And Saul's son had two men, captains of bands the name of the one was Baanah, and the name of the other Rechab, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin; for Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin.
Abner is dead, and Ish-bosheth's hold on the throne is gone. Verse 2 names the two men who will finish him off — their rank, their father, and a home town that has its own history with Saul.
The verse calls them captains of raiding bands under Saul's son. One writer reads their move as cold calculation:
Abner's death left Ish-bosheth helpless, and all Israel confused and troubled (v.1). But two men, captains of bands in Ish-bosheth's army, saw a good opportunity here. They could see that David would come out on top, and they thought they could win David's favor by killing Ish-bosheth. But they acted on the false assumption that David was as wicked as they were.
Their record makes the betrayal worse. The same writer notes how long they served Ish-bosheth, and how they dressed the murder up as God's work:
They are cunning enough to bring the Lord's name into it as well, saying that the Lord had taken vengeance on the house of Saul. Yet they had stayed on as servants of Ish-bosheth for two years after Saul died!
The verse pauses to say that Beeroth counted as part of Benjamin. That puts these men inside Saul's own tribe, and the town has an older story as well:
Beeroth was a city of the Gibeonites, the people Israel had once made a covenant with (Joshua 9). Beeroth counted as part of Benjamin (2 Sam. 4:2), the tribe of Saul, who was David's bitter enemy. The Beerothites had fled to Gittaim and were living there as strangers to this day (v. 3). The text does not say clearly why they fled. We may take the account of their flight as told ahead of time, and conclude that it did not actually happen until after David passed judgment on these murderers. At that point all the Beerothites seem to have taken fright and fled to Gittaim.
One writer weighs a possible motive, then refuses to press it:
Saul had tried to kill these Gibeonites, in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 21:1-2), and he did kill some of them. We do not know whether Beeroth suffered at that time... It is quite natural to put these things together, and to think that the brothers may have held a special hatred for Saul's house because of it. But the history gives no plain proof of any such link.
Their whole plan rested on a picture of David that did not exist. An Amalekite had already been taught that lesson, and one writer is struck that nobody learned from it:
How little unbelief ever learns! You would think the men of Israel who heard how the king felt would have remembered the lesson the Amalekite was taught. But unbelief does not know God, and it cannot recognize those who are His. So it makes itself unable to value the ways of faith and love. That is why all of this was lost on them.
The same failure explains why the whole town ran:
If they had known David, they would have run to him for refuge instead and trusted themselves to his grace. This is how the world treats the Lord Jesus. The world cannot trust a heart it does not know, and it fears His judgment, so it would rather run away than come near Him.
David got the throne, and murderers cleared the path. So what does God do with a crime like that?
This history shows us that God uses everything to carry out His purposes of grace toward David: Abner, Joab, Rechab and Baanah. He does not approve of them, but His providence makes even evil itself help His ways forward. God will judge evil, yet it will have served to advance His plans.
But God's use of a crime did not make the crown safe to take:
But David might have argued like this: God has allowed this murder, so in His providence He is giving me the throne, and I am free to take it from the hands of these murderers. He would have been wrong. God's providence may put us in a situation that tests our faith, so that we refuse to accept what is placed in front of us.
- Place. Beeroth was a Gibeonite town counted as part of Benjamin. That was Saul's tribe, so the killers came from inside the rival house.
- Position. They were captains of raiding bands under Ish-bosheth. They served him two years, then sold him.
- Possible motive. Saul had killed some Gibeonites. A grudge is a natural guess, but the text gives no proof.
- Misjudgment. Their whole plan assumed David was as wicked as they were. Unbelief cannot read a heart of grace.
- Verdict. God's providence used their crime. David still refused a crown from the hands of murderers, and judged them.
And the Beerothites had fled to Gittaim, and were sojourners there until this day.
The account of Ish-bosheth's murder pauses over a whole town on the move: the men of Beeroth had left home and were living as foreigners in Gittaim. The verse gives no reason and no date, yet it tells us where the killers of the next verses came from, and leaves one question open — what were these people running from?
The name in this verse carries a history older than Saul's kingdom. A dictionary entry traces its beginning to the days of Joshua.
One of the four cities of the Hivites that tricked Joshua into making a peace treaty. It was given to Benjamin (Joshua 9:17; Joshua 18:25). The people of the city were called Beerothites.
Another writer notes which tribe the town sat in, and whose side that tribe was on.
Beeroth was a city of the Gibeonites with whom the people of Israel had once made a covenant (Joshua 9). Beeroth counted as part of Benjamin (2 Sam. 4:2), the tribe of Saul, David's bitter enemy.
One writer connects the flight with Saul's attack on the Gibeonite towns, then tests his own suggestion.
Baanah and Rechab, the men who killed Ishbosheth, were Beerothites. So they belonged to one of those Canaanite cities that had joined with Gibeon and made peace with Israel by a trick. Saul had tried to kill these people, in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 21:1-2), and he did kill some of them. We do not know whether Beeroth suffered at that time. But we do learn here that for some reason "the Beerothites fled to Gittaim," and were still living there as strangers. It is quite natural to put these things together, and then to think that the brothers may have had a special hatred of Saul's house because of it. But if so, the history gives no plain proof of such a connection.
