THE BLOODY PATH TO A THRONE
‘The head of Ish-bosheth.’
2 Samuel 4:12
Abner had, against his better conviction, maintained his partisan position against David and continued his hostile efforts against him, and it was only after the overthrow of his hitherto unlimited power and the violence done to his self-esteem and ambition, that he came to the conclusion to abandon his position as David’s opponent; and certainly ambitious plans and views for his position in the new kingdom were not wanting in his transition to David and his energetic efforts for David.
I. But all this could give David no ground to reject Abner’s offer; rather he was under obligation to employ this unsought change in Abner’s mind and position (which entered into his life as a factor permitted by the Lord) for the end (fixed not by himself, but by the Lord) of his kingdom over all Israel, the kingdom of Saul falling to pieces of itself, when the Dictator, who had furnished its outward support, left it. Abner’s defection from Ish-bosheth and effort to gain from the whole people the recognition of David’s authority was an important preliminary step thereto. But further, by a wonderful providence of God, Abner’s shameful murder by the envious, ambitious Joab was to lead to this result, namely, that, after the Elders of the people had already shown themselves willing to recognise his authority over all Israel, the whole people gave him their love and confidence; ‘all that he did pleased them’ ( v. 36).
II. The realisation of the plans and aims of the wisdom of God in the development of David up to his ascension of the royal throne in Israel is secured by the co-operation of human efforts and acts (like Abner’s and Joab’s), which have their ground not in zeal for the cause of the Kingdom of God, but in selfish ends and motives of the self-seeking, sinful heart. Human sin must subserve the purposes of God’s government and kingdom. The absolute freedom of control in the things of His kingdom takes the activity of human freedom into its dispensations, and weaves them into the fast-closed web of Divine arrangements and acts, in which they fulfil the plans of Divine wisdom.
III. Ish-bosheth, in setting up a claim to the throne in opposition to the Divine call of David, not only lost the distinction he coveted, but also his life.—One day, when lying in his bed at noon, he was despatched by two of his servants. The two men that murdered him seem to have been among those whom Saul enriched with the spoil of the Gibeonites. They were brothers, men of Beeroth, which was formerly one of the cities of the Gibeonites, but was now reckoned to Benjamin. Mistaking the character of David as much as it had been mistaken by the Amalekite who pretended that he had slain Saul, they hastened to Hebron, bearing with them the head of their victim, a ghastly evidence of the reality of the deed. This revolting trophy they carried all the way from Mahanaim to Hebron, a distance of some fifty miles.
IV. If David had put the Amalekite to death for merely saying that he had slain Saul, even at his own command, how much more would he take signal vengeance of their united treachery and murder?—The Amalekite might have some ground of vengeance against Saul, in respect of the destruction he had wrought upon his nation; but what had they—the trusted servants of Ish-bosheth, the appointed guardians of his life—what had they to allege against their master? Nothing! David’s behaviour in this treatment of the murderers of Ish-bosheth was not only an act of justice in itself, but it publicly declared that he would never be served by treachery and murder, nor ever forgive such crimes, however the pretence for committing them might be for his own interest and service.
Illustrations
(1) ‘Amid the affecting events that introduce the final fall of Saul’s house, and the severe temptations with which he is beset to make a compact with sin, or at least to come in contact with crime in order to gain his end, David holds, as from the beginning, firm and unshaken to his standpoint of humble obedience to and complete dependence on the will and leading of the Lord, knowing himself to be in person and life and in his destination for the throne of Israel solely in the hand of God. The anger with which he repels self-commending crime, appealing to the guidance of his God Who had brought him through all adversity, is at the same time a positive witness to his determination to take all further steps also up to the attainment of his promised dominion only at the hand of his God, and to guard against all tainting of His Divine mission by sin and crime. His way to the throne had hitherto been always the way of obedience to God’s will; it was ever the way of the fear of God and of conscientious fulfilment of duty, and with such crimes he had never had anything to do. How could he now defile himself with them! The execution of these two murderers was a testimony to all the people, what ways David went and wished further to go, and that whoever would avail anything with this king must tread solely the path of godly fear and duty.’
(2) ‘Note the gradual advance of David’s kingship. No messengers were sent through the land when Saul was slain. Slowly, but surely, the way was opened up. Firstly, he was leader of an outlawed band; then he was enthroned by his own tribe; and only when other seven years had sped was he exalted to be king in Zion. In such ways true kingship ever comes. It was so with that Kingdom that was like a mustard seed. Not suddenly, nor by one wild endeavour, but through the trust and the toiling of the years are we made ready, by the grace of God, for the worthy wearing of the crown.’