_BEGINNING OF CIVIL WAR._
2 SAMUEL ii. 12-32
The well-meant and earnest efforts of David to ward off strife and
bring the people together in recognising him as king were frustrated,
as we have seen, through the efforts of Abner. Unmoved by the solemn
testimony of God, uttered again and again through Samuel, that He had
rejected Saul and found as king a man after His own heart; unmoved by
the sad proceedings at Endor, where, under such awful circumstances,
the same announcement of the purpose of the Almighty had been repeated;
unmoved by the doom of Saul and his three sons on Mount Gilboa, where
such a striking proof of the reality of God's judgment on his house
had been given; unmoved by the miserable state of the kingdom, overrun
and humiliated by the Philistines and in the worst possible condition
to bear the strain of a civil war,--this Abner insisted on setting up
Ishbosheth and endeavouring to make good his claims by the sword. It
was never seen more clearly how "one sinner destroyeth much good."
As to the immediate occasion of the war, David was quite innocent,
and Abner alone was responsible; but to a feeling and patriotic
heart like David's, the war itself must have been the occasion of
bitter distress Did it ever occur to him to think that in a sense
he was now brought, against his will, into the position which he had
professed to King Achish to be willing to occupy, or that, placed as
he now was in an attitude of opposition to a large section of his
countrymen, he was undergoing a chastisement for what he was rash
enough to say and to do then?
In the commencement of the war, the first step was taken by Abner.
He went out from Mahanaim, descended the Jordan valley, and came to
Gibeon, in the tribe of Benjamin, a place but a few miles distant from
Gibeah, where Saul had reigned. His immediate object probably was to
gain such an advantage over David in that quarter as would enable
him to establish Ishbosheth at Gibeah, and thus bring to him all the
prestige due to the son and successor of Saul. We must not forget that
the Philistines had still great influence in the land, and very likely
they were in possession of Gibeah, after having rifled Saul's palace
and appropriated all his private property. With this powerful enemy
to be dealt with ultimately, it was the interest of Abner to avoid a
collision of the whole forces on either side, and spare the slaughter
which such a contest would have involved. There is some obscurity in
the narrative now before us, both at this point and at other places.
But it would appear that, when the two armies were ranged on opposite
sides of the "pool" or reservoir at Gibeon, Abner made the proposal
to Joab that the contest should be decided by a limited number of
young men on either side, whose encounter would form a sort of play or
spectacle, that their brethren might look on, and, in a sense, enjoy.
In the circumstances, it was a wise and humane proposal, although we
get something of a shock from the frivolous spirit that could speak of
such a deadly encounter as "play."
David was not present with his troops on this occasion, the management
of them being entrusted to Joab, his sister's son. Here was another
of the difficulties of David--a difficulty which embarrassed him for
forty years. He was led to commit the management of his army to his
warlike nephew, although he appears to have been a man very unlike
himself. Joab is much more of the type of Saul than of David. He is
rough, impetuous, worldly, manifesting no faith, no prayerfulness,
no habit or spirit of communion with God. Yet from the beginning
he threw in his lot with David; he remained faithful to him in the
insurrection of Absalom; and sometimes he gave him advice which was
more worthy to be followed than his own devices. But though Joab was
a difficulty to David, he did not master him. The course of David's
life and the character of his reign were determined mainly by those
spiritual feelings with which Joab appears to have had no sympathy. It
was unfortunate that the first stage of the war should have been in the
hands of Joab; he conducted it in a way that must have been painful to
David; he stained it with a crime that gave him bitter pain.
The practice of deciding public contests by a small and equal number of
champions on either side, if not a common one in ancient times, was,
at any rate, not very rare. Roman history furnishes some memorable
instances of it: that of Romulus and Aruns, and that of the Horatii
and the Curiatii; while the challenge of Goliath and the proposal to
settle the strife between the Philistines and the Hebrews according
to the result of the duel with him had taken place not many years
before. The young men were accordingly chosen, twelve on either side;
but they rushed against each other with such impetuosity that the whole
of them fell together, and the contest remained undecided as before.
