35. § 3. David and Ish-Bosheth

§ 3. David and Ish-Bosheth

David’s behaviour after Saul’s death; the lively sorrow to which he gave expression; the punishment which he inflicts on the Amalekite who had laid presumptuous hands on the anointed of the Lord—for although it was done at Saul’s own desire, yet this desire itself was presumption; and the message which he sends to the inhabitants of Jabesh,—have been frequently attributed to political reasons. David’s conduct is indeed such as to win all hearts; but this is only to be regarded as the blessing which invariably attends a noble course of action. To act nobly is always the best policy. The uprightness of his heart and the sincerity of his feelings cannot for a moment be doubted by those who read his lament over Saul and Jonathan with an unprejudiced mind. Pretended sorrow could never speak thus.

David left the land of the Philistines, and repaired to Hebron, where he was at once recognised as king by his own tribe, the tribe of Judah. The same circumstance which made it easy for this tribe to recognise the divine choice, made it difficult to the other tribes, who were by no means ignorant of it, as appears from the confessions of Jonathan and Saul, of Abner, comp. 2 Samuel 3:9, and even of the elders of the tribes, 2 Samuel 5:2. The jealousy which had already existed for a long time between these tribes and Judah, and which at last led to the separation of the kingdom, made it somewhat difficult for them to come to the determination to submit to a Judaic king. Yet the divine influence which drove them to David would probably have triumphed over the human feeling which kept them at a distance from him, had not a man of imposing personality, Abner, made himself the representative of the interests of Saul’s weak son, Ish-bosheth, and given a handle to the evil disposition of the ten tribes. Thus David reigned in Hebron over Judah; Ish-bosheth at Mahanaim over the remaining tribes. It makes a difficulty that the length of Ish-bosheth’s reign seems to be limited to two years in 2 Samuel 2:10. For, (1) according to 2 Samuel 3:1, a tedious war was carried on between Judah and Israel; and (2) according to 2 Samuel 2:11, and 2 Samuel 5:5, David reigned seven years and six months at Hebron over Judah alone. But Ish-bosheth’s reign lasted as long as David was king merely over Judah. If David reigned seven years over Judah, Ish-bosheth must also have reigned seven years over Israel. We must therefore, with Thenius, regard 2 Samuel 2:11 as an interpolation, and connect the words, “and reigned two years,” immediately with 2 Samuel 2:12, equivalent to “he had reigned two years when Abner went.” Ewald has here committed himself to views which are quite untenable. In David’s conduct towards Ish-bosheth his fear of God shows itself in a very beautiful way. God called him to be king over all Israel; he had the courage and power to make good his claims; but nevertheless he waited in perfect quietness. During the whole seven years there was only one small fight, and this occurred in the absence of David, and was provoked by Abner. What God had destined for him, David would not have until God gave it to him. “Hitherto God had led and guided him; God had caused the throne to be vacant, and had made him what he was; God would provide for him in the future also. He would have everything from God.” His confidence in God did not disappoint him. The sole support of Ish-bosheth’s kingdom, viz. Abner, was offended by the weak king; and now, when it suited his inclination, he acknowledged the divine right of David, and made every exertion to vindicate it in Israel. It seems that Ish-bosheth himself, after Abner had openly and resolutely told him that he must henceforward work for David, perceiving that it would be impossible for him to maintain his power, had given his consent to the negotiations which Abner carried on with David, after he had gained the favour of the elders in Israel. We are led to this conclusion, (1) by the fact that Ish-bosheth sends back to David his former wife Michal, whom Saul had taken from him and married to another; and (2) by the remark, in 2 Samuel 4:1, that Ish-bosheth despaired when he heard of the death of Abner, which can scarcely be explained if Abner be regarded as a rebel and traitor, but is quite intelligible on the supposition that Ish-bosheth hoped to obtain an honourable satisfaction by his mediation. Abner was murdered by the ambitious Joab. The ostensible reason for this act was revenge for his brother, who had been slain by Abner,—a bad reason, for he was slain in battle, and no blame attached to Abner; but the secret reason was Joab’s fear lest Abner should be placed on a level with him, or even be exalted above him. This matter gave the deepest pain to David,—the more, since it was to be expected that he would be accused of secret participation in the deed which he detested. But he was obliged to be content with a loud and public expression of his pain and horror, since he was so little established on the throne, that Joab was too powerful to be visited with the rigour of the law. The words in which he calls to God for revenge have often been regarded as an expression of exaggerated passion: “I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner: let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread,” 2 Samuel 3:28-29. But David here wishes nothing more than what the law predicts; and it can never be sinful to wish God to do what, in accordance with His will, He must do. The extension of the curse to the descendants clearly refers to the threatenings of the law; and in both cases the offensive character disappears, if we only remember that whoever by true repentance freed himself from connection with the guilt was also exempted from participation in the punishment. Soon afterwards, Ish-bosheth was slain by two of his servants, whose crime David punished with death, instead of granting the expected reward. Notwithstanding David’s perfect innocence of the deaths of Abner and Ish-bosheth, and the moral detestation of them which he felt and expressed, certain malicious persons, judging him by themselves, did not hesitate to accuse him of having a share in these deeds. We see this from the example of Shimei, who calls David a man of blood on account of them. The prevailing view, however, must have been a different one, otherwise the elders of Israel would not unanimously have chosen David to be king after the death of Ish-bosheth.