And it came to pass while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul.
Saul was dead, but the war between his house and David's dragged on. Behind Ish-bosheth, Saul's surviving son, stood the man this verse names: Abner, who was building up his own power.
Ish-bosheth wore the crown, but the kingdom did not rest on him:
The history now turns to show us the beginning of the collapse of Ish-bosheth's kingdom. There was, as we know, only one pillar on which it rested, Abner; and we can gather from elsewhere that the spirit of defection was at work in Israel. Abner now heads the defection himself, and the people have neither strength nor will to resist.
His own name carries the same note of assumed importance:
The oddness of the name strikes you at once. Abner means "the father of Ner," yet he is in fact the son of Ner. The fact is turned around. Ner means "lamp," the container of light. It stands for joy, prosperity, and everything we connect with light. The Bible speaks of David in the same way, as "the lamp of Israel" (2 Sam. 21:17). Ish-bosheth was a poor picture of this. Yet Abner's support of him after Saul's death may well show Abner taking on that name. The name marks the pride and self-sufficiency that characterized Saul himself.
One writer weighs both the man and his cause:
Abner is an honourable man by the world's standards, very brave, with a natural nobility of heart, but his character is violent and proud. By supporting Ish-bosheth he supports the principle that the throne passes down by natural family ties. It is dressed up to look like a right, since God had chosen Saul. Men defend this principle to the very end. It is the principle of their fathers' religion, the national religion. That looks far more respectable to people than the opinion of a few who stand out by following the son of Jesse... Abner uses his natural energy to defend it. What objection is there? Only that the whole system is opposed to the mind of God and makes war against His anointed.
Abner was not acting in ignorance:
We need not be surprised that Abner knowingly and willingly resists the Lord by supporting Ish-bosheth. Abner knows that David is the Lord's anointed... Abner is aware that he is not on God's side. But the Lord is not the object of his plans and his activity. So he hardly cares about the contradiction between his opinions and his conduct.
The verse pairs a strong captain with a weak king. One writer sees more in that pairing:
Abner joined to Ish-bosheth seems to point to the opposition of the antichrist in the time of Tribulation. Abner shows his strength, and Ish-bosheth shows his weakness (v.6). For the antichrist will put on a show of strength. In the end it will prove to be weakness. He will have a shameful fall, as both Abner and Ish-bosheth did.
The same writer draws a plain lesson from the long war itself. Saul stands for the energy of the flesh, "which does not easily give up though it is doomed." And "the flesh cannot help exposing its own weakness when it is given time" (Leslie M. Grant).
While Abner built up his own strength, David waited. One writer traces how each obstacle fell:
As yet, however, he was only king in Hebron, owned by the tribe of Judah alone, and he had to wait for God's time until all Israel should accept him. For seven years and six months he waited. During that time there were long wars between the house of Saul and the house of David. Saul's house were the aggressors (2 Sam. 2:12), but all efforts to thwart God's counsels came to nothing. One by one, every hindrance to David's receiving the homage of all Israel was removed. Abner was treacherously killed; Ish-bosheth was murdered. At last David was anointed king over all Israel.
Later Abner switched sides and offered to hand over the kingdom. That was not how God would do it: "God does not wish David to receive the kingdom from any hand other than His own. No one is to boast of having established the Lord's anointed on the throne" (H. L. Rossier).
- Strength misplaced. Abner built himself up in a house God had already set aside. Even his name, "father of Ner," turns the truth around and marks his self-sufficiency.
- Strength defended. He fought for a throne passed down by family line. Men respected that system, but it made war on God's anointed.
- Strength informed. He knew David was the Lord's chosen king. He resisted anyway, untroubled by the gap between what he believed and how he acted.
- Strength exposed. A strong captain propping up a weak king pictures the antichrist's coming show of strength. It pictures the flesh too, which cannot hide its weakness when given time.
- Strength answered. David never seized the crown. God removed every obstacle, so no one could claim to have put His king on the throne.
And Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah. And [Ishbosheth] said to Abner, Why hast thou gone in to my father's concubine?
Abner had taken Rizpah, one of Saul's concubines. Ish-bosheth challenged him over it, and that one private act decided who would rule Israel. Why did it matter so much? And how did God use the collapse that followed?
One commentator marks this moment as the start of the collapse, and shows how Abner answered when challenged:
Verse 7 shows the beginning of the fall of Israel's government. How many since Abner have ruined themselves by similar moral failures! Ish-bosheth made an issue of Abner's taking one of Saul's concubines. Abner was furious that the question was even raised. He has no defense, so he attacks Ish-bosheth for being ungrateful, since it was Abner who made him king… What really moved Abner was not kindness to Ish-bosheth, but jealousy for his own position of power.
