And Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul's host, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim;
Saul has fallen, and Judah has just anointed David at Hebron — but the throne is not settled. Saul's old commander then takes a son of Saul and sets up a rival kingdom. That raises a question: what happens when a man defends the old order against the king God has chosen?
The act looks like loyalty to a fallen family. One writer measures it instead by who the Lord had anointed.
War has not yet ended. If it is not against enemies outside, it goes on against those inside. Whatever was tied to Saul's natural importance cannot support David. All is now changed, for Ish-bosheth was not the Lord's anointed, and to make him king was in fact to rebel against God.
Abner needed someone to crown. One writer notes what this son of Saul offered him, and what his name says.
Abner asks no counsel of God. His wisdom comes from himself, prompted by that ready adviser, self-interest — or by what looks like it. As commander of the army that had been Saul's, he had the opportunity, and in Ish-bosheth he had a man who carried whatever shadow of title could come from Saul... Ish-bosheth means "man of shame." You could easily suppose that name came from his history rather than being the one he was born with. Chronicles tells us that his original name was in fact Esh-baal (1 Chronicles 8:33). The same change happened to Jonathan's son Merib-baal, whose name became Mephibosheth. Hosea 9:10 calls Baal himself "that shame." There is no real question that this sense of the shameful character of idolatry led to the name changes.
Another writer saw the move as a measure of how low the nation had sunk.
Abner's move to set up Ish-bosheth, a younger son of Saul, announced how low Israel had fallen. He was not anointed and not gifted. He was only a tool in Abner's hands, used for Abner's purpose, and in the end two of his own captains murdered him.
Abner was not a villain by the world's reckoning. What he stood for, though, was a claim of birth dressed up as a claim of right.
Abner is an honourable man by the world's standards. He is very brave, with a natural nobility of heart. But his character is violent and proud. In supporting Ish-bosheth he supports the principle that the throne passes down by natural family ties. That principle wore the appearance of right, because God had chosen Saul. Men defend this principle to the extreme, for it is the principle of their fathers' religion... What objection is there? Only that this whole system stands against the mind of God and makes war on His anointed.
Abner was not acting in ignorance.
It should not surprise us that Abner resists the Lord by supporting Ish-bosheth, and that he does it knowingly and willingly. Abner knows that David is the Lord's anointed... Abner knows he is not on God's side. But the Lord is not the object of his plans and his activity, so he barely cares that his opinions and his conduct contradict each other.
The place Abner chose has its own history, going back to Jacob.
Mahanaim was the place where Jacob saw angels, and where God's host and his own camp made "two camps." It ends with Jacob's own camp split in two, just as Abner had now divided Israel — and these camps were hostile to each other. Reliance on human strength had worked like that all through the history in between. God will not be content to be one force among other forces. And half-way dependence on Him, which is more than half independence, soon turns into real hostility.
Two rival camps meant years of fighting. One writer names the cause.
All this shows the sorrowful conditions that existed in Israel... Wars and bloodshed will continue as long as God's true King is not on the throne, ruling in righteousness and in peace. Nothing can stop the sword until He reigns.
Commentators differ on how far the picture of a future false king can be pressed. One writer finds "many difficulties in the way of such a view."
Here are faint hints of what Israel's future history will repeat. Another Ish-bosheth, a pretender to the throne of Israel, the false king, will be on the earth. He comes in his own name, with no claim whatever to the throne. And only a faithful remnant of His people will acknowledge the true King, just as with David... But Ish-bosheth's weakness, and above all his end, make it impossible to press the picture any further.
- Rebellion. Ish-bosheth was not the Lord's anointed. Crowning him was not politics but rebellion against God.
- Shame. He carried only a shadow of title from Saul: not anointed, not gifted, a tool in Abner's hand, and named "man of shame."
- Flesh. Abner defended succession by family ties. The old system looked right, but it warred against God's chosen king.
- Division. Mahanaim was the place of "two camps." Half-dependence on God soon hardened into two camps at war in Israel.
- Sword. Where the true king is not on the throne, the sword never stops; peace waits on His reign.
and made him king over Gilead, and over the Asshurites, and over Jizreel, and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel.
David has just been crowned king in Hebron, and Abner answers by crowning Saul's surviving son over nearly every tribe but Judah. That leaves Israel with two kings and one question: who has the right to the throne?
The list of regions is impressive, but nobody asked God. One commentator traces the whole move back to the way a soldier thinks.
Abner, the captain of Saul's army, could only understand natural succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to put Saul's son Ish-bosheth on the throne of Israel. How many since him have thought that the military has the right of such decisions! But this choice belongs to God alone, and He had already anointed David as king of Israel — not only of Judah.
