2 Samuel 2

Having, probably, been one of the plunderers who stripped the slain, he happened to find the crown and diadem of Saul, and brought them to David, in the hopes of obtaining some great aid and accompanied them with a story, manufactured, as he supposed, to secure that object. This account, however, confirms the fact of Saul’s suicide, for he says, he “leaned upon his lance,” or spear; that is, on the point of it; though the more authentic narrative makes it to be his sword. (See (1 Samuel 31:4).) Both accounts agree that he died by suicide; for even admitting that of the Amalekite, he did not slay him till he had fallen on his own. Though it cannot be matter of surprise that David should lament the fate of his brother Jonathan, it may seem strange to little minds that he should thus mourn for Saul, his chief enemy, and who had been for several years seeking his destruction.

Great minds, however, are very differently affected. Alexander wept over Darius, Cesar over Pompey, and Augustus at the death of Mark Antony.—Death does, or ought to, close all animosities; and heroes cannot view the death of their rivals without recollecting that they also are born to die. The elegy before us is remarkable for poetical beauties, heroic sentiments, and, above all, for intensity of feeling. The encomium on Jonathan’s friendship is peculiarly affecting: “Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” In him was united the bravery of the hero, and the tenderness of the softer sex. This history might lead us to expatiate on the blessings of true friendship, and lead our minds to that ‘friend who sticketh closer than a brother; but we can barely suggest these ideas to the meditation of our readers.

Chap. II. Ver. 1—32. David is raised to be king over Judah; but Abner adheres to Ish-bosheth, and a civil war takes place.—David had been long since anointed to be Saul’s successor; but Abner, Saul’s general-in-chief, being jealous of his rising fame, and accustomed to act against him under Saul, sets up Ish-bosheth to oppose him. No serious dispute, however, seems to have arisen between the rival kings, (for David had no animosity against the sons of Saul,) until Abner challenged Joab (David’s general) to a combat, between twelve young men on each side, which proved fatal to all that engaged in it, and brought on a sanguinary conflict between the armies, in which there fell on the side of Ish-bosheth, or rather Abner, (for the former appears to have been but a cipher either in war or government,) three hundred and sixty men, while on the part of David there were slain only nineteen men, beside Asahel, who fell a sacrifice to his own temerity.

This seems to have been two years after Ish-bosheth had begun to reign. Abner having been worsted in the conflict, is of course the first to sue for peace; and Joab gives him to understand it would not have been interrupted, but for the foolish challenge which he had given. It is in war as in law—both parties are sure to lose, though in different degrees. The parallel may hold good also in many instances in another respect; both parties returned to the place they set out from, though neither could recover the lives which had been so rashly sacrificed. Most certainly the peaceable principles of the gospel are not less conducive to human happiness than they are conformable to the divine will. The vanquished are, we observe, the first to sue for peace; the language of Abner, however, would much better have been of David.

True it is, that war is always “bitterness in the latter end.” It is bitterness to kings and governments, who lose their most faithful subjects, and most valuable members. It is bitterness to society, cutting all the ties of relationship between parents and children, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, and bosom friends. It is bitterness also to the people generally; and so they find it, when the expenses are summed up, and visit them in the form of taxes. Then, indeed, there is but one opinion—“War is bitterness in the latter Chap. II. Ver. 1-12. David gives his dying charge to Solomon.—The first part of David’s charge is unquestionably excellent. He uses the language of Joshua in like circumstances; “Behold I am going this day the way of all the earth,”

((Deuteronomy 31:14).) and exhorts his son to be strong, that is, in mind—firm, decided, and resolved to walk in the ways of God, and to keep his statutes, as the way to prosper in all his undertakings. But in the latter part of the charge, as it respects Joab and Shimei, two state criminals, there are some things that at least require explanation. The former had, in several instances, been guilty of deliberate murder; but had escaped justice through his influence with the army. And though he had continued faithful to David under the rebellion of Absalom, he slew him, expressly in opposition to the king’s injunction; and now he had been dismissed from office, he scrupled not to set up Adonijah in opposition to Solomon, to whom he must have known that the throne was promised, both by David and by Jehovah.

