2 Samuel 1

2 Samuel 1:1-4

Subdivision 2. (2 Samuel 1:1-27; 2 Samuel 2:1-32; 2 Samuel 3:1-39; 2 Samuel 4:1-12.)The growth of David’s Kingdom. We have closed thus the story of David prior to his reception of the throne to which he was destined. We are now to see him in a new character, in which he becomes plainly the type of the One true King that is to be, -King not over Israel only, but to the ends of the earth. Here it will be no great wonder, however, if, while the general truth is clear, the details should be to us often obscure, if only from their very brightness. David is not, indeed, as we soon find, by any means a perfect reflection of the glory of Christ as King. We could not rightly expect him to be. Often he seems to show us, as in designed contrast, just those blots and disfigurements which would suggest the interpretation to be by opposite application to the Lord of glory.

Yet all this brings additional difficulty into it, if in the end it may tend, perhaps, as one may readily conceive, to fullness of vision. Assuredly we have, in any case, what the Spirit of God designs for our instruction, with the fullest command Of the material, we may be sure, which will fill out the picture. It is our privilege to inquire what the wisdom of God has given us in it, with the certainty that it is perfect wisdom. At the outset there seems a very serious difficulty, which, however, lessens as we take it to Scripture for a solution. All our views of Christ’s coming kingdom must, of course, be derived entirely from Scripture. We are not prophets, but simply interpreters of prophecy; and our partial understanding of this is apt to lead us into what we find afterwards to be in contradiction with other statements which we had known, yet overlooked. So, no doubt, it is here. Christ coming in the clouds of heaven, to set up His kingdom and glory over the earth, -with this we naturally associate the thought of rapid, almost instantaneous, action, all enemies at once put down by divine power exerted throughout all the world, all nations summoned at once before the bar of His judgment-seat: and to this last the separation of sheep and goats, as given in our Lord’s Own prophecy of His coming (Matthew 25:1-46), seems to give strong confirmation. But in this case the history presented here would be quite unintelligible.

With the setting aside of Saul, David by no means comes to an uncontested throne, nor is the opposition even in Israel at once put down. For seven years and a half he reigns at Hebron over Judah only. Another king of the house of Saul carries off the allegiance of the other tribes, until first his supporter Abner, and then himself, are cut off by the hand of violence. After this there are long wars with surrounding nations, making the reign of David an emphatic contrast to that of Solomon, who is himself the type of the “Prince of peace.” All this, at first, seems entirely against all correspondence between the history and the prophecy. But the cloud lifts measurably as we gaze upon it. It will be necessary, however, to take up in some detail the consideration of this subject, -all-important to the interpretation of the book in which we now are, and try to realize what Scripture teaches. And first, let us remember that, with all the strength of the divine hand, God’s dealings have been hitherto characterized by a patience which seems to us often extreme slowness. In the cherubic figures of the book of Revelation, which picture the features of the divine government over the earth, the slow ox succeeds the impetuous lion; and the order here and throughout seems to be corrective of the conceptions we might entertain from that which was earlier in the series. Power that cannot be turned aside (Prow. 30: 30) is what is indicated in the lion; and this is the first necessity for any true thought of government at all; but we should go far wrong if we supposed that this was the characteristic method in God’s governmental dealings, to leap at once to the end with one resistless spring. Thus, as I have said, the patient ox succeeds the lion. While the lion, moreover, would naturally suggest power hostile in character, the ox is the very type of the minister to man (1 Corinthians 9:8-10). Following this, again, “the face of a man” assures us that this apparent slowness is not unintelligent, but the contrary: it is God seeking to manifest Himself to us, as in humanity He has done, that we might have knowledge of