A reference work fills in the dates. Its count of the tribes he actually held falls short of the list in the verse:
It seems he did not begin to reign until five years later. He then reigned two years, over all the tribes except Judah, Benjamin, and perhaps Simeon. Abner, the head of Saul's army, supported him, but he made his headquarters at Mahanaim, east of the Jordan. There was long war between the two houses, but David grew stronger and stronger, and Ish-bosheth grew weaker and weaker.
The verse traces the claim outward, region by region. One commentator follows that line, reading "the Ashurites" as Asher.
Ish-bosheth's kingdom grows from its beginning in Gilead, spreading to Asher, to Jezreel, and on, until there is a united Israel set against the one tribe of Judah that holds to David. How quickly the yeast of rebellion spreads! And for what is of God, a time of patience and seeming failure is just as surely appointed.
The new king's own name is a comment on him. Family records keep two forms of it.
Abner, who had been the captain of Saul's army, took a son of Saul named Ish-bosheth and made him king in Gilead. The original name of this son was "Esh-baal," which means "the fire of Baal" (1 Chronicles 8:33). "Ish-bosheth" was his other name; it means "man of shame." He seems to have been a weakling and a tool in Abner's hand.
The capital Abner chose carries its own irony. Its name describes what he has just done to the nation.
Mahanaim was the place where Jacob saw the angels. There God's army and Jacob's own company stood for "two camps." It ended with Jacob's own camp divided into two, just as Abner had now divided Israel — and here the two camps were hostile to each other. Reliance on human strength had worked the same way all through the history in between. God will not be content to be one force among other forces. Half-hearted dependence on Him is more than half independence, and it soon hardens into real hostility.
David says nothing and does nothing. His own claim was beyond question, and that certainty is what kept him still.
Ish-bosheth had no title at all. Yet David showed great tenderness toward him, and all the more because he knew his own title could not be disputed. When people are in the wrong, do not be surprised if they are touchy. When they have the confidence of the truth of God, they can afford to leave things alone, without worry or bluster... The pretender may have been very annoying, and a harm to the people as well. Even so, violent methods would not have suited the king God had chosen in grace. So David leaves it all with Him.
Kelly adds that this time was harder in one way than the years of running from Saul. "In Saul's case there was a title; in Ish-bosheth's there was none."
Two kings, one true and one propped up by men — readers have long looked here for a picture of something later. Commentators are cautious.
If we read the rivalry to David as a picture of things to come, Ish-bosheth might seem to stand for the Antichrist... Yet in Ish-bosheth himself, and in his history also, there are many difficulties with that view. The weak son of Saul is only a tool in Abner's hands, and Abner is all along the real heart and soul of the opposition to David.
Gaebelein sees the same faint hints: a false king accepted, while the true King is owned by only a faithful few. But he concludes that "Ish-bosheth's weakness and especially his end makes a fuller application on these lines impossible."
- Title. David held one tribe and God's word. Ish-bosheth held most of the tribes and no title at all.
- Tool. The man crowned here is a "man of shame," a weakling used by Abner, whose real quarrel was with God's choice.
- Two camps. Abner's capital was the place of "two camps." Half-dependence on God soon hardens into real hostility.
- Patience. David was sure of his right, so he used no force. Confidence in God's truth can afford to be quiet.
- Time. A long war followed, but David only grew stronger and Ish-bosheth weaker. What is of God is given a time of patience first.
Ishbosheth Saul's son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. However, the house of Judah followed David.
Two men wear a crown at the same time here: Ish-bosheth over Israel for two years, and David over Judah. Why does the man God chose hold one tribe only, while a man God never chose holds the rest?
Saul had four sons. Only one outlived him, and his name carries its own verdict.
Saul's sons, as given here, are three, though we learn elsewhere of a fourth, who does not come into this picture — Ish-bosheth. According to the meaning of his name he is the "man of shame," the only one who survives his father.
The name in this verse was not the name he was born with.
The original name of this son was "Esh-baal," which means "the fire of Baal" (1 Chronicles 8:33). "Ish-bosheth" was his other name. He seems to have been a weakling and a tool in Abner's hand.
Abner commanded Saul's army. He settled the succession the way a soldier would.
Abner, the captain of Saul's army, could only understand natural succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to put Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, on the throne of Israel. How many since him have thought that the military has the right of such decisions! But this is God's right alone, and He had already anointed David as king of Israel — not only of Judah. Abner made Mahanaim the headquarters of Ish-bosheth's kingdom. Mahanaim means "two camps," which shows that Israel was divided. God would not allow this to continue, but Ish-bosheth did reign over Israel for two years.
Saul at least had a title. His son had none, and that difference shaped how David waited.
Ish-bosheth had no title at all. Yet David treated him with great tenderness, all the more because he knew his own title could not be disputed. When people are wrong, do not be surprised if they are usually touchy. When they have the confidence of the truth of God, they can leave things alone without anxiety or bluster… So patience did its perfect work in David — not only while he suffered under Saul, but now, even after God had sent him up to reign in Hebron as the anointed king. In a way it was perhaps harder now. Saul at least had a title; Ish-bosheth had none.