David therefore enjoins upon Solomon not to let his hoar hairs go down to the grave in peace; but to call him to account for these murders whenever he should find a proper occasion. As to Shimei, he had been many years the avowed enemy of David, and had cursed him with a great and strong curse, (as the Hebrew phrase is,) and even pelted him and his followers with stones; and though afterwards he submitted to save his life, and his life had in consequence been spared, it does not appear that he had ever shown an altered disposition; as, however, his hands were not absolutely stained with murder, it seems hard that David should charge it upon Solomon to bring down “his hoar head to the grave with blood.”

Some very learned men have therefore given a different rendering of this verse, as implying that Shimei was neither to be held innocent, nor punished for what was passed. (See note on ver. 9.) In all this narrative, two things must be distinctly borne in mind; first, that David, in this history, is not to be considered as a private man, giving advice to his children; but as a sovereign, giving charge to his successor on the throne, as to his public conduct: and, secondly, that this was under the Mosaic, and not the Christian dispensation. Under the former, the law was, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:” under the latter, it is, “Bless them that curse you, and love them that hate you.”

As to the death of David, we have nothing here but his public charge to Solomon, while attended by many of his great officers of state; if we wish to know his feelings as a believer, we must advert to his language in another place, ((1 Chronicles 29:10-19).) or turn back to his last words in the close of the preceding book, where we shall find him piously adverting to “the everlasting covenant,” and to that great Messiah, in whom was “all his salvation, and all his desire.” Ver. 13—46. Solomon’s conduct towards Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei.—In the close of the first chapter of this book, Adonijah had the promise of his life, upon condition of his good behaviour: “If he will show himself a worthy man, (a son of virtue, as the Hebrew phrase is,) there shall not a hair of him fall to the earth: but if wickedness should be found in him, he shall die.”

So while he was content to live a private life, he suffered no molestation; but when he unadvisedly applied to Bath-sheba to ask for him his father’s virgin concubine, Abishag, for his wife, Solomon was incensed. Viewing this as a deliberate step toward re-ascending the throne, he considered him as having forfeited his life; and it is strange that Adonijah should not be aware of this. It was by his taking one of the concubines of Saul, that Ish-bosheth was displeased with Abner; and it was by lying with the concubines of his father David, that Absalom openly renounced [his allegiance].

Notes on the verses

Ver. 9. Anguish is come upon me.—The sense of the original is very doubtful, as it may be referred either to the mind, as in the text, or to the external dress, as in the margin. The former is the sense adopted by the Targums; but some able critics prefer the latter, and suppose it to refer to a coat of mail (not embroidered, but) formed of iron rings, called chain armour, of which there are still remaining specimens, as well as graphic representations. See Fragments to Calmet, No. 219. Some Rabbins render it, “I am seized with the cramp,” which has been thought very singular; possibly Saul’s meaning was, “I am cramped,” confined, restrained: owing to the nature of his armour now stuck full of the arrows of the enemy, he could no more use his hands.

Ver. 10. The crown and the bracelets.—The former, probably, a fillet of riband only, a diadem set with precious stones, and covered by the helmet. (This was probably worn as an ensign of royalty, as is frequently the case in the East. When the Khalif Cayem Bemrillah granted the investiture of certain dominions to an eastern prince, the ceremony was performed by sending him letters patent, a crown, chain, and bracelets. (D’Herbelot.) The bracelets, says Morier, are ornaments fastened above the elbows, composed of precious stones of great value, and are only worn by the king and his sons.—B. Ver. 18. The use of the bow.—If this translation be retained, the obvious meaning is, that, as Saul and his sons had fallen by the arrows of the enemy, David saw that the Israelites, during his absence from the army, had lost partly this weapon, and therefore ordered them to be immediately instructed in its use.

