Abner

ABNER (Hebrew for “father of [or is a light”), in the Bible, first
cousin of Saul and commander-in-chief of his army (I Sam. xiv. 50, xx.
25). He is only referred to incidentally in Saul’s history (1 Sam. xvii.
55, xxvi. 5), and is not mentioned in the account of the disastrous
battle of Gilboa when Saul’s power was crushed. Seizing the only
surviving son, Ishbaal, he set him up as king over Israel at Mahanaim,
east of the Jordan. David, who was accepted as king by Judah alone, was
meanwhile reigning at Hebron, and for some time war was carried on
between the two parties. The only engagement between the rival factions
which is told at length is noteworthy, inasmuch as it was preceded by an
encounter at Gibeon between twelve chosen men from each side, in which
the whole twenty-four seem to have perished (2 Sam. ii. 12).i In the
general engagement which followed, Abner was defeated and put to
flight. He was closely pursued by Asahel, brother of Joab, who is said
to have been “light of foot as a wild roe.” As Asahel would not desist
from the pursuit, though warned, Abner was compelled to slay him in
self-defence. This originated a deadly feud between the leaders of the
opposite parties, for Joab, as next of kin to Asahel, was by the law and
custom of the country the avenger of his blood. For some time
afterwards the war was carried on, the advantage being invariably on the
side of David. At length Ishbaal lost the main prop of his tottering
cause by remonstrating with Abner for marrying Rizpah, one of Saul’s
concubines, an alliance which, according to Oriental notions, implied
pretensions to the throne (cp. 2 Sam. xvi. 21 sqq.; 1 Kings ii. 21 sqq.).
Abner was indignant at the deserved rebuke, and immediately opened
negotiations with David, who welcomed him on the condition that his wife
Michal should be restored to him. This was done, and the proceedings
were ratified by a feast. Almost immediately after, however. Joab, who
had been sent away, perhaps intentionally returned and slew Abner at the
gate of Hebron. The ostensible motive for the assassination was a
desire to avenge Asahel, and this would be a sufficient justification
for the deed according to the moral standard of the time. The conduct
of David after the event was such as to show that he had no complicity
in the act, though he could not venture to punish its perpetrators (2
Sam. iii. 31-39; cp. 1 Kings ii. 31 seq.). (See DAVID.)
1 The object of the story of the encounter is to explain the name
Helkath-hazzurim, the meaning of which is doubtful (Ency. Bib. col.
2006; Batten in Zeit. f. alt-test. Wissens. 1906, pp. 90 sqq.).
|






|