Ish-bosheth's complaint can look petty. It was not. One writer sets out who these men were and what Ish-bosheth suspected:
After the death of Saul, Abner made Ish-bosheth king over Israel, but this did not include Judah, over which David was king… Saul had a concubine named Rizpah, and Abner took her. Ish-bosheth rebuked him for it, probably thinking it was a first step toward Abner seizing the kingdom. This made Abner so angry that he rebelled against his master and made approaches to David.
Another writer calls it an insult to Saul's family, and notes who took the force of Abner's anger:
Abner's deed in taking Rizpah insulted Saul's house and Ish-bosheth protested, and Abner's fury came upon the weakling whom he had made king.
Abner was not acting in ignorance:
It should not surprise us that Abner knowingly and willingly resists the Lord by supporting Ish-bosheth. Abner knows that David is the Lord's anointed… He knows he is not on God's side. But the Lord is not the object of his plans or his work, so he hardly cares that his beliefs and his conduct contradict each other.
He was an impressive man, and the cause he defended looked right:
By the world's standards Abner is an honorable man, very brave, with a natural nobility of heart. But his character is violent and proud. In supporting Ish-bosheth he supports the principle of succession through family ties. It has the appearance of right, because God had chosen Saul… What objection is there? Only that this whole system is opposed to the mind of God and makes war against His anointed.
Abner's switch to David's side follows in the next verses. It was not a change of heart:
Abner had known the oath God had spoken in this matter, but until now had defied it without shame. Even now he was not changing out of any real regard for the word of God. He changed because Ish-bosheth had questioned his character. In changing he was of course counting on David's favor toward him.
The quarrel put Abner on a path to hand David all Israel. God would not have the kingdom come that way:
But God is opposed to this; He does not wish David to receive the kingdom from any hand other than His own. No one is to boast of having put the Lord's anointed on the throne… God is able to turn man's very worst sins to accomplish His purposes.
David's own hands stayed clean of every rival's blood:
But now the Lord had clearly removed these obstacles by His judgment. And the ground under David was all the firmer because David had not done it. David never lifted his hand against Saul or Jonathan. David's hand never got rid of Abner or Ish-bosheth.
Rizpah herself appears again much later in the book. One writer points to what she did there:
Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the mother of two of these men, was already mentioned earlier in the quarrel between Abner and Ish-bosheth. She performs an act of piety that makes her name deserve to live on in the memory of believers. She makes herself guardian of the seven bodies. She is not devoted to them only because two of the condemned are her own sons. She watches over the other five as well as over the bodies of her own sons.
- Small act, whole kingdom. One commentator dates the fall of Israel's government from this sin: one private act, a public collapse.
- Small act, real claim. Ish-bosheth spoke up because he read the move as a step toward seizing the crown, and an insult to his father's house.
- Small act, exposed heart. Abner knew David was the Lord's anointed and resisted anyway. Challenged about his conduct, he had no defense and attacked his accuser.
- Switched sides, unchanged man. He turned to David because Ish-bosheth had questioned his character, and because he expected David's favor. Regard for God's word did not come into it.
- Overruled, not assisted. God would not let David receive the kingdom from any hand but His own. David never removed Abner or Ish-bosheth, so the throne came to him clean.
Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog's head, I who against Judah do shew kindness this day to the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou reproachest me this day with the fault of this woman?
Abner had taken a woman from Saul's household, and the king he had put on the throne dared to question him about it. His reply is one of the fiercest outbursts in the book. It raises a question: was Abner defending Saul's house, or himself?
Ish-bosheth's question was a moral one, and Abner never answers it. He changes the subject to his own record of service.
How many since Abner have ruined themselves by the same kind of moral failure! When Ish-bosheth made an issue of Abner's having taken one of Saul's concubines, Abner was furious that the question was even raised (v.8). He has no defense, but attacks Ish-bosheth as being ungrateful for Abner's having elevated him to the place of king. He thinks Ish-bosheth should ignore his moral evil since he had backed up Ish-bosheth.
Abner answers the questioner, not the question — and the questioner is the man he had put on the throne. The outburst is striking because Abner knew where God had placed the kingdom.
Abner knows that David is the Lord's anointed: "So God do to Abner and more also, if I do not accomplish for David what the LORD has sworn to him" (v. 9). Abner knows he is not on God's side. But the Lord is not the object of his plans and actions, so he barely cares about the contradiction between what he believes and what he does. Abner only pretends to defend a political and religious system of succession… Ish-bosheth relies on him. But let him beware of offending this firm supporter of his throne. When he wants to oppose Abner's corruption, Abner, with his wounded pride, will abandon his master and turn to David. "Am I a dog's head?" he asks, and he announces his plans to Ish-bosheth in the open… But in all this we see divine providence, hidden beneath men's passions and even working through them, preparing the path of His anointed.
