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.