’s granddaughter his daughter, and, as Uriel was a man of no political importance, he is passed over, as the narrator’s object was to show that Abijah’s mother was sprung from the handsome and notorious son of David (see also 2 Chronicles 11:20, 2 Chronicles 11:21). 2 Samuel 14:29 Absalom sent for Joab. As Joab had been the means of bringing him back, Absalom naturally regarded him as a friend. But Joab had performed the former service for other reasons, and it does not seem as if he really had any affection for Absalom. 2 Samuel 14:30 Go, and set it on fire. The Hebrew has, Go, and I will set it on fire. Absalom represents himself as doing in his own person what his servants were to be his instruments in accomplishing. The versions, however, agree with the Massorites in substituting the easy phrase in the text. But few languages are so indifferent to persons and numbers as the Hebrew. 2 Samuel 14:31 Then Joab arose. This high-handed proceeding forced Joab to pay the wished for visit. But, while we cannot acquit Absalom of petulance, we must not regard his act as one of angry revenge; had it been so, Joab would have openly resented it, and he was quite capable of making even the heir apparent feel his anger. It was probably intended as a rough practical joke, which taught Joab better manners, and which he must laugh at, though with inward displeasure. 2 Samuel 14:32 If there be (any) iniquity in me, let him kill me. The word "any," wrongly inserted in the Authorized Version, as omitted in the Revised Version. It would have been monstrous for Absalom to profess innocence, with the murder of Amnon fresh in his memory; but the phrase, "if there be iniquity in me," means, "if my offence is still unpardoned." If year after year he was to be treated as a criminal, then he would rather be put to death at once. And Absalom’s plea succeeds. Joab, who had been unwilling to visit the prisoner, now consents to act as mediator, reports to David his son’s vexation at such long continued coldness, and obtains full pardon. 2 Samuel 14:33 The king kissed Absalom. The father’s kiss was, as in the case of the prodigal son (Luke 15:20), the sign of perfect reconciliation, and of the restoration of Absalom to his place as a son, with all its privileges. But God’s pardon was immediate (2 Samuel 12:13), while David’s was unwilling, and wrung from him. The kiss, we may feel quite sure, was preceded by a conversation between David and his son, the record of which is omitted simply for the sake of brevity. Evidently it satisfied the king, and ended in the kiss which gave the son all he desired. But whatever may have been his professions, Absalom’s subsequent conduct is proof that he still regarded Amnon’s death as a just retribution for his conduct to Tamar, and secretly cherished a sullen anger against his father for not having punished the wrong doer himself. It was the contrast between his own five years of punishment and the mere verbal reproof which was all that Amnon had to suffer for his shameless conduct, which rankled in Absalom’s mind, and gave him an excuse for finally plotting his father’s ruin. 2 Samuel 14:1-20 The facts are: 1. Joab, observing that the king’s heart was still adverse to Absalom, devised, in order to bring him round to a different feeling, that a wise woman from Tekoah should appear before him and plead a cause. 2. The woman appears before the king, and narrates as facts certain circumstances, namely, (1) that she was a widow, and that on two of her sons falling into strife, one slew the other; (2) that all the rest of the family connections were urging that the survivor should be put to death, much to her grief. 3. David, touched with her story, undertakes to grant her request, whereupon the woman, recognizing the usage in such cases, desires to exonerate the king from blame in this exercise of his clemency. 4. The king giving her a renewed assurance of safety, should any reproach her for thus trading on his clemency, she again, by a reference to God’s presence and knowledge, dwells on the royal promise; whereupon he swears most solemnly that the son shall be spared. 5. The woman then ventures to bring the royal concession to her to bear on the case of Absalom, by suggesting that, in granting her request as a just one, he virtually brings blame on himself for cherishing revengeful feeling against a banished one, and he one of the people of God. 6. She fortifies her argument by alluding to man’s inevitable mortality and to God’s way of dealing with wrong doers, namely, that he devises means of restoring the exile. 7. Reverting to her own suit, she next pretends that the people’s desire for vengeance has caused the fear which prompts this her request, believing, as she does, in the king’s magnanimity and superior discrimination. 8. David, perceiving that she is presenting a parabolic case, now asks whether Joab is not at the origin of it, which, with an Oriental compliment to his discernment, she candidly admits. Astuteness in human affairs. There are a few facts which, put together, seem to warrant the conclusion that David was hostile in mind to Absalom, and that therefore the expression in 2 Samuel 14:1, rendered "toward," should be "adverse to," עַל. These facts are, his evident sorrow for Amnon; the related flight of Absalom and absence for three years, but no mention of any messenger of peace being sent to him; the necessity of the device of the wise woman to awaken kindly interest in the king; and his unwillingness to see Absalom lot two years after having yielded to the force of the argument for his restoration (2 Samuel 14:28). It was in the endeavour to overcome the king’s hostility that Joab manifested the remarkable astuteness of his nature. Taking Joab’s conduct in this instance as our exemplar, we may get an insight as to what constitutes the astuteness in human affairs which then gave and always has given some men an advantage over others. I. THERE IS A SHREWD OF EVENTS. Joab was not a mere military man, whose range of observation was limited by his profession. He had his eyes wide open to notice, in their bearing one on the other, the various incidents in the history of Israel, embracing both the private and public life, king and people. The remark that he perceived that the king’s heart was adverse to Absalom is but an index of the man’s character. Some generals would simply have confined their attention to military duties, paying little or no heed to what passed in the mind of the king, and what was the effect of his attitude on the nation. The widely and minutely observant eye is a great blessing, and, when under the government of a holy purpose, is a means of personal and relative enrichment. All men astute in affairs have cultivated it with zeal, and its activity and range account in part for the superiority they have acquired over their fellow creatures. Human life is a voluminous book, ever being laid, page by page, before us; and he who can with simple and steady glance note what is there written, and treasure up the record for future use, has procured an advantage, which, in days to come, will be converted into power. "The wise man’s eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness" (Ecclesiastes 2:14). II. THERE IS A LOOKING AHEAD. This characteristic of Joab is seen in many instances (e.g. 2 Samuel 11:16, 2 Samuel 11:18-20; 2 Samuel 12:28; 2 Samuel 13:19). He was a man who sought to forecast the issue of events at present transpiring, or conditions that might arise to modify his plans. He seemed to see the complications that might arise should Absalom be kept in perpetual exile, both on account of his fine manly bearing being popular with the people, and of the possible strife should the king die, and the exile then return to contend with a nominee of David’s. The prophetic forecast is a vision of coming reality; the forecast of astuteness is the clever calculation of the bearings of passing events on what may be, the tracking out by anticipation the working on men and things of the various forces now in operation. In so far as a man possesses this quality, he certainly is a power in society, and his opinions with reference to contingencies, and the provision wherewith to meet them, should have weight. The degree to which some men injure themselves and others because they have no prevision, no power of anticipating events, is often very painful. In so far as this kind of prevision can be cultivated in early years, apart from the cunning with which it is sometimes allied, so will be the gain for the entire life. III. THERE IS A SEEKING OF ENDS WITH PUBLIC GOOD. Selfish cunning looks on, but looks only for self, and cares not for general interests. Astuteness looks on, but seeks deliberately to combine the personal and the general good. The former may be a prominent consideration, but the latter has a real place sincerely given. In Joab we have a striking example of this. Even in the killing of Abner Joab probably felt that the presence of such a rival might bring on troubles in Israel. When, by complicity with David’s sin (2 Samuel 11:17), he advanced his own ambition by gaining power over David, he had an idea that the country would be the stronger for king and general to be of one mind. His sending for David to conquer Rabbah (2 Samuel 12:26-30) promoted his own influence over the king, and at the same time gave the nation the advantage of a regal triumph. No doubt he foresaw that, as Absalom was now the eldest son, he might possibly come to the throne, and hence it was important to secure his favour by being the instrument of procuring his recall; at the same time, he saw it would be better for king and people that this family quarrel should be adjusted. There is no astuteness in pure benevolence, and there is no pure benevolence in astuteness. Its characteristic is that it uses a knowledge of men and things, and an anticipation of coming and possible events, in such a way as to secure personal interests in promoting public good. There is too much conscience for pure selfishness, and too little for pure benevolence. These children of the world are certainly wise in their generation (Luke 16:8). IV. THERE IS A SPECIAL OF HUMAN NATURE, AND OF THE MEANS OF ACTING ON IT. Joab knew men—their foibles and their strength. He had acquired that kind of penetration which comes of having much to do with men of divers temperaments and preferences. He knew how to touch David’s natural ambition at Rabbah (2 Samuel 12:28-30). He understood how he would feign displeasure and sorrow at the assault which brought about the death of Uriah, and how the courtiers could be put off suspicion (2 Samuel 12:20, 2 Samuel 12:21). He knew that a story appealing to generous, magnanimous feelings would be sure to touch the king’s heart (2 Samuel 14:2). This knowledge of men is an inestimable treasure for practical purposes. Some persons never acquire it, and consequently are at a great disadvantage in the struggle for life. Others avail themselves of it for low, cunning purposes, which are more becoming fiends than men. The astute man, whose character is toned by a moral aim, uses his knowledge to avoid some and secure the favour of others, and also to bring men round to the furtherance of the objects he has in hand. There is not in such a quality the simplicity which sometimes passes for Christian guilelessness; it may even seem, in some cases, to savour of cunning; but there are instances in which it combines the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The Apostle Paul was certainly an astute Christian. He knew men, and how to deal with them on Christian principles. His addresses before his judges and his Epistles bear witness. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. All who wish to be effective in Christian service should endeavour to extend their knowledge of human nature; for it is said of Christ that he knew what was in man (John 2:25). 2. In seeking a more thorough knowledge of human nature, we should avoid the risking the habitual feeling of distrust and suspicion which many of the sad facts of life may well suggest; for our Saviour, who knew all that is in man, the worst and the best, acted in his relations to them on the principle of generous consideration. 3. We should see to it that the intellectual qualities of astuteness are allied in us with Christian qualities that will save us from low cunning and mere utilitarian motive, and make duty the guide of action. 4. It behoves us to make use of all innocent means—"wise women," if need be—parables, or direct argument, to bring others to act in accordance with the will of God. 5. In dealing with men we should endeavour to touch the better springs of action in their nature, and assume that they are prepared to do justly and generously. Means to bring back the banished. The woman of Tekoah showed her wisdom in very deftly blending the argument suggested by Joab with thoughts and pleadings designed to meet the successive replies of the king. To gain her point, she proceeded from the assumption of his natural sympathy with a distressed widow up to the overwhelming argument derived from a consideration of God’s method in dealing with his children when they are, by reason of their sins, banished from his presence, There may seem to be a weakness in the parallel she implies between the case of her sons and the case of Absalom and Amnon, inasmuch as the death of Amnon was brought about by a deliberate design, while the death of the other was a consequence of a sudden strife; but in reality she was right. The strife of her sons was "in the field," but there may have been antecedents which led to that mortal conflict; and, so far as concerned the sons of David, it was to all intents and purposes a family quarrel, brought on by the wrong done to Absalom in the ruin of his sister, and the wise woman evidently regarded the whole affair as a "strife in the field." Provocation had been given by Amnon, and the anger of Absalom, thus aroused, occasioned his death. Amnon would not have died, but for his attack on the honour of Absalom. Two things in the final argument come home to David. (1) The reference to the ways of God. David, as a pious man and as a righteous ruler, rejoiced in the ways of the Lord; to him they were just and true and wise; they were the professed model of his own conduct. This moral argument to a good man is perfectly irresistible. (2) The reference to God’s banished ones. David had of late been a banished one. He had known the anguish of being far from his heavenly Father, a spiritual exile, no longer permitted or inclined to the close and blessed fellowship of former times. The widow’s word "banished" brought back the sad remembrance, followed in a moment by the remembrance of the mercy that had blotted out all his sins and restored him to the joys of salvation. Wise woman, thus to touch the deepest and tenderest springs of the heart! Consider what is implied in the blessed words, "He doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." I. MAN’S BY REASON OF SIN IS ONE OF . As truly as Absalom was now banished from David as a consequence of his transgressions, so man is separated from God. The information given us of the fallen angels is slight, but it amounts to this—that they are banished because of sin (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 2 Peter 1:6). Our first parents were banished from Paradise because of sin. Those who are not welcomed at last to heaven will have to refer the banishment to sin (Matthew 7:23; Matthew 25:45, Matthew 25:46; Revelation 21:27). The state of mankind, while sin is loved and followed, is one of alienation. The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God. We are as sheep going astray. Apart from any positive decree, the fact of sin constitutes moral severance from God. The child wanders, heedless of the Father’s love, and all the moral laws of the universe combine with psychological laws to keep him, while in that state, outside the blessed sphere of fellowship and rest. It was instinctive for Absalom to flee from the face of the king. He banished himself by his deed, and the king could not render it otherwise. It is instinctive for one in sin to rice from the face of the holy God, and the Eternal, though omnipotent, cannot render it otherwise. The constitution of nature renders it inevitable. To suppose that it is an arbitrary arrangement is to imagine an impossibility. No power can make sin equivalent to holiness, and consequently no power can confer on sin the blessedness of the Divine favour. II. GOD REGARDS THE AS HIS. Absalom was the son of David, though an exiled wanderer. David felt for him the mingled sorrow and displeasure of a just and good parent. The change of character and position does not destroy natural relationship. Adam was God’s wandering child when, with sad heart, he turned his back on Paradise. The prodigal son is represented as being a son, though wasting his substance with riotous living. Our Saviour, in teaching us how to pray, would have us think of God as our Father. The whole tenor of his life on earth was to cause sinful men to feel that God the Father locks on them as his, even while in rebellion against his will. Had he disowned us in this respect, there would indeed have been no hope. It is much to know, in our sins and errors and dreadful guilt, that we are God’s offspring, that he has a proprietary right in us, and thinks of us as only a father can think of his children (Ezekiel 33:11). III. GOD MAKES FOR THE BACK TO HIMSELF. "He doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." Wonderful words for that age, and from a widow! The great and precious truth is the comfort of myriads all over the world, and the occasion of wonder and joy in heaven. Such an incidental statement reveals to us that the pious of Israel in those times possessed much fuller and clearer knowledge concerning God and his salvation than they sometimes get credit for, or would be inferred from the outlines of national history contained in the Bible. The history is designed to trace the great historic line along which Christ came, and the fact that God was, through the Jewish people, working out a great purpose to be gradually revealed in Christ. We are not told of all the detailed teaching of holy priests and prophets. We may fairly regard this wonderful statement of the widow as an index of truth widely possessed, distinct from the provision of such means of blessing as the brazen serpent and the cities of refuge. There is a twofold sense in which the expression may be understood. 1. God provides means for the redemption of the world. The Mosaic economy was, in some of its institutions, a shadow of the provision that centres in the cross of Christ. Our salvation is of God. If he does not find means to cover sin and influence our evil hearts, there is no hope. We cannot, and are unwilling. He deviseth means (John 3:16). There is an intimation of the wisdom requisite. Sin produces such confusion in the moral sphere, and runs so against the order of government, and lays so strong a hold on the human heart, that only infinite wisdom could find out the way by which we might come back to God. Hence the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the appointment of faith as the condition and of preaching as the instrumentality, are all ascribed to the wisdom and goodness of God. It is by the Church thus saved that the wisdom of God is revealed to all ages (Romans 3:23-26; Romans 4:16; Romans 8:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21-30; Ephesians 3:10). 2. God provides means for the restoration of those who backslide from him. By chastisements, by the voice of prophets and conscience, by the pleading of the Spirit, by the varied events of providence causing the erring child to feel how evil and bitter a thing it is to depart from God, he opens a way by which they are brought back again. David knew this. "He restoreth my soul" (Psalms 23:3). How wonderfully wise and gentle these means often are is well known to many who once were as sheep going astray, and had lost the blessedness of fellowship formerly known. "Return!… O chosen of my love! Fear not to meet thy beckoning Saviour’s view Long ere I called thee by thy name, I knew That very treacherously thou wouldst deal; Now I have seen thy ways, yet I will heal. Return! Wilt thou yet linger far from me? My wrath is turned away, I have redeemed thee." IV. GOD’S WAYS IN DEALING WITH HIS ONES ARE A MODEL FOR US. The wise woman had spoken of the ways of God with his banished ones in order to induce David to follow in the same course with respect to Absalom—the implication being that, when once a good man is reminded of the ways of God, he will without further urging act in the same manner. The parallel between the relation of Absalom to David and the relation of a sinner to God may not in every detail be perfect; but there being a resemblance in the substantial facts—banishment of a son because of high-handed deeds of wrong—it follows that there should be a resemblance, in the bearing of the earthly father king to his son, to that of God to his sinful child. The two features of God’s bearing toward his own are: (1) He does not take away life; but (2) devises means by which those who deserve to die are brought back to him (2 Samuel 14:14). The reference evidently is not to the legal code, which in several cases recognizes capital punishment for certain offences, for ends civil and social, but to the general principle and method of God’s dealing with sinful man in his highest relations to himself. He desireth not the death of the sinner, and therefore he, speaking after the manner of men, finds out some way of bringing about a restoration to favour consistent with his own honour and the claims of righteousness. In the New Testament this example is set forth in strong and varied terms (Matthew 5:43-48; Matthew 6:14, Matthew 6:15; Ephesians 4:31, Ephesians 4:32). The fact that there is a model in God’s bearing toward us is only half the truth. It is our duty and privilege to act according to it. It is not enough to be kindly disposed. We are to "devise devices"—take the initiative—in seeking to restore those who may have done wrong and merited our displeasure. This is the hard lesson taught by Christ, which even his own people are so slow to learn. When will Christians be as Christ was and act as Christ did? It is often easier to sing hymns, hear sermons, and bow the knee in prayer. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. The proper course for the poor and sorrowful and oppressed is, after the example of this widow, to have recourse to him who sitteth as King in Zion; for his ear is ever open to their cry, and there is an open way of access to his throne. 2. In all our approaches to the supreme throne we may, with more confidence than was displayed by this widow in David, act on the assumption of a mercy and wisdom that never fail. 3. It is not only a solace to the weary heart, but a sure means of help in our domestic cares, if we bring them before the notice of our God. 4. We see how often the best and most exalted of men, in their conduct and feelings, come far short of the character they should manifest, and how they may require even the teaching which comes from the spirit and deeds of the poor and troubled to raise them to a higher level of life. 5. It is possible for good men to be kind and generous towards others, and at the same time be unaware, till forced to see it, that there are features in their personal conduct day by day not in accord with the general generosity which they recognize and display. 6. We need to be reminded that the death of those we have cared for, should it come about while we are not acting kindly toward them (2 Samuel 14:14), is an unalterable event, a change which renders acts of kindness impossible—as water spilt on the ground cannot be gathered up again; and consequently we should seize passing opportunities of blessing them. 7. The sinful state of man is as unnatural as is exile to a king’s son, and should ever be so represented (Isaiah 1:2, Isaiah 1:3). 8. All thanks and praise are due to God, in that he needed not any one to procure our restoration; all is of his own eternal love and free grace. 9. We should distinguish between the human setting of a truth and the truth itself. To "devise a means" is a human way of expressing the truth that God, from the beginning, before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8), ordained and arranged for our salvation, but that we see the prearrangement coming into form subsequent to the advent of sin, and think of it as being devised to meet that event after its occurrence. We say, "the sun rises," but it does not. Our forms of expression consequent on the appearance of things to us is not the exact utterance of absolute truth. 10. The force of a Divine example, when brought to bear on men who recognize the government of God, will often compel conviction when other means fail. 2 Samuel 14:21-33 Imperfect reconciliation. The facts are: 1. David, referring to the promise he had made, sends Joab to bring Absalom from Geshur, Joab expressing in lowly form his thanks for the king’s gracious attention to his request. 2. On Absalom’s return he is ordered to abide in his own house, and not to see the king’s face. 3. The personal beauty of Absalom is famous throughout Israel, and of his four children the only daughter is also reputed to be fair. 4. For two years Absalom remains in Jerusalem without seeing the king, whereupon he becomes dissatisfied, and sends to Joab, hoping, to send him to the king. 5. Joab, for some unexpressed reason, declines to give heed to the message, and, as a consequence, Absalom orders his field of barley to be burnt. 6. This event bringing Joab to him, Absalom remonstrates with the king through him against this semi-imprisonment, and demands to see the king. 7. The king yielding to the request, Absalom presents himself, and receives his father’s kiss. Whatever may have been the secret causes operating on both sides, the course of the narrative clearly shows us that, although Joab seemed to have gained his point through the wise woman of Tekoah, yet the restoration of Absalom to his father’s love and confidence was not perfect. There are, in the account here given of the relation of David to his son, illustrations of several important truths or recurring incidents of human life. I. WITH . In the interview with Joab (2 Samuel 14:21, 2 Samuel 14:22) David distinctly intimated to him that he had "done this thing"—consented to Absalom’s return in consequence of having been caught within the coils of the parabolic pleadings of the wise woman whom he had employed for that purpose. Apart from the force of the argument, the king was no doubt willing in some degree to comply with the request of so influential a man, especially as he knew more of his own life than was comfortable to reflect upon. Joab regarded it as a work of special grace that his wishes were thus considered; and most probably he went to Geshur to fetch Absalom, with cheerful expectations of a speedy removal of family difficulties. But although the king kept the letter of his concession in Absalom’s permitted return, it is evident that he either repented of his original decision or had made, when giving it, a private reservation that, though returned, he should not give him a hearty welcome. Both Joab and Absalom (2 Samuel 14:24) appear to have reported themselves at the king’s house, in expectation of full restoration, for he "returned to his own house." Such concessions as this are valuable in so far as they confer privileges otherwise not attainable, but they lose much value in being extracted by pressure and especially by the reservation which becomes subsequently known. It had been well, perhaps, had conditions been stated from the first. If possible, our agreements and promises should be expressed in terms that cover all we think and intend. The mutual confidence of society depends on the cultivation of frankness and candour. The first inconvenience is the least. The promises of God are "yea and Amen." There is no disappointing reservation for us when we arrive at the palace of the great King. II. OF CONDUCT. Great consideration is due to David when we endeavour to form an estimate of his conduct. His position, brought on, it is true, by his own sad sin, was most perplexing. On the one side there was (1) the very natural and great displeasure against a son who could cherish revenge for two whole years, and then presume to take upon himself the vindication of justice, thus reflecting on royal authority; (2) the absolute need of chastisement for a young man of violent spirit and haughty temper; (3) the importance of maintaining influence over the people by not seeming to palliate the violence of his own family; (4) the temptation to which so handsome and attractive a young man would be exposed were he to be prematurely welcomed into society again; (5) the secret influence of his favourite wife, Bathsheba, who could not but remind him of the claims on the succession of the son specially named by the prophet as "beloved of the Lord" (2 Samuel 12:24, 2 Samuel 12:25). Then on the other side there was (1) his natural yearning over a hitherto favourite son, the more so as he feared lest he should fall a victim to evil ways; (2) Joab’s evident interest in Absalom, and the expediency of conciliating so powerful a man; (3) the near connection of Absalom with the tribe of Judah, and the danger of raising up a party should there be an appearance of harshness; (4) the remembrance of the unqualified promise virtually given to the wise woman of Tekoah, that he would regard God’s mercy to his banished ones as his model; (5) the reflection that, after his own dreadful sin in the case of Uriah, God had restored him to personal favour. Under some such conflicting influence David could not grant all that was desired. Happily modern parents have not to decide on the doom of fratricides; but troubles do arise which place them in most embarrassing circumstances. Much charity is needed in our judgments on the action taken in cases of difficulty. There is much unknown to the outward observer. It is important, in all these times of perplexity, to cast our care on the Lord, and seek the special guidance which he has promised. Divine influence alone can keep us from being unduly biassed in either direction. Our decisions may mean perpetual weal or woe to children. III. THE OF PARTIAL . It is a severe but wholesome discipline for Absalom to be kept two years without full restoration. Possibly David may have ascertained from others that his temper was not much improved, and that he did not show the signs of penitence or regret becoming one who looked for full restoration to paternal favour. Then, also, David could not but remember that, with his own restoration to God, there was attached a temporal chastisement, which, while it did not touch the reality of the Divine forgiveness, was designed for public good; and possibly he may have thought that the privilege of returning to Jerusalem only might be accepted as a sign of actual personal forgiveness, and at the same time put Absalom under wholesome restraints. This kind of discipline does exist in human affairs and in Church life. Children and men are caused to feel that some inconvenience has resulted from their conduct, even though they are no longer punished. In so far as we fall in with the natural or designed tendency of this discipline, we may turn its annoyances into a means of recovery from the moral failings which have been our bane. IV. THE PERILS OF . The beauty of Absalom is referred to in such a way as to suggest that he was not only aware of it, but that it exercised a fascinating influence over others, and tended to gather around him persons likely to be influenced by personal appearances, and therefore not the most helpful to one who needs the stimulus and support of high moral principles. Personal beauty is a gift of God, and, were not sin in the world as a disturbing element in the physical and moral development of the human race, the probability is that the average beauty of form and expression would equal or surpass what is now regarded as exceptional. Unfortunately, it is sometimes allied to a vain and frivolous spirit, and in that case it becomes a snare. There are instances in which beauty has been associated with the devout earnest spirit of religion, and has been made tributary to obtaining a hallowed influence over others. Special prayer and strong safeguards are required for our sons and daughters whoso personal attractions may lay them open to the flatteries and friendships of the unwise and unholy. V. THE OF . It was natural for Absalom to be restless under the restraint of two years, though, had his spirit been very lowly and penitent, he would have kept it within due limits. The treatment of Joab was an intimation that the daring temper which slew Amnon was still there. He who could set a field of barley on fire in order to get his messages attended to was capable, unless the tendencies were checked, of producing a more serious conflagration. The presence within a young man of strong passions, a violent temper, a hatred of restraint or love of pleasure, is a sign of danger. It is in the nature of forces to work their way outward. If we say, "the child is father to the man," we may also say that the moral forces within are the creators of the life without. Unless strong counter-influences are brought to bear to neutralize their action or to extirpate them, they will gain power by being daily cherished, and a free, jovial, handsome Absalom may become the notorious rebel, whose hand turns against his own father. Human life exhibits such developments still. Young men should interrogate their own nature, and fairly face the moral dangers that may lie there, before their power renders introspection and suppression difficult if not impossible. Those who have charge of the young should note signs of struggling forces, and adapt the moral education according to the individual requirement. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 14:1-20 (.) The woman of Tekoah. 1. In David "the king" we hero see that fatherly affection may come into conflict with regal justice. He must have perceived the ill effects of sparing Amnon, and felt constrained to punish Absalom. But his grief and resentment were mitigated by the lapse of time (2 Samuel 13:39). Nevertheless, though prompted by natural affection to recall his son, he was deterred from doing so by political and judicial considerations. And to overcome his reluctance a stratagem was devised, which, as the sequel shows, was only too successful. For by his weakness towards Absalom "he became guilty of the further dissolution of the theocratic rule in his house and in his kingdom" (Erdmann). 2. In Joab "the son of Zerniah" (2 Samuel 3:39) we see that a man may promote another’s interest out of regard for his own (2 Samuel 3:22-30; 2 Samuel 11:16-21). "He may have been induced to take these steps by his personal attachment to Absalom, but the principal reason no doubt was that Absalom had the best prospect of succeeding to the throne, and Joab thought this the best way to secure himself from punishment for the murder which he had committed. But the issue of events frustrated all such hopes. Absalom did not succeed to the throne, Joab did not escape punishment, and David was severely chastised for his weakness and injustice" (Keil). "Joab formed a project by which the king, in his very capacity of chief judge, should find the glimmering fire of parental love suddenly fanned into a burning flame" (Ewald). 3. In the "wise woman" of Tekoah we see that skilful persuasion may so work upon natural feeling as to induce a course which is neither expedient nor just. The cleverness, insight, readiness of speech, tact, boldness mingled with caution, and perseverance, which she displayed (under the direction of Joab, who perhaps "stood by at some distance whilst she addressed herself to the king," 2 Samuel 14:21) are remarkable. Such qualities may be employed for a good or an evil purpose. In contrast with the reproof of Nathan, her persuasion (1) was inspired, not by God, but by man; (2) was addressed, not to conscience, but to pity and affection; (3) aimed, not to manifest the truth, but to obscure it; (4) and "to give effect, not to the convictions of duty, but to the promptings of inclination" (Blaikie); (5) sought to do this, not sincerely and openly, but insincerely and insidiously; (6) and not by proper motives alone, and honest, though unpleasant speech, but by improper motives and "with flattering lips;" and (7) produced, not a beneficial, but an injurious effect. In her persuasive address we notice, more particularly— I. AN BUT APPEAL. (2 Samuel 14:4-11.) "And the woman of Tekoah came to the king," etc; making her appeal for help in an acted parable, like that of Nathan (2 Samuel 12:1-4). "Parables sped well with David; one drew him to repent of his own sin, another to remit Absalom’s punishment" (Hall). This parable of the hapless son, or the avengers of blood, was intended, adapted, and employed: 1. To excite compassion toward the unfortunate: a son who had slain his brother "unawares" Numbers 35:11) in the field, and whose life was imperilled by the avengers, "the old family" (Numbers 35:7); and his widowed mother, whose only stay and comfort he was, whose "live coal which is left" would be quenched, and whose husband’s "name and posterity" would be destroyed. "The power of the discourse lies in the fact that they are represented as already doing what their words show to be their purpose." 2. To procure protection against the avengers; who, according to ancient custom, sought to take his life (2 Samuel 3:22-30); their conduct being portrayed as persistently pitiless (Numbers 35:11), "and actuated, not so much by a wish to observe the Law, as by covetousness and a desire to share the inheritance among themselves" (Kirkpatrick); obscurely suggestive of the hostility exhibited toward Absalom. "Her circumstances (as a widow and living at some distance from Jerusalem, which rendered the case difficult to be readily inquired into), her mournful tale, her widow’s weeds, her aged person, and her impressive manner, all combined to make one united impression on the king’s heart" (A. Clarke). "In all this she intended to frame a case as like to David’s as she could do; by determining which in her favour, he might judge how much more reasonable it was to preserve Absalom. But there was a wide difference between her case and his, however plausible soever their likeness might appear" (Patrick). 3. To obtain assurance of preservation from the king; which was given at first as an indefinite promise (Numbers 35:8), afterwards (through her importunity) in a more definite engagement (Numbers 35:10), and finally confirmed by an oath (Numbers 35:11). "Had David first proved and inquired into the matter which with cunning and deceit was brought before him, he would not have given assurance with an oath" (Schlier). "We should learn from David’s example to be more guarded over all our feelings and affections, even such as are in their proper degree essential to a religious character" (Lindsay). "Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause" (Exodus 23:3). II. AN BUT (Numbers 35:13, Numbers 35:14); based upon the assumed resemblance between the case of the hapless son, of whom she had spoken, and that of Absalom, to whom she alluded as fully as she might venture. For her appeal had "a double sense," or twofold purpose—one clear, immediate, feigned, subordinate; the other dark, ultimate, real, supreme; and to the latter she now comes. "And why dost thou think [devise] such a thing as that of which I am now permitted to speak] against people of God? And by the king’s speaking this word [’As Jehovah liveth,’ etc; Numbers 35:11] he is as one that is guilty [or, ’self-condemned’], in that the king does not bring back his banished one." "My banished one!" he must have thought, as the main object of the woman’s appeal flashed upon him. But she went on: "For we must die [’shall surely die,’ Genesis 2:17], and are as water poured out on the ground that is not gathered up. And God takes not away a soul [nephesh, equivalent to ’individual life’], but thinks thoughts [devises devices] to the end that he may not banish from him [utterly] a banished one." She thus sought to persuade the king to recall his son by: 1. The obligation of his oath, in which "he had acknowledged the possibility of an exception to the general rule of punishment for murder;" sworn to save her son, who had killed his brother under severe provocation; and was consistently bound to spare and restore his own son in similar circumstances. But the difference between them, here kept out of view, was fatal to the argument. Absalom’s crime was deliberately planned, executed by his servants under his order, and seen by many witnesses. 2. The welfare of the people of God, involved in the preservation and return of the heir to the throne. Although the king’s sons and the whole court were against Absalom (Genesis 2:7), a large party of the people was in his favour. But the general welfare would have been more promoted by his just punishment, or continuance in exile, than by his restoration, as the subsequent history shows. 3. The mortality of men—the inevitable and irreparable decease of Amnon, Absalom, the king himself; the consideration of which should induce compassion and speedy help, lest it should be too late. But "even compassion, amiable as it is, will not justify our violation of the Divine Law, or neglecting the important duties of our station" (Scott). 4. The clemency of God; in forbearance and long suffering toward sinful men, and devising means for their restoration to his presence; such as David himself had experienced (2 Samuel 12:13; Psalms 51:11). His example should be imitated. But his forbearance is limited—he pardons only those who repent, and punishes the guilty; and for the king to spare the guilty on insufficient grounds, or pardon the impenitent, would be to harden the wicked in their wickedness, and to act contrary to the purpose, for which he is made "an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil." The reasons assigned, though excellent in themselves, were inapplicable and fallacious. The noblest truths may be perverted to a bad purpose. A weak argument appears strong to one who is already disposed to accept its conclusion; and is a sufficient excuse for a course which he is inclined to pursue. By the manner in which her words were received by the king, the "wise woman" perceived that her point was practically gained; enough had been said, and leaving it to work its effect on his mind, she returned to the ostensible occasion of her petition for help; and "now she would go home happy (she said), as if this reference to the king’s behaviour had been only the casual chatter of a talkative woman" (P. Thomson). III. AN BUT APOLOGY for intrusion on the king (Genesis 2:15-20); expressive of: 1. The anxious fear and hope with which she had been impelled to make her request (Genesis 2:15). 2. The joyful anticipation and grateful assurance of rest which she now felt (Genesis 2:16, Genesis 2:17). 3. Devout admiration and praise of the king, on account of his wisdom in judgment; with a prayer for his prosperity: "May Jehovah thy God be with thee!" Fully acknowledging that, as the king surmised, she had acted under the direction of Joab," in order to bring round the face [aspect] of the matter" (to alter Absalom’s relation to his father), she again commends the discernment of the king: "My lord is wise," etc. (Genesis 2:18-20). "When we are most commended for our discernment we generally act most foolishly; for those very praises cloud and pervert the judgment’" (Scott). "And the king said unto Joab, Behold now, I have done this thing: go and bring the young man Absalom back" (Genesis 2:21). "The feelings of the father triumphed over the duty of the king, who, as supreme magistrate, was bound to execute impartial justice on every murderer, by the express Law of God (Genesis 9:9; Numbers 35:30, 81), which he had no power to dispense with (Deuteronomy 18:18; Joshua 1:8; 1 Samuel 10:25)" (Jamieson). Although neither the end of the woman’s address nor some of the means are employed can be approved, yet much may be learnt from it concerning the art of persuasion; e.g. the importance of (1) knowing the character and sentiments of those who are addressed; (2) having a definite aim in view; (3) arresting attention and awakening interest and sympathy; (4) earnestness and fervency of manner; (5) using argument and illustration adapted to present the matter in the most attractive light; (6) saying enough and no more, especially on a difficult and delicate subject; (7) advancing step by step with a]persistent determination to succeed.—D. 2 Samuel 14:14 As water spilt upon the ground. Water is a gift of God, very precious, especially in lands where it is scarce, and often longed for as a means of quenching thirst, renewing strength, and preserving life (2 Samuel 23:15; Psalms 63:1). But it may be thrown away, poured out and lost, by design or accident, through the overturning or fracture of the vessel in which it is contained. Human life, also, is a Divine gift, precious beyond all earthly possessions. But it is contained in "a body of fragile clay" 2 Corinthians 4:7), which is sooner or later destroyed like "the pitcher shattered at the well" Ecclesiastes 12:6); and thus "we are as water," etc. We have here— I. AS ASPECT OF DEATH. 1. It must take place in all, without exception. "It is appointed," etc. (Genesis 3:19; Romans 5:12; Hebrews 9:27). 2. It may occur to each of us at any moment (1 Samuel 10:3). 3. It puts an end to the useful service which might have been rendered. Only while the water remains in the vessel can it be of immediate use. 4. It cannot by any possibility be repaired, or "gathered up again." "As the waters fail from the sea," etc. (Job 14:11; Job 7:10); "as waters melt away," etc. (Psalms 58:7; Psalms 39:13; Psalms 49:7-10; Psalms 103:16). "Death is of all things the most terrible, for it is the end" (Aristotle). "What is your life? ’Tis a delicate shell, Cast up by Eternity’s flow; On Time’s bank of quicksand to dwell, A moment its loveliness show. Returned to its element grand Is the billow that brought it on shore; See, another is washing the strand, And the beautiful shell is no more." II. AN FOR LIFE. Is it so? Then: 1. Restrain immoderate indulgence in sorrow, "the grief that saps the mind, for those on earth we see no more." No weeping, anger, nor endeavour can bring back Amnon (2 Samuel 12:23). Accept calmly what cannot be altered. 2. Repress improper feelings of resentment toward others. Even though it he just, it should not be perpetual (Ephesians 4:26). They and you alike must die and pass away. "Be reconciled." 3. Regard all around you with sympathy and kindly affection. Before tomorrow they may be gone. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 15:1 After this. The Hebrew is a more precise phrase than that on which we have commented on 2 Samuel 10:1 and 2 Samuel 13:1, and implies that Absalom began his devices soon after obtaining his liberty. Chariots and horses; Hebrew, a chariot and horses; that is, a chariot for state occasions, in which Absalom rode, while fifty footmen ran at his side. Probably his grandfather Talmai practised similar magnificence at Geshur. In India it is still common for men of rank to be attended by runners on foot, who will keep up with horses or elephants for an incredible distance. 2 Samuel 15:2 The way of the gate. The gate would be that of the royal palace, where the king gave audience and administered justice. At the gate of the city the elders were the judges, and, though the higher authority of the king may have weakened the action of this citizen court, yet passages such as Isaiah 50:1-11:23 and Jeremiah 5:28 imply, not only its continued existence, but also that it retained much importance. Probably all causes between citizens were tried by it, just as causes in the country were tried by the mishpachah (see note on 2 Samuel 14:7); but with an appeal in weighty matters to the king. It is a mistake to suppose that David altogether neglected his judicial functions. On the contrary, the woman of Tekoah obtained an audience, as a matter of course; and Absalom would not have risen up thus early unless David had also taken his seat in the early morning on the royal divan to administer justice. It was the suitors on their way to the king whom Absalom accosted, and made believe that he would be more assiduous in his duties than his father, and that he would have decided every suit in favour of the person to whom he was talking, whereas really one side alone can gain the cause. Still, we may well believe that, guilty himself of adultery and murder, and with his two eider sons stained with such terrible crimes, David’s administration of justice had become half hearted. And thus his sin again found him out, and brought stern punishment. For Absalom used this weakness against his father, and, intercepting the suitors on their way, would ask their city and tribe, and listen to their complaint, and assure them of the goodness of their cause, and lament that, as the king could not hear all causes easily himself, he did not appoint others to aid him in his duties. It was delay and procrastination of which Absalom complained; and as many of the litigants had probably come day after day, and not succeeded in getting a hearing, they were already in ill humour and prepared to find fault. Now, as David possessed great powers of organization, we may well believe that he would have taken measures for the adequate administration of law had it not been for the moral malady which enfeebled his will. In the appointment of Jehoshaphat and Seraiah (2 Samuel 8:16, 2 Samuel 8:17) he had made a beginning, but soon his hands grew feeble, and he did no more. 2 Samuel 15:6 Absalom stole the hearts. By professing anxiety to devote himself to the hearing and deciding of the people’s causes, by flattering each one with the assurance that his case was so good that it needed only a hearing to be decided in his favour, and by his affability, made the more charming and irresistible by his personal beauty, he won the love of the people almost without their knowing how devoted they had become to him. 2 Samuel 15:7 After forty years. As Absalom was born in Hebron after David was made king (2 Samuel 3:3), and as David’s whole reign lasted only forty years and six months, the reading "forty" is evidently incorrect. Suggestions, such, for instance, as that the forty years are to be reckoned from the desire of the Israelites to have a king, or from the anointing of David by Samuel, are merely methods of evading a difficulty. The Syriac, however, and the Vulgate—except the Codex Amiatinus, which reads "forty," supported by Josephus and some manuscripts have "four years," which would give ample, yet not too long, time for the growth of Absalom’s popularity, and of dissatisfaction at David’s tardy administration of justice. In Hebron. Absalom chose this town, beth as being his birthplace, and also because it was on the road to Geshur (1 Samuel 27:8), whither flight might be necessary should the enterprise fail. He hoped also to win to his cause some of the powerful tribe of Judah, though it generally was the mainstay of David’s throne. Local sacrifices were still customary (see note on 1 Samuel 16:2), and the visit of the king’s son for such a purpose would be celebrated by a general holiday and much feasting at Hebron. As Ewald remarks, David’s confidence and want of suspicion were the results of a noble-minded generosity. And besides, there was no state police ever on the watch, and ready to put an unfavourable construction on all that was done; and probably David was even pleased at his son’s popularity, and took his professions as proof that he would be a just and wise ruler on succeeding to his father’s place. Perhaps, too, he was glad at this indication of religious feeling on Absalom’s part; for a father is sure to look on the better side of his son’s acts. tie had been tardy enough in fulfilling his vow, but it seemed to David that conscience had at last prevailed, and that right was to be done. 2 Samuel 15:10 Absalom sent spies. The word means "those who go hither and thither," and, as the object of such journeying would usually be. to gather information, the right translation often is "spies." Here there was no such purpose, nor were they to report to Absalom, but to disperse themselves everywhere, and, when the signal was given at Hebron, they were to endeavour to gather the people to Absalom’s standard. Some simple minded commentators wonder how one trumpet could be heard throughout the land. It was heard only at Hebron, but the news of the proclamation would rapidly spread; and, though the rumour might be vague and confused, yet these emissaries, fully acquainted beforehand with its meaning, would turn it to Absalom’s advantage, and urge the people to confirm the choice, made, as they would affirm, by the whole tribe of Judah. In such attempts everything depends upon gathering a powerful following at first; and usually a good deal of vigour and even force is necessary to make men take part in a revolt. But as the numbers swell, adherents readily flock in to what seems to be the winning side. 2 Samuel 15:11 Two hundred men. These, doubtless, were courtiers and men of rank, who were so accustomed to Absalom’s love of display, that, when called, that is, invited, they would go without suspicion. To Absalom their attendance was most important, not only because, being compromised, many would join him, and even all of them for a time be forced to yield obedience, but because they would make the people of Hebron suppose that Absalom had a powerful body of supporters at Jerusalem. It is quite possible that at Hebron, and generally in Judah, there was great discontent because David had left their tribe to choose a capital elsewhere, and because he did not show them any decided preference over the other tribes, whose good will he would rightly seek to conciliate. The existence of much jealousy between Judah and the ten tribes is plain from 2 Samuel 19:41-43. 2 Samuel 15:12 Ahithophel the Gilonite. The desertion of David by Ahithophel is in every way remarkable, even if he were Bathsheba’s grandfather (see note on 2 Samuel 11:3). For he was far too subtle a man to have joined the conspiracy unless he bad felt reasonably sure that it would be successful. Successful it would have been had his advice been followed; but so correctly did he estimate the result if David were allowed time to gather his friends, that, when his counsel was rejected, he withdrew immediately to Giloh, and committed suicide. Still if the revolt had been successful, it would have involved, if not the death of Bathsheba, yet certainly that of her sons, and the exclusion of Ahithophel’s great-grandchildren from the throne. In Psalms 41:1-13; written at this time, we learn what were David’s feelings when he heard the news of this conspiracy, and Ahithophel is the familiar friend, in whom he had trusted, and who had eaten at his table, but now raised up his heel to kick at him. In John 13:18 the words are quoted of Judas Iscariot, of whom Ahithophel was a type in his treachery and in his death by his own hand. The translation, "sent for Ahithophel," cannot be maintained. The Hebrew is "sent Ahithophel," but for what purpose or on what embassy is not mentioned. As thus something must have dropped out of the Hebrew text, it possibly may be the preposition "for," as this gives a good sense. For Giloh, Ahithophel’s town, was situated a few miles to the south of Hebron (Joshua 15:51), and Ahithophel had probably been working there secretly for Absalom for some time. As David’s counsellor, his proper place of residence would have been Jerusalem, but the conspiracy had been kept so secret that he had been able to get away without suspicion. He is now summoned to Absalom’s side, and his presence there brings in so many adherents that a rapid march on Jerusalem might have put David into their power. The Revised Version is right in translating, while he offered the sacrifices; namely, those which he had vowed, and which were the reason given for his visit to Hebron. 2 Samuel 15:14 Arise, and let us flee. The rebellion of Absalom, and David’s humiliating flight, bring out all the better parts of the king’s character, and set him once again before us as a man after God’s own heart. For this period is richly illustrated by the psalms which were written under the pressure of this great affliction, and which are marked by firm confidence in God, and an assured sense of the Divine nearness and protection. Psalms 41:1-13. shows how poignant was his anguish at Ahithophel’s treachery, but it inspired no fear: "As for me, thou up. holdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face forever" (Psalms 41:12). It was a firm faith which prompted such words. In Psalms 63:1-11; written "in the wilderness of Judah," before David had reached the Jordan, he gives utterance to his grief at the loss of his religious privileges at Jerusalem; but Jehovah is still his strong Tower, and his dwelling will be in God’s tabernacle forever. Psalms 3:1-8; Psalms 4:1-8. are his morning and evening hymns written "when he fled from Absalom his son." Psalms 55:1-23 is one more sad even than Psalms 41:1-13. He describes in it his panic stricken feelings when the news reached him, his longing to escape from the turmoil of life, and flee into the wilderness and be at rest; and his grief at his desertion by men in whose company he had worshipped in the house of God. Upon this follows an outburst of vehement indignation, made the more bitter by the sense of the treachery whereby he had been duped into connivance with Absalom’s plans (verse 21); but amidst it all his confidence was unshaken that if he cast his burden upon God, "he would sustain him, and never suffer the righteous to be moved." Finally, in Psalms 27:1-14, we have the contrast between Jehovah’s abiding goodness and the inconstancy of men; while Psalms 61:1-8; Psalms 62:1-12. were probably written at Mahanaim, when David s anguish of mind was being assuaged, and a calm confidence was taking its place. Everywhere in all of them David speaks as one who had now given all his heart to God. As regards his terror and flight (Psalms 55:5-8), it may seem strange that David should have withdrawn so hurriedly from a city so strong as Jerusalem. But we must not suppose that he had a standing army, and his few Cherethites and Pelethites could have made no head against the nation. Probably, too, the fortifications of the city were incomplete (Psalms 51:18); and even if in good order, yet, cooped up in Jerusalem, David would have left the whole country in Absalom’s power, and finally, after a long blockade, he must have been driven by famine to surrender. Away from Jerusalem he was the centre whither all who disliked Absalom’s attempt would gather, and every day as it passed would make men reflect more and more upon what David had done for them, and the more steady and thoughtful of them would finally decide in his favour. There would be, moreover, the secret conviction that David, with such men round him as Joab and Abishai, if free to take his own course, would be more than a match for Absalom and his larger numbers. This was what Ahithophel foresaw, and was so convinced that, if David were not crushed at once, he would gain the day, that he did not even wait to see, but destroyed himself. Abarbanel thinks that the wish of the people had never been for more than the association of Absalom with David on the throne, according to what he had himself suggested (Psalms 62:4); and that there was a great revulsion of feeling when they saw that they must choose absolutely between father and son, and that whoever lost the crown must lose his life as well. Some commentators consider that Psalms 31:1-24. also belongs to this period, though others ascribe it to Jeremiah. Parts of it are singularly applicable to the circumstances of David’s flight, as where the psalmist speaks of Jehovah as being his Fortress in contrast with Jerusalem, and adds, "Thou hast not shut me up into the hands of the enemy, but hast set my feet in a large space," as though "the net which the conspirators had privily laid for him" had been the design to coop him up within the walls of the city, There are touching words, too, of distress at the slander and reproach breaking forth on every side, and at the completeness of his fall, so that whereas but a few days before he had been a king, now "he was clean forgotten, as a dead man out of mind; and east aside as though he were now of no more account than the shards of a broken vessel." But, with the calm strength of faith he adds, "My times are in thy hand;" "Thou shalt hide all who trust in thee in the secret of thy presence;" "Oh, then, love Jehovah, and be of good courage! for he shall strengthen the heart of all whose hope is fixed on him." 2 Samuel 15:15 The king’s servants. These were the officers of David’s court and household, numerous enough to hamper his movements, but not enough to protect him. All David’s wives, moreover, went, and his children, and some of his concubines (2 Samuel 19:5), ten, however, being left in charge of the palace. 2 Samuel 15:17 And tarried in a place that was far off; Revised Version, in Beth-merhak. "The Far House"—so we may translate this proper name—was probably not a dwelling, but a pavilion overlooking the Kidron valley; and here David halted his household until all were assembled, and arrangements made for their journey. Here, too, the bodyguard would gather, and they would cross the Kidron only when everything was ready for their orderly progress. Confusion at such a time would breed a panic and invite an attack. 2 Samuel 15:18 All the Gittites, air hundred men which came after him from Gath. The Septuagint reads "Gibborim," and without doubt these are the persons meant; but while they were styled Gibborim, the "mighties," for honour’s sake, because of their prowess, they probably were popularly called David’s Gittites, because they were the six hundred men who had formed his little army when he sought refuge with Achish, King of Gath (l Samuel 27:2; 30:9). They were not Philistines, but Israelites of desperate fortune (1 Samuel 22:2); and it is a proof of David’s great ability, and of the moral influence of his character, that he was successful, not only in controlling them and maintaining discipline, but also in forming them into as noble a set of heroes as ever existed, and who were faithful to him in all his fortunes. To their number belonged the thirty-seven champions end-merated in 2 Samuel 23:1-39; and possibly the title "Gibborim" strictly belonged to them only. As they are still called "the six hundred," it is probable that the corps was maintained at this number by new appointments, and that they had special privileges which made their position very desirable. Certainly David would never forget men who had shared all his fortunes, and been so true and so useful to him; and it is evident, from Hushai’s counsel (2 Samuel 17:8), that Absalom feared their resolute valour, and hesitated to attack without overwhelming numbers. Thenius compares these veterans to Napoleon’s Old Guard. 2 Samuel 15:19 Ittai the Gittite. Ittai was not one of the six hundred, though there was an Ittai among them, a Benjamite. He was a citizen of Gath, who had lately come ("yesterday," see 2 Samuel 15:20), with all his household of slaves and dependents, his clan, Hebrew, his taf—translated in 2 Samuel 15:22 his "little ones." He had evidently been a person of importance in his own country, whence he had been driven, perhaps by political troubles, and was now, therefore, an exile and a foreigner (Authorized Version, "stranger") at Jerusalem. As David made him joint commander of his army with Joab and Abishai (2 Samuel 18:2), he must also have been a general of recognized military skill. As he was thus not personally interested in the government of Israel, and, in fact, had only lately come thither, David recommends him to return … and abide with the king, that is, with the de facto king, Absalom. But so great was the fascination which David exercised upon those around him, that this foreigner boldly threw in his lot with him, and accompanied him in his flight. Return to thy place. This is a very daring transposition, as the Hebrew is, Return and abide with the king; for thou art a foreigner, and also an exile art thou to thy place. The Revised Version gives the same sense as the Authorized, though it shows more respect to the grammar. But the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, by "his own place" understand Gath, either taking the words as meaning "an exile as to thy own place," or having a different reading. The Hebrew then proceeds, Yesterday was thy coming, and shall 1 today make thee wander to go with us, seeing I go whither I go? that is, I go I know not whither. Return thou, and take back thy brethren—in mercy and truth. This gives a very good sense, but the Septuagint and Vulgate have a different reading: "Take back thy brethren with thee, and the Lord chew thee mercy and truth." The Syriac gives the genera] sense of the Hebrew, rendering, "Take back thy brethren well." 2 Samuel 15:22 All the little ones; Hebrew, all the taf; in 2 Samuel 15:20 called "his brethren," that is, all the relatives and dependents who had accompanied him in his exile. Their presence with him proves that he had entirely broken with the Philistines, and left his country for good. He may have taken this step for religious reasons, though his swearing by Jehovah (2 Samuel 15:21) does not prove it, as Achish did the same (1 Samuel 29:6); or Ittai, after the capture of Gath by David (2 Samuel 8:1), may have made himself unpopular by becoming the ally of the conqueror, and so finally have determined to leave the city, and find a home in Israel. 2 Samuel 15:23 All the country wept. This general lamentation proves that David was not really unpopular in Jerusalem, though it was there that Absalom had dazzled the people by his magnificence, and sought to win favour by his gracious ways. By the country the inhabitants are meant, who watched the king’s departure; while the people are David’s followers—his retinue and attendants. The brook Kidron. This is a winter torrent, dry during most of the year, but serving at the rainy seasons to carry off the rainfall from the Valley of Jehoshaphat. It lay on the east of Jerusalem, and beyond it was Mount Olivet. The direction of David’s flight was toward the wild country on the east of the Jordan, in which Ishbosheth had found a refuge after the defeat of Gilboa. To reach it he must pass by Jericho, and thence through the Arabah (Jeremiah 39:4) to the ford of the Jordan, after crossing which he would be in comparative safety. Ahithophel would have followed that very night, and have attacked before David had placed the river between himself and his pursuers. 2 Samuel 15:24 And Abiathar went up. This rendering, though confirmed by the versions, is very unintelligible. Whither did Abiathar go up? And moreover it is said that he continued going up until all David’s followers had passed out of the city. Another possible rendering is, "And Abiathar offered (sacrifices) until all the people had done passing out of the city." Passages quoted in proof that the verb may be so rendered without the addition of the word "sacrifice" are 1 Samuel 2:28 and 2 Samuel 24:22; but in both these places the context makes the sense plain. Such a sacrifice would, of course, sanctify both king and people in their flight; but as none of the versions support this method of translating the text, it seems unsafe to adopt it, and the passage must remain obscure. On the one hand, it is unlikely that there would be time to offer sacrifices at so hasty a flight; but on the other hand, the removal of the ark was a solemn thing, which probably required some such religious ceremonial, and Cahen and other Jewish authorities translate, "Abiathar offered burnt offerings." 2 Samuel 15:26 Let him do to me as seemeth good unto him. David’s answer is full, not only of devout resignation and trust in God, but is remarkable also for the absence of superstition. He feels that God will not judge him by any mere outward sign or privilege, but in truth and equity. If he deserves condemnation, he will not escape it by carrying the ark about with him. If, on the contrary, God accepts him, he will restore him to the enjoyment of his spiritual privileges, and bring him back to worship at the place which he has chosen for his dwelling. We must notice that he addresses these words to Zadok, who had remained with the ark. This was natural if Abiathar was occupied in offering, but hard to understand if he had gone up, that is, in advance of the ark, to acquaint David with their purpose. 2 Samuel 15:27 Art thou (not) a seer? Both the Authorized Version and the Revised Version evade the difficulty of this passage by inserting the word "not." It is one of the merits of the Revised Version that usually it does not take these liberties. But "Art thou a seer?" is meaningless; and the attempts, moreover, to show that Zadok was a seer fail entirely in proof. The receiving revelations by Urim and Thummim was a priestly, and not a prophetic, function. Without altering the text, the words may be correctly translated, "Seest thou?" This was probably a colloquial phrase, of which the Septuagint gives the sense by rendering it in the imperative, "See;" while the Syriac, regarding it as an expletive, boldly omits it. 2 Samuel 15:28 In the plain of the wilderness. The Revised Version has "at the fords of the wilderness," that is, it rightly keeps to the written Hebrew text (the K’tib), while the Authorized Version adopts a conjecture of the Massorites (the K’ri). This conjecture is the substitution of arboth for abroth, and they have made the same alteration at 2 Samuel 17:16. But the substitution is uncalled for and mischievous; for David would not halt indefinitely in the plain, the Arabah (of which Arboth is the plural), but would press on to the fords, where some delay must take place, and where the king’s presence would be important in giving instructions for what was by no means an easy operation. At the river, moreover, David could be assailed only in front, where his "mighties" would make a strong defence, while in the Arabah they might be surrounded; and, encumbered as they were with women, their line must be so extended as to be weakened. We find, too, in Judges 3:28 that the fords of the Jordan formed a good military position. In 2 Samuel 17:22 it is expressly said that the fording of the river did not take place until Jonathan and Ahimaaz came with their reports; and their words there, in 2 Samuel 17:21, show that David was on the bank when they arrived, with his preparations so complete, that, in the next few hours, all his company were safely carried over to the other side. Ahimaaz was a famous runner (see 2 Samuel 18:27), and, if David was ready, the time gained by him upon any body of troops leaving Jerusalem at the same hour, would have enabled the king to get his people across; but if he had still some miles to march, with a number of women and children, Ahimaaz’s fleetness would have been rendered useless. 2 Samuel 15:30 The ascent of mount Olivet; Hebrew, the ascent of the olive trees. The hill never was called Olivet, which is a word formed from the Latin mons oliveti, the mount of the olive grove. David had his head covered. This was a sign of grief among the Persians, Egyptians, and Romans, as well as the Hebrews (for whom see Ezekiel 24:17), it being originally a natural movement to conceal an outburst of tears. So we in great sorrow bury our faces in our hands. In this mark of mourning all joined, but David added the going barefoot as a sign of deeper humiliation. According to the Jewish Midrash, it was upon the Mount of Olives that David composed the third psalm. More probably it was at the fords of the Jordan, after David, wearied with the fatigues of the march, had enjoyed a short refreshing slumber, and while he was waiting for his two young friends, that he comforted himself by this outpouring of his heart to God. 2 Samuel 15:31 And one told David. The Hebrew literally is, and David told. But we cannot suppose that David had previously known of Ahithophel’s defection. The text is evidently corrupt, and the Authorized Version gives the right sense. On hearing of the defection of a man so famous for practical sound judgment, David prays to God to frustrate his counsel, and the opportunity for devising means for this end quickly follows. 2 Samuel 15:32 Where he worshipped God; more correctly, where God was worshipped, and so the Revised Version. The summit of the Mount of Olives was one of the many bamoth, or high places, situated on the top of hills, where, in the old Canaanitish time, men had worshipped their heathenish deities. They were still regarded as consecrated places, but the worship had now been transferred to Elohim, the true God. They continued to be hallowed spots, with Levitical priests to minister at them, until the stricter times of Josiah (2 Kings 23:8), when such worship was forbidden; but even then these priests seem to have retained considerable privileges, though their position was inferior to that held by the priests of the temple. It was at this hallowed spot that David’s old friend and privy counselor (2 Samuel 15:37), Hushai, met him, with his coat rent—not the upper garment, but the kuttoneth, the under tunic, the rending of which was a sign of deeper sorrow. We read of "the border of the Archites" (so the Revised Version, rightly) in Joshua 16:2, near Bethel, in the tribe of Manasseh; and Hushai’s birthplace was probably there. 2 Samuel 15:33 A burden unto me. Host likely because Hushai was old and infirm. Others, with less probability, think that it was because of his rank, which would demand special attendance. 2 Samuel 15:34 Then mayest thou for me defeat the counsel of Ahithophel. David was thus meeting treachery by treachery, and we cannot approve of it, even granting that Ahithophel’s conduct was base and selfish, while Hushai was risking his life for his master. Still, he was sent back to tell a falsehood, and his excuse was necessity; for Ahithophel was so sagacious that, if his counsel were not upset, David’s cause was lost. It was not Christian morality, but yet it has a sort of nobleness about it in Hushai’s devotion to his king. And even now, in war and diplomacy, such acts are not uncommon, and a distinction is unhappily drawn between political and social morality. Even in common life immoral doings are often sanctioned by use. Thus many customs of trade are frauds, considered legitimate because generally practised. Even among ourselves Christian morality is far below the level of our Master’s teaching; and the Old Testament must not be taken as approving all that it records. Similar blame does not attach to Zadok and Abiathar. They were known to be David’s friends, and had even tried to go with him, bearing with them the ark. They professed no friendship for Absalom, and returned for no covert purpose, looking for protection, not to guile, but to their sacred office. And Absalom would be glad to have them in his power, and would make them continue the customary sacrifices, and, if his rebellion proved successful, would force them to anoint him, and so give his usurpation a religious sanction. But he would tell them none of his plans, nor would they try to insinuate themselves into his confidence. They would have a perfect right to be useful in any way they could to their true master, but would do so at the risk of severe punishment. Hushai’s way of defeating Ahithophel was treacherous; but there was no deceit in the young men carrying a message from him, for they were openly David’s friends. 2 Samuel 15:37 Absalom came into Jerusalem. Absalom had evidently pushed rapidly forward from Hebron, in hopes, perhaps, of surprising David in the city. Evidently he entered it on the day of David’s flight (2 Samuel 17:1), and Ahithophers proposal to select twelve thousand men from Absalom’s followers shows how very powerful the conspiracy was. Had this advice been followed, the decisive battle would have been fought that evening at the fords of the Jordan, a few miles only from Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 15:1-12 The shady side of human nature. The facts are: 1. Absalom sets up a large domestic establishment with a semblance of royalty. 2. Rising early in the morning of each day, he is first to meet the suitors for judgment at the gate of the city, and seizes the occasion for insinuating that there is defect in the king’s provision for the administration of justice. 3. He also professes to manifest sympathy with suitors by expressing the wish that he were in a position to do them justice, and gives outward evidence of his concern for them by taking each one by the hand and kissing him. 4. These plans being in progress, he next asks permission of David to go to Hebron, on the plea that he desired to redeem a vow which he had sacredly made to God while in exile; and David granting his request, he sets out for Hebron, with a company of men ignorant of his design. 5. Meanwhile he sends spies throughout Israel, so that on a given signal they might simultaneously make the announcement, "Absalom reigneth in Hebron." 6. He moreover gains to his side Ahithophel, David’s counsellor, and so advances his cause among the people. The narrative gives us in brief form the scheme, the principles, the methods, and early form of Absalom’s conspiracy. He knew his own mind, and was set on the overthrow of his father’s authority, from sheer vanity and lust of power. The outline of his method was clearly defined: (1) to win over the people by criticizing the king’s administration, and gratifying them by a showy establishment, professed zeal for justice, and marked personal attentions; (2) to secure a good centre for proclaiming his authority, and this by a hypocritical profession of religion which required him to go there; (3) by scattering agents through the land, and gaining to his side the king’s most sagacious adviser. There is not one relieving feature to the dark picture of pride, ingratitude, filial alienation, low cunning, and religious hypocrisy. It is, however, our province to extract good out of evil, and in the early stages of Absalom’s rebellion we may see illustrations of the shady side of human nature, which, if noted and applied to conduct, may warn against often-recurring evils, and put us on our guard against the same tendencies in other departments of life. I. THE AND METHODS OF . Rebellion against existing authority may perhaps be right under special circumstances. People do not exist for governments, but governments for the people; and it is possible that the rights of the people may be so utterly trodden upon that it is the duty of self preservation to rebel. Even parental authority must be resisted when it comes into direct collision with conscience and with Christ (Matthew 10:33-38). But rebellion is wicked when, as in this case, it springs from a blending of conceit, dislike of constituted authority, and lust for power. This may characterize rebellion originating in an individual or in a restless people. Talk of oppression, justice, kindness and consideration for the oppressed, may be but a cloak for a selfish aversion to restraint and a love of self-will. Even where there is justification for resistance to an evil rule, it is wicked to have recourse to flattery, deceit, hypocrisy, and low cunning to accomplish the end in view. In times of turbulence and agitation it is important that men scrutinize the secret motives of their actions. As a rule, injustice in rulers can be best resisted by the calm, sober protest and passive resistance of conscientious men. Faith in God, and in the force of true principles, with patient persistence, will in the end accomplish more than can be secured by violence; and where injustice exists only in the imagination of the restless, and the evils of life spring from their own habits and practices, then rebellion is one of the greatest crimes of which man is capable. II. OF . The character of a man lies primarily in the main principles and passions that are deep down in his nature, and which in course of years shape his outward conduct. Absalom’s real character was in existence long before it came out to the eye of the public in the form of rebellion against his father’s authority. Probably David discerned its incipient form, and hence his extreme slowness in recalling him to a position of prominence. The setting up by Absalom of a large princely establishment, with chariots and horses and runners, was really an incidental revelation in palpable form of a character internally maturing. It was a sign to such men as David and Nathan of what they had believed to exist—a vain, proud, ostentatious spirit. So in course of time men generally do something in their domestic arrangements or business developments which, if the world will only read aright, brings into public view tendencies and tastes which hitherto have been kept under restraint. Our visible acts and creations are the successive revelations of our condition. A man’s dress, his handwriting, his domestic establishment, his bearing before the public, his mode of transacting business, is a manifestation of the hidden man—the indicator of the elements entering into the permanent character. The outward aspects of a man’s life may be studied with a view to a knowledge of the habits and tastes of his mind. III. EVIL IN . The evil tendencies of Absalom were somewhat pronounced when he set up his pretentious establishment, but by his own act those tendencies were placed in the midst of circumstances eminently calculated to strengthen and develop them further. The heart of man can devise things out of its own tastes and propensities which become at once food on which those tastes and propensities grow to further power. A man of pleasure out of his own desires creates occupations and pursuits which become the nourishers of the passion for pleasure. The same holds of dreadful vices and blessed virtues. There is a self-promotive power in the forces that dwell within our moral nature. Intellectual and physical forces are not so recuperative of themselves by means of what they create as are the moral. We are to ponder the path of our feet, forevery step increases the momentum in the road, be it good or bad. IV. LUST OF POWER MINUS FITNESS FOR ITS . Absalom set his heart on being King of Israel. The vision of a throne and a submissive people had great attractions for him. The princely establishment, With chariots and horsemen, was only the first instalment of a splendour soon to be won. Like all such men, he had unlimited confidence in himself. He could administer justice! He could win the people and hold them in subjection! And yet this vanity, this low cunning, this love of outward show, and mean lying flattery of the people, disqualified him for ruling as a king. Morally speaking, he was a handsome fool, and knew it. not. The lust for power is common, and often very strong in men. As manifested in bad men, it is an abnormal development of a love of mastery over what is not self. The possession of power over man is safe and good only when there coexist with it justice, generosity, considerateness, and honesty. V. FROM A FATHER’S HEART THE CLIMAX OF EVIL. Absalom was no longer a true son. No man could have entered on such a scheme and have devised such means unless he had lost all true natural affection. To find fault with a father’s administration, to expose a father to ridicule, to seek to alienate men from attachment to a father, and, in short, crush a father’s hopes and life’s work, could only proceed from a heart utterly alienated. And such a father! Weak and erring as David in a notable instance had been, he was the most generous, and magnanimous of men, and had brought peace and plenty and honour to Israel. Absalom’s crime was one of the basest ever recorded. And all alienation from a true father’s heart is utterly base and deserving the strongest detestation. There is hope for sons when they still cherish love and reverence for parents; none when these are gone. Every feeling, and act, and companionship, and habit which tend towards this awful separation of heart, should be shunned as men shun the road to death. And yet this is the real state of the human heart in relation to God. The gulf is awful; and nothing but a new creation will lead to a reconciliation (John 3:5; Romans 8:7). VI. PSEUDO- AN ASSUMED VIRTUE. Patriotism is strong in men whose country has been associated in memory with great deeds. To care for one’s land and people, to be more concerned for the maintenance of justice and adjustment of the claims of the poor than for the form and personnel of government,—this is always commendable; and so much is this virtue esteemed that it is assumed by Absalom for his own purposes. We cannot believe in the patriotism of any man who shuts his heart against a good father. Civil virtues cannot make amends for the absence of the domestic and primary virtues. It is easy to prate about justice and the oppressed, and to speak smoothly to the populace; to keep the heart pure, loving, true toward man and God, is not so easy. There is much pseudo-patriotism in political life. Men claim virtues they do not possess, and use the claim for gaining an influence that else would be unattainable. VII. A CLOAK FOR EVIL DESIGNS. Absalom knew his father to be a pious man, and therefore seeks to accomplish his purpose by a profession of piety. The heartless son finds no difficulty in taking the holy name of God in vain, and concocting a tissue of lies. To the populace he can be a critic of the government; to the pious king he can be a devout man, intent on keeping sacred vows. No clearer proof of a Satanic spirit than when men dare to lay hold of the most sacred things and use them for vile and selfish purposes. Righteous, indeed, was the indignation of Christ against such "hypocrites." "Woe" from the lips of love came upon them. Manifold are the forms and degrees in which this evil appears. To worship in order to be respectable, to profess religion for the sake of trade, to utter pious phrases in order to win popular applause, are but the less repulsive forms of the very crime of Absalom. How abominable such persons must appear in the sight of the all-searching God! VIII. TAKING UNDUE OF ANOTHER’S . In consequence of the immense work thrown on an absolute monarch, the growing complications of a flourishing state, and the incompetence of subordinates, there would necessarily arise many difficulties in the administration of the affairs of the kingdom. In all lands people have to wait for justice when others are being served. But the evil heart of Absalom showed itself in using whatever incidental delays arose as an occasion of promoting its own wicked schemes. There is too much of this in the world. The rich have often taken advantage of the ignorance and helplessness of the poor to secure ends otherwise unattainable. In political life it is a maxim to seize the hour of weakness for a party triumph. It is the devil’s opportunity with feeble souls to render more sure their destruction. Trouble in state, Church, or family affords opportunity for testing the qualities of men. Love or hate, sympathy or antagonism, will thereby be revealed. How different to others the blessed Saviour in presence of human infirmity! IX. ON AN AND HOLLOW BASIS. The people’s hearts were won to Absalom. It seems a great triumph to win the hearts of multitudes; it is an indication of great power on the part of the conqueror or of fickleness on the part of the conquered. But in this, as in many instances, the conquest was a revelation of shallow thinking on the one side and basest cunning on the other. There is in most men a soil for receiving the seeds of discontent from the hand of a deft sower. People are easily caught by flatteries and personal attentions. A visible parade of splendour dazzles and pleases the crowd, who think modest, quiet bearing a sign of mediocrity. The dash and careless promises of a young and handsome man excite the imagination, and raise up pictures of great possibilities. The mass of men do not think; they feel, and are led by the clever orator who can stir up their feelings. It is not always a credit to "go with the multitude," and fall in with an order of things because it is popular. The vox populi maxim is often false. Of One it was once true, "Of the people there was none with him." He was "despised and rejected of men." X. AN OF THE MOST OF . It is not necessary to endeavour to trace resemblance in all details between antagonism to the mortal king in Zion and opposition to the immortal King in Zion. But there has been and still is a plot to destroy the authority of him whose right it is to reign. Fashion, wealth, power of speech, wit, and alliances with wise Ahithophels, continue to undermine and eventually overthrow the influence of Christ over the hearts of men. The "gates of hell" take counsel against the Lord and his Anointed. Another seat of supreme influence is being set up as a substitute for that occupied by the Anointed One, and "spies" are abroad seeking to create doubt and distrust in the hearts of the faithful. As we read the account of Absalom’s ingratitude, daring, and baseness, and feel for his deeds the utmost detestation, so holy beings who look on the endeavour to destroy the authority of Christ over men cannot but regard the deed as the basest, most daring, and at the same time most fatal to the perpetrators, ever attempted. The wicked may seem to triumph, but their end is destruction. 