Abner points to years of loyal support as if that settled everything. But what had kept him loyal?
What moved Abner was not kindness to Ish-bosheth, but jealousy for his own position of power.
The next breath proves it. Abner drops that same "kindness" the moment it stops serving him.
So his kindness turns at once into bitter hatred. He will show Ish-bosheth who is in charge: he will pull him down as fast as he had raised him up… Abner had known the oath God swore in this matter, but until now he had defied it without shame. Even now he was not changing out of any regard for the word of God. He was changing because Ish-bosheth had questioned his character. And in changing he was, of course, counting on David's favor toward him.
Abner's name means "father of light." One writer sets that name beside the way Abner actually made his choices.
Abner has no such hesitation, and takes no counsel of God. As "father of light" — the meaning of his name — his wisdom comes from himself, prompted, of course, by that ready adviser, self-interest, or by what looks like it. He had the opportunity too. He commanded the army that had been Saul's, and in Ish-bosheth he had a man who carried whatever shadow of a title could come from Saul. Ish-bosheth means "man of shame."
Backing a throne God had set aside was not a neutral choice. A part-way trust in God, the same writer notes, does not stay that way.
Reliance on human strength had worked this way all through the history in between. God will not be content to be one force among other forces. A half-way dependence on Him is more than half independence, and it soon turns, sadly, into real hostility.
Ish-bosheth had no answer. The man who had made him king had just threatened to unmake him.
This withering outburst was too much for Ish-bosheth: fear of Abner silenced him completely (v.11). A wise man would have refused to listen to Abner long before, and refused to take any part in ruling Israel. He knew he was not fit for it. He loses everything.
This quarrel, not a battle, decided the long war between the two houses.
The conflict was all the sadder because Ish-bosheth's commander, Abner, was in himself a better man than David's own second in command, Joab — as David himself admitted. In the end it was Abner's hurt pride that closed the fight, not Joab's strength or skill.
- Charged — Ish-bosheth questioned Abner about taking one of Saul's concubines. Abner offered no defence at all. He attacked the questioner instead.
- Wounded — "Am I a dog's head?" is the cry of a man whose pride has been stung. His loyalty was never to Saul's house. It was to his own position of power.
- Exposed — Abner knew God had sworn the kingdom to David, yet had defied that oath for years. His change of side came from a bruised character, not a regard for God's word.
- Self-lit — His name means "father of light," yet Abner took no counsel of God. Self-interest supplied his wisdom.
- Collapsed — Fear silenced the weak king, and he lost everything. Abner's hurt pride ended the long war, not any victory in the field. Yet under all these passions God's providence was preparing the path of His anointed.
So do God to Abner, and more also, if, as Jehovah has sworn to David, I do not so to him;
Ishbosheth has just accused Abner, the commander of Saul's army, of taking Saul's concubine, and Abner answers with an oath to hand the whole kingdom to David. The words are true — the Lord had sworn it — but will God take a throne from a man moved only by wounded pride?
The oath is built on something Abner had known for years: that the Lord had sworn the kingdom to David. That knowledge did not restrain him from propping up Saul's house.
It is no surprise that Abner knowingly and willingly resists the Lord by supporting Ishbosheth. Abner knows that David is the Lord's anointed... Abner knows he is not on God's side. But the Lord is not the aim of his plans and his work, so he hardly cares that his opinions and his conduct contradict each other. Abner is only pretending to defend a political and religious line of succession.
Nothing in the verse suggests repentance. The trigger was an insult he could not answer, and the new loyalty came with an eye on what David could give him.
He will show Ish-bosheth who is in charge. He will pull him off the throne as fast as he put him on it. He would move the kingdom from the house of Saul to the house of David. That would fulfil the word God had sworn to David: that David would be king of all Israel (vv. 9-10). Abner had known God's expressed oath in this matter, but until this time had brazenly defied it. Even now he was not changing because of any real regard for the word of God, but because Ish-bosheth had questioned his character. In changing he was of course counting on David's favour toward him.
Abner could quote God's oath, so his years of resistance were not ignorance. One writer names who was really driving the opposition to David, and where half-hearted dependence on God ends.
The weak son of Saul is only a tool in the hands of Abner, who is all the way through the real heart and soul of the opposition to David... God will not be content to be one force among other forces. A half-way dependence on Him is more than half independence, and it quickly turns, sadly, into real hostility. So Abner and Ishbosheth were now openly at odds with God. He had shown His purpose in David very plainly, as Abner himself admits here (ch. 3:9).
The same writer measures Abner's course against Israel's true king.
The Lord was the Supreme king over Israel. So once His mind was clearly known, only obedience could make for any proper unity. The course Abner and the other tribes took was simply rebellion.