Another reading puts the flight after the events of this chapter rather than before it, so the verse looks ahead instead of back.
The record does not state the cause of their flight, but it sets this event beside Baanah and Rechab, the sons of a Beerothite. We may conclude that the account of their flight looks ahead, and that the flight did not take place until after David passed judgment on these murderers. At that time all the Beerothites appear to have taken fright and fled to Gittaim.
On that second reading, the whole town moved because of what it assumed about the new king.
This happened because these men did not know David. They thought the king wanted revenge, and that he would take it by holding them all responsible for the murder that two men of Beeroth had committed. If they had known David, they would have run to him for refuge instead and trusted themselves to his grace. This is the attitude of the world toward the Lord Jesus. The world cannot trust a heart it does not know, and it fears His judgment, so it would rather run away than come near Him.
David's own answer to the murderers shows how wrong that fear was.
David does not accept what they offer. He is holy in his ways, so he judges the evil, hates it, and keeps himself apart from it.
The verse leaves them still strangers in Gittaim when the account was written. Another writer dates their move to the time of Abner's death, and follows Gittaim into Israel's later history.
The place the Beerothites fled to when Abner died. People lived there again after the return from exile (2 Sam. 4:3; Neh. 11:33).
One writer also draws meaning from the name of the town they left.
We have already met Beeroth among the cities of Benjamin (Joshua 18:25), and took the name as a picture of the "wells of salvation" from which the redeemed "draw water with joy."
- Covenant — Beeroth was one of the Hivite towns that tricked Joshua into a peace treaty. It was later counted with Benjamin, Saul's own tribe.
- Cause — Scripture gives no reason for the flight. One writer ties it to Saul's killing of Gibeonites, yet admits the history gives no plain proof. Another puts the flight after David's judgment in this chapter.
- Fear — On that second reading, the town ran because it assumed the king would punish everyone for what two men did.
- Failure — Had they known David's heart, they would have come to him for refuge instead of running. The same mistake keeps the world away from Christ.
- Fallout — Long afterward they were still strangers in Gittaim. Fear of a king they had never met cost them their home, and that king was the one who judged the crime as evil.
And Jonathan Saul's son had a son that was lame of [his] feet. He was five years old when the news came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jizreel; and his nurse took him up and fled. And it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth.
The verse stops the story of Saul's fallen house to tell about a five-year-old boy. His nurse ran with him when the news came from Jezreel, and the fall that followed says more about fear and grace than about thrones.
The verse interrupts the narrative to reach back years, to the day the news came from Jezreel of Saul and Jonathan's deaths on Mount Gilboa.
In verse 4 a note is inserted to tell of Saul having another son, Mephibosheth, who had become lame on both feet when his nurse had dropped him in her haste to escape when she heard of the death of Saul and Jonathan. The boy was five years old at this time. We shall hear of David's kindness to him a little later (ch. 9).
The nurse ran because of what she assumed about David.
Why did she run? Why did that nurse pick up that five-year-old child and run away? She reasoned about David just as man reasons about God. She judged what David would do to Saul's descendants, his offspring, by what Saul had done to David... She knew that Saul hated David. So she concluded that David would hate Saul, and would hate all of Saul's offspring... She took the child away from anger, as she supposed, and in her haste she dropped him. He was injured, and crippled for life.
She had every reason to do the opposite.
David had heard of the death of Saul and Jonathan, and had mourned and grieved over them. Still, it never enters this poor woman's mind that he might not take vengeance on his friend's son. She runs away instead of running to the man who had sworn to Jonathan, and even to Saul, that he would not wipe out their descendants. She does not trust David's love and sure word, just as sinners do not trust the grace and word of Christ. The result was that Mephibosheth "fell and became lame." David finds him later, hurt and lame because of this woman's lack of faith.
The lameness was not something the boy chose or earned. It came by a fall, and writers read it as a picture of the whole human condition.
Mephibosheth is a picture of the sinner and the condition he is in. He was helpless, lame in both feet. This verse tells us how he became lame. He fell and became lame, a helpless cripple. It reminds us of the fall of man and the helpless condition sin has put man in. So he could not come to David. Someone had to carry him into the king's presence. The sinner cannot come to the Saviour by himself; He has to seek him out.
He carried two problems at once. He was heir to the man who hated David, and his own feet had failed him.
Mephibosheth stood as the representative and heir of a great enemy and wrongdoer, and he was lame on both his feet. His condition is the exact picture of every man's moral condition by nature. Now look at where he lived. He lived in "Lo-debar," which means "no pasture." The world is a real Lo-debar for us all. It holds nothing that can satisfy our highest needs.
The verse closes by naming him, and the name itself has been read as a confession.
Mephibosheth belongs to the house of Saul, who failed. Yet he is the son of Jonathan, whose name means "Jehovah has given." That name reminds us that God never takes back His call and His gifts. He still calls the "weak things of the world" — yes, the low, the despised, and "things that are not." So the man out of whose mouth comes the confession of his "shame" is still Mephibosheth, the heir of the covenant of grace.
