- 107-
others. After that he had entered into special negotiations with the tribe of Benjamin,
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 might 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 died.^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 not 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
(^)