2 Samuel 15:13-30 The facts are: 1. David, being informed of the rising in favour of Absalom, calls upon his friends to flee from Jerusalem, in order to avoid its being smitten by a sudden attack. 2. His servants being willing to go with him, he leads out his entire household, with the exception of a few to take care of the house. 3. In his departure he is accompanied by his bodyguard, and the six hundred men which followed him from Garb. 4. Observing Ittai in the company, he suggests that, being a stranger and exile, he should not risk his fortunes with his own; but, on receiving an assurance that it was his deliberate desire so to do, he permits him to pass on. 5. The people of the district weep with a loud noise as he crosses the brook Kidron, and passes on toward the wilderness. 6. The ark of the covenant being brought out into the procession, when the people have passed the brook, David urges on Zadok that the ark be conveyed back to the city, expressing his humble hope that it might please God to allow him to see it once more, and, in any case, he submits to the appointments of Providence. 7. David requests Zadok and others with the ark to return to the city, and to inform him in the wilderness should anything of great importance arise. 8. The king expresses his grief by passing up the Mount of Olives, with covered head and weeping, accompanied by a covered and weeping multitude. Submission in the day of adversity. The order of the narrative of David’s departure from Jerusalem is rather involved, as may be seen by comparing 2 Samuel 15:17, 2 Samuel 15:19, 2 Samuel 15:23, 2 Samuel 15:30; but the actual facts are clear enough. As soon as he became aware of the extent of the rebellion, he resolved to leave the city, and we have a record of the fact and the incidents accompanying it. The first and most obvious impression produced on the mind of the reader is the prompt and quiet submission of the king to the force of circumstances, not because he was of cowardly spirit, but because he saw in what was happening the providence of God. If we analyze the conduct and words of David in their relation to the great fall and Nathan’s prophecy (2 Samuel 12:9-13), we shall see the leading features characterizing his submission, and in so doing we shall get a view of the main characteristics of all true Christian submission in the day of adversity. I. A OF DESERT. The prompt action, the surrender of regal state, the broken spirit, the barefooted departure from the seat of authority, and the tender references to God doing with him as seemed him good (2 Samuel 15:26), all point to more than a forced submission to mere military necessity. There may have been a deep inexpressible anguish on account of filial ingratitude, and the father’s heart could not but weep in silence over an erring lost child; but the remembrance of his own great sin, and the words of the prophet of God, furnished the chief theme of reflection; for the son’s ingratitude base as it was, had become the rod to chastise for the errors of the past. A forgiven man does not the less think of the sin as a disgrace and worthy of being branded as evil. Adversities come to us all—happily, few know the sorrow of such filial ingratitude—and the enlightened mind sees in them more than physical sequence. The doctrine that every sorrow that falls is for a specific sin need not be held. Yet all trouble is connected with the fact that sin is in the world, and a consciousness of personal shortcomings makes us feel, when adversity in home, estate, or health falls, that we deserve every pain that enters the heart. There is no assertion of right to be free from the trouble; rather the true heart says, "It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed" (Lamentations 3:22). II. IN GOD’S . To a human observer it might seem that it was a very unrighteous thing for the Supreme Ruler to allow so wise and good a king to be set aside and humiliated by a man so base and vain as Absalom, and many a man in his anguish might question the equity which allowed such sorrow to fall upon him when he had recovered from his special sins. David’s spirit was the reverse of this. Not a word of complaint, not a murmur or a fret in trouble. During his long exile, when death encompassed him about, and he had washed his hands in innocency, and all the blame lay with Saul and Doeg the Edomite, he trusted in the justice of God; and this confidence, won in the days of comparative innocence, failed him not now, when, after his recovery from a fall, the storm burst upon him with more terrible violence. He knew and rested in the precious truth that the Lord reigned in righteousness and brought correction to his servants for their good. Yes; this is the faith of the faithful. Never do they, however terrible the disaster in this life, distrust the righteousness of God. "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him," was true for Job and all of kindred spirit. Men who know not the new life cannot understand this. It is the alphabet of religious experience to all who are really born again and accepted in Christ. None of these things move them. III. TO NEW . David does not yield to fretfulness and irresolution. He vacates his home, provides for his house, goes out to a place of safety, and, by his discreet arrangement with Zadok and Abiathar, keeps up means of connection with the city (verses 27, 28). Utter prostration under calamity does not come where there is the counteractive element of recognition of personal unworthiness and of the righteousness of God. Whether this trouble would pass he knew not, but as a wise man he adapted himself to the storm. As Jacob to his exile (Genesis 28:10-22.), as Moses to his deprivation (Deuteronomy 3:25-27; cf. Deuteronomy 34:1-6), so David makes the best of his position. Providential chastisements are not designed to paralyze action; their benefit is secured when, in a spirit of resignation and trust, we use our powers to bear them and to mitigate their incidence (Hebrews 12:5-12). Adversity becomes truly educational when we are stirred up to adjust our life to its conditions. IV. FOR OTHERS, THAT THEY BE NOT DRAWN INTO OUR SORROWS. David’s removal into the open country was partly from policy and partly from feelings of kindness. He probably had suspicions, seeing that his trusty counsellor had been drawn over to Absalom (verse 12; cf. Psalms 41:9; Psalms 55:10-14), that Absalom had many friends in the city, and should he in concert with them come suddenly upon him and his friends, multitudes would fall victims to his malice. It was the same generous feeling that prompted him to suggest that Ittai, not being a Hebrew, should not embroil himself in this sad conflict, and so run a risk in case another king should reign. We see the same David as in earlier years, ever mindful of others, and magnanimous to the extreme. The dreadful sin had not destroyed his noble qualities, but had given a sadly tender form to their expression. There ate beautiful instances in Christian life of this kindly consideration for others. Fathers and mothers strive to shield their children from the woes which they may connect with their own want of wisdom or goodness. The great Saviour himself, in his dire trouble, sought to shield his faithful followers (John 14:1, John 14:27; John 17:9-12; John 18:8). V. OF AND AID. The voluntary sympathy and aid of the faithful bodyguard, and the six hundred who had shared his fortunes prior and subsequent to his departure from Garb, was as cool water to a thirsty soul; and the free services of Ittai and Zadok were greatly valued. In the adversities which Providence permits to come for purposes of discipline there is the merciful admixture of some provision to meet the pressing need of the hour—some human channel for Divine sympathy and compassion to enter the heart. Submission to the inscrutable will always includes a grateful recognition of this relief. The love and presence of Ruth was as balm to the desolate heart of Naomi as she mourned her forlorn condition, imparted a sweet gentleness to her, and enabled her to submit to the blow that had shattered her early joys. David and she had herein a common experience. VI. A SELF- CARE FOR THE OF . It was very beautiful conduct on the part of Zadok and Abiathar to bring out the ark of the covenant (verse 24), to form a prominent object in the sad procession out of the city; it revealed a tender consideration for the man who in his prosperity had associated his purest joys and most glorious triumphs with that precious symbol of the Divine presence. The ark could not but remind David of the mercy that endureth forever, and its presence with him would be regarded as a pledge of blessing in his wandering. But he desired the priests to take back the treasure, and he, meekly bowing to the chastisement, would go out and suffer the loss of the outward privileges of the sanctuary. The reason of this no doubt was that, as he had been the means of procuring a permanent resting place for the ark (2 Samuel 6:17-19), and constituting Jerusalem the centre of religious influence for the nation, he would not now undo that work and serve his own personal advantage at the cost of the people. No; the religious institutions should remain intact, the blessings of public worship and spiritual comfort should abide for Jerusalem, though he a poor exile pine in solitude and peril for the "beauty of the Lord" (Psalms 42:1-4; Psalms 43:1, Psalms 43:2). How beautiful this tender care for the interests of religion appears in true submission to adverse providences is known to all acquainted with Christian biography. Not a deed, not a word, not a thought is allowed that might be prejudicial to the kingdom of God. Storms may come, hopes may be blasted, if only the Name that is above every name be still honoured. VII. A OF PRESENT AND FUTURE INTO THE HANDS OF GOD. "If I shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord, he will bring me again, and show me both it, and his habitation. But if he thus say, I have no delight in thee; behold, here I am, let him do to me as seemeth good unto him" (verses 25, 26). O blessed trust! O sweet resignation! O modest yet unshaken hope! Truly the discipline was already bearing precious fruit. The spiritual barrenness of those hot days of prosperity (ch. 11.) was clean gone. The temporal chastisement was in process, but the wandering child was a wanderer no more. Enviable beyond expression is this surrender of all interests to the wise and gracious hands of the covenant keeping God. Here comes out the essence of the true submission in the season of adversity. "He will," if he "delight" in me! "Let him do as seemeth him good!" No self-will, no boast of claim, no thought of shame; God is over all and can do all; all is in his care, and what he does shall be deemed the best and kindest and most just. Who does not see the purifying power of the grace of God? Holy David once fallen! . The sorrowing king, passing over the ridge of the Mount of Olives, on bare feet and weeping, bearing on his heart a terrible woe, and full of pity for the people rejecting his authority, and at the same time entirely submissive to the sovereign will that so ordains, reminds us of the other King, greater, wiser, more holy, and bearing on his heart the woes of many sins not his own, pacing the slopes of that same mount, weeping bitter tears, lamenting for the rebellious people, bearing all for others’ good, and submitting with unparalleled gentleness and trust to the sovereign will that ordained that so he must suffer. Fidelity in misfortune. It is believed by many that more remarkable virtues are developed in seasons of adversity than in those of prosperity. Their precise form will depend on the individuals concerned and the stress of the time. The conduct of the Gittites, and Ittai, and Zadok, and Abiathar is in pleasing contrast with that of Ahithophel and his coconspirators. In these men we may trace the characteristics of fidelity in misfortune. I. IT IS ROOTED IN . The six hundred had probably been with David and shared in his trials prior to his departure from Gath (1 Samuel 27:2). They knew him better than any others; they had formed a sympathy for him based on true knowledge, and they stood the test of the evil time. Of Ittai we do not know so much, but the words of the man prove that he appreciated the real character of David in spite of the slanders which such men as Ahithophel may have insinuated. The priestly functions of Zadok and Abiathar account for their interest in so devout a man as David. Their fidelity was not based on personal beauty, vague promises, and outward splendour (verses 1-6), but on intelligence and the feeling which accompanies it in a pure heart. So Ruth was true to Naomi (Rth 1:16, Rth 1:17). Any promise of attachment not resting on this foundation is worth nothing. II. IT IS BY ON THE PAST. There were probably hours when the voice of temptation would come to allure them from a course So perilous in appearance, to a course promising reputation, wealth, and honour; for these men were of like passions with us all, and had no love for poverty and exile in themselves. But they knew David’s history, and when temptation to prefer the winning side came they would nourish their vow by thinking of what he had been, how God had befriended him before, and how he had risen from the fall which once was his shame. It is something to be attached to a man with a good history. When we have pledged ourselves to a just though suffering cause, we may ward off many a temptation by allowing the reflective powers to work on the antecedents of the cause to which we are pledged. Thus the early Christians, by reflecting on Christ, his words and work, and all he had been to them, could endorse the dying words of the aged Polycarp. III. IT IS TO AND . The frank and magnanimous way in which David offered to release them from all risks only drew out into stronger and more pronounced form the attachment already cherished (verses 19-21). Zadok could not but feel a profounder regard for the king aider hearing his words concerning the ark (verse 25). There is something so noble in this frankness and magnanimity in misfortune that a faithful heart recruits its strength by the very sight and sound of the nobleness. Holy sentiments grow in exchange. There is no sure bond between the wicked. Sin is morally a weakness. Holiness is a strength. IV. IT IS CAPABLE OF RISKS. Whatever might befall the king in his trouble, these faithful ones were prepared to share in it. True affection is not blind, as some would say; it sees, but it fears not. The faithful mind is intent on being on the side of right and weakness, not on securing anything for self. There are risks in adherence to a righteous cause in the day of adversity. Christ points this out to his followers, and it is the sign of true as distinguished from professional fidelity that it can bear and is determined to bear whatever may come. The real clue to the determination is the conviction that right is supreme in its claims, and that present suffering is only an incident of a well-directed human existence (Matthew 10:16-18, Matthew 10:38; Matthew 20:22; Philippians 3:7-9). 2 Samuel 15:31-37 Prayer for Divine intervention. The facts are: 1. David, hearing that Ahithophel was among the conspirators, prays that God would turn his counsel into foolishness. 2. On reaching the top of the Mount of Olives, the aged Hushai expresses his desire to go with David into exile, but David declines his offer on account of his infirmities. 3. On the other hand, David suggests that he can render him good service by returning to the city and living as a servant of Absalom, and he advises him to act in concert with Zadok and Abiathar. 4. Acting on this suggestion, Hushai returns to the city, and, some time after, Absalom also enters. There passed a pang through the heart of David as he beard of the treachery of his trusty counsellor Ahithophel, bitter because he had relied so much on this wise man’s honesty and sagacity, and more bitter still as he remembered the cruel conspiracy which he once entered into with Joab against the life of Uriah. Yet the forgiven and renewed king, in the fulness of his anguish, was true to his revived religious instincts in at once raising his heart to God with the prayer that he would bring his own wisdom to bear so as to defeat the wisdom of this man. We see here— I. THAT THERE IS IN THIS WORLD A BETWEEN HUMAN AND DIVINE WISDOM. David was well acquainted with two great facts: (1) that the wisdom of God had designed him to be king over Israel to the end of his days (2 Samuel 7:11-16, 2 Samuel 7:28, 2 Samuel 7:29); (2) that the wisest man in the land was devising means to frustrate this purpose, not perhaps consciously, yet practically. This is an epitome of the history of mankind. God has a purpose to carry out, and employs good men as his instruments,—all is arranged according to his infinite wisdom; but, on the other hand, there are men who bring their powers to bear so as to frustrate thin purpose. They may not know that they are setting their wisdom against the wisdom of God, but the facts are to that effect. Adam and Eve went against wisdom in the exercise of their wisdom. Pharaoh contrived to prevent what wisdom had ordained. The wisdom of scribes and Pharisees was arrayed against him who was the "Wisdom of God." In the antagonism of men to the gospel the apostle saw a case of the "wisdom of the world" striving against the wisdom which was so far above theirs that their wisdom was more properly folly (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). Men who live in sin, who try to dispense with Christ, really set their wisdom against the great and blessed order which is founded on eternal wisdom. The attitude of the world to the Church may be expressed in the terms just stated. Oh that men were wise! II. THAT A GOOD MAN IN GOD’S POWER TO THE WISDOM OF MEN. This was the intellectual basis of David’s prayer for intervention against the devices of Ahithophel. Faith in God’s appointment of prayer is associated with a perception of the fact that God can and does so control human action as to restrain it within definite lines, and to secure in spite of it certain issues that are for the good of the world. A theism that renders God inactive, or bound in the unbreakable chains of a physical necessity, had better be frank and renounce the sacred name, and say once for all, "Force is in eternal motion along lines eternally fixed." God is a Spirit, and as such has free access to the spirits of men. His unseen and unconscious contact may paralyze or divert thought, and render possible ideas which, when carried out, will prove to be subversive of the very ends which the wicked thinker once had set his heart upon. We don’t know how much we owe to this silent action of God on evil men. He also, as a free Spirit, is in contact with the ultimate elements of things, and can act on them without dislocation of the order of nature, more perfectly than we can in the effort of our will. Many Christian people do not, it is feared, half believe in this great truth, and do not sufficiently see its ample bearing on the great stress of life. God not only looks into men and sees them through and through; he is an Actor, and brings his wisdom to put to nought the wisdom of the wise. III. THAT A GOOD MAN IN PUTS THIS BELIEF INTO . David felt that he could not cope with the combination against him. His heart fainted at the thought of the sagacity of the counsellor uniting with the daring and dash of the ambitious usurper. His prayer was true to nature. We do not in ordinary circumstances allow our faith to have sufficient influence over our lives. Trouble brings us straight to God. Our vast resources are drawn upon when heart and flesh begin to fail. All prayer is a cry for God’s help, or it is nothing; hut the earnestness and intensity of the cry are proportioned to the perception of peril. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 16:1 Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth. It is the misfortune of troubled times like those in which David found himself, that unscrupulous men use them for selfish purposes. For those in danger have no time for careful examination, nor are their minds sufficiently calm for impartial judgment, but they act on first impressions, and catch at every straw. Ziba’s present would naturally raise everybody’s spirits, and be taken as a good omen; for it showed that David had adherents in unlikely quarters, when thus a servant of the house of Saul of his own accord brought so timely an offering. The asses saddled for riding contradict the idea that Ziba met David by chance as he was bringing the produce of the farm for the use of Mephibosheth’s household. More probably the asses had been saddled for Mephibosheth’s own use, and the provisions had been prepared as a contribution to the king’s needs: but at the last moment the cunning Ziba managed to hurry away with his men, leaving his master in the lurch, and unable to get anything to ride upon in the short interval between David’s escape and Absalom’s entry. Moreover, possibly from being a cripple, and from the distressing circumStances of his early life, Mephibosheth always seems deficient in energy, and perhaps David’s conduct in mulcting him of half his property may not really have been so unjust as it looks, supposing that it was his dilatoriness which gave Ziba the chance of going away with the whole convoy while he was wasting time. It was this apparent desertion of him by one whom he had so befriended which may have made David say, "All men are liars" (Psalms 116:11), though subsequently he learned that the lie was Ziba’s. The food consisted of two hundred leaves, or rather fiat cakes of bread, a hundred bunches of dried grapes, a hundred cakes of pressed dates, and a skin of wine. Instead of "date cakes," some of the versions render "fig cakes;" but for this there is a special Hebrew word (see 1 Samuel 30:12). 2 Samuel 16:3 Thy master’s son; that is, the son of Jonathan, or even of Saul, as the word "son" is used very indefinitely in Hebrew. Mephibesheth held the property as their representative. Today shall the house, etc. Ziba’s slander was absurd. Mephibosheth was likely to meet with no kind treatment from Absalom; but perhaps he was a visionary, and David may have thought that he was holding back for any chance that might turn up. But upon this slander David acts with blamable impetuosity, and, indignant that the son of his old friend should so desert him, he gives Ziba all his lands. The grant would be valid only if David’s cause prevailed, and Ziba so far deserves credit in that he attached himself to a ruined man; but his motive was not love to David, but selfish calculation. 2 Samuel 16:4 I humbly beseech thee that, etc. The words are really a form of grateful acceptance. "I do obeisance", that is, "I make my humble bow: may I find favour," etc.; may the king continue to look favourably upon me. 2 Samuel 16:5 Bahurim. The exact site of this place is unknown (see note on 2 Samuel 3:16). Lieut. Conder, following a Jewish tradition, identifies it with Almit, a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. If so it lay, not on the direct road to the fords, but on a side route. A man of the family of the house of Saul. The words do not mean that he was a near relative of Saul, but that he was a member of the mishpachah, the larger division of the tribe of Benjamin, to which the house of Saul, a much smaller subdivision of the family, belonged (see note on 2 Samuel 14:7). But he was a strong partisan, and so fanatical as to care little for his life, if only he could annoy the usurper. For besides "all the people," David had with him "the mighty men," a few of whom could easily have punished him. 2 Samuel 16:7 Come out; rather, out, out; that is, "get out; begone, begone, thou murderer and worthless man." Shimei could scarcely have referred to the murders of Ishbosheth and Abner, which were too remote to have so rankled in his memory; hut as 2 Samuel 21:1-22. is not in its chronological order, what probably called forth his anger was the surrender of Saul’s sons and grandsons into the hands of the Gibeonites. Shimei, probably, even resented David’s taking the side of the Gibeonites, and treating as a crime to be severely punished what he and all Saul’s partisans regarded as righteous zeal for Israel. The three years’ famine, followed by the execution of Saul’s sons, made more tragic by the noble conduct of Rizpah, contributed largely to the revolt of the nation from David, and helps to explain that abandonment of him by the people, which otherwise seems so hard to understand (on the date of the famine, see note on 2 Samuel 21:1-22.). 2 Samuel 16:9 Then said Abishai. Abishai’s indignation was natural, and it is evident, from 2 Samuel 16:10, that Joab shared it. Shimei’s conduct was abominable, and David finally condemned him to death for it (1 Kings 2:8, 1 Kings 2:9), having probably found that, even after his pardon, he was an implacable enemy. His revilings now must not only have been painful to David, but depressing to all the people that were with him, and there must have been many a murmur in the ranks at the king allowing such conduct to go unpunished. But he was in a state of great mental distress and self-condemnation. He had borne sorrow after sorrow since the day when, by his own great sin, he had opened the floodgates of wickedness; and now the son whom he dearly loved, and who had first been put wrong by a crime which might never have been committed but for his own example, was seeking both his crown and his life, and had made his cup of sorrow full to the brim and running over. At such a time of agony it was even a relief to have outward affliction to bear; for it brought the consoling thought that the Divine chastisement had its merciful limit. Jehovah had bidden Shimei revile him, and he would bear it because it was Jehovah’s doing. "It may be that Jehovah will look upon my wrong, and that he will requite me good for his cursing of me this day." Go ever. Abishai’s word is explained by 2 Samuel 16:13. David’s route seems to have lain in a narrow valley, and Shimei, running along the ridge on one side, was near enough for his words to be heard, and for his stones to come near the king’s retinue. Abishai, therefore, asked permission to cross over to Shimei’s side of the steep ravine with a few men, who would seize him and put him to death. 2 Samuel 16:12 Mine affliction. This reading is supported by the Septuagint and Vulgate. The Syriac has "my subjection," possibly a free translation of the same reading. But the written text (K’tib) has "my wrong," either the wrong I have done, and of which I am bearing the punishment, or, as in the Revised Version, "the wrong done unto me." The correction of the Massorites (K’ri), is literally "my eye," that is, "my team." 2 Samuel 16:14 Weary. Evidently the name of a place; for David "refreshed himself there." It was probably a caravanserai, the full name of which was, "Rest for the weary," but gradually the title was shortened down to the last word, "Weary," Hebrew Ayephim, which the Revised Version puts as a proper name in the margin. 2 Samuel 16:17 Is this thy kindness to thy friend? After carrying the king to Ayephim, on the banks of the Jordan, the narrator now turns back to Absalom, because David was to wait at the caravanserai for news from Jerusalem. And immediately on his arrival, Hushai hastens into Absalom’s presence, loudly exclaiming, "Long live the king!" for such is the meaning of the Hebrew. The young man is surprised; for Hushai was David’s friend and trusted confidant. Yet he does not suspect this sudden breaking of old ties, but, looking at the bright side only, sees in it a proof that his party was looked upon as sure of success, and David’s cause as hopeless. He welcomes, therefore, so notable an adherent, and Hushai’s pretences confirm his self-deceit; for he professes to regard Absalom as king, not by fraud and violence, but by the formal choice of both Jehovah and the people. On this assumption, obedience to the nation’s choice became a religious duty, and Hushai’s love to the father was a pledge of love to the son. We must not, however, condemn Absalom for too easy credulity. The nation was in his favour, and, had he acted with promptitude, David’s cause would have been lost. 2 Samuel 16:18 The men of Israel. Here and in 2 Samuel 16:15 the men of Israel are not contrasted with the men of Judah, but include them (see 2 Samuel 15:10). Absalom’s rebellion began at Hebron, in Judaea, and the selection of Amasa, a first cousin both of David and Joab, as commander-in-chief, suggests the conclusion that Absalom’s chief strength lay in David’s own tribe, though men from all the tribes on the west of the Jordan had also flocked to his standard. Besides them, Hushai speaks of this people, that is, the citizens of Jerusalem. For, while there had been general lamentation at David’s departure (2 Samuel 15:23), yet the citizens had admitted Absalom without a struggle, and submitted to him. David’s adherents are also constantly called "the people," because they did not belong to any special tribe, but were drawn indifferently from them all. 2 Samuel 16:20 Give counsel among you; Hebrew, for you; but we have no way in English of expressing the force of this phrase. In Greek it is called the ethic dative, and is supposed to give character to the address, and indicate that those to whom the words are spoken have also an interest in the matter. 2 Samuel 16:21 Ahithophel said. Ahithophel’s counsel was utterly abominable, even though the deed would not be regarded by any of the Israelites as incestuous. A king inherited his predecessor’s harem, and Absalom’s act was a coarse and rude assertion that David’s rights were at an end, and that crown and hinds and property, even to his wives, now all belonged to the usurper. But, while polygamy had thus degraded the wives and concubines into mere chattels, the harem was the property most jealously guarded by its owner (2 Samuel 3:7; 1 Kings 2:22); and Absalom’s act was an outrage which David could never have pardoned. And this was what Ahithophel wanted. He was afraid that if Absalom’s cause began to decline, he might come to terms with his father, who would readily forgive a son if he submitted, but would certainly punish Ahithophel. For his own selfish purposes, therefore, he led Absalom on to a crime which rendered a reconciliation with David impossible, and pledged all the conspirators to carry out the matter to the bitter end; and that end could only be the death of David if the conspiracy succeeded. But this bitterness to David would vex all moderate men, and weaken Absalom’s cause. It was of advantage only to such as were deeply committed to the rebellion, and bent on killing David. To him it was terrible sorrow; for he knew that this open shame was the punishment of his own secret infamy (2 Samuel 12:11, 2 Samuel 12:12); and in it, again, he saw the meshes of the avenger’s net tightening around him. 2 Samuel 16:22 A tent; Hebrew, the tent; that constantly used by David and his family for the enjoyment of the cool evening breeze, and which the citizens of Jerusalem had frequently seen erected on the flat roof of David’s house. It was when walking on this roof that David had given way to guilty passion, and now it is the scene of his dishonour. 2 Samuel 16:23 The counsel of Ahithophel, etc. These words form a sort of apology for Absalom. He ought to have had more respect for his father than to offer him so grievous an insult, and aggravate by so terrible a deed the quarrel between them. But his conduct from first to last was utterly mean and selfish, and his only excuse here is that there was such a glamour round Ahithophel, that men yielded up their own judgment to him without an effort, and did what he advised as if it had a religious sanction. At the oracle of God; Hebrew, had asked the Word of God; that is, had consulted God by Urim and Thummim. When a man went to the priest to inquire in this way, he did whatever he was told; and the word of Ahithophel was accepted with equal deference. 2 Samuel 16:1-14 The facts are: 1. David, passing on his way, is met by Ziba with a present for the king and his servants. 2. On inquiring after Mephibosheth, David is told by Ziba that he was staying in Jerusalem in expectation that, as a result of the present revolt, the kingdom would be restored to him as representative of the house of Saul. 3. Accepting this statement as correct, David assigns Mephibosheth’s property (2 Samuel 9:9-12) to Ziba, who thereupon makes obeisance. 4. Proceeding to Bahurim, David is assailed by Shimei, who curses him, casts stones at him, reproaches him with deeds of evil, and avers that, as a punishment, God had taken the kingdom from him and given it to Absalom. 5. Astonished at the insolence, Abishai seeks permission to slay the man; but David, piously recognizing a providential chastisement in the event, will not have it so, and points out further to his people that this was but a small trouble in comparison with Absalom’s conduct, and that probably God would have compassion and vouchsafe a compensating blessing. 6. David and his company proceed on their way, still insulted by Shimei, till they come to a place where they can refresh themselves. The cruelty of avarice. In this chapter the historian elves us a foil to the loyalty and devotion of the men referred to hitherto. Ittai, Zadok, Abiathar, and Hushai have their opposites in Ziba and Shimei and Ahithophel. It is said that the beasts of prey and creeping things come forth in the night; and so in this dark and sad time for David, the foul creatures come forth and manifest their full strength. Good men are always encompassed by evils, but they are kept in cheek by the very force of the prosperity of the good. When once that begins to wane, they revive and put forth their destructive powers. The time had now come for their appearance. In the case of Ziba we see avarice in its most hideous form. I. IT FRAMES ITS SCHEMES. An avaricious man is usually endowed with a good measure of prevision, and his success lies very much in the wicked perversion of this gift. The elaborate present of Ziba to David (2 Samuel 16:1, 2 Samuel 16:2), and the meeting with him just when a token of kindness would be most acceptable, was the result of hours and days of scheming. The end in view is so precious to the greedy soul that trouble and toil to attain to it go for nothing. There is a spontaneous avarice, as when men suddenly seek to grasp what is apparently within their reach, for the evil principle, like a slumbering hungry dog, is ever quick to discern and to act; but the great achievements of avarice, by which men become rich or gain some swift advantage, are the result of the prostitution of the gifts of foresight and skill in arrangement to low cunning and selfishness. There is many a scheme being concocted at this hour, in commercial and political circles, for the circumvention of others to the enrichment of self.. II. IT ITS PLANS TO THE NATURE OF MEN AND CUSTOMS OF THE AGE. Ziba knew what David had done for Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9:1-10), how generous was the king’s heart, how he would appreciate fidelity in the time of trouble and scorn ungrateful conduct, how his associates in trial would approve any favour conferred on the loyal at the cost of the disloyal, and how it was within the prerogative of a monarch to confiscate the property of a traitor. Avarice is a careful student of human nature and of the usages of the world. Its success often depends on quickness of discernment, and a practical application of the knowledge of men and things to the purposes of a base, greedy heart. A good and generous man may be as quick in discernment, and may in the intercourse of life gather as much knowledge of human nature, but he differs from the avaricious man in that he scorns to turn all this to the sole promotion of purely selfish interests. III. IT TAKES SPECIAL OF THE AND OF OTHERS. There is a fiendish sagacity in avarice. Ziba saw that the sorrows of David furnished a choice opportunity for making an impression on his generous sympathetic nature by a manifestation of loyal interest and kindly consideration for his comfort; and he saw also that the bodily infirmity of Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9:13; 2 Samuel 19:25, 2 Samuel 19:26) would prevent his going out to David to express his own loyalty. How splendid the opportunity of so representing matters as to secure the confiscation of Mephibosheth’s inheritance to himself as a reward for his personal faithfulness! How this is too often illustrated, in the eager rush after wealth, in the conduct of certain nations towards others, is well known. There are hard-hearted men who rejoice in the commercial calamities of others, because they see their chance of turning them to their own advantage, and not a few are willing to profit by the incapacity, physical, social, and intellectual, of others, by not providing them with the means by which they can rise above it, and act their own part in the world’s affairs. The curse of God surely rests on such evil doers. IV. IT IS OF THE FAIN IT . David’s heart was sad enough. Trouble in most fearful form had come on him. His anguish is seen in the comfort he felt in the fidelity of the high priests and in the presence of the ark. But what though his heart was smitten! Avarice can rive it the more by concocting a lie most suited for such a purpose. Ziba knew that the story about Mephibosheth would rend further the sore wounds of the much-riven heart. What of that? Property would be acquired. What of blasting the reputation and scattering the fortunes of an innocent cripple? His property would become Ziba’s. Such things do occur still in the earth. There may be degrees in avarice, but in every case there is a heedless infliction of pain and a positive injury to the innocent. Is there a God to avenge wrong? Is there a future retribution? Seeing that many avaricious men escape positive punishment in this life (Psalms 49:16-20; Psalms 73:1-17), a righteous moral order must either be denied or we must look on to the day when God shall give to every man according to the deeds done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10). V. IT ASSUMES THE FORM OF NOBLEST VIRTUES. Ziba comes to David as a kindly, faithful, generous subject, sorrowful for his affliction, ready to minister to his comfort, and even prepared to break the ties which for years had held him to Mephibosheth. Loyalty and religion are publicly professed. The assembled friends of the king are witnesses to his noble conduct. Wolves may come in sheep’s clothing, Satan may assume the appearance of an angel of light, and, in the same way, avarice may, if occasion requires it, hide its hateful form under the guise of the two most reputable of all qualities loyalty and religion. This is done in varying degrees. There is a conformity to prevalent political opinion, to social customs, to decency of bearing, and to the observances of the sanctuary, not because of a thorough conviction of right founded on knowledge and principle, but because it will contribute to swell the amount of one’s gains and elevate one’s position in the world. God desireth truth in the inward parts (Psalms 51:6). The whited sepulchre is no screen from his eye (Matthew 22:27; cf. Psalms 139:1-24.). The reproaches of the wicked. A more graphic account of insult and personal wrong than this is not found in the Bible. The language of the sixty-ninth psalm is fitly descriptive of the events of this sad day, as also of Psa 3:1-8. and 4. The harsh voice of Shimei, it is to be feared, was but the index of a feeling in many hearts towards the unfortunate man of God. The political element enters into the attack (Psalms 3:8), but there was a deeper sentiment of hostility in which the ungodly of Jerusalem would be predisposed to share. Everything seems intense in David’s life, as a consequence of the natural force of his character, the depth of his feelings, and the corresponding strength of emotion, whether of love or hate, which his conduct aroused. Except in seasons of fierce persecution, and most of all in the instance of our Redeemer, the reproaches of the wicked do not assume the violent form here indicated, but in every instance of their occurrence we may trace features in common with this. I. THEY PROCEED FROM . David was a religious man. His kingly position was won by virtue of his being a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 15:28; 1 Samuel 16:7-13). In spite of his great fall, he was a lowly, devout servant of God, intent on the spiritual welfare of the people. When Shimei assailed David as a usurper (Psalms 3:8), and so made a political allusion, he revealed his own intense aversion both to David’s piety and the religious reason for his elevation to the throne in the place of Saul. He evidently did not enter into the theocratic views of Samuel (1 Samuel 15:1-35; 1 Samuel 16:1-23.). He was a man who preferred the unspiritual order of Saul’s government to the Divine order of David’s. Here lay the real secret of the reproaches heaped upon the unfortunate king. No godly man, no man of elevated views or of spiritual sympathies, could originate such malicious words. This was the secret also of the reproaches heaped on Christ. He was better than his haters liked him to be. Intense aversion to his superior spirituality was the spring of their conduct. They hated him without a cause, i.e. a valid reason. In looking at the reproaches against the persecuted Christians, we find the same to be true. The evil words spoken nowadays against good men have their root in a dislike of the holy life which, by contrast, is a reminder of sin and guilt. II. THEY ARE BASED ON DEFECTS OF . It might be inferred from the words of Shimei (Psalms 3:7) that he was a very righteous, peaceful, God-fearing man, for he comes forth as the accuser of the king, and pleader for what is just to man and God. But we know that this was only a cover for the real feeling. Those who are not holy are obliged, by compulsion of conscience, to find a plea for deeds of shame. The failure of David in one period of his life was most probably known to Shimei, and it is seized with eagerness and made the justification of a reproach bearing on his entire life, and imputing deeds of which David was innocent. Saving the case of Bathsheba and Uriah, David’s life was anything but one of blood and worthlessness (Belial). To Saul and his sons he had been unusually kind. The elevation of his character had given dignity and power to the kingdom. These tactics of wicked men are constant; the occasional weaknesses of life are laid hold of, and magnified so as to be representative of the entire life. The free and frank words of Christ, true as they were, not tong before his death, were laid hold of and used as though blasphemy and evil works were his general characteristics (Matthew 12:24; John 10:32-36). Our failings in Christian life doubtless are a reproach to us, and give occasion to the enemy to blaspheme; but the malice of the wicked is seen in that they gladly lay hold of these as a plea for gratifying the feeling of aversion they cherish towards the religion we profess. III. THEY ARE IN THE DAY OF . The slumbering aversion of Shimei found expression in form of outrageous insult when David’s fortunes began to wane. Malice is associated with cowardice, and it is only when fear of punishment passes away that the malice puts forth its vigour. Malice is cruel, and therefore it adds wound to wound. The history of Christian persecution illustrates this. The very sorrows which ordinarily would draw forth sympathy only induce the feeling expressed in "There is no help for him in God." The natural tendency of the multitude to adhere to the prosperous and stand aloof from the failing cause, becomes intensified into active opposition when a lurking aversion to the individual and his cause has been cherished (Psalms 35:15; Psalms 49:18). Even the patience and sorrow displayed in the season of providential trial are turned against the sufferer by the keenness of an evil ingenuity. So much freedom does the evil spirit find in the day of calamity that the whole life is charged with the faults that belong only to a portion of it. No consideration is given to repentance and amendment. To crush and ruin are the sole aim of the reproach. IV. THEY ARE BY THE DARING BY A SENSE OF . Shimei knew his victim well enough to believe that he would not have the heart to allow the sword to smite him down; for all the antecedents of David’s life were in the direction of leniency and gentleness towards those who sought his hurt, though he spared not the man who sought or professed to take away the life of Saul. He was shrewd enough to notice that the grief of the king was so intense, as barefooted and in silence he passed out of the city, as not to allow of his finding room for thoughts of vengeance, and thus, being secure, the reproaches poured forth. The same conclusion was arrived at by the vindictive Pharisees, who loaded the Saviour with reproach. They knew, from all they had seen and heard, that he would not use force against them, and would not avail himself of the Roman authority in self-defence, and hence, secure in these directions, they were very daring, and spared not words and deeds to crush still further the spirit of the illustrious Man of sorrows. In daily life young Christians are often loaded with reproaches by wicked young men, with a boldness that gains strength from the fact that there is no one present to rebuke them, and that the assailed youth is prohibited by the principles he professes from using reproach and violence in return (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44). GENERAL LESSONS. 1. In the providential discipline of life, we may look for a combination of sorrows from independent sources, but yet all subservient to good for the children of God. 2. We should be so careful of our life every day that we give no apparent occasion for any one to bring charges against us when the failure of our earthly prosperity arouses attention. 3. The freedom exercised by wicked men in pouring forth their hatred against the good is of short duration, and cannot really hurt those who bear their reproaches in a right spirit. 4. We ought to discount largely the accusations brought against good men by those whose life and conduct reveal an absence of sympathy with the kingdom of God. The waves and billows of God. The events narrated in Psalms 3:5 -13 have an aspect towards man and towards God. The scene of a rejected monarch leaving his seat of government, and, while so doing, assailed by an enemy, is a vicissitude in human affairs which, though special in its colouring, is frequent in the annals of the world. It is a case of human ingratitude and violence on the one side, and human suffering on the other. But to the mind of David the sufferer, and to the sacred historian, the vicissitude is seen to stand in direct relation to the government of God, and is invested with its deepest interest in that aspect. The expression of the psalmist here finds exemplification: "All thy waves and thy billows are gone over me" (Psalms 42:7). The troubles are earthly; they roll on according to fixed laws, and are raised by agencies that seem to act by virtue of their own nature; and yet they are God’s. The Hebrew discernment of the Divine element in the bitterest trials is clear and sure. We learn here the following truths. I. THERE ARE OF TROUBLE IN THE OF THE GODLY. There are distinct troubles in David’s experience as here described, and they are graduated in weight. It was something to leave the city and worship he loved; it was more to break up a home; it was worse to lose regal authority; it was worse still to pass out in sight of the thousands of Israel, poor and powerless; it was a greater wave to have to listen to the reproaches and cursings of the wicked; but the greatest billow of all was the knowledge that his now eldest son, his former pride and delight, was in rebellion against him, and was seeking his life (verse 11). Fathers, kind and loving, only can estimate the greatness of this swelling billow. Compared with this, all else in form of loss of property and home and friends, must be expressed by the inferior term "waves." And, as we shall see, the magnitude of this is the greater still, because perceived to be in some sort the consequent of the former errors of the sufferer. There are many tribulations for the righteous, in many instances arising out of their own conduct, and it may seem a truism to say that some are greater than others; but the fact deserves noting, inasmuch as material and social troubles, which to an observer seem to press most heavily, are often slight compared with others that enter more into the depths of the soul. II. THE REAL OF TROUBLE IS OFTEN NOT BY ANY BUT THE . To Joab and men of his character it would seem to be the climax of all calamity that a "dead dog" should curse and throw stones at a king. It was a climax in the sense of coming upon other calamities, but only David could perceive its relative weight in the storm then passing over him. His fatherly heart alone could feel the full crushing force of the son’s ingratitude and cruelty. He alone could discern with agonizing feeling the relation between his own sin and this dire evil. He only knew the rebound in this dreadful form of the recent alienation of his own heart from purity and God. We often spend our pity on suffering men and women when visible disasters fall, and perhaps fix on some loss of property, or health, or children, or some terrible blasting of a life’s hopes, as the item most oppressive to the smitten one. Possibly, in the unrevealed record of their own personal experience in relation to God, there is a fact which does more to bow down the spirit than all else beside. The heart of each man knoweth its own bitterness. There are secrets never to be unravelled here below, or, if made known in words, fully realized in their sorrow causing power only by those whose past experience is bound up with their existence. III. THEY ARE IN THE MIND OF THE WITH A SENSE OF DEMERIT. The connection of the events of this period of David’s life with his past life was not simply discerned to be organic, but in that discernment there was a distinct recognition of his own unworthiness in the sight of God, yea, of his richly deserving these troubles of varying gravity. Probably not one man in that strange procession, except Nathan, divined the real thoughts and feelings of David. The curses of Shimei were as the echo of his own conscience on that dark and dreadful day when love to God yielded to unchastity and design to slay. The horrible sin came forth, and, though truly forgiven, was now "ever before" him (Psalms 51:3). No curses of the wicked were too bad for him! No rebellion of cherished son was too severe a chastisement for him! The "waves and billows" rolled on. Were they not fitly framed to swallow up one so self-condemned, so unworthy of pity? Yes; here lies the meaning of those bared feet, that bowed head, that silence under the curse, that moral inability to raise a finger to stay the swelling flood of troubles. Nor are we to wonder that this should be so in the case of a forgiven and restored soul (2 Samuel 12:13); for the more pure the heart of the restored one, the more blessed the sense of actual forgiveness, the keener will be the feeling of demerit when the old sin is brought to the memory by calamitous events which it set in train. It takes a very holy nature to appreciate properly what sin really is. In the instance of all who experience the "waves and billows" of God, there is, with a clearness more or less full, an association of the trouble with their own past demerit. Whether they can, as David did, actually trace the lines, they know that all trouble is in some way connected with the presence of sin in the world, and that their own past relation to God was at one time such that no earthly disaster could be too great as a chastisement. Irreligious men don’t know what this is; but it is a real fact in Christian life. "I am not worthy of the least of thy mercies;" "It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed" (Genesis 32:10; Lamentations 3:22). IV. THERE IS A OF THE WILL OF GOD IN THEM. There is an instructive difference in the conduct of Abishai and David. The man of the world saw the passion and heard the voice of Shimei, and his anger was roused accordingly; the sorrowing man of God saw only the will of God. He seemed deaf to the torrent of curses; with head bowed to the earth, he saw not the man, and the thud of the stones made no impression. "The Lord hath said unto him, Curse David." Yes; it was the Lord. The words of the prophet were true (2 Samuel 12:10-14). Spiritual perception is spontaneous, and, to the godly man, infallible. It passes by the visible to the invisible. Second causes are lost in the efficient Cause. Speculative questions as to human freedom and consecution of events are left behind. The solution of the actual experience in the passing events is found. It is God. This is the significance of all to David. The "waves and billows" are his. They roll to do his will. The force of almightiness is in them. This spiritual discernment plays an important part in the lives of all true Christians. It is not ignorance, it is not a disregard of philosophy on their part, it is not a violation of the sequences of scientific law, when, with an intuition clear and irresistible, they see God in the troubles that fall upon themselves. For spiritual intuition is a higher faculty than logical judgment, and relates to a sphere above all physical sequences. There is no more possibility of men setting this aside by reasonings and discussions concerning physical laws, than the perception of an external world by vision can be set aside by the proof of the existence of a physiological structure of the eye. If commercial disaster falls, if health fails, if friends die, if children become rebellious, if the seeds of former sins bear their bitter fruit,—in all God is seen. Nothing comes in form of trouble to his children but that he has a will in it. There may be a human, even physical side, but the child will discern the Father’s will (Hebrews 12:5-10). V. THE SENSE OF DEMERIT AND OF THE WILL OF GOD TONE DOWN THE HARDER OF HUMAN NATURE. Abishai was true to his nature in wishing to cut off the head of the "dead dog;" and David was true to the chastening effect on his nature of these terrible trials when he resisted the suggestion (verse 10). The heart becomes tender and gentle when under the chastening hand of God, provided, as in David’s case, there is a due discernment of personal unworthiness, and of the gracious though just purpose of God in the trouble. We are reminded of One who also endured the contradiction of sinners against himself; who when reviled, reviled not again, and even when bearing more than David could here was pitiful and kind to his foes (Hebrews 12:2, Hebrews 12:3; 1 Peter 2:23; Luke 23:34). It is the mark of a true endurance of the righteous will of God, and conformity of self to the scope of the Divine purpose, that there is in time of trouble no fretting and chafing against the instruments which he may use, be they men or things. Who can curse when the holy will is doing its work? Who can be in wrath and find time for antagonisms when the soul is absorbed in contrite recognition of sin and humble prostration before a storm designed to purify the heart? What gratitude is due to God for the softening influences of calamity I How much richer in meekness and gentleness and the milder and more Christly virtues are many for the poverty and pain they have experienced! The sons of Zeruiah, still so strong and fierce in the world, little know the blessedness of being like unto him who was "meek and lowly in heart." VI. WITH SILENT HOMAGE TO THE MAJESTY OF GOD THERE IS BLENDED TRUST IN HIS MERCY. David was not playing a part before the eye of man. There was nothing histrionic in his conduct. The profound homage to the Holy One which underlay his confession before Nathan, "I have sinned" (2 Samuel 12:13), was now again rendered in the secrecy of his own soul. The head bowed in submission to the fierceness of the storm indicated an acknowledgment of the righteousness of God. Much rather would the humbled king have been free from the necessity of speaking with the "sons of Zeruiah," and have borne the terrible storm without a thought of protest or feeling of complaint. It is in the most critical moments of life that the soul shrinks from the outward strife of tongues, and in the solemn silence of its own thoughts renders to God a sinful creature’s homage. But with this utter surrender to the rights and punitive appointments of the Eternal there is blended a quiet, modest trust in his great mercy. "It may be that the Lord will look on mine affliction" (verse 12). "It may be." Note the content of the words: "He is merciful and gracious. It is inherent in the nature of the Author of the covenant with Israel to be so. The words of the past are evidence of this. I am undone and have no claim; all that comes to crush me comes justly; what he does he does for his Name’s sake. Other poor sinners have waited not in vain; the hour may come when he will see his glory to be one with my deliverance, and then the storm will cease. ’He will requite me.’ Mercy will find a way of enriching my poor troubled soul out of the very ills which so justly have come upon me." The true heart in its deepest sorrows never loses faith in God’s goodness and care. It holds to the possibility of a turn in the tide. It rests not on its merits, not on speculations upon what is unknown, but upon the assured character of God as revealed in Christ. It assumes and presumes nothing, but leaves all with him, and so finds comfort in the hope that through his free unmerited grace all things shalt be found to work together for good (Romans 8:28). GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It is an illustration of the dreadful nature of sin that it deposits seeds of trouble which may be inactive during a season of prosperity, but which put forth their strength when adversity falls upon us (Psalms 3:5, Psalms 3:6). 2. The children of God may do well to remember that there are watchful foes, human and Satanic, ready to take advantage of any circumstance that may bring reproach on them as servants of the living God (Psalms 3:5, Psalms 3:6). 3. Our faithful attachment to those bearing sorrow because of their shortcomings is a duty, when they bear it in a submissive spirit, even though it cause us to be sharers in their sufferings (Psalms 3:6, 13, 14). 4. In seeking to alleviate the sufferings of the oppressed, we should abstain from vindictive passions (verse 10). 5. The most tender consideration and sympathy should be extended towards those whose hearts are crushed by the ingratitude and cruelty of their own children (verse 11). 6. The most effective way of ministering to those whose spirits are broken down by providential chastisements is to foster in their hearts simple trust in God’s great mercy (verse 12). We obtain evidence of our being true children of God when, in the time of our calamity and amidst persecutions, we are followers to those who, when "reviled, reviled not again" (verse 11; cf. 1 Peter 2:23). 2 Samuel 16:15-23 Illustrations of facts and principles. The facts are: 1. Absalom enters Jerusalem with his adherents and Ahithophel. 2. Hushai presents himself before Absalom, with a salutation in ambiguous language. 3. On Absalom expressing surprise that he had not gone with David, he, with studied caution, expresses his readiness to serve whom the Lord and all the men of Israel might choose, and further declares his intention to "serve" in the son’s presence as he had in the father’s. 4. Absalom, seeking counsel, is advised by Ahithophel to strengthen his position by taking possession of his father’s concubines. 5. Whereupon Absalom, in the view of the people, conforms to the advice. 6. Ahithophel is represented as a man whose reputation as a counsellor was of the highest character. The historian passes from the sorrows of David to the aspirations and first measures of Absalom, and reveals another line of providential events apparently working in another direction, and yet, in the light of Nathan’s words (2 Samuel 12:7-12), clearly tending to the realization of one purpose. It is only the religious man that can discern the mind of God in occurrences utterly dissimilar in their bearing. The good are crushed and the vile are exalted, but the crushing and the elevation are but products of free human instrumentality, taken hold of by an unseen Power, to bring about the ends of a righteous administration of justice. In the opening accounts of Absalom’s entrance on political power we have instructive illustrations of facts and principles. I. WON BY AGE AND . The rash and reckless Absalom treats the aged Hushai with unwonted respect, even while regarding him as a "friend" of David (2 Samuel 16:16, 2 Samuel 16:17). The violence usually accompanying a bold revolt was evidently restrained by the will of God acting through the natural influence of years combined with reputation for moral worth. Occasionally wicked men have been heedless of infancy and age, and the better the men associated with their opponents, the more readily have they cut them off. But as a rule it is not so. History records cases of the kind here narrated. The reason is plain: sin is ashamed in presence of goodness, and the sinner’s arm is weak to smite down what is its own condemnation. Conscience revives and restrains action in the presence of goodness; and the heart must be brutal beyond all relief if hoary hairs do not touch it. They speak of the coming grave, and the voice is not in vain. Integer vitae scelerisque purus, man wields a silent power, not only over the fabled wolf, but over wolf-like men (Horace, I. ode 22.). II. THE PART OF MEN IN HUMAN AFFAIRS. Hushai and Ahithophel differed much in moral character, but they were similar in their position as advisers in the affairs of state. Their acts show them to have been men of sagacious mind, able to apply the results of extended observation and insight into character to the changing circumstances of the day. As a matter of fact, they played the most important part, by means of their sagacity, in the events of this part of David’s life; and their action suggests to us how much of human life in its social and political relations is connected with the thoughts and plans of men of this class. As in a ship a few really control the fate of the many, so in nations a few regulate affairs that involve the weal or woe of millions. No system of government can avoid this fact. Mental power is supreme in the state. Moral influences from the mass may set limits to its action, and open lines along which it must work, but its mighty force is manifest. It is a case of mind rising above mind. Hence the need of prayer that our mentally gifted men may be good men. Hence, also, their solemn responsibilities before God. III. THE OF A POST OF EXTREME AND DANGER. Hushai was just now entering on his perilous duties as friend of David in the court of Absalom, and the utmost care was requisite that he might both save his own head and serve his beloved king. Had he not been sustained by the confidence that God would bring to nought the devices of the wicked, he must have often been overwhelmed by the pressure of his responsibilities. There are analogous positions still in life. Diplomacy knows them; commerce is not a stranger to them; the Church furnishes them; benevolent men have often to work in secrecy, though not by deceit; peacemakers find that they may mar their work for lack of discretion, and run the risk of losing reputation with one or both parties. In all such instances the consciousness of being in the right, that wit and wisdom are devoted to unselfish ends, and that God may be asked to give his help, will sustain the heart, give penetration to moral perceptions, and ensure self-possession. All honour to the men who for a good cause assume such responsibilities! IV. THE WITH EVIL OF FORCES. Ahithophel had a great reputation, and devoted the force of his sagacity to the evil cause of a rebel. The forces of evil at work against David were strong, and, to ordinary men in Israel, invincible. Yet we who know more than Absalom and his friends then knew, can see that all this time there were, coexisting with and working secretly and silently against all the forces of evil, other forces which could not but tend to neutralize their action. In this we have on a small scale an illustration of the fact that, though there are in the world many pronounced forms of evil at work against the good of man and the rightful authority of Christ over mankind, there is also a silent, and in its operation a secret, force at work, through the agency of the faithful few, which all the time tends to check the evil, and must in the end overcome it. It has been so from the day when the Seed of the woman was promised to bruise the serpent’s head. This fact should inspire the hearts of the faithful in every land in spite of outward appearances. V. THE CITY OF GOD IS THE SCENE OF POWERS. The holy city, the joy of the whole earth, the chosen abode of the Eternal, and the natural abode of peace, was now the scene of a strife between adverse powers of good and evil. The happy days when the people sang for joy and felt secure in the presence of the symbol of the Divine favour (2 Samuel 6:12-19) were no more. As in some great historic wars the conflict becomes concentrated on the seat of government and influence, so now the great question which involved the welfare of Israel and the Gentiles was being fought out in Jerusalem. Here we certainly find an analogue to times of trouble when the city of God—the Jerusalem of the Christian dispensation—has been the scene of conflict between the powers that would get rid of the Divine authority and set up an order of things not of God. Men have contended within the Church to rob Christ of his Divine rights, and the faithful few have striven to render service for him according to the measure of their wisdom and goodness. The apostles seem to have anticipated such seasons (2 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:2). As this trouble in Jerusalem was connected with the failings of David as well as the vices of Absalom, so the contentions and sorrows that have been experienced in the Church have not been unconnected with the shortcomings of the elect of God. VI. IS A PURELY HUMAN . The words of Hushai to Absalom were understood by the latter to be the expression of his loyalty to himself; and, on the surface of them, the words doubtless had that meaning. But as a matter of fact, Hushai’s heart was with David, and his language was capable of being interpreted in accordance with his true feelings. It is a question of casuistry as to whether, under the circumstances, he was warranted in devising means for deluding Absalom. The Bible does not commit itself to all the acts of its characters; and in our judgment on men we ought to have some regard to the moral atmosphere of their daily lives. But in this ambiguous expression of fidelity we have an instance of what largely prevails in the world. Men still coin phrases to afford satisfaction to others while keeping peace with their own convictions. Forms are adopted which are unimpeachable; but the real feeling is kept secret. In some countries there are current forms for expressing loyalty to the "powers that be," freely employed to the satisfaction of rulers and the safety of those who use them. Attachment to certain political principles is announced while the particular application of them is a matter of private reservation. In commercial houses a form of loyalty to employers’ interests often passes with a purpose to sacrifice them to a rival interest. In Church affairs it is possible to accept standards in form and empty them of essential content. The practice is to be condemned in every case. Strong faith in God can dispense with such expedients. He who was chastising David through Absalom knew how to restore the chastened one in due time, without the expedients of human duplicity. The example of Christ and his apostles is better than that of Abraham, Jacob, and Hushai (cf. Genesis 12:13-20; Genesis 27:20-27; John 18:33-37; Acts 4:7-12). VII. GREAT ARE LIABLE TO ABUSE. Hushai evidently laid down a great and sound principle as the rule of his conduct when he declared that, as for himself, he was prepared to serve him whom the "Lord, and this people, and all the men of Israel" might choose. Had Absalom been as keen as he was ambitions, he would have seen that this was a principle which so far could not ensure attachments to himself, because two of the conditions were not fulfilled at present. No doubt he hoped that, in some strange way, his choice by "this people" would be supplemented by the choice of God and all Israel. There was here an abuse of a principle, commonly recognized in those times, by both Hushai and Absalom. Hushai took it as a mere cover for saving his conscience, while getting Absalom to believe in his fidelity. The same twofold object was sought by the following question and the very safe assertion, "As when (כַּאֲשֶׁר) I served in thy father’s presence, so will I be (כֵּן אֶחְיֶה) in thy presence." He would be the same man while professing to serve Absalom. On the other hand, Absalom evidently thought the principle laid down very pious and patriotic, and to be respected because it was a principle, and in his superstitious and superficial deference to an orthodox utterance, he detected not the purpose for which it was stated. In the one case a principle was subordinated to cunning in a good cause; and in the other it was simply admired as a platitude by a bad man. The trade in important principles of action is very common. They are made to subserve ends by no means good. Advantage is taken of their natural influence over men, by reason of their clearness and moral force, to hoodwink them for carrying out special designs. Platform and press too frequently have dealt with great truths for no special love of the truths, but for party purposes, and to save credit for intelligence and good sense. Also there is a superstitious regard for a certain class of religious, moral, and political principles which causes many persons to think well of those who proclaim them, simply because of proclaiming them. This unreality in both public and private life should be discountenanced. VIII. GREAT POWERS AGAINST THE LORD’S . The followers of Absalom, under the guidance of Ahithophel, confer with him as to the best course to pursue in order to effectually establish the position of the usurper, and out off the fugitive king. In a measure, the second psalm is now fulfilled, substituting "counsellors" for "kings" (Psalms 2:2). The fact that David had been anointed by God must have been familiar to them all. This evidence of his right to reign was clear enough, and no counter deposition had come from God; and yet such is the blindness and desperate nature of men when alienated from God, that they meditate the destruction of a rule guaranteed from on high. Sin is madness as well as vileness. Our Saviour reminds his disciples that the same combination will take place against his authority (Psalms 2:1-12.; Matthew 16:18). The conspiracy was formed when keen and crafty men sought his death (Matthew 12:14; Matthew 27:7; John 18:14); it was revived when they sought to crush his disciples (Acts 5:33); and it is in force now when men presume to dispense with his teaching and saving power. It is the old antagonism of the serpent and the Seed. Let every Christian brace himself to the conflict. IX. THERE IS AN OF . It is not likely that either Nathan or David proclaimed to the world the terrible prediction that was to be fulfilled within a few years (2 Samuel 12:7-12). Ahithophel was, therefore, an unconscious instrument in fulfilling the Word of God when he gave the desperate advice to Absalom (2 Samuel 16:21, 2 Samuel 16:22). It is thus that, in the perfectly free action of men, God’s purposes are realized. He chastises his children by using men who at the same time are unconscious of being so used. This wonderful foreknowledge of what free men will do, and the execution of moral ends by the action of responsible agents, is possible alone to the Infinite One. There is involved in it a mystery before which we do well to bow with all humility. Men little think how their very deeds of evil are being worked into the warp and woof of the world’s life, so as at last to bring out to view the wisdom and righteousness of God. X. PUBLIC MEN HAVE IT IN THEIR POWER TO DEBASE PUBLIC MORALS. By the counsel given to Absalom, Ahithophel no doubt widened the breach between father and son beyond the point of reconciliation, and by a bold stroke inspired confidence in the minds of waverers; but he did it at the cost of public morality. The tone of public life was lowered. Vice became familiar. A blow was struck in an ostentatious way at purity of thought and feeling. A voluptuous throne meant a sensual people. There is always a temptation to public men to strike for power by deeds of doubtful and sometimes immoral character. Political ends may be secured at the cost of loss of moral tone to the community. Those who do this may be great and wise in the eye of the world, but they are the real enemies of the people, and deserve, as they will experience, the retribution of God. XI. GREAT IN THE WORLD ARE NOT, , GREAT WITH GOD. Ahithophel was a man in great repute as a counsellor (2 Samuel 16:23), but he was not in honour with God. The clever head was associated with a base and treacherous heart. The standard of distinction on earth is not the same as that in heaven. Intellectual powers are often grand in their range, but the excellence of the man lies in the subordination of them to high and holy moral principles. The greater the abilities, the greater the sin of not using them for God and his kingdom. There are many "first" in this life who will some day be "last" (Matthew 19:30). The worship of intellect is one of the banes of modern times. Conformity to the sermon on the mount is more honourable than cleverness in human affairs. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It is a safe rule of life to commit ourselves to an undertaking only on the condition that God approves as well as "all the men." 2. It is of immense advantage in times of perplexity to have in the mind a few clear and well-defined principles of conduct to which we may refer for guidance. 3. It is legitimate to bring the force of first principles to bear on those who are bent on evil ways, though it is not right to use them as a cloak for double-facedness. 4. In the midst of contending claims on our allegiance, we should give due force to the inquiry as to whom we are under the most binding obligations to serve, and it will be seen that Christ has the prior claim. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 16:1-4 (OLIVET.) The benefaction of Ziba. (References: 2 Samuel 9:3, 2 Samuel 9:9-13; 2 Samuel 19:24-30.) David had taken his last look at Jerusalem, and was "a little past the top" of Mount Olivet in his descent on the other side, when he was met by Ziba, the servant of Mephibesheth, with an apparently thoughtful and generous present. This man was originally a slave of the house of Saul; became a freed man at its downfall; made his fortune out of its ruins; and had fifteen sons and twenty slaves. About seventeen years before, when inquiry was made for "any of the house of Saul," he gave information concerning the son of Jonathan. By the restoration of Mephibosheth to his patrimony, Ziba was reduced to his former status, and thenceforward cultivated the land for his master. And now, foreseeing the issue of the conflict, he sought to ingratiate himself with the king, regain his position, and obtain his master’s estate. Such appears to be the key to his conduct. We have here an illustration of a benefaction: 1. Occurring at a seasonable moment; when most needed and least expected; valuable in itself, and still more for the faithfulness and kindness it seemed to manifest. A man of David’s generosity could not but be greatly affected by it. But an admirable gift does not always express a commendable purpose (Deuteronomy 16:19; Ecclesiastes 7:7). "Whatever Ziba intended in this present, God’s providence sent it to David for his support" (Matthew Henry). 2. Proceeding from unworthy motives: selfishness, covetousness, cunning craftiness (2 Samuel 1:2-10), hidden under an ostentatious display of loyalty, sympathy, and benevolence. Ziba was well acquainted with the character of David, and shrewdly calculated upon the means of improving his present necessities to secure his own advantage. Impure motives often lurk, sometimes unconsciously, beneath imposing benefactions. 3. Conferred at another’s expense; and by the employment of deceit, treachery, and robbery. "The whole, though offered as Ziba’s, is the property of Mephibosheth: the asses are his, one of them his own riding animal: the fruits are from his gardens and orchards" (Smith, ’Dictionary’). Poor Mephibosheth! He was at this moment waiting for the return of his faithless and pitiless slave with the ass, to enable him to follow the king. His own account of his absence was consistent with his actions (2 Samuel 19:24); and the treachery of Ziba could not be denied. "Treacherous servants are a curse to their masters." It is no uncommon thing for one man to seek the credit which is due to another, and obtain it by deceiving, disappointing, and injuring him. 4. Accompanied with a false accusation. "And Ziba said," etc. (2 Samuel 16:3). It was not improbable that the adherents of the fallen dynasty might seize the opportunity to attempt its restoration (2 Samuel 16:5; 2 Samuel 20:1); and already, perhaps, David entertained some suspicion of the loyalty of Mephibosheth. Hence Ziba might calculate on finding a ready hearing for his calumny. But "every tie, both of interest and gratitude, combined to keep Mephibosheth faithful to David’s cause. Innocent men are often suspected and accused groundlessly. "When much treachery and ingratitude have been experienced, men are apt to become too suspicious, and to listen to every plausible tale of calumny" (Scott). "I cannot but pity the condition of this good son of Jonathan; into ill hands did honest Mephibosheth fall, first of a careless nurse, then of a treacherous servant; she maimed his body, he would have overthrown his estate" (Hall). "A false witness will utter lies" (Proverbs 14:5). 5. Receiving an undeserved recompense. "Behold, thine is all that belonged to Mephibosheth" (2 Samuel 16:4). "David, in the excitement of a momentary misfortune, is here guilty of a double wrong—first in treating the faithful Mephibosheth as a traitor, and then in royally rewarding the false and slanderous Ziba" (Erdmann). "Hearsay is no safe ground of any judgment. Ziba slanders, David believes, and Mepbibosheth suffers" (Hall). 