Why did Abner make Ish-bosheth king instead of supporting David as king over Israel? Historical Setting after Saul’s Death Israel in 1011 BC had no standing constitution beyond Mosaic law and prophetic word. Saul and three of his sons had just fallen to the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:1-6). The northern tribes were leaderless, demoralized, and encamped near enemy territory. David, by divine appointment, had meanwhile moved south to Hebron with the tribe of Judah (2 Samuel 2:1-4). Into this vacuum stepped Abner son of Ner, cousin and former commander of Saul (1 Samuel 14:50-51). Abner’s Personal Standing and Ambition As Saul’s general, Abner wielded national military authority and considerable patronage. Losing Saul threatened not only Israel’s cohesion but Abner’s career and clan honor. Installing Saul’s surviving son Ish-bosheth (“Man of Shame,” birth-name Esh-baal, 1 Chronicles 8:33) allowed Abner to: • preserve the Benjaminite royal line to which he was tied by blood; • retain command of the national army; • avert a Judah-first monarchy under David that might sideline Benjamin. Josephus notes Abner’s sway in summoning the elders (Antiquities VII.1.2), confirming that the move originated with Abner, not the tribes. Tribal Realities and Geography Philistine garrisons dotted the Coastal Plain, and Amalekites raided the Negev. The northern tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin needed a rallying point east of Philistine reach. Mahanaim, east of the Jordan, supplied defensible terrain and distance (2 Samuel 2:8). David, by contrast, had relocated to Hebron in the heart of Judah, historically at odds with some northern clans (cf. Judges 8:1). Inadequate Recognition of David’s Divine Anointing Samuel had anointed David years earlier (1 Samuel 16:13). Jonathan and even Saul later acknowledged this (1 Samuel 23:17; 24:20). Yet Scripture records no evidence that Abner personally heard the anointing account. Without accepting prophetic testimony, he fell back on dynastic custom: “a son follows a father.” Only after prolonged war did Abner concede, “The LORD has sworn to David to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul” (2 Samuel 3:9-10). His earlier ignorance, whether willful or uninformed, drove the initial refusal. Political Calculus versus Divine Revelation Abner’s decision juxtaposes two competing loyalties: 1. Covenant faithfulness to God’s revealed choice (David); 2. Feudal loyalty to house and tribe (Saul’s line). When these conflicted, Abner privileged the latter. Scripture elsewhere warns against such preference: “You shall not show partiality in judgment… you shall hear the small and the great alike” (Deuteronomy 1:17). Abner’s misalignment illustrates how human pragmatism can cloud obedience. Gradual Recognition and Repentance War dragged on “a long time” (2 Samuel 3:1). When Ish-bosheth accused Abner over Saul’s concubine Rizpah, Abner saw his position unravel (2 Samuel 3:6-11). He then negotiated with David, testifying, “God do so to Abner, and more also, if I do not accomplish for David what the LORD has sworn” (v. 9). This pivot shows that conscience and empirical evidence (David’s growing strength, defections recorded in 1 Chronicles 12:19-22) eventually forced alignment with God’s plan. Archaeological Corroboration of David’s Ascendancy The Tel Dan Stele (9th century BC) references “the House of David,” confirming a dynastic house existing soon after David’s lifetime. Unearthed Judean administrative bullae from Khirbet Qeiyafa (late 11th–early 10th century BC) attest to organized governance in Judah consistent with an emerging monarchy, reinforcing the plausibility that David possessed growing political infrastructure attractive to Abner once he abandoned Ish-bosheth. Theological Implications: Sovereignty and Human Freedom God’s decree concerning David was immutable (Psalm 89:20). Yet the narrative preserves genuine human responsibility—Abner could either cooperate early or resist and prolong conflict. Scripture maintains both truths: “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails” (Proverbs 19:21). Typological Echoes toward Christ David, the anointed yet initially rejected king, foreshadows Jesus, the greater Son of David. Israel’s leaders, like Abner, preferred established power structures over God’s Messiah (John 19:15). Yet God’s plan triumphed in resurrection glory, just as David ultimately reigned. Practical Lessons for Believers 1. Align promptly with God’s revealed will; delay births needless strife. 2. Nationalistic or tribal loyalties must yield to divine lordship. 3. Leadership decisions rooted in self-preservation invite eventual collapse. 4. God patiently works through human missteps to fulfill His overarching redemptive plan. Conclusion Abner’s installation of Ish-bosheth sprang from personal ambition, tribal allegiance, and incomplete or discounted revelation. The episode underlines God’s unthwarted sovereignty and beckons every reader to recognize the true Anointed—Christ Jesus—rather than any alternative human arrangement. |
    |