Everyone in Israel knew whom God had chosen. A rival throne still went up.
In a world like this, whatever is of God is sure to stir up opposition. Nobody thought of dividing the kingdom under Saul, though some might despise him. Everyone must have known long since that God had chosen David, and that God had set Saul's house aside along with Saul himself. Yet Abner is able to make the feeble Ish-bosheth king over the rest of the kingdom, as it slowly recovers out of the hands of the Philistines. He reigns two years over the whole of Israel, while David stays king over Judah only for all of that time — seven years and a half. In those last two years Abner must have found himself strong enough at last to try to conquer Judah too.
Hebron was a real crown, but far less than Samuel's anointing had promised. God uses the gap.
He was a king now, but this was far short of the place Samuel anointed him for. And there was still to be "long war between the house of Saul and the house of David," though David's house would grow stronger and stronger. By what slow and measured steps the Lord leads His servants to their appointed place… How often God's servant is, like David, set in Hebron for a season — that is, holding only part of the service appointed for him. And how necessary this is, to develop the right qualities in him.
Some read the divided kingdom here as a preview of Israel's future.
Here we see faint hints of what Israel's future history will repeat. Another Ish-bosheth, a pretender to the throne of Israel, the false king, will be in the earth. He comes in his own name, with no claim whatever to the throne. And only a faithful remnant of His people will acknowledge the true King, just as with David… But Ish-bosheth's weakness, and above all his end, make it impossible to push the comparison further.
- Shame reigns. The one survivor of Saul's house is the "man of shame," and he takes a throne he has no title to.
- Shame gets a crown. Abner decides it as a soldier, not by asking God, and bases him at Mahanaim, "two camps" — a split nation in one word.
- Patience answers shame. David neither argues nor strikes. He knows his title is beyond dispute, so he can leave the matter alone without bluster.
- Patience forms the man. Two years of a rival reign sit inside seven and a half years of waiting. God uses that partial holding to form David for the full place.
- Patience outlasts the pretender. Many own a false king; a few own the true one. Writers see a picture of a later day here, while noting its limits.
And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
Two verses earlier the men of Judah had crowned David. This verse gives the length of that half-kingdom: seven years and six months in Hebron, while a rival king held the rest of Israel. Why did God's chosen king wait so long for what God had already promised him, and what was he learning in the meantime?
Behind this verse stands a split nation. One writer explains how the split came about, and what the rival capital's name admits:
Abner, the captain of Saul's army, could only understand natural succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to elevate Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, to the throne of Israel. How many since him have thought that the military has the right of such decisions! But this choice belongs to God alone, and He had already anointed David as king of Israel — not only of Judah. Abner made Mahanaim the headquarters of Ish-bosheth's kingdom. Mahanaim means "two camps," so the name itself stresses that Israel was divided.
One writer traces the division to something deeper than politics.
In a world like this, whatever is of God is sure to stir up opposition. Under Saul there was no thought of division, though some might despise him. As for David, everyone must have known long before that God had chosen him, and that Saul's house was set aside along with Saul himself. Yet Abner is able to make the feeble Ishbosheth king over the rest of the kingdom... He reigns two years over the whole of Israel. All that time — seven years and a half — David remains king over Judah only.
David had already been anointed and was already reigning. Yet he did nothing to remove the man who held the rest of his kingdom — and one writer finds these years more trying than the years of running from Saul.
Ish-bosheth had no right to the throne at all. Still, David showed great tenderness toward him — all the more because he knew his own right could not be disputed. When people are wrong, do not be surprised if they are quick to take offence. When they are sure of the truth of God, they can afford to leave things alone, without worry or loud talk... So patience had its perfect work in David. Notice that this was not only while he suffered under Saul. It went on even now, after he had been reigning in Hebron as the anointed king, where God had told him to go... In a way it may have been harder now, because Saul had a title to the throne, and Ish-bosheth had none.
David did not choose his capital. He asked God for it, and the name he was given carries its own lesson.
He asks the Lord about leaving Ziklag and returning to Judah, and the Lord tells him to do so. Then, in a spirit of felt dependence, he asks further which city. God's answer, "Hebron," is not only meant to point out a good location. Its name means "communion," which would be a strong reminder to David that if he is to reign as king, he will need the place of constant communion with God.
One writer finds in these years a pattern for anyone God uses.
He was now set up in royal dignity, but this position fell far short of the place Samuel had destined and anointed him for... By what slow and measured steps the Lord leads His servants to their appointed place... How often God sets His servant, like David, in Hebron for a season — that is, with only part of his appointed service in hand. And how necessary this is, to develop the right qualities in him.