His ways. It need not then surprise us if when the Lord acts even in such crises of judgment as when He appears in the clouds of heaven to judge the world, there should be nevertheless an entirely different procedure from what we might imagine. Again, let us remember, that prophecy, as it is foreseen, so it is foreshortened, history. The element of time is, perhaps, most of all what is absent from it, -except, of course, as to order of succession. The seventy weeks of Daniel are a conspicuous example of this, the seventieth being separated from the rest by a long gap of time, into which comes the whole present dispensation. In the passage which the Lord quotes in the synagogue of Nazareth (Isaiah 61:2), from the proclamation of “the acceptable year of the Lord,” with which he closes what was in that day fulfilled, the prophecy goes on without a break to “the day of vengeance of our God,” -not even yet come. And similarly the events of the New Testament dispensation were hidden from the prophets of the Old Testament (Matthew 13:35). That when the Lord comes again in the clouds of heaven it will be in visible glory, so that “every eye shall see him,” is pressed too far when it is taken to mean that He will then be visible to all the world. This the Lord Himself, by Isaiah, assures us: for after He has said that “the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire,” and “it shall come that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see my glory”; yet the prophecy goes on immediately to add, “And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, . . . to the isles afar off that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.” (Isaiah 66:15-19.) Thus we find that “every eye shall see Him” only intimates (what in connection with any other event it would be taken to intimate) a visible personal appearing of Christ, and not that the whole world will at that time see Him. And again, though He come in visible glory to set up His kingdom upon earth, we are not anywhere told, that I am aware, how far He may continue or continue to be seen upon the earth during His reign here. It is certain that over the land of Israel there is to be a “prince,” the laws for whose guidance are carefully given by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 44:1-31; Ezekiel 45:1-25; Ezekiel 46:1-24; Ezekiel 47:1-23; Ezekiel 48:1-35); and that the glory appears in the temple in the same manner as of old (Ezekiel 43:1-9). To come nearer to what is before us here, while there are judgments that are executed by the Lord personally when He comes (Isaiah 63:1-6; Zechariah 14:1-21; Revelation 19:15; Revelation 19:21), yet we read of Israel also in action, and of human wars in which they take possession of the lands destined for them (Jeremiah 51:20-24; Obadiah 1:18-21; Micah 5:7-9). After which, as it would appear, Gog with his great confederacy can still come up, not knowing with whom they are contending, and think to find the restored nation an easy prey (Ezekiel 38:1-23; Ezekiel 39:1-29). All this is very different from what our own thoughts would be of a kingdom such as is prophesied of in the hands of Him who has the “rod of iron.” Yet Scripture alone can be trusted to give us right thoughts in a matter like this, and we need do no more than point out the texts which decide very plainly what the truth is. They certainly enable us better to understand the typical application of this part of David’s reign, whether or not we may apprehend the details. To these we must now turn, believing that the promise given shall be fulfilled to us, “To him that knocketh it shall be opened.” In this first subdivision, then, we find David in possession only of part of a divided kingdom. We trace the growth of his power, spite of enemies and hindrances, until by the death of Ishbosheth the way is prepared for him to the throne of all Israel. During all this time (seven years and a half) his throne is in Hebron, that place of many and cherished memories, linked forever with the faith of his pilgrim fathers, from Abraham to Jacob. “Communion,” with all that it implies, must be the power of a kingdom; and it is not without meaning that here the tribes come up, Judah first and then united Israel, to make David king. Even the divine kingdom can only have its rightful character when God dwells among the praises (and necessarily united hearts) of His people. Here, also, we see why it is in. Judah that David begins his reign.