Later David learned that this lame man was alive. To a king, he looked useless.
"Lame on his feet!" This showed Mephibosheth's inability and helplessness. He had done nothing to deserve the king's favour, for until that moment David did not know he was alive... What use, then, could he be to David? The greatest use. He was just the right man for David at that moment. True, he could do nothing to earn the king's favour. His link with Jonathan marked him out as suited for it, and his lameness made him only more fit for it. He could be of great service, for he could be proof to all Israel of the grace in the king's heart.
- Fear — The nurse ran from a king who had sworn to spare Jonathan's family. She judged David by Saul's hatred instead of by his own word.
- Fall — Her flight, not any enemy, crippled the boy. Mistrust of a king's promise did the damage.
- Helplessness — Lame on both feet, he could not come to David. Someone had to carry him in.
- Lo-debar — He lived in a "place of no pasture," a world that feeds no one, far from the king who meant him no harm.
- Grace — His name confesses shame, yet his lameness became the very thing that showed David's kindness to all Israel.
And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went and came in about the heat of the day into the house of Ishbosheth, who was taking his noonday rest.
Ish-bosheth was Saul's surviving son. Abner, the commander of Saul's army, had put him on the throne, and Abner's death left him with nothing to hold him up. Two of his own officers now come to his door in the heat of the day. The question is not only why they killed him, but why he was so easy to kill.
The two men were not strangers forcing their way in. They came with an errand no one would question.
The two brothers, Rechab and Baanah, came at noon to the house of Ish-bosheth, who was lying on a bed. Pretending to be coming for wheat, they had easy access to the house. They stabbed Ish-bosheth "under the fifth rib." He was the third to die this way in a short time. Then they cut off his head and escaped, carrying it with them (vs.5-7). It was a long trip from Mahanaim to Hebron, and it took the rest of the day and all night. Perhaps they thought it was worth it, but things did not work out as they had planned.
("Under the fifth rib" is an older phrase for a stab to the stomach.)
The two men were betting on who would win. Their bet rested on a reading of David's character, and they read him wrong.
Two men, however, were captains of bands in Ish-bosheth's army. They saw an attractive opportunity at this time. They could clearly see that David would come out on top, and they thought they could win David's favor by killing Ish-bosheth. But they acted on the false assumption that David was as wicked as they were. They were brothers, and from the tribe of Benjamin.
They had served the man they killed for two years. When they brought his head to David, they gave the killing a religious excuse.
They brought Ish-bosheth's head to David. They told him this was the head of the son of Saul, David's enemy, who had tried to kill him. They were cunning enough to bring the Lord's name into it as well, saying that the Lord had taken vengeance on the house of Saul. Yet they had remained servants to Ish-bosheth for two years after the death of Saul!
The verse says he was lying down at noon. One writer sees that habit as part of the reason he died.
Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, seems to have been a lazy man. At any rate he was resting in the middle of the day. And when he was lying on his bed at noon, two men rushed upon him, and assassinated him. If he had been up doing some useful work as a king's son, he might have lived longer. Laziness is a great enemy.
Underneath the sleep lay a deeper weakness. Ish-bosheth had built everything on one man. When that man was gone, the whole thing fell.
Ish-bosheth could not do without human strength. When Abner was murdered, Ish-bosheth's hands grew weak and all Israel was in turmoil (v. 1). The son of Saul had "a great man" to hold up his throne, and everything collapsed when that support failed him. It was not so with David. Experience had taught him the value of man and the value of God. When every natural support fails, even the one God Himself gave, we find ourselves in complete weakness. This is a lesson we must learn, because as Christians we often build our confidence on foundations that can be shaken. Then our faith is tested, and the question becomes whether God is enough for us.
The murder opened David's way to the throne. David refused the help it offered.
By murdering Ish-bosheth, Rechab and Baanah clear a path for David to the throne. This raises the question whether he had the right to take advantage of the situation... Here he understands two things. He cannot use the human help on offer. He must also refuse it, because Satan is the one offering it. This is what we must do too when the world offers to help us.
God approved of none of these men. Yet one writer sees their crimes serving an end none of them chose.
This history shows us that God uses everything to carry out His purposes of grace toward David: Abner, Joab, Rechab and Baanah. He disapproves of them, of course, but in His providence even evil itself helps to advance His ways. God will judge evil, but it will have served to advance His purposes. Is not the cross the supreme proof of the way He works?
- Propped — Ish-bosheth's throne rested on one man. When Abner was gone, it all collapsed.
- Asleep — he rested at noon with no work to do, and that made him easy to reach.
- Betrayed — his own captains served him two years. They killed him when David looked like the winner.
- Refused — David would not take a crown handed to him by murderers. He saw the offer as Satan's.
- Overruled — God disapproved of every actor in the story, yet used the whole of it to advance His purpose for David.
And they came thither into the midst of the house, [as though] they would fetch wheat; and they smote him in the belly; and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.