6. Followed by flattering servility. "I humbly beseech thee," etc. "He pretends to value the king’s favour more than the gift he had bestowed" (Patrick). 7. Revealed at length in its true character (2 Samuel 19:27), as a selfish, deceitful, and base procedure; though even then the wrong done to the master is not fully repaired, nor the wickedness of the servant adequately punished. . 1. Look beneath the outward appearance (John 7:24). 2. Guard against plausible detractors 3 Avoid hasty judgments (Psalms 116:11. Proverbs 14:15); and hear the other side. 4. Wait for the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.—D. 2 Samuel 16:5-13 (BAHURIM.) The reviling of Shimei. (References: 2 Samuel 19:16; 1 Kings 2:8, 1 Kings 2:9, 1 Kings 2:36-46.) On pursuing his flight until he reached the Benjamite village of Bahurim (2 Samuel 3:6), David was encountered by another man connected with the house of Saul, who, instead of bringing flatteries and presents, flung "grievous curses" and stones; and (from a safe distance) gave vent to the long repressed rage which, in common with other partisans of the fallen dynasty, he felt on account of David’s exaltation (2 Samuel 16:8). "Along the ridge he ran, throwing stones, as if for the adulterer’s punishment, or when he came to a patch of dust on the dried hillside, taking up and scattering it over the royal party below, with the elaborate curses of which only Eastern partisans are fully masters—curses which David never forgot, and of which, according to Jewish tradition, every letter was significant" (Stanley). Abishai returned reviling for reviling, and wished to take instant vengeance. But David said, "Let him a one," etc.; presenting an instructive contrast to both. "He strikes the same string of nobleness as before." We have here— I. AN OF RAILING . "Out, out [of the kingdom], thou man of blood," etc.! The language and conduct of Shimei were: 1. Cruel. He rails against David in the day of his calamity, and has "no pity." 2. Cowardly. Fear had kept him silent all these years; but "he that smiled on David on his throne curseth him in his flight" (Hall). Seeing that he is not pursued, he is encouraged to continue his imprecations, and becomes more furious (2 Samuel 16:13). 3. Malicious; imbued with personal hatred. "The ungodly are always selfish. They judge of others, not by the laws of impartial justice, but by the standard of self-interest. David was called a usurper, a man of Belial, a murderer; and why? Because he had made himself the slave of lust, and had cruelly slain the noble Uriah? No; because he had been elevated by God to the throne of Israel, and had thus marred the prospects of the ambitious Shimei" (C. Bradley). 4. Unfounded and unjust. "Every word of Shimei was a slander." His accusations of wickedness in general, and of "the blood of the house of Saul" in particular (2 Samuel 4:11; 2 Samuel 21:6), are the offspring of a wicked heart. "Shimei curses and stones at David, and barks like a live dog, though Abishai calls him a dead one. The only unjust act that ever David had done against the house of Saul he had newly done; that was, giving Mephibosheth’s land; and here a man of the house of Saul is soon upon him" (Lightfoot). 5. Misinterpretive. (2 Samuel 16:8.) Whilst recognizing the judgment of God, he makes a wrong application of it. "We may here learn how falsely and wickedly men sometimes wrest the providence of God, to justify their unjust surmises and gratify their malignant passions" (Lindsay). 6. Criminal. He is guilty of high treason and blasphemy, and might justly suffer the penalty of the Law (Exodus 22:28; 2 Samuel 19:21; 1 Kings 21:13); and if David had put him to death at the time, he would not have been condemned for injustice. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 17:1 Let me now choose out twelve thousand men. The advice of Ahithophel was such as would have made success almost certain. The rebellion had taken David by surprise, and he was quite unprepared to resist the large forces which Absalom had gathered round him. But the better part of the nation disapproved of the enterprise, especially when they perceived that David’s life was in danger; and consequently his followers, in course of time, would increase. Moreover, the day had been one of extreme moral and mental trial to David. Upon the sudden news of Absalom’s approach, he had to arrange for the flight of his wives and children; to provide supplies for their wants, and for those of their attendants on the march; to give orders to his officers, and take means to prevent their flight degenerating into a panic. Then, with covered head and feet unshod, he had descended into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and slowly traversed the Mount of Olives; thence, in deep distress, he had advanced to the way of the wilderness towards Jericho, and there had been assailed by Shimei with bitter revilings. His progress after this was unimpeded, and at Ayephim he and the other fugitives had needful rest and refreshment. As Bahurim was about four miles from Jerusalem, this caravanserai a little further on was probably about six miles from the city, and about halfway towards the fords of the Jordan. The march was probably continued at sunset, and the fords reached before midnight; and there David halted, waiting for the arrival of Jonathan and Ahimaaz, and making preparations for the passage.. Now, if Ahithophel’s advice had been followed, he would have reached the fords as quickly as the young men did; for they lost time at Bahu-rim. Upon this David had not calculated, but supposed that anyhow he should have the interval won by Ahimaaz’s fleetness. With twelve thousand picked troops unencumbered with baggage, Ahithophel would thus have found David still on the west of the Jordan, 0and though Joab and Abishai would have done all that brave men could, yet they would scarcely have been in a position to make a long defence. And the command was to "smite the king only." A panic was inevitable, and confusion among David’s followers, who had women and children to defend; and in the midst of it Ahithophel would direct his main attack on the part where David was, and single him out for slaughter. When this was done all would be accomplished; for Absalom would become king by right of succession. Even Joab and the Gibborim would acknowledge him, and the whole nation be at peace. 2 Samuel 17:3 The man whom thou seekest is as if all returned; Hebrew, as the return of the whole is the man whom thou seekest. Both the amendments of the text and the various translations offered are innumerable, but nothing is really more satisfactory than the literal rendering of the words, virtually given us in the Authorized Version. Naturally, Ahithophel did not wish to parade David’s death too openly. In his heart Absalom must have known that the safe possession of the kingdom could be assured him only by his father’s death, but yet he might have shrunk from publicly avowing this, and having it talked of before his courtiers as a settled purpose. One reason why he adopted the counsel of Hushai may have been his reluctance to commit parricide: for plainly the one main purpose of Ahithophel was David’s death. This thorough traitor may have seen even a tremor of alarm in Absalom’s countenance when he spake out his purpose so frankly of "smiting the king only," and may have felt that, slumbering in the besom of the son, was something of that generous spirit which had made the father condemn the Amalekite to death for boasting that he had slain Saul. At all events, he was unwilling to dilate upon so ghastly a theme, and this general reference to David, as the man whom Absalom sought, without dwelling upon the subject, is in far better taste than the coarse open villainy so unreservedly expressed in 2 Samuel 17:2. The reading, however, of the Septuagint has many followers: "And I will bring back all the people to thee as a bride returns to her husband, excepting the life of the one man thou seekest; and for all the people there shall be peace." Ahithophel was bad enough, but scarcely so brutal as to compare to a bridal procession the sad return of David’s mourning friends and companions in arms weeping round the corpse of their master murdered at the bidding of his own son. 2 Samuel 17:4 All the elders of Israel. Their presence seems to show that Absalom professed to act in an orderly and constitutional manner, and with the advice of those in authority. It was possibly this wish to keep up appearances which made him command Hushai to be summoned, as he was one whose advice would certainly have been asked had matters gone on in their ordinary channel. So again in 2 Samuel 17:14, 2 Samuel 17:15, Absalom acts only with the popular consent. Very probably the royal power was gradually superseding that of the tribal authorities, and this may have made David unpopular with many of the great nobles. Absalom would thus gain many adherents by associating "elders" and "men of Israel" with him in his councils. 2 Samuel 17:7 And Hushai said. Hushai gives his advice with much Oriental exaggeration, such as ought to have put Absalom on his guard. His main points are that David was too practised a soldier to let himself be surprised. In his adventures with Saul he and his men had been trained to hold large bodies of pursuers at bay, and evade them. The men, too, who were with him were warriors of desperate valour, whose first thought would be the king’s personal safety, and to ensure this they would conceal him in some pit, some cave or ravine, safe and inaccessible by nature; or in some place (omit the inserted word "other"), that is, in some camping place, made strong with ramparts, so as to resist the first attack. "To smite the king only" is, therefore, an impossibility; and if the attack fail, and David’s mighties, in their irritation, slaughter a large number of their assailants, and a panic be the result, men will hesitate before they attack such redoubtable champions a second time. A check is fatal to a rebellion, and Absalom, was staking his chance on one hasty encounter. Better leave the decision to all Israel. Their hearts were with Absalom, and, when there has been time for them to gather in their thousands, success is certain. Their numbers will be countless as the sands on the shore, or as the dew upon the grass; while David and his heroes will shrink to so small a body as to be scarcely able to man the walls of one small city. And fighting there will be none; for the myriads of Israel will drag city and fugitives with ropes down into the nearest torrent bed, where the next floods will wash all away. There was more in this than an appeal to Absalom’s vanity. If all Israel did take his side, then David’s cause would soon be hopeless, and there would be no need of parricide. David’s death would be the act of Israel, and not of Absalom. Evidently Absalom believed that all Israel was on his side, and his success hitherto had been so rapid as almost to justify the assumption. To us this success is almost unaccountable, but it suggests that there were great faults in David’s administration. Yet even so we wonder at the existence of such general dissatisfaction. At this time. A wrong translation. The Hebrew is, Ahithophel’s counsel this time is not good, whereas last time, what he advised about the concubines was good. 2 Samuel 17:9 When some of them be overthrown at the first; Hebrew, in the falling on them; that is, at the first onslaught of David’s champions. Even though overpowered finally by force of numbers, they are sure to make a large slaughter at first, which may easily lead to a panic. 2 Samuel 17:11 And that thou go to battle in thine own person; literally, and that thy presence go to the battle. The versions have preserved a much better reading, "And that thy presence go in the midst of them." 2 Samuel 17:12 In some place; Hebrew, in one of the places; one of the fortified camps already described in 2 Samuel 17:9. 2 Samuel 17:13 The river. The word does not signify a river, but a ravine or gorge worn away by the action of a torrent. Such ravines are common in Palestine, where the streams rush along with resistless fury after the rains, but in summer are dry (Job 6:17); and their desolate beds, bordered by precipitous cliffs, are described by Isaiah as favourite places for the cruel rites of Moloch (Isaiah 57:5). Dragged to the edge of one of these gorges, the city, with its few defenders, would topple over, and in the next rainy season be entirely swept away. 2 Samuel 17:14 The counsel of Hushai is better. It seemed safer. Nothing in it was left to chance, and Absalom, already at the head of such numbers as to be able to select from them twelve thousand picked men, saw himself, in fancy, marching forward with all Israel at his feet. As a matter of fact, he did advance with so large an army that David was saved only by the skilful strategy of Joab. Like other king makers, Ahithophel had put himself too forward. He asked for twelve thousand men to be placed under his command, that he might smite David, and so be, not only Absalom’s counsellor, but also his commander-in-chief. Amasa and the other commanders would be displeased at this, and Absalom would feel that he was himself placed in a very secondary position. Ahithophel may have asked for the command solely because no one’s presence would so ensure success as his own, but he wounded the vanity beth of Absalom and Amasa, and made them ready to listen to any other advice that might be offered. The Lord had appointed; literally, and Jehovah had commanded to bring to nought, etc. So plain did it seem to the writer that Absalom’s success depended upon rapid action, that nothing less than the direct interference of the Divine providence could account for the infatuation of Absalom and his counsellors. 2 Samuel 17:16 Lodge not this night in the plains (at the fords) of the wilderness. The plan of Ahithophel made David’s position so dangerous, that he must hesitate no longer, lest, on second thoughts, Absalom should still adopt it. Hushai had frustrated it for the present; but Ahithophel might urge it again, and get the necessary permission; and then David and all the people that were with him would be swallowed up, that is, destroyed utterly, and with ease. 2 Samuel 17:17 Stayed by En-rogel. The two youths were posted at En-rogel, that is, the "Fuller’s spring," near Jerusalem (Joshua 15:7; 1 Kings 1:9), and probably the place now known as "Job’s Well," situated at the point where the valleys of Jehoshaphat and Hinnom meet. They were placed there because, though they would have been admitted into the city, they would scarcely have been allowed to leave it. Instead of wench—a term less disrespectful when the Authorized Version was made than it is now—the Hebrew has the maidservant. Probably the maid is meant whose usual duty it was to fetch water for domestic purposes, and thus her journey to the well would excite no suspicion. 2 Samuel 17:18 A lad saw them. Probably Absalom had sent out spies to watch the route which David had taken, to prevent any friends totaling him from the city, who would give him information as to the progress of events there. The word "lad" does not mean a boy; more probably he was one of the young men who formed Absalom’s body guard, like the ten "lads," translated "young men," in 2 Samuel 18:15, Who bare Joab’s armour. It Would be his duty to seize them, but when he tried to approach them, they fled, and made their way at full speed to Bahurim, where they were saved by the shrewdness and fidelity of a woman. Two such fleet runners would have had no difficulty in outstripping a boy, but one of Absalom’s young men would have roused the neighbourhood to join in the pursuit. The well in his court really signifies a cistern for storing rainwater; but it was at that time dry, and served as a convenient hiding place for the two messengers. 2 Samuel 17:19 A covering; Hebrew, the cover; that is, the usual cover of the cistern, which had been taken off to let the young men descend into it. Over it she spread, not ground corn, but brayed or peeled corn (see Proverbs 27:22), probably barley groats. She was probably busy in removing the husks of the barley with a pestle in a mortar when Jonathan and Ahimaaz sought refuge with her; and thus her whole proceeding was so natural as to excite no suspicions. 2 Samuel 17:20 They be gone over the brook of water. The word michal, translated "brook," does not occur elsewhere, and probably it was a local name for some stream near Bahurim. It was, we may suppose, in the right direction, but when the pursuers had followed for some time, and caught no glimpse of the runners, knowing their swiftness of foot, they concluded that they had outstripped them. and, giving up the chase as hopeless, returned to Jerusalem. It was only when she had seen them far on their way back that she removed the cover and allowed the young priests to resume their journey. The delay, would have been fatal to David if vigorous counsel had been followed at Jerusalem; as it was, they reached David’s camp without further incident, and acquainted him with Ahithophel’s plan; and the king at once recognized his danger, and without more delay, commenced at once the passage of the Jordan, and carried it out so skilfully and rapidly, that by the morning every one of his company was safe on the other side. 2 Samuel 17:23 Ahithophel … hanged himself. There is an old fancy, put down by Thenius as one of the curiosities of interpretation, that Ahithophel died of a quinsy; for the word might mean "was strangled or choked." But the act seems mentioned as a proof of Ahithophel’s unerring judgment. Indignation at Absalom’s folly, and at the slight cast upon himself, is not a sufficient reason for so violent a deed. He must have foreseen the certain ruin of the conspiracy if David was allowed time; and he knew that upon its failure would follow his own punishment. It is proof also that he was a fierce and ill-tempered man, and animated for some reason or other with a malignant hatred of David. The parallel between Ahithophel and the traitor Judas must strike every one. 2 Samuel 17:24 Then (Hebrew, and) David came to Mahanaim. (On Mahanaim, see note on 2 Samuel 2:8.) It was now a fortified city, with walls and gates (2 Samuel 18:24), and its strength of position, which had made it a safe capital for Ishbosheth, who had probably added to its defences, made it also a safe retreat for David while gathering his forces. As it was only about fifty miles distant from the fords of the Jordan, David had not retreated far; and, meanwhile, Absalom was wasting time in gathering "all the men of Israel" for the attack. During this interval Absalom was anointed king (2 Samuel 19:10) by the priests, with all due solemnity. 2 Samuel 17:25 Ithra an Israelite. In 1 Chronicles 2:17 he is called "Jether the Ishmeelite." The first name is the same, Ithra being the emphatic form of Jether; and as it is difficult to find a reason for mentioning so ordinary a fact as that his father was an Israelite, we may conclude that "Ishmeelite" is the correct reading. Bishop Wordsworth, however, suggests that "Israelite" was in contrast to "Judahite;" but this distinction did not come into use until after the disruption of the kingdom. The Vatican text of the Septuagint has "Jezreelite," which is probably a conjecture to get rid of the obvious error of calling him an Israelite. Amasa was an illegitimate son, which confirms the reading "Ishmeelite" in 1 Chronicles 2:17, as a marriage between Abigail and a foreigner would be sure to be opposed by all the members of Jesse’s family. Nahash. Jewish interpreters regard Nahash (equivalent to "serpent") as another name for Jesse, quoting in proof, "Out of the root of Nahash (the serpent) shall come forth the basilisk" (Isaiah 14:29), which in the Chaldee Paraphrase is explained as meaning, "out of the root of Jesse shall come forth the Messiah." This conceit would scarcely have deserved mention, had it not found a place in the margin of the Authorized Version. Some few commentators regard Nahash as a woman’s name, and think that she was a wife of Jesse, and mother of Abigail and Zerniah, but not of David. But Nahash is so constantly a man’s name that it is easier to believe that Nahash was the first husband of David’s mother, and Abigail and Zerniah his half-sisters, not on the father’s, but on the mother’s side. Joab and his brothers are always described as sons of Zeruiah, both to mark their relationship to David, and also because the rank was on her side. Amasa was probably the Amasai mentioned in 1 Chronicles 12:18 as bringing a powerful reinforcement to David while at Ziklag; but the ambition of supplanting Joab made him now forget David’s long friendship. 2 Samuel 17:27 Shobi. It is evident that the most powerful chieftains in Gilead were on David’s side, and supported him with men as well as with provisions. Adherents, too, would constantly cross the Jordan, and gather round the old king; and thus, when Absalom arrived, he found himself in face of an army estimated at about twenty thousand men. Among these chiefs it is interesting to find Shobi, son of Nahash, the Ammonite king, and David’s friend (2 Samuel 10:2). When Hanun, the elder son, on succeeding to the throne, brought ruin upon himself by his misconduct to David’s ambassadors, Shobi apparently remained faithful to David, and received the grant of a district in Gilead, where he settled with his followers. Some, with less probability, suppose that he had withdrawn to Gilead in the lifetime of his father, to be out of Hanun’s way. Machir was the generous man who had given the crippled son of Jonathan a refuge (2 Samuel 9:4); and David’s honourable treatment of Mephibosheth may have won his patron’s heart. Of Barzillai, and his abode, Rogelim, nothing more is known than what is said here, and in the very interesting narrative in 2 Samuel 19:31, etc. David’s lasting gratitude to him is shown by his care for his sons (see 1 Kings 2:7). A clan of priests called themselves "the children of Barzillai," and claimed to be the descendants of his daughter. They could not, however, produce their genealogy, and were therefore degraded from the priestly office (Ezra 2:61-63). Their claim, nevertheless, is a proof that Barzillai was a little king in Gilead, when thus a priestly race thought their alliance with him so honourable as to make them forget that they were of the lineage of Aaron. 2 Samuel 17:28 Beds. These would be for the women and children, and were scarcely more than rugs and small carpets. Basons; pots of metal for cooking, while the earthenware would be vessels for holding their food. Parched (corn) … and parched (pulse); Hebrew, kali … and kali. The word includes all kinds of parched grain. The Septuagint and Syriac rightly omit it in the second place, as it is probably a mere error of some ancient copyist; but for what word it has been substituted we have no means of ascertaining. 2 Samuel 17:29 Sheep. This is the only kind of flesh food mentioned. The change in the meaning of the word "meat," which still in America is used simply for "food," as in the Authorized Version, bears witness to the great change in our diet which has taken place in recent times. Cheese of kine. The word occurs only here, but the Syriac and the Targum both support the rendering of the Authorized Version. The Bedaween, after removing the butter, make a kind of cheese from the remaining milk. It is as hard as the cheese made from skimmed milk in Dorsetshire, but wholesome. It must, however, be soaked before eating, or softened with butter. Generally in the East, cow’s milk is regarded as coarse, and camel’s milk is used for drinking, while that of sheep and goats, and cheese made from it, holds the next place in general estimation. It is curious that "butter" literally means "cheese of kine." 2 Samuel 17:1-14 Conflicting counsels. The facts are: 1. Ahithophel, in advising Absalom, suggests that he himself should fall upon David by night, when weary, with twelve thousand select men, and urges that by so doing a final blow will be so struck as to secure the fealty of all Israel. 2. The suggestion is pleasing to Absalom, but he, before deciding, wishes to have the counsel of Hushai. 3. On being called to give counsel, Hushai expresses distrust of the counsel of Ahithophel, and assigns as reasons (1) the known valour and caution of David; (2) the possibility of a panic among the troops of Absalom on a slight reverse at the outset; (3) the natural apprehension of the people on approaching for attack one so famed for courage and strategy. 4. As a counter proposal, he counsels (1) a gathering of the entire forces of Israel; (2) the personal leadership of Absalom; and points out the certainty of success whether by attack in the open country or by an assault on a city. 5. Absalom and his people decide to reject the counsel of Ahithophel and adopt that of Hushai, being overruled in this by the will of God. The bold assumption of regal powers by publicly taking possession of the king’s harem was only a formal act, which necessitated other measures if the authority thus usurped was to be maintained. The existence of so valiant and able a man as David, and the attachment to him of a select body guard, were facts which could not but weigh heavily on the mind of one who knew how his father, in the days of Saul, defended himself amidst rocks and caves against a vindictive and powerful enemy. Hence the natural coherence of the narrative with which this chapter opens, and the account of Absalom’s conduct referred to in the previous chapter. In considering the conflicting counsels brought out by the first act of Absalom, we may notice several truths bearing widely on human affairs. I. IN LIFE ARE ENTERED UPON WHICH RENDER MEN VERY ON THE OF OTHERS. Absalom had aspired to a position of power, and on reaching it found that his difficulties were not materially diminished. The presence in the country of such a man as David, with such a body guard, was a fact of serious moment, and the well-known hesitancy of the populace as long as there are chances of vicissitude had to be provided against. His early habits of life and his natural gifts by no means qualified him to meet emergencies of this character; and hence he found himself, on usurping the throne, dependent on men of larger experience than himself. It was not preference but necessity which led him to seek the counsel of Ahithophel and Hushah Occasionally there are men in similar positions of usurped authority who by nature and experience can dispense with the advice of others, but it is more often not so. Young men entering on public life need more wisdom than can be gathered from their own personal experience, and they will do well to consult the wise who have written or may speak. In any position of difficulty, when embarrassed by dangers we cannot escape, whether in professions, commerce, education, morals, or religion, we need not hesitate to act even as did wicked Absalom in this particular—seek out the most accredited guides and advisers. If it is permitted to learn from an enemy, it is certainly allowable for the good to extract wisdom from the actions of the bad. The "children of light" are advised to learn lessons from the conduct of the "children of this world" (Luke 16:8). We may, like Absalom, though not with his evil intent, enter on positions by our free choice, for meeting the difficulties of which we are personally ill prepared; or we may, like Joseph, Moses, and Paul, be forced into positions of delicacy and peril. In either case we shall require more than our own sagacity; and no mere pride should deter us from seeking help of others. Possibly ours may be a case in which no human adviser is available. Be it so; Joseph, Moses, and Paul sought counsel of God, and they found, as we shall, that he directeth the way of those who acknowledge him (Proverbs 3:6). There are many advisers, many professing to know what is best. Let us ponder the path of our feet, that all our ways may be established. The good may adopt the policy of Absalom, while shunning his principles. II. GREAT POWERS BRING WHEN IN DIRECT TO GOD’S DESIGNS FOR MANKIND. Ahithophel was unquestionably a man of great ability. There is in human nature a profound respect for power of intellect. Men feel instinctively that it is a gift of God, and carries with it the key to unlock many of the mysteries that lie hidden in nature. It rests with the moral disposition as to the application of these powers. The true order is for them to run in the line of God’s great purpose of mercy to mankind, as a cooperating force to bring about the redemption of the world from the evils incident to the existence of sin. Thus it is that the highest honours are won. But Ahithophel brought on himself everlasting disgrace in that he laid all his native talents, all his acquired experience, all his personal influence, at the service of one who sought to set aside the Lord’s anointed. He must have known all David’s antecedents. He had taken "sweet counsel" with him (Psalms 72:14). His deliberate counsel now, to select choice men who should fall on the weary king in the dead of night, and, in the panic, slay him alone so as to secure ultimately the allegiance of those not slain, was crafty, bold, and cruel in the extreme. Humanly speaking, it meant success to the vices of Absalom, and ruin to the holy cause embodied in the Lord’s anointed. The treachery to a former friend counts for much; the inhumanity counts for more; but the crowning crime is war upon God’s revealed method for bringing on that glorious time when righteousness shall be established in the earth, and all men shall be blessed (Psalms 72:1-20.). The same plain issue is involved in the antagonism of men now to the appointed order of providence and grace. God has a kingdom, ruled by the Anointed One, and designed to bring peace and joy and holiness to all mankind. Gigantic intellectual powers are now running along a line in direct antagonism to it. The practical issue of their success would be moral and spiritual ruin to man. The more their strength and enrichment by learning, culture, and experience, command respect, the deeper the disgrace and the more dreadful their doom for daring to seek to destroy the authority of Christ’s blessed yoke (Matthew 11:28-30; cf. Psalms 2:1-12.). The daring deeds of the Hebrew secular plane are being repeated in the deeds of the modern spiritual plane. III. THERE ARE IN THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH UNUSUAL EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE . To ordinary human view the kingdom of God, as represented by the cause of David, was now in great peril. The most sagacious counsel of the age had been given; an eager young prince, proud of the wisdom of the counsellor, was intent on action, and a hesitant people were waiting for the turn of the balance. Hushai had, with remarkable foresight and courage, though doubtless under unconscious direction from above, placed himself in a position to meet the emergency; and now came the call for him to put forth his strength. Absalom little knew what he was doing when he called on Hushai to speak on the question at issue. The venerable man, strong as he was in his own secret and in the help of God, could not but realize the immense responsibility now devolving upon him. A false step, hesitancy, inappropriate suggestions, and feeble arguments, would be disastrous to the dearest of interests. In that critical hour it was as though the fate of Israel and Israel’s banished king, and of the blessed worldwide purpose they were working out, rested entirely on his judgment and skill. Angels could not but hearken with intense interest to his words, and watch their gradual effect on the mind of the rebel son. Corresponding occasions, varying in circumstance and magnitude, though virtually one in principle, have occurred, and will perhaps occur again. The most conspicuous and, in some respects, of course, the unparalleled, instance was that of our Saviour when the "gates of hell" had taken counsel to virtually prevent the salvation of the world by the only method approved of God. Of the people there was none with him. All depended on what he would do. The fate of the world rested with himself. In Caleb and Joshua, in Athanasius contra mundum, in the leaders of the Reformation, in the noble men and women who suffered martyrdom in Madagascar, and in many private instances in which family religious interests have been at stake, we may see emergencies demanding of the faithful the exercise of the highest qualities. IV. MINDS ARE BY WHAT WORKS ON THEIR . Hushai displayed his sagacity and skill by adapting his argument to his man. He wisely did not controvert the particular advice of Ahithophel, but so far complimented him and conciliated Absalom by simply saying that, though good, it was not so just now (verse 7). And while tacitly recognizing the valour of the twelve thousand, he suggested that there was special danger in attacking men "chafed in their minds." His line of argument was to work upon Absalom’s fears, vanity, and suspicions. David and his men were not ordinary men; they were bold, desperate, watchful, and gifted in strategy, and the possibility of a reverse would produce a panic among Absalom’s followers. Thus fear is awakened. The whole of the forces of Israel should be gathered, and Absalom himself should set out at the head of an imposing army, and so concentrate enthusiasm around his own person, and gain the renown of being conqueror of the mighty one. Thus vanity is aroused. No one else should take the lead, but the prince himself should, by maintaining a personal influence and winning a victory, keep power in his own hand, and so prevent the uprising of a powerful rival. Thus suspicions are awakened. Hushai was a good rhetorician in assailing the will through a graphic description of details, which in their effect could not but call forth fear, vanity, and suspicion—those prompters of the will. All men, but mostly the undisciplined in mind, are liable to be influenced to action by such appeals. This method explains how masses of men are often swayed by a clever presentation of facts blended with possibilities. There is a legitimate use of this method in seeking to win men over to action in harmony with the gospel. The Word of God is not handled deceitfully (2 Corinthians 4:2) when we set forth facts and possibilities to awaken godly fear and prompt to repentance; for this is only part of the function of the teacher and preacher. Men may be caught by such guile in order to be trained in the knowledge of the truth. V. THERE IS AN ACTION OF GOD IN THE MINDS OF MEN.. The explanation given of the superiority of Hushai’s counsel in its influence over Absalom is that it was the determination of God to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel (verse 14). Unquestionably his counsel was the best for Absalom’s purpose. But the wise man is not to glory in his wisdom; all hearts are naked and open to him who brings to nought the wisdom of the wise and the understanding of the prudent (Psalms 33:10; Isaiah 8:10; 1 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 2:6). All through Hebrew and Christian history there are evidences of God’s action on the minds of men, sometimes causing them blindness, sometimes inspiring with unusual courage and wisdom, and sometimes filling them with dread (John 12:40; Luke 21:15; Deuteronomy 2:25; Psalms 9:20). This direct action of God on the human mind is involved in any just conception of his freedom as an Infinite Spirit, is in harmony with our action on one another, is essential to moral government, is implied in the work of regeneration, is the ground of faith in prayer, and is a basis of our belief that he will in due time defeat the wiles of the devil and bring all things into subjection to himself. We ought to lay hold of this truth with all firmness, and carry on Christian work in the assurance that greater is he that is for us than all who can be against us, and that he has ways of reaching men of which we have no visible trace. 2 Samuel 17:15-29 The facts are: 1. Hushai, having informed Zadok and Abiathar of his counsel, urges them to send quickly to David, advising him to flee at once beyond the river. 2. Their two sons, staying out of the city in order to be of service as occasion required, are informed by a girl of the duty required, and at once go on their errand. 3. In spite of being recognized by an enemy who told Absalom, they go on their way, and take refuge in a well at Bahurim, where they are secreted by the woman of the house. 4. The pursuers, being deceived by the woman, return to Jerusalem, while the two young men escape and tell all to David, who at once, before the morning dawns, passes with all his men over Jordan. 5. Ahithophel seeing that his counsel is not followed, goes home, arranges his affairs, and destroys himself. 6. David passing on to Mahanaim, Absalom also crosses the Jordan with his forces, making Amasa chief captain in place of Joab. 7. On David’s arrival with his men at Mahanaim, hungry, thirsty, and weary, he receives gifts of food and clothing from Shobi, Machir, and Barzillai. Division of labour in doing good. From 2 Samuel 17:15-22 we have a record of the course adopted by the secret friends of David after that Absalom had heard the counsel of Ahithophel and Hushai. Jerusalem was the scene of an evil and a good combination; and as the drift of Scripture is to record the accomplishment of the Divine purposes in the history of the Hebrew people, we have here a more detailed record of the individuals and work of the good combination than of the evil. The work these four faithful ones had in hand was very clearly defined and most persistently pursued. With a wisdom and skill highly creditable to all concerned, the perilous yet immensely important service was carried out on the principle of the division of labour, which obtains in modern times in the best conducted spheres of activity. Although we may not see here parallels to all the work we have to do for Christ, we may notice features which are also found in well-directed Christian cooperation, and which it behoves us to reproduce in all we do. I. THERE IS SCOPE FOR VARIETY IN THE NATURE OF THE WORK TO BE DONE. The work to be done, stated in general terms, was to advance the interests of the anointed king. The circumstances in which this general aim was to be carried out necessitated varied conduct and action, both of which must be included in the service rendered, since conduct often produces great effects. There was obviously scope for influences around the person of Absalom—subtle assaults on the very seat of mischief and wrong; for reticent watchfulness in order to take advantage of any movements adverse to David; for fleet runners to convey to him tidings of importance, and for assistance to them when engaged in their perilous undertaking. The work of Hushai in the counsel chamber, of Zadok and Abiathar in the centre of public influence and information, of their sons outside the city, of the wench passing unsuspected for a country walk, and of the hospitable housewife of Bahurim, was in each case different, but all parts of one service. We are engaged in advancing the interests of the Anointed One against the combinations of spiritual wickedness in high places, and, while the service is one, there is great variety in the nature of the work to be done. There is scope for wise, shrewd men, who know how to confront and confound the enemy in high places; for quiet, consistent characters, watching with patient concern over the holiest of functions, and eager to use any new light that may hasten on the triumph of the King of Zion; for vigorous young men, true as steel, accustomed to hardness, prepared to enter on dangerous work in missionary lands, or among the snares and evils of our modern civilization; little ones, acting as links in the great chain of moral influence; and sympathetic helpers, who can feed the hungry, shelter the oppressed and fearful, and frustrate the designs of the cruel. The Christian Church is recognizing more than ever this division of labour, and each one who does a part towards bringing on the triumph of Christ is an important worker in the most blessed of all undertakings. II. THERE IS SCOPE FOR VARIETY IN THE . In the service rendered in and near Jerusalem we see room for the exercise of discrimination of human character, prudence in adoption of methods, a shrewd consideration of the assailable points in the enemy’s position (see previous homily, division IV.), courage, self-possession in counteracting the influence of the most powerful of antagonists, reticence in council, and fidelity in redeeming pledges made (2 Samuel 15:35), promptitude in action, and ingenuity in rendering aid in times of danger. The interests of David were promoted by a few persons, but the promotion of them called forth very diverse moral and intellectual qualities. On a small scale we see here a picture of what is true of the promotion of the interests of the Eternal King of Zion. The work is so wide and complicated, and the agencies so numerous, that there is not a native talent, not an acquired gift, not a shade of good influence, but it may find scope in his Name. It will be found that, as in building a temple, all the powers of body and mind find scope, and all the influences of sun and air are requisite, so, in raising up the vast superstructure of Christ’s kingdom, there is room for the constant exercise of all the qualities possessed by humankind not under the domination of sin. The wisdom of the wise, the sanctity of the holy, the enthusiasm of the young, the gentleness of the maid, and the pity and sympathy of the faithful villager, all can be used up as occasion offers. III. GOD RAISES UP FOR THIS SERVICE AS . Was it necessary that the powerful influence of Ahithophel should be counteracted? A Hushai is raised up. Must discreet and influential men be retained on David’s side? Zadok and Abiathar are forthcoming. Are links of communication necessary between the friends of the king and himself? The two young men have their hearts inclined aright. Are the spies of the enemy to be eluded? A girl is found to carry a message, and a kindly woman to offer shelter. The solution of these facts is assuredly indicated in the assertion that God had "appointed to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel." He raises up his servants to do his will, little as they know the working of his mighty power within them. So it has always been, and will be in the future. Abraham was raised up to lay the foundation of national life for Israel; Moses to lead the people to the promised land; Elijah and seven thousand to protest against the worship of Baal; the little girl to speak in the house of Naaman the Syrian; Nehemiah and his coadjutors to restore the walls of the city; apostles endowed "with power from on high" to inaugurate the new order of things; and Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, as one "born out of due time." We need never fear but that, in answer to prayer, God will ever do these things for his people. There will be wise men, saintly men, men of vigour and enterprise, maidens to win their way for Christ, and kindly souls to feed the hungry and shelter the distressed. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. In all our Christian organizations we should strive to be influenced by the remembrance that the enterprise is one with that of other organizations; that the interests at stake are most momentous; and that every power and faculty and influence of the community of the faithful should find some scope for exercise. 2. Personally we should cultivate our best talents with a view to lay them at the service of our Eternal King. 3. We should take heed and never despise services which seem inferior to our own, or the full bearing of which we cannot at the time trace. 4. We should be patient, and allow time for influences to operate. The end of the wicked. The course run by Ahithophel was very wicked. It combined some of the basest crimes of which human nature is capable, the more base because of the intelligence and former professions of the man. His name is the symbol of craftiness, cunning, faithlessness, cruelty, pride of intellect, and ambition. Every reader of the narrative feels that he was most justly cut off from the land of the living, and is not much surprised that he should be cut off by his own hand. The end seems in some dreadful sense natural and befitting. But while that is, perhaps, the spontaneous judgment of men because of what may be termed his exaggerated vileness, yet, looking at the facts in the light of Scripture, we really see here, in very dark colours, what is virtually the end of all who are guilty of treason against Christ, the Anointed One, and seek to frustrate his righteous purposes in the world. Observe that in antagonism to Christ— I. THERE IS AN KING OPPOSED. Ahithophel’s crime lay chiefly in being in antagonism to one whom God had anointed to be king over Israel. The qualities of craft and cunning and cruelty were incidents of the antagonism. The essence of his guilt lay in the fact of setting himself against the Lord and his anointed. And those who persist in a sinful life and will not, because of the love of their own way, bow to the yoke of Christ (Matthew 12:28-30), are as truly guilty of rebellion. In so far as they thus seek to dispense with his authority, they are guilty of high treason. To say that there is no intention to do so counts for nothing in a matter of resistance to his authority. The facts of life are the tests of loyalty. The position of an impenitent sinner is one of enmity against God. This the Apostle Paul declares, and it is the admission of all who awake to a sense of their state and cry for mercy. The tendency to tone down resistance to Christ’s personal authority over the entire life is dangerous. II. THERE IS AND CRUELTY IN THE TO CHRIST. We can easily see the ingratitude and cruelty of Ahithophel. He had been cared for by the king, and blessed with many favours (Psalms 55:13). And yet what David had been and done for this man was as nothing compared with what Christ, our anointed King, has been and has done for men who rebel against his authority. He has loved them; suffered and died for them; he has crowned their lives with loving kindness, and even conferred on them the very powers which they refuse to submit to his governance. If Christ was once wounded in the house of his friends by their rejection of him, he surely feels the pain of beholding the ingratitude of those who say in their hearts, "We will not have him to reign over us." There is positive cruelty in deliberately rejecting One who so tenderly loves and has suffered so much for those who scorn him. The appeal of the prophet to heaven and earth as to whether there could be found any parallel to Israel’s crime (Isaiah 1:2-4) certainly applies in the instance of those who enjoy clearer light and listen to more earnest exhortations, and yet rebel against him who has brought them up. III. THERE IS NO OF THE CRIME. No ingenuity can find an excuse for Ahithophel. As to the character and qualities of the two, he knew that Absalom was not to be thought of for a moment in comparison with David. As to the administration of government, no good could possibly come from exchanging a wise, generous king for a vain and selfish young man. Reason and good sense and policy alike condemn the deed of Ahithophel. And those who reject the Son of God are without excuse. No other authority can compare with his in wisdom, goodness, or range of beneficence. No single fault can be found with his holy administration. No policy so sound as the policy of the sermon on the mount, and the submission demanded (Matthew 12:28). The extreme evil as well as folly of the sin of rebellion should be insisted on with all urgency. IV. THERE IS AN END OF AND DOOM. Ahithophel came to his violent end with pride mortified and prestige gone. The cause in which he had so wickedly embarked was seen to be hopelessly lost by the adoption of the counsel of Hushai. Nor was he free from the terrors of an evil conscience. The suicide was an incident only—the result of the interaction of these causes. The actual inner facts of his end find a counterpart in the experience of all who die in rebellion against Christ. They cease to be the great ones, and are classed among those of whom the obscurity of "I never knew thee" is true (Matthew 7:23). Whatever social prestige they had in the conventional life of this world, they lose it all where only the obedient and faithful are recognized as blessed of the Father, and are as kings and priests unto God forever (Revelation 1:5, Revelation 1:6). They become aware of the presence of a conscience which is as a worm that dieth not, and as a fire that is not quenched. There is no hiding these great facts concerning the end of the wicked. They are declared in the Word of God. Sympathy in the day of adversity. The brief record of the kindness of Shobi, Machir, and Barzillai is refreshing after the previous account of the devices of the wicked against the life and authority of David. The conduct of these men, and the reference to it in the sacred record, bring under our notice the subject of sympathy in the day of adversity. Consider, then— I. THE OF TRUE . So far as the conduct of these three men reveals the characteristics of true sympathy, they are seen to be these. 1. It is spontaneous. As soon as David’s trouble was known, their hearts went forth towards him; they took to themselves his sorrows. There was no effort ab extra to produce it, and no inward process of reasoning to call forth deeds which would have the semblance of coming from deep compassion and sincere regard. It was natural to the men and the circumstances. That had been the character of David’s sympathy for those in trouble when he was in prosperity (1 Samuel 29:1-11:21-24; 2 Samuel 1:11, 2 Samuel 1:12, 2 Samuel 1:19-27). It was pre-eminently so with Christ in all his relations to sorrow and need. It is a test by which we can estimate our own and others’ professions. 2. It is practical. It did not spend itself in mere feeling cherished or word spoken, but found expression in abundant provision for David’s wants (verse 28). The measure of the feeling can be seen in an estimate of the pains and toil required to bring so great an amount of food and comforts to David’s camp. Our Saviour, during his earthly life, left us an example of this. His sympathy produced food for five thousand. The whole of his life and sufferings were the cost by which he procured for us the blessings of salvation. In this he is infinitely removed from poets who feel and think, and philosophers who discuss the causes and relations of things. 3. It is timely. The gifts of these men came just in the hour of extreme need. There is a sympathy which is always too late. Right feeling is not always attended by prompt action. A ready will and quick intelligence are the proper attendants on genuine sympathy. The good Samaritan passed by the scene of sorrow just at the right time, and he acted at once. Bis dat qui cito dat. Christian people should cultivate promptitude. It may save many a poor soul from crushing sorrows. 4. It is discriminating. These generous men evidently studied the case of David’s need, and brought just the things in variety that were most serviceable to a large company of hungry and weary travellers. David’s heart must have been deeply affected by observing the care with which their sympathy had expressed itself. Much of the value of acts of kindness lies in this. A blind, blundering sympathy is valuable because it reveals a communion of spirit when the heart is sad; but its value is in the lowest scale. Judgment should guide the expression of feeling if we would make the most Of it and secure the highest good of those for whom it is cherished. 5. It is courageous. Considering that David was a fugitive, and that to all appearances his friends would be regarded as the foes of the new power rising in Israel, it required some courage in these men to identify themselves in this practical way with the unfortunate king. Herein lies much of the virtue of their conduct. It does require considerable courage to manifest sympathy with the fallen, the shunned, the outcast. Our Saviour’s sympathy was of this kind, and it was one of the things that led to his own rejection of men and his cruel death (Matthew 9:10, Matthew 9:11; Matthew 11:19; Luke 15:1, Luke 15:2). There is abundant scope for this virtue. II. ITS PLACE IN THE WORKING OUT OF GOD’S . The sorrows of David were for purposes of discipline—to chastise and train his spirit so that it might be more fully purged from the evil taint of his terrible sin (2 Samuel 12:7-12), and be more fitted to perform his part as a servant of God in raising the religious tone of the nation, and, indeed, of the whole world. But God is very pitiful even in his anger. "He knoweth our frame." He will not "always chide." The rough wind is "stayed in the day of his east wind." With the wound he sends the balm. He raises up instrumentalities to cause his people to feel that there is a hand to heal as well as to smite. And the appearance of these men, with their considerate provision for his wants, was a means of revealing the goodness of God, and of assuring David that his compassion was not clean gone forever. All true sympathy in our adversity is a revelation. It brings hope and courage to the crushed spirit, and strengthens faith in the love which never fails, even in the darkest hour. The storm and sunshine are alike God’s servants: they "work together" under his direction to sweeten life and endow it with freshness and beauty of eternal spring. III. ITS BY GOD. The sacred historian was doubtless guided by a principle of selection when he inserted the names of these three men in a book that is to abide through all time. It was the will of God that reference should be made to their conduct. Thus has God expressed approval of their regard for his anointed. In the same way our Saviour gave honour to the sympathy of the woman who poured on him the box of ointment, by declaring that what she had done should be told in all the world for a memorial of her (Matthew 26:13). The sympathy of David for the poor is in like manner divinely recognized. The Bible is a book of instances for mankind. Other deeds of sympathy were performed which have left only the trace which belongs to all good deeds, namely, in the higher and gentler tone given to the world’s general life: these are referred to in order to encourage all in the same cause of comforting and helping the needy in their season of sorrow. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. In the friendships and kindnesses of one part of our life we are sowing the seeds which may return to us in their own kind when later on we may experience trouble (cf. 2 Samuel 10:1; 2 Samuel 12:27), and hence we should be encouraged to do good to all men, "especially to the household of faith." 2. In our acts of sympathy we are to remember that they reach beyond the individual—they are helpful in marking out God’s gracious purposes toward mankind. 3. Christ has given encouragement to acts of kindness done to the poor and needy, and conferred great honour upon them in that he regards them as done to himself (Matthew 25:34-40). 4. While we should not cramp and weaken our generous impulses by over much introspection and supervision, yet we ought to be careful that the forms they assume are such as will most surely benefit those concerned in them. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 17:1-14 (.) The council chamber of Absalom. "And Jehovah had appointed," etc. (2 Samuel 17:14). The success of the rebellion seemed well nigh complete. Absalom occupied the capital; was proclaimed by "all Israel;" supported by the wisest statesman, and, apparently, by "the king’s friend" and the high priests; held his council (2 Samuel 16:20); and took possession of the harem, "the first decided act of sovereignty" (subsequently he was also solemnly anointed, 2 Samuel 19:10, probably by Zadok and Abiathar). "Absalom’s next step was to endeavour his father’s destruction, in the conviction that his own throne would never be secure so long as he lived. The son had no relentings. He had knowingly subjected himself to the inevitable necessity of taking his father’s life, and he only desired to learn how that object might be most effectually secured. A council was held on this question, and it is the first cabinet council to which history admits us. It was doubtless conducted in the same form as other royal councils; and, from the instance before us, it appears that the members who had anything to suggest, or rather such as the king called upon for their opinion, described the course they thought best suited to the circumstances" (Kitto, ’Daily Bible Illust.’). It was the turning point of the revolt (Psalms 92:7-9); and in it we see— I. A urging promptitude with oracular wisdom. "And Ahithophel said," etc. (2 Samuel 17:1-5; 2 Samuel 15:31); "this night" (2 Samuel 16:14; 2 Samuel 16:2, 2 Samuel 16:16); instant action being, in his view, necessary to the accomplishment of the death of David and the success of the revolution. His counsel was the result of an unerring judgment, expressed with the utmost confidence, and thoroughly adapted (2 Samuel 17:14, "good counsel") to effect its end. It was worthy of his great reputation. Extraordinary human wisdom is sometimes: 1. Employed against the servants of God and against his kingdom, of which they are the most conspicuous representatives. "This wisdom descendeth not from above," etc. (James 3:15). 2. Stimulated, in its exercise, by personal hatred toward them. "I will smite the king only" (perhaps exulting in the prospect of inflicting vengeance with his own hand). 3. Fraught with deadly peril to them (2 Samuel 17:4). David himself, as he came "wearied and weak handed" to the plain of the Jordan and rested there, knew not yet his imminent danger and "marvellous escape" (1 Samuel 23:24-28). "But a higher power than the wisdom of the renowned Gilonite guided events." The Lord is the Defence of his people; and his promise concerning his Church is that "the gates (counsels) of Hades shall not prevail against it." II. A RIVAL ORATOR advising delay with plausible arguments. "And Hushai said," etc. (2 Samuel 17:7-13). "He was not a member of the council; but he had been well received by Absalom, whose greater treachery against his father made him give ready credence to the pretended treachery of his father’s friend. It was at Absalom’s suggestion that he was called in, and, being informed of the course Ahithophel had advised, he saw at once the danger that this course threatened to David; and, in fulfilment of his mission to defeat this man’s counsel, he advanced divers reasons against it, all tending to delay" (Kitto). "It would not only ward off David’s present danger, but would also, as Tacitus observes, give ill men time to repent, and the good to unite" (Delany). His counsel was the result of a profound acquaintance with human nature, and given with a persuasive eloquence equal to his wisdom. Advice favourable to God’s servants: 1. Is often given in unlikely places, among their adversaries and by persons unsuspected of sympathy with them (Acts 5:38). 2. Derives its power from the selfish dispositions of the ungodly themselves: their fears (2 Samuel 17:8-10) and their vainglory (2 Samuel 17:11-14). Hushai’s speech was "full of a certain kind of boasting which pleased the younger men" (Clericus). 3. Succeeds far beyond what might have been naturally expected, in making wisdom appear foolishness (2 Samuel 17:4, 2 Samuel 17:14). "His tongue Dropp’d manna, and could make the worse appear The better reason, to perplex and dash Maturest counsels." (Milton.) III. AN USURPER adopting a policy fatal to his own designs. His decision was the result of: 1. His misjudgment of the effect of delay upon the nation; for he did not consider that "only the discontented part of the people formed the kernel of the insurrection, that no small portion still remained true to David, and that another part, now for the moment fallen away, would return after the first fit of revolution had passed" (Erdmann). 2. His over confidence in his power and success. 3. His love of personal display (his ruling passion). "The new made king gave the preference to a proposal which promised him, at any rate for a few days, the enjoyment of complete repose and the gratifications of his high position" (Ewald). 4. But herein the sacred historian indicates (what so often appears in the Books of Samuel) the overruling providence of God (1 Samuel 2:1-10; 1 Samuel 9:1-25; 1 Samuel 31:7-10; 2 Samuel 1:19) which: (1) Pervades all thoughts and actions of men; all places and events. In the council chamber of Absalom, where there seemed to be nothing but godless ambition, political wisdom, and "the strife of tongues," there was an unseen presence, observing, directing, controlling all. "The king’s heart," etc. (Proverbs 21:1). (2) Employs (without approving) the cunning craftiness of some men to check and punish that of others. (3) "Permits evil to work out its own consequences, and the wicked to entangle themselves in their own snares, that he may reveal his justice and holiness in the self-condemnation and self-destruction of the power of evil" (2 Samuel 17:23; 2 Samuel 18:7, 2 Samuel 18:14). "When God is contriving misfortunes for man, he first deprives him of his reason" (Euripides).—D. 2 Samuel 17:15-22 Slight services: a sermon to young persons. "And a wench [the maidservant] went and told them, and they went and told King David" (2 Samuel 17:17). The people of Israel were divided into two parties—the good and the bad; the servants of King David, who had been driven away from Jerusalem, and the servants of Absalom, who had taken possession of the city and were now intent upon his destruction. The world is also divided into two parties, consisting of those who are for Christ and those who are against him. And the slight but useful services rendered to David illustrate similar services to Christ. 1. It is a good thing to be on the right side—to be a servant of "the King of kings and Lord of lords." Outside the city, two young men Jonathan and Ahimaaz, hiding themselves at En-rogel (the Fuller’s Fountain), and waiting to carry news to the king; inside the city, their fathers (the high priests Abiathar and Zadok) and Hushai (the king’s friend), preparing to send it: these were "faithful among the faithless found." 2. One who cannot do much can yet do something for his lord and master. If he cannot lead an army or give counsel in "the assembly of the elders," he can at least carry a message, like the brave Jonathan (1 Kings 1:42) and the swift-footed Ahimaaz (2 Samuel 18:23); or, like the trusty maidservant of one of the high priests, who (as though going to the well for water) conveyed intelligence to them without suspicion. She could perform this service even more effectively than others in a higher station (2 Kings 5:2). The servant who has only "one talent" must not "hide it in the earth" (Matthew 25:25). Consider what you can do for Christ. 3. Small services may display great principles and qualities: love, obedience, diligence, veracity, fearlessness, faithfulness, self-control, self-denial, and self sacrifice. "He that is faithful in that which is least," etc. (Luke 16:10). 4. Hardly any service can be performed without difficulty and danger. "And a lad [probably on the watch] saw them," and gave information; so that they were closely pursued by Absalom’s servants (soldiers) as far as Bahurim (2 Samuel 16:5). It was a race for life. 5. The servant who does his best will seldom fail to obtain opportune help. "And the woman took and spread the covering over the well’s mouth," etc. (2 Samuel 17:19, 2 Samuel 17:20). "It was not the first nor yet the last time that an Israelitish woman wrought deliverance for her people" (Edersheim). Her motive was good; not her equivocation and deceit. Many circumstances and casual events, under the ordering of Divine providence, conduce to the safety and success of a faithful servant. 6. There is as much need of small services as great; and such services have frequently important issues; it may be escape from death. The message of Hushai, carried by the maidservant and communicated by the young men, contributed to the security and welfare of the king, "and all the people that were with him" (2 Samuel 17:22). "In this information sent to him so opportunely, David believed that he had reason to recognize a new sign that the Lord still thought of him in love and cared for his deliverance" (Krummacher). "Like the coolness of snow on a harvest day Is a faithful messenger to them that send him: He refresheth the soul of his master." (Proverbs 25:13.) 7. They are surely noticed, and will be abundantly recompensed. "And the king said, He is a good man," etc. (2 Samuel 18:27). "And whosoever shall give to drink," etc. (Matthew 10:42).—D. 2 Samuel 17:21, 2 Samuel 17:22 David’s escape across the Jordan. "And they passed over Jordan," etc. (2 Samuel 17:22). Leaving Bahurim behind them, David and his company pursued their rough and dreary way along the wilderness of Judah until they descended into the plain of the Jordan; and there in some place (Ayephim, equivalent to "weary," Authorized Version; "The Traveller’s Rest") at an easy distance from the ford of the river (opposite Jericho, and near Gilgal, 2 Samuel 19:15) they rested at nightfall. "Amongst the thickets of the Jordan the asses of Ziba were unladen, and the weary travellers refreshed themselves, and waited for tidings from Jerusalem" (2 Samuel 15:28, 2 Samuel 15:36; 2 Samuel 16:14; 2 Samuel 16:16). David had been uncertain whether to cross the river; but during the night the messengers arrived, saying, "Arise," etc.; the encampment was broken up, and "by the morning light there lacked not one of them that was not gone over Jordan." That night was another, memorable one (1 Samuel 19:8-18). "It has been conjectured, with much probability that as the first sleep of that evening was commemorated in the fourth psalm, so in the third is expressed the feeling of David’s thankfulness at the final close of those twenty-four hours, of which every detail has been handed down, as if with the consciousness of their importance at the time" (Stanley). Psalms 4:1-8. ’An Even-song’— "In peace will I lay me down and straightway sleep; For thou, Jehovah, alone wilt make me to dwell securely." (Psalms 4:8.) Psalms 3:1-8. (see inscription), ’A Morning Prayer’— "I laid me down and slept; I awaked, for Jehovah sustaineth me." (Psalms 3:5.) What a brilliant light do these psalms cast upon the inner life of David! Consider him at this time as— This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 18:1 And David numbered. The verb really means that he organized his army, and arranged it in companies and divisions. As Absalom gathered all Israel to him, there would be some delay; and David, like a wise general, made use of it for training the brave but undisciplined men who had joined him, chiefly from Gilead. Besides these, he had with him numerous veterans, whose skill and experience would be invaluable in such service. The result was that when the rebels came to close quarters, they had a vast body of men, but David a disciplined force, which, under skilful generalship, scattered Absalom’s raw levies with ease. The arrangement into thousands and hundreds was in accordance with the civil divisions (Exodus 18:25), both being, in fact, dictated by nature as multiples of our hands. 2 Samuel 18:2 A third part. Armies are usually divided into three divisions: a centre and two wings when drawn up for battle; a van, the main body. and a rearguard when on the march. But the Israelites had no settled rule upon the point, and. when occasion required, Joab divided his army into two parts (2 Samuel 10:9, 2 Samuel 10:10). The reason of the threefold division in this case was that Ittai had brought his clan, or taf, with him, and as these would certainly not have fought under an Israelite leader, nor the Israelites under Ittai, David placed all foreigners under his command, while he gave his own nephews the command of the native troops. He thus avoided all jealousies; and Ittai’s men, honoured by being made a distinct portion of the army, would feel their reputation at stake, and would rival the Israelites in valour. 2 Samuel 18:3 It is better that thou succour us out of the city. David thought it to be his duty to go out with the men who were risking their lives in his cause, but they felt not only how painful it would be for a father to fight against his son; but also that there would certainly be a picked body of men who would try to bring the battle to a rapid end by slaying David. But while they partly urge personal considerations, their chief argument is that David would be of more use if, posted with a body of troops at the city, he held himself in reserve to succour any division that might be in danger. And David, seeing how earnest their wish was, yielded to this representation, feeling that it would give steadiness to his men if they knew that so experienced a general was watching the fight, and was ready to succour them if they needed aid. As the people say that it would not matter "if half of us die," and that David "is worth ten thousand of us," Ewald draws the reasonable conclusion that their whole number was about twenty thousand men. The Hebrew literally is, "For now (’attah) as us are ten thousand," which might mean, "There are ten thousand such as we are, but no one like thee." But the Septuagint and Vulgate read, "But thou (attah) art as ten thousand of us." The Syriac, however, like the Hebrew, reads "now." 2 Samuel 18:5 All the people heard. The king spake so earnestly and strongly to the generals that the words ran from rank to rank as they marched forward. So in 2 Samuel 18:12 the man says to Joab, "In our hearing the king charged thee and Abishai," etc. It does not follow that each one heard the sound of the king’s voice, but only that the command was given publicly again and again, and in the presence of the army. 2 Samuel 18:6 The wood of Ephraim. There is a diversity of opinion as to the locality thus described. It might mean the large forest tract in the highlands of Ephraim; but if so, the battle must have been fought on the west of the Jordan, whereas the general tenor of the narrative makes it plain that it took place on the eastern side, near Mahanaim. It is true that no wood of Ephraim is ever mentioned elsewhere in the Bible as situated in Gilead, and those who cannot believe in such a wood except within the borders of the tribe, argue that, after the three divisions had marched out to battle, there was long skirmishing, in which Absalom drew David’s men across the Jordan, and there gave battle. But Absalom’s army was evidently surprised, and as we are told that "he pitched in the land of Gilead" (2 Samuel 17:26), for him to have retired would have been a confession of weakness; and Joab, after seeing him cross the Jordan, would not have followed him, but let this retrograde movement have its effect upon his followers. Such a movement is absolutely incredible on the part of an army at least three times as numerous as those whom they attacked, and confident of victory. Moreover, armies in those days were not composed of men receiving pay, and bound to remain with their colours, but of yeomen unwilling to be kept long absent from their farms, and liable, therefore, rapidly to melt away. A quick decision was plainly necessary for Absalom, while David could afford to wait. But besides this, when his forces moved out of Mahanaim, David took his post at the gate with the reserves, and he was still there, sitting "between the two gates," when news was brought him of the victory (2 Samuel 18:24). The only real argument in support of the view that the battle was fought on the west of the Jordan is that "Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain" (2 Samuel 18:23), Hebrew, the kikkar—a name specially given to the valley of the Jordan near Jericho. But then Cushi must also have run through the same valley, and it is evident that his route was in this very respect different from that taken by Ahimaaz. Really, kikkar, which in Hebrew means "circuit," may be used of the country round any city, and is applied in Nehemiah 12:28 to the environs of Jerusalem. Here the meaning probably is that, while the Cushite took the route back over the battlefield through the wood, Ahimaaz went to the left of it, over the more level ground, nearer the Jordan. And though the name is chiefly used of that part near Jericho, it was probably applied popularly to every stretch of level ground near the river. This argument, therefore, is inconclusive; while, on the other side, it is plain that David’s army returned that same day to Mahanaim, that they knew at once of his distress, and that they were beginning to steal away home when Joab made David come forth to thank them, and encourage them to remain with him. The most probable explanation of the difficulty is that "the wood of Ephraim" was so called because it was the spot where Jephthah defeated the Ephraimites when they invaded Gilead to punish him for daring to go to war without their consent, they being then the dominant tribe, to whose arbitrament belonged all imperial matters (Judges 12:4-6). 2 Samuel 18:8 The battle was there scattered. The word in the Hebrew is a noun, which the Massorites have changed into a participle. But the noun is right: "The battle became a scattering," that is, it was a series of disconnected encounters, in which David’s three divisions attacked and routed Absalom’s men, while still on the march, without giving them an opportunity of collecting and forming in order of battle. And the wood devoured more people that day thin the sword devoured. The woodland was difficult, full of gorges and begs and steep defiles leading down to the Jordan, and the fugitives easily lest their way in it, and wandered about till they were hopelessly entangled in thicket and morass. 2 Samuel 18:9 Absalom met the servants of David. The verb means that he came upon them by chance. Evidently in the intricacies of the forest, Absalom. had lost his way, and, finding himself suddenly in damager of being captured by some of David’s men, he urged his mule through a thicket, as the open ground was blocked by his pursuers. But in the attempt his head was jammed between the boughs of a great terebinth, and the mule, struggling onward, left him hanging in mid-air. Nothing is said about his hair having caused the accident, and apparently it was his neck which became fixed. Probably, too, he was half stunned by the blow, and choked by the pressure; and then his hair would make it very difficult for him to extricate himself. And so, after one or two efforts, in which he would be in danger of dislocating his neck, he would remain suspended to await his fate. Now, this adventure makes the whole affair perfectly plain. Absalom was riding his mule, evidently unprepared for battle. The chariot and horses, with fifty men as his body guard, used by him at Jerusalem (2 Samuel 15:1), are nowhere near him. Chariots, of course, would have been useless on such rough ground, but Absalom would have had a picked body of young men round him in the battle; and mules were only for use on the march, and were sent into the rear when the fighting began. But the last thing that Absalom expected was that he should be attacked on the march. He was advancing with an army infinitely more numerous than that of David, and assumed that David would wait at Mahanaim, and, if he fought at all, would fight under its walls. His defeat he regarded as certain, and then the vain glorious prince and all Israel would drag the city into the nearest ravine. In this over confidence he was riding in advance of his army, which was struggling on over most difficult ground. For "rising as the country does suddenly from the deep valley of the Jordan, it is naturally along its whole western border deeply furrowed by the many streams which drain the district; and our ride," says Canon Tristram, "was up and down concealed glens, which we only perceived when on their brink, and mounting from which on the other side, a short canter soon brought us to the edge of the next". Struggling along over such ground, Absalom’s men were not merely tired and weary, but had lost all order, and "become a scattering," and probably Absalom had cantered on in order to find some suitable spot for reforming them. Suddenly he sees at a little distance before him one of the three detachments of David’s army, which had marched out a few miles from Mahanaim, and posted themselves on some fit spot to attack the rebels on their march. Apparently they caught no glimpse of him, but he immediately became aware of the tactics of the king’s generals, and discerned the extreme danger of his position. Everything depended upon celerity. If he could warn his men, the foremost would halt until the others came up, and a sufficient force be gathered to resist Joab’s onslaught. There was no cowardice on his part, but simply the discharge of his duty as a general. He turns his mule round, and dashes away in order to halt and form his men, keeping to the wood that he may not be seen. In his great haste he is not careful in picking his route, and possibly his mule was stubborn, and swerved; and so, in attempting to force his way through the thicket, he is stunned by a blow from a branch of a terebinth tree, and so entangled in its boughs that he cannot free himself; and as none of David’s men had seen him, he might have hung there to be the prey of the vultures, and only his riderless mule have been left to bear witness to his having met with some disaster. Meanwhile his followers struggle on, until they come upon David’s men, who put them to the sword. There is no battle, but the three divisions, advancing in order, make merciless slaughter of their opponents. For some time Absalom’s forces, extended over many miles of march, do not even learn what is going on in their front, and twenty thousand men had fallen before, becoming aware of their defeat, they fly in wild confusion, to lose more men in their panic than had fallen in fighting. Their loss would even have been greater had not Joab stopped the pursuit upon Absalom’s death. But where was Amasa, and what was he doing? He had led his troops miserably, had taken no precautions against surprise, and did nothing to rally them. Had Absalom got back in safety to the van, he might have saved his men from so disastrous a defeat; but Amasa, doubtless a brave soldier, proved himself quite incompetent to the duties of a commander-in-chief, and no match for the sagacious Joab. 2 Samuel 18:11 A girdle. This was an important article of dress (Ezekiel 23:15), and was often richly embroidered. Absalom’s death was well deserved, and there can be little doubt that, if he had gained the victory, he would have massacred David and all his family. The dishonour done to his father at Jerusalem was even intended by Ahithophel to render all reconciliation impossible. But Joab was disobeying the king’s express orders, and as Absalom was incapable of making resistance, he ought to have taken him prisoner, and left it to David to decide what his punishment should be. 2 Samuel 18:12 Though I should receive. The Hebrew text expresses the horror of the man at Joab’s proposal much more vividly than the tame correction of the Massorites admitted into the Authorized Version: "And I, no! weighing in my palm a thousand of silver, I would not put forth my hand against the son of the king." 2 Samuel 18:13 Against mine own life. Again the K’tib is better: "Or had I wrought perfidiously against his life—and nothing is hidden from the king—so wouldst thou have set thyself against me." Not only was the man faithful to the king, but he was perfectly aware of Joab’s unscrupulous character. If only Absalom were put out of the way, Joab would have readily consented to the execution of the unimportant person who had been the means of gratifying his wish. 2 Samuel 18:14 Three darts; Hebrew, three staves (see 2 Samuel 23:21). The weapons of the ancients were of a very inferior kind, and stakes sharpened at the end and hardened in the fire were used by the infantry, until the increasing cheapness of iron made it possible to supply them with pikes. Joab’s act was not one of intentional cruelty, but, picking up the first weapons that came to hand, he hurried away to kill his victim. His thrusts with these pointed sticks were brutal, and inflicted mortal wounds; but as they were not immediately fatal, Joab’s armour bearers, who had followed him, and who had with them Joab’s own better weapons, were called upon to put an end to Absalom’s sufferings. His heart does not mean that organ anatomically, but the middle of his body. So at the end of the verse, in the midst of the oak, is, in the Hebrew, in the heart of the terebinth. 2 Samuel 18:16 Joab blew the trumpet. Stem and unscrupulous as he was, yet Joab is always statesmanlike. He had slain Absalom more for public than for private reasons, though he may have grimly remembered his own blazing barley field. But the rebellion being now crushed, further slaughter was impolitic, and would only cause sullen displeasure. The people, at the end of the verse, are those under Joab’s command, and a translation proposed by some, "Joab wished to spare the people," is to be rejected. 2 Samuel 18:17 A great pit; Hebrew, the great pit; as though there was some great hollow or well known depression in the wood, into which they cast Absalom’s dead body, and raised a cairn over it. Such cairns were used as memorials of any event deemed worthy of lasting remembrance, but the similar cairn piled over the dead body of Achan (Joshua 7:26) makes it probable that the act was also intended as a sign of condemnation of Absalom’s conduct. All Israel fled every one to his tent. The Israelites were still a pastoral people, with tents for their abodes, though houses were gradually taking their place. The cry, "To your tents, O Israel!" (1 Kings 12:16), meant, "Go away to your homes!" and not "Gather for war!" It is remarkable how constantly Absalom’s followers are described as "Israel" while the loyal men are "David’s servants." Absalom’s was evidently the popular cause, and, besides Uriah’s murder, there must have been political reasons for discontent at work to make David’s government so distasteful. 2 Samuel 18:18 Absalom … had taken and reared up for himself a pillar. In contrast with the heap of stones cast over his dishonoured body, the narrator calls attention to the costly memorial erected by Absalom in his lifetime. The three unnamed sons mentioned in 2 Samuel 14:27 seem to have died in their infancy, and probably also their mother; and Absalom, instead of taking other wives to bear him sons, which would have been in unison with the feelings of the time, manifested his grief by raising this monument. We have no reason for supposing that it was the result of vanity and ostentation. Ostentatious he was, and magnificent, but his not marrying again is a sign of genuine sorrow. The king’s dale is "the Valley of Shaveh," mentioned in Genesis 14:17; but whether it was near Jerusalem, as Josephus asserts, or near Sodom, is uncertain. The pillar was probably an obelisk, or possibly a pyramid, and certainly was not the Ionic column of Roman workmanship shown in the Middle Ages and at the present time as "Absalom’s grave." This is in the Kidron valley, about two furlongs from Jerusalem. Absalom’s place; literally, Absalom’s hand; that is, memorial (see note on 1 Samuel 15:12). 2 Samuel 18:21 Cushi. This is not a proper name, but signifies that he was an Ethiopian, that is, a negro slave in Joab’s service. Joab was unwilling to expose Ahimaaz to me king’s displeasure, and we gather from 2 Samuel 18:27 that the sending of a person of low rank would be understood to signify evil tidings. The bearer of good news received a present, and therefore the passing over all Joab’s personal friends to send a slave was proof that the message was not expected to bring the bearer honour or reward. And Joab was quite right in supposing that David would be more displeased at his son’s death than pleased at the victory. 