Excited probably by what they had witnessed, the main forces on either
side now rushed against each other; and when the shock of battle
came, the victory fell to the side of David, and Abner and his troops
were signally defeated. On David's side, there was not a very serious
loss, the number of the slain amounting to twenty; but on the side of
Abner the loss was three hundred and sixty. To account for so great
an inequality we must remember that in Eastern warfare it was in the
pursuit that by far the greatest amount of slaughter took place. That
obstinate maintenance of their ground which is characteristic of modern
armies seems to have been unknown in those times. The superiority of
one of the hosts over the other appears usually to have made itself
felt at the beginning of the engagement; the opposite force, seized
with panic, fled in confusion, followed close by the conquerors, whose
weapons, directed against the backs of the fugitive, were neither
caught on shields, nor met by counter-volleys. Thus it was that Joab's
loss was little more than the twelve who had fallen at first, while
that of Abner was many times more.
Among those who had to save themselves by flight after the battle
was Abner, the captain of the host. Hard in pursuit of him, and of
him only, hastened Asahel, the brother of Joab. It is not easy to
understand all the circumstances of this pursuit. We cannot but
believe that Asahel was bent on killing Abner, but probably his hope
was that he would get near enough to him to discharge an arrow at
him, and that in doing so he would incur no personal danger. But
Abner appears to have remarked him, and to have stopped his flight
and faced round to meet him. Abner seems to have carried sword and
spear; Asahel had probably nothing heavier than a bow. It was fair
enough in Abner to propose that if they were to be opponents, Asahel
should borrow armour, that they might fight on equal terms. But this
was not Asahel's thought. He seems to have been determined to follow
Abner, and take his opportunity for attacking him in his own way.
This Abner would not permit; and, as Asahel would not desist from his
pursuit, Abner, rushing at him, struck him with such violence with
the hinder end of his spear that the weapon came out behind him. "And
Asahel fell down there, and died in the same place; and it came to
pass that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and
died stood still." Asahel was a man of consequence, being brother of
the commander of the army and nephew of the king. The death of such
a man counted for much, and went far to restore the balance of loss
between the two contending armies. It seems to have struck a horror
into the hearts of his fellow-soldiers; it was an awful incident of
the war. It was strange enough to see one who an hour ago was so
young, so fresh and full of life, stretched on the ground a helpless
lump of clay; but it was more appalling to remember his relation to
the two greatest men of the nation--David and Joab. Certainly war
is most indiscriminate in the selection of its victims; commanders
and their brothers, kings and their nephews, being as open to its
catastrophes as any one else. Surely it must have sent a thrill
through Abner to see among the first victims of the strife which he
had kindled one whose family stood so high, and whose death would
exasperate against him so important a person as his brother Joab.
The pursuit of the defeated army was by-and-bye interrupted by
nightfall. In the course of the evening the fugitives somewhat
rallied, and concentrated on the top of a hill, in the wilderness of
Gibeon. And here the two chiefs held parley together. The proceedings
were begun by Abner, and begun by a question that was almost
insolent. "Abner called to Joab and said, Shall the sword devour for
ever? knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end?
how long shall it be ere thou bid the people return from following
their brethren?" It was an audacious attempt to throw on Joab and
Joab's master the responsibility of the war. We get a new glimpse of
Abner's character here. If there was a fact that might be held to be
beyond the possibility of question, it was that Abner had begun the
contest. Had not he, in opposition to the Divine King of the nation,
set up Ishbosheth against the man called by Jehovah? Had not he
gathered the army at Mahanaim, and moved towards Gibeon, on express
purpose to exclude David, and secure for his nominee what might be
counted in reality, and not in name only, the kingdom of Israel? Yet
he insolently demanded of Joab, "Shall the sword devour for ever?"
He audaciously applies to Joab a maxim that he had not thought of
applying to himself in the morning--"Knowest thou not that it will be
bitterness in the latter end?" This is a war that can be terminated
only by the destruction of one half of the nation; it will be a
bitter enough consummation, which half soever it may be. Have you no
regard for your "brethren," against whom you are fighting, that you
are holding on in this remorseless way?