Others consider the elegy here mentioned to be called by this name, because it celebrated the bow of Jonathan. Such render it, ‘He ordered them to be taught (to sing) the bow;” i.e. the funeral ode here recited. So Bp. Lowth.—The book of Jasher.—(Or, the upright. So LXX.; Targum, siphra deooritha, ‘the book of the Law;’ the Arabic, “the book of Ashee: this is the book of Samuel.” This book was probably a collection of divine odes, written to commemorate remarkable events.)—Bagster. But we adhere to the sense given in our note on (Joshua 10:13). Ver. 21. The shield of Saul.—The long supplementary explanation in italics, “as though he had not been anointed with oil,” seems unmeaning and unwarranted; and since the Hebrew negative particle here used is sometimes rendered without, (as in (Job 8:11).) we should rather read the passage thus: “For there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away;—the shield of Saul without (being) anointed with oil.”

That is, the shields of the chiefs, which were carefully oiled before going into action, ((Isaiah 21:5).) and probably on their return also, are here sent from the hands of their wounded masters, which are able no more to wield them. Ver. 25. Thou wast slain in thy high places.—The meaning probably is: that Jonathan scorned to retreat, or to fight in the rear, but chose the post of honour, and bore the brunt of the engagement.

Chap. II. Ver. 5. David sent messengers.—[This was a generous and noble act, highly indicative of the grandeur of David’s mind. He respected Saul though he had been greatly injured by him, as the anointed king of Israel, and once his legitimate sovereign; and he loved Jonathan as his most intimate friend.]

Ver. 7. Be ye valiant.—David doubtless means, on his behalf; for his object evidently was, to attach them to his interest, as well as to compliment them for their conduct towards Saul. Ver. 10. Ish-bosheth…. reigned two years.—He evidently reigned above six years; but the sense probably is, that he reigned two years before the challenge took place—which follows.

Ver. 14. Let the young men… 12 us.—“I play before us.”—The true meaning of the Hebrew word rendered play, is wrestling, or skirmishing, which is common among the Arabs to this day. See Dr. Shaw’s Travels. Such were the cruel sports of the Roman gladiators, who killed each other for the amusement of the people; and but little better are the prize-fighters of the present day.

Ver. 16. Caught his fellow by the head.—[Probably by the beard or hair of the head. Plutarch, in his Apothegms, informs us, that all things being ready for a battle, Alexander’s captains asked him whether he had any thing else to command them. “Nothing,” said he, “but that the Macedonians shave their beards.” Parmenio wondering what he meant, “Dost thou not know,” said he, “that in fight there is no better hold than the beard?”]—Bagster.

Ver. 18. As a wild roe.—[The word tzevee, rather denotes the gazelle or antelope. To be swift in foot was reckoned a great accomplishment in the life of antiquity: the swift footed Achilles, is an epithet which Homer gives to that hero no less than thirty times in the course of the Iliad.]—B.

Ver. 21. Take his armour.—It seems that Asahel wished to get the armour of Abner as a trophy; which was also greatly coveted by ancient warriors. Homer’s heroes no sooner gain a victory, than without delay they seize the armour of the vanquished foe. But, this was rather the privilege of the principal commanders, than of the inferior soldiers. “‘My friends,’’ cried the prudent Nestor, “‘Grecians, heroes, children of Mars, let no soldier, greedy of spoil, linger behind to carry his collected wealth to the ships; but let us put our enemies to the sword, and afterwards, at your leisure, you shall strip the dead over all the field.”’—Bagster.

Ver. 23. Under the fifth rib.—How the Jews numbered the ribs we know not, nor is the word rib in the original text.

Professor Gesenius explains the word to mean the abdomen, others, the groin: the probability seems, that with a sharp pointed spear he smote him below his ribs, so as that it went through his body, and killed him on the spot.

Ver. 27. Joab said.—[This was spoken in allusion to the proposal of Abner (ver. 14), which led to the slaughter of twelve young men of each party, and thus provoked the battle. It is probable, that Joab had orders simply to act on the defensive; and would not have attacked the Israelites that day unless compelled; therefore the blame lay upon Abner and Israel.]—Bagster.

Ver. 29. Bithron.—[Bithron or Bether is probably the same as Betarus, which is placed in the Antonine Itinerary between Cesarea of Palestine and Diospolis or Lydda, 18 miles from the former, and 22 from the latter.

The Jerusalem Itinerary mentions a place called Bethar, 16 miles from Cesarea, and 20 from Diospolis, which is probably the same. The Talmudists say that it was four miles distant from the sea.]—Bagster.