2 Samuel 18:22 Seeing … thou hast no tidings ready. This was not true; there were most important tidings ready. But it is the translation which is in fault. What Joab said is, "Seeing thou hast no tidings that find," that is, no message that will find for thee the king’s favour and a reward. 2 Samuel 18:23 Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain; Hebrew, the kikkar, or Jordan valley. The battle, as we saw in 2 Samuel 18:6, was fought on the eastern side of the river, and Absalom’s army, in their flight, would endeavour to reach the fords of the Jordan (comp. Judges 12:5); and probably Joab had pursued them for some distance before the man found in the thicket the body of the unfortunate Absalom. The large slaughter of twenty thousand men (2 Samuel 18:7) proves that the defeated rebels were vigorously followed. In carrying the news the negro evidently went back by the route which the troops had followed; while Ahimaaz, using his more developed intellect, took a longer course to the west, but one that avoided the tangles and the deep defiles of the forest. Strictly, the Kikkar, as we have seen, was the name of the Jordan valley near Jericho; but it was probably applicable also to the same sort of formation further north. On approaching Mahanaim, Ahimaaz would strike inland, and the two routes would join one another; and one reason which made Ahimaaz go more to the west was that he did net wish the Cushite to know that he had a rival. He would thus go at a steady pace, picking his way through the forest, while Ahimaaz was using his utmost speed. 2 Samuel 18:24 David sat between the two gates. The gateway was in a tower in the city walls, and David was sitting in the space between the inner and outer gates. Over this space was a chamber, mentioned in 2 Samuel 18:33, while the sentinel was posted upon the front wall over the outer gate. 2 Samuel 18:25 If he be alone. In case of defeat there would have been a crowd of runaways in eager flight. And when soon afterwards a second courier is seen, as he also is alone, and comes by a different route, his appearance only suggests the idea of completer tidings. And quickly the foremost is recognized by his running as the son of the high priest, and David is then assured that all has gone well, because Joab would not have sent a man of such rank to be the bearer of bad news. The word good may also mean that Ahimaaz was too brave a man to have fled from the battle, and must, therefore, have come on an errand from Joab. 2 Samuel 18:28 And said unto the king, All is well; Hebrew, Peace. This was the ordinary salutation among the Israelites, but its hurried exclamation on the part of the breathless runner was probably intended to convey the idea given in the Authorized Version. Hath delivered up the men, etc; Hebrew, hath hedged, or shut in (see upon this expression the note on 1 Samuel 17:46, and comp. Psalms 31:8). Both there and in 2 Samuel 22:20 prosperity is compared to the being in a broad place, where there is freedom to act (see also note on 2 Samuel 13:2). 2 Samuel 18:29 Is the young man Absalom safe! literally, Is there peace to the lad Absalom? Was this mere love for the handsome but rebellious son, whose image comes back to the father as he was when just reaching manhood? Certainly not. David was thinking of the ominous words, "The sword shall never depart from thine house" (2 Samuel 12:10). The sword had devoured one son; was it now to claim another? And then? and then? Where would it stop? And Ahimaaz saw the king’s distress, and gave an evasive answer. He understood now Joab’s unwillingness to let him carry such painful tidings, and was glad that this part of the news had been entrusted to the Cushite. When Joab sent the king’s servant, and (me) thy servant. This distinction is strange, and probably one of these phrases has crept in from the margin. But if the Ethiopian was technically "the king’s slave," and Ahimaaz "thy slave" (by courtesy), we might imagine that negro attendants already formed part of the state of kings. It was long afterwards that Ebedmelech was a Cushite in the service of Zedekiah (Jeremiah 38:7). 2 Samuel 18:31 Tidings, etc. The literal meaning is more fit for the mouth of a slave. "Let my lord the king learn the tidings that Jehovah hath judged (and delivered) thee this day from the hand," etc; that is, God, sitting as Judge at the assize of battle; hath given sentence for thee, and pronounced thy acquittal. The same phrase occurs in 2 Samuel 18:19. 2 Samuel 18:32 Is the young man, etc.? Alarm for Absalom is the dominant feeling in David’s mind; and as Cushi had been sent for the very purpose, he at once communicates the news to him in words that leave no doubt of his meaning. 2 Samuel 18:33 The king was much moved. The Hebrew word properly refers to agitation of body. A violent trembling seized the king, and, rising, he went up to the guard chamber over the two gates, that he might give free course to his lamentation. The whole is told so vividly that we can scarcely doubt that we have here the words of one who was present at this pathetic scene, who saw the tremor which shook David’s body, and watched him as he crept slowly up the stairs, uttering words of intense sorrow. And it was conscience which smote him; for his own "sin had found him out." In Psalms 38:1-22, and Psalms 40:1-17. he has made the confession that it was his own iniquity which was now surging over his head. 2 Samuel 18:1-18 The facts are: 1. David, refreshed by the aid sent him, sets himself to the work of organizing his followers, and divides them into three corps, under Joab, Abishai, and Ittai respectively. 2. On his proposing to head the force, the people urge him to desist from doing so, pointing out that, in case of a conflict, the enemy would be sure to make an endeavour to kill him rather than to fight a regular battle. 3. The king yields to their persuasions, and, as they suggest, abides by the city to render succour if required. 4. Having seen his men march out, he lays strict injunction on his captains, in the hearing of their forces, to deal gently with Absalom for his sake. 5. A severe battle takes place, in which the followers of Absalom are defeated with great slaughter. 6. Absalom, in riding through a wood, is entangled in the branches by his head, and, while hanging there, is seen by a man who reports the fact to Joab. 7. On being reproached for not slaying Absalom, the man reminds Joab of the solemn injunction of the king, and that he was restrained by that, as also by the fear of being discovered should he attempt the deed in secrecy. 8. Joab in a rage takes three darts, and thrusts them through the heart of Absalom, and his armour bearers also join in the infliction of wounds on his body. 9. Joab thereupon recalls the people from the pursuit, and causes Absalom to be buried in a pit and covered by a heap of stones, the only monument in his memory being the pillar which he himself had erected during his lifetime. 10. On the death and burial of Absalom becoming known, his forces are dispersed, each man fleeing to his tent. The discharge of painful obligations. The hasty flight of David from Jerusalem was not the result of cowardice, but of prudence and of spiritual penetration. He thought it possible that a movement which had won over so able a man as Ahithophel, and which had developed so secretly, might issue in a sudden rising which would involve the city in bloodshed. Moreover, with the keen spiritual insight which ever characterized him, he could not but see in this rebellion the chastising hand before which it became him in his lifelong penitence, mingled with sincere trust, to bow. But now that Jerusalem was safe from bloodshed, and the sanctuary of God was undefiled, and his faithful adherents were refreshed and in personal safety, the time had come to consider his position and devise such measures as Providence might render possible; and he thus at once found himself face to face with the unwelcome necessity of waging war against his own son. We may, then, take this as illustrating the obligations under which good men sometimes find themselves to pursue a course most distressing to their feelings. I. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MUCH PAIN IN THEIR DO ARISE SOME TIME OR OTHER IN THE COURSE OF A GOOD MAN’S LIFE. Our entire life is a continuous duty. Obligations attend us every day. Right action means fulfilment of purposes, obeying laws, harmony with moral necessity. The pressure is incessant, and ordinarily is, for the Christian, a not unwelcome yoke. But now and then duty is in forms requiring all the resources of a strong will, and in a direction against some of the most cherished feelings of the heart. David was bound to care for the kingdom over which he had been appointed by God. The validity of his anointing was still unrevoked by him who ordained it. It was, therefore, due to himself, his kingdom, and his God that he should take means to put down the usurpation of his own son. Paternal feeling might be pained, but the obligation was imperative. The Church furnishes many such instances. The most tender of ties have been severed in order to be true to Christ’s commands. The doing of his work in the world often costs much pain because of its apparent antagonism to those best loved. Peter did not exercise discipline in the early Church without anguish of spirit (Acts 5:1-5). The reproofs of the Apostle Paul were with much sorrow of heart. Letters are daily written with tears. Parents daily have to resist the self-will of sons and daughters, and they mourn the sad necessity. Fidelity to right is, in many instances, a secret martyrdom. II. IN THE MENTAL TO THE OF DUTY, THE SENSE OF RIGHT RISES ABOVE . The whole history of David proves that when, at Mahanaim, he began to collect his thoughts and consider the path of wisdom, a most painful conflict must have arisen in his mind as to the course to be taken. The clearer the conviction that, as God’s anointed, he was bound to put down the force that was driving him from the throne, the sharper the pang awakened by the thought of raising the sword against his own child. The battle had to be fought out within his own nature before it was transferred to the open field. The human spirit is the arena of great struggles and victories, before men see visible triumphs. The dreadful disaster had for a time taken away David’s strength; the pains of hell got hold of him: he was poor, weak, and forlorn. But now the recollection of duty to God and man brought back his old courage and resolution; and the calm and sober way in which he began to marshal his forces showed that help had come from God to subordinate the anguish of his heart to the sense of duty. Providence seems to work along these lines in the training of the best men. Character is strengthened by the triumph of conscientious regard for the will of God over the strivings of personal considerations. If to fight against a son, to face the possibility of much slaughter, and to see a prosperous reign darkened by civil war, were evils endured by David in order to carry out the kingly purposes of his anointing, how does it become Christians, in carrying out the purposes of their special anointing, to bring every thought, desire, and preference into subjection? Christ has left us the noblest example of this. III. A RESOLVE TO TO A SENSE OF DUTY BEING TAKEN, A GOOD MAN WILL DEVISE MEANS OF MEETING AND THE END IN VIEW. The season of mental conflict being passed, and stern duty being accepted, David proves his courage and sagacity by his calm determination, his collection of resources, his estimate of his numerical strength, his dispositions for meeting difficulties and accomplishing the end in view, his preparedness to incur personal risks, his acceptance of good and generous counsel, and his precautions against disaster at the outset (2 Samuel 18:1-5). The king’s soul was evidently sustained by the assurance often expressed in the Psalms that the Lord was his Salvation; and this, instead of encouraging neglect and carelessness, stimulated, as it always does, energy to work along the lines of the Divine purpose. The emotions of the father are kept under by prompt and energetic application of all the powers of body and mind to the performance of kingly duty. Our faith in God and in the realization of his purpose will appear in the zeal with which we work to bring that purpose to pass. IV. IN TO A SENSE OF DUTY, A GOOD MAN WILL CHERISH NATURAL TO HIS . David suppressed the pain of making war on his son because it was right so to do; but that did not imply the uprooting from his heart of those feelings of tenderness and compassion and yearning sorrow which are proper to a father, even for a prodigal son. He did not waver in his kingly design to subdue rebellion, nor did he show a wicked leniency towards an evil life in the son, when he, in the presence of the whole army, enjoined on Joab to "deal gently with the young man Absalom." The rebel was his own child, and a pious heart could not but wish to have opportunity once more to pour upon that child the full force of its sorrowful love, in hopes of winning him over to a sense of his guilt. No feeling so natural as the wish that a prodigal may not be cut off by unpitying hands in the midst of his sins. The legal question as to what would have to be done with a captured rebel was not yet for decision. Sanctified human nature simply yearned to save the sinner from men as cruel as the grave. Knowing the character of Joab, and being a stranger to mere personal revenge, David urged upon him, as a strong restraint, consideration for himself as king and father. There are many Christian parents today who feel for their erring ones just as David did for his, although, like him, they are obliged, out of regard to their families and themselves, to pursue a line of rigid duty. Hope of salvation never dies from a parent’s heart. Beautifully does this adumbrate the compassion of God towards his prodigals! "Deal gently with him" seems to be the message sent forth to the forces which work out the king’s purposes in the discipline of life. "Do not crush him" is the spirit of God’s government. How much we each owe to that! V. THERE ARE TO THE OF TO A SENSE OF DUTY. David was helped in his mental conflict by reflection on the past and present. He was so far spared by God. Sympathetic friends had brought him aid when in great distress. His own followers were intelligently loyal (verse 3), and were obviously strong in their confidence in the justice of his cause. This kind of external support is of great service when a man is passing through a struggle as to whether he can perform a painful duty. Generally when God assigns duties involving pain in the performance, provision is made for encouragement. When our Saviour required his apostles to renounce all and to look on to persecution like that which he was suffering from, he cheered them by the promise of the Comforter, and a peace which the world could not give. The Resurrection made them strong to endure the loss of all things, and to subordinate love of home, friends, and country to the obligation of fighting against evil in the world. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. In the time of disaster it behoves us, when occasion arises for reflection on the situation, to avail ourselves with vigour of the resources for recovering our position which God places around us. 2. One of the best preservatives from utter despondency is a remembrance that God has a work for us to accomplish in life, and hence, the more clearly this is kept in view, the more readily shall we be able to face disagreeable duties. 3. It is the duty of citizens to take precautions for the safety of those in high positions, since the welfare of the state is involved in their lives. 4. One of the elements of a perfect moral character to be attained to is the balance between the most rigid justice and the cherishing of feelings free from the taint of personal revenge. 5. As in the state we ought to do things for the "king’s sake" which do not involve a breach of morality, so in the Church there are things we should do for Christ’s sake, which would not be done did we simply follow out the bare tendencies of our imperfect nature and conform to the usages of society. A revelation of sin and its issue. The remarkable space given in the sacred history to the life and conduct of Absalom in their relation to David may arouse the question as to the reason. It is not easy to assign all the reasons that may have operated in the mind of the inspired collector of the annals of Israel to give such prominence to these details; but we may be safe in saying that it was the Divine will to set forth, for the instruction of all ages, the discipline of the "man after God’s own heart" and also, for the same object, the development and issue of sin in a conspicuous instance. Men learn a lesson written out in large bold characters; and herein lies most of the teaching value of the Old Testament histories. We may, then, trace here, in a concrete instance and striking form, illustrations of what all sin more or less is and involves, though the particular forms it assumes may vary. I. OF HEART AND LOSS OF THE GENUINE FEELING OF SONSHIP. Absalom had known a time when, in the assertion within his own spirit of self-hood, he virtually ceased to be a true son. This was his fall. The old child affection became weak; an aversion sprang up; father was no longer regarded as a father should be, and child ceased to be genuine child. This was the secret of all. It was a sort of moral death. The schism was more than political. Virtually he had said, "I will be free and do as I wish." This is also the essence of our sin against God. Adam lost somehow the sonship feeling. Self-will asserted its power. God became one, and he another. Union was gone. This is our Saviour’s teaching in the parable of the prodigal son. The young man was weary of his father, and wanted to do as he liked away from him. If we examine our hearts, it will be found to be the same with ourselves. Sin is, negatively, destitution of the sonship feeling; positively, the assertion of self-hood as against God. In this lies its desperate evil, its incurable vice, its secret of doom. II. A OF GIFTS. As soon as Absalom’s heart was gone, he began to use up his beauty, his eloquence, his scheming, every faculty of his nature, to render himself happy in his self-hood, and to be able to dispense with his father’s favour. In human nature all gifts flow in the line of one master feeling. Hence when the dominant feeling is alienation from God, the entire man goes away, and all powers are made subservient to self as against the rightful dominion of God. The prodigal son used his patrimony away from his father. Sinners use up their patrimony for self, and not in harmony with God. Kindness is abused. III. A RESOLVE TO GET RID OF . For a time Absalom simply cherished the feeling of alienation and knew the misery of a lost love. But evil is a force, and we cannot remain as we are when it once enters the soul. The wretchedness of a lost love put him on the way to get rid of the authority which existed in spite of his loss of loving delight in it. Thought begets thought, and so in due time positive rebellion arose. The royal father must be formally dethroned. There is a corresponding phase in the life of many a sinner. It is misery to be loveless and to know at the same time that God lives. Hence, thoughts flow in suggesting how, by what scepticism, or disbelief, or defiance, or desperation in vice, he can be dislodged from the conscience. Possibly the war becomes violent. No more welcome thought to some men than that God is not. Lost love means in the end antagonism. IV. THERE IS FOR A WHILE AN OF SUCCESS. Unhappy Absalom found abettors and flatterers. His independent spirit accorded with the temper of others. His endeavours to live without his father’s love and blessing seemed most successful, for never did men make so much of him as now when he has shaken off the yoke of dependence and has gone in for a free life. His "strength was firm." The aim of his ambition seemed within reach. Wise and astute men encouraged and helped him, and threes were placed at his disposal. So all seems to go well for a while with those who are alienated from God the Father. No visible punishment comes on them. They are free from restraints to which once they submitted. They "become as gods, knowing good and evil." Others, some of them wise and learned and astute, encourage them in their mode of life and join in their aims. The forces of wit, learning, science, worldly sagacity, combine to enable them to put down the authority to which they ought to submit. These are the wicked who prosper in the world. V. THERE ARE THE OF REVERSE. Absalom finds his forces scattered by a force the strength of which he did not expect to meet. The mighty array of power on his side receives a check (verses 6-8). He has to learn that the authority despised can make itself felt. And in the course of Providence there are times when events remind sinners that God still rules over forces which they cannot resist, that powers are at work before which they have to bow. Sickness, bereavement, adverse conditions of life, ruin of wicked helpers, pangs of conscience, and personal wretchedness, come and beat down the proud array of wit, learning, jovial companionship, and stoutness of will, as the rebel army was beaten down in the wood of Ephraim. Wicked men have intimations of destruction before it fails on them. The conscience sees, as with prophet’s eye, the dark shadows of the future in passing events. VI. GIFTS HASTEN . The pride of Absalom’s person warn the means of hastening his death. The hair which had been so much admired, which he counted as a treasure, and made him conspicuous in Israel, now combined with the silent forces that ran through the forest trees to bring him into the judgment for which his course of rebellion had been preparing him. When God’s time has come, he has many instruments for effecting his purpose. The best gifts of sinful men sometimes get so entangled with the stable order of nature as to prematurely bring their life to an end. There are always "branches" stretching out in the natural order of things, forming objects against which the powers and possessions of men run, to their detriment and speedy death. The young man’s natural vigour, of which he is proud, may run against a resisting force which shatters it in proportion to its strength. Brilliant intellects, in their defiance of God, have, in modern times, become so absorbed in literary work bearing on their infidelity, as to be caught early in the arms of death. Of how many may it be said that their beauty has been their destruction! VII. THEIR MEMORY IS TO BE . Absalom, proud of his name and ambitious of posthumous fame, erected a memorial pillar for himself—a mournful premonition, as it were, of his miserable end. Nothing could have been more mortifying to him, had he known it, than to be cut down from a tree like a common felon and be buried as a dog. The wicked are cut off; their memorial perishes. It may be that men who die in sin have reared to their memory tablets or monuments of marble or brass; but the truth remains that they shall have no everlasting memorial in the assembly of the upright in the new Jerusalem. Earthly monuments are perishable. It is said of those who are so unfortunate and guilty as to die in a state of alienation from God, that their name shall "rot" (Proverbs 10:7). The only enduring order of things is that of the kingdom of God: it "cannot be shaken," and a place in that kingdom alone can ensure a perpetual memorial. Those who are true sons, who have recovered the lost feeling of love, shall shine in the kingdom of the Father, and shall be heirs with Christ of his glory and joy. The wicked shall go into "outer darkness." GENERAL LESSONS. 1. The attention of all, especially of the young, should be called to the fact that the right feeling of sonship is that of loving submission, and that the loss of this towards earthly parents is really the fruit of a loss of the filial feeling towards the heavenly Father. 2. If we would form right notions of the guilt of sin, the need and nature of atonement, and the punishment awarded to sin in Scripture, we must pay due regard to what sin is in its essence—the assertion of self against God. 3. We see here the real nature of the change that is necessary in order to adoption into the redeemed family of God—a radical change of the governing feeling of the heart in relation to God. Regeneration is the inner antecedent of the conversion of the entire man. 4. Young men may take warning against the terrible power of evil when once thee break the bonds of love to parents, and in this first and chief sin they have the germ of unspeakable crimes and woes. 5. Let those who in the height of sinful prosperity imagine that all is going well, remember that, though they thus rejoice, yet for all these things God will bring them into judgment (Ecclesiastes 11:9). 6. Both the righteous and the wicked may accept it as a certainty that, in some way or other, the very inanimate creation will sooner or later be subservient to the ends of justice. 7. The best monument we can rear to ourselves, or that others can raise to our memory, is that blessed memory of the just which rests on a life of love to earthly parents and righteous fulfilment of all the obligations we owe to God and man. The place of principles in conduct. The controversy between the "certain man" and Joab near the oak where Absalom was hanging was natural, and sprang from diversity of views, which took their shape in each case from the character of the individuals. The man was an ordinary loyal subject of David’s, simple in life and thought, governed, as such men generally are, by a few great first principles of conduct. Joab was an astute man of the world, true to David for reasons of a compound nature, entertaining such views of duty and life as generally sway the minds of men of the world, who regard present facts in the light of an unsentimental expediency. Each one was true to himself, and the discussion raised was well sustained on each side by reasons cogent to the men themselves who expressed them, but of no force beyond the individual to convert the other to his view. We see, then— I. THAT LIFE MAY IN MEN BE ON AND TOTALLY . Here was a simple countryman unwilling to touch the life of Absalom, solely because of the king’s commandment (verses 5, 12, 13). The question of the prudence or imprudence of the act was not for a moment entertained. Obedience to the royal authority was the prime duty. This belief was the governing rule of conduct. No imaginary advantage to Israel, no example or persuasion of a great general, could turn the man from this fixed principle. On the other hand, Joab swept aside an such forceful pressure of supreme obligation to the royal will, because his conduct was governed, in this case at least, by a worldly wisdom, a consideration of what seemed to himself to be the best thing to do—a policy of expediency. There was a general admission of the existence and value of what the countryman regarded as primary principles of conduct on the part of subjects; but theory was good for theorists, and Joab was a man of deeds when matters were urgent! These men certainly represent two classes—those who accept first principles of obligation, primary conceptions of duty as lying at the very basis of society and of the individual life; and those who, while formally admitting the existence and propriety of such principles, nevertheless set them aside whenever, for prudential reasons, they think it well to do so. There are such primary principles: in government, the law of the ruler is supreme; in the family, e.g; the expressed will of the father is binding; in matters of religion, e.g; God prohibits unholiness of feeling, malice, cruelty, and commands men to repent, believe, and in all things do justly, irrespective of consequences. There are men who do base their action on these principles. But there are men who, like Joab, break the law of their land, and set aside supreme authority for reasons of their own; there are children who violate the fundamental principle of domestic order, because their judgment goes against their parents; there are men of the world who dare to disobey the Eternal King’s commandment in relation to repentance, faith, and unswerving righteousness of life, for reasons which seem to them sufficient at the time. Do all Christians follow out the regal commands as to righteousness in all things? Is there not too much expediency in Christian conduct (cf. Matthew 6:1-34.)? II. CONDUCT BASED ON PROMPT OF FIRST IS MORE LIKELY TO MEN THAN MEN IN THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS. This plain countryman simply followed the order of the king because the king’s will to him was sacred. He was not learned in casuistry, not versed in diplomacy, not skilled in keeping the letter and violating the spirit of the Law. He was amazed that any one should think of deviating from a command so plain. Its justice or injustice, its prudence or imprudence, were no matters for him to settle. Law was binding. The king must be obeyed. This was the instinct of a guileless nature. The force of the principle of obedience to the authority of God’s anointed was recognized, because his spirit was politically and morally sound and pure. Joab was a man of the world, a man of many designs and combinations of thought, a man whose purity and guilelessness were gone. In the struggle of high and low principles within his nature, pure principle was deprived of its native force. Our Saviour, in reference to much higher matters, points out this difference of conduct proceeding from difference of character, when he thanks his Father that "these things," which were bidden from the "wise and prudent," were "revealed unto babes" (Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:26). We must become as little children—guileless, unsophisticated, quick to act on primary principles apart from the warping influences of worldly prudence, if we would enter his kingdom and be as he was. There may be advantages in being versed in affairs, familiar with the tricks and ways of men, and famed for astuteness and such like qualities; but on the whole, in matters of pure right and strict adherence to clear duty to God and man, the guileless man is most likely to be the most dependable. Moral intuitions are swift in the pure hearted, and to debate their applicability is at once to weaken their force. III. MAY ARISE IN WHICH FROM PRIMARY MAY AT FIRST APPEAR MOST TO REASON. On the face of it most men would have said that Joab was justified in setting aside conscientious scruples about the sacredness of the royal command. The rebel deserved death, the only place of restraint for him was the grave, the king’s paternal feelings were a danger to the state, Providence had evidently put Absalom’s life in the hands of Joab, and the king would be sure to condone the deed,—all this might be said with force. So may it be argued still. Immediate repentance may be right; but surely a man whose livelihood is at stake may be cautious, and not by a sudden change of life bring himself and family into poverty! "Love your enemies" is a Divine command; but we are not so good as was he who gave the command, and so he will condone our cherishing some hatred! Be truthful in word and deed is the meaning to us all of Christ’s life; but the pressure of business and the difficulties of diplomacy in national affairs are such that we cannot take this grand law of life into all departments of activity! Thus by arguments apparently conclusive the "commandments of God" are "made of none effect." IV. THE TRUE OF ALL LIE IN TO PRIMARY . Joab, by his deviation from the king’s command, while seeming to secure an advantage to the state, was really sowing the seed of rebellion; for it set aside the supreme law, and its natural tendency was to weaken the royal authority throughout Israel. To gain a temporary advantage at the cost of damning the force of a cardinal truth is no real gain in the end, for the consequences of such an injury are incalculable. Once impair the supremacy of right principles in the national or individual mind, and you have prepared the way for all kinds of degeneracy. God never departs from right, and his ways always come out right. Moral principles are as rind in their demand for implicit and full recognition as any laws of physics, and they vindicate their neglect with as absolute a certainty. Christ has made it clear that strict and severe adherence to his authority alone will issue well. The sermon on the mount is a statement of unconditioned practical truth. The Church of Christ would have done more for the world had this sermon been more recognized, apart from the limitations of accommodating rules of interpretation. 2 Samuel 18:19-33 The facts are: 1. Ahimaaz being eager to convey tidings of victory to the king, is denied permission by Joab, who, however, sends Cushi. 2. Persisting in his desire to run after Cushi, Joab at last allows him to go. 3. The watchman at the gate of the city reports to the king that a runner is in sight, followed by another, whereupon David takes courage, and hopes for good news. 4. On Ahimaaz being the first to arrive, he briefly announces that all is well, and then prostrates himself before the king, and blesses God for having brought victory to the king’s cause. 5. David, in his deep concern for Absalom, inquires after his safety, and receives from Ahimaaz an evasive reply. 6. Just then Cushi comes in and announces tidings of victory, and, in answer to the question as to Absalom’s safety, bluntly makes known the fact of his death. 7. The king, overwhelmed with anguish, enters his chamber, and there pours out his soul in a most pathetic lamentation. The relation of character to work. The work recently accomplished by Joab now gave rise to another, which included elements of good and evil. He was keen enough to see that the communication of the fact of victory would be most welcome to David, but that a statement of the particulars would be most distressing; and, therefore, with his usual practical sagacity, he sought out for the work of conveying tidings to the king a man whose character would fit him for dealing with the evil side of the message very much as he himself would. I. IN ON HUMAN AFFAIRS THERE ARE THE OF WORK. It was a pleasant thing to have to announce to David a great victory over his foes, but far from pleasant to have to tell him what had become of his son, and who had slain him. On a former occasion, when evil tidings, blended with news of the fail of a foe, was brought to him, it went ill with the bearer (2 Samuel 1:13-16). In this case the disagreeable work arose out of the wrong deeds of Joab. One evil created another. Disobedience to absolute authority cannot but bring the transgressor into an awkward position and impose unpleasant obligations. The flow of human life is a flow of work. In consequence of transgression against God, and violation of social order, an immense amount of annoying work has to be done. The sons of Jacob, after the sale of their brother, found difficult work on their hands. The imperfect life in the Church creates the necessity of doing things that pain the tender heart, and which is more adapted to rough and hard men. Evil deeds create duties which always carry with them more or less of pain and sorrow. II. THERE IS A NATURAL BETWEEN CERTAIN AND FORMS OF WORK. The reasons for Joab’s rejection of Ahimaaz were probably these: fear lest he should so state the facts as to prejudice David against himself, and belief that his nature was too tender and sympathetic for what he regarded as the proper delivery of the dark side of the message. Joab was a hard and blunt man, and he wanted such a man for a work which, because disagreeable, had better be got rid of as quickly as possible. If David should be angry with the Cushite, and slay him, Joab would not care for that, provided, in the blunt and straight announcement of Absalom’s death, no tenderness was displayed and no effort made to compromise himself. Such men as he scorn tenderness as weakness. They abhor what they term "sentiment." Joab’s character fitted him to send the painful tidings so bluntly and unfeelingly announced by Cushi (2 Samuel 18:31, 2 Samuel 18:32). As a rule, character finds work in affinity with itself, and Joab was right in the adaptation he sought for his purpose. As character is often a prophecy of work that will be done when occasion arises, so work done is often a revelation of character. Not any one can be a hangman. Not any one can be a consoler of the sick and dying. Even in the Christian Church there are kinds of work for which a peculiar firmness and almost severity of character is most suited. Only an Ambrose could overawe an emperor. On the other hand, most departments of Church work give scope for men of the Ahimaaz stamp rather than that of Cushi. III. AN INJURED READILY ADAPTS ITSELF TO PAINFUL WORK ISSUING OUT OF FORMER TO ITSELF. Joab had done violence to his conscience in positive disobedience to the king’s commands (2 Samuel 18:12-14). As every wrong to conscience renders its testimony for right the feebler, it was comparatively easy to frame a blunt, unsympathizing message for the Cushite to deliver to the king. There was as real disregard for David’s feelings in the framing of the hard, unfeeling message as in setting aside his command to spare the life of Absalom. Thus it is seen that the human conscience has the wonderful and terrible power of adapting itself to the environment produced by its own abuse, and so of being continuously affected for evil. A "seared conscience" is another expression for the gradual deterioration of sensibility produced by the enforced habit of accommodating itself to deeds which are the natural outcome of former misdeeds. Sympathetic enthusiasm. The son of Zadok espoused the cause of David (2 Samuel 15:27, 2 Samuel 15:36) in spite of the attractions for young men of Absalom’s manners (2 Samuel 15:1-6). It was a noble thing for this young man to hold to a right cause in the day of adversity, and to place the fleetness of his feet and the vigilance of his ears and eyes at the command of the exile. The zeal with which he offered his services to Joab to convey the news of success to the king, was in keeping with his past reputation, and, as the sequel shows, was blended with a tender regard for the king’s feelings. In contrast with the action of Joab and his servant Cushi in relation to David, that of Ahimaaz is an instructive example of the elements that enter into a commendable, sympathetic enthusiasm. I. A JUST AND GOOD CAUSE. There may be great enthusiasm, but it may be wicked because manifested in an evil cause. It was to the honour of the son of Zadok that all the force of his nature was devoted to the righteous claims of the Lord’s anointed. He had identified himself with the servant of Jehovah in the day of trouble. In the great conflict of his age he was on the right side. This is the primary consideration with us all in the exercise of our powers, whether the questions at issue be political, social, or religious. We can take no credit for enthusiasm, and indeed it will be otherwise our sin, unless we take pains to see that we side with what is essentially just and good. Energy spent in advocacy or encouragement of a party, a movement, a system, a belief, or a practice, is not of moral worth apart from conscientious motive. Especially in the supreme question of every age, the claims of Christ as against the demand on our submission and service of lower and often unholy claims, the question comes—On which slide are we? Are we with the rightful King or with his adversaries? II. ENTIRE SELF-. Ahimaaz had deliberately identified the whole interests of his life with the cause of the exiled king. He was not a mere observer of the conflict. His very life had been at stake when he entered into the compact (2 Samuel 15:27, 2 Samuel 15:33) and sought out the banished monarch. He had gone out to fight the battle with Joab, and was most eager to render the choicest service on the close of the day of victory. Enthusiasm which consists of approval and delight in the season of prosperity, or in verbal admiration, is of no substantial worth. The men who crossed hill and dale and lake because of the bread they ate (John 6:24-27) were not the whole-hearted disciples Christ cared to have. Christ would have the entire life (Luke 9:59-62). III. PROMPT ACTION IN . The reality of this young man’s enthusiasm appeared in his ready offer of the special powers with which he was endowed to the urgency of the hour. He laid his best and most cultivated gifts at the service of his king just when they were most required. It is a characteristic of entire absorption in Christ’s work that there is not only the primal and imreserved surrender of life and all its interests to him and his kingdom, but also, as time passes on, a quick perception of entire work is needed, and an instant readiness to use any aptitude possessed for doing the work. "Here am I; send me," is the feeling of true enthusiasm when any emergency arises. There are beautiful instances of the free and prompt devotion of special gifts to the service of Christ when occasions suddenly arise requiring them. Are men smitten with plague or sword? Nurses skilled in care of the sick are at hand. Does calamity come on a house or village? There are eager feet swift to carry gospel consolations. IV. TRUE GUIDING ACTION. It was the deep and genuine sympathy of Ahimaaz with what he knew were the most tender and sacred feelings of the king’s heart that made him eager to go, and both gladden him with news of God’s deliverance, and at the same time gently break the news of his personal loss. This gave extra speed to his fleet steps, and this explains his reference to God’s goodness (2 Samuel 18:28), and also his evident desire to prepare the king for sad tidings (2 Samuel 18:29). He felt too much for that noble, generous heart to blurt out the intelligence which he knew would crush it. There is great value in a servant who understands and appreciates the most tender and cherished feelings of his master. This sympathy is a discriminating guide to words and actions. It is this intense sympathy with the heart of Christ, this power to enter more than others do into the very passion of the Redeemer for saving men, that accounts for the remarkable zeal and discriminating conduct in doing religious work which have characterized some of the noblest Christians. The nearer we get to the heart of Christ, the more true will our enthusiasm be. The natural gifts and aptitudes of body and mind then turn with zest to all wise devices for advancing the interests most dear to him. Miscellanies. In connection with the main event referred to in the narrative, there are incidents and statements which suggest a variety of truths bearing more or less on ordinary life or finding their parallels therein. Briefly stated, these aye as follows. I. EAGER MEN GREAT ISSUES. David and his followers at the gate of Mahanaim, looking out for news of the issue of the conflict then being carried on, sensible that interests more precious than life were involved, are but types of men still intent on learning the issue of undertakings in which they have embarked or in which they have an inexpressible interest. The disciples once awaited a wonderful issue when Christ was, during his trial and death, in conflict with powers of darkness. For forty days before Pentecost, men and women waited for signs of a great event. Often has the Church, in seasons of peril, waited in agony during the crisis. Men engaged in ordinary business know what it is to look out for the issue of great ventures; and in private religious experience there are times when the soul waits and watches more than those who watch for the morning. What great and momentous issues are being wrought out every day in this world for some of our fellow creatures! II. . "All is well," said Ahimaaz, to break the painful suspense of the watchers, and bring early consolation to the king’s heart. The words are few but wonderful. Taken in their strict sense, they meant to David more than could ever be expressed. Happy, indeed, is the man of whom and to whom these words can be unconditionally spoken. "All" is the term of widest range in human language; and "well" is the greatest and best affirmation that can ever be made. In David’s circumstances the phrase at least meant that his cause was triumphant, that God had come to his help. Ahimaaz was not insincere in saying what he did, knowing all the time that one event of the day would be most distressing to David. His optimism was qualified by a reservation, as is common in human life. There is a sense in which every good is qualified by a shade of ill. Even so great a boon as redemption bears on it the dark shadow of a Suffering One. The greatest victory of things is announced amidst the wail of widows and orphans. The possession of great wealth brings with it carking cares. Perhaps, in the final issue of all events, when Christ shall have put down all authority and power (1 Corinthians 15:27), and the universe has gained its moral equilibrium after the long struggle between good and evil, it may be true in an absolute sense that "all is well;" but till then our optimism must be qualified. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 19:2 The victory (Hebrew, the salvation) that day was turned into mourning. Naturally, the people did not understand the poignant emotions caused by the activity of David’s conscience, and were pained at this seeming ingratitude to them for their brave exertions in his behalf, and at what they must have regarded as indifference to the welfare of the nation. Nor would it be easy for us to understand his conduct during the flight from Jerusalem, and in bearing Shimei’s imprecations so tamely, did we not find in the psalms written at this time that David was suffering extreme and even excessive self-reproach and mental anguish at his past sin. It was a relief to bear Shimei’s rudeness, for God might remember it for good. Racked thus with self-reproach, he had urged upon his generals to spare the young man (2 Samuel 18:5), whose sin was part of a web which he had himself begun to spin, and in terror he waited for the result. Mentally it would have been better for him if he had gone to the battle instead of sitting in gloomy self-reproach between the gates. His eager inquiries, "Is the lad safe? meant—Has the hand of justice again smitten me? and when he found that a second blow had fallen, his self control gave way. Joab, more statesmanlike, and with his personal feelings unmoved, notices the fresh wrong that David is committing, and is vexed at seeing his brave warriors slink into Mahanaim ashamed, instead of being welcomed with deserved praise. But their conduct in being so depressed at David’s sorrow is a proof of their affection for him, and it was plainly his duty to master his feelings, and to think of making a due return for the great service they had rendered him. The Hebrew word "salvation,’’ that is, deliverance, gives the better side of the idea, while "victory" is a coarser word, taken from the language of a people whose trade was war. 2 Samuel 19:5 And Joab … said. Joab’s speech puts the alternative in a very incisive and even rude way before the king. But what he says is true, namely, that Absalom’s success would inevitably have been followed by the massacre, not only of David himself, but of his sons and daughters, and of the women who had accompanied him in his flight. Nor would it have stopped there. but the officers of his court, the captains of his army, his mighties, and all who had long eared for and loved him would have been put to the sword. It was this horrible certainty, according to Oriental usage, which made Absalom’s rebellion so abominable, and which steeled the heart of Joab against him when he saw him hanging in the tree. He regarded him as a fratricide and parricide, who had plotted murder on a large scale; and Joab was not made milder by the thought that this would have included himself and the heroes who had made David’s throne so great. With stern good sense he, therefore, bids the king suppress his mere personal feelings, and leave the chamber in which he had concealed himself, to go forth and "speak to the heart of his servants," that is, thank and praise them in a friendly manner. For otherwise they would disperse and leave him; and this would be followed by the uprise of some other claimant of the throne—some relative, perhaps, of Saul, backed by the tribes of Benjamin and Ephraim; and David, abandoned by the nation, would fall an easy victim, with all his family, of this second rebellion. Absalom’s rapid success proved that David had many enemies, and without great prudence he might be left at Mahanaim as powerless as Ishbeshoth had been. The long delay between the death of this puppet king and David’s appointment to be sovereign of all Israel was probably owing to the same want of enthusiasm for David which had made the nation transfer its allegiance so lightly to the handsome Absalom. But with all his good sense Joab was coarse and rude. He was, moreover, utterly incapable of understanding David’s real feelings. He saw only a father giving way to an exaggerated loss for a handsome but worthless son. David really was condemning himself for having brought lust and murder into his own house by abominable sin. 2 Samuel 19:8 All the people came before the king. Probably they passed in review before him, and received his thanks. By thus acting in accordance with Joab’s wise counsel, David probably saved the nation from years of anarchy, and a fresh civil war. For Israel had fled every man to his tent; Hebrew, and Israel, that is, Absalom’s partisans, fled each man to his tent—to his home. The Authorized Version confounds Israel with David’s soldiers, but consistently throughout the narrative "the hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom" (2 Samuel 15:13; and see 2 Samuel 16:15, 2 Samuel 16:18; 2 Samuel 17:14, 2 Samuel 17:15, 2 Samuel 17:24, 2 Samuel 17:26; 2 Samuel 18:6, 2 Samuel 18:7, 2 Samuel 18:16, 2 Samuel 18:17). 2 Samuel 19:10 Absalom, whom we anointed over us. It is evident from these words that there had been some solemn anointing and appointment of Absalom, and this accounts for the manner in which his partisans are always described as "Israel," while David’s men are simply "his servants." With this anointment there must also have been a formal renunciation of David’s rule, and, being thus dethroned, he does not attempt to return until the nation summons him back. As the flight of David narrated in 2 Samuel 16:1-23. was extremely hurried, the conspirators must have kept their counsel well, and whatever rumours reached him apparently he disregarded. But meanwhile representatives of the tribes secretly convened at Hebron had claimed to act in the name of Israel, and, chosen a new king. The words certainly imply that, had Absalom lived, the Israelites would have considered themselves bound to obey him. 2 Samuel 19:11 David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar. The two high priests had remained behind at Jerusalem, to watch over David’s interests, and he now, by a messenger, probably Ahimaaz or Jonathan, urges them to quicken the proceedings of his own tribe. We may feel quite sure that there was discussion in Judah as well as in the other tribes; but the rebellion had begun at Hebron, and probably many of the leading chiefs were deeply implicated in Absalom’s proceedings. Probably they now regretted it, but hung back through fear of punishment. It was politic, therefore, to assure them of David’s kindly feelings, and that overtures on their side would be readily received, and the past forgiven. 2 Samuel 19:12 My bones; Hebrew, my bone and my flesh, so nearly related as to be part of my own self (Genesis 2:23). 2 Samuel 19:13 Of my bone, and of my flesh; Hebrew, art thou not my bone and my flesh?—a most near and dear relative. It is difficult to understand why in the Authorized Version this common metaphor in the Hebrew has been so meddled with, Ewald thinks that this purposed degradation of Joab and the substitution of Amasa in his stead was a wise and politic act. It was to some extent just, for Joab was a man stained with many murders; but politic it was not. Passing over the fact that Amasa had actually taken the command of the rebel army, he was an ambitious and selfish man, and could lay no claim to that sturdy fidelity which had characterized Joab throughout his long service. For all he had done had been for David’s good, and his advice, however roughly given, had averted grave misfortunes. Joab’s murder of Absalom was an act of wilful disobedience; but David had used Joab for a far meaner murder, committed, not for reasons of statesmanship; but for purposes of lust. The guilt of slaying Absalom was as nothing compared with that of slaying Uriah, nor was it so base as the assassination of Abner, which David had tolerated, though made angry by it. The dismissal of Joab could have been effected only by putting him to death, and this certainly he did not deserve at David’s hands; and the attempt, unless carried out secretly, would have led to tumult and insurrection. Joab, too, was a far more skilful general than Amasa, who, with larger forces, had just suffered a disastrous defeat; and if Joab was removed secretly, his brother Abishai remained to avenge him. David was, in fact, blinded by love for the son whom for so many years he had treated with coldness. There was a strong reaction now in the father’s mind, and under its influence he was prepared to sacrifice the nephew who had been faithful to him and saved him, for the nephew who had joined in Absalom’s rebellion. But possibly it had an immediate good effect, as Amasa, assured of forgiveness and promotion, now took David’s side. 2 Samuel 19:14 And he bowed, etc. It was not Amasa, but David, who made all the members of his tribe unanimous in his recall. And not only were the high priests active in his cause, but David, He may feel sure, sent numerous messages to all the more powerful men, assuring them of forgiveness and favour. In his general policy he was right. After the solemn anointing of Absalom, it was necessary for him to wait until some equally public and national act authorized his resumption of the royal power; and delay was dangerous. Every day now spent at Mabanaim might give the opportunity for fresh troubles. 2 Samuel 19:15 Gilgal. As Gilgal lay upon the west bank of the Jordan (Joshua 5:9), near Jericho and the fords, it was a convenient place for the elders of Judah to await there the king. During the crossing, two interesting events happened—the meeting of Shimei and David, and the leave taking of Barzillai the Gileadite. Shortly afterwards came the apology of Mephibosheth but it is uncertain whether he was among those who had come to Gilgal to welcome the king. 2 Samuel 19:16 Shimei the son of Gera. The fact that he came attended by a thousand men of the tribe of Benjamin is a proof, not only that he was a person of influence, but that he had exerted himself to bring over his tribesmen to David’s side. His adherence was, therefore, of importance. Ziba had always professed allegiance to David, and as he virtually represented the house of Stud, his presence was also valuable, even if prompted by the desire to keep Mephibosheth’s land. For though Absalom seemed to be the nation’s choice, yet there would be many legitimists who would consider that the crown belonged to Saul’s heirs, and who would watch the course of events for any opportunity favourable to their views. David’s victory ruined their hopes, and the public acts of Shimei and Ziba removed all fear of public disturbance on the part of Saul’s friends. 2 Samuel 19:17 They went over Jordan before the king. This might mean that, in bringing the king across, Shimei and the Benjamites led the way. But, first, the verb, which is a rare one, means that they dashed through the river impetuously; and secondly, before the king, means "in the king’s presence." While the tribe of Judah remained on the left bank to receive the king on his landing, Shimei and Ziba sought favour by a show of excessive zeal, and forded the Jordan, so as to be the first to welcome him (see 2 Samuel 19:20). 2 Samuel 19:18 And there went over a ferry boat; more correctly, and the ferry boat kept crossing, went backwards and forwards to bring the king’s household over. Shimei … fell down before the king, as he was come over Jordan. If this translation were right, instead of fording the river, Shimei would have waited on the western bank. Some commentators do take this view, but it is contradicted by the latter part of 2 Samuel 19:17. Really the Hebrew words signify no more than "at his crossing the Jordan," that is, at some time or other during the passage. Shimei’s course was not only the boldest, but also the wisest. For, in the first place, his prompt surrender would commend itself to David’s generosity; and, secondly, had Abishai’s counsel been taken, it would have offended the thousand Benjamites who formed his escort, and also all the warriors present there from Israel (see 2 Samuel 19:40). Trouble and discontent would certainly have followed upon any attempt on David’s part to punish any of his enemies, and there might even have been armed resistance to his crossing. 2 Samuel 19:20 The first … of all the house of Joseph. Shimei, who was a Benjamite, could not have thus claimed to be the representative of the northern tribes, had he remained on the western bank, where "half the people of Israel" were assembled. Strictly, "the house of Joseph" signified the tribe of Ephraim (Judges 1:22, Judges 1:35; and comp. Psalms 78:67), and in this sense Shimei did not belong to it. But Ephraim claimed a supremacy over all Israel; and one cause of the opposition to David certainly was the transference of the leadership to the tribe of Judah. Even the long reign of Solomon failed to weld the tribes together, and as soon as the reins of power fell into the weak hands of Rehobeam, an Ephraimite. Jeroboam, whom Solomon had made "ruler ever all the charge of the house of Joseph" (1 Kings 11:28), quickly wrested the ten tribes from him. In Amos 5:6 "the house of Joseph" signifies all the northern tribes, for the reason given in 1 Chronicles 5:1, 1 Chronicles 5:2; and such is its sense here. And Shimei compressed many powerful arguments in the phrase. For as a Benjamite he offered David the allegiance of the tribe which had given Israel its first king; while, as an Israelite, he professed also to represent the leading house of Ephraim, and all the northern tribes which usually followed its bidding. 2 Samuel 19:22 Ye sons of Zeruiah … adversaries unto me; literally, that ye be to me for a Satan; rendered "adversary" in Numbers 22:22, but by Ewald in this place "tempter." It probably means "one who would do me harm." Though David speaks of the sons of Zeruiah in the plural (as in 2 Samuel 16:10), there is no reason to suppose that Joab shared in Abishai’s impetuosity. Indifferent as he was to the shedding of blood, he was too prudent and politic to put the people out of temper by an execution on the day of David’s return. In Israel … over Israel. There is much force in this repetition. A short time before Israel had been for Absalom, but now, by Shimei’s submission, and that of the large body of Benjamites with him, David felt that once again he was king over the whole people. 2 Samuel 19:23 The king sware unto him. David’s magnanimity was not the result merely of policy, but also of joyful feeling at seeing all the tribes so readily welcome him back to the throne. But in spite of his oath, he orders Solomon to execute him, regarding what he had done as a sin past forgiveness. In so doing we can hardly acquit David of breaking his oath, even granting that Shimei’s repentance was insincere, and that the motive of his actions was the desire simply to save his life. But we must remember that our Lord described his injunction, "that ye love one another," as "a new commandment" (John 13:34); and the utmost that can be said in David’s favour is that his character was generous and full of chivalry. A half excuse may be found for his order in the supposition that Shimei was an inveterate conspirator, and dangerous to Solomon’s peace. This view seems confirmed by the command given to Shimei to build a house at Jerusalem (1 Kings 2:36), where he would always be under surveillance. But had not David himself praised the man who "sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not" (Psalms 15:4)? 2 Samuel 19:24 Mephibosheth. The meeting of David and Mephibosheth possibly took place at Jerusalem (see on 2 Samuel 19:25), and, if so, the order of events is not chronological. Ziba certainly came to the Jordan fords, and the narrative may have been introduced here to complete the account of his doings. In neglecting his person and his dress, Mephibosheth was showing signs of heartfelt sorrow, and as he thus mourned during Absalom’s tenure of power, it exposed him to the usurper’s displeasure, and was a public avowal that his sympathies were with David. And his treatment was unjust; but David was in a strait. Ziba had been actively useful to him in his flight, and had also aided greatly in his recall. It was, probably, even owing to his influence that Shimei came with a thousand men of Benjamin. He deserved, therefore, a reward, but not at his master’s cost. His beard; Hebrew, the upper lip (see Leviticus 13:45; Ezekiel 24:17, Ezekiel 24:22). 2 Samuel 19:25 When he was come to Jerusalem to meet the king. This certainly looks as if the meeting took place at Jerusalem, and apparently when David had reached the royal palace (see 2 Samuel 19:30). But what, then, is meant in 2 Samuel 19:24 by his "going down" to meet the king? If, too, he had been at Jerusalem all the while, how could he come there? Some, therefore, translate, "Then Jerusalem came to meet the king"—a possible, but not a natural, rendering, nor one that agrees with 2 Samuel 19:30. Others consider that he had withdrawn to his house in the highlands of Benjamin at Gibeah of Saul; but David had given these lands to Ziba, and the crippled Mephibesheth would have met with rough treatment had he endeavoured to contest the ownership. The Arabic Version reads. "when he came from Jerusalem;" but it is not confirmed by any trustworthy authorities. The view of Kimchi is probably right, that Mephibosheth did go down to the Jordan fords to meet David, and certainly his duty required of him no less. He had been slandered and ill used, but the king believed him to be guilty, and regarded him with displeasure. To have remained, therefore, at home when all Judah and half Israel had gone to welcome David back, would have been culpable remissness. And though he was lame, yet the ride was not so long as to be very fatiguing. But he did not rush through the river, as Shimei and his thousand men had done; and when David had crossed, there was too much going on for him to get an audience. He followed, therefore, in David’s suite; but in Jerusalem the meeting actually took place. Thus the verses briefly record different facts: 2 Samuel 19:24 that Mephibosheth went with the vast crowd to welcome the king back; 2 Samuel 19:25 that in due time, in Jerusalem, the explanation was given, and Mephibosheth restored to favour. 2 Samuel 19:26 Thy servant said, I will saddle me an ass. This would mean, "Thy servant purposed, said within himself, that he would saddle an ass, not by his own hands, but by those of his servants." All the versions, however, except the Chaldee, read, "Thy servant said to him, Saddle me an ass." With this agrees the narrative in 2 Samuel 16:1. Mephibosheth ordered Ziba to saddle for him an ass, and one for an attendant, and to put hastily together a supply of food for the journey. And Ziba does so; but when everything is ready, he leaves his master in the lurch, and carries all away to David, to whom he falsely represents Mephibosheth as a traitor. In the words that follow, he unreservedly submits himself to David, on the ground that, though innocent in this affair, yet that, as a member of a dethroned dynasty, his life was forfeit, and that, in permitting him to live, and placing him among his friends, the king had done him an act of grace. 2 Samuel 19:29 Thou and Ziba divide the land. Two views are taken of this decision—the one, that it was a complete reversal of the command in 2 Samuel 16:4, placing matters upon the old footing, by which Ziba was to have half the produce for cultivating the estate; the other, and apparently the most correct view, is that Ziba was now made actual owner of half the land, and Mephibosheth, instead of a half, would henceforth have only a quarter of the crops. The decision was not equitable, and David speaks in a curt and hurried manner, as though vexed with himself for what he was doing. As a matter of fact, Ziba’s treachery had been most useful to David. Besides the pleasure at the time of finding one man faithful, when "all men were liars" (Psalms 116:11), Ziba had been most active in bringing over the tribe of Benjamin to David’s side; and though his motives were selfish and venal, yet, as the king reaped the benefit of his conduct, he was bound not to leave him without reward. 2 Samuel 19:30 Yea, let him take all. These words betray a feeling of resentment. Though outwardly they profess to regard the loss of the property with indifference, as compared with the joy of the king’s return, yet this sort of "I don’t care" answer usually covers anger. Blunt’s arguments, to show that Mephibosheth really was a traitor, are ingenious, but not convincing. 2 Samuel 19:31 Barzillai. Barzillai was so wealthy a man that, with some help from others, he had provided the king "of sustenance," or, in more modern English, "with sustenance," while his army lay encamped at Mahanaim; and now, though he was eighty years of age, he wished to attend the king in person until he reached the other side of Jordan. 2 Samuel 19:33 And I will feed thee. This is the same verb as that used in 2 Samuel 19:32, and translated "to provide of sustenance." 2 Samuel 19:37 That I may die in mine own city … by the grave of my father and of my mother. The inserted words, "and be buried," are very matter of fact and commonplace. What Barzillai wished was that, when death overtook him, it should find him in the old abode of his family, where his father and mother had died, and where their tombs were. This regard for the family sepulchre was hereditary among the Israelites, who followed in it the example of their forefather (see Genesis 49:29-31). Chimham. David remembered Barzillai’s kindness to the last, and. on his dying bed specially commended Chimham and his brothers to the care of Solomon. In Jeremiah 41:17 we read of "the habitation of Chimham, which is by Bethlehem,’’ whence it has been supposed that David also endowed the sen of Barzillai with land near his own city. Stanley (’Jewish Church,’ 2:201) considers that this was a caravanserai founded by Chimham for the hospitable lodging of travellers on their way to Egypt, and that Mary and Joseph found shelter there. It lay to the south of Bethlehem; but there is nothing more than the name to connect it with the son of Barzillai. In verse 40 he is called in the Hebrew Chimhan. 2 Samuel 19:40 Half the people of Israel. The northern tribes had been the first to debate the question of the king’s recall (2 Samuel 19:9), while the men of Judah hung back. But at the instigation of the high priests and of Amasa, who was actually in command, they determined upon David’s restoration, and acted so promptly and so independently of the rest of Israel that, when they reached Gilgal, only the delegates of a few tribes were in time to join them. As we read in 2 Samuel 19:41 of "all the men of Israel," it is evident that the rest had rapidly followed. It would have been well if the tribe of Judah had informed the rest of their purpose, as the bringing of David back would then have been the act of all Israel; but tribal jealousies were the cause of Israel’s weakness throughout the time of the judges, and broke out into open disunion upon the death of Solomon. 2 Samuel 19:41 Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away? Why, that is, have they acted by stealth and without our concurrence? As they were discussing the matter, their decision should have been awaited, and David should not have crossed until formally invited so to do. The half of Israel consisted, probably, of the trans-Jordanic tribes, upon whom those on the west of the river looked contemptuously, and of Shimei and his Benjamites, and a few more in the immediate neighbourhood. The trans-Jordanie tribes are probably those described in 2 Samuel 19:39 as "the people who went with David over Jordan;" for certainly a powerful body of the men who had defeated Absalom would escort David back to Jerusalem to overawe the malcontents and prevent any opposition to his return. 2 Samuel 19:42 The king is near of kin to us. The pronouns are singular throughout: "He is near of kin to me. Why art thou angry? Have I eaten … I have ten parts … Why didst thou despise me?" and so everywhere. This is much more piquant; but such personification is contrary to the genius of our language. Have I eaten, etc.? Saul had boasted of enriching the Benjamites (1 Samuel 22:7), but probably the speaker intended only to protest the purity of his motives. 2 Samuel 19:43 I have ten parts in the king. One tribe disappears, which certainly was not Benjamin; nor was this warlike state thus early awed into obedience to Judah. In 1 Kings 11:31, 1 Kings 11:35, again, we have ten tribes given to Jeroboam, and here, also, not only must Benjamin be counted, but be included in the tribes rent from the house of David. The tribe that had disappeared was that of Simeon, partly lost among the desert races south of the Negeb, and partly absorbed by Judah. Its position always made it unimportant, and no trace can be found of its taking any part in the political life of Israel. Some strangers from Simeon are mentioned in 2 Chronicles 15:9 as coming to the great gathering of Judah and Benjamin at Jerusalem after Asa had defeated Zerah the Ethiopian; and Josiah carried out his reformation in Simeon as well as in Manasseh, Ephraim, and Naphtali (2 Chronicles 34:6). But it never seems to have emerged from a state of semi-barbarism, and no town can be found within its territories. We must, therefore, omit Simeon, and of course the Levites, who took no part in politics, and thus we have Judah standing alone, and all the rest determined to resist any attempt on its part to establish a hegemony, and restless even at having to endure the more ancient claims of Ephraim to be the leading tribe. By the ten parts which they claim in the king, they meant that, as king, he belonged equally to all, and not to his own tribe only. In this they were expressing a sound view of the royal position. The next words, literally, are, "And also in David I am more than thou;" to which the Septuagint adds, "And I am the firstborn rather than thou." This is in accordance with 1 Chronicles 5:1, and states an important claim always made by Ephraim; whereas the Hebrew, "I in David am more than thou," is unintelligible. Except upon the score of numbers already stated, the right of each tribe in David was equal. Why then, etc.? rather, Why hast thou despised me? Was not my word the first for bringing back the king? (see 1 Chronicles 5:9, and note on verse 40). Were fiercer. While the Israelites debated the matter calmly, the men of Judah met their complaint with harsh and bitter rejoinders. This explains the feud which followed. 2 Samuel 19:1-15 The facts are: 1. In consequence of David’s sorrowful isolation, the people mourn and betake themselves to the city ashamed and discouraged. 2. Joab, being informed of the fact, enters the king’s house, and sharply rebukes him for his conduct, charging him with disregarding the sacrifices his people had made, and caring more for his rebellious son than for his attached friends. 3. Joab then advises him at once to arise and go forth to encourage the people, pointing out that otherwise the greatest trial of his life will be sure to come in the alienation of his subjects. 4. The king thereupon sits in the gate of the city, and all the people come to him. 5. Meanwhile, during David’s sojourn at Mahanaim, the people of Israel are at variance as to the course to be pursued with reference to brining him back to rule over them, and it is urged that, under all the circumstances of the case, something should be done in that direction. 6. David, hearing of the intentions of Israel, sends to Zadok and Abiathar to suggest to the elders of Judah the impropriety of their being forestalled in the movement by their brethren of Israel. 7. He also instructs them to inform Amasa of his purpose to displace Joab in his favour. 8. The heart of the people of Judah being entirely won, they send unto him a message that he should return, and the king acting upon it, they meet him at Gilgal to conduct him over Jordan. Solitariness in religious experience. The isolation of David from his people during this absorption in what appeared to be a domestic sorrow caused pain to his staunchest friends, was very near imperilling his influence as sovereign, and gave some ostensible ground for the ungracious remonstrance of Joab. But the fact is, David was true to himself as a man of deepest piety, and the people were unable to enter into the actual struggle through which he was passing. Like One greater, he "trod the wine press alone." It was not mere natural affection for a son, it was not pain that a son had been ungrateful, that crushed him and rendered him for the time forgetful of the claims of his people and the duties of his office. The key to the whole is to be sought in the prediction of Nathan (2 Samuel 12:9-12), the fulfilment of this in its severest form in the tragedy of the life just ended, and the keen perception of this in relation to his own dreadful sin. His distinct recognition of the chastising hand of God (2 Samuel 15:24-30) when, with bare feet and broken heart, he passed in silence and tears over Mount Olivet, was now repeated with, of course, the fuller and more overwhelming anguish attendant on the ruin of a life, yea, of a soul, as he felt, through his own great sin. Joab and the people never, perhaps, knew of Nathan’s declaration. It was always a latent element in David’s restored life of piety; but now it was the crushing force before which he could not hold up. He saw, as he believed, how his spiritual degeneracy, during those dark months of horrible sin and guilt, had acted perniciously on the spirit of his son; and he could not but feel that, in the temporal and spiritual destruction of his son, he was now reaping just what he had sown. Yet all this he had to bear alone! No one could share the dreadful secret; and in proportion as he saw what was involved in a ruined soul, so would be the utterness of his anguish. No wonder if in his solitary experience he forgot all earthly things, and gave himself up to the bitterness of his grief. I. THERE ARE CRISES IN . David was a man of many crises. The history and the Psalms reveal them. His call to kingship by Samuel meant an unrecorded experience of a most extraordinary kind. His anguish in exile when pursued by Saul put his faith to a terrible test. His sad fall was a descent into a pit of horrors. The tremendous conflict involved in his restoration is indicated in the fifty-first psalm, and now, when the judgment of God for his sin falls in heaviest form, he descends into the depths (Psalms 130:1-8.) further, perhaps, than was ever known by any other man. We see similar crises in the lives of some others. Jacob knew the desolation of Bethel and the pains of the wrestling with the angel. Paul was dumb and blind before God till prayer brought him forth to light and peace; and he later on had experiences of things which it was "not lawful" to utter. Most men whose religion has depths have known times when anguish before God has shut out all thought and care of earthly things. Some have seasons of temptation equal to that of Bunyan’s Pilgrim in the Valley of the Shadow of Death. As a rule, religious life is a steady growth, but there are checks and disasters when the question of life itself is at stake. We can understand David’s experience in the case before us without having recourse to the hypothesis of a weak mind overborne by natural sorrow for the death of a favourite son. II. CRISES IN ARE OFTEN MOST . David was so absorbed in the spiritual anguish springing from a religious view of the ruin of Absalom in connection with his own great sin, as practically to forget that he was a king, and that a nation needed his guidance. The narrative is true to the spiritual facts that may be traced by a comparison of this event with the king’s previous conduct. The intensity of his nature, as revealed in the strong and passionate utterances of the psalms, whether in joy or sorrow, would add to the tendency to yield himself utterly to this greatest of all the calamities consequent on his sin. The passion with which he once pleaded for Bathsheba’s child (2 Samuel 12:16-20) was an instance of the same kind, only less than this, because here the trouble was the more serious in so far as the moral and bodily ruin of a son was a greater consequence of his sin. All who have entered into the solitariness of the great crises in the soul’s career know how at such times all earthly things seem to vanish into insignificance; and it is with extreme difficulty that ordinary and necessary duties can be attended to. Men have been known to forget to take food, and to isolate themselves from their friends. And no wonder, when the soul sees its sins in the awful light of God’s judgments, or is made to feel the consequences to others of its past deeds. Peter did not associate freely with friends that night on which he "went out and wept bitterly." III. THERE ARE THAT THE DEGREE OF IN THE SORROWS OF A . David never felt anything like this. But the reason is plain. Never before did he see a connection between his own past conduct and so awful an event. The special elements contributing to his self-absorbing misery were a vivid remembrance of his dreadful sin in the case of Bathsheba and Uriah; a spiritual appreciation of the awful issue of his son’s life; a deep conviction that that issue was, in the judgment of God, in some way connected with his own sin; a contrast, inevitable in the association of ideas, of the end of Absalom with the hopes once cherished concerning him; a reflection, which could not but occasionally force itself in (2 Samuel 12:13), that he only was forgiven and saved; a feeling that no one on earth could enter into his sorrows and afford him consolation. All these circumstances gained force by the fact that constitutionally he always felt strongly, and religiously his superior spiritual discernment rendered sin and its effects the more terrible. So in our own experience there will be, perhaps, specialities which may render our absorption much more absolute than is that of others. The natural mental and moral texture of our nature, the conditions under which our sins were committed, the consequences which we can trace from our former sins, the vividness with which an ideal past is contrasted with present facts, the relative clearness of our spiritual perceptions and tenderness of our susceptibilities, and degree of homage paid to the majesty of God’s holy Law,—all these may qualify the self-surrender to the experience of the time. We cannot expect cold and stolid men to bear the same troubles in the same way as do men of quick and highly developed spiritual sensibilities. IV. THE SORROWS OF SUCH CRISES CANNOT BE SHARED. A community of experience is necessary to the creation of a sympathy coextensive with the depth of the sorrow. There were parents in Israel and Judah who had lost sons, and they would be able to enter into David’s grief to that extent, and he could so far speak to them of his trouble. There were sinful men at Mahanaim who knew what trouble of conscience was, and who might afford comfort to their neighbours when mourning over their guilt; but there was no man in all the world who had sinned as David had, and no one in the world, perhaps, who now saw what an unutterably awful thing sin in general was, and especially his sin. To no one except Nathan, who probably kept aloof from him, had the connection of David’s sin with this judgment on it been known. Consequently, David felt shut up to his own anguish. "Of the people there was none with him." The transaction was between himself and God. He knew that the people did not understand him, and he could not explain himself to them. So is it with all our deepest experiences before God. We see our sins set in the light of his countenance, and no one can share the experience involved therein. Reversing the picture, it may be said that there are also seasons of blessedness in the course of life when the "joy is unspeakable and full of glory," and which can never be fully told or even understood. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. Let us remember that there are daily some persons passing through fearful crises in their religious life, and that it is possible to help all such by our prayers. 2. We should be very considerate of others who may appear to be unduly cast down, as there may be circumstances which, if known, would strengthen our pity. 3. It is very possible for us to misjudge others in the conduct they adopt, and make our own contracted experience a standard of judgment. 4. We may expect that those who are utterly broken down in spirit will be called out of their self-absorption by the voice of Providence. 