Why did Abner make Ish-bosheth king over Israel in 2 Samuel 2:9? Historical Background After King Saul’s death on Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31), the nation faced a leadership vacuum. Judah immediately anointed David at Hebron (2 Samuel 2:4), fulfilling the LORD’s word spoken through Samuel (1 Samuel 16:1–13). Yet most northern and trans-Jordanian tribes still identified with Saul’s house. Into that gap stepped Abner, Saul’s cousin and long-standing commander of the army (1 Samuel 14:50–51). His decision in 2 Samuel 2:9 to install Ish-bosheth as king must be read against: (1) clan loyalty within Benjamin; (2) inter-tribal rivalry between Judah and the rest of Israel; (3) Abner’s personal standing as the foremost surviving military figure. Abner’S Political Calculus Abner “strengthened his own position in the house of Saul” (2 Samuel 3:6). By elevating a comparatively weak son of Saul, he preserved his influence as de facto ruler. The location chosen—Mahanaim, east of the Jordan—kept the new court beyond Philistine reach and outside Judah’s natural arena, further cementing Abner’s military indispensability. Preserving The Saulide Legacy Benjaminites shared clan honor in Saul’s reign; abandoning that dynasty would appear traitorous. Abner safeguarded family prestige, believing continuity would steady the tribes still mourning Saul. Ish-bosheth (also called Ish-baal, 1 Chronicles 8:33) was Saul’s last viable adult son; crowning him symbolically declared that Saul’s line had not been extinguished. Tribal And Regional Dynamics 2 Samuel 2:9 lists Gilead, the Ashurites, Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and “all Israel.” These regions formed an arc north and east of Judah. Anointing David in Judah alone risked fracturing national unity; Abner’s move rallied those regions around a central figure they perceived as one of their own rather than the Judean David who had once sought refuge among Philistines (1 Samuel 27). Divine Promise Vs. Human Ambition Abner already knew of God’s oath to give the kingdom to David (2 Samuel 3:9–10). His earlier choice therefore represents conscious resistance to divine revelation—an echo of Israel’s earlier demand for a king “like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5). Scripture consistently shows the LORD using even wrong motives to advance His purposes (Proverbs 19:21). Abner’s later repentance and alliance with David (2 Samuel 3:17–21) highlight God’s supremacy over human scheming. Consequences Of Abner’S Decision The rival monarchies sparked a protracted conflict (2 Samuel 3:1), cost hundreds of lives (2 Samuel 2:30–31), and delayed the consolidation of God’s chosen king. Abner’s assassination by Joab (2 Samuel 3:27) and Ish-bosheth’s murder by opportunists (2 Samuel 4) demonstrate how reliance on human maneuvering breeds instability, whereas David’s refusal to grasp the throne by force illustrates faith in God’s timing. Archaeological Corroboration Of The Narrative 1. Tel Dan Stele (9th century BC) references the “House of David,” validating a dynastic transition exactly like the one Abner resisted. 2. A mid-10th-century inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa (reported 2015) records the name “Esh-baal,” the identical Hebrew form behind “Ish-bosheth,” showing the name’s circulation in the relevant era. 3. The administrative center at Mahanaim has been tentatively identified with Tell ed-Dahab el-Gharbi on the Jabbok River, matching the biblical description of a fortified trans-Jordanian city suited for Abner’s purposes. Practical And Theological Lessons • God’s promises stand despite human resistance; submission to His revealed will brings stability. • Leadership divorced from obedience breeds conflict; servant-leadership grounded in divine calling yields peace. • Tribalism, favoritism, and self-interest remain perennial dangers in any community, secular or ecclesial. Summary Answer Abner installed Ish-bosheth to preserve his own power, uphold Benjamite-Saulide prestige, and rally non-Judean tribes, even though he knew God had chosen David. His choice reflects human ambition colliding with divine decree, setting the stage for conflict that ultimately showcased the LORD’s sovereign ability to fulfill His word. |
    |