The spiritual meaning certainly holds here; and, indeed, is very easy to be traced. Literal as the history is, of course, this in no way hinders the deeper thought, in which we see how all through it God moulds the very facts of history that they may speak to attentive hearts. Jacob’s prophecy as to Judah here begins to be fulfilled. (1) But, before even Judah, God acts: for the people’s choice this time must follow His. David is in the first place the divinely appointed king, although yet only the figure of the true: the Anointed, as we know, long since, he is now owned of God, the crown put into his hand by one of a strange and hostile race, who seeks but his own personal ends, to find judgment alone his recompense. For the king, to whom all here points, is that One of whom it is written that He is “first of all . . . king of righteousness [Melchizedek], and after that king of Salem, that is, king of peace” (Hebrews 7:1): who is David and Solomon, therefore, both in one. The order is most important: the effect cannot come before the cause, “and the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever.” (Isaiah 32:17.) But righteousness will not be established upon the earth except by power: “let favor be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord.” Thus, judgment alone will answer; and “when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” (Isaiah 26:9-10.) Thus we are to read David’s wars, then; and thus the judgment of the Amalekite in this first chapter. Personal profit does not seduce David into any overlooking of the crime of lifting up the hand against the Lord’s anointed. Nor, on the other hand, does personal injury received prevent his recognition of all that was noble and good in the fallen king, and of the way in which God had used him for blessing to His people. The reference to the book of Jashar (of the “upright”) seems in striking harmony with this, though we may be unable to explain it in any proper manner. The pathos of the lament speaks to the heart as from the heart. (2) We now come to the divided condition of the kingdom, the anticipation of that into which it lapsed again in the second generation after David. In a world like this, that which is of God is sure to awaken opposition. As to Saul, though some might despise him, there was no thought of division. As regards David, every one must have known long since God’s choice of him, and that Saul’s house had been set aside with Saul himself. Yet Abner is able to make the feeble Ishbosheth king over the rest of the kingdom, gradually recovering itself out of the hands of the Philistines. Two years he reigns over the whole of Israel, while David remains for all the time (seven years and a half) king over Judah only. In the last two years it must have been that Abner found himself at last strong enough to attempt the conquest of Judah also. (a) At the outset we have seen where David’s strength lay. We still find him clinging to God, and guided by divine wisdom. He is assured of being Jehovah’s anointed king. Saul is now dead, and his army defeated. The crown has come, in a way little to be expected, into his hand. Yet he will not be guided by providences, but must have the plain word of God to direct him, not merely whether he shall go up to Judah, but to what part.

He is bidden to go to Hebron; and there he goes, allowing his men to scatter into the towns around, and there he quietly waits for whatever God has next. Good it is, this ability to wait on God on the part of a spirit so brave and energetic, in the very hour when circumstances invite to action. He is not left, however, to long patience now: the men of Judah, without waiting for the co-operation of the other tribes, assemble at Hebron and anoint him king. That this was obedience to the divine will by which David had been long set apart to this position, saves them from the imputation of independence, with which otherwise it might have been justly charged. The Lord was the Supreme king over Israel; and therefore, when His mind was clearly known, obedience was that which alone would make for any proper unity. The course of Abner and the other tribes was mere rebellion. Anointed long before by Samuel, this fresh anointing by the people had yet its rightful place. God’s will as to this awaits the glad concurrence of human hearts to make the reign of His king truly what He would have it. For this reason, also, David makes no movement to extend his dominion over the rest of Israel. Love can be satisfied only with love. Thus also he acknowledges sympathetically the act of the men of Jabesh in their respect and gratitude toward Saul, and informs them of Judah having made him king, but goes no further: does not even hint at the higher and wider title he possesses.