Abner offered to deliver the kingdom. He was dead before he could.
But God stands against this. He does not want David to receive the kingdom from any hand but His own. No one is to boast of having established the Lord's anointed on the throne. And what is more, how could He permit the pride of man's heart to carve out the steps by which David rises to power? Abner is assassinated. God is able to turn man's very worst wrongs to fulfil His designs.
David took the offer without asking God. One writer presses him on it.
Why doesn't he consult the Lord when this covenant is proposed to him? He had refused the crown from the hand of the Amalekite. He will refuse it from the hands of Ishbosheth's murderers. But will he accept it from Abner's hand? Yes, because he feels free to do so, because he has all sorts of reasons to act this way for the good of his kingdom. This covenant will smooth out difficulties; war has lasted long enough... All this is very reasonable according to man, but it is not according to the mind of God.
The throne came anyway — but by waiting, not by bargaining.
For now, though, he was king only in Hebron, accepted only by the tribe of Judah. He had to wait for God's time until all Israel would accept him... all efforts to thwart God's counsels proved useless. One by one, every hindrance to David's receiving the homage of all Israel was removed... Throughout this time of expectancy, how did David act? He waited, for the most part, for God to act on his behalf. He left this, his only right path, once — when he gave in to Abner's proposal.
- God swore. The oath Abner repeats is not his own idea — the Lord had already sworn the kingdom to David, and Abner knew it all along.
- Abner knew. Knowing God's mind and refusing it is not neutrality. Propping up Saul's house was rebellion.
- Pride moved. The change of side came from a wounded reputation and an eye on David's favour, not from regard for the word he quotes.
- God refused. The kingdom would not reach David through a proud schemer's hand. No one was to boast of putting the Lord's anointed on the throne.
- David waited. He took Abner's deal once without asking God. Yet every hindrance fell anyway, and the throne came as God's gift.
to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-sheba!
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him.
Abner has just threatened to hand the whole kingdom over to David. The king says nothing back, and the reason is fear. How does a king end up afraid of his own commander?
Ish-bosheth gives no reply at all. One commentator traces that silence back to an earlier choice: Ish-bosheth took a throne he knew he was not fit to hold.
This crushing outburst was too much for Ish-bosheth. Fear of Abner silenced him completely (v.11). If he had been a wise man, he would have refused earlier to listen to Abner or to take any part in ruling Israel, for he knew he was not qualified for it. He loses everything.
The name in this verse was not the one he was born with. The man behind it had no anointing and no gift of his own.
He was not anointed, not gifted, a mere tool in the hands of Abner for his purpose, and eventually murdered by two of his captains. His real name, Esh-Baal, had been dropped, and people commonly called him Ish-bosheth, which means "man of shame."
Ish-bosheth's whole position rested on Abner, and he knew it. One writer shows what happened when that support was removed, and what it asks of every believer.
Ish-bosheth could not do without human support. When Abner was murdered, "his courage failed, and all Israel was dismayed" (4:1). Saul's son had "a great man" to hold up his throne, and everything collapsed when that support failed. It was not so with David. Experience had taught him the value of man and the value of God. This experience, it is true, is often repeated in a believer's life. Sometimes every natural support fails, even one God Himself gave. Then we find ourselves in complete weakness. This is a lesson we must learn, for as Christians we often place our confidence in foundations that can be shaken. Then our faith is tested. The question becomes whether God is enough for us.
Ish-bosheth owed his crown to Abner. One writer shows how a debt like that closes into a trap.
If I put myself under obligation to a man, the fear of man will influence me to that same degree, and my own fear traps me. How dreadful, that through fear of offending a mere man I may end up offending God! The only safety from such snares is a dependent, genuine trust in the Lord. This means no confidence in the flesh, for it is choosing the Lord as the soul's confidence rather than anything or anyone else.
Another writer applies the same principle to a ruler who excused himself by his fear of the people:
He pleads his fear of the people. If that was true, it showed he was unfit for any true rule. For "the one who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God," and the fear of man does not go together with the fear of God. It brings a snare.
One king trembles before his general. The other, the rightful king, does nothing to force the issue. William Kelly contrasts the touchiness of people in the wrong with the calm of those sure of God.
Now Ish-bosheth had no title whatsoever. Yet David showed great tenderness toward him, all the more because he knew his own title could not be questioned. When people are in the wrong, do not be surprised if they are touchy. When they have the confidence that the truth of God gives, they can afford to leave things alone, without anxiety or bluster.
Abner offers to deliver the whole nation to David. God refuses the offer, and will not let the crown come through such a hand.
But God is opposed to this; He does not wish David to receive the kingdom from any hand other than His own. No one is to boast of having established the Lord's anointed on the throne… God is able to turn man's very worst sins to accomplish His purposes.
