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.