(b.) Abner has no such scruple, and mks no counsel of God: as the “father of light,” his wisdom is from himself, -inspired, of course, by that ready prompter, self-interest, or what appears to be this. As prince of the host that had been Saul’s, he had opportunity also, and in Ishbosheth one who represented such shadow of title as could be derived from Saul. Ishbosheth means “man of shame,” a name that might easily be supposed to be derived from his history, rather than to be his original one. We know from Chronicles (1 Chronicles 8:33) that, in fact, his original one was Esh-baal; and we have a similar change in the case of Jonathan’s son Meribbaal, changed into Mephibosheth (1 Chronicles 9:34; 2 Samuel 9:6), and even in that of Jerubbaal, changed into Jerubbesheth (2 Samuel 11:21). In Hosea 9:10 Baal himself is called “that shame,” and it cannot be reasonably questioned that the sense of this shameful character of idolatry led to these substitutions. That there was any idolatrous meaning in the names connected with Saul’s family it would be impossible to prove, the word baal being itself so variously applied. We have elsewhere seen it as of old even a title of God, which at last He is forced, because of its misuse, to disclaim (p. 194, n.). Typically, however, the case is otherwise. When we consider the rivalry to David in its typical significance, Ishbosheth might seem a figure of Antichrist, and these idolatrous connections would then have their full force. Israel is yet to accept such a king, we know, at the time of the end, who will be consumed by the breath of the Lord’s mouth, and destroyed with the brightness of His coming. Yet in Ishbosheth himself, and in his history also, there are many difficulties in the way of such a view. The weak son of Saul is but a tool in the hands of Abner, who is all through the real heart and soul of the opposition to David. He it is, we find, who “took Ishbosheth, and brought him over to Mahanaim, and made him king.” Mahanaim was the place of Jacob’s vision of angels, where “God’s host” and his own represented, as we know, “two camps.” (Genesis 32:2, n.) This ends in his own camp being divided into two, as Abner had in fact now divided Israel; where the camps were, moreover, hostile to one another.

So had reliance on human strength wrought in all the intermediate history: for God will not be content to be a mere force among other forces; and the half-way dependence on Him, which is more than half independence, works quickly, alas, into real hostility. Abner and Ishbosheth were thus now very openly at issue with God,who had manifested very plainly His purpose in David, as Abner owns (ch. 3: 9). Spite of this, Ishbosheth’s kingdom grows from its beginning in Gilead, spreading to Asher, to Jezreel, and on, till there is a united Israel in opposition to the one tribe of Judah that cleaves to David. So readily does the leaven of rebellion spread! -so sure is there ordained to that which is of God a time of patience and of apparent failure. In each day of God there is an evening first and then a morning; for God is a God of resurrection. David’s reign of seven years and six months in Hebron is just about the length of that interval of time, -the last week of Daniel’s seventy, -which intervenes between the removal of the Church to be with Christ, and His appearing openly as Son of man to take the kingdom. It is scarcely the place here to argue that such a period there is, -the broken off “end of the [Jewish] age” (Matthew 24:1-51), and earth’s harvest-time, the crisis of the conflict between good and evil, the time of preparation for millennial blessing: every way, therefore, of such prophetic importance that we cannot wonder to find prophecy in fact full of it, as it is. It is the time in which arises the Antichrist, the culmination of the “many antichrists” that have preceded him (1 John 2:18-22). This would harmonize with such a meaning, therefore, in Ishbosheth. During this time Christ has actually begun His reign, but not at Jerusalem, and Hebron and Judah might represent an acknowledgment of Him as the King by a remnant of Israel, before the time in which the nation at large shall acknowledge Him. During this time conflict also will go on between the servants of the true King and of the false: Mahanaim will indeed characterize the rival kingdom. The place of strife, Gibeon, seems also significant. If Gibeon, “the pit of suffering for iniquity” (Joshua 18:25, n.), remind us of the Cross, the Cross has been ever the battlefield -Helkath-hazzurim, “the place of sharp swords,” between faith and unbelief, the place of victory in the end for David. For it is the Lamb slain, who is the lion of Judah; and as the Lamb He has title over the world. (Revelation 5:6-7.) Abner, the false pretension to self-competency of knowledge is easily seen as the leader on the one side; but Joab, on David’s, is not such an one as we look for here, or, at least, so we should think at first sight. Who and what, then, is this Joab? Joab is usually taken to be a contracted form of Jehoab, “Jehovah is Father.” It is difficult to separate