- Prop. Ish-bosheth's throne rested on one man, Abner, and everything collapsed when that support failed.
- Debt. Putting yourself under obligation to a man gives him power over you, and your own fear traps you.
- Silence. The fear of man is inconsistent with the fear of God, and it left the king unable to answer a word.
- Contrast. David, sure of his title, could afford to leave the matter without anxiety or bluster.
- Providence. God would not let David receive the kingdom from any hand but His own — no man was to boast of putting His anointed on the throne.
And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose is the land? saying [also], Make thy covenant with me, and behold, my hand shall be with thee, to turn all Israel to thee.
Abner had put Saul's weak son Ish-bosheth on the throne and kept him there; now the two have quarrelled, and Abner offers David the whole nation. Two uncomfortable questions follow: what was driving Abner, and should David have accepted?
Abner's change of side looks like submission to God's word, but the timing tells another story. He had known for years what God had sworn about David and had fought against it anyway.
He would transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul to the house of David. That would fulfil the word God had sworn to David: David would be king of all Israel. Abner had known God's expressed oath in this matter, but until now had brazenly defied it. Even now he was not changing because of any real regard for the word of God, but because Ish-bosheth had questioned his character. In changing he was of course counting on David's favour toward him.
He was not ignorant of where he stood.
Abner is aware that he is not on God's side. But the Lord is not the object of his plans and activity, so he hardly cares that his opinions and his conduct contradict each other.
Here David does not refuse, and he does not ask God.
But what are we to think of David? Why doesn't he consult the Lord when Abner proposes this covenant to him? He had refused the crown from the hand of the Amalekite; he will refuse it from the hand of Ish-bosheth's murderers. But will he accept it from Abner's hand? Yes, because he feels free to do so, because he has all sorts of reasons to act like this for the good of his kingdom. This covenant will smooth out difficulties. The war has lasted long enough … All of this is very reasonable to man, but it is not according to the mind of God.
David did not simply say yes. He attached a condition of his own.
David also answered by messengers. They told Abner that a league could be made, but only on one condition: Michal, Saul's daughter, must be given back to David as his wife... In fact, Michal had shown no faithfulness to David in 1 Samuel 19:17. She told her father that David had threatened to kill her if she did not let him escape from Saul. Why should he want her returned when she had proved undependable? Was it only his own rights he was thinking of? ... Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says the first husband was not to take his wife back after she had been defiled by marrying another man. If David had sought wisdom from God, this scripture might have been a protection for him.
The covenant never came into force.
But God is opposed to this; He does not wish David to receive the kingdom from any hand other than His own. No one is to boast of having established the Lord's anointed on the throne. And what is more, how could He permit the pride of man's heart to carve out the steps by which David rises to power? Abner is assassinated. God is able to turn man's very worst acts of wickedness to fulfil His designs. He uses Joab's infamous act to cut off the man in whom David had already placed his confidence.
Across the years of waiting, this was the exception in David's conduct.
One by one, every hindrance to David's receiving the homage of all Israel was removed. Abner was treacherously slain — Ish-bosheth was murdered. At last David was anointed king over all Israel, and all the tribes accepted the man of God's choice. Throughout this time of waiting, how did David act? He waited, for the most part, for God to act on his behalf. Only once did he leave this, his one right path — when he gave in to Abner's proposal to win the kingdom for David by his own personal influence. The Lord would not allow it. David was not to owe Abner the allegiance of all Israel. God would move their hearts to receive him. And He did.
- Hand. The verse turns on whose hand gives the kingdom. Abner offers his; God refuses it.
- Motive. Abner moves not out of regard for God's word but because Ish-bosheth questioned his character, and he counts on David's favour.
- Silence. David answers Abner but never asks the Lord. The deal made sense to men, not to God.
- Price. David's condition brought back Michal, a wife who had already proved undependable. Seeking God's wisdom might have spared him.
- Result. Abner dies before the covenant stands. God turns even that wickedness to His purpose, so no one can boast of having enthroned His anointed.
And he said, Well, I will make a covenant with thee; only I require one thing of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal Saul's daughter, when thou comest to see my face.
David is king in Hebron, Ishbosheth holds the rest of Israel, and Abner — Saul's old general — now offers to hand David the whole kingdom. David agrees to a covenant, but attaches one condition: his first wife must come back first.
David makes the demand twice: first to Abner, then to Ishbosheth.
Abner does not intend to lose out. He contacts David at once by messenger, urging him to make an alliance with Abner, who would for his part bring all Israel under David's rule (v.12). David answered by messengers too. They told Abner that an alliance could be made, but only on one condition: Michal, Saul's daughter, must come back to David as his wife. David confirmed this to Ish-bosheth, insisting that Michal be given back to him — the wife he had paid for by killing 100 Philistines.