Abner is dead, and Saul's son Ish-bosheth has lost his one strong support. At noon two of his own officers walk in as if to collect grain, kill him on his bed, and expect David to thank them for it.
A supply errand was the perfect cover. It got the two men past the door while their master rested. (Where the ESV says they stabbed him "in the stomach," older translations read "under the fifth rib.")
The two brothers, Rechab and Baanah, came at noon to the house of Ish-bosheth, who was lying on a bed. Pretending to be coming for wheat, they had easy access to the house. They stabbed Ish-bosheth "under the fifth rib" — the third man killed this way in a short time — then cut off his head and escaped, carrying it with them.
These were not strangers. They were officers in Ish-bosheth's own army, and they judged David by themselves.
Abner's death left Ish-bosheth helpless, and all Israel confused and troubled. Two men who were captains of bands in Ish-bosheth's army saw an attractive opportunity at this time. They could see that David would gain the upper hand, and they thought they could gain David's favor by killing Ish-bosheth. But they acted on the false assumption that David was as wicked as they were.
One writer sees a possible older grudge behind the murder, then admits the record does not prove it.
Baanah and Rechab, who killed Ishbosheth, were Beerothites. So their town was one of those Canaanite cities that had joined with Gibeon, and, like Gibeon, had made peace with Israel by a trick. Saul had tried to kill these people in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 21:1-2), and had in fact killed some… It is quite natural to put these facts together. Then we can understand that the brothers may have had a special hatred for Saul's house because of it. But if so, the history gives no plain proof of that connection.
The murder cleared David's last rival away from the throne. That made the moment a test, not a gift.
By murdering Ishbosheth, Rechab and Baanah clear a path for David to the throne. This raises a question: did he have the right to take advantage of the situation?… Here he understands two things. He cannot use the human help men are offering him, and he must also refuse it, because Satan is the one offering it. This is what we must do too when the world offers to help us.
These men were not the first to misjudge the king's heart. The earlier lesson taught them nothing.
The murderers brought the head of Ish-bosheth to David at Hebron. They told the king they had brought him the head of Saul's son, his enemy, who had sought his life… How little unbelief ever learns! You would have thought the lesson taught to the Amalekite would be remembered… But unbelief does not know God and cannot recognize those who are His. So it makes itself unable to appreciate the ways of faith and of love.
David's sentence fell on the very parts of them that had done the work.
David's men killed them, then cut off their hands and feet and hung them up over the pool in Hebron. Their hands had been quick to shed blood, and their feet had been quick to finish this evil by bringing their master's head to David. They hung them up, probably to declare David's horror at their evil act and to warn anyone tempted to use tactics like theirs.
The chapter ends with David nearer the throne through a crime he punished. Both things are true at once.
This history shows us that God uses everything to carry out His purposes of grace toward David: Abner, Joab, Rechab and Baanah. He disapproves of them, certainly, but His providence makes even evil itself help His ways forward. God will judge evil, yet it will have served to advance His plans.
- Pretext — A wheat errand got them inside. Ordinary business is the oldest cover for treachery.
- Miscalculation — They judged David by themselves. They brought him a head and expected a reward.
- Refusal — David would not take a throne from murderers' hands. He saw Satan behind the offer and refused it.
- Judgment — David hung their hands and feet over the pool in Hebron as a public warning.
- Providence — God advanced His purpose through their crime and still condemned it. He may use evil; we never may.
They came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, and they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him; and they took his head, and went by the way of the plain all night.
Two of Ish-bosheth's own captains kill their master in his bed, cut off his head, and carry it to David through the night. That crime ends the long war between Saul's house and David's house, and it raises the question of the chapter: may David take a crown from murderers?
The two killers had an excuse to get into the house, and a long road out of it.
The two brothers, Rechab and Baanah, came at noon to the house of Ish-bosheth, who was lying on a bed. Pretending to be coming for wheat, they had easy access to the house. They stabbed Ish-bosheth "under the fifth rib" — the third man killed this way in a short time. Then they cut off his head and escaped, carrying it with them. It was a long trip from Mahanaim to Hebron, taking the rest of the day and all night. Perhaps they thought it was worth it, but things did not work out as they had planned.
(That is the older wording; the ESV says simply that they struck him.)
The beheading was not a legal punishment. It had a different purpose.
This was not a form of capital punishment in the Old Testament. His murderers cut off Ish-bosheth's head so they could carry it to David, just as Goliath's head had once been carried to Saul.
The verse gives no motive for the murder. Some have looked for one in where the brothers came from.
Baanah and Rechab, the killers of Ish-bosheth, came from Beeroth, one of the Canaanite cities that had made peace with Israel by a trick. Saul had tried to kill these people in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah, and had in fact killed some... It is natural to put these things together, and to think the brothers may have had a special hatred for Saul's house because of it. But the history gives no plain proof of such a link. If it were so, Joab's unpunished deed might have encouraged theirs.
Their crime was a calculation. It rested on a mistake about David.
They could plainly see that David would gain the ascendancy, and they thought they could gain David's favour by killing Ish-bosheth. But they acted on the false assumption that David was as wicked as they were.