It may be a marvellously clever thing, in this audacious manner, to
throw upon an opponent all the blame which is obviously one's own.
But no good man will do so. The audacity that ascribes its own sins
to an opponent is surely the token of a very evil nature. We have no
reason to form a very high opinion of Joab, but of his opponent in
this strife our judgment must be far worse. An insincere man, Abner
could have no high end before him. If David was not happy in his
general, still less was Ishbosheth in his.
Joab's answer betrayed a measure of indignation. "As God liveth, unless
thou hadst spoken, surely then in the morning the people had gone up
every one from following his brother." There is some ambiguity in these
words. The Revised Version renders, "If thou hadst not spoken, surely
then in the morning the people had gone away, nor followed every one
his brother." The meaning of Joab seems to be that, apart from any
such ill-tempered appeal as Abner's, it was his full intention in the
morning to recall his men from the pursuit, and let Abner and his
people go home without further harm. Joab shows the indignation of
one credited with a purpose he never had, and with an inhumanity and
unbrotherliness of which he was innocent. Why Joab had resolved to
give up further hostilities at that time, we are not told. One might
have thought that had he struck another blow at Abner he might have so
harassed his force as to ruin his cause, and thus secure at once the
triumph of David. But Joab probably felt very keenly what Abner accused
him of not feeling: that it was a miserable thing to destroy the lives
of so many brethren. The idea of building up David's throne on the dead
bodies of his subjects he must have known to be extremely distasteful
to David himself. Civil war is such a horrible thing, that a general
may well be excused who accepts any reason for stopping it. If Joab
had known what was to follow, he might have taken a different course.
If he had foreseen the "long war" that was to be between the house of
Saul and the house of David, he might have tried on this occasion to
strike a decisive blow, and pursued Abner's men until they were utterly
broken. But that day's work had probably sickened him, as he knew it
would sicken David; and leaving Abner and his people to make their way
across the Jordan, he returned to bury his brother, and to report his
proceedings to David at Hebron.
And David must have grieved exceedingly when he heard what had taken
place. The slaughter of nearly four hundred of God's nation was a
terrible thought; still more terrible it was to think that in a sense
he had been the occasion of it--it was done to prevent him from
occupying the throne. No doubt he had reason to be thankful that when
fighting had to be done, the issue was eminently favourable to him
and his cause. But he must have been grieved that there should be
fighting at all. He must have felt somewhat as the Duke of Wellington
felt when he made the observation that next to the calamity of
losing a battle was that of gaining a victory. Was this what Samuel
had meant when he came that morning to Bethlehem and anointed him
in presence of his family? Was this what God designed when He was
pleased to put him in the place of Saul? If this was a sample of what
David was to bring to his beloved people, would it not have been
better had he never been born? Very strange must God's ways have
appeared to him. How different were his desires, how different his
dreams of what should be done when he got the kingdom, from this
day's work! Often he had thought how he would drive out the enemies
of his people; how he would secure tranquillity and prosperity to
every Hebrew homestead; how he would aim at their all living under
their vine and under their fig-tree, none making them afraid. But
now his reign had begun with bloodshed, and already desolation had
been carried to hundreds of his people's homes. Was this the work, O
God, for which Thou didst call me from the sheep-folds? Should I not
have been better employed "following the ewes great with young," and
protecting my flock from the lion and the bear, rather than sending
forth men to stain the soil of the land with the blood of the people
and carry to their habitations the voice of mourning and woe?