5. It is a comfort to us all to know that God understands our real thoughts and feelings, and that we have a High Priest who is touched with a feeling of our infirmities, he having entered into deeper depths of sorrow than we can ever know. The remoter consequences of sin. The narrative sets forth the action of Joab to arouse the king from his self-absorption, and the changed attitude of the people towards him, as also the measures taken by David to bring about a reconciliation between himself and the entire nation. The great judgment on David’s sin was now passed. Nathan’s words had been fearfully fulfilled, but in what followed we see also some of the remoter consequences of the sin. Thus Joab’s rough treatment and unbecoming familiarity in the discharge of an honest duty were connected with the fact that David had put himself in Joab’s power by making him privy and accessory to the death of Uriah. The people were now almost alienated because of the absorption of the king in sorrow. which would not have happened but for the sin which created the sorrow. The question of the precedence of Judah in the matter of his restoration was the distinct formulation of a jealousy and sectional interest which subsequently resulted in a schism of the kingdom, and this question would not have arisen but for the chastisement for sin in the form of a son’s rebellion. Likewise the ultimate death of Amasa came through David’s having, probably because Joab bad been insulting and because a complete amnesty was deemed desirable, displaced Joab in his favour. These bitter streams all flowed into the remoter ramifications of life from the fountain of trouble opened by the fall of David. Hereon we may observe— I. THE OF SIN MAY COEXIST WITH THE ONWARD FLOW OF SOME OF ITS . There is a certainty that David’s great guilt was covered (2 Samuel 12:13). The prayer of the fifty-first psalm had been fully answered, and privately he had been able to rejoice again in the God of his salvation. But we have in this history the spectacle of a pardoned, reconciled man, confident in his personal salvation, and the onward flow of a stream of social and material evils which, so far at least as they were related to him, sprang from his sin. The prediction of Nathan did not establish an arbitrary relation between his conduct to Bathsheba and Uriah, and the whole mental and moral condition implied therein, and the rebellion of Absalom and the perplexities of the situation after its suppression. There was an organic connection between the spiritual fall and the civil troubles. The spiritual element in us is the centre of our composite nature. A change for the worse in it radiates through the entire being, and as the outward relations are affected by the condition and direction taken by our various powers, so the inmost change is the spring of manifold and ever-flowing consequences. The deteriorated influence on others, consequent on a period of spiritual declension, cannot but act dynamically as a wave long after we have by repentance and faith been restored to God. The personal condemnation is gone, but the injury done on society is not gone. The intricate mass of material and social evils now afflicting the world is the outcome of deviation from the perfect will of God, and though some who thus deviated are now blessed in heaven, the quota they contributed by their former sins is still somewhere in the tangled mass. II. SIN IS A OF MANY . David’s sin affected his relation to God and to his own family and people. It touched his personal influence among friends, his administration, and indirectly, through the rebellion, the lives and dearest interests of multitudes. The distress and uncertainty at Mahanaim after the defeat of Absalom and the hesitancy of the tribes to welcome him back, were traceable to what he had formerly done. Who can describe the manifold disturbances in the order of things produced in our world by the sin of Adam? The ramifications of the wave of disturbance created by any one sin are more than can be numbered. It is in the more conspicuous acts of transgression that we get visible traces of a widespread disturbance similar to what is caused by every inconspicuous act. A rebellious son in a home, a dishonest deed in business, a vicious habit,—these reveal a manifest series of troubles in private, social, and public connections. No sinner sins to himself. Moral evil gives colour and form to all things. It infuses an element of defect, if not of positive evil, into every bodily, mental, and moral relation sustained by the sinning man. III. THE CAUSED BY SIN FLOWS ON INTO THE REMOTE FUTURE. The great moral shock involved in David’s great sin produced effects which for years flowed on, and which, in fact, are flowing on now. The great storm in mid-ocean sends the under swell into far distant bays, and long after quietude has been restored at the centre the sullen roll falls on the beach. The whole subsequent course of Hebrew history was modified by the deed of evil done in secret. In so far as the power of David over the world is less, and different in kind, from what it would have undoubtedly been had he kept himself pure, so far his sin is still at work shaping the destinies of men. We can never call back the waves of pernicious influence we send forth in a single sinful act or feeling. It is the law of the universe that they go on. The supposed counteraction of them by subsequent repentance and amendment only means that we modify the influence previously sent forth,—we make the world somewhat better than it would have been had the sinful influence gone out alone. We cannot annihilate it any more than we can annihilate force. The future is the sum of all the influences of the past. IV. THE AND EVER-FLOWING OF SIN ARE NOT BY MANKIND. David recognized the rebellion and death of Absalom and the associated civil inconveniences as being in some way connected with his sin; but even he did not see, when at Mahanaim, that the subsequent death of Amasa and the schism of the two kingdoms were also a consequence of his conduct, and therefore of his sin. His own people probably did not even connect the troubles of the times with his sin, but rather with what they regarded as a foolish over fondness for a favourite son. In our life we do not sufficiently connect our bodily and mental imperfections with the sins of others in the past, or, in some cases, especially with our own sins. Political bodies and publicists fail to recognize the spiritual origin of vast and complicated social troubles. The Bible in this respect is the most statesmanlike and philosophical of all books, in that it gives prominence to sin as the determining factor in all our material and social troubles. A spiritual mind discerns the spiritual causes. 2 Samuel 19:16-30 The facts are: 1. Shimei, with a considerable Benjamite following, including Ziba and his household, joins the men of Judah to meet David at the Jordan. 2. Previous to the king being ferried over, Shimei falls down before him, confesses his past sins, and pleads for mercy, and urges as evidence of sincerity that he is the first to come and bid the king welcome. 3. On Abishai expressing his feeling that Shimei should rather be put to death for his evil deeds, David resents the suggestion, and in honour of the day of his restoration declares to Shimei that his life shall be spared. Mephibosheth also comes, with his person uncared for, to welcome the king at Jerusalem, and on being asked why he had not gone out with him into exile, explains that it was owing to the deception of his servant Ziba. 5. Placing himself and all his interests entirely at the king’s disposal, admitting that all his rights and privileges were, according to political custom, of pure clemency, he is told that he need not enter further into the question, but that he and Ziba should divide the land between them. The influence of superior minds. The section now under notice cannot be separated in import from the preceding words (2 Samuel 19:14, 2 Samuel 19:15), which relate that David bowed the heart of all the men of Judah so that they came to conduct him over Jordan. The particular instances of Shimei and Mephibosheth are special illustrations of the general truth expressed in David’s bowing the hearts of men. The mighty power of the king’s words and methods gathered around him the most bitter of foes and the most lonely and helpless of his friends. The facts bring out into view the influence which a superior mind exercises over others; and on the nature and conditions of this influence we may, by the help of the narrative in addition to broad facts in human life, make a few observations, noting— I. THE NATURAL BASIS. The bowing of the hearts of all the people indicates the swaying of an influence of an unusual kind. Whatever the means and whatever aids to this end came from the sudden transition of public feeling produced by Absalom’s death, the fact remains that there was in David’s nature as a man something which, when aroused, gave him a mental and moral power over others. Intellectually and morally he was a born king of men. If "king" = konig = konnen, "to be able," then he, by virtue of his nature, was king—was above others, and there went forth a spell which all recognized. Apart from special endowments, he was the superior man of the age. There were elements in him which, under evil disposition, would render him most capable of leading people captive in evil ways, and which, under a good disposition, did lay hold of them for their good. The history of mankind and the observation of daily life reveal the domination of one mind over others. The influence of mind is the most subtle and mighty thing we know. Millions sometimes submit to its spell. It is the proud prerogative of the select few to bow down the hearts of their fellows. All attempts to explain the fact by psychological analysis are insufficient. No analysis can get at the mysterious nature of the impact of one spirit on another: yet we knew that the reality has its root in the peculiar constitution of the individual. This applies to preacher, statesman, philosopher, poet, king. The Apostle Paul’s power was in its basis a constitutional power. Grace is grafted on nature, not a force apart from nature. II. . The native qualities of David determined the fact and the kind of his superior influence over other minds, though not its moral direction. But his education and experience in the gradual exercise of his powers in lower spheres of activity contributed to the mature form and range of his influence. The conqueror of lion and giant became, by an educational process, a conqueror of the hearts of men. The development of natural powers, whether of oratory, administration, will force, moral suasion, or the more nameless thing which goes out from one’s personal presence, is another way of saying that we have added to the store of influence which lay in the mental constitution from the first. The difference in the degree to which some men acquire this increment accounts, in large measure, for their ascendancy over the equally gifted. Perhaps this is the meaning of those who regard genius as a name for great powers duly developed by continuous exercise. III. . In the case of David we must recognize this element in his superior power over the hearts of good and bad. Grace in him had perfected and beautified a fine nature. The spiritual is always the most subtle and subduing influence over men, when brought fairly into play. In spite of sin, men acknowledge the spell. The anointing by Samuel in the name of God was more than a formal act. David was indeed the Lord’s anointed. Hence all the natural and acquired qualities received an elevation and a tone which, when the dire evils of the great fall were not at work on him, gave to his words, his counsels, his movements, and commands a charm and force over men of most diverse temperament and character. In this he was like the apostles when they stood before men. We occasionally see now how greatly the power of certain minds is increased over others when they have the natural and acquired gifts baptized with the anointing of the Holy Spirit. A consecrated heart and intellect gains influence by its consecration. There are men who by oratory have bowed the hearts of thousands; but when such men have became true Christians, the bowing of the hearts under their words is a much more thorough and enduring victory. "Covet earnestly the best gifts" (1 Corinthians 12:31). IV. AIDS. The circumstances of the time gave advantage to David in the exercise of his ordinary powers. His friends had mourned his sorrowful isolation; his enemies had felt that, by defeat, they had placed themselves in an awkward position; his being aroused from his self-absorbing grief led him to calmly review the position of advantage in which now the goodness of God had placed him; the reflection that now a supreme effort was needed if he was to prevent the alienation of friends and follow up the fruits of victory so as to save the nation from anarchy, drew forth his entire soul into sympathy with the purpose of God in making him king; and, as a consequence, he so infused into his conversation with the people of Mahanaim, and into his messages to the elders of Judah, the whole power of his nature that he bowed the hearts of all. Events had prepared the minds of the people to receive the influence going forth from his very soul. The narrative evidently implies that there was some unusual persuasiveness in his manner and language, and it reached even to Shimei and Mephibosheth, who certainly were rendered more accessible to his influence by the change in affairs. Seasons of excitement and public interest are favourable to the putting forth of the influence which superior minds can exercise. The Day of Pentecost was a time which brought aid to the efforts of the apostles. A grave responsibility rests on gifted men to use their influence under such favouring circumstances as occasionally occur in human affairs. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It behoves us not to allow our gifts to be long unused, by reason of absorption in purely personal interests. 2. It is a scripturally enforced duty that we stir up the gifts that may lie in us. 3. Among the various powers that may be exercised in the world, we should especially desire and seek that of bowing down the hearts of men to the interests of God’s kingdom. 4. We may rest assured that, if we use our powers to the utmost in a good cause and in dependence on God, we shall overcome many an obstacle and win over even adverse hearts. Royal clemency. The sudden collapse of the rebellion placed David in a position of advantage, and yet of difficulty. He was not the man to care for sovereignty over a disunited people, and the attitude of those who had been in rebellion was not quite certain. Those who do wrong are suspicious of those against whom the wrong has been done when power comes into their hands. It was, therefore, the policy of David to convince them that they need not be under any apprehension of his using the recovered power to punish them. This was the evident meaning of the deputation of the high priests to the men of Judah, and the reason of the promotion of Amasa (together with his reasonable desire to express his sense of Joab’s dangerous liberty in disobeying a positive public command). The noble hearted king felt the importance of the restoration of peace and unity so deeply, and was so sensible of the mercy of God in answering his desire when in anguish (2 Samuel 15:25, 2 Samuel 15:26), that, on this occasion of joy, sobered though it was by thoughts of chastisement just past, he cannot but grant an amnesty to all his foes. In the exercise of this royal clemency we see set forth the following truths. I. THE ON MEN OF ALL OF A TIDE OF SUCCESS. The turn of the tide had come for David, and with it men good and bad, great and small, throughout the land began to consider how they had better comport themselves under the new circumstances. Israel hastened to indicate readiness (2 Samuel 19:11). Judah was waiting for some encouragement to yield (2 Samuel 19:12-14), and receiving it, hasted to be first at Jordan (2 Samuel 19:15, 2 Samuel 19:41). And such representative men as Shimei and Ziba show eagerness to find favour with the victorious monarch. Probably only an active section of the less thoughtful people had really rejected David; the great mass were won over to the winning side because it was the winning side, and, now that David was returning to power, they, and also the real leaders of the rebellion, move on with the tide. Success has a great charm for some minds. The day of prosperity draws out many friends. In national and religious affairs multitudes are influenced, not by a calm and independent consideration of the merits of the question or system, but by the fact that there is a semblance of prosperity. Men are not without reason spoken of as a "flock;" they are disposed to go in with the rest. This is not the highest type of humanity. II. LOYALTY IN THE OF LIFE. The real friends of Absalom and such men as Shimei fell in with the change in public opinion, and professed, the latter most eagerly and humbly, to welcome the king back. Allegiance is a matter of degrees, and springs from mixed motives. David had to feel for the rest of his days that policy governed the loyalty of some of his people. In national life there are many causes of unsteadiness of loyal attachment to the head of the state—some lying in the seat of authority, and some in ignorance, prejudice, or occasionally the convictions of the people. Every bond of union between moral beings implies a loyalty more or less defined to persons and interests. Master and servant, husband and wife, partners in business and government, teachers and pupils, create, by the relation formed, a demand. for loyalty the one to the other and to the common interests professedly sought by the union. The fellowship of the saints in Church life especially creates scope for mutual loyalty and common loyalty to Christ. We may see many things in one, for all truth is related; and therefore, in the doubtful loyalty of men in David’s time, with its necessary weakness to the national life, and injury to the highest interests of the kingdom, we see the evil brought on the world by defective loyalty in the various relationships men enter into; and especially do we see the pernicious effect of defective loyalty of professing Christians to the Church and to Christ. The practical bearings of this are very many and very wide. III. OF AN UNEASY . The moral value of actions is not to be seen by looking at them simply as actions; their form may be perfect, their real value is seen in their connections. It was a beautiful action to hasten over Jordan and be first to bid the king welcome; the most devoted of his friends could not do more; but for Shimei to do it, after his conduct towards David, took away from the deed the flow of its natural beauty. The act was evidence of an uneasy conscience conjoined with a cowardly, time serving policy. That he was truly penitent is not admissible from the tenor of his words—they sound hollow. It is not the custom of the true penitent to refer to his good deeds in proof of penitence (2 Samuel 19:20). Nor, perhaps, was Ziba without a restless conscience in thus seeking early to court the favour of the king, who would soon learn the facts concerning his former deception (2 Samuel 16:1-4). We here see that conscience is alive, even in very base men; that it is quiescent and seemingly at ease when either possibility of exposure or punishment is far off; that it is nevertheless sensitive to any change in events which tend to hasten exposure or punishment; that its greatest dread is falling into the hands of a supreme power; and that, instead of elevating the man, and prompting to renovation, it rather drags him down to the low and plausible means of avoiding what it knows is deserved. Let the religious teacher see how this action of conscience is verified in the case of many who have rejected Christ, the Lord’s Anointed. Once let them know that he is coming into his kingdom, and uneasiness will appear. IV. THE IN LIFE OF IDEAS. The son of Zeruiah (2 Samuel 19:21) wished to slay Shimei at once, and, had he done so, many would have said that the wicked man reaped the desert of his crimes. The anointed of the Lord desired that the man should not die, and many doubtless thought that the clemency was ill judged. But the reason of the totally diverse desires and judgments was that the two men were on that day governed by totally diverse ideas. Abishai was the hard, stern soldier, ruled in this instance by the sentiment of rigid discipline, and acting in all things under the idea of power; whereas David was the wise, generous king, ruled by the sentiment of love for his people, and acting in this instance under the idea of kingly grace. The one saw no reason in the event of the day for sparing an unworthy life; the other saw that kingly grace found befitting exercise when prosperity and joy were returning to all. The ideas that ruled the one life left no room for variation; those that ruled the other required variation. It is an important inquiry to what extent men’s lives are ruled by a few leading ideas, and what is the relation of these ideas to the impulses and dispositions that seem to lie next to the will. The Christian man has certain clear and definite conceptions concerning God, Christ, himself, the relation of the present to the future, which mark him off from the non-Christian man, and these form the intellectual elements that determine all his conduct toward God and man. Men of diverse ages differ much in the general conceptions they entertain on the details of life, and hence we get differences in the degree of conformity of conduct to an absolute standard of morality. In so far as we can procure unity of perception and unity of disposition, so far do we lay the basis for harmony of conduct and the welfare of civil society. Hence the radical and yet progressive work of true Christianity: it will bring "eye to eye" and heart to heart, and so establish peace forevermore. Hence also the importance of instilling in young and old such views as shall, by their range and controlling influence over the mind, practically determine conduct along the Christian line. V. THE PATIENT WAITING OF THE , AND . The personal appearance of Mephibosheth when he came to welcome David to Jerusalem was indicative of trouble and sorrow arising from neglect and poverty, and possibly real grief, experienced during the time of the rebellion. The conduct of Ziba and the loss of David’s table (2 Samuel 9:9-13; 2 Samuel 16:1-4) account for his poverty, and it is not likely that such a man as Absalom would make ample provision for one of the house of Saul. There is no trace of Mephibosheth having by treasonous means done wrong to David, though it is possible that, in real Oriental manner, he, like the sons of Zadok, may have assumed an outward prudential appearance of fidelity to the cause of Absalom. He was a helpless man, deceived and oppressed, and placed, by reason of his physical infirmity, in such a position as not to be able to extricate himself from trouble. His only chance was to wait and cherish hope that the generous king, who had so bountifully befriended him for his father’s sake, would return to power. A fair illustration is this of the patient waiting of men suffering from craft and wrong. The African race in slavery, deceived and robbed of their patrimony by men more strong and crafty, waited and hoped almost against hope for the day of freedom. Their only hope was in the rise of the beneficent kingly power of the Lord’s Anointed, and it did come. Others, such as the Waldenses and Malagasy, wronged and oppressed, waited for the coming of the better day, and it did come. Many a soul, deceived by the cunning craft of the father of lies, and robbed of moral and material wealth, has known the pains of poverty of spirit, and waited for the king’s gracious restoration. The Apostle Paul tells us, too, of the "whole creation," afflicted with the ills consequent on the great rebellion against God, travailing in pain, and waiting for a better time (Romans 8:18-22). It is the joy of the preacher to be able to announce "the acceptable year of the Lord" to all who mourn. They shall not wait in vain (Isaiah 61:1 - 4). VI. A VIEW OF THE OF LIFE. The position in which David found himself when, on hearing the story of Mephibosheth and observing his distressed circumstances, he had to decide with respect to the property at stake, was one of extreme delicacy and difficulty. In all good faith he had handed over the property to Ziba, and Ziba had befriended his friends in a time of need (2 Samuel 16:1, 2 Samuel 16:2), and had been foremost to welcome himself back (2 Samuel 19:17). The kindness of the man in the hour of need was a set off to his deceit. On the other hand, the forfeiture of the property of Mephibosheth by royal decree was based on false information; and being a member of a royal house, and not proved to have been openly disloyal, he certainly had a claim to restoration to rights. The brevity of the narrative leaves the actual decision of David in some obscurity (2 Samuel 19:29). But the sense seems to be that David solved the difficulty by restoring the old relations as a matter of practice (2 Samuel 9:9-11), without formally revoking the legal right of Ziba. As formerly, so now, the two families were to live on the produce of the soil, and in this there was great consideration, for Mephibosheth was physically incapable of looking after his own affairs. The example of David, as a matter of procedure, is worthy of attention. Life is crowded with difficulties analogous to this. Claims and counter claims force themselves on our attention. Wrongs have to be righted and merits have to be considered in alleviation of judgment. The principle on which David acted was a sound one, and can be used by us in all things, namely, to deal with anomalies practically, not merely speculatively, and to aim at a restoration of things to their natural basis. To bring men and things back to nature, so far as circumstances admit, is a safe and prudent rule. The old relationship of Ziba to Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9:2 4), and the incapacity of the latter, rendered it most unwise to cut the knot of present complications by having recourse to the practical division indicated in 2 Samuel 9:9-12. There is a natural basis, if we will only take pains to find it, in our modern complications. GENERAL LESSONS. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 20:1 There happened to be there a man of Belial. The fierce words of the men of Judah led to evil results. It was a time when all wise and thoughtful persons would have laboured for peace, and tried to soothe and appease the angry passions fomented by the late war. Instead of this, the men of Judah irritated the Israelites with insult and contumely, and the day, intended as one of rejoicing and of the restoration of David to his throne by common consent, saw the rebellion break forth afresh. Among those who had taken part in the discussion with Judah was Sheba, a man of Belial, that is, a worthless fellow, but possibly possessed of rank and influence; for, according to many commentators, ben-Bichri does not mean the son of Bichri, but "a descendant of Becher," the second son of Benjamin (Genesis 46:21), and possibly the representative of the mishpachah descended from him. But it is remarkable that this son of Benjamin disappears from the genealogies, and that no mishpachah of Bichrites is mentioned either in Numbers 26:38 or in 1 Chronicles 8:1. In both places Ashbel, who is enumerated as the third son in Genesis 46:21, takes the second place. We must be content, therefore, to leave this matter in uncertainty; but evidently Sheba had come with Shimei and Ziba to welcome David back, and, with the rest of the thousand Benjamites, had rushed with loud cries of welcome across the Jordan, and, but for this altercation, would have remained faithful. But tribal jealousies were always ready to break forth, and were a permanent source of weakness; and now, stung by some jibe at Benjamin, Sheba gave orders to a trumpeter to give the signal for the breaking up of the meeting, and, as is commonly the case in large and excited gatherings, the crowd obeyed the unauthorized dictation of one man. His words are contemptuous enough. David is no king, but a private person, and the son, not of a great chief, but of Jesse merely, a yeoman of Bethlehem. Every man to his tents. "To his tent" meant "to his home" (see 2 Samuel 18:17). But this withdrawal home signified the rejection of David’s government. Almost the same words are used in 1 Kings 12:16. 2 Samuel 20:2 So every man of Israel, etc.; literally, so all the men of Israel went up from after David after Sheba. They had come down to Jordan to bring the king back in triumph, but, on finding that the men of Judah had forestalled them, they had a quarrel, and as no one endeavoured to allay it and mediate between them, it ended in open revolt, and they transferred their allegiance to the worthless Sheba. Nothing could more clearly prove the want of cohesion among the tribes, and how little Saul and David had done to knit them together. We need not, therefore, seek for any deep reasons of state, or for proofs of failure in David’s government, to account for the rapid success of Absalom’s rebellion. Israel was a confused mass of discordant elements, kept in a state of repulsion by the sturdy independence of the tribes and their jealousy one of another. Even David’s victories had failed to infuse into them any feeling of national unity, nor did the long glory of Solomon’s reign and the magnificence of the temple succeed better. The kings were not as yet much more than the judges had been—leaders in war, but with little authority in times of peace. What is so extraordinary is that David had lost the allegiance of his own tribe; and it now, on returning to its duty, spoiled by its violence the whole matter. The day must have been a great disappointment to David. He was to have gone back conducted gloriously by all the tribes of Israel; but he had fancied that Judah was holding back, and grieving over Absalom. He had secret dealing therefore with it, in order that the day might not be marred by its absence. It came, but only to do mischief; and David went home with only its escort, and with all the rest in open rebellion. 2 Samuel 20:3 They were shut up. We are not to conclude that all widows had to live in seclusion, but only that those women who belonged to the royal harem, but had been taken by another, were not allowed to return to it, but condemned to a sort of imprisonment. Living in widowhood. This is explained by the Chaldee as lasting only during David’s life, its rendering being, "in widowhood while their husband was alive." 2 Samuel 20:4 Then said the king to Amasa. David thus takes the first step towards depriving Joab of the command (see 2 Samuel 19:13). This was a most unwise step, however guilty Joab may have been in slaying Absalom. With all his faults, Joab had always been faithful to David, and it was chiefly his skill in war and statesmanlike qualities which had raised the kingdom to a position of great power. Just now, too, he had crushed with smaller forces a rebellion in which Amasa had taken the lead. To cast him off and put Amasa in his place might please conspirators, and reconcile them to their defeat, but it would certainly offend all those who had been faithful to David in his troubles. Throughout David acts as one whose affections were stronger than his sense of duty, and his conduct goes far to justify Joab’s complaint, "This day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well" (2 Samuel 19:6). If David, in the administration of his kingdom, acted with as little forethought as in the slight he cast-upon the ten tribes in negotiating with Judah to be the first to restore him, as it had been the first tribe to rebel, instead of waiting for the rest, and doing his best to make the day of his return one of general concord and good will; or with as little justice as in the matter of Ziba and Mephibosheth; or with as little tact and good sense as in substituting at the end of a revolt the rebel general for the brave soldier who had "saved his life, and the lives of his sons and of his daughters, and the lives of his wives and of his concubines" (2 Samuel 19:5); we cannot wonder that he had failed to secure the allegiance of a race so self-willed and stubborn as the Israelites. One cannot help half suspecting that Joab had used the power he had gained over the king by the part he had taken in the murder of Uriah tyrannically, and for cruel purposes, and that David groaned under the burden. But if so, it was his own sin that was finding him out. 2 Samuel 20:5 He tarried longer than the set time. But not longer than was to be expected. For the appointment was so surprising that everybody must have been agape with astonishment. They would naturally have expected that Amasa would he punished. Instead of this, he is commissioned to gather the militia in David’s name. And men would hesitate about joining such a leader. Was he really loyal? or would he embark them in a new rebellion? And what would Joab do? He was not a man likely to bear such a slight tamely, and David ought to have foreseen that he was sowing for himself a crop of discord and enmity. 2 Samuel 20:6 David said to Abishai. David thus gives the command to the younger brother, and we find in 2 Samuel 20:7 that even "Joab’s men," his own special troop, were placed under Abishai’s command. There seems always to have been a firm friendship between the brothers, and at first Joab acquiesces. The king was, in fact, in so grim a humour that he probably felt that he had better keep with his men, who would protect him, instead of remaining at Jerusalem, where he would be in David’s power. When Amasa joined them, Abishai would have to resign to him the command; and David probably expected that, after a successful campaign, and with the aid of the men of Judah, who were rebels like himself, Amasa would be able to crush Joab. But Joab did not intend to wait for this; and immediately on meeting his rival he murders him, and assumes the command. Thy lord’s servants. These are the men enumerated in 2 Samuel 20:7, and formed David’s usual military attendants. When war broke out, they were reinforced by a levy of the people. And escape us. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. It may signify, "and withdraw himself from our eyes," which gives the sense of the Authorized Version, and is supported by the Vulgate. The Septuagint renders, "and overshadow our eyes," which might have the same meaning, but, as others think, may signify, "and cause us anxiety." Many modern commentators render, "and pluck out our eye;" that is, do us painful damage. Either this or the Authorized Version gives a good sense, and, anyhow, rapid action was necessary, or Sheba’s revolt might become dangerous. 2 Samuel 20:7 There went out after him—that is, under Abishai’s command—Joab’s men. The men who formed his regular attendants, and to whose number belonged the ten armour bearers who slew Absalom (2 Samuel 18:15). Joab retained their command, and probably they would not have served under any other person. It is evident from the enumeration in this verse that the "men of Judah," after escorting David to Jerusalem, had all dispersed to their own homes. 2 Samuel 20:8 The great stone which is in Gibeon. Gibeon is situated in the mountains of Ephraim, in the tribe of Benjamin, northwest of Jerusalem. The great stone was probably some isolated rock well known in the neighbourhood. Amasa went before them; Hebrew, Amasa came before them; that is, came in view with the levy of men he had raised in Judah. And Joab’s garment, etc.; more correctly, and Joab was girded with his military coat as his garment, and over it was the strap of his sword in its sheath, and it (masculine, equivalent to "the sheath") came out, and it (feminine, equivalent to "the sword") fell. This change of gender is very harsh, and has caused the Authorized Version to apply the masculine verb to Joab, and translate, and as he went forth it fell; but a very slight change, supported by the Septuagint, gives us a more satisfactory sense, namely, and it (the sword) came out and fell. It is generally assumed that all this was arranged beforehand on Joab’s part, who had so placed his sword that he could shake it out of the sheath. More probably it was an accident, of which he took instant advantage. He had felt that his position was insecure, and that if David had the support of Amasa, and a powerful band of the men of Judah at Jerusalem, he would probably order his execution for slaying Absalom; and Amasa would carry out the command willingly enough, as he thereby would secure the high position offered him. We know David’s feelings towards Joab from his dying command to Solomon (1 Kings 2:5), and probably he had given various indications of his deep seated resentment. Joab, therefore, determined to stop Amasa’s growth in power, and also to give David a rough lesson. And this accident gave him an early opportunity, which he used with ruthless energy. 2 Samuel 20:10 In the fifth fib; in the abdomen (see note on 2 Samuel 2:23). He struck him not again. When his sword fell out of its sheath, Joab picked it up with his left hand, which was not the hand for action, and as he could not put it into its place without taking it into his right hand, his continuing to hold it while he took his cousin’s beard in his fight hand and kissed him, was too natural to awaken any suspicion. But holding down Amasa’s head, he struck him with his left hand so fiercely that no second blow was necessary; and then continued his march forward as if what had occurred was a matter of little importance. 2 Samuel 20:11 One of Joab’s men. Joab left one of his personal followers to prevent any halt of the people round Amasa’s body, and to suggest that he was a traitor. For he was to say to them as they came up, not only that "whosoever had pleasure in Joab," but also that "all who were for David, were to go after Joab." All loyal men were to regard him as captain of the host, and to disobey him would be rebellion. Naturally they would conclude from this that Amasa had not really been true to David, and that his death was the punishment inflicted on him for his past guilt. 2 Samuel 20:12 He removed Amasa. The admonition to move on failed; for the sight was terrible and tragic, and all as they came along stopped to see what had happened, and inquire the cause. The man, therefore, had the corpse carried out of the way, and threw over it a cloth, really a coat—the loose upper mantle worn over the tunic (see note on beged, 1 Samuel 19:13). Whereupon the people renewed their march, most of them not knowing what had occurred, and the rest urged to it by the warning voice of Joab’s servitor. 2 Samuel 20:14 And he went through, etc. It was not Joab, but Sheba, who, by David’s prompt action, was compelled to make a rapid retreat, seeking help in vain from tribe after tribe, but rejected of all, and unable to make any defence until he had reached the extreme north of the land of Israel. Unto Abel, and to Beth-Maachah. The conjunction probably ought to be omitted, as the proper name of the place, is Abel-beth-Maachah, and it is so given in 2 Samuel 20:15 (see below), and in 1 Kings 15:20; 2 Kings 15:29. It is the place called Abel-Maim, the "water meadow," in 2 Chronicles 16:4—an abel being a place where the grass grows rankly from the abundance of springs. It thus forms part of the name of various places, as Abel-Mizraim (Genesis 1:11), Abel-Meholah (1 Kings 4:12), etc. Abel-beth-Maachah was a fortress in the most northerly part of the tribe of Naphtali, and is identified with the modem village of Abel, a few miles above Lake Huleh, the ancient "Waters of Merom." And all the Berites. No place or people of this name can be found, but Jerome, when translating the Vulgate, had before him a different reading, which seems clearly right, "And all the chosen men of war were gathered together, and went after him." 2 Samuel 20:15 It stood in the trench. This is a literal translation, and yet gives a wrong sense. The Hebrew "stood" means "rose up to," "stood level with;" and the "trench" is what in modern fortifications is called "the glacis," and includes the outer wall of defence. The Revised Version renders, "it stood against the rampart." The usual way of capturing cities in ancient times was to cast up a bank or mound of earth against them (Isaiah 29:3; Isaiah 37:33; Jeremiah 6:6); and Joab’s work had advanced so far as to be level with the outer line of defence. The name of the city in the Hebrew is not Abel of Beth-Maachah, but Abel-beth-Maachah. Battered. This is a word taken from Roman warfare. The Hebrew says, "And all the people that were with Joab were destroying the wall to make it fall," most probably by undermining it. Ewald even asserts that this is the meaning of the verb, and translates, "were digging pits under the wall." The Revised Version adopts this for the margin, where it gives "undermined." The Septuagint and Chaldee have a different and probable reading, "And all Joab’s people were devising (contriving) means to throw down the wall." This would be the next operation after the mound had been carried up to a level with it. 2 Samuel 20:18 They were wont to speak, etc. The Hebrew literally is, they used to say in old time, They shall surely ask at Abel; and so they finished (the matter). But of these words two completely distinct interpretations are given. The Jewish Targum records the one: "Remember now that which is written in the book of the Law, to ask a city concerning peace at the first. Hast thou done so, to ask of Abel if they will make peace?" The woman, that is, was referring to the command in Deuteronomy 20:10, not to besiege a city until peace had been offered to the inhabitants on condition of their paying tribute. When a city was captured the lot of the inhabitants, as the woman declares in Deuteronomy 20:19, was utter destruction; and the Law mercifully gave them the chance of escaping such a fate. Joab had not complied with this enactment, but had assumed that the people would support Sheba, and was proceeding to the last extremity without consulting them. This interpretation gives an excellent sense, but cannot be wrung out of the present Hebrew text without violence. The other interpretation is that of the Authorized Version, that the woman was commending her words to Joab, by reminding him that Abel had been famed in early times for its wisdom, and had probably been the seat of an oracle in the old Canaanite times. When, therefore, people had carried their dispute to Abel, both sides were content to abide by the answer given them, and so the controversy was ended. Literally, these words mean, "they shall surely inquire at Abel," the verb being that specially used of inquiring of God. 2 Samuel 20:19 I am one of them that are, etc. The Authorized Version translates in this way, because, while "I" is singular, "peaceable" and "faithful" are plural. Really this construction shows that the woman speaks in the name of the city, and consequently the Authorized Version, while preserving the grammar, loses the sense. It should be translated, we are peaceable, faithful people in Israel. A city and a mother; that is, a mother city, a metropolis, the chief town of that district. 2 Samuel 20:21 The matter is not so. It seems from this verse that the citizens did not quite understand why Joab attacked them. Sheba had thrown himself into the city. and Joab, in hot pursuit, finding the gate closed—a measure of ordinary precaution upon the approach of a body of men—at once blockaded the town, and began to cast up the mount. At all events, they were ready to come to terms now, and would probably have given up Sheba at first, if Joab had demanded his surrender. A man of Mount Ephraim. Sheba was a Benjamite, but the hills of Ephraim extended into the territory of Benjamin, and retained their name (see 1 Samuel 1:1). Over the wall; Hebrew, through the wall, being the word rendered "at" a window in Genesis 26:8. It probably means through one of the apertures made for the archers. 2 Samuel 20:22 In her wisdom; that is, with her wise counsel. The story in Ecclesiastes 9:13-15 probably refers to this narrative. They retired; Hebrew, they dispersed themselves each to his tent; that is, his home. This refers to Amasa’s levies, who were glad to depart, and whom Joab did not want at Jerusalem. He took thither with him all those mentioned in Ecclesiastes 9:7. Incensed as David must have been at the murder of Amasa following so quickly upon that of Absalom, yet that very act proved Joab’s determination, and left the king powerless. He must have felt, too, that Joab was indispensable for the maintenance of peace and order in his dominions, and that he was at the least faithful to himself. 2 Samuel 20:23 Now Josh, etc. With this list of his chief officers, the narrator closes the history of David’s reign; for the remaining four chapters form a kind of appendix. A similar list closes 2 Samuel 8:1-18; where, too, there is a break in the history, the previous narra-tire having been a summary of the rapid rise of David’s empire. In this section, ch. 9-20, we have a more full and detailed account of David’s wars, leading on to his crime and its punishment. The rest of David’s life we may trust was calm and uneventful, but it was the life of a sorrow stricken man; and the sword again woke up against his family when his end was approaching, and filled his dying hours with grief and trouble. This list is much later in date than that previously given, though most of the officers are the same. Cherethites. This is a correction of the Massorites to make the passage agree with 2 Samuel 8:18. The K’tib has cari, a word which occurs in 2 Kings 11:4, 2 Kings 11:19, where in the Authorized Version it is translated "captains," but in the Revised Version Carites, which here appears only in the margin. But there is no reason why the place of the Cherethites should not have been taken by Carian mercenaries later on in David’s reign, though really we know too little about such matters to be able to form a judgment. Some commentators translate cari "digger," and suppose that it means executioner; but why a digger should have such a meaning is inexplicable. It may be interesting to add that the Caftans were famous in old times as mercenaries. During the reign of Manasseh, Psammetichus won the throne of all Egypt by the aid of Caftans, and from that period they took a leading part in all Egyptian wars. The age of David is much more antique, but as there was constant communication between Phoenicia and Asia Minor and Greece, there is nothing improbable in David taking Caftans into his service in place of the Philistine Cherethites. His connection with them would soon cease after he left Ziklag. 2 Samuel 20:24 Adoram was over the tribute. This was a new officer, and a new thing. For the Hebrew word mas does not mean "tribute," but "forced labour." This was one of the most oppressive exactions of old time, and it continued to be practised in Europe throughout the Middle Ages until it was abolished at the end of the eighteenth century by the French Revolution, except in Russia, where the serfs were freed from it by the late emperor Alexander II. Nevertheless, it was probably made almost necessary at first by the absence of money. As there was no money for the payment of taxes, the dues of the king or lord could only be rendered by personal service. Yet even so it was exceedingly liable to be abused, and the people might be taken from their own homes and fields just when their presence there was most needed. One most painful result was that the women had to endure, upon the farm and among the cattle, a drudgery to which they were unsuited. We gather from this passage that it was David who began this practice in Israel, exacting probably only from the descendants of the Canaanites (who, nevertheless, formed a considerable portion of the inhabitants of Palestine) forced labour employed in preparing for the building of the temple, and in the fortifications of his fenced cities. Under Solomon it seems to have been extended to other classes (1 Kings 5:13, 1 Kings 5:14; but see 1 Kings 9:20-22), and reduced to a system, which pressed so heavily upon the people that it was the principal cause of the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:4). Unless the Israelites had themselves suffered severely from this exaction, they would not have been driven into rebellion by sympathy with the remains of the native races. Subsequently we find Jeremiah accusing Jehoiakim of employing forced labour (Jeremiah 22:13), but the severity with which he condemned it suggests that it had then ceased to be customary. Adoram. His appointment to this office was probably at a late period in David’s reign, as he continued to hold the office under Solomon (1 Kings 4:6; 1 Kings 5:14, where he is called Adoniram), and even down to the beginning of Rehoboam’s reign (1 Kings 12:18). We there read that he paid the penalty of his hateful office with his life. In 2 Chronicles 10:18 he is called Hadoram. 2 Samuel 20:25 Sheva. He is called Seraiah in 2 Samuel 8:17. 2 Samuel 20:26 Ira … was a chief ruler; Hebrew, cohen, priest, minister (see on this term, 2 Samuel 8:18). We there find David’s sons holding this confidential office; but the feuds which resulted from David’s sin had destroyed the concord of the family, and the usefulness of David’s children. In their degradation from this office we see also a preparation for their being set aside from the succession, and the throne given to Solomon. NOTE With this chapter ends the second section of David’s history; for, as we have already seen, the last four chapters are not arranged in chronological order, but form an appendix remarkable both for the singularly varied nature of its contents, and also for its omissions. The Second Book of Samuel is so thoroughly a history of David, that we should naturally have expected some account of his latter years, and of his manner of government after his return to power. But such details would have been interesting politically rather than spiritually, and the two narratives which have gone before are complete each in itself; and in each David is regarded from an entirely distinct point of view. In the first eight chapters we have the history of David as the theocratic king. As such he takes the heathen for his inheritance, and founds an empire. Even more remarkable are the alterations he makes in the worship of Jehovah. To the old Levitical sacrifices he added a far more spiritual service of psalms and minstrelsy, without which Judaism would have been unable to develop the evangelical realities which lay embedded in its ritual and legal ordinances. And it is important to notice that his service of sacred song is called "prophecy" (1 Chronicles 25:1-3), from which we learn two things. The first that David’s service was essentially the same as that established by Samuel at Ramah. There, too, we read of the company of the prophets prophesying (1 Samuel 19:20), their service undoubtedly being one of minstrelsy (1 Samuel 10:5, 1 Samuel 10:10, 1 Samuel 10:11); and without Samuel’s authority David would scarcely have ventured upon so great an innovation. Even so, this consecration of music by Samuel, and David’s ordinance whereby there was established a daily service, morning and evening, of thanksgiving and praise (1 Chronicles 23:1-32.30; Nehemiah 12:24), is a most remarkable step forward; and by it the service of God ceased to be mere ritual, and became "a reasonable service" (Romans 12:1), such as was repeatedly commended by St. Paul to the members of the Christian Church (Colossians 3:16, etc.). But secondly, it drew the minds of the people to the evangelic meaning of the Levitical ordinances. To this day hymns form a most important part of our solemn services, and seem especially adapted to draw out the inner and deeper meaning of rites and doctrines. They did not, indeed, begin with David. There are psalms older than his reign; but this consecration of them to the public daily service of God led to an outburst of Divine psalmody which raised the minds of the people above the material and grosset elements of their worship, and taught them the true nature of God, and made them ascribe to him high and spiritual attributes in wonderful contrast with the grovelling frivolities of heathenism. The Levitical worship was necessarily typical: in the psalms the people learned that God desireth not sacrifice, but the offering of a broken and contrite heart. Even prophecy, in its sense of speaking for God, would scarcely have reached the high eminence of future days but for the psalms. For only in a nation deeply imbued with poetry and song could an Isaiah have arisen, capable of giving in so perfect an outward form the mysteries of Christ’s incarnation, his vicarious sacrifice, and universal kingdom. In the second section, neither the theocratic nor the prophetic element is in the forefront. It is the history of a fearful sin, and of its stern punishment. The sinner is the theocratic king: the punishment is the pollution of his house by incest and murder; the ruin of the glory of his realm, the rending asunder of his empire, begun in his days and consummated in those of his grandson; his own disgrace and flight; and his sorrowful return to his throne, impotent to avenge either the murder of his son or that of the man whom he had chosen in the hope that he would release him from the stern grip of the ruthless Joab. The moral lessons of this sad story are beyond number. We see the saint changed into a sinner. No privileges save him from hateful crime; no repentance from draining the last dregs of the bitter cup of retribution. But never was the power of repentance in cleansing the heart and giving peace to the conscience more clearly shown; and the psalms written by David as a penitent, and during his flight from Absalom, are the most spiritual and choice and edifying of the whole Psalter. Without them the depths of self-abasement would have been left without inspired expression. The sinner in his greatest need, when crushed with the conviction of sin, when earnestly longing for forgiveness, when thirsting for the restored presence of God within his soul, and when feeling that, vile as he was, yet that he was not shut out from mercy, but that access to God’s presence was still permitted him;—at all such times he would have gone to his Bible, and it would have been silent. These psalms are still the sinner’s comfort, and give him the words which best express what is present in his heart. Without them the Jewish Church would never have reached that fervid purity of spiritual feeling which so animated the prophets; and even the Christian Church would possibly have stopped short of that full doctrine of repentance which she now holds. It is, indeed, the Christian’s privilege to unite the doctrine of repentance with the thought of all that Christ has done and suffered for us, and so to understand why repentance avails to cleanse the heart; but even with this knowledge no Christian writer has ever reached so high a level of spirituality as David, though we may thankfully acknowledge that many of our best hymns do not fall far short of it. It is easy, then, to see that these two histories are not only of primary importance, but that no narrative after the time of the Exodus equals them in value. They form the very kernel of the Book of the Earlier Prophets, giving us, in the first, the true meaning and spiritual import of the settlement of Israel in Palestine; and setting before us, in the second, the nature of repentance, and so preparing the way for the revelation of the gospel of pardon and peace. They are followed by an appendix containing several narratives recorded apparently for their intrinsic value. Commentators have endeavoured to trace a connection between them, but their arguments are farfetched, and their conclusions unsatisfactory. It is better to regard them as separate and complete, each one in itself. They are six in number: (1) the visitation of famine because of Saul’s cruelty to the Gibeonites; (2) some incidents in the war with the Philistines, illustrating the heroic character of David’s worthies; (3) David’s psalm of deliverance; (4) David’s last words; (5) a list of the Gibborim, with special records of acts of bravery and devotion; (6) the visitation of pestilence because of David’s numbering the people. The third and fourth sections especially are of the highest interest; while the second makes it plain that David’s bravery in encountering the giant of Gath lit up an equally bright flame of patriotic heroism in the armies of Israel. 2 Samuel 20:1-13 The facts are: 1. Among the men who discuss the question of priority with Judah is a worthless man named Sheba, and he raises the cry of revolt against David, and the men of Israel follow him, while those of Judah cleave to the king. 2. David enters his house and makes arrangement for the sustenance of his concubines, who henceforth live in virtual widowhood. 3. David, observing that Amasa was tardy in executing his orders to gather the men of Judah, directs Abishai to go out with Joab’s men in pursuit of Sheba. 4. While they are obeying the king’s orders, Amasa joins them at Gibeon; whereupon Joab, under pretext of saluting Amasa and inquiring concerning his health, smites him, while off his guard, unto death. 5. While the pursuit after Sheba continues, one of Joab’s partisans calls upon the people to show their preference for Joab and David by following after Joab, which they do when the bleeding corpse is no longer on the road to arrest their progress. Man’s revolt against Christ. The hot controversy between the men of Israel and Judah issued in more than words. The discussion took its rise in a pretended interest in the restoration of David to the throne, but, becoming mixed up with personal matters, it first developed an alienation of one part of the nation from another; and then the more humiliated section turned their alienation from their brethren into the more dangerous form of revolt against the authority of the king whom those brethren claimed as specially theirs (2 Samuel 19:42, 2 Samuel 19:43). There is always in human society some restless, unscrupulous spirit ready to take advantage of divergent sentiments, and form them into expressions of positive opinion and antagonistic action. The man of Belial used up the elements of discord for securing what, at first, was not contemplated—namely, an open repudiation of the right of David to exercise kingly authority over the people. In this revolt against David, the Lord’s anointed, we have an illustration of the nature and some of the causes and pleas of man’s revolt against Christ. I. MAN’S REVOLT AGAINST CHRIST OF A OF A DIVINE CLAIM. Sheba not only would not have David as his king, but he distinctly indicates as chief reason his rejection of the Divine claim of David to the throne, and which the nation had previously recognized. In speaking contemptuously of him as the "son of Jesse," he clearly ignores the selection and anointing of him by Samuel in the name of God. David is not the Lord’s anointed; only Jesse’s son—a mere man, to be treated as any other man. The people also who followed Sheba did so on this basis—that whatever may have been once, there was now in David no more right than in any other man; he was not endowed with Divine authority. This is exactly the case with modern infidelity—men will not submit to Christ. They repudiate all claim to Divine authority. To them he is a mere man—possessing no eternal and unchallengeable right to demand the obedience of all men to his yoke. He is the Nazarene, the carpenter’s Son, not the beloved Son of God, anointed of God to be Prince and Saviour. It is a simple matter of choice whether they shall accept his testimony and do what he declares is right. This spirit of revolt against the Divine in Christ is the essence of every form of modern infidelity, be it scientific rejection of the supernatural or pure agnosticism. Once recognize him as the anointed Lord of all, all forms of submission to his teaching and will follow; once reject him in this respect, and high treason is the practical issue. II. A OF CHRIST’S DIVINE CLAIM FROM IN GOD’S SELF- TO MAN. If ever Sheba was a believer in Samuel’s mission, he had certainly ceased to be so now, or else had come to believe that revelation had ceased. No one could hold to the Divine appointment of Moses and of Samuel to gradually unfold the purpose of God to Israel, and at the same time logically refuse to submit to David as king, unless he could show that God had set up another. This revolt, therefore, was the expression of a practical unbelief in the fact of a revelation of God to the Jewish people. In like manner, when we look into the reason for the rejection of the Divine claim of Christ, it is to he found in a prior assumption, namely, that a self-revelation of God to mankind by special means distinct from natural law, though not in contravention of it, is a fiction. With a dogmatism evidently based on ignorance, the supernatural is said to be impossible, i.e. we know so well the constitution of all things, and the only possible relation of God to all things, that we can affirm that no such a Divine Lord and King as Christ is said to be, could be a reality. He was simply a much misunderstood man. It is obvious that, as Sheba’s unbelief in Samuel’s mission was no credit to his memory or historic knowledge (1 Samuel 16:13), so the unbelief in God’s self-revelation to man is no credit to man’s humility or judgment. III. REVOLT AGAINST CHRIST’S CLAIMS THUS IS BY VARIOUS PLEAS. Sheba’s unbelief was in the background, his pleas were in front. He could not have gained so many over to his side by any enunciation of abstract views as to the reality or continuance of a revelation of God’s purpose. Men are influenced in action by more superficial and concrete forms of thought. The mistakes of David’s government, his reputed partiality to the son whom he fought against, his errors of conduct in the case of Bathsheba, his apparent preference for Judah, and the apprehension that Judah would gain an ascendency in public affairs,—these pleas would give an appearance of public reason for the conduct pursued. Nor did he or his followers care to consider that incidents in a fallible life do not annihilate a Divine purpose running through that life. We find the same course adopted in relation to the authority of Christ. Though none can convict him of sin, advantage is taken of the mistakes of the Church, the seemingly tardy progress of Christianity, the peculiar structure of Old Testament history, and what seem to be occasional discrepancies in the gospel record, and, in fact, anything that can be construed into a weakness, in order to justify a total rejection of Christ’s supreme authority. An ingenious mind, bent on resisting the holy Saviour, will never lack plausible reasons for open revolt. IV. REVOLT AGAINST CHRIST IS A COURSE OF CONDUCT DEVOID OF . Sheba’s principles, so far as he had any, were negative. There was nothing in his words or deeds that indicated any definite principle on which the state was to be governed. Hitherto the theocratic principle, enunciated and enforced by Samuel, regulated the setting up and setting aside of rulers. The spiritual interests of the nation were the prime concern. Now, Divine authority being ignored, there was no principle to determine the destiny of the people. The conflicting whims and passions of men were to contend for supremacy, and the grand purpose for which the nation had been hitherto supposed to exist in relation to Messiah and the world was lost to view. In the same way, the course of human affairs, without Christ, is aimless, chaotic. Infidelity and agnosticism rest on negations. Individual life is as a ship without a helm. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. There is always in human nature a latent tendency to restlessness under authority, and we should both be on our guard against this in our own lives, and also avoid whatever may develop it in others. 2. The quarrels and disputes of Christian men on matters of government and precedence may generate, by degrees, feelings of alienation from religion. 3. In this life we should not be surprised if, like David, we find the pathway of returning prosperity shaded by some transient clouds. 4. The zeal of crowds in a bad cause is more due to the influence of clever and restless leaders than to any profound convictions or intelligent views in the people themselves. Unsanctified power. We pass over David’s provision for his concubines, simply noting how wise and considerate he was in thus cutting himself free from old associations full of reminiscences of sorrow, and at the same time doing no injustice to any one concerned. The chief figure in the narrative before us is Joab, who here stands out as a strong man bent on a definite purpose, and able to carry out his will in spite of moral, social, and loyal considerations. All the other men referred to are as pigmies beside him, and the orders even of the king are so far bent to his will that he becomes practically master of the situation. Regarding him as an illustration of unsanctified power, we notice— I. GREAT . Joab was a man of great natural abilities. This is obvious throughout his career. There was not one in the army to compare with him. Great natural abilities are the base of power among men. In some men they are purely intellectual, in others they are those of will. For influencing action and obtaining an ascendency over multitudes, will force must be strong. This partly accounts for success in commerce, in statesmanship, in Church government, in popular movements. II. STRONG . Passions are not abilities; they are rather the fire that feeds the energy of the will. Joab was a man whose passions were very strong, though no boisterous and impulsive. His jealousy and hatred of Amass, who had been appointed to supersede him in command, were intense. These, blended with contempt for his inferiority, disgust at David’s choice, and a lofty pride which would not deign to remonstrate with the king, formed such a strenuous force on the naturally powerful will, that to kill his rival was a decision which no ordinary obstacles could hinder in accomplishment. When unholy passions, deliberately cherished, concentrate on a powerful will, there results one of the most formidable instances of unsanctified power. Such men are to be dreaded. They cannot but make a great impression on weaker natures, and bend them to their own designs. They are illustrations of what woe comes to mankind when distinguished powers, incorporated in the constitution of man, receive a bent of evil rather than of good. A being who becomes a Miltonic Satan might be a real archangel. It is the spirit that makes the one or the other. III. A DREAD SECRET. To many the bearing of Joab toward the authority of David in this matter of Amasa may be an enigma, seeing that he raised no revolt, but was rather zealous for the king. But that which made Joab so terrible an example of unsanctified power was his possession of the dreadful secret of Uriah’s death (2 Samuel 11:14-25). He knew too much of David’s former guilt; and so all his great natural abilities were concentrated in holding a firm grip on the king’s public reputation. It is true, David had found forgiveness with God, and was a new man; but he knew that Joab had him in his power in matters that came nearest to a man’s life, and Joab perfectly understood that David dared not do what otherwise he would doubtless have done. This possession of secret knowledge concerning others always gives increased power. Whoever knows of the financial weakness of a commercial firm, or the private delinquencies of individuals, or of original social inferiority of persons aiming to figure in society, if it be known that he knows, holds a power over these parties which they dread, and which, if he be unholy, he can use in most painful form. Those are to be pitied indeed who have caused their failings and sins to become the secret of unholy men. IV. WITH . Bad as great power is in a man of strong passions and possessed of special knowledge, it is a more terrible thing when the moral sensibilities have been blunted by familiarity with sufferings. Joab had seen many a man dying in agonies. War does not improve the feelings of men. It was with no compunctions of conscience, as far as we can see, that he dew Amasa. What was a bleeding corpse to the man who had smitten many a hew, and who now was governed by jealousy, hatred, contempt, and pride? It is this loss of moral sensibility which has made such men as Napoleon I. so terrible a scourge. There are other men of, perhaps, equally strong will, but their moral susceptibilities restrain them from brutality. V. CLEANLY DEFINED PURPOSE. Joab knew what he intended to do. The narrative shows that he watched for opportunity. He did not wish to encourage revolt against royal authority, but he did wish and purpose to avenge his displacement from supreme command by the death of his rival, to prove his power to David by actually assuming the leadership and suppressing the revolt, and to vindicate before the people his superiority in the state. Purpose, clearly defined, is a practical addition to power. It avoids waste of energy, and converts subsidiary appliances into instruments of great significance. By such purpose the whole nature of the man and all his strong and unhallowed passions are condensed and concentrated into one channel. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. We see the supreme importance of prayer for the converting power of the Holy Spirit, so that men of great natural powers may have them governed by a principle according to the will of God. 2. The appearance of unhallowed feelings in the heart should be at once an occasion of prayer and self-control, as they will be sure to combine to influence us to deeds of wrong. 3. There is more real honour in being a man of lowly abilities, but under the sway of holy dispositions, than in possessing the highest powers destitute of such a disposition. 4. If we can only secure progress in life or continued possession of privileges by using abilities wickedly, it is infinitely better to lose all than thus sink deeper in moral and spiritual degradation. 5. According to our abilities will be the account we shall have to give unto God. 2 Samuel 20:14-26 The causes and remedies of religious strife. The facts are: 1. Joab and his forces, pursuing Sheba till they came upon him in the city of Abel, lay siege to it. 2. A wise woman of the city remonstrates with Joab for attacking the city, and refers to the fact that when Sheba with his armed followers threw themselves into the city, the people felt sure that when the pursuing foes came up they would open negotiations with the authorities, and so bring the conflict to an end. 3. Urging the impolicy and wrong of seeking to destroy a part of the inheritance of the Lord—a city which was as a mother in Israel—she obtains from Joab a disclaimer, and a declaration that it was only the rebel and traitor Sheba that he was fighting against. 4. The wise woman, conferring with the inhabitants, secures that the head of Sheba be thrown over the wall to Joab, who then retires with his men to Jerusalem. 5. A reorganization of the officers of state is made, and Joab regains his former position as head of the army. The patriotism of Joab and a rough kind of fidelity to David manifested itself in his prompt and eager pursuit of the rebel force till it took refuge in a city and began to act on the defensive. There is no evidence that the inhabitants had formally identified themselves with the cause of Sheba, though probably there as elsewhere some disaffected men of Belial were to be found. It is not always within the competence of a city to prevent an armed force entering within its walls and virtually turning its resources against pursuers. The conflict between the opposing forces was becoming desperate, and threatened, if persisted in, to result in the destruction of the city. The horrors and wasting issues of civil war were impending. At this juncture, the more peaceably inclined portion of the inhabitants, encouraged by a woman who had gained reputation for wisdom, were anxious to avoid the calamities of continued strife, and probably having in mind the old law of Deu 20:11, Deuteronomy 20:12, remonstrated with Joab because he had not sought to come to terms before having recourse to arms. And here we see a fact embodying a principle, namely, that a people of one nation, speech, religion, and covenant relation to God, pause while engaged in a ruinous strife, and that it is pre-eminently desirable and right on occasions of strife to seek some basis of reconciliation. I. THE TRUE OF THE OF CHRIST IS THAT OF UNITY AND CONCORD. The strife between Joab’s forces and the people of this city was unnatural. They were brethren, the chosen race, called and separated from all nations to work out a blessed purpose in which all men were concerned. Unity and concord became them. How good and beautiful a thing for them to dwell in harmony! The siege of Abel was a sign of an abnormal state of things. This is just what is taught in the New Testament. Christ’s disciples are a holy nation, a peculiar people, called to show forth the glory of God and to bless mankind, and in his last most solemn discourses and great prayer he sets forth their unity and concord as the only state befitting them, and congruous with his spirit (John 14-17). II. THE OUT OF STRIFE IS OF SERIOUS , AND THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD WITH GREAT . The fact of the strife is itself an evil, and indicates the presence somewhere of a mind alien to the mind of Christ; but also it generates evils of varied form, and intensifies their action in proportion as the spirit of strife is intense. Leaving out of view just now the revolt of Sheba against the lawful authority of David—regarding him in that respect as a type of the men who reject the authority of Christ—we see that there existed a strife between men who had not rejected David’s authority. Joab was contending against the whole city of Abel as though it were hostile to him, and many in the city were contending against him as though he were an enemy. The evils of this were obvious: bad feelings were engendered and strengthened the longer the siege continued, desolation and anguish were being brought on many homes, the city as a centre of influence—a mother of children—was having its power for good cut off, and the one kingdom to which all belonged was being checked in its progress. That was the belief of the wise woman and her friends, and it was in accordance with facts. Precisely the same evils attend our more modern strifes. When subjects of the same Lord are engaged in conflict, whatever the passing occasion, there is not only a dire evil in the fact itself, but inevitably bitter unhallowed feelings find scope, many a Christian heart and home are made desolate and sad, Churches and organizations that should embody in themselves all the kindly fostering influences of mothers have their proper spiritual influence. weakened, and the progress of the kingdom of love, peace, and righteousness receives a check. "The inheritance of the Lord" is laid waste. "The boar out of the wood doth waste it" (Psalms 80:13). III. THE CAUSES OF STRIFE MAY LIE IN MUTUAL AND NEGLECT OF PRIMARY . Joab fought against this city on the supposition that it was in sympathy with Sheba; and the people themselves for a while were constrained by his assaults to assume a defensive attitude. Had he at first, in accordance with Deuteronomy 20:11, Deuteronomy 20:12, sought an interview with the elders, and had they been willing, in the spirit of that ancient rule, to receive his communications, the strife had earlier come to a close, and brethren would have been one. The beginnings of strife are very subtle, and it is hard to unravel the true causes from among the intricate thoughts and feelings of the human mind; and the incidents which occasion the appearance of strife may be as far beyond the control of communities as was the sudden throwing of an armed force by Sheba into this unguarded city. But most often strife is kept up through mutual misunderstandings. Opinions are supposed to be held which, if fairly looked at in an early stage, would not be ascribed, and motives are imagined which would disappear on closer acquaintance. Perhaps it is inevitable that, differently constituted and educated as men are, judgments must differ as to the form of expressing truth and doing Christian work; but these need not cause actual strife, if formed in a prayerful loving spirit, and all for the glory of Christ, and especially may much contention be avoided if men will but discharge the primary obligation]aid down in the ancient law (John 15:12; Matthew 5:44), of loving and praying for one another, and being frank and generous in intercourse (Matthew 18:15, Matthew 18:16). IV. IT IS THE DUTY OF PERSONS OF REPUTED WISDOM TO BRING ALL THEIR TO BEAR ON THE OF PEACE AND HARMONY. The "wise woman" and those of her mind in the city were but discharging a duty they owed to their city, their king, and the kingdom, when, amidst the discords of the time, they brought their superior intelligence to bear on a solution of the difficulties of the case. They evidently saw that, if more light were thrown upon the affair, and proper kindly influences were brought to bear on Joab, those would become friends who now were m the unnatural position of enemies. The leaders of opinion in the city showed their good feeling in being willing to come to terms, and their discretion in availing themselves of the superior gifts and qualities of this "wise woman." The proper place of intelligence and wisdom is at the head of movements in the direction of concord. A serious injury is inflicted on the Church in seasons of trial and conflict when men of character and repute keep in the background, and leave the conduct of affairs to inferior minds. Acquired reputation is a precious gift that should be cheerfully laid at the service of the Church, especially in seasons of sorrow. The soothing, healing power of the noblest minds is a great blessing. V. THE OF STRIFE BEING , EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO PUT IT AWAY. The occasion of the strife in this instance was the presence within the city of a rebel and a traitor. Had it not been for Sheba entering the city, Joab and the people would not have so misunderstood each other as to come to actual conflict. Mutual inquiry and explanations revealed the fact that he was the occasion of trouble; and therefore the citizens devised means of getting rid of him in accordance with the rude and swift justice of those times. If in our religious strifes, whether as between communities or within separate organizations, we, in our desire for peace, search out some removable occasion of them, it then becomes an imperative duty that we not only wish to see the occasion removed, but that we make vigorous efforts, though full of pain and sorrow, to put them away. What the disturbing cause may be—evil minded men, or narrow ideas of our own, or unhallowed feeling, or an exacting temper, or undue pressure of the influence of the world—can only be found out by conscientious rigorous search; and, when found out, it will probably demand a very high and holy resolve to cast it away. Probably one chief reason why there is not more peace and harmony among Christians is that they have not the heart to go deep down into the moral causes of strife, and less heart to cut off those causes when discovered. It takes very much grace to be a thoroughgoing Christian. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. Communities and individuals should watch carefully against the intrusion within themselves of whatever may bring on a disruption of our peaceable relations to the fellowship of the saints. 2. It is possible to imagine others to be hostile in feeling to us, when, on full inquiry, it may turn out that they have been misjudged; and hence we should be careful not to be rash in imputing motives to persons who are casually placed in circumstances of seeming antagonism. 3. The influence of cities in a nation and of Christian communities in the world being maternal in character, their purity, peacefulness, and power should be most jealously guarded. 4. The influence of woman in promoting peace in the Church of God is worthy of the consideration of all, seeing that it is often underestimated, and that its power is of the most subtle and persuasive kind. 5. We see in the removal of Sheba, the occasion of the trouble in the earthly kingdom, and the subsequent harmony of the chosen nation during the reign of David, a foreshadowing of the final removal of the great spirit of discord from the Church of God, and the consequent peace and unity of the redeemed. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 20:1-3 (GILGAL.) The insurrection of Sheba. "We have no part in David, And we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse; Every man to his tents, O Israel!" (2 Samuel 20:1; 1 Kings 12:16.) Before the restoration of David was completed, a new rebellion broke out. The people were still disquieted, like the sea after a storm; the independent action of Judah in conducting the king over the Jordan aroused the jealousy of the other tribes; at Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:15; 1 Samuel 13:8-10; 1 Samuel 15:12, 1 Samuel 15:13), where the representatives of the latter assembled and met the king, a fierce altercation ensued (2 Samuel 19:40-43); and shortly afterwards the trumpet was blown by Sheba the Bichrite (Genesis 46:21). "He who lately (with the rest of Israel) claimed ten parts in David as king, disclaims and disowns him now, as having no part in him at all. David before had raised his hand against a faithful subject, Uriah, and therefore now a faithless subject raises his hand against him; as a man sinneth, so ofttimes he is punished. And as bees, when they are once up in a swarm, are ready to light upon every bough, so the Israelites, being stirred up by the late rebellion of Absalom, are apt here also to follow Sheba; especially finding nothing but clemency, and David’s passing by their former revolt" (Guild). Concerning this insurrection, observe that (like others which have since occurred)— I. IT AROSE OUT OF AN EVIL BY THE PEOPLE. They were: 1. Discontented with the government of David; the restlessness, lawlessness, and ungodliness which they displayed in joining Absalom’s revolt were only partial? corrected by recent chastisement (2 Samuel 19:9, 2 Samuel 19:10); their complaint to the king concerning the conduct of "the men of Judah" (verse 41) was due more to regard for their own honour than zeal for his; and was an indirect expression of their dissatisfaction at the disrespect which he bad shown toward them, for "very probably it had been learned that he had a hand in the movement." 2. Contentious in their treatment of their "brethren;" ready to find occasion of offence "because of envy" and ill will; their auger being increased by the proud and contemptuous bearing of the latter. Whatever may have been the motives of the men of Judah in their recent action, they were now as blamable as the men of Israel; each party sought to exalt itself and depreciate the other; and "the words of the men of Judah were more violent than the words of the men of Israel" (verse 43). "Grievous words stir up anger" (Proverbs 15:1, Proverbs 15:18; Proverbs 25:15; Proverbs 29:22). How differently had Gideon spoken to the men of Ephraim under similar circumstances (Judges 8:1-3)! 3. Self-blinded. Indifferent to their true interests, without proper self-control, liable to surrender themselves to the guidance of an ambitious leader, and prepared for open rebellion. Having violated the spirit of unity, they were ready to destroy the formal union of the tribes, which it had cost so much to bring about, and on which their strength and prosperity so much depended. "Where jealousy and. faction are, there is confusion and every vile deed" (James 3:16; James 4:1, James 4:11). II. IT WAS BY A LEADER, "A man of Belial, a Benjamite" (like Shimei, 2 Samuel 16:11); "a man of the mountains of Ephraim" (2 Samuel 20:21); who probably took an active part in the late rebellion, and had numerous dependents. "He was one of the great rogues of the high nobility, who had a large retinue among the people, and consideration or name, as Cataline at Rome" (Luther). 1. The worst (as well as the best) elements of a people find their chief embodiment in some one man, who is the product of the prevailing spirit of his time, and adapted to be its leader. "Avarice, envy, pride, Three fatal sparks, have set the hearts of all On fire." (Dante.) In his selfish ambition, Sheba sought for himself individually what the men of Israel sought for themselves as a whole. 2. Such a man clearly perceives the popular feeling and tendency, with which he sympathizes, and finds therein his opportunity for effecting his own purposes. The design of Sheba was, doubtless, to become head of a new combination of the northern tribes. 3. He seizes a suitable moment for raising his seditious cry; and, instead of quenching the sparks of discord, kindles them into a blaze. "They claim David as their own. Let them have him. We disclaim him altogether. The son of Jesse! Let every man cast off his yoke, return home, and unite with me in securing liberty, equality, and fraternity!" What at another time would have been without effect, is now irresistible with the people. Nothing is more unstable than a multitude; one day crying, "Hosanna!" another, "Not this Man, but Barabbas!" III. IT A . "And all the men of Israel went up from after David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri" (2 Samuel 20:2); "Now will Sheba do us more harm than Absalom" (2 Samuel 20:6). The insurrection: 1. Was joined in by great numbers of the people. 2. Spread over the greater portion of the country. "He went through all the tribes of Israel," rousing them to action, and gaining possession of the fortified cities. 3. Threatened to produce a permanent disruption of the kingdom. "It was, in fact, all but an anticipation of the revolt of Jeroboam. It was not, as in the case of Absalom, a mere conflict between two factions in the court of Judah, but a struggle arising out of that conflict, on the part of the tribe of Benjamin to recover its lost ascendency" (Stanley). With what anxieties must it have filled the mind of the restored monarch! And how must it have led him to feel his dependence upon God! The influence for evil which one bad man sometimes exerts is enormous (Ecclesiastes 9:18). It is, nevertheless, limited; and, though it prevail for a season, it is at length "brought to nought" (Psalms 37:12, Psalms 37:20, Psalms 37:35-40). IV. IT ENDED IN UTTER . The first act of David, on arriving at Jerusalem, attended by the men of Judah, who "clave unto the king" (after setting his house in order, 2 Samuel 20:3), was to adopt energetic measures to put down the insurrection; and these succeeded (though in a different manner from what he expected). 