The killers expected a welcome. An earlier case should have told them otherwise.
How little unbelief ever learns! You would think the men of Israel who heard how the king felt would have remembered the lesson the Amalekite was taught. But unbelief does not know God, and it cannot recognise those who are His. So it is unfit to value the ways of faith and love, and all of it was lost on them.
David saw a different hand behind his rise.
He acknowledges the Lord's gracious help in the past and his present confidence in Him. He had left his case in the Lord's hands. In the horrible deed of the two captains the king did not see the Lord stepping in for him. He looked on them as murderers.
Ish-bosheth died because the one man holding him up was gone. The contrast with David is the lesson of the chapter.
The arm of flesh was indispensable to Ish-bosheth. When Abner was murdered, Ish-bosheth's hands grew weak and all Israel was troubled. Saul's son had leaned on "a great man" to hold up his throne, and everything collapsed when that support was gone. Such was not the case with David... This is a lesson we must learn. As Christians we often place our confidence in foundations that can be shaken.
Once again a crime puts a crown within David's reach.
Satan, the tempter, is not discouraged in his evil work against the Lord's anointed. Beaten back the first time, he is not afraid to attack again. In 2 Samuel 1 he had offered the crown to David through an Amalekite. By human thinking it would have been natural to accept it. But David cannot accept any gift at all from the hand of an enemy.
God may use such crimes for His own ends. That does not let anyone copy them.
And now, if God uses these means, do I have the right to use them? In no way, for God is sovereign and I am not. He may make use of evil, even of Satan himself, as He will; I am a creature, dependent upon Him, and I must obey.
- Prop — Ish-bosheth leaned on one strong man. When Abner fell, his throne fell too.
- Pretext — the brothers came as if for wheat, struck a man on his bed, and carried his head off as proof.
- Presumption — they assumed David was as wicked as they were. The Amalekite's lesson should have warned them.
- Providence — God may use even evil to reach His ends. He is sovereign; we are not.
- Path — David refused a crown from an enemy's hand. Faith obeys instead of grabbing the opening.
And they brought the head of Ishbosheth to David in Hebron, and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul, thine enemy who sought thy life; and Jehovah has given to my lord the king to be avenged this day of Saul and of his seed.
Two men crept into Ish-bosheth's house while he slept and killed him. They carried his head to David at Hebron and laid it down as though God Himself had arranged it. Their words raise the question this chapter turns on. Does God need a crime to keep His promises? Will the king He chose take a throne handed to him by murderers?
These brothers came from a town with its own reasons to hate Saul's house. One writer offers the link as a possible motive, not a proven one.
Baanah and Rechab, the killers of Ishbosheth, were men of Beeroth. So their town was one of those Canaanite cities that had first allied with Gibeon, and had made peace with Israel by fraud along with it. Saul had tried to kill these people, in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 21:1-2), and had in fact killed some... It is quite natural to put these things together. If so, the brothers may well have felt a special hatred toward Saul's house for this reason. But the history gives no plain proof of such a connection. If it were so, Joab's unpunished killing might have encouraged theirs.
They do not simply report a killing. They credit it to the Lord — and their own record exposes the claim.
They are cunning enough to bring the Lord's name into it as well. They say the Lord has taken vengeance on the house of Saul. Yet they had remained servants to Ish-bosheth for two years after the death of Saul!
The same writer explains what they got wrong about David.
They could see clearly that David would gain the upper hand. They thought killing Ish-bosheth would win them David's favour. But they acted on the false assumption that David was as wicked as they were.
Someone had already learned the hard way how David takes news like this. One writer sees their failure to learn from it as the mark of unbelief.
How little unbelief ever learns! You would think the men of Israel who heard how the king felt would have remembered the lesson David taught the Amalekite. But unbelief does not know God and cannot recognise those who are His. So it makes itself unfit to appreciate the ways of faith and of love, and everything was lost on them... What can be finer than this? Here was a man who was a rival, and this without cause and without title. But faith is more than upright, and can readily afford to be generous.
David's reply names the real deliverer, and it is not the pair standing in front of him holding a head.
They claimed to be instruments of God in carrying out the wicked deed, expecting approval and a reward from David. But the king received them in a different way. Here David's trust in the Lord breaks through the dark clouds and shows the king's heart... He acknowledges the Lord's gracious help in the past and his present confidence in Him. His case had rested in the Lord's hands. In the horrible deed of the two captains the king did not see the Lord stepping in for him. He looked on them as murderers. Swift judgment fell on them... In all the evil deeds, the bloodshed and cold-blooded murders, he had no part. He acted in justice. In this at least he is a picture of Him who will reign over the earth in righteousness.
Their crime did clear David's road to the throne. That is why he refused it.
By murdering Ishbosheth, Rechab and Baanah clear a path for David to the throne. This raises the question whether he had the right to take advantage of the situation... Here he understands two things. He cannot use the human help being offered to him. He must also refuse it, because Satan is the one offering it. This is what we must do too when the world offers to help us.