Two writers read this divided period as a picture of Christ. The first sees in the false king and the faithful remnant a sketch of what is still to come — and says where the picture breaks down:
Another Ish-bosheth, a pretender to the throne of Israel, the false king, will be in the earth. He comes in his own name, with no claim whatever to the throne. And only a faithful remnant of His people will acknowledge the true King, as with David... But Ish-bosheth's weakness, and above all his end, make it impossible to press the comparison further.
Another writer gives a reason for the slow pace:
Christ will not set up His reign in this world by one sudden stroke, any more than David did. His judgment will be sudden, but not His reign. That would not fit the mind of God, who wants to give the consciences of His own people time to be exercised.
- Anointed — God settled David's right to the whole throne long before. Whatever is of God stirs up opposition.
- Asked — He asked God which city, and God sent him to Hebron, a name that means communion — the strength a king would need.
- Divided — Abner crowned Ishbosheth by natural succession and set his capital at Mahanaim, "two camps" — the split was on the map.
- Patient — Seven and a half years of a rival with no title may have tried David more than the years of persecution, yet he used no violence to shorten them.
- Partial — God leads His servants to their place by slow, measured steps; Hebron is the season of half possession that forms the man for the whole.
And Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ishbosheth the son of Saul, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon.
Two armies march out from rival capitals and meet at Gibeon — Abner for Ish-bosheth, Joab for David. How did God's people end up armed against each other, and where is David himself while they fight?
Abner had already made Saul's son king at Mahanaim. One commentator notes that even the place name told the story:
Abner, the captain of Saul's army, could only understand natural succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to elevate Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, to the throne of Israel. How many since him have thought that the military has the right of such decisions! But this is God's prerogative, and He had already anointed David as king of Israel (not only of Judah). Abner made Mahanaim the headquarters of Ish-bosheth's kingdom. Mahanaim means "two camps," therefore emphasising that Israel was divided.
The name of the man Abner crowned points the same way. His original name was Esh-baal; the name Israel used for him, Ish-bosheth, means "man of shame" — a weak son who was, in one writer's words, "a mere tool in the hands of Abner for his purpose."
Abner's stand looked like loyalty to something God Himself had once set up. One commentator traces the argument, then names the flaw:
In supporting Ish-bosheth he is supporting the principle of succession by natural family ties. It is dressed up to look right, for God had chosen Saul. Men defend this principle to the extreme. It is the principle of their fathers' religion, a national religion. In man's sight that is far more respectable than the opinion of a few who make themselves conspicuous by following the son of Jesse… What objection is there? Only this: the whole system goes against the mind of God and makes war on His anointed.
One writer weighs the man who leads David's side:
Joab, an ambitious man, seeks to advance in the world and to win the first place in the kingdom… He can recognise righteousness and unrighteousness. But he only opposes unrighteousness when it crosses his own plans. And when something righteous runs against his interests, he suppresses it… Joab is a figure of political flesh. It is to his advantage to support David's cause. If we compare Abner with Joab, Abner is the better man.
So the better man fought for the wrong cause.
The two companies stop face to face. One commentator sees an order in this history that the Lord Jesus Himself follows:
This history illustrates the necessity of the Lord Jesus first subduing His own people under Him before subduing His enemies. Abner was the strong man in Israel; Ish-bosheth was of no significance. Abner of course wanted to see Judah subject to him too, and wanted to start a test of strength. He came to Gibeon with some of his men. Joab, the captain of David's army, was fully willing for the test. He went out with his men. They sat down on one side of the pool of Gibeon, with Abner and his men on the other side. But the occasion is not to be a discussion of their differences.
David's rights are the stated issue, yet David himself is nowhere in the chapter:
We notice that David himself does not appear in this incident. Even though his servants claim to be vindicating his rights, he is not with them. Make no mistake, the Lord will never be with us when we fight against our brothers.
The men on both sides of that pool belonged to one people. That is the heart of the lesson drawn from these verses:
All these men belong to the people of God. They are brothers. Yet here they stand with weapons in their hands, ready to attack one another for the cause that looks right in their own eyes. This is war in the middle of the people of God. Such a course can never be good. Why not suffer injustice, if necessary? "Why not rather suffer wrong?" (1 Cor. 6:7). Why not wait for the Lord to overrule in things that come up between brothers?
The same writer follows the fight to its close:
Final result? No victory for either side, many sorrowful losses on both sides, much mourning and tears! These are brothers who would have torn each other apart. In the end both sides are still stuck where they started.
- Cause — Abner crowned a man God never anointed. The claim looked lawful, but the real quarrel was with God's chosen king.
- Camps — Mahanaim means "two camps," and the divided nation lived up to its capital's name.
- Champions — Joab fought for David out of ambition; Abner, the better man, fought for the wrong cause.