the man, such as we see him in the history, -crafty, self-seeking, unscrupulous, the murderer of men more righteous than himself, from any typical significance of history, so as to imagine any congruity in such a name. Yet God can overrule men and things so as to work out His good by that which is evil, -the evil being in the minds of others, the good in His. And we find shortly, in the history that follows, Amnon, “faithful,” Absalom, “father of peace,” Adonijah, “my Lord is Jah,” acting in most distinct and undoubted contradiction to their names. Thus Joab would not stand alone in this. On the other hand, as the commander of all David’s forces, there could not, it would seem, be a more suited name than “Jehovah is Father.” Was it not Christ’s mission on earth to declare the Father’s name? Do not His people rally joyfully, triumphantly, under the inspiration of that revelation, Jehovah is the Father"? And so will it be in that day also, when in the place in which it was said to Israel, “Ye are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God.” (Hosea 1:10.) With this meaning, also, it is in striking correspondence that Joab is the son of Zeruiah, and that this last word means “balmy”; or rather, one would say, “the balm of Jah.” The exact substance to which the word was applied in Scripture is still disputed, but its use as a sovereign remedy for wounds, itself being obtained by a wound in the tree from which then the precious sap flowed out, is not disputed. Nor can we fail to find here once more the image of the Cross. That for us, or for any, Jehovah is Father, is, as we own adoringly, the fruit of the Cross, -of which how constant are the memorials in these precious types Thus the captains on either side seem plain, and they meet with their respective hosts at the pool of Gibeon, -literally, and strikingly once more, the “blessing” of Gibeon, the “living water” issuing from the Cross, with regard to which the combatants still find themselves on opposite sides. In the conflict following they fall of both parties: but with what different significance we must interpret this! Christ’s servants have fallen, many; but death has not harmed them: on their adversaries the shadow of death is other and deeper, for they have rejected the Lord of life. Three sons of Zeruiah are in the battlefield. The second is Abishai, whose name means “father (or source) of gift.” This, under the number of service, may speak of the Cross as the inspiring cause of gift offered to God, the homage of a life which has been redeemed by it. While Asahel, the third son, plainly means “God has made” or “done,” -emphasizing God as the worker, as the Cross surely does. Abner is beaten and driven off, though Asahel perishes at his hand in the pursuit, -a thing which, however much an act of self-defense, has bitter consequences in the near future. Of all this I can say nothing, however. (3) The war goes on, but we have no further incidents of it; only that David’s house waxes continually stronger as that of Saul grows weaker. After the manner of an eastern king, we see that David strengthens himself by marriages which the law found no ability to forbid, and in which the self-indulgence of his nature manifests itself. The great sin of his life was thus already preparing, which was to darken with its shadows so much his later days. But this does not affect the typical meaning, as has just now been insisted. The moral lesson is fully enforced and inheres in the letter of the history, quite apart from the prophetic teaching which the Spirit of God has inwoven into it. At times this last seems to give way indeed to the first, to make prominent the moral: the sin and failure are seen to belong simply to the individual, and to unfit him to be, for the moment, in any way suitable to represent any divine thought save that of God’s holy judgment; while again sometimes the Spirit seems to refuse to be turned aside from His higher purpose, and the glory of the light streams through, as incapable of corruption or contamination by the evil to and beyond the end of which it looks. David’s sons in Hebron are six, by as many mothers; and as the son represents the father, so they seem to represent the various characters of Christ in His kingly government and the principles of which they are the manifestation, or which occasion their display. We have learnt, too, the guard that numerical symbolism gives, as well as the help yielded by it to interpretation. The narrower the limits we have here, the more certainly shall we find our way. The divine marks cannot be too numerous. Amnon is David’s first-born; and his name, “constant,” or “faithful,” is simply enough applicable in this manner, and in harmony with the first place he takes. He is the son of Ahinoam, the “kin of pleasure,” -not exactly “pleasure,” for that might seem at least to be in opposition to the underlying principle of constancy which is indicated in the expression, “he that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.” One may suppose that “congruity,” what is according to its own nature, is that of which this “constancy” is born, and that this is what is looked for, yea, of prime necessity, in that which “God soweth,” or Jezreel. Israel was once, as Isaiah tells us (Isaiah 5:2), planted as “the choicest vine,” but proved wholly untrue to that beginning. When the Lord looked for it to bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes. Thus there was no seed yet to sow upon the earth (Hosea 2:23); but He shall have it: Israel in the latter days shall be true to its new beginning; and shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit." (Isaiah 27:6.) Constancy is Christ’s, for He is the unchangeable, Himself Jehovah; and such, through all their own unfaithfulness, will Israel prove Him in the days that are at hand. The second son is Chileab, and the number expressive of service is well filled here with a name that seems to mean “the instrument of the Father.” He is the son of Abigail, “father (or cause) of exultation,” as Israel will be to Christ, when redeemed and brought out from former relationship, here therefore most suitably and pointedly referred to: “Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite,” -the impious dresser of God’s vine. Put together, these names have the very obvious meaning, that the salvation of His own is that which has made Christ the instrument of the Father’s will. This salvation, for its complete realization, requires Him on the throne. He is the true Malchishua, whom no Gilboa can overthrow, -the Saviour-King." The third son is Absalom, the “father of peace.” Here the number may prepare us to expect what is a more inward realization of blessing, and the fruit of the Spirit’s work. He is the son of Maachah, “bruising”: for He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him" (Isaiah 53:5); how surely does the question of peace find for its answer the work of the Cross! But Talmai the king of Geshur: what can he represent? Let us remember only that it is Maachah alone, the “bruising,” that has to do with him, and we need not wonder at the Anakite name (Joshua 15:14). Talmai, “my furrows,” has been already read thus as “our own doings”; and these have indeed been that from whence Christ’s “bruising” sprang. Thus, though we may not be able to interpret the “king of Geshur” aright, the meaning as a whole is obvious. The next three sons are more briefly characterized. The fourth, Adonijah, means “my Lord is Jah,” and he is the son of Haggith, “festive,” one who keeps Jehovah’s feast. This, under the number of experience and practical walk, shows us how the taste of Jehovah’s grace brings us into subjection to Him as Lord over us; and this is how the Lord’s rule is endeared to His own. How precious must it have been to faith in Israel in those days of old, when Jehovah gathered His people, three times in the year, around Himself! Jehovah’s feasts were times of gathering thus to and around Himself. Now, much more plainly, He is cultivating intimacy with us;and the more we respond and enter into this, the more will His rule be established over us.

The nearer we are to Him, the greater He is to us: must it not be so? The indecent familiarity with God which some regard as intimacy is but an unholy mockery of it. Adonijah is still the son of Haggith. The fifth son shows his number in his name, Shephatiah, “Jah judges.” He is the son of Abital, “father (or source) of cover,” or “protection.” The thought is simplicity itself; and this is what true judgment is appointed for, -what, when judgment shall return to righteousness, it will be found to give, the protection (alas, that it should be needed), of man from man. When Jehovah judges in the earth openly and manifestly, as He will do, how will the earth rest and be secure? Oh, to see the time!
Finally the sixth son gives us the effect of all this in blessing, -Ithream, “the abundance of the people,” for “in the multitude of the people is the king’s honor.” (Proverbs 14:28.) But this “abundance” implies more than “multitude.” Ithream, too, is the “son of Eglah,” “heifer,” the double type of labor and of fruitfulness; and therefore Eglah is in some special sense denominated “David’s wife”! Yes, our David has indeed linked himself in an especial way with service, -service in which all fruit is found! Blessed be His name, He has; and a goodly house is this our David has, when the spiritual interpretation is allowed to flash the luster out of an otherwise dull string of names. This, then, is David’s house. (4) The history turns now to show us the commencing collapse of Ishbosheth’s kingdom. There was but, as we know, one pillar upon which it rested, Abner; and we can gather from elsewhere that the spirit of defection was at work in Israel. Abner now himself heads the defection, and there is no strength nor will to resist on the part of the people. But Abner’s motive is no worthy one, and it is not by such means as this that David is to attain the throne of Israel. The hand that prevents it may be more unscrupulous than his own; and the deed done by which it is stopped is treachery and murder. Still, over all this was a righteousness higher than its human instruments.