David is not just refusing a meeting. The Bible uses the same picture for standing in God's favour, and one writer points back to this verse while explaining it:
Seeing His face means they are always in divine favour. Compare 2 Samuel 3:13; 14:24-33; Esther 1:14; Revelation 22:4.
The same test shows up later in David's own family:
There is a striking, though negative, example with David, when Absalom was not allowed to see his father's face (2 Samuel 14:24). In this way it became clear that Absalom no longer enjoyed his father's favour.
One thing is missing from the whole negotiation: any word of David asking the Lord.
Then we see Abner entering negotiations with David. Had David slipped back again, so that he went along with Abner? We do not hear a word about him asking the Lord. He makes a condition under which Abner is to see his face. Michal, Saul's daughter, his first wife, now married to Phaltiel, must be brought to him... The later story — Michal's mockery — shows that it was a mistake for David to take her back. How different everything would have been if David had asked the Lord.
David had not sent Michal away himself, so he could argue the right was his. But his own rights were not the only thing to weigh.
In fact, Michal had shown no loyalty to David in 1 Samuel 19:17, when she told her father that David had threatened to kill her if she did not let him escape from Saul. Why should he want her returned when she had proven undependable? Was it only his own rights he was thinking of? He could have reasoned too that since he had not taken the initiative in putting her away, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would not apply. But that passage does say that the first husband was not to take his wife back after she had been defiled by marrying another man (v.4). If David had sought wisdom from God, this scripture might have been a protection for him.
The bargain never takes effect. One writer asks what we are to make of David in it.
But what are we to think of David? Why doesn't he consult the Lord when this covenant is proposed to him? He had refused the crown from the hand of the Amalekite; he will refuse it from the hand of Ishbosheth's murderers; but will he accept it from Abner's hand? Yes, because he feels free to do so, because he has all sorts of reasons to act this way for the good of his kingdom. This covenant will smooth out difficulties; war has lasted long enough... All this is very reasonable according to man, but it is not according to the mind of God.
God is opposed to this; He does not wish David to receive the kingdom from any hand other than His own. No one is to boast of having established the Lord's anointed on the throne. Abner is assassinated. God is able to turn man's very worst sins to accomplish His purposes. He uses Joab's shameful act to cut off the man in whom David had already placed his confidence.
One writer sees a larger picture here: the separated wife brought back to the king.
During this time Michal is given to another; the outward link between Messiah and Israel is broken, but only for a time. When the blessing from Jehovah reaches Jezreel, Michal — the separated wife — will be brought back (Hosea 2:19, etc.).
The same forward look attaches to David's gathering of the tribes as a whole:
As David now begins to do, so will Christ, the King of Judah, bring all around into subjection to Himself after He has taken the throne.
- Condition. David will make a covenant, but on terms: Michal first, then the meeting. He counted her his already — paid for with a hundred Philistines.
- Face. To see the king's face is to stand in his favour. Absalom later learned what being shut out means.
- Silence. Not one word records David asking the Lord. He reasoned the condition out; he did not receive it.
- Protection. Deuteronomy 24 spoke to this very case. Had David sought wisdom from God, it could have protected him.
- Crown. God will not let the throne come by Abner's hand. He cuts off the man David leaned on, so no one can boast of crowning the Lord's anointed.
And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I espoused to me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.
Abner offers David a deal that would hand him the whole kingdom. David names one price: give back Michal, Saul's daughter. She was already his wife, won years before at a price Saul himself set. The demand looks like simple justice. Commentators still ask two questions: what did David want, and why is God never consulted?
The bridal price David names was no ordinary wedding gift. Saul meant it as a death trap, and David outran it:
Against all fairness and honour, Saul gives Merab to Adriel. But he is still set on destroying David, so he offers him Michal as a trap. The condition: David must bring as the bridal price "a hundred foreskins of the Philistines." David agreed at once. He did not stop at the limit of the contract. True to the greatness of his nature — for he will be no man's debtor — he went beyond the condition and "struck down two hundred men."
So when David names the bridal price, he points to a debt paid twice over. He sends the demand to Saul's own son, asking only what Saul's terms had already granted. By now, though, Michal was another man's wife.
David had paid for this marriage. Having a right, though, is not the same as being right to press it. One writer asks whether David had a good reason:
David confirmed this to Ish-bosheth. He insisted on getting Michal back, the wife he had purchased by killing 100 Philistines (v.14). The Lord does not comment on whether David should have done this. But the later history (ch. 6:16-23) shows that their relationship was far from satisfactory. In fact, Michal had shown no loyalty to David in 1 Samuel 19:17. She told her father that David had threatened to kill her if she did not let him escape from Saul. Why should he want her back when she had proved undependable? Was it only his own rights he was thinking of?