- Contest — the pool of Gibeon was no place for talk, only a test of strength; the Lord Jesus must subdue His own people before He subdues His enemies.
- Cost — David never came to the field, neither side gained ground, and the day left only losses, mourning and tears.
And Joab the son of Zeruiah, and the servants of David, went out. And they met together by the pool of Gibeon; and they sat down, these on the one side of the pool, and those on the other side of the pool.
Two armies of the same nation sit facing each other across a pool near Gibeon — David's men on one bank, the men of Saul's son on the other. One question drives the whole chapter: why do Israelites face Israelites at all?
One writer traces the division back to the way Saul's son got his throne.
Abner, the captain of Saul's army, could only understand natural succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to elevate Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, to the throne of Israel. How many since him have thought that the military has the right of such decisions! But this decision belongs to God alone, and He had already anointed David as king of Israel (not only of Judah). Abner made Mahanaim the headquarters of Ish-bosheth's kingdom. Mahanaim means "two camps," so the name itself underlines that Israel was divided.
One writer measures the two commanders against each other, and names the enemy both sides had forgotten.
It is Joab, a clever, ambitious, bloodthirsty, and heartless man. It is Abner, a man morally better than Joab. But he fights as a party man, on the principles of the flesh, against the king whom God has chosen… And where is the skill and bravery of the chiefs of Benjamin and Judah now shown in this "field of strong men"? In slaying each other. The Philistines were forgotten. But the family of Saul were entirely in the wrong. It was nature which, with its supposed rights, would not submit to God and to His will.
One writer asks what these men should have done instead of fighting.
All these men belong to the people of God. They are brothers, but here they are with weapons in their hands — ready to fall on one another in support of the cause that seems right in their eyes. This is war in the middle of the people of God. Such a course can never be good. Why not suffer injustice, if necessary? "Why not rather suffer wrong?" (1 Cor. 6:7). Why not wait for the Lord to settle the things that arise between brothers?
That blindness did not end at Gibeon.
They did not stop to consider that they were all Israelites, and therefore brothers. But since that time the people of God have too often used the sword of the word of God cruelly against others of God's people. They might have used it for the positive good of others.
David's rights were the reason given for this fighting.
We notice that David himself does not appear in this incident. Even though his servants claim to be defending his rights, he is not with them. Make no mistake, the Lord will never be with us when we fight against our brothers.
Abner stood on one side of the pool. Who stood on the other?
The other prominent person is Joab, the son of Zeruiah, who went out with the servants of David. (Joab was David's nephew. See 1 Sam. 26:6; 1 Chronicles 2:16.) They met Abner's force about six miles northwest of Jerusalem by the pool of Gibeon.
One writer weighs what Joab's rise cost David's kingdom.
Only now is the name of Joab first heard during these sorrowful scenes in Israel. There this shrewd and bold man begins to take a very leading part. Joab appears on perhaps only two kinds of occasion: when there was anything bad to be done, or when there was anything great to be won. Joab was a man as far as possible from the faith of David. To allow such a chief his prominence and influence was one of the fatal weaknesses of David's kingdom.
So what did the fighting achieve?
Final result? No victory for either side, many sorrowful losses on both sides, much mourning and tears! These are the brothers who would have torn each other apart. In the end both sides are still stuck where they started.
One writer looks past this battle to the only thing that ends such fighting.
"Shall the sword devour forever?" was Abner's question. As long as God's true King does not occupy the throne, ruling in righteousness and in peace, wars and bloodshed will continue. The sword cannot be stopped till He reigns.
- Two camps. Abner settled the throne by natural succession instead of asking God, who had already chosen David.
- Two banks. Across that pool sat brothers, not enemies. The remedy for wrong between brothers is to suffer it and wait for the Lord.
- No king. David's rights were the excuse for the fight, but David was not there. The Lord is never with us when we fight our brothers.
- No gain. Both sides ended where they began: no victory, heavy losses, mourning and tears.
- One throne. The sword stops only when God's true King reigns in righteousness and peace.
And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise and make sport before us. And Joab said, Let them arise.
Two armies sit facing each other across the pool of Gibeon. Abner leads the men of Ish-bosheth; Joab leads the men of David. The words that break the silence are not an offer to talk, but a challenge. They sound almost light-hearted. By the end of the day twenty-four men lie dead, and the place has a new name.
Abner came to Gibeon to test whether he could bring Judah under him too. He called for a match between picked men, and Joab needed no persuading.
This history shows why the Lord Jesus must first bring His own people under Him before He subdues His enemies. Abner was the strong man in Israel: Ish-bosheth was of no significance. Abner of course wanted to see Judah subject to him too, and desired to initiate a test of strength. But the occasion is not to be a discussion of their differences. Abner asks that the young men should hold a contest (v.14) and Joab readily responds. Twelve men from each side then meet in deadly combat.