1. Many who at first followed Sheba deserted him when they had time for reflection and saw the approach of the king’s army; so that he found it necessary to seek safety in the far north. 2. He was beheaded by those among whom he sought refuge; and "rewarded according to his wickedness" (2 Samuel 3:39). "Evil pursueth sinners" (Proverbs 13:21; Proverbs 11:19). 3. All the people returned to their allegiance. "While to men’s eyes the cooperation of many evil powers seems to endanger the kingdom of God to the utmost, and its affairs appear to be confused and disturbed in the unhappiest fashion, the wonderful working of the living God reveals itself most gloriously in the unravelment of the worst entanglements, and in the introduction of new and unexpected triumphs for his government" (Erdmann).—D. 2 Samuel 20:4-13 (GIBEON.) The murder of Amasa. "And Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand" (2 Samuel 20:10). Amasa (son of Abigail, David’s sister, and Jether an Ishmaelite, and first cousin of Joab, 2 Samuel 17:25) joined Absalom in his rebellion; and must have been a man of great ability, courage, and influence, from the fact that he was appointed by him "captain of the host instead of Joab," and afterwards promised by David the same post (2 Samuel 19:13). This promise "involved no injustice to Joab himself, for he had long been notorious for too great severity in war, and had just acted with such direct disobedience to the royal command in Absalom’s case, that it was impossible to overlook his offence without endangering the royal prerogative" (Ewald). Whilst it was adapted to conciliate the men of Judah, it was, nevertheless, certain to give offence to Joab and cause future trouble. It does not appear that he was formally replaced by Amasa; but the commission given to the latter (2 Samuel 20:4) "was intended as the commencement of the fulfilment of the promise" (Keil). And when he exhibited undue delay in its fulfilment (2 Samuel 20:5), David, "wishing to have nothing to do with Joab," sent Abishai to pursue after Sheba (2 Samuel 20:6). "And there went out after him Joab’s men" (2 Samuel 20:7) under Joab (who deemed himself still commander-in-chief). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ EXPOSItION 2 Samuel 21:1 There was a famine in the days of David; Hebrew, and there was. There is an entire absence of any mark of time to show in what part of David’s reign this famine took place. It does not even follow, from the mention of Mephibosheth’s name, that it must have happened at a time subsequent to the sending for that prince from Machir’s house; for it may have been the search after the descendants of Saul which made David remember the son of his old friend. The burial, however, of the bones of Saul and Jonathan as an act of respect to the slaughtered king makes it probable that the narrative belongs to the early part of David’s reign, as also does the apparent fact that the seven victims were all young and unmarried. Mephibosheth, we read, had a young son when David sent for him. Now, he was five years old when his father was slain (2 Samuel 4:4), and thus at the end of David’s reign of seven years and a half at Hebron, he would be twelve and a half years of age. The famine lasted three years, and if David had been king four or five years when the famine began, Mephibosheth, at the age of twenty, might well have a "young son" in a country where men marry early. We cannot believe that the famine occurred long after David had been king of all Israel, because manifestly it would have been unjust and even monstrous to punish a nation for the sins of a king who had long passed away. The sins of its rulers are visited upon a nation constantly through a long series of years, but it is always in the way of natural development. A statesman may put a nation upon a wrong track, and may involve it in serious difficulties, and even in irretrievable disaster, unless some one be raised up able to make it retrace its steps and regain the rightful direction. But this famine was a direct interference of Providence, and to justify it the sin must be still fresh in the national remembrance. Had it been an old crime long ago forgotten, instead of leading men to repentance, this long and terrible punishment would have hardened men’s hearts, and made them regard the Deity as vindictive. It is even probable that the sin was still being committed; for though commenced and approved by Saul, his oppression and purpose of gradually destroying the native races was too much in accord with men’s usual way of acting not to be continued, unless stopped by the justice of the ruler. We all know how the Red Indian, the Bushman, the Maori, and the Australian disappear before the advance of the white man. It needs only apathy on the part of the government, and rougher methods for clearing them off are practised than men would care to own. So with Gibeonites and Perizzites and other native races, a similar process would be going on. The lands they held, their little villages, their pastures, and above all their strongholds, would be coveted by the dominant race, and entrenchments would lead to quarrels, in which the natives would find any resistance on their part punished as rebellion. Even David seized the hill fortress of Jebus for his capital, though he still left Araunah the nominal title of king (2 Samuel 24:23). Saul had lent all the weight of the royal authority to the extermination of the natives, and this chapter records the Divine condemnation of wrong done by the dominantrace to the aborigines. It remains to this day the charter for their protection, and not only forbids their extinction, but requires that they shall be treated with fair and even justice, and their rights respected and maintained. It has been objected that the execution of Saul’s seven sons was a political crime committed to render David’s throne secure. If at all to his advantage, it was so only to a very slight extent. The sons of Rizpah could never have become pretenders to the throne; nor were the sons of Merab likely to be much more dangerous. In a few years they would have married, and formed other ties, and been merged in the general population. Mephibosheth was the heir of Saul, and David protected him and Micha his son. It was quite in the spirit of the times to visit upon Saul’s house the sins of its chief. The principle was the same as when all Israel stoned Achan, his sons and his daughters, his oxen and his asses, his sheep and his tent, for brining iniquity upon the people (Joshua 7:24, Joshua 7:25). We keep chiefly in view the doctrine of personal responsibility; in the Old Testament the other doctrine of the collective responsibility of a family, a city, a nation, was made the more prominent It was the Prophet Ezekiel who in Ezekiel 18:1-32. stated clearly and with Divine force that "the soul that sinneth it shall die;" but that the sinner’s son, if he walk in God’s statutes, shall not die for the iniquity of his father he shall surely live. But the collective responsibility enacted in the second commandment is still God’s law. In the philosophic jargon of our times the two factors which form human character and decide our fortunes are "heredity and environment.’’ Heredity was the prevailing sentiment in David’s days; and it seemed right to the Gibeonites that the sons of the man who had slaughtered them should die for their father’s sins; and it seemed just to David also. But he spared the heir to Saul’s throne. There is no adequate reason for supposing that David was influenced by political motives, and the more important lesson of the narrative is the emphatic condemnation given in it of wrong and cruelty to aboriginal tribes. David inquired of the Lord; Hebrew, David sought the face of Jehovah. The phrase is remarkable, and not found elsewhere in Samuel. Probably it means that he went to Gibeon to pray in the sanctuary, and consult God by Urim and Thummim. His bloody house. The Hebrew means "the house on which rested the guilt of murder." 2 Samuel 21:2 Saul sought to slay them in his zeal. We gather from various incidental circumstances that Saul, in some part of his reign, manifested great zeal in an attempt to carry out literally the enactments of the Levitical Law; but he seems to have done so with the same ferocity as that which he displayed in slaughtering the priests at Nob with their wives and children. Thus he had put to death wizards and all who dealt with familiar spirits (1 Samuel 28:9), in accordance with Exodus 22:18 and Le Exodus 20:6. In the same way he seems to have tried to exterminate the aboriginal inhabitants of Palestine, in accordance with Deuteronomy 7:2, and had especially massacred a large number of Gibeonites, in violation of the covenant made with them by Joshua and all Israel (Joshua 9:3, Joshua 9:15-27). And as he would thus acquire "fields and vineyards" robbed from them to give to his captains, his conduct was probably popular, and the cause of a general system of wrong and oppression practised upon all the natives. It had thus become a national sin, and as such was punished by a national calamity. Amorites; that is highlanders, mountaineers. Strictly they were Hivites (Joshua 9:7). 2 Samuel 21:3 Wherewith shall I make the atonement, etc.? Literally the verb means to "cover up," the idea being that of a veil drawn over the offence to conceal it by means of a gift or offering. Thence gradually it attained to its religious idea of an expiation. 2 Samuel 21:4 No silver nor gold. It is a common practice in most semi-civilized nations for a fine to be accepted as compensation for the shedding of blood. As no distinction was drawn between murder and homicide, and as the nearest relative was bound in every case to revenge the blood shed, the custom of receiving a money compensation gradually grew up to prevent the tribe or nation being torn to pieces by interminable revenge. The Arabs still retain this usage, but it was forbidden by the Levitical Law (Numbers 35:31), and rightly so, because a distinction was there made between murder and accidental bloodshed, and precautions taken for the rescue of one who had not acted with malice. Neither for us shalt thou kill any turn in Israel. The singular is used at the beginning of their answer, in the same way as in 2 Samuel 19:42, 2 Samuel 19:43. Literally their words are, It is not to me a matter of silver and gold with Saul and his house, nor is it for us to put to death any one in Israel; that is, "We refuse a money compensation, and it is beyond our power to exact the blood penalty which would gratify our anger." They make it quite plain that they do want blood, while the Authorized Version makes them say that they do not. The Revised Version more correctly translates, "Neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel." 2 Samuel 21:5 The man that consumed us, etc. The strong language of this verse makes it plain that Saul had been guilty, not merely of some one great act of cruelty, but of a long series of barbarities intended to bring about their utter extirpation. 2 Samuel 21:6 We will hang them. The punishment indicated here really was impalement, but in Numbers 25:4, where the same verb is used, we find that the criminals were put to death first, and that the impalement was for the purpose of exposing their bodies to view, like the practice a century ago of gibbeting. But the Gibeonites were probably very barbarous, and, when David had delivered the seven lads into their hands, would perhaps wreak upon them a cruel vengeance. Seven were chosen, because it is the perfect number, with many religious associations; and unto the Lord means "publicly.’’ So among the Romans sub Jove meant "in the open air" (comp. Numbers 25:4). In Gibeah. This was Saul’s native place and home, and was selected by the Gibeonites as the spot where the bodies should be exposed, to add to the humiliation and shame of the fallen dynasty. Saul, whom the Lord did choose. If this reading is correct, the phrase can only be used as a taunt. But in verse 9 we find bahar, "on the hill," instead of behir, "chosen," and the right reading probably is, "in Gibeah, or, the hill of Jehovah." 2 Samuel 21:8 Michal. It was Merab who became the wife of Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19). Michal was childless (see 2 Samuel 6:23). Whom she brought up for. This is one of the many cases of untrustworthiness in the renderings of the Authorized Version. We have noticed a very flagrant instance before in 2 Samuel 5:21. The object of these mistranslations is always the same, namely, to remove some verbal discrepancy in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew says here "five sons of Michal, whom she bare to Adriel;" but Michal never bore a child, therefore something must be substituted which will save the Hebrew from this verbal inaccuracy, and Michal must be represented as having taken Merab’s place (perhaps at her death), and been foster mother to her children. This explanation is, it is true, taken from the Jewish Targum; but the Targum never professes to be an exact translation, and constantly perverts the meaning of the plainest passages for preconceived reasons. 2 Samuel 21:9 The beginning of barley harvest. The barley became ripe in April, about the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16:9). The wheat was not. ripe till Pentecost. 2 Samuel 21:10 Rizpah … took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock; rather, against the rock, so as to form a little hut or shelter to protect her from the glaring blaze of the sunshine. The word "upon" has led many commentators to suppose that she used it as a bed; but this is not the meaning of the Hebrew, though given by the Vulgate. The sackcloth was the loose wrapper or cloak which formed the outer dress of mourners. As regards the bodies of those crucified or impaled, the Law required that they should be taken down and buried that same evening (Deuteronomy 21:23). Here they remained exposed for six months, as a grim trophy of Gibeonite vengeance. Until water dropped upon them out of heaven; Hebrew, was poured upon them; until copious and heavy rains came. The outpouring of these rains would put an end to the famine, and be regarded as a proof that the wrath of Heaven was appeased. There is no reason for supposing that these rains came before the usual period, in autumn, which was about the middle of October. Thus, for six months, with no other protection than her mantle of sackcloth hung against the rock, this noble woman watched the decaying bodies of her loved ones, until at last her devoted conduct touched David’s heart, and their remains were honourably interred. 2 Samuel 21:12 The street of Beth-shan; Hebrew, the broad place, or square, just inside the gate, where the citizens met for business. It was upon the wall of this square that the Philistines had hanged the bodies of Saul and of his sons (1 Samuel 31:12). The men of Jabesh-Gilead; Hebrew, the lords or owners of Jabesh-Gilead. The phrase occurs also in 1 Samuel 23:11, 1 Samuel 23:12 of the citizens of Keilah, and is found also in the Books of Joshua and Judges. (For the brave exploit of these men in rescuing the bodies of their king and his sons, see 1 Samuel 31:11-13; and for David’s generous approval, 2 Samuel 2:5.) 2 Samuel 21:14 The bones of Saul and Jonathan. The Septuagint adds, "and the bones of them that were hanged." As it is expressly said in 2 Samuel 21:13 that these bones were collected, we cannot doubt but that the remains of the seven grandsons were interred with those of Saul and Jonathan, in the tomb of Kish, their common ancestor. But whether the Septuagint has preserved words that have dropped out of the Hebrew text, or has added them to make the fact plain, is more than we can answer. Zelah. Nothing more is known of this place than that it was in the tribe of Benjamin. 2 Samuel 21:15 Moreover. A new narrative begins here, and the heroic acts related in it are taken probably from some record of the martial deeds of David and his mighties. We have already seen that the Book of Jasher (2 Samuel 1:18) was a national anthology, full of ballads and songs in praise of glorious exploits of Israel’s worthies. The source of the narratives recorded here apparently was a history in prose, and commenced, perhaps, with David’s own achievement in slaying Goliath—a deed which celled forth the heroism of the nation, and was emulated by other brave men. These extracts were probably given for their own sake, and are repeated in 1 Chronicles 20:4-8, where they are placed immediately after the capture of Rabbah; but they here form an appropriate introduction to the psalm of thanksgiving in 1 Chronicles 22:1-19. It was usual in Hebrew, in making quotations, to leave them without any attempt at adapting them to their new place; and thus the "moreover" and "yet again," which referred to some previous narrative in the history, are left unchanged. 2 Samuel 21:16 Ishbi-benob. The Hebrew has Ishbo-benob, which Gesenius interprets as meaning "dweller upon the height." But surely the man’s name would not be Hebrew; he was a Raphah, and we shall not be able to explain his name until we know the language of the Rephaim. Of the sons of the giant; Hebrew, of the children of the Raphah; that is, he belonged to the race of the Rephaim, the word not signifying "sons," but the members of a stock. It is translated "children" in Numbers 13:22, Numbers 13:28, etc. (For the Rephaim, see note on 2 Samuel 5:18.) "The Raphah" may be the mythic progenitor of the Rephaim, but more probably it is simply the singular of "Rephaim," and "children of the Raphah" a more poetic way of describing the race. Three hundred shekels. It weighed, therefore, about eight pounds; the spearhead of Goliath was just twice as heavy (1 Samuel 17:7). Girded with a new. The Vulgate supplies "sword," which the Authorized Version has adopted. The Septuagint reads a "mace" instead of "new;" others think that he had a new suit of armour. If the narrator had thought it of sufficient importance to let us know that the article was new, he would scarcely have left the thing itself unspecified. It is evident, however, that the Septuagint did not read hadasha, "new," but the name of some strange warlike instrument, which being unknown to the scribes, they substituted for it a word which they did know, but which makes no sense. We cannot, however, depend upon the translation of the Septuagint, "mace." The want of special knowledge on the part of the translators of the Septuagint, though partly accounted for by the long absence from Palestine of its authors, and their having to depend entirely upon such knowledge of their language as survived at Alexandria, is more than we should have expected or can quite understand. Here, however, there is nothing remarkable in their not knowing the exact meaning of this carious weapon of the Rephaite; but plainly it could not be a mace, but must have been something that could be gift upon him. The Authorized Version, moreover, gives a look of probability to the insertion of "sword," which is wanting in the Hebrew; for it does not connect his purpose of killing David with the hadasha. The Hebrew is, "And Ishbo-benob, who was a Rephaite, and whose spear weighed three hundred shekels, and who was girt with an hadasha; and he thought to smite David." 2 Samuel 21:17 The men of David sware unto him. David’s men were specifically the mighties, who had so long been his friends and companions. They now bound him by an oath never again to fight in person, lest he should be singled out for combat by some warrior among the enemy and slain. The light of Israel. The lamp in the dwelling was the proof that there was life there, and so it became the symbol of prosperity. In Job 18:5, Job 18:6 the extinction of the lamp signifies the destruction of the family. David was evidently now king, and under him Israel was advancing to freedom and empire. His death would have plunged the nation back into weakness and probable ruin. 2 Samuel 21:18 Gob. In the parallel passage (1 Chronicles 20:4) this place is called Gezer, and the Septuagint has Gath. It was probably some unimportant spot, except as being the site of this battle, and the scribes, knowing nothing about it, made corrections at their fancy. Sibbechai the Hushathite. The name is spelt in the same way in 1 Chronicles 11:29 and 1 Chronicles 20:4, but in the list of the mighties he is called Mebunnai (2 Samuel 23:27). In 1 Chronicles 27:11 we find that he had the command of the eighth division of the army, consisting of twenty-four thousand men. He is called "the Hushathite," as being a descendant of Hushah, of the family of Judah, in 1 Chronicles 4:4. Saph, which was of the sons of the giant; Hebrew, of the Raphah: He is called Sippai in 1 Chronicles 20:4. 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite. The words "the brother of" are inserted by the Authorized Version in order to bring this place into verbal agreement with 1 Chronicles 20:5, where we read that "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." The Jewish Targum had the same reading as that still found in the text, but regards Elhanan, "God is gracious," as another name for David, and, instead of Jair or Jaare, reads Jesse. Its translation is as follows: "And David the son of Jesse, the weaver of veils for the sanctuary, who was of Bethlehem, slew Goliath the Gittite." Possibly the Authorized Version is right in concluding that the present text is a corruption of that in 1 Chronicles 20:5. For, first, the repetition of oregim, "weavers," is suspicious, the Hebrew being, not "weaver’s beam," but the plural "weavers’ beam," menor oregim. Next, Jaare is a transposition of the letters of Jair (in the Hebrew) made probably in order that the compound Jaare-oregim may obey the rules of Hebrew grammar. More important is it to notice that Lahmi is part of the word "Bethlehemite" (Hebrew, Beth-hallahmi), and might thus easily suggest to the eye of a scribe the completion of so well known a word. We must add that among the thirty Gibborim is "Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem." Whoever slew Goliath’s brother would certainly attain to high rank among the heroes, but if the name Jair is right, the Elhanan there spoken of is not the person who slew Lahmi. 2 Samuel 21:21 Jonatham. He was brother to the subtle Jonadab who helped Amnon on his way to ruin. The spelling of the father’s name shows how little importance we can place on the Hebrew text in the matter of names. He is called here in the Hebrew Shimei, which the Massorites have changed into Shimeah. In 2 Samuel 13:3 we have Shimeah, in 1 Samuel 16:9 Shammah, and in 1 Chronicles 2:13 Shimma. 2 Samuel 21:22 These four were born to the giant; Hebrew, were born to the Raphah; that is, belonged to the race of the Rephaim, who seem to have settled in Gath in large numbers, and to have been a fine race of men. (For their antiquity, see Genesis 14:5.) By the hand of David. Not necessarily in personal conflict, though the Hebrew in 2 Samuel 21:17 would admit of the translation that, with the aid of Abishai, David himself slew Ishbi-benob. But the glory of all that the Gibborim did belonged also to David their king. 2 Samuel 21:1-14 A story of deferred retribution. The facts are: 1. A famine continuing for three years, and inquiry being made of the Lord by David, he is informed that it was in consequence of Saul’s sin in slaying the Gibeonites. 2. David, asking of the Gibeonites what he shall do for them by way of atonement for the wrong done, is informed that they seek not gold or the life of any man of Israel, but require that seven of Saul’s family should be put to death, and hung up in Gibeah of Saul. 3. David at once yields to the demand, but spares Mephibosheth in consequence of the special bond between himself and Jonathan. 4. On the seven men being put to death, Rizpah spreads out sackcloth on a rock, and keeps watch by the corpses against beasts and birds of prey till the rain falls. 5. David is told of the deed of Rizpah, and he soon after obtains the bones of Saul and Jonathan from Jabesh-Gilead, and causes the remains of the seven sons to be collected, and has the bones of Saul and Jonathan interred in the family burying place in Zelah of Benjamin. We assume that the record in this chapter refers to an earlier period in the life of David than does the narrative in the few preceding chapters, which evidently are designed to set forth the connection of David’s great sin with its punishment. The story relates the incidents connected with an otherwise unrecorded sin of Saul’s, and the retribution which came in due course upon his house. The varied questions and topics of interest and difficulty suggested by the narrative may be best seen and considered by taking them in their natural order. I. CALLS TO THE OF SINS. Whatever physical account may be possible of the famine referred to, looked at in its relation to God’s education and discipline of his ancient people, it is here to be viewed as a providential call to the nation to reflect on sins committed during the reign of Saul. The conduct of Saul was a most scandalous sin (Joshua 9:8-17). When the sin was committed we know not; probably in the latter part of his reign, when all was in confusion. His family were, it would seem from 2 Samuel 21:1, 2 Samuel 21:4-6, implicated in the deed. It is obvious that the nation had condoned the action of Saul, and for some years subsequent to his death there was no conscience in the people with respect to this great sin. It was for the purpose of arousing the public conscience and giving occasion for bringing this sin to mind that the famine was permitted to arise. Even though the famine was by natural causes, yet it was used by God for this special moral end. There is a tendency in nations especially to be unmindful of their sins, and individuals also are liable to the same danger. The eager rush of affairs and absorption of energy in new lines divert attention from the moral character of acts. The forgotten sins of men are countless. But God does not forget, and now and then events arise—calamities, personal troubles, and disagreeable consequences of former deeds—which are practically God’s calls to us to remember our transgressions. The prophet no longer proclaims, but God reaches the conscience in manifold ways, and to many an easy-going soul the words will come some day, "Son, remember." II. THE BETWEEN MORAL AND EVIL. The mention of famine in the land, and the public sin of the late king as being related the one to the other, establishes in this instance, on the authority of God, the close connection of moral and physical evil. Whether famines do not arise where there is no special moral evil of which they are the chastisements or reminders, is not the question, and makes no difference to the fact in this case. God would have his people know that their past sins were now bearing fruit in physical form. Nor is there anything really wonderful or exceptional in the truth here established. To man, physical evil is, as a whole, the fruit of sin. Man’s moral nature is in contact with the physical order by means of a material vehicle, and as his moral nature is supreme and cannot but affect, by its deterioration and wrong direction, the vehicle by which it acts, so the lesser must be disordered by the disorder of the greater. The miseries of human life would not have come had man kept his first estate, All our painful struggles in commerce and war, our diseases and poverty, are the outcome of a heart not as the heart of God. That Sodom should fall under fire, that Pharaoh should be swept into the sea, that Jerusalem should be trodden down, were but physical facts consequent on sin, bold and striking, yet not different in essence from the general connection of sin and suffering. Hence, Christ’s mission to make man’s physical environment forever helpful and not hurtful to him, by rendering his moral nature perfect, and therefore his whole nature in perfect adjustment to all that is. III. THE DUTY OF OUT THE MORAL WITH OUR . The famine was a reality in the experience of every one; but it was the will of God that the people should notice its connection with national sin. They must consider its spiritual bearings; they must associate their difficulties with previous conduct. As a rule, there is an indisposition to do this. Physical law, fate, chance, almost anything, is referred to as being occasion or cause of present difficulties and sufferings, rather than personal sin. Of course, individual sin is not the cause of great public calamities, and not immediately of private sufferings. Yet we ought, as a matter of rigid thought, to trace back the physical troubles of the world, so far as man is sufferer, to the moral cause. In nations troubles are referred to the restlessness of other nations, or ignorance of political economy, or of sanitary laws, or decaying commerce; but we should go deeper, and see what pride and arrogance and defiant tone may have done to inflame other nations, and what sinful neglect in spending money on wars rather than on instruction of the people. In personal life we should search and see to what extent failures in business, in health, and enterprise are connected with persistent violation of some of the primary laws which God has given for our guidance. IV. MISSING CLUES TO THE OF . There are evident difficulties connected with this narrative which press upon the ordinary reader at once. The demand for seven lives, and the yielding to the demand, both perplex us. The pressure of a famine on a whole people, and the use of that famine for purposes of chastisement for a sin of years past, do not lessen the perplexity. Apart from this narrative, we know nothing of any act done by Saul toward the Gibeonites. Now, if instead of this abrupt declaration of the existence of a national sin, and of the retribution for it in the terrible form of seven deaths, we were told of the precise circumstances under which Saul violated the national compact of Jos 9:15-17, we should then certainly see the wisdom and appropriateness of the famine to arouse the national conscience, and the justice of the terrible retribution on Saul’s family. The clue here missing because of the incompleteness of history is but an instance of what constantly occurs. In the Bible there are many facts which doubtless would lose all their strangeness and seeming discrepancies and moral difficulties did we but know the details left unrecorded. Historians are guided by this remembrance of missing clues in their estimate of men and characters. In our judgment on conduct we often fail or are in suspense because a clue to some strange feature is lacking. Especially are we at present lacking the clue to many events in the government of God. When we know more perfectly, we shall see that to be just which is now perplexing, and, as a rule, we may say that our ignorance of hidden facts ought to count in our judgments on revealed truth as much as our knowledge. V. GOD HAS IN RESERVE FOR THE FACT OF SIN HOME TO THE . The famine aroused conscience. The men of Gibeon were God’s agents in bringing all the facts home to the conscience of the nation. The confusion and change of government in the last days of Saul and early years of David, before he left Hebron to be king over the entire people, will explain why the Gibeonites did not press their suit earlier. Although the sin was so grievous, it must have appeared to any who now and then reflected on it as though it were being passed by, and that no means were at hand to bring the new king face to face with the wrong done. But at the proper Reason God found means for calling forth the Gibeonites to declare the full facts and to bring the sin home to the national conscience. They proved what the famine only indicated. According to Scripture, all sin is to be brought home to the sinner. The time may pass, and means for so doing may seem to be lacking; but the universe is God’s, and he has in reserve agencies by which the guilty will be found out and the claims of a violated law will be vindicated (Ecclesiastes 11:9). VI. THE OF IN HUMAN AFFAIRS. The charge of the Gibeonites against the house of Saul was that he, contrary to the solemn compact with Israel, had cruelly slain their countrymen, and the demand was that for this wicked violation of a treaty the lives of his sons should be forfeited. Here was an appearance of hardship on the sons; but, had we the missing clue, it would probably appear that they were parties to the deed. The deed, however, was national, being wrought by the representative of the nation; and, acting on the usage of the age in such matters, the Gibeonites demanded that the lives of the representatives of the nation of that date should be sacrificed. The principle was that of lex talionis—"an eye for an eye." We are not called upon to pronounce a harsh judgment on their demand. It may, however, be said, in extenuation, that if Saul and his family were the real murderers of the Gibeonites, there was no more wrong in their execution than in the execution of any modern murderer. The principle on which the claim proceeded was that of all criminal law in relation to human life. The Law of Moses was based on it. "An eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24) is but a statement of the principle that runs through all the Mosaic laws (cf. Le Joshua 24:17-22). Ox for ox, sheep for sheep, life for life,—this was the form of the old jurisprudence. It is also, so far as circumstances permit, the principle of modern law and modern punishment. According to a man’s crime so is his punishment. With us the loss of liberty is the form punishment takes, but its degree depends on the degree of the crime. Proportion is kept in view in every sentence. The words of our Saviour (Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39) are not intended to set aside the administration of justice by the state, but to indicate that the personal feeling of his followers is not to be vindictive. In the spiritual kingdom all are brethren beloved, and love is to be the dominant feeling. Moses was speaking of what "judges," administrators of the public laws of the state, should do (Deuteronomy 19:16-21), and in the discharge of official duty they were to be impartial, and not pity or spare. Christ speaks of what his individual followers should do and be in their personal relations to brethren in the new spiritual kingdom; they must not imagine, with the Pharisees, that a principle of action designed for "judges" in a state is to be transferred to their private relationships in his kingdom. Moses distinguishes between the rigid execution of justice on crime and the individual cherishing of tender and pitiful feelings (Deuteronomy 19:16-21; cf. Exodus 22:21-27). The rules for a state are not to be confounded with rules for individual life. VII. THE DUE OF HONOUR. The honour of Israel was at stake in the deed of Saul. Kings compromise the nation. David was quick to see that the wrong done in cruelly violating a national treaty must be atoned. Apart from the form of atonement in this case, the principle recognized is most important. When nations lose faith in nations, trouble must come in terrible form. A nation’s word should be sacred, and in relation to the weakest and most barbarous as to the mightiest and most civilized. The methods adopted for upholding national honour will vary with the conceptions of what that honour is. To keep faith, to be courteous and considerate to the weak, to allow of no unjust concessions to the great because they are great, and to promote peace and righteousness in all relationships,—this is that in which honour lies. There is no true glory, no maintenance of honour, in creating wars, in mere military triumphs, or in vaunting of greatness. VIII. THE OF MADE BY MEN. The promises made to the Gibeonites in the days of Joshua differed from all engagements entered into by other people, in that they were the promises of the chosen race, whose conduct towards others was based on higher principles. David felt at once that it would be shocking to allow heathen men to imagine that the servants of the covenant keeping God could break their vows. The possession Of a religious character or the adoption of religious professions lends a special sacredness to our engagements. It is no wonderful thing if one who believes in no eternal morality easily sets aside what others hold to be binding engagements; and a careless man of the world, whose religion is only a name, may not excite surprise if he sometimes violates his word or does a mean action. But to be a follower of Christ lends an unusual sanctity to everything in life. The Apostle Peter has suggested "what manner of persons" we ought to be by virtue of our holy profession, and our Lord himself expects more of his followers than can be looked for from others (Matthew 5:43-48). We should not forget that we may compromise the honour of our Lord in our words and deeds. IX. THE OF PUBLIC WITH PRIVATE . David, acting according to the light and usage of the age, felt bound to give up the male members of the house of Saul; but he had made a personal promise to Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:14 17; 1 Samuel 23:16-18) to spare the members of his house, and had especially taken Mephibosheth under his care out of love for his father. Here, then, was a conflict of opposing obligations. The solution was obvious. He had kept his promise, and had not, as kings too often were accustomed to do with the families of rivals, cut off the house of Saul on ascending the throne. If he gave them up now it was not a personal act, but an act in the administration of law. But, further, he seems to have regarded the oath to Jonathan as relating to his own immediate descendants, and hence he spared Mephibosheth in order to keep his kingly promise while making acknowledgment for the sin of Saul. Rulers are bound to be true to national obligations, though at the cost of much feeling, and sometimes it will require more than mere casuistry to be true to private sentiments and obligations while discharging public duties. Self is never to be degraded in public affairs. If in nation or Church the rulers cannot conscientiously discharge obligations involved in the office, the proper alternative is to vacate the office. X. THE HONOUR DUE TO MORTAL REMAINS. The conduct of Rizpah in keeping off birds and beasts of prey from the corpses, and of David in collecting the bones and placing the remains of Saul and Jonathan in their family burying place, was worthy of their character; it indicated a refined feeling, a reverence for the dead, a deep sense of the sanctity of all that pertains to human life and human destiny. The mortal remains of friend and foe are touchingly suggestive of the greatness and littleness of man, of his checkered lot on earth, and the strange unknown experience on which his higher nature enters while his perishable remains abide with us. 2 Samuel 21:15-22 The difficulty of establishing the kingdom of God in the world. The facts are: 1. In one of his wars with the Philistines David waxes faint in personal conflict with a giant, and is succoured by the intervention of Abishai. 2. Observing the failing strength of the king, his people deprecate his going forth with them to battle, lest by personal failure he should be a means of general discouragement. 3. On each of three subsequent occasions of battle, a Philistine giant is slain respectively by Sibbechai, Elhanan, and Jonathan son of Shimeah. It is of no moment as to what precise period in David’s life the battles with the Philistines belonged. The first impression on reading the narrative and, at the same time, remembering the promise that Israel was to subdue and hold the land, is the tediousness of the process by which the complete subjugation of the heathen was effected, and the imperfection of the result even at this late period in the national history. Israel all along had represented the principles of true religion as against idolatry, and the special object of David’s wars was to render the cause he represented triumphant over all enemies, and so establish the theocracy on an enduring basis. The difficulties of achieving the end in view are suggested by the necessity of these successive conflicts with a most active and stubborn foe. In general outline we have here an analogy with the work which the Christian Church has in hand, and the difficulties attending its speedy and complete accomplishment. The difficulties attending the subjugation of all opposing forces to the kingdom of Christ, and so permanently establishing a reign of righteousness in the earth, may be indicated as follows. I. THERE IS A AND BY EVIL. The Philistines were a numerous people, spread over a considerable area of country, bold, resolute, powerful, and therefore very tenacious of their possessions and of their local influence. They did not always wait to be subdued, but became active in their assaults on the kingdom ordained of God. As compared with them, the Israelites were not so hardy, so desperate in fighting, and so strongly influenced by the thought of ancient pre-eminence. It is not surprising that the conflict should extend through long and weary years. And is there not some resemblance here to modern facts? The earth is preoccupied by forces of evil—numerous, strong, tenacious. The power of sin has laid hold of every form of human activity, and has entered into all the public and private ramifications of life. Our preachers at home and missionaries abroad have to face evils hoary with age, and yet strong with the vigour of youth. Nothing is more conspicuous to Christian workers than the terrible grip with which sin holds the human soul to prevent the enthronement there of the King of righteousness. II. THERE ARE MANY WITH THE WORK WE HAVE TO DO. David’s people had not been as true to God as was required of Israel by the great Law laid down for their guidance; and much of this imperfection of character was an inheritance from the generations which had also failed to fulfil the moral conditions of conquest as laid down by the great lawgiver (Deuteronomy 28:1, Deuteronomy 28:7-10, Deuteronomy 28:15, Deuteronomy 28:25). Because Israel of the past had not been fully faithful, Israel of David’s age found many conquests unachieved. Failure in moral character ensured to posterity an inheritance of difficulty and sorrow. The work which a thoroughly righteous people could have accomplished remains unfinished, with the additional difficulties created by unfaithfulness. Unfortunately, the Christian Church has too closely followed the example of ancient Israel. There has been, in ages past, sometimes a deviation from the principles laid down by Christ for the casting out of sin and the subjugation of the world to himself, and sometimes a very inefficient application of his instructions. Instead of pure truth, love, faith, holiness of life, prayer, and unity of spirit, there has been a blending of the truth with human errors, and a manifestation of a worldly, time serving spirit. This age inherits not only the honour of subduing the world to Christ, but the results of the imperfect work done in days gone by. Our own spirit is not so pure and fit as it otherwise would have been; unfinished undertakings are on hand, and the prejudice created by the sins and errors of the Church has to be overcome in addition to the ordinary power of sin. III. THERE ARE PRESENT GIANT FORMS OF EVIL WHICH, BESIDES BEING ACTIVE CAUSES, TEND ALSO TO THOSE WHO OPPOSE THEM. Philistine giants not only had stout arms wherewith to slay, but their proportions, striking on the senses of men, had the effect of rendering the existing means of resistance and attack less easily available. Giant forms excite fear and awaken self-distrust. The indirect influence on good men of great evils is helpful to the perpetuation of those evils. The monstrous forms of idolatry in vast populations, the magnitude of the influence of Mohammed, the terrible hold of intemperance on multitudes, and the greatness of evil as a whole in the world, when looked at with ordinary eyes, at once bring on a temporary paralysis of energy. Many a brave heart faints in contemplation of the dreadful forms of evil that afflict the world. The Apostle Paul felt this when he reminded his friends to "put on the whole armour of God" (Ephesians 6:11-13), seeing that they had to wrestle with "principalities and powers." IV. THE OF AFFECTS THE OF THEIR . There was a day when David, fresh, young, pure, full of faith and courage, without after thoughts concerning himself, could calmly face and slay a giant (1 Samuel 17:39 47). But David, passing the meridian of life, sensible of failing powers, and moreover not free from the remembrance of sad departures from his God, could not perform exploits as of old, and was even in need of succour from another in the field. A true picture is this of many in the Christian warfare. They do not retain all the old vigour. The freshness and power of godliness fail. Were every Christian to grow in spiritual strength from first to last, were the spiritual forces in our religious life to gain momentum the longer we live, and none to become weak, what a mighty army would the Church become! The difficulty of subduing the world to Christ lies very much in the variability of spiritual strength in those who form the Church. Many are feeble who ought to be strong. V. THE OF LEADERS IS . The friends of David were wise in wishing him not to go out to battle. The negative effect of his weakness would be so much positive advantage to the Philistines. If he could no longer positively inspire by his courage and exploits, that very circumstance would tell against the cause he and they had at heart. Leaders have great power by virtue of their position; and when, by any failure of character, or wisdom, or knowledge, any inaptitude for the special circumstances of the time, they dishearten those who expect example and guidance, they really, by such negation of good, add to the difficulties of the situation, and unwittingly strengthen the position of evil in the world. It would form an instructive study to trace in history the connection of the slow progress of Christianity with the negative influence of its leaders. BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 21:1-14 (GIBEON, GIBEAH.) Famine. "And there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year" (2 Samuel 21:1). [Summary of the remaining portion (or appendix) of this book: 1. The famine. 2. Victorious acts in wars with the Philistines (2 Samuel 21:15-22). 3. David’s song of thanksgiving (looking backward); 2 Samuel 22:1-51 4. 2 Samuel His last prophetic words (looking forward); 2 Samuel 23:1-7. These two lyrical and prophetic productions of David, the ripest spiritual fruit of his life, form a worthy conclusion to his reign (Keil). 5. List of his heroes (forming, with 2, an historical framework for 3 and 4); 2 Samuel 23:8-39. 6. The pestilence (with the famine, "two Divine punishments inflicted upon Israel, with the expiation of the sins that occasioned them"); 2 Samuel 24:1-25. This famine took place after Mephibosheth was brought to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 24:7; 2 Samuel 9:1-13.); and, perhaps, about seventeen years after the death of Saul (2 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 9:12). It is mentioned here "as a practical illustration, on the one hand, of the manner in which Jehovah visited upon the house of Saul, even after the death of Saul himself, a crime which had been committed by him; and, on the other hand, of the way in which, even in such a case as this, when David had been obliged to sacrifice the descendants of Saul to expiate the guilt of their father, he showed his tenderness towards him by the honourable burial of their bones." After long prosperity and plenty there came adversity and destitution. No rain "out of heaven" (2 Samuel 24:10) for three successive years! What a scene of general, intense, and increasing distress must have been witnessed (Genesis 12:10; Genesis 26:1; Genesis 47:13; Rth 1:1; 1 Kings 18:5; 2 Kings 6:25; 2 Kings 25:5; Jeremiah 14:1-10; Acts 11:28). Nor has it been unknown in modern times. Consider it (with its attendant circumstances) as— I. CALLING FOR SPECIAL INQUIRY. "And David sought the face of Jehovah" (2 Samuel 24:1), equivalent to "inquired of Jehovah" (2 Samuel 5:19), by means of the Urim and Thummim through the high priest (the last recorded instance of this method of ascertaining the Divine will, henceforth more fully revealed through the prophets); urged by the cry of distress, especially among "the poorest sort of the people of the land" (2 Kings 24:14), on whom the famine pressed with peculiar severity. 1. The misery of the poor and afflicted produces in every faithful ruler and in every right hearted man a feeling of compassionate and anxious concern. 2. Physical calamities are often due to moral causes; they follow human disobedience to moral laws; being in some cases manifestly connected with such disobedience (as when famine follows desolating wars, agricultural neglect, etc.), in others, however, not directly and apparently so connected. This connection is evident (1) from the common convictions of men who instinctively associate calamity with crime; (2) from the plain teachings of Scripture (Deuteronomy 28:15, Deuteronomy 28:23, Deuteronomy 28:24; Ezekiel 14:21); and (3) from the moral government of the living, personal God, wherein all things are ordered with a view to moral ends. 3. These causes should be diligently searched out, by proper means—observation, consideration, prayer—in order to their removal. "It is not superstition, but rather the highest piety and the highest philosophy, which leads a people, under such a visitation as that of famine, to turn to Jehovah, saying, ’Show us wherefore thou contendest with us ’" (W.M. Taylor). "Let us search and try our ways," etc. (Lamentations 3:40; 1 Samuel 4:3). II. LEADING TO . "And Jehovah said (through the oracle), Concerning Saul and concerning the blood guilty house, because he slew the Gibeonires." A crime which had been committed, not recently, but twenty or even thirty years before, was brought to remembrance, and set before the national conscience, quickened in its sensibility by the experience of affliction. "David must hitherto have ruled in a very irreproachable manner to render it necessary to go further back to find a cause for the calamity" (Ewald). 1. Its iniquity was great. An attempt was made to exterminate (consume and destroy, 2 Samuel 24:5) a poor, dependent, and helpless people; of the original inhabitants of the laud (2 Samuel 24:2; Joshua 9:3-27), spared by solemn oath, devoted to the service of the sanctuary (now at Gibeon), for more than four hundred years dwelling peaceably among "the children of Israel and Judah" (Joshua 9:17; 2 Samuel 4:3), professing the same faith, and guilty of no offence; many of them being ruthlessly slain, others escaping by flight. 2. Its effects were still felt by the "hewers of wood and drawers of water" (Nethinim, bondmen), who survived, in bitter grief, popular odium, heavier servitude. Their cries "entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth "(James 5:4). 3. Its guilt was unacknowledged and unexpiated; the wrong unredressed, the sin unrepented of, and even ignored and well nigh forgotten. "It would seem that Saul viewed their possessions with a covetous eye, as affording him the means of rewarding his adherents (1 Samuel 22:7) and of enriching his family; and hence, on some pretence or other, or without any pretence, he slew large numbers of them, and doubtless seized their possessions. It is said that he did this in his zeal for Israel and Judah, and this cannot be explained but on the supposition that the deed was done in order to give the tribes possession of the reserved territories of the Gibeonites. And there is no doubt this would be, as it was designed, a popular and acceptable act (Joshua 9:18). Saul’s own family must have been active in this cruel wrong, and must have had a good share of the spoil; for we find them all, when reduced to a private station, much better off in their worldly circumstances than can else be accounted for" (Kitto). Here lay the secret of the famine, which was interpreted as a sign of Divine wrath. "He turneth a fruitful land into a salt marsh, Because of the wickedness of them that dwell therein." (Psalms 107:34.) III. ; not merely that sin and crime are followed by Divine punishment, and the wrongs of the poor and needy avenged (1 Samuel 30:15-17), but also that men are dealt with by God (in the way of chastisement) as communities, as well as separate souls (Ezekiel 18:2-4). 1. The guilt incurred by individuals is participated in by the nation to which they belong when their wrongdoing is connived at, profited by, and not repudiated; and especially when the wrongdoer is its recognized representative. 2. The infliction of suffering on a whole nation, on account of the sins of one or more persons therein, is often needful for the vindication of public justice, the reparation of wrong doing, and the general welfare. 3. Although a nation may be exempted for a season, through the forbearance of God, from the chastisement due to sin, it does not escape altogether, but is surely called to account in this world. "Nations as nations will have no existence in another world, and therefore. they must look for retribution in this" (Wordsworth). "I can perceive in the story a recognition of the continuance of a nation’s life, of its obligations, of its sins from age, to age. All national morality, nay, the meaning and possibility of history, depends upon this truth, the sense of which is, I fear, very weak in our day" (Maurice). "Time does not wear out the guilt of sin, nor can we build hopes of impunity on the delay of judgments" (Matthew Henry). IV. EVOKING . "And the king called the Gibeonites, and said … What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement [expiation, satisfaction, means of reconciliation], that ye may bless [and no more curse] the inheritance of Jehovah?" (2 Samuel 24:2, 2 Samuel 24:3); "What ye say, I will do for you" (2 Samuel 24:5). Whilst acknowledging the national wrong, he also acknowledged the national obligation, and expressed his purpose: 1. To redress their grievance, satisfy their claim for justice, and secure their favour and intercession. 2. To respect the justice of God (by whom their cause was manifestly maintained), so that prayer might be heard, and the famine removed. Unless right is done, prayer is vain (Psalms 66:18). 3. And to do whatever might be possible and necessary for these ends. "The land must expiate the king’s wrong. This is rooted in the idea of the solidarity of the people, and the theocratic king as representative of God’s people, whence comes solidarity of guilt between king and people" (Erdmann). David herein acted wisely and in a theocratic spirit. V. . (2 Samuel 24:7-9.) The expiation was made by the crucifixion of the two sons of Rizpah and the five sons of Merab (Hebrew, Michal), "whom she bare to Adriel," according to the demand and by "the hands of the Gibeonites" (verse. 9), under the authority and sanction of the king (and doubtless with the approval of the nation). The demand: 1. Could be satisfied with nothing short of this. "We will have no silver nor gold," etc. (2 Samuel 24:4); no private compensation could atone for such a public crime and wilful sin "before the Lord." 2. Accorded with the requirements of the Law (Genesis 9:5, Genesis 9:6; Numbers 35:31); or at least with the custom of blood vengeance, and the then prevalent ideas of justice. If (as is probable, 2 Samuel 24:1) the hands of the sons of Saul were stained with blood, the Law demanded their death; if they were personally guiltless, they suffered from their intimate relationship to the murderer, as a "vicarious sacrifice," and for the benefit of the nation. "To understand this procedure, we must bear in mind the ancient Oriental ideas of the solidarity of the family, strict retaliation and blood revenge—ideas that, with some limitation, remained in force in the legislation of the old covenant" (Kurtz). 3. Was restricted by merciful consideration for the assuredly innocent and steadfast fidelity to a solemn engagement. "And the king spared Mephibosheth," etc. (2 Samuel 24:7). "The obscurities of this narrative probably may never be entirely cleared up. One thing, however, is certain—these seven descendants of Saul were not pretenders to the crown; and David cannot be suspected of having embraced such an opportunity to put them out of the way. Neither is it to be supposed that David delivered up the innocent contrary to the Law (Deuteronomy 24:16). They were, therefore, delivered up to the avengers of blood and punished with death, not on account of the crimes of Saul, but for the murders which they themselves, with the connivance of Saul, had committed on the Gibeonites, and for which they had hitherto remained unpunished" (Jahn, ’Heb. Com.,’ 32.). VI. (whether the victims be regarded as having actually taken part in the crime or not). "As seen by the people, the execution of Saul’s sons (who were not charged with being in any way personally accessory to their father’s crime) was a judicial act of retribution; but this aspect of the transaction was only an ’accommodation’ to the current ideas of the age. Viewed in its essential character as sanctioned by God, it was a didactic act, designed to teach the guilt of sin" (Kirkpatrick); to produce repentance, and prevent its recurrence. That melancholy spectacle of a sevenfold crucifixion "on the mountain before Jehovah," in "Gibeah of Saul" (1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 22:6), declared: 1. The exceeding culpability of unrighteous zeal, of the wanton violation of sacred pledges, of the unjust taking away of human life. "Let us here learn the danger of trifling with oaths and solemn engagements. Four hundred years had elapsed since the treaty made with the Gibeonites; and yet in the sight of God it was as sacred as ever; so that he who presumed to infringe it drew down a severe judgment on the whole nation" (Lindsay). 2. The inevitable, rigorous, and impartial execution of Divine justice. Princes are not above its correction, nor bondsmen below its protection. 3. The far reaching consequences of transgression; to the children and children’s children of the transgressor. "The evident intention of God in ordering the death of so many of Saul’s family" (which, however, is not expressly stated) "was to give public attestation of the abhorrence of Saul’s perfidy and cruelty, and to strike into the hearts of his successors on the throne a salutary dread of committing similar offences. The death of these seven persons, therefore, is not to be regarded as a punishment inflicted upon them for personal offences, even though they might have a share in their father’s persecution of the Gibeonites, but an act commanded by God in virtue of his sovereign rights over the lives of all men, to teach princes moderation and equity, and to prevent the perpetration of enormous crimes, which are inconsistent with the welfare of the civil government as well as incompatible with the principles of true religion" (Chandler). VII. BY . "And after that [the expiation] God was entreated for the land" (2 Samuel 24:14). "Long forgotten sin had been brought to mind and acknowledged and expiated; homage had been paid to justice; the evil of unfaithfulness had been exposed; the honour of the nation had been purged from foul stains; it had been shown that neither kings nor princes can do wrong with impunity; maternal fondness had been touchingly displayed; a long forgotten duty had been attended to; a noble example had borne fruit; and after that God was entreated for the land. The generous heavens poured down their showers, the languishing life of field and vineyard revived, and the earth was clothed with beauty and teemed with fruitfulness again. There was one more proof of the everlasting truth, ’Righteousness exalteth a nation’" (C. Vince).—D. 2 Samuel 21:2 (GIBEON.) Unrighteous zeal. "And Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah." When his attempt was made is not certainly known; possibly soon after his sparing Amalek (and to make amends for it); or at the time of his massacre of the priests at Nob (where the Gibeonites then assisted the Levites, before the removal of the altar and tabernacle to Gibeon); more probably at the time of his expulsion of the necromancers and soothsayers (1 Samuel 28:3); being "one of those acts of passionate zeal in which he tried to drown the remorse of his later years." His zeal (like that of others in later times) was: 1. Religious and patriotic in intention and profession; to purge the land of the remnant of the heathen (Deuteronomy 7:2, Deuteronomy 7:24), to honour God, to benefit his people. Good intentions are not enough to constitute good actions. 2. Blind and wilful, "not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2; Acts 26:9). 3. Irreverent and ungodly; in violation of a solemn compact in the name of God, and against those who were consecrated to his service. His humblest ministers should be held in respect. 4. Unjust and ungrateful; for they bad done no wrong, but had performed useful service. 5. Proud. and tyrannical; regarding them with contempt, and taking advantage of their defenceless condition (1 Samuel 22:6-19). 6. Cruel and murderous. 7. Selfish and covetous; to appropriate the spoil to his family and adherents. 8. Popular and acceptable. The people never forgave the crafty manner in which they had originally been induced to spare their lives, looked upon them with suspicion and dislike, and readily sympathized with Saul’s attack upon them (as they did not in the case of the priests at Nob), and consented to share the plunder. 9. Restrained and unsuccessful. Some survived. It is seldom that persecutors are able to do all they endeavour to do. 10. Infectious and disastrous, in its influence on his family and the nation.—D. 2 Samuel 21:8-14 (GIBEAH.) Rizpah. "And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth," etc. (verse. 10; 2 Samuel 3:7). The days of harvest had come; but not the fruits of harvest. The heaven was brass, and the earth iron (Deuteronomy 28:23). The misery of famine was accompanied by a sense of Divine wrath on account of sin. The guilt of blood was on the land, and especially on "the house of Saul," for the destruction of the Gibeonites. Nothing would satisfy the demand of the sorrowing bondservants of Israel, or (as it was believed) restore Divine favour, save the death of seven men of Saul’s family (John 11:50). These, therefore, two of them being sons of Rizpah, were taken and crucified (Numbers 25:4) at once on the hill before Jehovah, and their remains left unburied, a prey to ravenous birds and beasts. And in her maternal grief and affection, spreading sackcloth on the rocky floor (either for her bed or as a rough tent to shelter her), she watched them there, under the scorching sun by day and the drenching dews by night, and protected them from molestation until they received an honourable burial. "They were accounted as accursed and unworthy of the burial of dogs; but she would not cast them out of her heart. The more they were shunned by others, the more she clung to them; and the deeper the disgrace, the deeper her compassion." Observe— I. HER SPECIAL DESIRE AND AIM; for it was more than an instinct of natural affection that prompted her watching near the dead. Regarding their unburied condition as one of ignominy (Psalms 79:2), and perhaps as, in some way, affecting their happiness in the future life, she was desirous of their being honourably interred. It was deemed necessary (unlike what was required in other instances, Deuteronomy 21:22, Deuteronomy 21:23) that they should remain exposed before Jehovah till assurance was given, by the fall of rain, that the satisfaction was accepted. If she could not do what she would, she would do what she could (Mark 14:8); and, by preventing further injury, render the fulfilment of her desire possible. Her intense maternal love led her to seek the safety and honour of the dead; well may a similar love lead others to seek the safety and honour of the living! II. HER ; as it appears in: 1. Her unquenchable attachment. Others might despise them as criminals, but she could only regard them and cling to them as children (So 2 Samuel 8:7). 2. Her humble submission and resignation to what was unavoidable. "Truly this is a grief, and I must bear it" (Jeremiah 10:19). 3. Her entire self-surrender and self-sacrifice. If she could not remove their reproach, she could share it with them. 4. Her patient endurance of suffering; through long and lonely nights, and dark and dreary days. 5. Her ceaseless vigilance, zeal, and courage. 6. Her unwearied, faithful, hopeful perseverance. "The emotions in woman act as powerful motives on the will, and, when strongly called forth, produce a degree of vigour and determination which is very surprising to those who have usually seen the individual under a different aspect" (Carpenter). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ DAVID’S PSALM OF . This song, which is identical with Psalms 18:1-50; though with many verbal differences, is so universally acknowledged as a genuine composition of King David, that the objections taken by one or two critics serve only to give us greater security by reminding us that the other side has been carefully argued. The differences between its form here and in the Book of Psalms suggest many important considerations with regard to textual criticism. From the absence of manuscripts, we have very scanty means of judging of the correctness of the ordinary Hebrew text. We have, indeed, abundant proof that the Jews took extreme care of their sacred text in the early centuries of our era; but we nevertheless find, most frequently in names, mistakes which have arisen from the carelessness of scribes, and especially from the confusion by them of similar letters. Thus the Sibbechai of 2 Samuel 21:18 becomes Mebunnai in 2 Samuel 23:27, owing to some scribe having mistaken two letters in the name. And as the similarity between them exists, not in the old Hebrew writing, but in the square character substituted after the exile, the confusion must be subsequent to that date. In comparing the two texts of this psalm, we find similar instances of confusion of letters in 2 Samuel 23:11, 42, 43; we find words transposed in 2 Samuel 23:5, 2 Samuel 23:6; and clauses repeated or omitted in 2 Samuel 23:13, 2 Samuel 23:14. In short, all the phenomena with which we are familiar in the textual criticism of the New Testament are also found here. And may we not add that they end in the same result? The general sense and meaning remain much the same. The variations of reading do not affect the teaching of Holy Scripture on any important point. It may be asked, then—Why should we notice them at all? And why urge them upon the attention of scholars? The answer is that there exist flaws and blemishes in the Massoretic, that is, the ordinary Hebrew, text, and that the removal of them is prevented by the strange idea which accords infallibility to the Massorites, and will not concede to the far more difficult problem of the ancient Hebrew text that which is granted as a matter of course to the comparatively modern Greek text of the New Testament. And thus the Old Testament is neglected, and left outside that careful and minute study so lavishly expended on the New, and so rich in useful results. Of the date when David wrote this psalm there can be little doubt. It was at the close of his first great series of victories, after Toi, the Hittite King of Hamath, had sent to him an embassy of congratulation (2 Samuel 8:9, 2 Samuel 8:10), referred to very triumphantly in verses 45, 46. But there is no trace in it of the sorrow and shame that clouded over his latter days; and no man whose conscience was stained with sins so dark as those of adultery and murder could have written words so strongly asserting his integrity and the cleanness of his hands as are found in 2 Samuel 23:21-25. The psalm belongs to David’s happiest time, when he had won for Israel security and empire. It is written from first to last in a tone of jubilant exultation, caused, as we may well believe, by Nathan’s acceptance of his purpose to build the temple, and by the solemn appointment of David as the theocratic king. If it were arranged according to time and matter, it would be placed immediately after 2 Samuel 8:1-18; as it is evidently David’s thanksgiving for the benefits and blessings just promised to him and his seed. But the scribes inserted it here, not so much because of its historical value, as because it is a national thanksgiving for the founding of that empire by which Israel became verily the theocratic people, and the type upon earth of the kingdom of the Messiah. The prophet who compiled the Books of Samuel rejoiced in David’s victories, not because they gave Israel worldly dominion, but because they were a fulfilment of past prophecy, and a necessary part of the preparation for the religious position which Israel was to hold. Such as it had been under the judges, Israel would have been no fit home for the prophetic light. It could not have grown and developed, nor the race have become a Church fit to be the teacher of all mankind. And in this hymn the Church expresses her joy at the high office and extended usefulness to which God has seen fit to call her. The spiritual exposition of the psalm will naturally be sought in commentaries on the Book of Psalms. But such matters as its outward form, and the differences between the two texts, will not be out of place here. 2 Samuel 22:1 David spake. The introduction was probably written by the prophet who compiled the Books of Samuel. The scribe who collected the Book of Psalms would be a priest, and he has repeated it with one or two additions, the most important of which is that the psalm was written "by David the servant of Jehovah." This title; meaning the minister or vicegerent of Jehovah, is one so high that it would certainly not have been given to David in his lifetime; nor was it even until Moses was dead that he was honoured with this rank (Deuteronomy 34:5). But what was David’s right to this title, which put him on a level with Moses? It was this: In adding to the sacrificial ritual enacted by Moses a daily service in the temple of sacred minstrelsy and songs, David was acting with higher powers than were ever exercised by any other person. For though, as we have seen, Samuel was the originator of these services in his schools, yet. there is a wide difference between private and public services; and David made his anthems part of the national liturgy. But it would only be when the halo of long use had gathered round his holy psalmody that David would be placed on in equality with Moses, and his authority a institute a new ritual for the nation be recognized. 2 Samuel 22:2-4 Jehovah is my Cliff and my Stronghold and my Deliverer: The God of my rock, in whom I take refuge; My Shield and the Horn of my salvation, My Fastness and my Place of refuge: My Saviour: thou savest me from violence. I call upon Jehovah, the praised One, And I am saved from my enemies." The Syriac in 2 Samuel 22:2 inserts, "Fervently do I love thee, Jehovah my Strength;" but it probably only borrows the words from Psalms 18:1. For we may well believe that it was at a later period of his life, after deeper and more heart searching trials, that David thus felt his love to Jehovah only strengthened and made more necessary to him by the loss of his earthly happiness. In Psalms 18:3, The God of my rock is changed in Psalms 18:2 into "My God my Rock" (Authorized Version, "strength")—probably an intentional alteration, as being far less rugged and startling than this bold metaphor of the Deity being his rock’s God. In the original the words present each its distinct idea. Thus in Psalms 18:2 the rock is a high cliff or precipice. It is the word sela, which gave its name to the crag city of Idumea. Fortress really means a rock, difficult of access, and forming a secure retreat. It is entirely a natural formation, and not a building. In Psalms 18:3 rock is a vast mountainous mass (Job 18:4), and, as it suggests the ideas of grandeur and immovable might, it is often used for God’s glory as being the Strength and Protection of his people. Next follow two ordinary metaphors, the shield for defence, and the horn for attack; after which David, who had so often sought safety among the cliffs and fastnesses of the mountains, returns to the same circle of thoughts, and calls God his High Tower, the word signifying, not a building, but a height, a lofty natural stronghold; and finally his Refuge, a place of safe retreat among the mountains. This and the rest of the verse are omitted in Psalms 18:2. In Psalms 18:4 the words are as literally translated above, and signify, "Whenever call, I am saved." In all times of difficulty, prayer brings immediate deliverance. 2 Samuel 22:5-7 "For the breakers of death surrounded me; Torrents of wickedness [Hebrew, ’of Belial’] terrified me; Cords of Sheol surrounded me; Snares of death came suddenly upon me. In my distress I cried unto Jehovah, And to my God I cried. And he heard my voice out of his palace, And my cry was in his ears." Instead of breakers—waves dashing violently on rocks—Psalms 18:4 has "cords of death;" translated "sorrow" in the Authorized Version. But "cords of death" mean the fatal snares of the hunter, and are not in keeping with "torrents of wickedness." "Belial," literally, "worthlessness," is by many supposed, from the context to mean herd "destruction," that is, physical instead of moral wickedness. So in Nahum 1:11 "a counsellor of Belial" means a ruinous, destructive counsellor. Sheol is the world of the departed, and is equivalent to "death." Cried is the same verb twice used. In Psalms 18:6 it is altered, in the former part of the verse unto "I called"—a change probably suggested by the more fastidious taste of a later age. For temple we should translate palace, or heavenly temple. It is not the temple in Jerusalem, which was not yet built, but God’s heavenly dwelling, that is meant. Instead of the terse ellipse, "And my cry in his ears," the full but heavy phrase, "My cry before him came into his ears," is substituted in Psalms 18:6. 2 Samuel 22:8-10 "And the earth quaked and trembled; The foundations of the heavens shook, And quaked because he was wroth. A smoke went up in his nostril, And fire out of his mouth devoured; Red hot cinders burned from him. And he bowed the heavens and came down, And darkness was under his feet." In describing the manifestation of God for his deliverance, David bore in mind and repeated the description of God’s descent to earth given in Exodus 19:16, Exodus 19:18. But the poetic vigour of David’s imagination intensities the imagery, and makes it more grand and startling. Not merely is there the earthquake and the volcano and the storm cloud, but the dim form of the Almighty is present, with the smoke of just anger at unrighteousness ascending from his nostrils, and the lightnings flashing forth to execute his wrath. But David certainly intended that these metaphors should remain ideal; and it was quite unnecessary for the Targum carefully to eliminate all such expressions as seem to give the Almighty bureau shape. In so doing it merely changes poetry into prose. But even more dull and commonplace is the explanation given by some modern commentators, that all that is meant is that David was once saved by a thunderstorm from some danger or other. Really this glorious imagery, taken from all that is grandest on earth, is intended to magnify to us the spiritual conception of God’s justice coming forth to visit the earth and do right and equity. In Exodus 19:8 for "the foundations of the heavens," we find in Psalms 18:7 "the foundations of the hills." The former is the grander metaphor, and signifies the mighty mountain ranges, like those of Lebanon, on which the skies seem to rest. The smoke signifies hailstorms and, perhaps, also the rain driven in wreaths along the ground by the wind. Red hot cinders burned from him describes the flashing lightnings that were shot forth like the coals from the refiner’s furnace when heated to the full. It is to be regretted that the Revised Version retains the bathos of the old rendering, that God’s fiery breath set coals on fire. 2 Samuel 22:11-13 "And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; And he was seen upon the wings of the wind. And he made darkness booths round about him; Gathering of waters, thickenings of clouds. Out of the brightness before him Coals of fire burned." In 2 Samuel 6:2 Jehovah is described as sitting upon the cherubim; his presence there, called by the rabbins his Shechinah, that is, dwelling, being indicated by a cloud of light. In this psalm the cherub is his chariot, on which he rides forth to judgment. He was seen. There can be little doubt that the right reading is preserved in Psalms 18:10, where we find a verb signifying the swooping down of a bird of prey upon its quarry (Deuteronomy 28:49; Jeremiah 48:40). The two words differ only in the substitution of r for d, and these letters are so similar in Hebrew that they are constantly interchanged. Booths; made of branches of trees, and forming a temporary abode. So the dark storm clouds are gathered round the Almighty to veil his awful form from sight as he goes forth for judgment. Gathering of waters; probably the right reading, instead of which in the psalm we find "dark waters." The gathering of waters would describe the massing of the rain clouds. The difference here also consists only in one letter. Out of the brightness, which closely surrounds the Deity in the midst of the black mass of the tempest, the lightning flashes forth. This brightness is the Shechinah (see above), to which St. Paul also refers where he says that God’s dwelling is in "the unapproachable light" (1 Timothy 6:16). 2 Samuel 22:14-16 "Jehovah thundered from heaven, And the Most High uttered his voice. And he sent forth arrows, and scattered them [the evil doers]; Lightning, and terrified them. And the sea beds became visible, The foundations of the world were laid bare, At the rebuke of Jehovah, By the breath of the wind of his nostril." Terrified. The verb signifies" to strike with sodden terror and alarm" (see Exodus 14:24; Joshua 10:10). It describes here the panic caused by the lightning, and by the violent throes of nature, so powerfully described in 2 Samuel 22:16. Laid bare. This is the meaning of the word "discovered" in the Authorized Version. When the version was made, it was equivalent to "uncovered," but has now changed its signification. 2 Samuel 22:17-20 "He stretched forth his hand from on high; he took me, He drew me out of many waters. He delivered me from my strong enemy, From them that hated me; for they were too mighty for me. For they attacked me in the day of my misfortune. But Jehovah became my Staff, And he brought me forth into a wide place He delivered me, because he had pleasure in me." In the midst of this fearful convulsion of nature, while all around are stricken with panic, David sees a hand stretched out from above, ready to deliver him from the overwhelming flood of hatred and peril. Attacked me. The word does not signify "to prevent," or" anticipate," but "to assail" So in 2 Samuel 22:6, "The snares of death assailed me;" and in Isaiah 37:33, "The King of Assyria shall not attack this city with shield." It is the same verb in all these places. Staff; in the Authorized Version, "stay." But it means something to lean upon, and is rightly translated "staff" in Psalms 23:4. A wide place; in opposition to the straits of affliction. He had pleasure in me. In 2 Samuel 15:26 this confidence is gone, and David doubts whether the favour of Jehovah had not been forfeited by him. 2 Samuel 22:21-25 "Jehovah hath requited me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of Jehovah, And sinned not so as to depart from my God. For all his judgments have been kept in sight, And from his statutes I have not departed. I was also perfect towards him, And was on my guard against my sin. Therefore hath Jehovah recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to my cleanness in his eyesight." It is impossible to suppose that these verses could have been written after David’s fall. For while be acknowledges in them a tendency to sin, he affirms that he had been on his guard against it, and that he had ever kept God’s statutes present before his view. However complete may be the penitent’s recovery, yet can he never again be "perfect," the word applied to an animal without blemish, and therefore fit for sacrifice. The crime remains a blemish, even though the intense sorrow for the sin may make it the means of even attaining to a higher stage of spirituality and devotion. In 2 Samuel 22:22 the words literally are, "I have not sinned away from God," sin necessarily removing the sinner away from that nearness to God which is the privilege of the saint. 2 Samuel 22:26-28 "With the pious man thou wilt show thyself pious; With the perfect man thou wilt show thyself perfect; With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure; And with the crooked thou wilt show thyself perverse. And the afflicted people thou wilt save; And thine eyes are upon the haughty, to bring them down." Having affirmed his integrity, and that God therefore had pleasure in him and rewarded him, David now asserts that this is the unfailing rule of God’s dealings with men. The general current of their lives is so ordered as to be in harmony with their characters. It is not by luck or good fortune that prosperity attends the righteous, nor is it by chance that things go awry with the fraudulent, but it is by the law of God’s providence. Pious. The Hebrew word means "pious" in the original sense of the word, which includes kindness to men as well as love to God. Perverse. In the Authorized Version "unsavoury." Really it is the same word as that used in Psalms 18:26, and signifies "thou wilt make thyself twisted," only the form is archaic, as is the case with some other words here. Experience confirms the psalmist’s verdict. For constantly a strange perversity of fortune and an untowardness of events are the lot of those whose hearts are crooked. Afflicted. The word in the original includes the idea of humility, and so leads naturally on to the thought of the abasement of the proud. In the psalm the somewhat harsh expression used here has been softened into the more easy phrase, "The haughty eyes thou wilt bring down." 2 Samuel 22:29-31 "For thou, Jehovah, art my Lamp; And Jehovah will make my darkness light. For by thee do I run upon a troop; In my God I leap over a wall. God—his way is perfect; The word of Jehovah is purified. He is a Shield to all that trust in him." Lamp. The lamp burning in the house is the proof of life and activity present there; and thus the extinguishing of the lamp means ruin and desolation (Job 21:17). So David is called "the lamp of Israel" (2 Samuel 21:17), because the active life of the nation centred in him. In a still higher sense the life and being of his people centres in God, and without him the soul is waste and void, like the universe before God said, "Let there be light." I run. To the warrior in old time speed was as important as strength, and thus Homer constantly calls Achilles "fleet of foot." It was his fleetness which gave Asahel a high place among the mighties (2 Samuel 2:18), and to this quality David now refers. The troop signifies a light armed band of marauders, whom with God’s aid David could overtake, and stop in their course of rapine. The wall means fortifications like those of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:7). Sieges were tedious affairs in old time, but David had captured that city with a rapidity so great that the metaphor in the text is most appropriate. Purified; or, refined. This does not mean that it is proved by experience and found true, but that it is absolutely good and perfect like refined gold (see Psalms 12:6). 