The same writer points to Deuteronomy 24:4. It forbids a first husband to take back a wife who has since married another man. He adds: "If David had sought wisdom from God, this scripture might have been a protection for him."
One writer weighs two possible motives and settles on neither:
It is difficult to understand his motive for this demand. It may have been regard for Michal, since he owed his life to her. Or it may have been mixed with policy, showing his alliance with Saul. But whatever it was, the act brought honour to neither of them.
Policy is the kind of reason a king counts on. What no one mentions here is God.
The deal runs on good reasons. One writer asks what is missing from them:
Why doesn't he consult the Lord when this covenant is proposed to him? He had refused the crown from the hand of the Amalekite. He will refuse it from the hands of Ish-bosheth's murderers. But will he accept it from Abner's hand? Yes, because he feels free to do so, because he has all sorts of reasons to act this way for the good of his kingdom. This covenant will smooth out difficulties. The war has lasted long enough … All this is very reasonable according to man. But it is not according to the mind of God.
The deal collapses before Abner can deliver anything. One writer sees design in that, not accident:
But God is opposed to this; He does not wish David to receive the kingdom from any hand other than His own. No one is to boast of having established the Lord's anointed on the throne. And what is more, how could He permit the pride of man's heart to carve out the steps by which David rises to power? Abner is assassinated. God is able to turn man's very worst sins to fulfill His purposes. He uses Joab's shameful act to cut off the man David had already trusted.
David calls Michal "my wife" while she is living with another man. The bargain settles that claim, and others pay for it:
At Ish-bosheth's order Michal was taken from her husband, Phaltiel (v.15). She was not his in the first place, but taking her from him and giving her again to David only made the wrong worse. When Phaltiel follows her weeping, Abner abruptly tells him to return home.
- Paid — Saul set the bridal price as a death trap. David paid it twice over. The right he claims is real and bought.
- Pressed — A real right can still be pressed at the wrong moment. Was David thinking of anything beyond his own claim?
- Unasked — Every reason for the demand makes sense to man. David never asked the Lord, so none of it is according to the mind of God.
- Unaccepted — God will not let David take the kingdom from any hand but His own. No one may boast of putting the Lord's anointed on the throne.
- Unhappy — The bargain leaves Phaltiel weeping on the road, and the marriage itself proves far from satisfactory. What policy won, it could not bless.
And Ishbosheth sent, and took her from [her] husband, from Phaltiel the son of Laish.
Abner offers David the whole nation, and David sets one condition: Michal, his first wife, must come back to him. Ish-bosheth takes her from the man she now lived with — but was David right to ask, and what did he gain by it?
Did David's demand put right what Saul had done? One writer says it did the opposite — and notes what Abner stood to gain.
Ish-bosheth ordered Michal taken from her husband, Phaltiel (v.15). She had not been Phaltiel's to begin with, but taking her from him and handing her back to David only made the wrong worse. … Saul had given Michal to Phaltiel, but Abner no longer has to reckon with a living Saul. He wants David's favour.
One writer asks why David wanted this woman at all, then follows his reasoning to the law that answers it.
Michal had shown no loyalty to David in 1 Samuel 19:17, when she told her father that David had threatened to kill her if she did not let him escape from Saul. Why should he want her returned when she had proven undependable? … He could have reasoned too that since he had not taken the initiative in putting her away, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would not apply. But that passage does say the first husband was not to take his wife back once marriage to another man had defiled her (v.4). If David had sought wisdom from God, this scripture might have been a protection for him.
The same silence runs through the whole deal. One writer contrasts it with two offers David had already refused.
But what are we to think of David? Why doesn't he consult the Lord when Abner proposes this covenant? He had refused the crown from the hand of the Amalekite, and he will refuse it from the hand of Ish-bosheth's murderers. But will he accept it from Abner's hand? Yes, because he feels free to do so, because he has all sorts of reasons to act this way for the good of his kingdom. This covenant will smooth out difficulties; the war has lasted long enough… All this is very reasonable according to man, but it is not according to the mind of God.
Why did David want her back? Commentators differ. One writer weighs gratitude against politics and will not settle on either.
It is difficult to understand his motive for this demand. It may have been that he cared for Michal, since he owed his life to her. Or it may have been mixed with policy, as proof of his alliance with Saul. Whatever it was, the act brought honour to neither of them.
Another writer sets the demand beside David's other marriages and traces what came of them.
By taking these different women as wives, in this gross indulgence of the flesh, he prepared himself for the great sin of his life. Disorder and much confusion followed. … The later history, Michal's mockery, shows that it was a mistake for David to take her back. How different everything would have been if David had asked the Lord.
Phaltiel is the one person in this scene with nothing to gain. One writer stops to look at him.