Neither side was facing a foreign enemy. The men on both banks of the pool came from one people.
All these men belong to the people of God. They are brothers, yet here they stand with weapons in their hands. Each side is ready to attack the other for the cause that looks right in its own eyes. This is war inside the people of God. Such a course can never be good. Why not suffer injustice, if necessary? "Why not rather suffer wrong?" (1 Cor. 6:7). Why not wait for the Lord to overrule in things that may arise between brothers?
One writer reads the scene by asking who is missing from it.
Where is God? Absent. Where is David? His name is not even mentioned. It is a matter of who will come out on top in this tournament. Not a single one of the contending parties escapes. David loses his servants and his cause is not advanced in the least.
Joab's men claimed to be fighting for David. Another writer draws a warning from his absence:
We notice that David himself does not appear in this incident. Even though his servants claim to be vindicating his rights, he is not with them. Make no mistake, the Lord will never be with us when we fight against our brothers.
The ground where those men fell got a name that kept the memory of the day.
They met Abner's force about six miles northwest of Jerusalem by the pool of Gibeon. Then, at Abner's suggestion, twelve young men of Benjamin — the subjects of Ish-bosheth — fought twelve of David's servants. A wicked scene followed. They slaughtered each other at Helkath-hazzurim, "the field of sharp swords." After that came a severe battle, which ended with the defeat of Abner.
One writer asks what all that bravery achieved:
And where is the skill and bravery of the leaders of Benjamin and Judah now shown in this "field of strong men"? In killing each other. The Philistines were forgotten. But the family of Saul were entirely in the wrong. It was human nature which, with its pretended rights, would not submit to God and to His will.
Abner treated it as a small thing between young men. The outcome was not small, and it settled nothing.
At the first, it seems that the fighting will be of little importance. In Abner's eyes, it will just be a game between young men. It is only to test who is the stronger and more skilful! But what a frightful event! They are all stabbed, each killed by the other, with no gain for either side. Nothing came of this encounter between brothers except death, mourning, tears and humiliation. Can God give His people any victory other than the victory of love — love that always wins when it is at work?
One writer carries the scene forward to the weapon believers hold today.
They did not stop to consider that they were all Israelites, and therefore brothers. But since that time the people of God have too often used the sword of the word of God as a cruel weapon against others of God's people. They could have used it for their positive good instead.
- Contest. Abner passed off a fight between brothers as a contest. Twenty-four men died proving that quarrels among God's people are never a game.
- Absent. God is nowhere in this account, and neither is David. Those who fight their brothers cannot claim the Lord is with them.
- Forgotten. Real courage was on show. But the Philistines went untouched while Benjamin and Judah destroyed each other.
- Nothing. Neither side gained a thing. David lost servants, his cause stood still, and only love wins victories among God's people.
- Ours. The same sword can wound or serve. God's people have too often turned Scripture against each other instead of using it for each other's good.
And they arose and went over by number, twelve for Benjamin, and for Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David.
Twelve men from Benjamin and twelve from David's side step out at the pool of Gibeon, and within moments all of them are dead. Both sides belonged to the same people of God, which raises the question that runs through the chapter: what did their deaths settle?
This was not Israel against a foreign army. The twenty-four were one people, divided only by the man each side served: David, or Ish-bosheth the son of Saul.
All these men belong to the people of God. They are brothers, but here they are with weapons in their hands — ready to fall on one another in support of the cause that is right in their eyes. This is war in the middle of the people of God. Such a course can never be good. Why not suffer injustice, if necessary? "Why not rather suffer wrong?" (1 Cor. 6:7). Why not wait for the Lord to take charge of matters that may arise between brothers?
Leslie Grant sees the same danger among God's people long after that day.
Verse 15 seems to show that all these men, on both sides, were ready to catch each other by the head. Each was ready to pierce the other with his sword at the same moment, so that they fell down together. They did not stop to consider that they were all Israelites, and therefore brothers. But since that time the people of God have too often used the sword of the word of God cruelly against others of God's people. They could have used it instead for the real good of those people.
Abner proposed the contest, and not one of the twenty-four men walked away from it.
At first it seems the fighting will be of little importance. In Abner's eyes it will just be a game between young men. It is only to test who is stronger and more skilful! But what a frightful event! They are all stabbed, killed one by another, and without a positive result for either side. Nothing came of this encounter between brothers except death, mourning, tears and humiliation. Can God give His people any other victory than the victory of love — love that always triumphs when it is active?
The place where they fell kept a name for what happened there, and Arno Gaebelein sees in the whole scene a picture of worse days to come.
At Abner's suggestion, twelve young men of Benjamin, the subjects of Ish-bosheth, fought twelve of David's servants. A wicked scene followed. They slaughtered each other at Helkath-hazzurim, "the field of sharp swords." A severe battle followed, and it ended with Abner's defeat. All this shows the sad state of things among Israel, and it points again to worse conditions throughout this age, especially at its close.