2 Samuel 22:32-34 "For who is God, save Jehovah? And who is a rock, save our God? God is my strong Fortress, And he guideth the perfect in his way. He maketh my feet like the hinds, And upon my high places he cloth set me." God; Hebrew, El; the Mighty One, used several times in this psalm. In the second clause the word is Elohim, the ordinary name of God. The psalmist’s question is a strong assertion that Jehovah alone is God, and that he alone is a Rock of safety for his people. He guideth, etc. In Psalms 18:32 "He maketh my way perfect," like his own. The phrase here is probably that which David wrote, as being less usual, and it signifies that God will direct the upright man in his good way. Hinds. David’s feet are swift as hinds, an animal famous for its speed and sureness of foot. My high places. The tops of the mountains are the favourite resort of the antelope (2 Samuel 1:18); and so with David, the possession of such rocky citadels as Bozez and Seneh (1 Samuel 14:4) made him master of the whole country. 2 Samuel 22:35-37 "He teaeheth my hands to war; And mine arms can bend a bow of bronze. And thou hast given me thy saving shield; And thy hearing of me hath made me great. Thou hast enlarged my steps under me; And my feet have not slipped." Bow of bronze. In Job 20:24 we also read of bows made of this metal, or compound of metals, which was a far more ancient material for weapons than steel. The bending of such a bow was proof of great strength, and the last artifice of Penelope, to save herself from the suitors, was to promise her hand to the man who could bend Ulysses’ bow. Thy hearing of me; in Psalms 18:35, and Authorized Version and Revised Version here, "thy gentleness." The words in the Hebrew are very nearly alike, but the Septuagint notices the difference, and translates "hearing" in this place, but "chastisement" in the psalm. The Vulgate has "gentleness" or "mildness" here, and "discipline" in the psalm. The Syriac alone has "discipline" in both places. My feet; literally, ankle bones, the weakness of which causes men to totter. 2 Samuel 22:38-40 "I have pursued my enemies and destroyed them; Neither did I turn again until I had consumed them. And I have consumed them, and smitten them through, and they arose not; Yea, they fell under my feet. For thou hast girded me with strength unto the battle; Thou hast made them that rose against me to bow under me." In the Psalms, for destroyed we find "overtaken," and the second "I have consumed them" is omitted. This exultation of David at the result of his wars is in accordance with the harsh treatment inflicted by him upon the vanquished. His enemies were God’s enemies, whom he must consume. The "new commandment" of Christianity forbids and condemns this delight in conquest. Verses 41-43.— "And mine enemies thou hast made to turn upon me their back, Even those that hate me; and have utterly destroyed them. They looked, but there was none to save, Even to Jehovah, but he answered them not. And I beat them small as the dust of the earth; As the mire of the streets I stamped upon them, I trode them down." Those that hate me. The sentence is to be completed from the previous clause, "my haters" and "my enemies" being equivalent. There are several small variations between the text here and in Psalms 18:1-50; such as "they cried" for they looked; and "I emptied them out" for I stamped upon them, the difference in both cases consisting in a single letter. 2 Samuel 22:44-46 "And thou hast delivered me from the strivings of my people; Thou hast protected me that I might be head of the nations. A people whom! knew not have become my servants; Children of strangers have submitted themselves to me; At the hearing of the ear they obeyed me. The children of the strangers faded away; They fled trembling out of their fastnesses." People, in the singular, means the Jewish people as opposed to the nations, that is, the heathen world. The strivings here referred to are the long dissensions which followed Ishbosheth’s death, and delayed for many the appointment of David as king of Israel. He now feels that the watchful which had protected him during that dangerous period had a higher purpose than the union of the twelve tribes under one head. He was to be the founder also of that empire over the nations which symbolized the gift of the heathen world to Christ. And this empire had been extended to people previously unknown to David. Such might be the case with Hadarezer, King of Zobah, but it more especially referred to Toi, and the Hittite kingdom of Hamath (2 Samuel 8:9). It was not from force of arms, but from the hearing of the ear, that is, from the wide extended fame of David’s conquests, that Toi sent ambassadors to offer allegiance and presents. They fled trembling. This is certainly the sense in Psalms 18:45, where, however, there is a transposition of letters. Probably it is the sense here. But if we might go to the cognate languages for an explanation of a rare word, it would mean "came limping out of their fastnesses," as men worn out with fatigue and exhaustion. 2 Samuel 22:47-49 "Jehovah liveth; and blessed be my Rock, And exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation, Even the God that giveth me avengements, And bringeth down peoples under me. And bringeth me forth from my enemies. Yea, thou liftest me up above those that rise up against me; From the violent man thou deliverest me." In Psalms 18:46 we find simply "the God of my salvation." Perhaps there seemed to the compiler to be some confusion in calling Jehovah, first David’s Rock, and then the God of his rock (but see note on Psalms 18:3). Avengements, in the plural. In the Law the sanctions were chiefly temporal, and therefore the saints of old watched anxiously for, and were strengthened by observing, the constantly recurring proofs of God’s righteous government of men. Peoples, in the plural; heathen nations. The violent man may especially be Saul, as is supposed in the title prefixed to this song in the Book of Psalms. There probably it is general, and includes all who were bitter in their hostility to David. 2 Samuel 22:50, 2 Samuel 22:51 "Therefore will I praise thee among the nations, And to thy Name will I sing. Great deliverance giveth he to his king, And showeth grace to his messiah— To David, and to his seed forever." Great deliverance; literally, he maketh great the salvation of his king; that is, he rescueth him marvellously again and again. The K’ri substitutes tower, but it has no support either from the versions or from Psalms 18:1-50; though admitted into the Authorized Version. The difference between the two words "making great" and "tower" is, in the Hebrew, trifling. To his messiah. This mercy was shown to David as the anointed theocratic king, whose rule was the symbol of that of Christ. 2 Samuel 22:1-4 Songs of deliverance. The facts are: 1. David composes a song at the end of all the deliverances which during his life God had wrought for him. 2. He describes God as being to him a Rock, a Fortress, a Shield, a High Tower, a Place of Refuge, and represents him as being actively his Deliverer and Saviour. 3. He, in looking on to the future, resolves to trust in him who had been so much to his life in the past, and expects to be saved from his enemies. 4. He, reviewing the past, feels that God is worthy of the praise expressed in this song. There is a. beautiful congruity in the place of this song being at the close of the most detailed and protracted narrative of personal history to be found in the Old Testament, and even in the entire Bible with the exception of that referring to Christ—seeing that that history was one of most strange vicissitudes, and full of dangers. The story of David’s life is so necessarily occupied with events as they appeared to men and as they pertain to visible history, that this song is a true supplement, inasmuch as it brings into view the deep spiritual feelings that influenced him in the midst of those events, and so furnishes a key to the religious life of the great king. This song of deliverances reminds us of the song Moses when Israel triumphed over Pharaoh and his hosts at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:1-27), of the song of the ransomed as they were to return to Zion with everlasting joy on their heads (Isaiah 35:10), and of the still more wonderful new song by the redeemed from all nations and kindreds of the earth (Revelation 5:9-13; Revelation 14:1-3). In these historic and prophetic instances we have illustrations of songs of deliverance ever rising from grateful hearts, establishing thus with the past and the future a community of religious experience which is at once a fruit and an evidence of the Divine redemption wrought out by our Saviour. Taking the experience of David as our guide, we may observe— I. THE PERILS OF LIFE ARE SO EXTREME AS TO INDUCE IMMENSE EFFORTS TO ESCAPE THEM. History tells us some of the perils of David’s life, both when Saul pursued him with relentless cunning and cruelty, and when, as king, kindred, friend, and foe, and also the unseen powers of darkness, sought his ruin. The subsequent references in 2 Samuel 22:5, 2 Samuel 22:6 give his impression of the greatness of his distress; and the allusions to "rock," "high tower," and "fortress" remind us of the time when his extremity was such that he climbed the craggy cliff or hid himself in the inaccessible clefts of the rocks. No man was so near to death as was David, and no good man came nearer to moral and spiritual destruction than did he in the case of Bathsheba and Uriah. This is the common lot of men on earth, though some find their perils less than those of their fellows. In business affairs, in statesmanship, in special enterprises, in matters of health, in common intercourse with men, and in spiritual experience, there are seasons when it seems to be a question of a few hours whether we make wreck or escape. Then comes a strain, a demand on our fullest resources, corresponding to that on David when Saul sought his life, or when spiritual destruction was in the train of Bathsheba’s unholy love. II. NO HIGH RAISES US ABOVE TO THESE EXTREME PERILS. The world is infested with evil, and the best characters find that, as mortal, fallible men, they are liable to the exigencies of life, and as good men they are objects of attack by the powers of darkness. David was an honest, sincere, devout man, and specially dear to God when Saul hunted his life; and he was superior to many before the horrible temptation to depart from purity fell upon his soul. Character is a defence against some dangers, else were it of little worth; but danger to our calling, our enterprises, our health, our moral position—subtle and serious—cannot but be our earthly lot. Even our Lord knew the tempter’s power in the bitterness of poverty; and he warned the best men around his Person to expect peril to earthly interests, and to watch lest at any time even their devouter hearts should be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness and the cares of this life (Luke 21:34; cf. 16). III. TRULY MEN WILL USE EVERY EFFORT TO ESCAPE THESE PERILS. In his reference to "rock," "refuge," and "fortress," David at once carries us back to the time when he used his utmost endeavours to escape from Saul by climbing the rocks and taking refuge among the fastnesses of the mountains (1 Samuel 22:1, 1 Samuel 22:5; 1 Samuel 23:14, 1 Samuel 23:15). David acted as though all depended on himself. The cave, the cliff, the gorge, the lofty peak, were sought to cover him as a "shield," or to raise him as on a "high tower." So far as the two men were concerned, it was a case of skill against skill, endurance against endurance. So, also, in the more spiritual conflicts of his life, he laboured hard to save himself from destruction. Prayer, meditation on the Divine Law, taking heed to his steps, going to the house of the Lord, were so many forms of personal exertion to escape the foes of his highest life. So is it with the followers of Christ. They strive daily to ward off the ills which threaten their temporal interests, and when peril becomes extreme, they stir up all their energies to maintain their head high above all impending evils; and what is true of temporal is true also of spiritual interests—they give all diligence to make their calling sure. IV. THE VISIBLE MEANS OF SAFETY USED BY MEN ARE AN INDEX OF AN . It is just here that we get at the heart of David’s meaning. A spectator, observing how he set his skill against that of Saul, how he baffled the cruel persecutor by feats of daring among the caves and clefts of the rock, might conclude that success was decided by a mere balance of ingenuity and agility—the rock, the cave, were his defence. But no; he used these visible things, but all the time his soul was resting in the protection of God. There was a double exercise of energy—that which expressed itself in agility of movement among the mountain fastnesses, and that which expressed itself in calm trust in the care of God. God was his Rock, his Shield, his Fortress. As Elijah saw chariots of fire where others saw nothing but vacant air, so he saw the Eternal Rock, and in him made his refuge. The same double exercise of energy was at work in his strenuous efforts to maintain his piety. It was not prayer, use of the Divine Law, and watchfulness that he trusted in, but the ever present and faithful God. Herein is the characteristic of a truly godly man. An inner spiritual activity accompanies all the external forms. His soul goes out after the living God. He finds safety in the invisible Rock of Ages. God in Christ is his actual Hiding place. V. THE BEST THINGS IN. NATURE ARE BUT SYMBOLS AND SHADOWS OF IN GOD. The rock and the high tower were the very best things nature afforded to David in his dreadful season of trial. Those wilds then answered indeed a noble purpose. But David saw in their protecting powers only a shadow of the real protecting power of which he was in need. All the saving virtues of the mountain fastnesses were to him the index of the boundless resources that lie in God. He is the Rock. Throughout Scripture there seems to be an effort to set forth, if possible, the reality and vastness and sufficiency of the treasures which are in God for us. Thus Christ is represented as being the chief and best of all things in nature—among stars, the Bright and Morning Star; among fruit bearing trees, the luxurious Vine; of members of the body, the Head. Nature can only indicate what wealth of resources we have in him. His riches are unsearchable (Ephesians 3:8). VI. A REVIEW OF PAST SIGNAL IN RESPECT TO THE FUTURE. Reviewing the wonderful deliverances wrought for him, David says, "In him will I trust;" "I shall be saved from mine enemies." The conflict of life was not over. New dangers will arise, and other enemies will fill the ranks of the fallen. But experience of God’s merciful help keeps the spirit calm, and every triumph in the past by his favour is a guarantee that he will be a very present Help in every time of need. How could David doubt the goodness and power of God after so rich an experience of his aid? If for no other reason than the confidence it inspires, an occasional deliberate review of what great things God has done for us is very desirable. Doubt and fear spring from too much attention to ourselves. Security lies in the covenant of God, and not in our own powers, and a remembrance of actual help received is a reading afresh of the many Divine ratifications of the covenant. The din and hurry of daily life are adverse to reflective habits. It is well to make positive efforts at certain stages of life to resist the hindrances to reflection, and allow to pass before the mind the varied instances in which God has rescued us from impending ruin, both temporal and spiritual. VII. A BASIS FOR PRAISE IS LAID IN A OF GOD’S GREAT . It is not without solid reason that David says, "I will call on the Lord, who is worthy to be praised." There are manifold reasons why praise should be rendered to God, but here the basis in view is that found by a consideration of the various acts of mercy he has shown. David’s deliverance from Saul, from the treachery of Doeg and Ahithophel, from the sorrows and shame of the banishment from throne and city, and from the more fearful woes of backsliding, were indeed events never to be forgotten. They meant to him life, joy, honour, instead of death and disgrace. All that is valuable in life, in distinction, in personal holiness, and victory over spiritual evil, appealed to his generous nature to acknowledge in thankful form the great things which God had done. It is the wont of some agnostic writers to represent the requirement of praise to God as essentially immoral—as a low representation of God as selfishly egotistic. It might be enough to say that agnostics have no right to speak of essential morality, since on their principles there can be no such thing. But apart from that, it overlooks the real teaching of Scripture and the natural action of human hearts. Men are not condemned for not praising God, but for being lovers of sin in thought, feeling, and deed. Their condition necessarily involves a condemnation, as surely as an anarchical state involves, by its condition, its own destruction. Their not rendering acknowledgments to God for his mercies is only a symptom of the real evil, and not the actual cause of condemnation. A heart true to generous and pure instincts will always admire power blended with goodness, and be thankful for good placed within reach by that beneficent power. "Praise is comely." VIII. THE WROUGHT FOR US BY GOD ARE ONLY . All through these verses David speaks of deliverance, of being saved from certain evils, and God as a Deliverer, a Saviour. This, of course, is a negative good; it is doing something that he may not die, and not be lost. But it is only a superficial view to say that this was all that David was thinking of His present position as honoured king, ruling over a united nation, and blessed with a moral elevation superior to any other man then living, is the counterfoil to this negative aspect. There was no need to say in words what he now was. His life tells that side of the record of God’s mercy and power. He refers to the deliverances as blessings preliminary to his positive elevation to honour and distinction. Being delivered from the hand of Saul, he was made king in succession; being saved from the banishment consequent on Absalom’s rebellion, of course he was positively restored; being rescued from the sin of backsliding, of course he was reinstated in the Divine favour and holiness of life. This is the correct and New Testament view of the great deliverance, or salvation, wrought for us by Christ. We are delivered from the curse and guilt of sin; but that is the negative good, preliminary, necessary to the implied positive elevation to sonship and eternal holiness. He saves from condemnation, but does not leave us as merely liberated souls. He gives us therewith "power to become the sons of God." He makes us "kings and priests unto God." The positive aspect of salvation means elevation, progress, conformity of nature to the Divine will. 2 Samuel 22:5-19 God’s answer to the cry of distress. The facts are: 1. David represents death, the grave, and ungodly men, under various figures, as causing him deep distress. 2. He states that, on crying unto God out of the greatness of his distress, his voice entered even into his ears. 3. He thus indicates, in strong figurative language, the tokens of God’s attention to his cry. (1) Some manifest signs of his displeasure against his foes (2 Samuel 22:8, 2 Samuel 22:9). (2) A speedy and yet mysterious condescension to the need of his servant (2 Samuel 22:10, 2 Samuel 22:11). (3) The blending of concealed purpose with distinct manifestations of the reality of his interposition (2 Samuel 22:12-14). (4) The pressure of his agencies on David’s enemies (2 Samuel 22:15). (5) The thorough rending of all barriers by his mighty power so as to effect deliverance for his servant (2 Samuel 22:16-19). David represents his condition as one of isolated anguish—he is cut off from God and man, standing in a position of peril and suffering, from which there is no chance of escape. Doubtless there were several occasions in his checkered life when this was true; but he describes them in the terms more strictly appropriate to the time when, being pursued by Saul and his emissaries, he took refuge in mountains. Like one standing on a slight elevation when the floods are gathering around, he sees only, on every side, death as waves eager to sweep him away. The ungodly men with Saul rush on as a torrent from which there is no escape. The sorrows arising from the thought of all his youthful and patriotic aspirations being soon buried in a premature grave, and a once promising life being cut off as a worthless thing, gather irresistibly around his soul. Whichever way he turns, to the cliffs or the plain, to the ravine or the cave, he sees that death is there spreading out snares to catch him. Neither God nor man is nigh to rescue. Life’s great and holy purposes are being crushed and blighted forever. No one cares for his soul. It was then, when destruction was inevitable, that, as a last desperate resort, he poured out his anguish before God and cried for help. The help came, and the fact and form of the interposition are the theme of his song. Here we notice— I. PERMITS MEN TO COME INTO GREAT . David’s life was especially providential. He was from his youth the child of Providence, and yet, for no other traceable reason than his patriotism and his goodness, he was persecuted by Saul, a jealous, suspicious king, even to the degree that life was despaired of. All the forces of society and of nature seemed to go against him, and meanwhile the God of his youth and early manhood was silent and apparently far away. Our only interpretation of the facts is that God allows his servants sometimes to be brought very low. He does not give them the immunity from pain and peril which their relative goodness and fidelity would seem to warrant. Yet this is not the result of mere arbitrariness or neglect. It is part of an educational purpose, and inseparable from a government of men free in their deeds of wrong. The latent qualities of the righteous and their powers for future use can often be best developed by means of adverse events which throw them more absolutely on God than under smooth and easy conditions they ever could be. We need not be surprised if we fall into manifold trials (1 Peter 4:12). II. THE OF LIFE DEVELOP THE FULL OF PRAYER. David had been accustomed, like all pious men, to pray, but now he cried unto God. There was a reserve store of prayer in him which now became developed. He realized as never before his need of God, his helplessness, apart from pure Divine interposition and aid, to accomplish the purpose for which he had been selected by Samuel. There was more faith in him than he had been aware of, and now it was brought into exercise. This was the first gain in the educational process. In the spiritual life, as in the physical and mental, our capacities become atrophied if not well used, and circumstances that draw them forth in unusual degree enrich us with a permanent legacy of increased power. There is a natural tendency to inertia, which the stress of our environment urges us to overcome. How great is the power placed in our hands by the privilege of prayer, who can tell? There are indications of its greatness in particular instances recorded in the Bible and known in modern life. It availeth much. It is the human agency by which the exercise of the Almighty Power has conditioned its own exercise. How seldom do we cry unto God as though we really wanted him and his aid! III. THE OF GOD ON BEHALF OF HIS PEOPLE IS A REALITY IN LIFE. David contrasts in thought his position and that of his enemies. He was apparently left alone by God and man; they were prosperous, numerous, strong, and eager as rolling waves. Death was before and behind him, so that he could not move; they were free to act, and no one to put them in peril. But a change came; the cry of distress had entered into the very ear of God, and, as though there were a sudden change in the Divine relationship to human forces, rescue came. To David the interposition was as real as the previous peril and agony. It was not mere faint heartedness in Saul, not accidental diversion of his thoughts, not a simple refusal of his men to go further in pursuit of the victim of his malice; it was God who had somehow so acted on men and things as to bring about deliverance. The strong figures used by David in 2 Samuel 22:8-12 express the conviction that God had come to his help, not simply by the action of normal laws, but by the invisible contact of the eternal energy with those laws, wondrously subordinating them to a special design. The true believer still sees God in his great deliverances. The answer to prayer is a great reality. God can and does get at his suffering children. Men see not the invisible hand, but those who cry to God recognize it. The profoundest matters of life are objects of faith, and in faith, as in intention, there is a transcendent knowledge passing all demonstration and all communication. IV. A REVIEW OF DIVINE BRINGS OUT TO THE EYE OF FAITH THEIR STRONG . David here reflects on the deliverances wrought for him in answer to earnest prayer, and their characteristics appear to him to be best represented by the bold and vigorous language in 2 Samuel 22:8-16. Among these we may notice: 1. A twofold revelation—to himself, as the God of power actually stooping to his help, and holding in his hand the most terrible and most subtle forces of nature; and to his enemies, as the great God causing his voice so to be heard in the course of things as to reveal his wrath and impress men with a sense of his greatness and majesty. 2. An assurance blended with uncertainty. The coming down and the Divine brightness brought assurance unmistakable; but the darkness and mystery of his movements indicated that his methods of working out a saving purpose were beyond human penetration. 3. Use of appropriate agencies for frustrating wicked purposes. The Divine "arrows" were so directed by unerring wisdom as to scatter those who hitherto were bent on pursuit. 4. Thoroughness in clearing away all natural obstacles to the perfecting of the deliverance. So thorough was the reserve to be that the swollen torrents and deep places were to be entirely made bare of water in order to render escape complete. We may look at our deliverances as from enemies human or fiendish, and we shall find that God does make himself known as our Friend, and causes our foes to feel his displeasure. We know that he helps, but we know not all his ways. He brings influences to bear on our foes, so that they are weakened, and what he does he does perfectly, clearing away whatever may hinder our safety. The same general truths will hold good if we look at our many deliverances from spiritual peril. He sets himself against evil, and comes to our sorrowing soul. He lets us know enough for our cheer, but does not throw full light on all his methods. He brings the mighty influences of his Word and Spirit to destroy the power of sin, and by the tremendous work of Christ clears away every obstacle to our full salvation. GENERAL LESSONS. 1. When we come into great troubles let us take comfort that in this matter we are sharing in an experience which, in the case of some of the best of men, has developed a more earnest spirit of prayer. 2. The records of God’s dealings with his saints shows that there is no distress too deep for him to reach and remedy. 3. There is no place on earth but that the voice of prayer is free to enter into God’s holy temple and even to his ear. 4. Although for a season during the prosperity of those who persecute the pious it may seem as though they were exempt from displeasure, yet God is angry with them, and will in some significant way cause them to know it. 5. However desperate our case, we may rest assured that God is in possession of all the means of gaining access to our need, and of scattering whatever evils threaten us with ruin. 6. There are no powers, however deep seated and established, but that, if we trust in God, he will clear them out of the way, so that we may find a position of safety, and consequent elevation to honour and blessedness. 2 Samuel 22:20-30 God’s righteousness in saving the righteous. The facts are: 1. David states that, in delivering him from his enemies, God recognized his uprightness and purity. 2. He affirms that, as a matter of fact, he had in his conduct endeavoured to live according to the will of God. 3. He declares the general truth that, in thus rescuing him the upright, and showing disfavour to the perverse persecutor, there was exemplified the principle of the usual Divine procedure. 4. He ascribes the successes of the past, not to himself, however upright, but to God, his Light in darkness and his Strength for deeds of daring. There is, in David’s references to his own righteousness and purity, an appearance of what is now called, self-righteousness. He seems to violate the primary canons of Christian propriety and to establish a doctrine of merit. But this interpretation of his words is an utter misconception of his meaning, and proceeds from an ignorance of the historical circumstances he had in mind when penning the words. It is a wrong done to personal experiences of the Old Testament to approach their interpretation with certain prepossessions based on New Testament teaching with reference to our personal unworthiness before God on account of our essential sinfulness. David was not speaking of his state absolutely before God; he was not thinking of the question as to whether he or any one else was a sinner. His sole thought was of the distinct charges brought against him by such men as Doeg the Edomite, and believed by the foolish king Saul; and he was conscious that his being hunted by Saul was a grievous wrong, a treatment he did not deserve. He was the righteous man, for he loved Saul, showed him kindness, and. paid him honour; Saul and Doeg and others in the conspiracy were the unrighteous men, uttering falsehoods, using cruelty, and cherishing malice. God came as Judge between them, and by interposition showed his delight in what his servant had been and done in this particular matter, and his displeasure with Saul for his wicked conduct. He vindicates the gracious interposition of God on the ground that it is a righteous and glorious thing on the part of God to rescue those who suffer unrighteously, and to declare, by his rescue of them, his delight in them as compared with the men who cause their sufferings (cf. 1 Samuel 21:7; 1 Samuel 22:9-13, 1 Samuel 22:18-23; 1 Samuel 24:7-15; 1 Samuel 26:10-20). The vindication and illustration of God’s righteousness in saving his people may be considered as follows. I. THERE ARE SPECIAL IN WHICH IT MAY BE SAID THAT GOD SAVES THE . In ordinary speech we say that God saves sinners. That is true in the sense that all men saved, whether temporally or spiritually, are, in their relation to him, sinful, or transgressors of the Law. But in relation to others and in relation to specific obligations which he may impose on them, they may be relatively righteous, and his saving them may be because they are so. Thus: 1. Those who are righteous in life, as compared with others, are saved from calamity and suffering. Noah was a righteous man, and therefore was spared, while the Flood carried away the wicked. Lot was a righteous man in comparison with the Sodomites, and therefore was delivered by Divine pressure put upon him from the destruction which befell the rest. Some of the better Churches in Asia were not doomed to the woe that was to come on others, because God "knew their works" (Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22.). The more holy and devoted to Christ we are, and the more minutely our lives are regulated by the laws of God as written in his Word and works, and in our own mental and physical nature, the more shall we be saved from woes that come upon others who violate laws physical, moral, and spiritual. 2. Those who suffer as being unrighteous, when all the time they are not so. This was the case of David, who was persecuted most bitterly by Saul on the ground that he hated his king and sought his life, when all the time he loved his king and guarded his life. It was as a righteous man in this particular that God saved him from distress. The same was true of Joseph in prison; of the Apostles Peter and Paul; yea, of our Saviour himself. And often still does God save his people from the reproach and sorrow brought on them by being represented as being other than they really are (Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12; 1 Peter 4:14-17). 3. Those who conform to the gospel law of salvation. Before God all are sinners, and condemned by their own consciences as also by the broken Law. But Christ has made full atonement for sin, and now therefore God, in his sovereign grace, has laid down a new law for us to keep, based upon his acceptance of Christ’s perfect work, namely, that we exercise faith in Christ as our atoning Saviour. We are not to try and keep the Decalogue as a condition of being accepted; we cannot attain to the righteousness of the moral Law. We are not to plead the value of repentance and a future life better than the past; all that is indefinite, uncertain. But we are simply to have faith in Christ as set forth in the gospel, that is all that God requires for our acceptance; that is the newly created law, the sum of all obligations in reference to obtaining justification before God. In other words, we are to attain to the "righteousness of faith," the righteousness which consists in fulfilling the obligation created by gospel grace, and then there is no condemnation: we walk then as freed sons in the glorious liberty of the children of God. II. IN ALL THESE IT IS WITH GOD’S NATURE TO SAVE THE . God’s treatment of Noah and Lot, and of all who keep his truth in the midst of prevailing degeneracy, marks his distinction of character on the basis of goodness. It is the Divine nature to love the good and hate the evil tendencies of men. When the persecuted are delivered, there is a vindication of character and a repressing of wrong which cannot but accord with God’s natural love of justice. When he graciously accepts us on the condition that we have fulfilled all that he requires under the gospel order, and in our justification recognizes the "righteousness of faith" (Romans 3:25-28; Romans 4:5, Romans 4:6, Romans 4:11, Romans 4:13), he, accepting that kind of righteousness, that fulfilment of all obligation, maintains the honour of the violated Law under which we had lived, and glorifies the sacrificial work of his beloved Son. There is therefore nothing arbitrary in the "law of faith." III. THESE SPECIAL OF ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE GENERAL OF GOD’S . David was quite warranted in saying that when God, in the matter of the deliverance from the persecutions of Saul, recompensed him according to his righteousness (2 Samuel 22:25), he was simply acting in harmony with his general kindness to the merciful and upright, and his stern and repressive ways of providence toward the perverse (2 Samuel 22:26, 2 Samuel 22:27). The actual laws revealed in the Decalogue, in the civil institutions of Moses, in the precepts of the New Testament, in the constitution of the physical and mental worlds, all go for the good and against the wicked, whatever be the form or degree of the goodness or wickedness. It may be that, for reasons not yet made clear, the wicked triumph for a while and the righteous cry out in agony, "O Lord, how long!" but God’s government is vast, intricate, and stretching far into the future, and there are forces at work by which at last the righteous shall be exalted and the wicked abased (Psalms 5:4-6, Psalms 5:11, Psalms 5:12; Psalms 37:6, Psalms 37:7, Psalms 37:23-40). IV. THOSE WHO ARE SAVED BY GOD ON THE GROUND OF LAY NO CLAIM TO MERIT. The object of David in this passage is not to proclaim his own deeds and claim a right to God’s favour, but rather to set forth the righteousness and goodness of God in saving those who conform to his will. He had kept the ways, the statutes, and the judgments of God (2 Samuel 22:23, 2 Samuel 22:24) in respect to his behaviour toward Saul,—he could honestly say that; and he considers it a matter of praise and glory to God that he manifested his love of what is just in coming to the rescue of such a one. To have allowed Saul to triumph would have been a reflection on Divine justice. In all this, therefore, there is no reference to merit in the sight of God, any more than Noah felt that he merited God’s favour. It was in neither ease a question of the desert of the entire life, but of the state of the life in relation to other men. So in our personal salvation through faith, there is no claim of merit. It is all of grace. The "law of faith" is the creation of grace, and the heart to conform to it is of grace. The light in which we see spiritual things, and in which we rejoice, is not our own. The Lord is our Lamp, and he lightens our darkness (2 Samuel 22:29). If we are able to break through troops of spiritual foes, and leap over walls (2 Samuel 22:30) that hem us in, it is not because of our strength; it is only by our God, who of his free mercy supplies all our need. 2 Samuel 22:31-51 The facts are: 1. David asserts the exclusive perfection of God. 2. He states that his strength and power are from God, and that God teaches him to move and act with advantage in times of war and difficulty. 3. He refers to the help received through the graciousness of God, and the fact that thereby he was able to subdue all his enemies. 4. He alludes to the subjugation of the people to himself as the consequence of Divine help, and looks on to further triumphs over strangers. 5. He recounts the fact of his deliverance, and makes the final reference to them a flesh reason for thanksgiving. Knowledge of God founded on experience. From 2 Samuel 22:31 to 37 David seems to state some of the results arising out of his experience of God’s dealing with him during the earlier portion of his life. He can now say with emphasis what at one time could only be said as a matter of general profession on the part of a pious Hebrew; and there is in 2 Samuel 22:31 an implied contrast with certain apprehensions entertained during those seasons of isolation and distress, when no one cared for his soul, and the course of providence seemed to be all against him. And in this respect others are like him; the more profound their personal experience in life, the more clear and sure are their conceptions of the ineffable perfections of God. I. A OF GOD IS MORE A OF THAN OF . Among the Hebrews there were grand traditional beliefs and conceptions which placed their pure monotheism far above the theistic faiths of other nations, and David in early years inherited these, and could give beautiful expression to them. But the traditional and even reasoned views which he had acquired were not his greatest treasure. A long life of communion, service, conflict, and patient trust had caused him to see that experience was the most important element in this matter of knowledge of God. No doubt it is possible to reason up to God. The logical outcome of the principle of causation is God, and the moral nature of man is only intelligible on the hypothesis of a supreme personal Ruler. It is not true that speculative philosophy leads away from God. All its lines, when straightly pursued, converge on him. The question is one of personal relations, and it is not within the competence of a speculative inquirer to settle this great question regardless of the deep, ineradicable, and most sacred experience of which human nature is capable. II. AS A MATTER OF FACT, GIVES A CLEARER, FULLER, AND MORE ASSURED THAN ANY OTHER MEANS. Experience is of first importance in matters pertaining to spiritual things. We know the reality of unseen beings existing beneath the fleshly covering of the body more truly by the mysterious contact of our self with an invisible counterpart, than by any physiological or psychological arguments. There is an inexpressible knowledge in our conscious intuitions of other minds being in communion with our own, which is the more clear, sure, and satisfying, in that it is inexpressible in words. Likewise the personal experience of holy men brings them so near to the living God, so directly in contact with his Spirit, and gives them such clear and irresistible convictions of his Being and his glorious character, that to such men the light thrown on the question of the Divine existence and character by processes of reasoning seems very cold and dim. They can dispense with it for themselves. Like the Apostle John, they have tasted and handled and felt the Divine reality (1 John 1:1-3). III. THE CLEARER AND MORE SURE RELATES TO HIS . After his deep and often trying experience, David could speak most confidently of God as "perfect" in all things. He alone was worthy of the name God. The points referred to are: 1. His methods. 2. His Word. 3. His care. His methods of discipline, of guidance, of instruction, and of working out purposes seemed strange and obscure while David was in trial, but in the end he saw that all was perfect. So is it ever, The more we experience of his "ways," the more do we learn their wisdom, goodness, and justice. His "Word," considered as promise, covenant, revelation, or manifestation in Christ, requires personal experience to enable us to see how perfect it is. How hearty an "Amen" can multitudes give to this statement! His care is discovered by our experience through scenes of danger and peril to be indeed sufficient, suited to every emergency, and most gentle and considerate. As our "Buckler," "Shield," and "Rock," we know him more truly, as life advances and the heart becomes charged with unutterable experiences, to be perfect. How vain are all the negations and disputations of restless speculators to the soul rich in such experience! IV. THE OF GOD GAINED BY ISSUES IN OF AND FITNESS FOR HIGHEST FORM OF WORK. The holy man enriched by such knowledge is not a mere knowing creature; he becomes a man of higher character and more extended activity. His way is made perfect; his feet are those of the hind; he rises to the best positions in the spiritual sphere; his hands are fit for warfare; he becomes calm and strong in the guarantee of a perpetual shield; and distinction in the highest society and fitness for the holiest service are the outcome of God’s gracious dealings. As David, after all his strange experience of God’s power and gentleness, was more strong in faith, more skilful in administration, more apt at spiritual warfare, and more conformed to the Divine will; so all who follow on to know the Lord more perfectly, and enter more deeply into the secret of the Lord, rise in spiritual character, and become more fit instruments for doing the purest form of work in the world. The gentleness of God. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. A long interval separates this psalm from the preceding. The one was written when David had just reached the zenith of his power, and, when still unstained by foul crime, he could claim God’s favour as due to his innocence. These last words were David’s latest inspired utterance, written, probably, towards the end of the calm period which followed upon his restoration to his throne, and when time and the sense of God’s renewed favour had healed the wounds of his soul. David the son of Jesse said. It was probably this account of the author, and its personal character, which caused the exclusion of this hymn from the Book of Psalms. It seemed to belong rather to David’s private history than to a collection made for use in the public services of the temple. Said. The word is one usually applied to a message coming directly from God. It is used, however, four times in Numbers 24:1-25. of the words of Balaam, and in Proverbs 30:1-33. of those of Agur. The solemnity of the word indicates the fatness of its inspiration. The sweet psalmist; literally, he who is pleasant in the psalms of Israel. David might well claim this title, as, under God, we owe the Psalter to him. 2 Samuel 23:3, 2 Samuel 23:4 He that ruleth, etc. This rendering of the Hebrew is very beautiful, and fit to be graven on the hearts of rulers. There is often almost an inspiration in the renderings of the Authorized Version. Grammatically, nevertheless, the psalm declares the blessedness of the king who is just, and may be translated as follows:— "He that ruleth over men righteously, That ruleth in the fear of God— And as the morning light shall he be, when the sun riseth, A morning without clouds; Yea, as the tender grass from the earth, from sunshine, from rain." A king who rules his people justly is as glorious as the sun rising in its strength to drive away the works of darkness, and give men, by precept and example, the light of clear knowledge of their duty. But the last metaphor is especially beautiful. In the summer, vegetation dries up under the burning heat of the sun; all is bare and brown, and a few withered stalks of the coarser plants alone remain. But when the rains come, followed by bright sunshine, nature at one burst flashes into beauty, and the hillsides and plains are covered with the soft green of the reviving grass, through which myriads of flowers soon push their way, and clothe the landscape with bright colours. So a just and upright government calls into being countless forms of human activity, and fosters all that is morally beautiful, while it checks the blighting influences of unregulated passion and selfish greed. 2 Samuel 23:5 Although my house, etc. The rendering of the Authorized Version is that of the ancient versions, and is to be retained. David could not but feel that his house was too stained with sin upon sin for him to be able to lay claim to have been in fact that which the theocratic king was in theory, and which David ought to have been as the representative of Christ, and himself the christ, or anointed of Israel’s God. But most modern commentators take the negatives as interrogative, and, therefore, as strong assertions. "For is not my house so with God? For he had made with me an eternal covenant, Ordered in all things, and secure: For all my salvation and all my desire, Shall he not make it to grow?" But surely David had failed in realizing the better purposes of his heart, and it was of God’s good pleasure that the covenant, in spite of personal failure, remained firm and secure. 2 Samuel 23:6, 2 Samuel 23:7 The sons of Belial; Hebrew, belial; not a proper name, but a word signifying "worthlessness," and especially vicious worthlessness (see note on 1 Samuel 1:16). It is from this worthlessness that opposition arises to the just king, and he recognizes it as that which thwarts his efforts. The words may be rendered ― "But the ungodly are as thorns, to be all of them thrust away; For they may not be taken hold of with the hand. And the man that would touch them Must arm himself with iron and the staff of a spear; And they shall be utterly burned with fire unto nothingness." The vicious worthlessness which opposes righteous government must be treated like thorns, too prickly and sharp pointed for gentle dealing. They must be torn up by an iron hook fixed to the end of a spear-handle, and then burnt. The word translated in the same place in the Authorized Version is rendered by Jerome "even to nothing;" and it is just the sort of phrase for which his authority is greatest; for he went to Palestine, and remained there several years, to study the language under Hebrew teachers on the spot. The Septuagint must have had a different reading, as it translates "their shame." 2 Samuel 23:8 These be the names. A similar list is given in 1 Chronicles 11:10-47, with several variations, and sixteen more names. It is given there in connection with David’s elevation to the throne of all Israel, and the conquest of Jerusalem. Such catalogues might possibly be revised from time to time, and new names inserted as there were vacancies caused by death. And this seems to have been the ease with the list in Chronicles, which contains the names of all who were admitted during David’s reign into the order of the mighties. The present is the actual list of the order as it existed on the day when David, at Hebron, was anointed king over all the twelve tribes. And we can well conceive that, on so grand an occasion, David founded this, the first order of chivalry, and gave his thirty knights, as they would be now called, their special rank and high privileges. The Tachmonite. This verse is extremely corrupt. A man could not be a Tachmonite and an Eznite at the same time. In the Revised Version the corruption is confessed in the mildest terms, but there is something painfully ludicrous in giving Josheb-basshebeth as the man’s name. The reading "Jashobeam the son of a Hachmonite," in 1 Chronicles 11:11, is confirmed by 1 Chronicles 12:6, where Jashobeam is mentioned among those who joined David at Ziklag, and by 1 Chronicles 27:2, where we find him appointed commander of the first brigade of twenty-four thousand men. The error in the present text arose from the scribe’s eye being misled by catching sight of basshebeth in the line above, it being the word translated "in the same place" in the Authorized Version. He Adino the Eznite. These unmeaning words are a corruption of the right reading preserved in Chronicles, "he lifted up his spear." The number of men whom he slew at one time is there stated as having been three hundred; but, as Abishai accomplished this feat, and yet held only inferior rank, eight hundred is probably right. And possibly it is not meant that he slew them all with his own hand, though that is quite possible. He was chief of the captains. The word for "captain," shalish, is derived from the numeral "three;" and probably it was the title of the three who formed the first rank of the mighties. But in course of time it seems to have been applied to the commanders of the body guard (2 Kings 10:25); and we find Bidcar so styled when in personal attendance upon Jehu (2 Kings 9:25); and Pekah used the opportunities afforded by this office for the murder of Pekahiah (2 Kings 15:25). It is not used of military officers generally. Those admitted to the list were evidently the outlaws who had been with David in his wanderings and at Ziklag. They now received their reward, and became, moreover, the stay of David’s throne. It is their past history which accounts for the strange composition of the list. A large number came from Judah, and especially from Bethlehem. Several are David’s own relatives. Seven towns or families furnish sixteen out of the whole list. We find a father and his son, and pairs of brothers. There are, moreover, numerous foreigners—Hittites, Ammonites, Moabites, a Syrian from Zobah, and Gideonites, descended from the aboriginal inhabitants of the land. Such a list would have been sorely resented had it not been formed out of men who had earned it by their past services and their fidelity to David. 2 Samuel 23:9 Dodo. The Hebrew has Dodai, and "Dodo" is a mere correction of the Massorites to bring the name into verbal agreement with 1 Chronicles 11:12; but in 1 Chronicles 27:4 he is called Dodai, and we there find him in command of the second division of the army. For "Dodai," however, we ought to read there "Eleazar the son of Dodai." Ahohite; Hebrew, the son of an Ahohite, and probably a member of the family descended from Ahoah, a son of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:4). He would thus belong to the most warlike tribe of Israel, though not mentioned among the Benjamites who joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:1-7). He joined him, apparently, at an earlier date. That were there gathered together. The word "there" implies the previous mention of some place, and though the text in the parallel passage in Chronicles is more corrupt than that before us, it has, nevertheless, preserved the name of the spot where the encounter took place. In Chronicles the name of Shammah is omitted, and his achievement is mixed up in a strange fashion with that of Eleazar. Here the two heroes have each his separate record, and it is only on minor matters that the text there is more correct. Restored from the readings in Chronicles, the narrative is as follows: "He was with David at Pas-dammim, and the Philistines were gathered there to battle, and the men of Israel were gone up: and he stood (that is, made a stand) and smote," etc. Pas-dammim is called Ephes-dammim in 1 Samuel 17:1. It was situated in the valley of Elah, and, as being upon the border, was the scene of numerous conflicts, whence its name, "the boundary of blood." It was there that David slew Goliath. Were gone away; Hebrew, went up; that is, to battle. The idea that the Israelites had fled is taken from the parallel place in Chronicles, where, however, it refers to Shammah’s exploit. In 1 Samuel 17:9 and 1 Samuel 17:11 there, the phrase, "the Philistines were gathered together," occurs twice, and the scribe, having accidentally omitted the intervening words, has confused together the exploits of Eleazar and Shammah. In this battle Eleazar withstood the Philistine onset, and smote them till his hand clave to his sword hilt. Many such instances of cramp are recorded, and Mr. Kirkpatrick, in his commentary, quotes one in which the muscles of a warrior’s hand could be relaxed, after hard fighting, only by fomentations of hot water. 2 Samuel 23:10 Victory; Hebrew, salvation; and so also in 2 Samuel 23:12 and 1 Samuel 11:13; 1 Samuel 19:5. Returned after him. This does not imply that they had fled, but simply that they turned in whichever way he turned, and followed him. Battles in old time depended very much upon the prowess of the leaders. 2 Samuel 23:11 Into a troop. Josephus renders it "to Lehi," the scene of Samson’s exploit. The word is rare, but occurs again in 2 Samuel 23:13, where, however, we find in Chronicles the ordinary name for a host substituted for it. The Revisers have retained in the margin, "or, for foraging:" but its occurrence in Psalms 68:10, where it is tendered "thy congregation," and in the margin of the Revised Version," troop" makes it probable that" troop" is the right rendering here. Lentiles. In 1 Chronicles 11:13, "barley." The difference is probably caused by a transposition of letters. The Philistines seem to have made this incursion in order to carry off or destroy the crops of the Israelites. 2 Samuel 23:13 And three. The Hebrew text has "thirty," for which both the Authorized Version and the Revised Version silently substitute "three," as is correctly given in Chronicles. The absence of the article shows that these three were not Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah, but probably Abishai, Be-naiah, and another whose name and exploits have been purposely omitted both here and in Chronicles. Apparently this narrative, so interesting as showing the fascination which David exercised over his men, is given as having led to the institution of this second order of three in the brotherhood of the mighties. In the harvest time. The Hebrew is "to harvest," but in 1 Chronicles 11:15 "to the rock." As the preposition used here cannot mean "in," this is probably the right reading. In this ease, also, it is the similarity of the words that has led to the con. fusion. Is it possible that these lists were taken from very old and worn catalogues, which it was very difficult to decipher? 2 Samuel 23:14 An hold; Hebrew, the hold. The definite article here and in 2 Samuel 5:17, and the mention of the Philistines as being in the valley of Rephaim, seem to indicate that David had abandoned Jerusalem upon the invasion of the Philistines, and sought refuge at Adullam (see note on 2 Samuel 5:17). In its neighbourhood is an isolated hill, on which, probably, was a frontier fortress, in which David prepared to defend himself. 2 Samuel 23:15 The well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate. Bethlehem is now supplied with water by an aqueduct, and the wells close to the town have ceased to exist. The cistern of "deep, clear, cool water," descsribed by Ritter, in his ’Geography of Palestine,’ and now called David’s Well, is three quarters of a mile to the north of Bethlehem, and too distant to be that which David meant. 2 Samuel 23:16, 2 Samuel 23:17 Brake through the host (or, camp) of the Philistines. The Philistine camp was pitched in the valley of Rephaim, and to reach Bethlehem, which was more than twenty or twenty-five miles distant, these three heroes must pass close to the ground occupied by the enemy. The valley of Rephaim, in fact, extended from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and, to guard their position, the Philistines held Bethlehem with a strong garrison. Of course the heroes would use every precaution; for to be discovered would be certain death. The story of their perils and presence of mind in danger, and hairbreadth escape, would be full of interest; but we are told only that they succeeded, and returned in safety, bearing their precious burden; but David would not drink, and poured it out unto Jehovah. The word is that used of a sacrificial libation; for David regarded it as holy, and consecrated to God, because it had been bought with blood—at the risk, that is, of the lives of these gallant men. Nothing is recorded in the romances of the Middle Ages, when knightly chivalry was at its height, more gallant and noble than the exploit of these men. And the very essence of its devotion lay in the fact that it was done to gratify a mere sick longing, and therefore out of pure love. Sick, no doubt, David was, and burning with fever; and even more depressed by the apparent hopelessness of his position. The exploit changed the course of his thoughts. What could he not do with such heroes! Though racked during their absence with anxiety and self-reproach, yet on their return he would be dispirited no longer, but filled with confidence. The words, "Shall I drink?" inserted in the Revised Version, have apparently dropped out of the text by accident. They are found in the parallel place in Chronicles, and in the Septuagint and Vulgate here. The Syriac has, "At the peril of their life’s blood these men went." 2 Samuel 23:18 Abishai … was chief among three. The sense is obscured in the Authorized Version by the translators having failed to notice the presence of the definite article. Abishai, by reason of this exploit, became "chief of the three;" that is, of the second order of three established in the fraternity of the mighties. At the end of the verse, and in 2 Samuel 23:19, the Authorized Version strangely puts the article where it is absent in the Hebrew, and omits it where it is present. The right rendering and meaning is, "He had a name, that is, rank, reputation, among the three. Was he not the most honourable of the three? For this he was made their captain: yet he attained not to equal dignity with the first three." 2 Samuel 23:20 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. He was a very important person throughout David’s reign, being the commander of the body guard’ (2 Samuel 8:18), and general of the third brigade of twenty-four thousand men (1 Chronicles 27:5). The meaning of the description given of him there is disputed; but probably it should be translated, "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head," that is, of the brigade. He was thus the son of the Jehoiada who was leader of the house of Aaron, and whose coming to Hebron with three thousand seven hundred martial priests did so much to make David king of all Israel (1 Chronicles 12:27). Subsequently he took the side of Solomon against Adonijah, and was rewarded by being made commander-in-chief, in place of Joab (1 Kings 2:35). Kabzeel. An unidentified place in the south of Judah, on the Edomite border (Joshua 15:21), called Jekabzeel in Nehemiah 11:25. Two lionlike men of Moab. The Septuagint reads, "the two sons of Ariel of Moab." which the Revised Version adopts. "Ariel" means "lion of God," and is a name given to Jerusalem in Isaiah 29:1, Isaiah 29:2. The Syriac supports the Authorized Version in understanding by the term "heroes," or "champions;" but the use of poetical language in a prosaic catalogue is so strange that the Septuagint is probably right. If so, Ariel is the proper name of the King of Moab and the achievement took place in the war recorded in 2 Samuel 8:2. A lion. This achievement would be as gratefully remembered as the killing of a man eating tiger by the natives in India. A lion, driven by the cold from the forests, had made its lair in a dry tank near some town, and thence preyed upon the inhabitants as they went in and out of the city. And Benaiah had pity upon them, and came to the rescue, and went down into the pit, and, at the risk of his life, slew the lion. 2 Samuel 23:21 A goodly man. The Hebrew text has "who a sight," for which the Massorites read, "a man of sight," that is, handsome, and worth looking at. In Chronicles 2 Samuel 11:23 we find what, no doubt, is the right reading, "a man of measure [equivalent to ’a tall man’], five cubits high." The height of Goliath was six cubits and a span (1 Samuel 17:4). 2 Samuel 23:23 David set him over his guard. We have already seen (upon 1 Samuel 22:14) that the words mean that David made him a member of his privy council. Literally the words are, and David appointed him to his audience. In 1 Chronicles 27:34 mention is made of "Jehoiada the son of Benaiah" as being next in the council to Ahithophel, and many commentators think that the names have been transposed, and that we ought to read, "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada." 2 Samuel 23:24 The thirty. This order of knighthood consisted originally of thirty-three men, of whom three were of higher rank, and presided, probably, each over ten, while Joab was chief over them all. This arrangement of men in tens, with an officer over them. was, in fact, the normal rule among the Hebrews. The second triad is unusual, but is explained by the history. In honour of the exploit of bringing the water from the well of Bethlehem, this second order of three was instituted, lower than the three chiefs, but higher than the rest. The third of these is not mentioned, and the disappearance of the name is not the result of accident, but of purpose. Had it been a scribe’s error, there would have been some trace of it in the versions. But if the name was erased, it must have been blotted out for treason, and we thus have two candidates for the vacant niche: one is Amasa, and the other Ahithophel. The name of Joab we cannot for one moment admit. He never was a traitor to David, nor would the latter, though king, have ventured to degrade one so powerful, and who continued to be commander-in-chief until David’s death. Now, if Amasa is the same as the Amasai in 1 Chronicles 12:18, who was chief of the captains who came from Judah and Benjamin to David when he was in the hold, it is difficult to account for the absence of his name from the list of the thirty. Plainly, however, David did not regard his treason with strong displeasure, but was prepared, after Absalom’s death, to make him commander-in-chief. But we must remember that a place in this second triad was gained by one exploit. The three were those who broke through the Philistine host, and fetched the water from Bethlehem. Such a deed would account for the close attachment between David and Ahithophel. He was the king’s companion, and his familiar friend. It would account also for his suicide. His love to David had, for some unknown reason, turned to bitter hatred. He sought, not only David’s life, but his dishonour. His feelings must have been highly excited before he could have worked himself up to such a pitch; and the reaction and disappointment would be equally extreme. He never could have faced David again, remembering the warmth of former love, and the shamelessness with which he had sought, not only his life, but to bring upon him public shame and ignominy. And his name would have been totally erased, and gone down into silence. Of Ahithophel’s personal accomplishments as a brave warrior, we cannot doubt (see 2 Samuel 17:1), and his son Eliam was one of the mighties. (On a son and father both belonging to the order, see note on 1 Chronicles 12:33.) Elhanan (see note on 2 Samuel 21:19). 2 Samuel 23:25 Shammah the Harodite. The town Harod was in the plains of Jezreel, near Mount Gilboa. In 1 Chronicles 11:27 he is called "Shammoth the Harorite," the latter word being an easy corruption of Harodite; and in 1 Chronicles 27:8 he appears as "Shammuth the Izrahite," and has the command of the fifth brigade. "Izrahite" is by some regarded as an error for "the Zarhite," that is, a member of the clan descended from Zerah the son of Judah. But if so, how did he get to Hared? Elika. Omitted in Chronicles, probably through the repetition of the word "Harodite." 2 Samuel 23:26 Helez. He is twice called a Pelonite in Chronicles, and was general of the seventh brigade (1 Chronicles 27:10), where he is said to have belonged to the tribe of Ephraim. Whether Paltite or Pelonite is right, no one knows; but Beth-Palet was a town in the tribe of Judah, and not in Ephraim. Ira. Ira had the command of the sixth brigade (1 Chronicles 27:9). Tekoah (see note on 2 Samuel 14:2). This Ira is a distinct person from his namesake, David’s confidential minister (2 Samuel 20:26). 2 Samuel 23:27 Abiezer. He had the command of the ninth brigade (1 Chronicles 27:12). Anathoth, now Mata, was a priestly city in Benjamin (Joshua 21:18), the home of Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26), and the birthplace of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1). Anethothite and Antothite, in the parallel places in Chronicles, are merely different ways of pronouncing the same Hebrew consonants. Mebunnai. Written Sibbechai in 2 Samuel 21:18, and, as the name is so written in both the parallel places in Chronicles, Mebunnai is probably a mistake. In 1 Chronicles 27:11 he is said to have been commander of the eighth brigade, and to have been a Zarhite of the town of Hushah, in the tribe of Judah (see 1 Chronicles 4:4). 2 Samuel 23:28 Zalmon. He is called Ilai in 1 Chronicles 11:29. Ahohite (see note on 1 Chronicles 11:9). Maharai the Netophathite. Netophah, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (Ezra 2:22), was chiefly inhabited, after the exile, by the singers (Nehemiah 12:28). Robinson identifies it with Beit-Netif, to the south of Jerusalem; but probably erroneously, as Beit-Netif is too far from Bethlehem. Maharai was commander of the tenth brigade, and was a Zarhite, and therefore belonged to the tribe of Judah. 2 Samuel 23:29 Heleb. He is called Heled and Heldai in the parallel places in Chronicles, where we are told that he was a descendant of Othniel, and commander of the twelfth brigade. Ittai. He is called Ithai, by a very slight change, in Chronicles. Gibeah is the Geba so closely connected with the history of Saul (see 1 Samuel 13:3, 1 Samuel 13:15, etc.). (For Ittai the Philistine, a distinct person, see 2 Samuel 15:19.) 2 Samuel 23:30 Benaiah. He was an Ephraimite, and had the command of the eleventh brigade. Pirathon was a town in Ephraim (Judges 12:15). Hiddai. Called Hurai in 1 Chronicles 11:32, by the common confusion of d and r. The brooks of Gaash. "Nahale-Gaash," the ravines of Gaash, was probably the name of some village, of which nothing is now known. 2 Samuel 23:31 Abi-albon. He is called Abiel in 1 Chronicles 11:32. He belonged to the town of Beth-Arabah (Joshua 15:61; Joshua 18:22), called also Arabah (Joshua 18:18), in the wilderness of Judah. Azmaveth the Barhumite. He was of Bahurim, for which see note on 2 Samuel 3:16. 2 Samuel 23:32 Eliahba. He was of Shaalabbin, in the tribe of Dan (Joshua 19:42). St. Jerome calls the place Selebi, the modern Sebbit. Of the sons of Jashen, Jonathan, Shammah the Hararite. In 1 Chronicles 11:34, "The sons of Hashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shage the Hararite." The word "of" is not in the Hebrew, and is inserted in the Authorized Version to make sense. Really, b’ne, sons, is a careless repetition of the three last letters of the name "Shaalbonite," and should be omitted. The text in Chronicles then goes on regularly, "Hashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shage the Hararite;" but see note on next verse. 2 Samuel 23:33 Shammah the Hararite. He was really one of the first three (see 2 Samuel 23:11). (For the reading in Chronicles, see above.) A very probable correction would be "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite." Thus both father and son would be in the number of the thirty, Ahiam. He is called "the son of Sacar" in 1 Chronicles 11:35. 2 Samuel 23:34 Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maachathite. In Chronicles this becomes "Elipha the son of Ur, Hepher the Mecherathite." If the text here is correct, Eliphelet must be a native of Beth-Maachah, a town in Naphtali (2 Samuel 20:14). Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite. Instead of this, we find "Ahijah the Pelonite" in 1 Chronicles 11:36. Eliam is supposed by many to have been Bathsheba’s father (see note on 2 Samuel 11:3; and for Ahithophel the Gilonite, note on 2 Samuel 15:12). 2 Samuel 23:35 Hezrai. The Hebrew text has Hezro, as in 1 Chronicles 11:37. His native place was Carmel, for which see note on 1 Samuel 15:12. Paarai the Arbite. A native of Arab, in Judah. In Chronicles he is called "Naarai the son of Ezbai." 2 Samuel 23:36 Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah. In Chronicles, "Joel the brother of Nathan," Igal and Joel in Hebrew being almost the same. If the text here is correct, he was by birth a Syrian of Zobah, for which see note on 2 Samuel 10:6. Bani the Gadite. In Chronicles, "Mibhar the son of Haggeri," "Mibhar" taking the place of "from Zobah;" "the son," ben, that of "Bani;" and Haggadi, "the Gadite," becoming "Haggeri." 2 Samuel 23:37 Zelek the Ammonite. The presence of an Ammonite among the thirty reminds us of the fidelity of Shobi, the son of Nahash the Ammonite king, to David (see 2 Samuel 17:27). Armourbearer. The written text has the plural, "armourbearers," for which the K’ri has substituted the singular. The plural is probably right, and if so, both Joab’s chief armourbearers, or squires, were foreigners, Zelek being an Ammonite, and Nahari a Gibeonite (see note on 2 Samuel 4:2). In actual warfare we find Joab attended by ten esquires (2 Samuel 18:15). 2 Samuel 23:38 Ithrite. Of the family of Jether, of Kirjath-jearim (1 Chronicles 2:53). unless Ira and Gareb were two brothers of Amasa, and sons of Jether the husband of Abigail, David’s sister (2 Samuel 17:25). 2 Samuel 23:39 Uriah the Hittite (see note on 2 Samuel 11:3). Thirty and seven in all. "The thirty" became a technical name, and might receive additional members. But if we suppose Asahel’s place to have been filled up, the number is exact, there being thirty ordinary members, three chiefs of the first class, and three of the second, of whom, however, one name is omitted. In Chronicles sixteen additional names are given, who were probably men admitted to the order to fill up vacancies. 2 Samuel 23:1-7 The fruitful lessons of David’s last words. The facts are: 1. There is a statement that these are the last words of David, who is spoken of in a fourfold respect. 2. It is affirmed that the utterance which follows is expressly by the Spirit of God. 3. The true ruler is described as one who is just and one fearing God; and the effects of his government are compared to the light of a bright morning, and the tender grass after rain. 4. David affirms that his house is specially characterized as one with which God has made a sure and everlasting covenant, and that, consequently, the whole salvation he cares for and desires will be advanced and realized. 5. He refers to worthless men having no sympathy with the desires of his heart and the purposes of his house—as being like thorns fit only to be ultimately burned. A larger space is given in the Bible to the life of David than to any other except that of his great Antitype; and herein do we see the beautiful harmony of the sacred book as an organic whole, for just as in the New Testament there is great prominence given to the death of Christ and its relation to sin, corresponding to the prominence in the Old Testament of the sacrifices which foreshadowed it, so the position of the eternal King in Zion in the one book is in the same relative proportion to that of the temporal king who so conspicuously shadowed forth his reign in the other. The great interest thus attaching to the life of David renders his last words of unusual importance. We shall best bring out their teaching by noting in succession the very fruitful topics suggested by this section. I. THE or DYING WORDS OF GOOD MEN. We feel that there is a value in these last words of David, not simply by what an examination of their strict sense may yield, but because they are his last words. All last words are weighty in comparison with others; for they close the record, or end the intercourse, or give, as in dying words, the matured expression of one’s long experience. The last words of Jacob, of Moses, of Paul, and above all of Christ, are very rich in instruction by virtue of being last. The last words of children, parents, friends who sleep in Jesus, are most precious; they are treasured forever. There are special reasons for attaching weight to them. 1. They are reflective, and touched by the influence of the eternal world. Men are earnest, sincere, uttering only what a review of the past and a prospect of the future will warrant. 2. The mind is usually calm. The passions of life are gone, the strife of tongues is no more heard, the spirit is open to the still, small voice. 3. Worldly influences are in abeyance. The pomps and fashions of this world are reduced to their proper position. There is scope for things eternal to get their legitimate hold on the thoughts, and so to form aright the conceptions of duty. 4. The action of the Holy Spirit is more direct and strong. The great hindrances to his blessed fellowship are reduced to a minimum, and hence a truer estimate is formed of life, its purpose and perils; of Christ, his love and power. 5. The affections are most pure and tender. The heart goes out freely toward the Saviour and toward men. Silver and gold and the perishable things of active life are now as dross, and words flow forth steeped in love and tender concern for others, and delight in God’s great salvation. Dying saints preach powerful sermons. Their memory is blessed. Their words are rich in all that is good and helpful. II. THE HONOUR AND OF RICH MENTAL . David was the man raised up on high, the anointed of God, the sweet psalmist of Israel. These words necessarily imply the coexistence in time of varied mental endowments—wisdom and discretion for ruling, lofty conceptions of the theocracy and the far reaching character of God’s dealings with Israel, and all the qualities requisite for the sweetest poetry. He was certainly most honoured of men in that age, and hence his responsibility was very great. The references to the ideal ruler (2 Samuel 23:3) indicate how conscious he was of solemn obligations. The fact is, every gift of God bestowed on man is honour put on him, and in its nature it is a talent for use, that the world may be the better for its existence. The possession of great and varied gifts—of thought, emotion, willpower, and of aptitude to do the right thing at the right time—is a wonderful boon. The men of ten talents may well ponder their responsibilities to God and man. What blessing or woe comes to the world according to the direction in which great gifts are used! III. THE OF SACRED SONG ON THE LIFE. The incidental reference to the "sweet psalmist" throws a sudden and unexpected light on the immense influence exerted by David on the spiritual thought and feeling of his own and subsequent ages. He had touched the deepest feelings of the people, and by his psalms done, perhaps, more to conserve their faith and hope than by all his acts of formal legislation and words of distinct exhortation. His influence will never cease. The saints of all ages are cheered and comforted by his sweet words of song; and they find relief in using, language which so aptly expresses the holiest and purest feelings and thoughts of their life. He blessed Israel with a wise and just rule, and the entire world by the most enduring influence of sacred song. The place of sacred song in the Church is most important. It elevates thought, nourishes the more fine and tender sentiments, strengthens the most secret and radical elements of the religious life by giving form and occasion for their exercise, enriches the memory with strains that spring up in hours of weakness and sorrow, and stores the minds of young and old with a treasury of precious Christian truth. He who writes a good hymn blesses the generations to come. IV. THE UNKNOWN WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. When David said, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me," he seemed to speak of what was a familiar truth. He was no stranger to such Divine help, as our Lord’s testimony to the Psalms indicates (cf. Psalms 51:11). Yet if we confine our attention to the bare historic record of his life, we find scarcely any distinct reference to his consciousness of the direct aid of the Holy Spirit. For aught we can see in distinct words, there was none. His holy influence has no full record. Thus the most important spiritual element in David’s spiritual life was to onlookers unknown. There are two aspects of this fact in our Christian life. 1. We do not know the great extent to which we are indebted to the Holy Spirit for our perseverance, our highest thoughts, our purest feelings, and general growth in excellence. 2. The non-Christian world does not know the great work which the Holy Spirit achieves in Christian lives. "The world knoweth him not" (John 14:17). It becomes us to remember what we owe to him, and how incessant his action, though men live as though he were not. Religion is at a low ebb whenever the work of the Holy Spirit is forgotten. V. THE MODEL RULER. In his closing days David remembered that he had been raised on high to be a ruler over Israel; and doubtless, in reviewing the past, he was humbled in observing the instances in which he had failed to be as a man after God’s own heart. But in the assurance of forgiveness he could now reflect on the ideal which had ever stood before him, and for the instruction of others he indicates his hope of the ideal being approximately realized in his immediate successor, and his faith that in the coming Christ it would be perfectly realized. The two elements of the ideal ruler are justice and the fear of God. These qualities being in full exercise, all things will be done for the good of man and the glory of God. Human obligations—morality on the human side—must be combined with religious feeling—supreme regard in everything to the Divine will. The effect of such ruling on saints is (1) what the bright light of morning is on the earth, i.e. it is conducive to safety, cheerfulness, full development of activities, and extended knowledge and usefulness; (2) what the abundance of rich verdure is in a tropical climate, i.e. it is wealth, beauty, restfulness, contrast. The history of civil and ecclesiastical communities illustrates the truth of this. There are conditions of prosperity which can only be fulfilled by the ruled, but here we have to do with the natural tendency of the just and godly ruling. The ruler may be king, president, parent, or pastor, and wherever the standard of ruling is high, so in proportion will these effects follow. Bad as the subjects ruled may be, the model ruler will to some extent secure for them these blessings. The most perfect illustration of the truth is to be found in Christ. He rules justly, and in harmony with the mind of the Eternal. An examination of the principles of his kingdom, its discipline and spirit, will show that it is perfectly equitable and is an expression of the Divine mind. The effects that flow from it in proportion as it is submitted to, are exactly those here set forth. Heaven and earth testify (Psalms 72:1-20.). VI. THE ORDERED . Through Samuel and Nathan (1 Samuel 15:28; 2 Samuel 7:12-17), God had declared his promise to David, and David on his part had solemnly recognized the goodness of God, and virtually pledged himself to fulfil his side of the sacred engagement (2 Samuel 7:24-29). Throughout his singular life, amidst all his frailties, he had found God gracious and merciful. Though manifold dangers had arisen which seemed at one time to frustrate the promise and hand over his kingdom to anarchy and his family to disgrace, Divine wisdom had so ordered all things that now, at the close of life, the throne is firm and succession is sure and promising. His mind evidently ponders a threefold covenant: 1. Personal. This God was his God, and he could say, "I am thine" (Psalms 119:94; cf. Psalms 61:5). 2. Official. He had been chosen to be king, and God had guaranteed to him all needful help and blessing. 3. Messianic,. The private and official covenant was to him a type of that wider and more blessed covenant of grace which is exemplified in the working out of the redemptive purpose in Christ (Psalms 2:1-12; cf. Isaiah 53:10-12). In respect to each of these the characteristics "everlasting," "ordered in all things," and "sure," were most precious to David’s heart. The covenant made with us in Christ is thus most blessed. It is a covenant of pure mercy, originated by God, designed to elevate us to highest dignity, sustained in its development by all the resources of the Eternal; and as to duration, from everlasting to everlasting (Matthew 25:34; John 17:23; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 17:8; cf. John 3:16); as to execution, ordered in all things, everything pertaining to its development and issue being so foreseen and provided for that nothing is left to chance or the exigencies of the hour (Luke 24:26, Luke 24:27; Acts 2:23-28; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; 2 Peter 3:9; cf. Genesis 22:14; Romans 11:33; Philippians 4:19); as to stability, "sure," resting on the unchangeable faithfulness of the all-wise and all-powerful God (Psalms 89:1; Isaiah 25:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; cf. Acts 2:30; Hebrews 6:17). VII. GOD’S MAN’S . Who can tell the consolation brought to David by the fact that the covenant of God was so "sure"? Reflection on his own frailty and on the dangers of life could not but awaken shame and dread; but this sure, well ordered, enduring covenant, no Words suffice to set forth its preciousness! In this we have a common experience with David. Our hearts are sad and pained by our own shortcomings; we see perils to our salvation on every side; the resolutions we frame for the future partake of our infirmity; the struggle to attain to the likeness of Christ seems to be interminable; and the possibility of so changing our discordant and shattered nature as to present it blameless before his face, seems to us very slight. But the bruised and crushed spirit finds healing and rest in this—that God is true, and has resolved, to save us. Blessed knowledge! Instead of inducing indifference or carelessness, it supplements the comfort it brings by a calm and steady flow of energy toward the holy goal, and develops gratitude in form of more entire consecration. In health, in sickness, amidst earthly strifes and fears, and when the chilly hand of death lays hold of us, we rest in him who cannot die, and who has said, "Because I live, ye shall live also." Truly we have "abundant consolation." VIII. JOY IN THE PURPOSE OF GOD. To see God’s blessed covenant unfold towards realization of the Divine purpose was all David’s salvation and desire. His heart was bound up with it. His joys and his sorrows were more deeply interwoven with the spiritual kingdom than with personal ease or regal splendour. Our Saviour sets forth the same more illustriously in his life. It was his meat and drink to do his Father’s will. To see the blessings of the covenant spread to all mankind was the absorbing passion of his heart. For this he endured the cross and despised the shame. The prospect of the issue of his death gave him satisfaction in the hour of death (Psalms 53:1-6:10). The secret of his life was oneness with the Father’s will. The Apostle Paul exhibits, in his measure, the same delight in God’s purpose. It is a mark of high Christian feeling that we pass from our own personal interest in redemption to delight in the merciful purpose being realized in others. This is the spring of enterprise, the purifier of the heart from spiritual selfishness, the sure mark of having the mind that was in Christ. IX. THE OF A WICKED LIFE. David, in verses 5, 6, contrasts the men of Belial with those who rejoice in and work along the lines of God’s covenant. Their power often terrifies the good, causes much mischief, and seems for a while to tend to their permanent prosperity. But their power is barren of good result, noxious in its influence, and destined to be cut short. Here we have the truth exemplified in the case of all who are alien to the gracious purpose of God as revealed in his covenant of mercy. The life of the wicked is: 1. Barren as thorns. Whatever promise of good there may be at one time, it never passes from the bare thorn condition to that of fruitfulness. In highest moral and simplest religious fruitfulness their lives are worth nothing. 