David takes this woman from her home instead of leaving her to her new husband. In doing so he breaks this man's heart. He was an honest man after all, deeply devoted to his wife. He follows her weeping, and never once thinks of rebelling against the authority set over him.
So what did David gain? One writer sums up the rest of Michal's story.
She did not share David's zeal for the Lord. When he brought up the ark and danced with joy before it, she not only despised him in her heart but rebuked him for it. Because of this she was barren the rest of her days. … Michal is an example of how far beyond the natural mind the leadings of the Spirit of God are.
The deal Michal was traded for came to nothing. Abner died before he could hand the tribes over.
But God is opposed to this; He does not wish David to receive the kingdom from any hand other than His own. No one is to boast of having established the Lord's anointed on the throne. … Abner is assassinated. God is able to turn man's very worst wrongs to carry out His purposes.
- Shortcut. David wanted the kingdom united and took the fastest road to it. He never asked God about the road.
- Price. Others paid for it. Phaltiel followed his wife in tears, and David's demand doubled Saul's old wrong instead of undoing it.
- Protection. One passage in the law fitted this exact case. David never turned to it, so it could not protect him.
- Prize. David won Michal back, and years later she despised him for his joy before the Lord. The shortcut delivered the prize but not the hope.
- Providence. Abner died before he could deliver the throne. God lets no man claim credit for crowning His anointed.
And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner to him, Go, return. And he returned.
Abner's deal with David turned on one condition: Michal, Saul's daughter, must go back to David. This verse shows the cost — her husband walking behind her in tears — and it asks why David wanted her back at all.
Michal had been David's wife first. Saul then gave her to Phaltiel. Giving her back to David looks like a correction. One writer says it only made the wrong worse, and that nothing now holds Abner back.
At Ish-bosheth's order Michal was taken from her husband, Phaltiel. Though she was not his in the first place, taking her from him and giving her back to David only made the wrong worse. When Phaltiel follows her weeping, Abner orders him straight back home. Saul had given Michal to Phaltiel, but Abner no longer has a living Saul to reckon with. He wants David's favour.
The commentators do not treat the weeping man as a villain. One writer shows what David's new freedom as king costs someone else. He also notes that Phaltiel never once resists.
Not content with these marriages, this man of God demands from Ishbosheth his wife Michal, who became an adulteress by taking another husband. He can do as he pleases — and how dangerous that liberty is!… David takes this adulterous woman from her home, instead of leaving her to her new husband. So he breaks the heart of this man. He is an honest man after all, deeply devoted to his companion. He follows her weeping, and never thinks of rebelling against the authority set over him.
David could argue that he never put Michal away himself. One writer questions his motive, and points to a law that covered this exact case.
The Lord does not say whether David should have done this. But the later history (chapter 6:16-23) shows that their relationship was far from satisfactory. In fact Michal had shown no loyalty to David in 1 Samuel 19:17. She told her father that David had threatened to kill her if she did not let him escape from Saul. Why should he want her back when she had proved undependable? Was he thinking only of his own rights? He could also have reasoned this: he had not taken the first step in putting her away, so Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would not apply. But that passage does say the first husband must not take his wife back once another marriage has defiled her. If David had asked God for wisdom, this scripture might have protected him.
Commentators differ on why David asked for Michal. One weighs two possible reasons and settles on neither.
It is hard to understand his motive for this demand. It may have been affection for Michal, since he owed his life to her. It may also have been mixed with policy, as proof of his link with Saul. But whatever it was, the act brought honour to neither of them. If handing Michal over pleased David's nature, Joab's shameful murder of Abner must have been a bitter reversal.
David can now summon a wife across the country. One writer sees in that power a danger for anyone God puts in authority.
The Spirit of God wants to teach us something here. A believer who receives a position of authority from God soon loses the sense of his dependence. The cause is the flesh that lives in him. As he uses power he starts to trust himself. He stops realising his need of the Lord's help, as he did in the days when he wandered like a hunted partridge on the mountains. Before the crown was on his head he would, apart from rare occasions, inquire of God and take no step without Him. But the moment he receives the crown he forgets his safeguard.
One writer reads Michal's removal and return as a picture of Israel's future.
During this time Michal is given to another. The outward link between Messiah and Israel is broken, but only for a time. When the blessing from the Lord reaches Jezreel, Michal — the separated wife — will be brought back.
- Liberty. David can now do as he pleases. Putting one wrong right created a second wrong.
- Cost. Phaltiel pays. He is an honest man with a broken heart, and he never resists.
- Silence. No one asked God. Deuteronomy 24 stood ready to protect David, unread.
- Cause. Authority wore away the habit of dependence that had kept David safe on the run.
- Hope. The wife taken away and brought back pictures a link broken only for a time.