weakness in the past, and a lasting disgrace, that his wife Michal should be parted from him, and continue

the wife of another - a mere subject of the kingdom. Besides, as the husband of Saul's daughter, and as

recalling how he had obtained her hand, her restoration would place him on a manifest political vantage

ground. Accordingly David sent Abner this message in reply: "Well, I will make a covenant with thee; only

one thing I demand of thee, viz.: Thou shalt not see my face, unless thou before bringest Michal, the

daughter of Saul, when thou comest to see my face." But it would have ill become David to address such a

demand to Abner, except as all-powerful with Ish-bosheth, and therefore really responsible for his acts. The

formal demand was made to Ish-bosheth himself, and grounded on David's rights. The son of Saul

immediately complied - of course, under the direction of Abner, who himself executed the commission to

fetch her from her present husband, and restore her to David. The publicity with which this was done - the

husband being allowed to accompany her with his lamentations as far as the boundary of Judah - and the

influential character of the embassy, as well as the act of restoration itself, must have given to the whole

nation an idea of David's acknowledged position, and contributed to their speedy submissio n to his rule.

When Abner brought Michal to Hebron, at the head of an embassy of twenty men - whether sent by Ish-

bosheth, or coming as a sort of representative deputation from Israel - he had, with characteristic energy,

already taken all his measures. First he had assured himself of the co-operation of the tribal "elders," who

had long been weary of a nominal rule which left them defenseless against the Philistines and others. After

that he had entered into special negotiations with the tribe of Benjami n, which might naturally be jealous of

a transference of royalty from themselves to Judah. Having secured the consent of all, he was able to offer

to David the undivided allegiance of Israel. The king had favorably received Abner and his suite, and

entertained them at a great banquet. Already the embassy was on its way back to accomplish its mission,

when Joab and his men returned to Hebron from some raid, such as in the then circumstances of David

might still be necessary for the support of the troops. On learning what had passed in his absence, he made

his way to the king, and violently expostulated with him for not having acted treacherously towards his

guest. Abner had come bent on treachery, and he ought not to have been allowed to escape. We can

scarcely suppose that this pretense of zeal imposed upon any one, any more than afterwards, when he had

murdered Abner, that of having acted as avenger of blood. In both instances his motives, no doubt, were

envy, personal jealousy, and fear lest his position mi ght be endangered. As David gave him no

encouragement, he acted on his own responsibility, whether or not he used the name of David in so doing.

A swift messenger soon brought back Abner to Hebron. Joab, who had concerted his measures with

Abishai, his brother (ver. 30), met the unsuspecting victim "in the gate;" and taking him aside from the

pathway into the interior and darker roofed part, as if for some private communication, "slew" him by a

wound in "the abdomen," similar to that by which Asahel had d ied.251

As we understand it, the murderers would then turn round, and addressing the bystanders, declare that they

were justified, since they had acted as "avengers of blood." But that such plea could not be urged in this

instance must have been evident to all, since Abner's had been an act of self-defense, and certainly not

intentional murder (comp. Deuteronomy 4:42, etc.; Joshua 20). Abner, however, represented a low type of

Israelitish valor. If we were to credit his protestations (vers. 9, 10, 18) of desiring to carry out the Divine will

in the elevation of David, we should, of course, have to regard him as having previously acted in conscious

opposition to God, and that from the most selfish motives. But probably - put in an Oriental and Jewish

fashion - it meant no more than the thousand protestations of "God wills it" and the "Te Deums" which in all

ages of the world have covered human ambition with a garb of religiousness. But none the less foul and

treacherous was Joab's deed, and it behooved David n ot only to express his personal abhorrence of it, but

to clear himself of all suspicion of complicity. In this instance it was impossible for human justice to overtake

the criminals. Probably public feeling would not have supported the king; nor could he at this crisis in his

affairs afford the loss of such generals, or brave the people and the army. But David did all that was

possible. Those whom human justice could not overtake he left in the hands of Divine vengeance to mete

out the punishment appropriate to the inordinate desire after leadership which had prompted such a crime

(ver. 29).252