2. It is noxious as thorns. A wicked life pierces and wounds those who come under its influence; it tends not to healing and comfort, but to pain and distress. 3. It is fleeting in power, as thorns destined to be crushed by a mightier force and consumed. The wicked may be in great power, but the day will come when it will be said of him, "He is not" (Psalms 37:35, Psalms 37:36). These contrasts of the righteous and the wicked should strengthen the hearts of those who endure persecution and trial. 2 Samuel 23:8-39 The facts are: 1. A general statement of the names of David’s mighty men, with a comparative reference to some of their deeds. 2. A more special account of the daring of three who procured water for David at the risk of their lives. 3. The refusal of the king to drink that which had been obtained at so great a risk. Mighty men. The account here of the heroes who figured in the course of David’s life is supplementary to the general history, and, while intended to set forth incidents in his career, is also most probably designed to give a place of honour in the national records to those whose strength and valour contributed to establish the kingdom. There are deeds of mighty men recorded in the annals of the Church, and we may note— I. THAT A PLACE OF HONOUR IS IN RESERVE FOR THOSE WHO RENDER HIGH SERVICE. Because of great service these men were honoured with a place in the record which is to be read by all mankind. In subduing the world to Christ there is scope for great energies and efforts. Those who by prayer, self-denial, holy living, written or spoken words, or other means and weapons, go forth daily in the name of Christ and achieve great things, will be honoured in the esteem of the coming ages and in the esteem of Christ. While all good men shall shine as with the brightness of the firmament, these shall shine forth more distinctly as the "stars" forever and ever (Daniel 12:3; 1 Corinthians 15:41). II. THAT THE GROUND OF THE HONOUR LIES IN THEIR MUCH EVIL. These men smote gigantic foes. They contributed to the stability and splendour of David’s reign by sweeping away the evils which would have checked the progress of his wise and just methods of government. The honour of Christian soldiers lies in ridding the world of gigantic evils, the preliminary step to the perfection of good. Those who smite the greatest evils or a multitude of the most pervasive sins, confer unspeakable benefits on mankind, and clear the way for the positive development of those holy principles which are the glory of the kingdom of Christ. The riddance of sin and the introduction of holiness are concurrent acts in Christian warfare. Some men are marvellous warriors as compared with others. III. THAT THE SPIRIT WHICH RENDERS SUCH IS THAT OF TO THE KING. These men followed David, were under his guidance, caught his spirit, sought to establish his supremacy, and hence were nerved by a definite inspiring purpose. Consecration to Christ is the key to our victories. Wherever there is true devotion to him; and in proportion to its depth, there will be great deeds done in his name. Hence the apostolic allusions to fighting the good fight under the leadership of the great Captain of our salvation. Christ’s tribute to Christian devotion. The exclamation of David, "Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem!" was probably the natural unpremeditated outcome of an intense feeling of thirst when hemmed in by the Philistines. There is no evidence that it was a pretext to draw forth some special proof of devotion to himself. The incidental knowledge acquired of his actual need, nevertheless, developed in the hearts of these brave men a determination to obtain drink for him, even at the risk of their own lives. Where true loyalty exists there is no waiting for formal commands. The refusal of the king to drink what they so nobly obtained, doubtless, at first, filled them with surprise, and possibly caused annoyance. But the generous sentiment expressed—that he valued their generous devotion so highly that he could not at such a risk indulge in any personal satisfaction, deeming the offering too costly for mortal acceptance—this must have removed all disappointment, and strengthened the bond of allegiance. Here we may see a parable setting forth Christ’s tribute to the devotion of his followers. I. THE HIGHEST RISKS ALL FOR GOD. As these men went forth, risking life for their king, so the truest devotion leads men to risk all for Christ. There are forms of devotion in which little is given up, and much reserve is made. The stories of the rich young man in the gospel and of the going first to prove the purchased oxen exhibit a profession of attachment too frequent in Christendom. The Apostle Peter came nearer the truth of the case when he declared that he and others had "left all" to follow Christ. The mind to forsake, if need be, father and mother, houses and land, and to give up life, is stated to be the condition of the acceptable service. Wherever there is a real appreciation of who Christ is, what we are, what his vast mercy to us is, and the infinite claims of his love upon heart and life, devotion to him becomes so complete and absorbing that pain, loss, and possibly death among the heathen are faced with composure when they stand between the soul and the advancing of his interests. II. THIS RISK OF LIFE IS AN WORTHY OF CHRIST. The position of David as the anointed of the Lord and distinct ruler of the kingdom of God on earth, rendered it right and reasonable for the personal risk on his account. For the covenant with David and all the great issues involved were at stake. And so, apart from the subjective feeling which prompts to full devotion to Christ, there is in him and the vast enterprise of working out the redemption of man everything to justify this devotion. The surrender of life and all is an offering most worthy. Our mortal interests are as nothing compared to the requirements of his kingdom. He is worthy of all might, all riches, all life, all that men or angels can lay at his feet. III. CHRIST HAS NO JOY IN THE LOSS OF HIS WHEN SEEKING TO SERVE HIM. David felt no satisfaction that such valued lives were risked for him. It was no pleasure to think that widows might have had cause to weep in consequence of noble devotion in his service. He was always tenderly regardful of the lives and comfort of his people. And although, from the necessities of the case in a world where evil has to be fought at all costs, many a noble life has to be sacrificed and many a pain endured, yet Christ finds no pleasure in the sufferings of his people any more than he had in his own. His and their sufferings were to him a painful condition of conquest over sin. He feels for them in their woes. IV. BUT CHRIST PAYS HONOUR TO THE SPIRIT WHICH FREELY FACES GREAT RISKS. David’s refusal to drink the water, and his pouring it out before the Lord as though it were too sacred for mortal lips to touch, was his way of paying honour to these devoted men. His feeling in regard to their personal devotion is, so far as the human may be a symbol and measure of the Divine, a representation of the feeling cherished by Christ with respect to noble deeds in his service and the spirit from which they spring. He looks with admiration on the self-consuming zeal of his followers; he sees in it the reflection of that spirit of self-sacrifice which enters into his own sufferings and death for men. They are partakers with him of the cup of which some have not the courage to drink (Matthew 20:20-23). Those who have won great honours in his service are to be welcomed as "good and faithful servants," and to be made "rulers over many things." The loss of parents and houses and lands is to be compensated by others more enduring, with life eternal (Mark 10:30). His care and love assured to them in trial, his grace given according to their need, his distinct promise of distinction among the redeemed, all point to the tribute which he bears to the noble self-sacrificing spirit which animates them (John 14:18, John 14:19, John 14:27; John 15:18-21; 2 Corinthians 12:7-10; Revelation 2:10; Revelation 3:10-12). BY B. DALE 2 Samuel 23:1-7 (Matthew 1:1) The son of Jesse, and the Son of David. The relation of David to Jesus, regarded in the light of prophecy and history, was one of: 1. Hereditary connection; inasmuch as he not only belonged to the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5) and the house of Jesse the Bethlehemite (Isaiah 11:1), but was ancestor of Jesus (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23); who was thus legal heir to "the throne of his father David," and was born in "the city of David" (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6). 2. Typical representation, in his office as theocratic king, divinely chosen, "the Lord’s anointed" (messiah, christ), the representative of God and of the people; his devotion to the purpose of his calling, fulfilling the will of God, contending against his enemies, and ruling his people righteously; his exaltation, through suffering (1 Peter 1:11), by the mighty hand of God, to power, honour, and dominion; his influence in securing national deliverance, religious benefits, temporal order, prosperity, and happiness; whereby he foreshadowed an incomparably greater Ruler of a kingdom "not of this world," who saves his people from their sins, reconciles them to God, and gives them eternal life. 3. Historical resemblance (closely associated with the former, but without, so far as is revealed, being expressly designed by God), in his lowly birth, youthful consecration (1 Samuel 16:12; Luke 2:49), and humble occupation; his decisive conflict (1 Samuel 17:50; Matthew 4:11), public services, and bitter persecutions; his attracting around him a band of faithful followers (1 Samuel 22:1; Matthew 10:1), increasing fame, and popular recognition (2 Samuel 2:4; John 6:15; Matthew 21:9); his great achievements, spiritual utterances, and beneficent influence (2 Samuel 6:1-23; 2 Samuel 8:1-18.); his rejection (2 Samuel 15:13), betrayal, and overwhelming sorrows (2 Samuel 15:30); his final victory (2 Samuel 18:1-33.; John 12:31, John 12:32), glorious restoration, and diligent preparation for an enduring reign of peace. 4. Extraordinary contrast. Even wherein the first prefigured the second David (Ezekiel 34:23), the imperfection of the former stands opposed to the perfection of the latter. And Jesus is "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35) in the highest sense, David’s Lord (Mark 12:37); was without sin and always well pleasing to the Father; came to establish, not an earthly kingdom (as the Jews expected), but a spiritual one, and only by moral means (truth, righteousness, and love); died as a sacrifice for sin, rose again, and ascended into the heavens" (Acts 2:34); "who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (Romans 9:5).—D. 2 Samuel 23:1-3 (.) David’s last words. [The closing years of David’s life (after the insurrection of Sheba was subdued, 2 Samuel 20:1-26.) were spent in peace. Having secured a site for the altar (2 Samuel 24:25; 1 Chronicles 21:28), he made preparations for the building of the temple (1 Chronicles 22:1-19.). At length his strength began to fail; but, when made acquainted with the conspiracy of Adonijah, he displayed something of his former energy in hastening the accession of Solomon (1 Kings 1:1-53.). He also "gathered together the princes of Israel," etc. (1 Chronicles 23:1, 1 Chronicles 23:2), made numerous arrangements, sacred and civil (1 Chronicles 23:3-32; 24-27.), addressed a convocation of princes, gave a charge to his successor, and offered thanksgiving to God (1 Chronicles 28:1-21.; 1 Chronicles 29:1-25). He subsequently gave further counsel to Solomon (1 Kings 2:1-9). About the same time, probably, he uttered these last prophetic words; and then, at the age of seventy, he "fell on sleep" (1 Kings 2:10; 1 Chronicles 29:26-28). "The omission of David’s death in the conclusion of this work is satisfactorily explained from the theocratic character and aim of the composition, since in this conclusion the fulfilment of the theocratic mission of David is completed" (Erdmann).] "And these are the last words of David: An oracle of David, son of Jesse, And an oracle of the hero highly exalted, Anointed of the God of Jacob, And pleasant (in) Israel’s songs of praise. The Spirit of Jehovah speaks within me, And his word is on my tongue; Says the God of Israel, To me speaks the Rock of Israel," etc. How varied are the last words of men! How significant of their ruling passion! And how instructive to others (Genesis 48:21, Genesis 48:22; Genesis 49:1; Deuteronomy 33:1; Joshua 23:14; Joshua 24:27; 2 Kings 13:19; Luke 2:29; Acts 7:59; 2 Timothy 4:6-8)! Here is David, "the man of God’s own choice," about to go "the way of all the earth" (2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 2:2). Highly exalted as he was, he must die like other men. "We walk different ways in life, but in death we are all united." Ere he departs his spirit kindles with unwonted lustre, as not unfrequently happens in the case of others; he is under the immediate inspiration of God (Numbers 24:3, Numbers 24:4), and sings his last song of praise, sweet as the fabled notes of the dying swan. "No prince, and certainly no one who had not acquired his kingdom by inheritance, could possibly close his life with a more blessed repose in God and a brighter glance of confidence into the future. This is the real stamp of true greatness" (Ewald). "These are the words of the prophecy of David, which he prophesied concerning the end of the age, concerning the days of consolation which are to come" (Targum). They show that he has in death (what it is also the privilege of other servants of God in some measure to possess)— I. of the favour of God; which has been manifested: 1. Toward one of lowly origin and condition. "A son of Jesse." "Who am I?" etc. (1 Samuel 18:18). "I am the least in my father’s house" (Judges 6:15). He recognizes his natural relationships, recalls his early life, renounces all special claim to Divine favour, and is filled with humility. "What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" (1 Corinthians 4:7). 2. In raising him up to exalted honour. "The man [hero] who was highly exalted." Earthly distinction is the portion of a few, but spiritual distinction is the possession of every good man; he is a partaker of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), raised; up with Christ, and made to sit with him in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6), and an heir of all things (1 Corinthians 3:23). "The Christian believes himself to be a king, how mean soever he be, and how great soever he be; yet he thinks himself not too good to be servant to the poorest saint" (Bacon, ’Christian Paradoxes’). 3. In appointing him to royal dominion over men. "Anointed," etc. He has "an anointing from the Holy One," and shares in the dominion of Christ. "To him will I give power over the nations," etc. (Revelation 2:26). 4. In conferring upon him excellent endowments, in the exercise of which he quickens the spiritual susceptibilities of men, furnishes them with "acceptable words" in their approach to God, and becomes a helper of their noblest life and joy. Pleasant [lovely] in [by means of] the praise songs of [sung by] Israel." "He was not only the founder of the monarchy, but the founder of the Psalter. He is the first great poet of Israel. Although before his time there had been occasional bursts of Hebrew poetry, David is he who first gave it its fixed place in Israelite worship" (Stanley). "The harp the monarch minstrel swept, The king of men, the loved of Heaven, Which Music hallow’d, while she wept O’er tones her heart of hearts had given; Redoubled be her tears, its chords are riven! It soften’d men of iron mould, It gave them virtues not their own; No ear so dull, no soul so cold, That felt not, fired not to the tone, Till David’s lyre grew mightier than his throne!" (Byron, ’Hebrew Melodies’) Although his greatness was peculiar, yet a measure of true greatness belongs to every one of the "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6) of the spiritual Israel. He has power with God and with men, represents God to men and men to God, employs his power with God on behalf of men, and his power with men on behalf of God; and if, by the culture and use of the gifts bestowed upon him, he has contributed to the highest good of men—this (together with all the Divine benefits he has received) is a matter of grateful remembrance and fervent thanksgiving (Psalms 37:25, Psalms 37:37, Psalms 37:39; Psalms 103:1-22.). "It is not what we have done, but what God has done for us and through us, that gives true peace when we come to the end." II. by the Spirit of God; inasmuch as he is: 1. Filled with Divine inspiration. "The Spirit of Jehovah speaks within me." Such inspiration is of various kinds and degrees, and given for different special purposes. "Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16). But every one who has fellowship with God is inhabited, pervaded, inspired by his Spirit, enlightening, purifying, elevating, gladdening, and strengthening him. Some are "full of the Holy Ghost." In a dying hour, what a marvellous elevation of thought and feeling have they sometimes attained! "Holy men at their death have good inspirations" (see ’Last Words of Remarkable Persons;’ ’ Life’s Last Hours;’ Jacox, ’At Nightfall,’ etc.; S. Ward, ’The Life of Faith in Death;’ J. Hawes, ’Confessions of Dying Men,’ etc.). 2. Enabled to utter the Divine Word. "And his Word is on my tongue." Even though there be no new, definite, and infallible revelation of the Word of God, there is often a new indication of its meaning and application, and a fresh, fervid, and forcible expression thereof. "As the Spirit gave them utterance." 3. Made a recipient of Divine promises. "The God of Israel says." He who entered into a covenant relation with Israel, and promised to be their God, gave to David the promise of an everlasting kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12-16), and still gives it, with an inner voice that cannot be mistaken. He also "speaks all the promises," not only in the written Word, but also in the soul of every one to whom that Word comes in "much assurance." "Oh, might I hear thy heavenly voice But whisper, ’Thou art mine!’ Those gentle words should raise my song To notes almost Divine." 4. Constituted a witness of the Divine faithfulness in the fulfilment of the promises. "To me speaks the Rock of Israel" (1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2, 2 Samuel 22:3, 2 Samuel 22:32, 2 Samuel 22:47). "He is faithful that promised" (Hebrews 10:23). His faithfulness is the foundation of his promises. "And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Jehovah: and thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones" (Psalms 89:1, Psalms 89:2, Psalms 89:5, Psalms 89:8, Psalms 89:24, Psalms 89:33). On this the believer rests when all things fail, and of this he testifies in death, committing his soul into the hands of God, as "unto a faithful Creator" (1 Peter 4:19; Psalms 31:5). III. of the kingdom of God; wherein the glory of the present merges into the greater glory of the future, and earth and heaven are one (2 Samuel 23:3-5; Psalms 85:11). He sees: 1. The majesty of the King of righteousness; like the splendour of the rising sun. His view of the ideal theocratic ruler of the future has its perfect realization in him who is "King of kings, and Lord of lords." The chief object of the Christian’s contemplation in death is the glory of Christ. "Herein would I live; herein would I die; herein would I dwell in my thoughts and affections, to the withdrawing and consumption of all the painted beauties of this world, unto the crucifixion of all things here below, until they become unto me a dead and deformed thing, no way meet for affectionate embraces" (Owen). 2. The brightness of a heavenly day; "the drawing near of the kingdom of the heavens," and abounding life and happiness forever (2 Samuel 22:51; 2 Samuel 22:5). "Nevertheless we according to his promise," etc. (2 Peter 3:13). 3. The realization of a blessed hope; the hope of personal salvation (2 Samuel 23:5), associated with and assured in the immortal life of the King and his people (Psalms 16:9-11; Psalms 17:15; Psalms 49:15; Psalms 73:24; John 14:19). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel. It is probable that this chapter once stood in intimate connection with 2 Samuel 21:1-22; and that the famine therein described was followed by a pestilence, of which the blame largely rested upon David, though the sin punished by it was fully shared by the people. In saying that David was moved of Jehovah to number Israel and Judah, the writer acknowledges the great truth that all action, both good and evil, is of God. "Shall there be evil in a city, and Jehovah hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6). While we are taught to pray that we may not be led into temptation, yet trial and temptation are by God’s ordinance for man’s good. Man falls only when the temptation gives the opportunity for the outbreak of that which already was at work within (James 1:14). If the previous watch over the heart has been careful and earnest, then the temptation is a steppingstone to a nobler and more pure godliness; and if a man fall, yet even so he learns by outward proof what was secretly ruining his soul, and may by its manifestation be led to repentance. There were festering in David’s heart a thirst for war, and pride in his victories; a growing ambition, and, as its necessary result, a disregard of the rights of other nations. The same passions were gaining a daily increasing influence over the people generally. It is too often the case that a nation uses the bravery which has obtained for it freedom from foreign oppression, to impose the yoke of slavery upon others. But this chastisement brought back David and his subjects to more upright counsels. In 1 Chronicles 21:1 the temptation is ascribed to Satan, because David fell. God tempts, that is, tries, men that they may stand more firmly and advance in all that is true and good. Satan tempts men that he may find out their weaknesses and effect their ruin. Yet David fell only to rise again. Satan’s triumph was but temporary, and the result was good for king and people, who would have suffered far more terribly from the effects of their lust of war than from the pestilence. Temptation, then, has two sides, and is good or evil according to the use we make of it; but in itself it is a necessity for our probation. The trials and sorrows of life serve but to break up the fallow ground (Jeremiah 4:3); and without them our hearts would remain hard as the roadway; and the good seed, which may spring up to eternal life, would lie unheeded upon the surface, and find no entrance into their depths. As regards the exact time; and the idea of the Jewish commentators, that the sin consisted in neglecting to pay the half shekel there enjoined upon each man numbered, is not merely gratuitous, but is disproved by Joab’s remonstrance; for he objects to the census absolutely. From what, too, we know of Joab’s character, we cannot suppose that he would be particularly shocked at this being a census of the fighting men. Yet these Israelites were very noble men in their love of freedom and their respect for their national constitution; and if Joab observed in David a growing disposition towards despotism, and foresaw danger to the nation’s liberty from the king’s lust of foreign conquest, he was too upright a statesman not to oppose a measure which would strengthen the king in his dangerous tendencies. His words in 1 Chronicles 21:3, "Are they not all my lord’s servants?" seem to have this meaning. David was the master of all these fighting men. If their vast number was paraded before his imagination, it might lead him, flushed with past successes, into aggressive war; and victory abroad would lead to the destruction of freedom at home. The sin plainly lay in the violation of the principles of the theocratic government, which fostered personal independence in every member of the nation, and were opposed to every war except one of self-defence; and it was the fact that a nation so governed was weak and almost powerless even to protect itself, that had made the people clamour for a king. And now the opposite dangers were developing themselves, and the Israelites, dazzled by the glamour of victory, were joining with their king in a longing after extended empire. The pestilence stopped them for the present in their ambitious course; the disruption of the. kingdom under Rehoboam dispelled their dream forever. In 1 Chronicles 27:23 we also find the thought that the taking of a census, though several times practised by Moses (Exodus 38:26; Numbers 1:2; Numbers 26:2), was in itself presumptuous, because it seemed to contradict the promise in Genesis 15:5, that the seed of Abraham should be past numbering. He moved. It is impossible to translate, "and one moved," understanding thereby Satan, as stated in Chronicles. It was Israel which had incurred the Divine anger by its lust of war, and Jehovah used David, who was himself the victim of the same evil passions, to take a step which led on to the just chastisement. Number; Hebrew, count. It is a different word from that translated "number" in the rest of the chapter. 2 Samuel 24:2 For the king said; Hebrew, and the king said. David’s command was not the cause of Jehovah’s auger, but the result of his having himself given way to ambition; and, as he yielded to the temptation, it so far became an act of Satan, in that it led to sin; but in its final result it led to good, in that the chastisement cured the people of their thirst for war. And as Satan can act only so far as the Divine will permits, the temptation was most truly the doing of Jehovah (but see note on 1 Samuel 26:19). Captain of the host, which was with him. There is a good deal of difficulty about this passage, as the word for "host" is not that elsewhere used, and the last phrase is somewhat meaningless. In 1 Chronicles 21:2 we find "David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people." Without the concurrence of these rulers, who were the princes of the tribes, the census could not have been taken. But as the ancient versions confirm the reading of the Hebrew here, no change of the text is admissible. Number ye. This is distinctly the war word, for which see note on 2 Samuel 18:1. It proves that the census was taken for military reasons. Even this in itself was not wrong (Numbers 26:2), but it is indicative of David’s purpose. When, moreover, Moses numbered the people, the census was taken by the priests (Numbers 1:3; Numbers 26:1, Numbers 26:2), and from the payment of the half shekel to the sanctuary, it appears that it was to some extent a religious ceremony. All this David neglects, and the employment of Joab goes far to prove that what David wanted was an examination of the military resources of his kingdom. 2 Samuel 24:3 Why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? Joab was an unscrupulous and irreligious man; but he was clear headed, and far more statesmanlike than David (2 Samuel 19:5-7). He saw whither the king was drifting, and that the increase of the royal power, resulting from successful war, would be fatal to the liberties of Israel. Probably, too, though he had consented to carry out Uriah’s murder, yet he despised David for it. When he had murdered Abner to avenge Asahel, David had deprived him of his command, and he had to endure a long period of disgrace; and now David uses him to murder one altogether innocent. Joab, we may feel sure, noted the degradation of David’s character, and drew the conclusion that he was not the man to be trusted at the head of a military despotism. Warned thus by what he saw, his mind reverted to the principles of the theocracy, and their truth and value became more clear to his understanding; and honourably he remonstrates with David for violating them. 2 Samuel 24:4 The captains of the host. The matter was not undertaken without a council being held, and at it David’s chief officers agreed with Joab; but David had made up his mind, and would take no advice. 2 Samuel 24:5 Aroer. There is some uncertainty as to the Aroer here meant. There is first a city of that name in the tribe of Gad facing Rabbah (Joshua 13:25), and this is apparently the city meant; for it is said that "Joab and his men pitched in Aroer, on the south side of the city situated in the middle of the valley of Gad, and unto Jazer." Now, Jazer is also in Gad, about seven miles west of Rabbah, and as Rabbah is on the extreme east of the Israelite territory towards Ammon, it would be a very convenient spot from which to commence the numbering, But there is another Aroer on the Arnon, to the south of Reuben, and many commentators think that this Aroer must be meant, as otherwise the tribe of Reuben would seem to have been omitted. But this Aroer is regularly called "Aroer on the brink of the valley of Arnon" (Deuteronomy 2:36; Deuteronomy 4:48; Joshua 12:2; Joshua 13:9, Joshua 13:16); or simply Aroer "in the valley of Arnon" (Deuteronomy 3:12; 2 Kings 10:33); and cannot possibly be "the city in the midst of the valley of Gad," nor can this Aroer be "toward Jazer." Really the difficulty is made by commentators whose idea of the method of the census is superficial. Joab, in commencing it, formed an encampment in the open country on the right-hand side, that is, on the south of Aroer in the tribe of Gad, as being central, with Reuben on the south, and Manasseh on the north. It was "toward Jazer," that is, it was on the Jazer side of Aroer, and not on the side opposite Rabbah. We, with our simpler way of describing the points of the compass, would merely say that Joab’s camp was in the open pasture land southwest of Aroer. Joab probably selected this spot because, though on the eastern border, it was yet not too far from Jerusalem, was central, and because a brook from Jazer flowing eastward for some distance, and thence to the north past Rabbah, would supply his people with water; and from this camp he would direct the proceedings of those who were to take the census. And as probably there would be considerable opposition—for the people would see in an act which for four centuries had been in desuetude threats of heavier taxation, of heavier forced labour, and of longer service with the army—Joab would require the presence of a body of troops sufficiently powerful to overawe malcontents. And these would be of no use at Aroer on the Arnon, in the distant south, but must lie eneamped in some central position, whence detachments could rapidly be moved to any place where there was danger of resistance. 2 Samuel 24:6 Then they came to Gilead. When the enumerators had finished their labours in Reuben and the region south of Aroer, Joab moved his camp northwards, and pitched in Gilead, on the river Jabbek; and, having completed the counting in this part of the tribe of Gad, would next enter the wild regions of Manasseh. It is probable that the tribal princes and local officers actually numbered the people, and that Joab, with a powerful force, constrained them to obedience often against their will. It was possibly this danger of resistance which made David entrust the business to Joab, instead of employing the Levites. The land of Tahtim-hodshi. Gesenius dismisses this name with the remark that it can scarcely be regarded as genuine. The versions give little help; but Thenius cleverly extracts from the LXX; "unto Bashan, which is Edrei." Others, by a slight change in the Hebrew, read, "the land of the Hittites," and suppose that Hodshi is a corruption of the Hebrew word for "month," so that the whole might have been, "They came to the land of the Hittites in the (third) month." Others, again, suppose that Hodshi is a corruption of the name of the town Kadesh. But the versions would certainly have preserved anything so commonplace as this. When they make mistakes, it is almost invariably in proper names or unusual phrases. The emendation of Thenius is too ingenious to be accepted, but it gives the right sense, namely, that from Gilead and the tribe of Gad the numerators went northward through Bashan and the rest of the half tribe of Manasseh till they came to Dan, the town on the extreme northeast border, and the limit in that direction of the Israelite realm, as Beersheba was its limit on the south. Dan-jaan. Nowhere else is Dan found with this addition, and the Syriac omits it even here. The Vulgate, and Septuagint (Codex Alex.) read Dan-jaar the woodland Dan. Possibly the names of two towns have been run into one, and the original reading was "unto Dan and Ijon" (see 1 Kings 15:20). Ijon was on the direct road from Dan to Sidon. Zidon. This was on the extreme northwestern boundary. It did not actually belong to David, but both it and Tyro had apparently placed themselves under his protection, and were bound to render some kind of military service. 2 Samuel 24:7 Tyre (comp. Joshua 19:29). Tyre and the whole coast land between it and Sidon had been too strong for the tribe of Asher, and remained unsubdued. But, like the independent states in India, it acknowlodged the supremacy of the paramount power. The cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites. It is evident from this that even in David’s time there were towns and districts were Hivites and Canaanites dwelt as distinct communities, governed probably by their own laws. But as they were bound to serve in the Israelite armies, they were included in the census, and possibly one of its rosin objects was to learn the number of fighting men of alien races dwelling in Israel. They seem to have been reckoned as belonging to the tribe in whose borders they dwelt. So Baanah and Rechab, the murderers of Ishbosheth, though Beerothites (and therefore Gibeonites, who again were Hivites), were counted to Benjamin (2 Samuel 4:2). These Gentile communities were chiefly to be found in the north, for which reason it was called "the circuit (Gelil) of the nations" (Isaiah 9:1), and in later times from Gelil came the name Galilee. The Syriac adds "Jebusites," and we find Jerusalem occupied by a community of Jebusites living in independence in the very neighbourhood of the warlike tribe of Benjamin (2 Samuel 5:6). This numbering of the aborigines by David is referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:17, where it is added that Solomon made a separate census of them, and found that there were in Israel no fewer than a hundred and fifty-three thousand six hundred of these aliens. 2 Samuel 24:8 Nine months and twenty days. This long period seems excessive, if nothing more was intended than merely counting the heads of the people, especially as the census was left unfinished. But there might very probably be difficulties with the aliens dwelling in Israel; and it is still more probable that there was a complete examination of all the military resources of the land. The result showed a very different state of things from that described in 1 Samuel 13:19-22, and we can well understand the existence of much elation and war lust among the Israelites on the first flush of pride in their new empire. 2 Samuel 24:9 There were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. In Chronicles the numbers are, "of Israel eleven hundred thousand men, and of Judah four hundred and sixty-five thousand men." These discrepancies are a remarkable confirmation of the truth of what is said in 1 Chronicles 27:24 that because of the outbreak of the Divine wrath, "the number was not put in the account of the Chronicles of King David." Neither the writer of the Books of Samuel nor of Chronicles had any official document to refer to; and as the numbers are lump sums, and derived probably from what was said by the enumerators, the more exact four hundred and sixty-five thousand men of the Chronicles might easily in round numbers be called a half million. The other is a much larger discrepancy, and no satisfactory explanation of it has been given. It is, however, quite possible that the additional three hundred thousand men were made up of the thirty-eight thousand Levites, as numbered on a later occasion by David, of the Benjamites, and of the aborigines, who belonged to the northern part of the kingdom, and might be included among "all they of Israel" (1 Chronicles 21:5). The numbers are further attacked on the ground of exaggeration. A million and a half of fighting men means a general population of six or seven millions. Now, Palestine at most does not contain more than eleven thousand square miles, and a population of six millions means five hundred and forty-five persons to every square mile, or one to every acre. The country was undoubtedly very fertile in ancient times, and the ruins of populous cities are found where now there is a waste. But there were vast forests and pasture lands and downs, where there were the means of subsistence for only a few. But we must remember that the enumerators went as far north as Tyre, and counted the inhabitants, therefore, of the seaboard between it and Sidon. Probably they also acted in the same way in the south, where the limits of Simeon were very uncertain. Besides this, there is a very remarkable undesigned coincidence. We read in 1 Chronicles 27:1-34. that David had a force of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men, who formed his regular army, and of whom twenty-four thousand were called up for training every month. But there are reasons for believing that David took for this purpose each fifth man of those of the military age; and thus the whole number of such men would be one million four hundred and forty thousand. This, as Mr. Sime has shown, holds a middle place between the one million three hundred thousand of the Book of Samuel, and the one million five hundred and seventy thousand of Chronicles, and shows that these numbers are not to be rejected on the score of exaggeration. 2 Samuel 24:10 David’s heart smote him. It appears from 1 Chronicles 27:24 that the census was not completed, and, though Joab had visited Judah, he had not even begun to enrol the names of the men of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 21:6). It appears also that the displeasure of God was manifesting itself before David repented (1 Chronicles 21:7; 1 Chronicles 27:24). Some sign of this, either in public trouble, or in the brooding of the pestilential miasma over the land, brought home to David’s mind the conviction of sin; and he at once humbled himself before God, for the vanity of mind which had engendered in him a wicked lust after martial glory and thirst for bloodshed. I have done very foolishly. 2 Samuel 24:11 For when, etc.; Hebrew, and David arose in the morning, and a word of Jehovah came unto Gad, a seer of David, saying. The visit of the seer was the result of David’s repentance, and not its cause. And he was sent in mercy, that, after such punishment as would cure both king and people of their folly, there might be for both forgiveness. The name for seer is not roeh, the old word used in 1 Samuel 9:9, and which simply means "one who sees;" but chozeh, a gazer, one who looks with fixed eyes, that penetrate into the hidden world. 2 Samuel 24:13 Seven years of famine. In 1 Chronicles 21:12 and here in the Septuagint we find "three years." This is probably right as being in harmony with the rest. Three years of famine, three months of defeat, or three days of pestilence. In Ezekiel 14:21 famine, pestilence, and the sword are mentioned as three of God’s four sore judgments. But a fourth judgment is there enumerated, namely, that of the increase of wild beasts, and Joshua the Stylite says that in Mesopotamia, as a result of the desolating war between the Romans and Persians, about A.D. 505, beasts of prey had become so numerous that they entered the villages and carried off the children from the streets, and were so bold and ferocious that even the men scarcely dared go about their labours in the fields. Now advise, and see; Hebrew, now know, and see. The phrase is common in the historical books (see 1 Samuel 12:17; 1 Samuel 14:38; 1 Samuel 23:22; 1 Samuel 24:11; 1 Samuel 25:17, etc.). Our translators render the phrase in a multitude of ways without greatly improving it. 2 Samuel 24:14 Let us fall now into the hand of Jehovah. David had sinned against God, and to God he humbly submitted himself. There would thus be nothing to come between the soul and God, and prevent the chastisement from having its due effect upon the heart. A famine would indeed equally come from God, but would necessitate effort and exertion on man’s part. In the pestilence he would wait patiently, nor look to anything but prayer for averting God’s judgment. In Psalms 51:1 David refers to God’s mercies, in much the same way as here, as being a motive to repentance. 2 Samuel 24:15 Even to the time appointed. This rendering, though very uncertain, is retained in the Revised Version. It would mean, of course, the end of the third day, as the pestilence was to last for that time. The objections to it are that there is no article in the Hebrew, so that literally it would be "unto a time appointed." Secondly, the pestilence did not continue unto the time appointed, but was mercifully stayed. And thirdly, these words are a literal translation, indeed, of the Vulgate, but a violation of its meaning. For Jerome, who made the translation, says, "’tempus constitutum’ means the hour when the evening sacrifice was offered" (’Tradd. Hebrews in Duos Libres Regum’). The versions all agree that the pestilence lasted only a few hours. Thus the Syriac translates, "From morning until the sixth hour," i.e. noon. So too the Septuagint, "From morning until the midday meal." The Vulgate adds on thrice hours, as the evening sacrifice was at the ninth hour; and this is the meaning of the Chaldee Paraphrase: "From the time the daily sacrifice was slain until it was burnt." As the word moed used here means both a time or place appointed for a meeting, and also the meeting itself, the right translation probably is, "From the morning even to the time of assembly," or, as we should say, "the hour of service." Moed was the regular word for the time of the temple service, derived from the old name of the tabernacle, which was called "the tent of moed" (see Numbers 16:19, etc.), rendered iu the Authorized Version, "the tabernacle of the congregation," and in the Revised Version, "the tent of meeting." The hour would thus be the ninth, or three o’clock in the afternoon. Seventy thousand men. This is a vast number to fall victims of the pestilence in so short a time, as even the most dangerous forms of sickness take some days for their development. But similarly the army of Sennacherib was cut off in a night (Isaiah 37:36); as were the firstborn in Egypt, whose visitation more nearly resembles the course of this pestilence; and the rapidity of the death blow, striking down so vast a multitude suddenly throughout all parts of the land, would be proof to every mind that the mortality was the Divine chastisement for national sin. It is possible, nevertheless, that the black death cloud, bringing with it the plague, may have been settling down upon the land previously, and have alarmed David, and brought him to repentance; and though no new cases occurred after the offering of his burnt offerings (2 Samuel 24:25), yet it by no means follows that all cases of infection were miraculously cured. The malady may have run in them its normal course. It was Jerusalem that was saved from the blow, and, after the offering of the burnt offering, the pestilence smote down no more. 2 Samuel 24:16 The angel. In the next verse we are told that David saw the angel, and more fully in 1 Chronicles 21:16 that he beheld him "standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand." The pestilence plainly was not a natural visitation; though possibly the means used was a simoom, or poisonous wind, advancing with terrible rapidity throughout Israel. The Lord repented. In all the dealings of God’s providence, his actions are made to depend upon human conduct. Looked at from above, from God’s side, all things are foreknown and immutably fixed; looked at from man’s side, all is perpetually changing as man changes. The rescue of Jerusalem as the result of David’s penitence and prayers, is thus to human view a change in the counsels and even in the feelings of him who changeth not. The threshing place. "The threshing floor," as rightly translated in 1 Chronicles 21:18, 1 Chronicles 21:21, 1 Chronicles 21:24. Threshing floors were constructed, whenever possible, on eminences, that the wind might drive the chaff and dust away. Araunah’s was on the east of Jerusalem, outside the walls, upon Mount Moriah, and was the site on which the temple was built (see 2 Chronicles 3:1). Araunah. The name is so spelt seven times in 1 Chronicles 21:20-24, for which reason the Massorites have substituted it for Avarnah, found in this verse in the Hebrew text, and for Aranyah in 1 Chronicles 21:18. In 1 Chronicles 21:1-30 the name is spelt Ornan; in the Septuagint in all places, Ὀρνά, Orna, and in the Syriac, Oron. The name is, of course, a Jebusite word, and the variation arises from the narrators having written down the sound as it caught their ears. In this, as in many other particulars, it is clear that the chronicler derived his account from independent Sources. 2 Samuel 24:17 I have done wickedly; Hebrew, I have done perversely, or crookedly. David acknowledges that his conduct had not been upright and straightforward, but that he had turned aside into the paths of self-will and personal aggrandizement. These sheep, what have they done? The sin had been quite as much that of the people as of the king; for the war lust had entered into the very heart of the nation. But David, with that warmth of feeling which makes his character so noble, can see only his own fault. It is not a true repentance when the sinner looks for excuses, and apportions the blame between himself and others. To David the people seemed innocent, or, if at all to blame, he felt that it was he who had set them the example and led them on. The narrative in this place is much briefer than in Chronicles. 2 Samuel 24:18 Go up. David probably, on receiving God’s message, had gone to the tent which he had pitched for the ark in Zion (2 Samuel 6:17), in order that he might pray there; and while on his way he saw the dark plague cloud coming as the messenger of God’s wrath to smite Jerusalem. In an agony of grief, he poured out his prayer that Jerusalem might be spared, and God heard him, and sent Gad a second time to bid him offer sacrifice, that, by making an atonement, he might stand between the dead and the living, as Aaron had done in the wilderness (Numbers 16:46-48) He is therefore to leave the tabernacle, and mount up to the summit on which Araunah’s threshing floor was situated. We read in 1 Chronicles 21:28-30 that David wished to go to Gibeon, where the Mosaic tabernacle and altar of burnt offering were, to inquire of God, but that he was afraid, as the angel of the pestilence was smiting outside the walls. This is mentioned as an excuse for his offering at an unconsecrated spot. But it also suggests that David’s choice was a submission to a chastisement already at work. 2 Samuel 24:20 Araunah … saw the king. In 1 Chronicles 21:20, "saw the angel;" but the text there is apparently corrupt, the difference, moreover, in Hebrew between "king" and "angel" being very slight. The addition there of the story of Araunah’s four sons hiding themselves is very lifelike and natural. For these remnants of the aborigines, though tolerated, yet held a very insecure position, as we have seen in the dealings of Saul with the Gibeonites; and the coming of the king with his retinue to the out of the way spot where Araunah was at work, no doubt filled them all with terror. 2 Samuel 24:22 Behold, here be oxen. Araunah was threshing out his wheat by dragging sledges or frames of wood without wheels over it. All these he at once gives to David, that the sacrifice may be offered without delay, as it would have cost much time and labour to bring wood up from the city. Instead of and other instruments of the oxen, the Hebrew has "the harness or furniture of the oxen," all of which was of wood. 2 Samuel 24:23 All these did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. The Hebrew is, "The whole gave Araunah the king to the king;" and so the Vulgate, dedit Areuna rex regi. The rendering of the Revised Version (and Keil), "All this, O king, doth Araunah give unto the king," requires a change both of the order and of the tense. It is, of course, possible (though highly is probable) that Araunah was the representative of the kings of Jebus, and a titular monarch, like the Maori king in New Zealand. But the word is omitted in the Septuagint and Syriac, and is probably a mere repetition of the following word. The remark is made in order to point out Araunah’s generosity; and to mark even more clearly how hearty and sincere he was in his offering, the narrator adds, in Araunah’s own words, his prayer for God’s acceptance of David and his offering. 2 Samuel 24:24, 2 Samuel 24:25 David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. In 1 Chronicles 21:25, "So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight." There is a superficial, but no real discrepancy between these two narratives. David gave the fifty shekels for the immediate use of the place, and for the oxen and implements. He had no idea at the time of permanently occupying it, and probably the note in the LXX; interpolated by scribes from the margin into the text, is true, "And Solomon added to the altar afterwards, for it was small at the first." It was a small altar hurriedly put together for the purpose of offering one sacrifice; and fifty shekels would be full compensation. But the sacrifice had hallowed the spot, and, when finally it was selected as the site for the temple, David bought the whole area and all that Araunah possessed there. Fifty shekels of silver would be about £9; six hundred shekels of gold would be about £1500; so that there is no comparison between the two sums. But the precious metals were worth very much more in David’s time than in ours, so that the smaller sum was adequate compensation for David’s first acquisition, while the larger implies the purchase of an extensive and valuable estate. Substantially the fuller narrative in Chronicles agrees with this. David refuses to sacrifice of that which cost him nothing, and must therefore have at once paid for what he took. But When God accepted his offering, and answered him by fire from heaven, then David said, "This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel." And as the Chronicler has in view throughout the selection of the site for the temple, he naturally mentions its full cost. In the Book of Samuel this purpose is not expressly mentioned, and the narrative closes with the forgiveness of the sin both of David and his people. Jehovah was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed. But this sudden smiting down of so large a host humbled both king and people, and their eagerness for war and their lust of empire ceased. ― DEO GLORIA. 2 Samuel 24:1-9 The facts are: 1. On account of some transgressions, God, being angry with Israel, permits some one to incite David to number the people. 2. David, on issuing his commands to Joab, is met with a remonstrance from him and the captains of the host. 3. But the king persisting in his desire, Joab and his officers and men apply themselves to the work, and at the end of nine months and twenty days return the number of men capable of serving in war at 1,300,000. The difficulties involved in the statements of this section may be, at least, lightened by a few considerations. The parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1-30. mentions, in an indefinite way, an adversary as the instrument of inciting the mind of David. It is in accordance with the order of the Divine government sometimes to allow agencies to act on the minds of men for purposes of trial and especially for discipline. Adam was assailed. Satan had permission to tempt Job. David recognizes the possibility of Saul being incited against himself by God (the Hiph. as here, הְסֶיתְךָ); 1 Samuel 26:19. A spirit or agency inclining to evil is said to go forth or be sent from God, when the idea of permitting the free action of evil influences as a means of punishment for previous sins is to be inculcated (Judges 9:23; 1 Samuel 16:14; 2 Samuel 16:10; 1 Kings 22:21-23). The ascription of actions to God in almost absolute terms, where in reality the Divine action is a withdrawal of restraint, is a strong Hebraism, as seen in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (cf. Isaiah 6:9, Isaiah 6:10; Isaiah 63:17; Matthew 13:13-15). It is no uncommon thing for sin to be punished by sin (Psalms 17:13, Psalms 17:14; cf. Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:6). Now, accepting this general teaching as to some of God’s methods when trial or chastisement are in view, we find in 1 Samuel 21:1-15. that the nation was chastised for a previous national or semi-national sin. It seems, therefore, natural that the expression (1 Samuel 21:1), "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel," really sets forth the event of this chapter as being a second instance of national suffering on account of public sin; the difference being that in 1 Samuel 21:1-15. the famine became a fact before the occasion is revealed, while here the fact of sin is first stated, and the human instrumentality of bringing on the punishment is then set forth. David had sinned in the matter of Uriah, and been punished. Absalom had sinned in rebelling, and had also been punished. But he was not the only sinner. Israel had revolted under him against the Lord’s anointed, and was there to be no punishment for Israel as a people? The whole history of the dealings of God with them gives the reply. Apart from any recent unrecorded sin, there is, then, historical continuity in the words, "The anger of the Lord" was again "kindled against Israel." The peculiarity of the case is this—that the free falling of David into a snare of pride and undue reliance on material strength became the occasion and means by which the transgression of Israel was chastised, while he, being quite free in his sin, was also caused to suffer for it. Deferred chastisements. Some time evidently had elapsed between the sin of Israel and the expression of Divine anger against it (1 Samuel 21:1). This and the other Book of Samuel sets forth the chief cases of public visitation on account of sin, e.g. Eli, Saul,. David, Absalom; and, in keeping with this, the conduct of the people in revolting against the Lord’s anointed is now made the occasion of Divine displeasure. With reference to deferred chastisements observe— I. THAT GOD WAITS TILL EVENTS SERVE THE PURPOSE OF . The chastisement of Eli did not come till national affairs so far developed as to issue in a disastrous defeat of Israel. David’s sin bore its bitter fruit some months and years after committal. The sin of the house of Saul was brought home to the conscience of the nation after his death (2 Samuel 21:1). So here the wicked conduct of the nation in rejecting David, God’s chosen servant, was allowed to remain relatively unnoticed, as though God were waiting for such a development of events in the natural course of things as would serve the purposes of chastisement. Nations, Churches, and individuals are still allowed to go on for a while till events mature for bringing upon them the reward of their deeds. II. THAT THE EVENTS WHICH SERVE FOR ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FREE ACTION OF OTHERS. The free action of the Philistines brought on Eli’s trouble. The free action of Absalom and Israel was the means of chastising David for his sin in the case of Uriah. The natural development of famine, united with a revelation of God’s overruling purposes, smote Israel for the national crime against the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21:1-4). So here the free action of some evil person or agent on the free mind of David was the natural event which issued in his official sin, and in his punishment in such a form as to bring on Israel the chastisement which all along they were deserving for their revolt. The same is seen in the free action of Babylon bringing on the chastisement of captivity, and of Rome in bringing on the chastisement of the dispersion due for rejection of Christ. God may wait long before he brings on what is due to sin; but all free events are in his hands, and he will use up some of them when fit conditions arise. III. THE FREE ACTION OF MEN BY WHICH THEY ARE MEANS OF OTHERS; FOR SIN MAY BE ITSELF SINFUL AND SUBJECT TO . David’s free act in yielding to the inducement to number the people was a sin. It was displeasing to God. It was a case of sin opening the way for a chastisement for sin. There were circumstances in David’s personal and official position which rendered it natural that his deed should be at once disowned, and in that disownment there came the rod which smote also for the past sin of Israel. The acts of Babylon and Rome were wicked, though they were the rod by which God smote his people. It is by a most wonderful adjustment that God thus makes sin the avenger of sin; and so, in course of ages, sin tends to establish that very righteousness of God which in its initiation it sought to set aside. All the resources of God are at his command at any time for expressing his anger against sin; but he does not create new agencies—he uses up what is in existence, and utilizes the successive acts even of the wicked. It is a solemn fact that though judgment be deferred it is not, the less sure (2 Peter 2:3). Here is a warning to the impenitent, and a restraint on all The injured may rest assured that God will bring a recompense (Romans 12:19). The subtle power of a sinful motive. The narrative simply states outward facts; but the form of them compels the belief that David’s actions were now governed by a subtle motive, sinful in its nature, complete in its mastery over intellect and will, and so able to dominate his entire nature that its own real character should all the time be disguised. It is a difficult matter to disintegrate the complex movements of the mind or to present an accurate psychological analysis of an act of sin; but we may trace in David’s ease a few features of sin in its subjective workings. An underlying sinful motive may so operate as— I. TO SECURE BEFORE THE A GOOD ARRAY OF REASONS FOR AN ACT. David must have formulated reasons for his proposal to number the people. Most probably he thought it was a natural thing after all the vicissitudes the nation had passed through. It would afford an occasion of showing how God had blessed and prospered the people. He would be in a better position to make up any defects that might be discovered in the defences of the country. The knowledge of their unity and strength would give encouragement and confidence to men apprehensive of danger from without. The result, becoming known among neighbouring nations, would act as a check on their aggressiveness. His successor to the throne would be in possession of facts that would help his administration of affairs, and there would be some comfort in seeing how far Israel was realizing the hopes held out to their ancestors. Such reasons may seem to be the outcome of mere intellectual activity; but in reality they are set in order by the subtle influence of the ruling motive over the intellectual powers. Men do not know to what extent the form and order of their thinkings are determined by the governing desire. Herein lies much of the deceitfulness of sin. The useful nature of facts can easily be seen when the disposition would have it so. The devil was a clever reasoner in Eden. The inner adversary of our soul, be it evil motive or propensity, practically, by influence over the intellect, performs the part of a cogent reasoner, and makes out a case for the consent of the reason. II. TO DIVERT FROM ITSELF. Conscience was alive in David when first the question of numbering occurred to him, but when once the idea is entertained and the subtle unspoken motive has strengthened its hold on the mind by being temporarily cherished, it so operates as to weaken the gaze of conscience on itself and virtually divert it to more incidental circumstances. An evil motive cannot live face to face with a live conscience; but if by persistence it can get lodgment among the many feelings of the heart, and as it were be hidden from direct single gaze, it can, by its contagions nature, create a condition of things that the conscience shall be occupied with other evils inferior in rank, while it does its deadly work almost without coming into consciousness. So many a man finds his conscience busy with straining out a gnat while the evil disposition most cherished is free to devour a camel. Hence, even great sinners are sometimes precise and punctilious in minor matters. III. TO GIVE TO THE WILL. It seems strange that David should have ventured to go against the deliberate protest of Joab and the chief military men. His disregard of Joab’s wishes can, perhaps, be explained by his previous quarrels with him; but that he should have gone against the judgment of the chief men in the army is explicable only on the moral and psychological principle that the subtle power of an evil motive, when cherished, imparts a peculiar obstinacy to the will. We see this in human life. The persistence of men in carrying out a sinful feeling, active though not perhaps distinct in consciousness, is amazing. The will is so imbued with the feeling as to be proof against all reason and all but physical force. This is the real bondage. This led Augustine to say that man, as a sinner, is not free. There is something akin to the blindness and insensibility and mechanical necessity of physical forces in a will subject to the rule of a sinful motive. IV. TO ENSURE SELF-. David seems to have set about this business with coolness, and to have been calmly determined to see it through. There was no excitement, and whatever occasional gleams of conscience may have fallen on the dark recesses where the hidden sinful motive lay doing its subtle work, they did not permanently affect the self-possession of his life. The sudden breaking of the spell came after the nine months and twenty days. Restlessness and anxiety during a sinful course can only arise when conscience and desire are face to face, and conscience is not diverted from its gaze. When the governing feeling has, by subtle action, brought intellect, conscience, and will into subjection, or rather when its nature has somehow tainted and weakened them all, there is a peace and composure which, if not of God, is nevertheless serviceable for the execution of a purpose. It is the bane of some wicked men that their strength is firm. It is an evil omen for a religious man when he is undisturbed in doing what others know to be wrong. "Grey hairs are upon him, and he knoweth it not." GENERAL LESSONS. 1. It becomes men in the most favourable circumstances to remember that they are olden to incitements to evil as truly as the most unfavoured. 2. The more elevated our position in the religious life the more subtle are the temptations of the great adversary. 3. It is possible for a really good man to becloud his last days by falling into sin through lack of watchfulness and prayer against the more secret forms of evil. 2 Samuel 24:10-17 A king’s sin and a people’s chastisement. The facts are: 1. David, reflecting on the accomplishment of his purpose, comes to a consciousness of his sin, and makes confession before God. 2. In the morning the Prophet Gad is sent to him from. the Lord, offering him, as a choice of a chastisement, either seven years’ famine, or three months’ defeat before his enemies, or three days’ pestilence. 3. David, in his anguish, elects to fall into the hands of God. 4. Thereupon God sends a pestilence which carries off seventy thousand men. 5. There being some relenting in the anger of God when the pestilence reached Jerusalem, David entreats with the angel of the Lord by the threshing floor of Araunah, that he would have pity on the people and rather smite him and his house. The various truths taught in this section may be briefly set forth thus. I. THE OF MAN’S NATURE. For more than nine months the unhallowed feeling which prompted the numbering of the people had held sway, and now during the silence of night the spiritual man that had been suppressed again asserts his power. David comes to himself, and sees his conduct in a Divine light. The supremacy of sin means a depression of the better nature. The awakening to a sense of sin is the reaction of that better nature. The same was seen in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah. The prodigal son’s coming to himself is an instance; as also the repentance of every sinner. The causes and occasions of the reaction may come from without, but there can he no doubt that the change does lie in a reaction. The spell is broken, and the higher nature of man once more asserts itself. II. THE CAUSES AND OF THE SOUL’S THE SPELL OF SIN ARE . David came to himself most probably for three reasons. 1. Difficulties of carrying out his project may have pressed on him the need of reflection; for not only were Joab and the captains reluctant workers, but long time elapsed, and so strong was the opposition that two tribes were not counted (1 Chronicles 21:4). 2. The strain of persistence would, by psychological law, enfeeble purpose. He could not go on forever in a line of sin; exhaustion of moral motive is a reality. 3. The gracious action of God would revive the latent and suppressed sense of right; for though the Holy Spirit is grieved, he does not depart forever from the erring. The same is true still. External difficulties of a sinful course make the way hard, and so give chance for reflection and reaction of the better self. The exhaustion and satiety of persistence in evil tends to open a way for the action of Divine influence. The misery of the prodigal, the weariness of sin, the loss of early novelty, do not turn men, but they render other more spiritual action more timely. The real cause which turns these occasions to account is the gracious action of the Holy Spirit. III. THE CHANGED OF CONDUCT UNDER THE LIGHT OF GOD’S SPIRIT. As we have seen (2 Samuel 24:1-9), plausible reasons could be assigned for numbering the people, but now that in the silence of night the light had come, that which once was reasonable and proper, and persisted in as essential, is folly and sin. It is only in the light which God causes to shine into our hearts that we can see what is the real character of some of the motives lurking there. Saul of Tarsus came to see himself in the light of God, and the old life in which he had prided himself became his shame. No man knows himself apart from Divine illumination. Repentance marks the change undergone in a man’s estimate of himself in the sight of God. IV. THE OF SIN AND RIGHT REASON. When David confessed before God that in what he had done he had acted foolishly, he not only expressed a changed estimate of his conduct, but also illustrated a universal truth. Sin and wisdom are incompatible; they are mutually exclusive. The lie from the beginning has been that it is good for man to do his own will. The wisdom of being "as gods" was the first of snares. The votaries of pleasure and the scornful rejecters of the supernatural Christ deem themselves wise in following the bent of their unholy and proud disposition. The wise "disputer of this world" looks with contempt on "the foolishness of preaching" and of the obedience to Christ which is its object. Yes, like David, in his sin, they have their day; but just as he found at last that his wisdom was all the time folly, so others will find that wisdom is utterly removed from their preference of their own to the will of Christ. Sin is the most desperate folly. It debases man’s nature, entails numberless ills for body and spirit, interferes with the true development of the mind and the acquisition and enjoyment of the treasures of good hid in nature, inflicts a stigma and leaves a stain that unfit for the highest society in the universe, and, moreover, mars the future possibly beyond recovery. Holiness and wisdom alone coincide. To go against the will of God is a species of madness. The history of individuals and of nations is proof of it. V. GOD’S OVER SINNERS. It was a long solitary night when David came to see the folly and sin of his conduct. The outpouring of his penitent heart was known to no human being. The most sacred experiences of life are secrets between the soul and God. But yet in the morning, just at the right time, the messenger of God came to him. His mission was to offer alternative chastisements, but there was implied in it forgiveness. The eye of God had seen the inner workings of the broken spirit, and the occasion was seized to bring David again into more direct communication with his God. In the case of Bathsheba Nathan had awakened penitence; here Gad came to help forward the good work begun in penitence. The cry of Saul of Tarsus was heard in heaven, and to help him a servant of God was prepared to speak the words suitable to his case. The ear of the Lord is ever open to the cry of the humble, and his eye is on their sorrows. Some message or messenger will be sent to them to confirm the fact of their awakening to a sense of sin, and do what is best for their restoration. Let every penitent remember that God hears the cry in the night, and sees all the desires of the broken heart. VI. THE OF TO SIN. In the alternative choice of David as to the form of chastisement there is secured the same adaptation of the infliction to the nature of the sin. Many explanations have been offered of this sin, but we prefer to consider its essence to lie in a sense of elation in the strength of the nation, and a consequent desire to be assured of its sufficiency for all contingencies. David was thinking of strength and glory in numerical form. In this he was going counter to the letter and spirit of the Law laid down for him and his people (Leviticus 26:1-46.). Success and prosperity were to be dependent on perfect obedience to God’s commands (Leviticus 26:3, 4)? It is expressly added that then a few men will suffice against a host, and, on the other hand, disobedience and "pride of power" (2 Samuel 24:14, 2 Samuel 24:15-19) will entail defeat and desolation. That this "pride of power" was the real sin in David’s case is seen in this—that the three alternatives offered to him are the very three forms of chastisement alluded to in Leviticus 26:3-10 (cf. 16-20). But the point is this, that, whichever form of chastisement is taken, the effect is the same—a diminution of the power which was an object of pride. The sin of rejoicing in the "arm of flesh" (Jeremiah 17:5; cf. Isaiah 30:2) was visited by a weakening of that "arm." Famine, war, pestilence, either, would take away from that very number which it was David’s ambition to know and have as large as possible. This adaptation of chastisement to sin is seen elsewhere. The infliction for wicked craving for flesh in the wilderness (Numbers 11:33), the confusion and helplessness of those who sought help in Egypt rather than in God (Isaiah 30:2, Isaiah 30:3, Isaiah 30:16, Isaiah 30:17), the turning of Laodicean outward respectability into a loss of all respectability (Revelation 3:14-18), the change from boasted glory to corruption in the case of Herod (Acts 12:21-23),—are instances of a certain adaptation of chastisement to the particular sin committed. All who make self, or personal merits, or created power, a substitute for God, will find that on which they rest vanishing just when they most need comfort. VII. THE ’S TRUST IN THE JUSTICE AND MERCY OF GOD. Of the three dreadful alternatives, David took the pestilence, on the ground that his broken heart could rest more calmly in God’s judgments, where the human element was not employed as agent. Here was the true instinct of the soul. God is just and good, and in his hands all is sure to be right and kind. Man is weak and evil, and as an agent may blend his own base passions with the execution of a Divine decree. Even in the hour of suffering, when sin is to be punished, the heart has faith in God. Here is homage to God’s justice and mercy. Many a man, who by his sins brings terrible wars on himself and family, bows in entire submission, and rests in blended justice and mercy. This is the essence of our faith in Christ as Sacrifice for sin. VIII. THE OF OPEN OF GOD’S . There is nothing really surprising in the appearing of the angel of the Lord to David; for it is in keeping with the theophanies of the early dispensation, when men had special need to be reminded of the reality of God’s presence. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Manoah, were predecessors of David in this respect. The step from the message of God by the Seer Gad to a visible manifestation is not very great to any one who believes at all in the supernatural; indeed, the final manifestation of God in Christ covers all prior manifestations. Those who profess to see difficulties in these Old Testament accounts do not understand the logic or the historical congruity of their position as believers in the visible incarnation of the Son of God. Manifestations of God’s presence are relative. Creation is an expression of the being and presence of God. The voice which comes to prophet or apostle, the glory on which Moses gazed, the pillar of cloud and of fire, the appearance of manna after the promise of it, the vision of the seer, the still small voice to Elijah, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the frustration of the scheme of the wicked and the furtherance of those of the good, and the spiritual revelation to the soul in fulfilment of the precious words (John 14:21, John 14:22),—these are all manifestations of God. Christ differs from all in that he is the Fulness of the Godhead bodily. It is a mercy that our poor dull nature has been blessed by these demonstrations of the reality of things unseen and eternal. IX. MENTAL THE CHIEF PENALTY OF SIN. David sinned in numbering the people; the pestilence smote many of them, but touched him not. Nevertheless, he was the greatest sufferer; for no physical death could equal, in the pain it brings, the anguish of his soul in seeing that his sin had brought such trouble and pain on "these sheep" (verse 17). To a man of his generous nature, with all the ambition to be a good and wise ruler (2 Samuel 23:3-5), it must have been torment unspeakable to see that he was an occasion of bringing woe to thousands of homes. His punishment was heavy indeed. A similar terrible mental punishment comes to the parent who sees, in his reformed years, his children diseased or ruined by former sins of his own. In this mental anguish lies, perhaps, the hell which men so much dread. X. THE OF . David was not correct in his supposition that "these sheep" had not gone astray. We are not certain whether they had indulged in feelings of pride in the strength of Israel, and so were virtually one with their king in the sin of numbering; but we know that they had sinned in the revolt of Absalom and Sheba, and the anger of the Lord against Israel may, as we have seen (verses 1-9), be referred to those acts. The fact that they had not been chastised for so great a sin is manifest, so far as the history is any guide, though, if Absalom’s sin deserved special visitation on him, theirs equally deserved a visitation on themselves. The sense of the whole history, therefore, is that God waited, and made the occasion of the new sin of their king the opportunity of visiting them with stripes while visiting him with stripes for his own. Indeed, the severity of his chastisement lay much in this, that he was the instrumental occasion of their woe. By one pestilence the double chastisement was secured. Philosophy has dwelt much on the "law of parcimony" in nature. It seems also to run through many providential dispensations in relation to man. By the Flood God punished wicked men and set forth his faithfulness to the righteous. The institution of the Hebrew ritual both educated men in spiritual conceptions, and kept them distinct from the nations for the ulterior purpose of Christ’s coming. The sacrifice of Christ is at the same time an objective ground of forgiveness, and the most impressive source of moral influence in winning men over to God. There are manifold forms of the same law in daily life. 2 Samuel 24:18-25 The facts are: 1. The Seer Gad having directed David to rear an altar to the Lord in the threshing floor of Araunah, he proceeds to carry out the instruction. 2. Araunah, observing the approach of David and his servants, makes obeisance, and desires to know the purport of his visit. 3. Ascertaining that David desired to buy the threshing floor that he might there entreat for the staying of the plague, he generously offers all that was requisite for the sacrifices, and expresses the hope that God might be propitious. 4. But David, not caring to offer to God what cost him nothing, insists on purchasing the place and the oxen required. 5. The offering being presented on the altar, the plague ceases to trouble Israel. The way to reconciliation with God a matter of Divine revelation. God had graciously condescended to reveal himself in visible form both to assure David that the plague was more than a mere natural course of disease (2 Samuel 24:17), and to render an approach to himself more accessible. The chief effect, however, on David was to deepen his conviction of sin and his pity for his suffering people. His prayer, like that of Moses, was that he might suffer if so be they be set free. It was not till the seer came the next day that David learnt what course to take in order to secure reconciliation, not only for the people, but for himself also. God reveals to man the way of reconciliation. I. THIS IS TRUE OF THE GROUND OF OUR IN CHRIST. As surely as the prophet from God informed David as to what was to be done in order to find favour with God and escape the plague, so surely has God revealed in his Word the fact that through Christ alone do we find favour and eternal life. The work of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ was not discovered by the exercise of human reason. In the desert, when Israel was perishing, God ordained the lifting up of the serpent, and caused information of the fact to be given. In our desert life God sent his beloved Son, independently of our asking or knowledge, and commissioned his servants to announce the way of salvation. Reason may enable us to ascertain the reality of the historic fact, but reason could not discover the way of reconciliation. The Apostle Paul declares that he received it not of man, but of God. They do not understand the gospel who imagine that man, by his learning or reason, could ever find out, apart from special revelation, the only way to God. II. IT IS TRUE OF THE MEANS BY WHICH BECOMES . Salvation may be spoken of in general terms, and in this sense is too often the subject of discussion. But it is, also, a matter of personal experience. The end for which Christ lived and died becomes realized in individual souls, in the form of actual forgiveness, restoration to favour, newness of life and progressive holiness. By what means this is to be brought about, so far as our action is concerned, is purely a matter of revelation. It is revealed from heaven to be of faith (Romans 1:17). As Christ was the Gift of God, so the revelation that we are saved by Christ on condition of our faith is also the gift of God. It was made known to David that sacrifice would be the ground of pardon, and that his personal use or application of that to the need of the hour was the means of his obtaining the benefit of it. The place of our faith in our salvation from the plague of sin is not a question of human speculation: it is fixed by him who gave the sacrifice. III. IT IS TRUE OF OUR OF WHAT GOD HAS ALREADY MADE KNOWN. The spiritual bearing of the acts enjoined on David could only be spiritually discerned. That Christ is our great Sacrifice, and that faith is the means by which we are to appropriate it;—these are things plainly revealed in Scripture, and could only be known as Divine ordinations by special revelation; but they are a dead letter to multitudes. We need the revelation of their spiritual bearing to our own souls by the Holy Spirit; and it is only as the Holy Spirit takes of these things pertaining to Christ and reveals them to our individual spirit that we see their force and value their application. Hence a revelation of the matter of revelation is needful to conversion. Hence many read and speak about salvation who never see its real significance or know it as a matter of personal experience. The invisible messenger of God must come to us as truly as the seer came to David, if we are to see his salvation (John 3:5). Devotion of property to God’s service. Araunah was eager to provide a place and oxen for the celebration of the services about to be rendered to God. His interest in David, in Israel, and his homage for God seem to have prompted the generous proposal. On the other hand, David’s sense of what was due to God from himself, and his personal interest in the solemn transaction, would not suffer him to be spared cost through the generosity of Araunah. He must honour God with his own and not with another man’s possessions. I. ALL OUR ARE GOD’S. This is the basis of our devotion of what we hold to his service. We are really but stewards. Our mental powers, our wealth, our personal influence, our very life, are lent to us for a season, and lent with a view to use in God’s Name. This is laid down in the words, "Ye are not your own;" in the parable of the talents; in the very constitution and dependence of our lives; in the specific commands concerning "firstfruits;" and this was practically recognized by both David and Araunah in their emulation in self-sacrifice. It would be a great gain to the Church and world if Christian people would only let this truth sink deeply into their hearts. What elevation, tone, and nobility it would import to life! II. THERE IS NO NOBLER USE OF THAN IN GOD’S SERVICE. David and Araunah were one in this belief. They strove for the honour of devoting substance to God. In a well-ordered Christian life all is devoted to God. The entire life, embracing mental powers, occupations, property, time, is a sacrifice (Romans 12:1). But by reason of custom we recognize that as specially devoted to God which is directly employed in maintaining his holy worship or diffusing a knowledge of his great mercy to mankind. The wonderful way in which the priesthood was set apart, the distinction put in Scripture on men whose lives were chiefly spent in witnessing for God, the significant words of our Saviour in reference to the widow’s mite and the box of ointment, and the glorying of the Apostle Paul in that he was called and counted worthy of a special ministry,—these things point out the honour of using our gifts and possessions in furtherance of God’s gracious purposes to mankind. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/