Two names you would expect in a fight over the throne are missing from the account.
The two troops meet (vv. 12-17). For what purpose? To test their strength. Where is God? Absent. Where is David? His name is not even mentioned. It is a matter of who will come out on top in this tournament. Not a single one of the contending parties escapes. David loses his servants and his cause is not advanced in the least.
Alfred Guignard turns David's absence into a warning:
We notice that David himself does not appear in this incident. Even though his servants claim to be defending his rights, he is not with them. Make no mistake: the Lord will never be with us when we fight against our brothers.
The wider battle that followed left the two camps exactly where they began.
No victory for either side, many sorrowful losses on both sides, much mourning and tears! These are brothers who would have torn each other apart, and in the end both are still stuck in their original positions. The servants of Ish-bosheth have not changed their point of view, and the servants of David have gained no advantage from the blood of their brothers that has been shed in the process.
The day's fighting cost both camps dearly, and Gaebelein looks past it to the one thing that will end such wars.
The battle ended with the loss of nineteen of David's servants and Asahel, while Abner lost 360 men. "Shall the sword devour forever?" was Abner's question. As long as God's true King is not on the throne, ruling in righteousness and peace, wars and bloodshed will continue. The sword cannot be stopped till He reigns. In His coming kingdom nations will learn war no more and beat their swords into plowshares.
- Brothers. The twenty-four who stepped forward were one people. Only the leader each had chosen divided them.
- Game. Abner called it sport for young men; a test of who was stronger left all twenty-four dead.
- Field. Helkath-hazzurim, "the field of sharp swords," keeps the name of what the "game" produced: death, mourning and tears.
- Absent. David's name never appears in a fight fought for his rights, and the Lord is not with anyone who fights his brothers.
- King. Nothing was settled that day, and nothing will be, until the true King reigns and swords become plowshares.
And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and [thrust] his sword in his fellow's side, and they fell down together. And that place was called Helkath-hazzurim, which is by Gibeon.
Two armies sit facing each other across the pool of Gibeon: Abner with the men of Israel, Joab with the men of David. Twelve fight twelve, all twenty-four fall together, and the place is left with a name and a question — what did anyone gain?
Abner wanted a test of strength, and Joab took it up at once. Neither side sat down to talk.
Abner of course wanted to see Judah subject to him too, and desired to initiate a test of strength. He came to Gibeon with some of his men (v.12). Joab, the captain of David's army, was completely willing for the test and went out with his men. They sat down on one side of the pool of Gibeon, with Abner and his men on the other side. But this meeting was not going to be a discussion of their differences.
Abner called it a game. It was nothing of the kind.
At the first, it seems that the fighting will be of little importance. In Abner's eyes, it will just be a game between young men. It is only to test who is the stronger and more skilful! But what a frightful event! They are all stabbed, killed one by the other and without a positive result for either side. Nothing came of this encounter between brothers except death, mourning, tears and humiliation.
The place kept a name from what happened there. Commentators translate that name in different ways.
The name means 'field of strong men.' It was given to the place where twelve men of Israel and twelve men of Judah killed each other, and it led to a very bitter battle.
Another writer reads the name differently and sees the cross in it:
If Gibeon, "the pit of suffering for iniquity," reminds us of the Cross, then the Cross has always been the battlefield between faith and unbelief. It is Helkath-hazzurim, "the place of sharp swords" — and in the end it is the place of victory for David.
The men who grabbed each other by the head belonged to one people.
Verse 15 seems to show that all these men, on both sides, were ready to catch each other by the head. Each one drove his sword into the other at the same moment, so that they fell down together. They did not stop to consider that they were all Israelites, and therefore brothers. But since that time the people of God have too often used the sword of God's word cruelly against other believers. They could have used it for their good instead.
Both sides believed their cause was right. That was not enough.
They are brothers, yet here they stand with weapons in their hands. They are ready to fall on one another for the cause that looks right in their own eyes. This is war inside the people of God. Such a course can never be good. Why not suffer injustice, if necessary? "Why not rather suffer wrong?" (1 Cor. 6:7). Why not wait for the Lord to overrule in things that may arise between brothers?
Look for the king in this scene.
The two troops meet (vv. 12-17). For what purpose? To test their strength. Where is God? Absent. Where is David? His name is not even mentioned. It is a matter of who will come out on top in this tourney. Not a single one of the contending parties escapes. David loses his servants and his cause is not advanced in the least.
That absence carries a lesson forward.
We notice that David himself does not appear in this incident. Even though his servants claim to be vindicating his rights, he is not with them. Make no mistake, the Lord will never be with us when we fight against our brothers.
The bodies fell together, and the deadlock held.