David's hands stayed clean. So no one could call the kingdom his own achievement.
Now the Lord had clearly set aside these hindrances by His judgment. It stood all the firmer for David because David had no hand in it. David's hand was never lifted against Saul or Jonathan. David's hand never got rid of Abner nor of Ish-bosheth. But now God had worked in all these ways: by wicked men on David's side, by wicked men against him, and by the open enemies of the Lord. One after another He disposed of the men who laid claim to the throne.
- Claim — the two men dress up a murder as the Lord's vengeance and expect a reward. They judged David by themselves, and got him wrong.
- Cover — they served Ish-bosheth for two years. Their talk about the Lord only covered their ambition.
- Confidence — David credits his rescue to the Lord who redeemed his soul, not to a crime done in his name.
- Refusal — the help that opens the shortest road to the throne is the help David calls Satan's. Refuse the world's offers the same way.
- Crown — his hand never touched Saul, Abner or Ish-bosheth. So the kingdom came to him as God's gift, and in this he pictures the King who will reign in righteousness.
Then David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, [As] Jehovah liveth, who has redeemed my soul out of all distress,
Two of Ish-bosheth's own captains murder him in his bed. They cut off his head and carry it to David at Hebron, sure he will pay well for it. David's reply does not start with a verdict on them. It starts with an oath about God, the living LORD who has redeemed him out of every adversity. That confession decides everything that follows.
They expected David to agree that God had used them. He answers with an oath naming the One who really rescued him.
They claimed to be instruments of God in carrying out this wicked deed, expecting David's approval and a reward. But the king received them in a different way. Here David's trust in the LORD breaks through the dark clouds and shows the King's heart. "As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life out of every adversity." He acknowledges the Lord's gracious help in the past and his present confidence in Him. His case had rested in the LORD's hands. In the horrible deed of the two captains the King did not see the LORD stepping in for him. He looked on them as murderers.
The word "adversity" is not a throwaway. David had years of it, and the Psalms show what those years produced in him.
David could say, "I will be glad and rejoice in your steadfast love, for you have seen my affliction; you have known the distress of my soul" (Ps. 31:7). So his character was shaped on a divine pattern, one that the people around him did not always accept or understand (compare 2 Sam. 4:9-12 with 2 Sam. 19:16-23). Saul's great failure had been impulsiveness and disobedience. He could not wait.
If God has rescued him all along, David owes nothing to two murderers. The oath and the refusal belong together.
When the world offers me its services I refuse them, for I have to do with God. "As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life out of every adversity…" Such is the One in whom I trust. I will receive nothing from the world because I depend on the Lord.
David had met this mistake before, and these two men had learned nothing from it.
How completely men mistook the heart of the king… How little unbelief ever learns! You might have thought that the men of Israel who heard how the king felt would remember the lesson the Amalekite was taught. But unbelief does not know God, and it cannot recognise those who are His. So it makes itself unable to value the ways of faith and of love… Here was a man who was a rival, and a rival with no cause and no right to the throne. But faith is more than upright. It can easily afford to be generous.
David's refusal cost him nothing in the end, because the crown was never his to seize.
The Lord had now removed these different obstacles by His open judgment. And it stood all the firmer for David 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.
David's record through this whole period points beyond himself.
Through all the sad events since Abner had made Ish-bosheth king, David had maintained his integrity. In all the evil deeds, the bloodshed and cold-blooded murders, he had no part. He acted in justice. In this at least he is a picture of Him who will reign over the earth in righteousness.
- Redeemed. David's first word is not about the murderers but about God. The LORD has rescued him out of every adversity — past help and present confidence in one breath.
- Schooled. The adversity was not wasted; it shaped a character built on a divine pattern, unlike Saul, who could not wait.
- Refusing. He depends on the Lord, so he takes nothing from the world. That is why he turns down what these two men offer.
- Misjudged. Unbelief keeps misreading the king. These men judged David by themselves, and learned nothing from the Amalekite before them.
- Given. David never lifted a hand against Saul, Abner, or Ish-bosheth. God cleared the way, so the throne stood all the firmer under him.
when one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead! and he was in his own sight a messenger of good, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag -- to whom forsooth I should give a reward for his good tidings
Two men have murdered Saul's son in his bed. They cut off his head and carried it to Hebron, hoping David would pay them for clearing his path to the throne. David does not thank them. He answers with a memory — the day at Ziklag, when another man brought news he was sure would make him rich.
The two men expected thanks. They got a verdict instead.
David saw through their hard-hearted deceit and greed at once. He had no room for friends like these. He knew they could turn on him the way they had turned on Ish-bosheth, if the chance came. He told them it was the living Lord who had redeemed his life out of every trouble — not man's deceitful wickedness. Then David told them about the man who had brought him news of Saul's death. That man thought David would count it good news and reward him for it. Instead, David had him killed.
The man at Ziklag came with proof in his hands and a reward in mind.
He clearly thinks he is bringing good news. He carries the crown and the signet as proof it is true, and he expects this to win him some special reward from David, maybe even a position of honour. He could only think it would be an occasion for rejoicing. He tells of his part in Saul's death — truthfully, it seems, and possibly boasting — only to find his news met with mourning.