If David's mind was exercised in this way by the proceedings near the
pool of Gibeon, all his trust and patience would be needed to wait
for the time when God would vindicate His way. After all, was not his
experience somewhat like that of Moses when he first set about the
deliverance of his people? Did he not appear to do more harm than
good? Instead of lightening the burdens of his people, did he not
cause an increase of their weight? But has it not been the experience
of most men who have girded themselves for great undertakings in the
interest of their brethren? Nay, was it not the experience of our
blessed Lord Himself? At His birth the angels sang, "Glory to God in
the highest; on earth peace; goodwill to men!" And almost the next
event was the massacre at Bethlehem, and Jesus Himself even in His
lifetime found cause to say, "Think not that I am come to send peace
on the earth; I am not come to send peace, but a sword." What a sad
evidence of the moral disorder of the world! The very messengers of
the God of peace are not allowed to deliver their messages in peace,
but even as they advance toward men with smiles and benedictions, are
fiercely assailed, and compelled to defend themselves by violence.
Nevertheless the angels' song is true. Jesus did come to bless the
world with peace. "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto
you; not as the world giveth give I unto you." The resistance of
His enemies was essentially a feeble resistance, and that stronger
spirit of peace which Jesus brought in due time prevailed mightily
in the earth. So with the bloodshed in David's reign. It did not
hinder David from being a great benefactor to his kingdom in the
end. It did not annul the promise of God. It did not neutralise
the efficacy of the holy oil. This was just one of the many ways
in which his faith and his patience were tried. It must have shown
him even more impressively than anything that had yet happened the
absolute necessity of Divine direction in all his ways. For it is far
easier for a good man to bear suffering brought on himself by his
actions, than to see suffering and death entailed on his brethren in
connection with a course which has been taken by him.
In that audacious speech which Abner addressed to Joab, there occurs an
expression worthy of being taken out of the connection in which it was
used and of being viewed with wider reference. "Knowest thou not that
it will be bitterness in the latter end?" Things are to be viewed by
rational beings not merely in their present or immediate result, but
in their final outcome, in their ultimate fruits. A very commonplace
truth, I grant you, this is, but most wholesome, most necessary to be
cherished. For how many of the miseries and how many of the worst
sins of men come of forgetting the "bitterness in the latter end"
which evil beginnings give rise to! It is one of the most wholesome
rules of life never to do to-day what you shall repent of to-morrow.
Yet how constantly is the rule disregarded! Youthful child of fortune,
who are revelling to-day in wealth which is counted by hundreds of
thousands, and which seems as if it could never be exhausted, remember
how dangerous those gambling habits are into which you are falling;
remember that the gambler's biography is usually a short, and often
a tragic, one; and when you hear the sound of the pistol with which
one like yourself has ended his miserable existence, remember it all
began by disregarding the motto, written over the gambler's path,
"Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end?" You
merry-hearted and amusing companion, to whom the flowing bowl, and the
jovial company, and the merry jest and lively song are so attractive,
the more you are tempted to go where they are found remember that
rags and dishonour, dirt and degradation, form the last stage of
the journey,--"the latter end bitterness" of the course you are now
following. You who are wasting in idleness the hours of the morning,
remember how you will repent of it when you have to make up your
leeway by hard toil at night. I have said that things are to be viewed
by rational beings in their relations to the future as well as the
present. It is not the part of a rational being to accumulate disaster,
distress, and shame for the future. Men that are rational will far
rather suffer for the present if they may be free from suffering
hereafter. Benefit societies, life insurance, annuity schemes--what are
they all but the devices of sensible men desirous to ward off even
the possibility of temporal "bitterness in the latter end"? And may
not this wisdom, this good sense, be applied with far more purpose to
the things that are unseen and eternal? Think of the "bitterness in
the end" that must come of neglecting Christ, disregarding conscience,
turning away from the Bible, the church, the Sabbath, grieving the
Spirit, neglecting prayer! Will not many a foretaste of this bitterness
visit you even while yet you are well, and all things are prospering
with you? Will it not come on you with overpowering force while you lie
on your death-bed? Will it not wrap your soul in indescribable anguish
through all eternity?
Think then of this "bitterness in the latter end"! Now is the
accepted time. In the deep consciousness of your weakness, let your
prayer be that God would restrain you from the folly to which your
hearts are so prone, that, by His Holy Spirit, He would work in you
both to will and to do of His good pleasure.