David is feeble, and the sons of Zeruiah strong: every way there seems but contrast with the throne which David’s merely typically presents, but is not; and the type seems to lapse here in order to emphasize the more the contrast. Whether that be really so or not, -whether it is only ignorance that says so, -we shall surely sometime understand; but it does seem the method of this book to present these alternate glimpses of the glory to come, and of the mere sorrowful history of “man’s day,” sorrowful even at its best. We shall but too soon come to darker scenes in which David himself will be found the near kinsman that he is to Joab, and the day of the true Anointed be seen to be far off yet. (5) The death of Ishbosheth quickly follows that of Abner; and it in some respects resembles his. Commentators have suggested that, in this case also, the blood-vengeance which Joab and his brother had professedly taken for their brother Asahel, was probably at least once more the pretext. Baanah and Rechab, the slayers of Ishbosheth, were Beerothites, and belonged therefore to one of those Canaanite cities originally leagued with Gibeon, and with it having made peace with Israel by fraud. These Saul had sought to slay, in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah (2 Samuel 21:1-2), and had in fact slain some. Whether Beeroth had suffered at this time we know not; but we learn in this place that for some cause “the Beerothites had fled to Gittaim,” and were still sojourning there. It is quite natural to put these things together; and if so, to understand that there might be special enmity on the brothers’ part to Saul’s house on this account.

But if so, the history gives no plain proof of such connection; though, if it were so, Joab’s unpunished deed might have encouraged theirs. But they are mistaken, and fleeing to David with the head of the unhappy king, find summary judgment at his hands. This is, at best, but history. Have we any sign in it of deeper meaning? In connection with Ishbosheth as a possible type of Antichrist, the circumstances of his death are among the things of which I have spoken as difficulties in accepting this. Antichrist is destroyed only at the coming of the Lord, and with the “beast” or head of the Gentile empire, is cast alive into the lake of fire. Yet here the names have apparent significance which (as realizing their constant value elsewhere) cannot but make one pause and question. Beeroth we have already had among the cities of Benjamin (Joshua 18:25), and taken it as significant of the “wells” of salvation out of which the redeemed “with joy draw water.” Rimmon, “the pomegranate” is a figure of the fruitful and many-seeded word of God (compare p. 138, n.). Baanah, “in answer,” son of Rimmon, would speak naturally of something sent in response to prayer, thus the fruit of the word which had awakened faith; while Rechab, “rider,” is used to designate that “upper millstone” which is several times found in connection with destructive judgment from the Lord’s hand (Judges 9:53, Matthew 18:6, Revelation 18:21). If, therefore, we take these two together we have judgment inflicted in answer to prayer and according to the Word, which is itself pictured as the sharp two-edged sword proceeding out of the mouth of the white-horsed Rider, with which He smites the nations (Revelation 19:15). Nay, according to the Hebrew also, as we have seen, “millstone” and “Rider” a one! If moreover, we remember the Lord’s parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-43), we shall realize very clearly how the final judgment of the earth, which includes Antichrist and his followers, comes “in answer” to the prayer of God’s elect, the groans of suffering saints which have gone up to Him so long from a world whose “prince” is Satan and not the One who made it. Certainly in all this there is a congruity, a fitting together of things, which one cannot hastily dismiss because of apparent incongruity elsewhere. Let it be but a flash of light which expires again in darkness, still even a flash of light may be a true revelation. At least it is well for the reverent student of Scripture to have before him what materials can be given for the founding of judgment; and so we must leave it. It may be well, also, to remark that Ishbosheth’s evident weakness of character is no conclusive proof that he could not be such a type as has been suggested. The wisest, strongest, most self-assertive of creatures, what is he before God his Maker? And this is often insisted on in the types themselves, as we have seen. The moral character of a typical person, also, has often apparently little or nothing to do with the place he fills in this way. Joab, and some noted ones among the sons of David are proofs near at hand of the truth of this.