Commentators differ on whether the Amalekite killed Saul or invented the story. Either way, his calculation is plain:
The man was an opportunist. One wonders whether he had gone to the battlefield looking for a chance like this, ready to take advantage of it. If he had found Saul dead and told the truth about it, his end might have been different, but his lie incriminated him.
This had happened before, and the outcome was public. These two men should have known.
How little unbelief ever learns! The men of Israel had heard how the king felt. You would suppose they would remember the lesson taught to the Amalekite. But unbelief does not know God, and it cannot recognise those who are His. So it makes itself unfit to appreciate the ways of faith and of love, and it was all lost on them.
Twice men held out a crown to David. His answer the second time matched his answer the first.
He had refused the crown from the hand of the Amalekite; he will refuse it from the hand of Ish-bosheth's murderers.
There is a second reason David will not take this help.
Here he understands two things. He cannot use the help these men are offering him. He must also refuse it, because Satan is the one offering it. This is what we must do too when the world offers to help us.
The Ziklag execution is the lesser case. David argues from it upward to what these two deserve.
"How much more," he adds, "when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed." Their guilt was worse than the other man's. So David would rightly require Ish-bosheth's blood from them and take their life from the earth. His young men did more than kill them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung them up over the pool in Hebron. Their hands had been quick to shed blood. Their feet had been quick to finish the evil by carrying their master's head to David. David likely displayed them to show his horror at what they had done, and to warn off anyone tempted to use tactics like theirs.
David never seized the throne. No crime of his own opened the way to it.
David never lifted his hand against Saul or Jonathan. David's hand never got rid of Abner or of Ish-bosheth. But now God had worked in all these different ways. He worked through wicked men who were with David, through wicked men against him, and through the open enemies of the Lord. One after another, He disposed of the men who laid claim to the throne.
- Redeemed — David credits his rescue to the living Lord who brought him through every trouble. He does not credit the schemers in front of him.
- Remembered — He meets a new crime with an old verdict. The man at Ziklag expected a reward for his news. David had him killed instead.
- Refused — A crown from an Amalekite, then a crown from murderers. David turned both down, because Satan was behind the offer. We must do the same when the world offers to help us.
- Repaid — Ziklag was the lighter case. Killing a righteous man on his own bed brought a heavier sentence. David displayed their hands and feet as a warning.
- Received — David's hand never removed Saul, Abner, or Ish-bosheth. God cleared the throne Himself. So David could take it with clean hands.
how much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? and should I not now demand his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth?
David's answer to the two men holding Ish-bosheth's head is not gratitude but a death sentence. His answer raises three questions: how could a king call his rival righteous, why refuse a throne handed to him for free, and what does it mean that God let a crime clear his path?
David's rival had no rightful claim to the throne. Yet David calls him a righteous man. One writer sees the measure of David's heart in that word:
What can be finer than this? Here was a man who was a rival, and that too without cause and without any title. But faith is more than upright, and can readily afford to be generous... It was not that David shut his eyes to anything that was wrong. He did not mean that Ish-bosheth was righteous in everything, least of all in disputing the throne God had given to David. But he did not forget his life and general character, despite the grave mistake that set him against David and proved fatal to Ish-bosheth himself.
Rechab and Baanah were Ish-bosheth's own officers. They misread the king, because they measured him by themselves:
Abner's death left Ish-bosheth helpless, and all Israel troubled and confused (v.1). But two men saw an attractive opportunity here. They were captains of troops in Ish-bosheth's army. They could see that David would come out on top, and they thought they could win David's favour by killing Ish-bosheth. But they acted on the false assumption that David was as wicked as they were.
The brothers claimed the Lord had avenged David that day. David's reply in verse 9 names his real Deliverer, and in doing so refuses their reading of events:
They claimed to be instruments of God in carrying out the wicked deed, expecting approval and a reward from David. But the king received them in a different way. Here David's trust in the LORD breaks through the dark clouds and reveals the king's heart: "As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity." He acknowledges the Lord's gracious help in the past, and his present confidence in Him. His case had rested in the LORD's hands. In the horrible deed of the two captains the king did not see the LORD stepping in for him. He looked on them as murderers.
Their crime handed David the whole kingdom at no cost. He would not take it that way:
Two wicked and criminal men murder Saul's son, whom David himself calls "a righteous man" (v. 11). Baanah and Rechab bring Ishbosheth's head to the king. By their crime they open the way for him to reign over all Israel... Instead of accepting their offer, David, holy in his ways, judges the evil, hates it, and separates himself from it.
David could have argued that since God's providence had removed his rival, he was free to accept what providence had handed him. The same writer separates what God does from what I am permitted to do:
This history shows us that God uses everything to carry out His plans of grace toward David: Abner, Joab, Rechab and Baanah. He disapproves of them, of course, but His providence makes even evil itself serve His ways. God will judge evil, but it will have served to advance His purposes. Is not the cross the supreme proof of the way He works?