The contest decided nothing. It was only the start of a battle that drew in both armies, and many more were dead before it was over. The battle made no real difference to the situation either, though Judah won it. Only God's work can bring about unity among His people.
The same fighting has a source, and it can reach into the house of God.
Remember that the leaders of each side are in special danger when brothers fight. Shall the sword devour forever? What will be the result? Only bitterness in the end. It cannot be otherwise... He who is a liar and a murderer from the beginning provokes his slaves against one another... Are we going to behave the same way in the house of God? Let us be careful! "If you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another" (Gal. 5:15).
There is somewhere else to be while such fighting goes on.
Alas! what is the result of all these struggles? We find nothing of God and nothing for God in them... The believer has only one resource left: to take refuge at Hebron with the one who is the only center of blessing. His presence gives peace, happiness, and wonderful rest.
- Play — Abner called it a game between young men. It was a test of strength that took the place of talking things out.
- Swords — Twelve met twelve, and every sword found its man. The ground took its name from that: the field of strong men, the place of sharp swords.
- Brothers — Nobody stopped to think that they were all Israelites. Being sure your cause is right does not make a brother a fair target.
- Absent — They fought for David's rights, but David was not there. The Lord is not with us when we fight our own.
- Nothing — The contest settled nothing, and the war that followed changed nothing. Only God's work brings His people together.
And the battle that day was very severe; and Abner and the men of Israel were routed before the servants of David.
Two armies from the same nation meet at the pool of Gibeon, and a contest between picked men turns into slaughter. The real question is not who won, but why Israelites were killing Israelites at all — and what such a win is worth.
One writer sums up the day and draws the lesson from Abner's own question later in the chapter:
They slaughtered each other at Helkath-hazzurim, "the field of sharp swords." After that came a severe battle, which ended with Abner's defeat… "Shall the sword devour forever?" was Abner's question. As long as God's true King is not on the throne, ruling in righteousness and peace, wars and bloodshed will continue. The sword cannot be stopped till He reigns.
One writer asks what these men should have done instead:
All these men belong to the people of God. They are brothers but they are here with weapons in their hands — ready to fall upon one another in support of the cause which is right in their eyes. This is war among the people of God. Such a course can never be good. Why not suffer injustice, if necessary? "Why not rather suffer wrong?" (1 Cor. 6:7). Why not wait for the Lord to overrule in things that may arise between brothers?
One commentator sees the same thing happening among believers now:
How tragic to see Israelites fighting their fellow Israelites! The war against the Philistines, the real enemies of God's people, had now stopped. Israel was following leaders they chose for themselves. The record mentions no effort to find out the will of God in the matter… The highly gifted Corinthians were choosing sides among those whom God was using in that day. "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," "I follow Christ" — these were their battle cries (1 Cor. 1:12). Our real battle is abandoned while we fight one another!
The verse calls the winners "the servants of David." That name raises a question:
We notice that David himself does not appear in this incident. Even though his servants claim to be defending his rights, he is not with them. Make no mistake, the Lord will never be with us when we fight against our brothers.
So what did the day's fighting settle?
The contest decided nothing. It was only the beginning of a battle that drew in both armies, and many more were dead before it was over. Nor did the battle make any real difference in the situation, though it was won by Judah. Only God's work can bring about unity among His people.
The same writer turns that hand-to-hand killing into a warning for believers:
They did not stop to consider that they were all Israelites, and therefore brothers. But since that time the people of God have too often used the sword of the word of God cruelly against others of God's people. They could have used it for the good of others instead.
One writer traces the fault back to its root:
It is Abner. He is a man morally superior to Joab, but he fights on the principles of the flesh as a party man against the king whom God has chosen… And in what did the courage and valour of the chiefs of Benjamin and Judah now show itself in this "field of strong men"? In slaying each other. The Philistines were forgotten. But the family of Saul were entirely in the wrong. It was nature which, with its pretended rights, would not submit to God and to His will.
The commander who won that day came to his own end:
Even the death of Abner did not put an end to this miserable history… For many long years Joab had been at the head of David's armies, honoured among the people of God, victorious over their enemies. But all this activity was worth nothing, either in the eyes of God or in David's… In the end God's government gave him his due. He died a wretched death by the sword, in the very house of God where he thought he had found safety.
- Cause — Saul's house would not submit to the king God had chosen. That refusal is the root of the whole war.
- Absence — his servants claimed to defend David's rights, but David was not there. The Lord is never with His people when they fight each other.
- Distraction — nobody fought the Philistines while Israel fought Israel. We drop the real battle whenever we turn our weapons on one another.
- Emptiness — Judah won, and nothing changed. Only God's work brings unity among His people.
- Cost — one day's bloodshed led on to Abner's death and Joab's ruin. The sword keeps devouring until the true King reigns.