And now, if God uses these means, do I have the right to use them? In no way, for God is sovereign and I am not. He may use evil, even Satan himself, as He wills. I am a creature, dependent on Him, and I must obey... When the world offers me its services I refuse them, for I have to do with God.
David weighs their guilt against an earlier case, and makes their punishment public:
"How much more," he adds, "when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed." Their guilt was worse than that of the other man. So he would rightly require the blood of Ish-bosheth from them by taking their life from the earth. In this case the young men did not only kill them. They also cut off their hands and feet and hung them up over the pool in Hebron. Their hands had been swift to shed blood. Their feet had been swift to finish this evil by boldly carrying their master's head to David. They were likely hung up to declare David's horror at their evil act, and to warn anyone tempted to use tactics like theirs.
- Their hand — two officers killed a helpless man in his bed and expected thanks. They judged David by their own wickedness.
- God's hand — David credits the Lord who redeemed his soul out of all adversity, not a knife in the dark.
- The offered hand — crime opened the way to the whole kingdom, and David refused to take it from such hands.
- The refusing hand — God may use evil to advance His purposes. We are creatures under orders, and we must keep clear of it.
- The judging hand — David required blood from the men who shed it. He displayed their punishment in public, as horror at the crime and as a warning.
And David commanded his young men, and they slew them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged [them] up over the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron.
Two men had just boasted to David that they killed Saul's son in his bed and brought his head to Hebron. The closing verse gives his answer, and it raises a hard question: why destroy the men who cleared his way to the throne?
The two killers were making a calculation, and all of it rested on a wrong reading of David.
Abner's death left Ish-bosheth helpless and all Israel confused and troubled. But two men, who were captains of bands in Ish-bosheth's army, saw an attractive opportunity. They could see that David would come out on top, and they thought they could win David's favour by killing Ish-bosheth. But they acted on the false assumption that David was as wicked as they were.
They were not the first to misread David. Israel had seen the same mistake punished before.
How little unbelief ever learns! You would think the men of Israel who heard how the king felt would have remembered the lesson taught to the Amalekite. But unbelief does not know God and cannot recognise those who are His. So it makes itself unfit to appreciate the ways of faith and of love.
David had called the murdered man righteous, even though Ish-bosheth had held the throne against him.
Faith is more than upright, and can easily afford to be generous. David did not mean that Ish-bosheth was righteous in everything, least of all in disputing the throne God had given to David himself. But he did not forget the man's life and general character just because of the grave mistake that set him against David and proved fatal to him.
The death sentence that followed was not a burst of temper. David held office, and the verse shows him using it.
David's act at the end of this chapter was according to God's mind. David had authority, and he was responsible to use it in holiness and righteousness, so that this terrible punishment would serve as an example.
The mutilation looks pointless until you see which body parts David chose, and what those parts had done.
Their hands had been quick to shed blood, and their feet had been quick to finish this evil by boldly carrying their master's head to David. They were probably hung up to declare how strongly David hated their evil act, and to warn anyone tempted to use tactics like theirs. Ish-bosheth's head was buried in Abner's grave.
The same verse that shames the guilty also honours the victim.
The crime cleared David's last rival. That made it a test, not a gift.
By murdering Ish-bosheth, Rechab and Baanah clear a path for David to the throne. Did he have the right to take advantage of the situation? ... Here he understands that he cannot use the human help being offered to him. He must also refuse it, because Satan is the one offering it. This is what we must do too when the world offers to help us.
Someone else's crime had removed every obstacle in David's way. That pattern says something about God, and something different about us.
This history shows us that God uses everything to carry out His purposes of grace toward David: Abner, Joab, Rechab and Baanah. He does disapprove of them, but His providence makes even evil itself help His ways forward. God will judge evil, yet it will have served to advance His purposes. Is not the cross the supreme proof of the way He works?
If God uses these means, do I have the right to use them? In no way. God is sovereign and I am not. He may use evil, even Satan himself, as He wills. I am a creature, dependent on Him, and I must obey.
David destroyed the men who cleared his path. So no one could say he bought the crown with blood he had spilled.
Now the Lord had clearly set aside these different obstacles by His judgment. He had made David's position all the more secure, because it was not done by David. David's hand was never lifted against Saul or Jonathan. David's hand never got rid of Abner or Ish-bosheth.
Commentators also read the story forward. Through a history full of murder, David's record stays clean:
In all the evil deeds, the bloodshed and cold-blooded murders he had no part. He acted in justice. In this at least he is a type of Him who will reign over the earth in righteousness.
- Misread. The brothers assumed David was as wicked as they were, and they died of that assumption.
- Refused. The crime opened his road to the throne, and he treated the help as coming from Satan, not from God.
- Judged. He held authority, so he had to use it in holiness and righteousness. He made the punishment public as a warning.
- Sovereign. God may use evil to advance His purposes, and the cross is the supreme proof. But He alone may. We must obey.
- Clean. Every rival fell without David's hand. The kingdom came to him by God's judgment — the mark of the King who will reign in righteousness.