Deeper Commentary
2Sa 3:1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the
house of David: and David grew stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul
grew weaker and weaker-
The inspired commentator presents the civil war as it was, a feud
between two families, who came from opposite sides of Jerusalem, only about
20 km. from each other. As discussed on chapter 2, David was waiting
for God's word to come through for him and was not using his own strength.
Yet he was made stronger and stronger, in contrast to how Abner makes
himself strong, in his own strength, for the Saulides (:6).
2Sa 3:2 To David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of
Ahinoam the Jezreelitess-
We must recognize that there will be anomalies in the lives of our
brethren- just as there are in the lives of us all (if only we would
examine ourselves ruthlessly enough to see them). And in some ways at some
times, God goes along with them. Thus He gave Saul’s wives to David (2
Sam. 12:8), which would’ve involved David being married to both a mother
and daughter- for he had married Saul’s daughters. And this giving of
Saul’s wives to David may not have occurred simply after Saul’s death. For
David’s eldest son, Amnon, was borne by Ahinoam (2 Sam. 3:2), who was
initially Saul’s wife (1 Sam. 14:50). Now this is not to justify sin.
Adultery, taking another’s wife or husband, is all wrong. Let there be no
mistake. But God at times sees the bigger, or longer, perspective, and
tolerates things which we may quite rightly find intolerable. And if He
loves us despite of our sin and failure- are we surprised that we are
invited to show love to others in the face of their sin and failure toward
us? A black and white insistence upon God’s standards being upheld in the
lives of others, demanding their repentance for having hurt us, is what
has caused so much division between believers. Whilst God alone will
apportion the guilt for this, in the final, unalterable, ultimately just
algorithm of Divine judgment, it’s worth observing that the fault for
division isn’t always with the sinners, the wider thinkers, the
freewheelers; but with the inflexible intolerance of those in power.
"Amnon" means 'faithful' and we might have expected him to be David's
logical successor. But one great theme of David's personal life was his
disappointment in his children and wives.
2Sa 3:3 his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite-
We would rather have expected Chileab as the son of David's most
spiritual wife to be his successor. But 'restrained by his father' might
mean that David initially thought so too, and was so restrictive of
Chileab that he didn't work out that way at all.
The third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of
Geshur-
Solomon wished to imitate his father David in every sense;
his own real personality only really came out in the
Ecclesiastes years, when he took to drink, materialism, women and
idolatry. It took the influence of his parents
many years to wear off. David had weaknesses for
horses (2 Sam. 8:4) and many wives; and Solomon followed in
these steps too. Note that David had six sons in seven years
by six different women, including Gentiles (1 Chron. 3:3). For Geshur was
one of the tribes the Israelites ought to have driven out of the land
(Josh. 13:13), and Talmai was sufficiently against David to provide refuge
for Absalom (2 Sam. 13:37). "Geshur" means "joining" and such a joining in
marriage to these people is another example of David's unwisdom with
women.
And in addition to these, David had children by “the concubines” (1 Chron. 3:9). Doubtless Solomon reasoned, albeit deep within his psyche, that such behaviour was legitimate because David his father had done it. David seems to have over interpreted the promises made to him about Solomon and the temple, and assumed that his interpretation was certainly correct. And Solomon did exactly the same. The weaknesses of the parents all too easily are repeated by the children to an even greater extent.
This marriage with a Gentile was contrary to the spirit of the law (Ex. 34:16; Dt. 7:3; Josh. 23:12). It wasn't blessed, as his rebel son Absalom later took refuge in Geshur. The marriage was surely for political reasons, wanting an ally in the area of Ishbosheth’s capital. For Talmai’s kingdom was right next to Mahanaim (2 Sam. 15:8; Dt. 3:14). David had attacked, murdered and pillaged the people of Geshur (1 Sam. 27:8,9: "David and his men went and made a raid on the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites... David attacked the land and saved neither man nor woman alive; he took away the sheep, cattle, donkeys and camels and the clothing"). As with his living in Gath and serving Achish, we see how facile and shallow are human political alliances.
2Sa 3:4 the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; the fifth, Shephatiah the
son of Abital-
The contrast of this section seems to be intentional with the note in 2
Sam. 2:2, that David arrived in Hebron from Ziklag with only two wives. We
could get the impression that David's spiritual life was in some areas in
steady decline from the time he slew Goliath in his youth. And yet he died
in faith.
2Sa 3:5 the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David
in Hebron-
The birth of six sons, although these were not all his sons, is
perhaps presented as a point of continuity with faithful Hannah who also
had six sons, the firstborn of which had been David's mentor Samuel.
Critics have raised the complaint that Eglah means "cow" and is
an unusual Hebrew name for a king's wife. We wonder if this is a name that
David gave her after a failed marriage or rejecting her as his wife. It's
possible it is a name he gave Michal, who is otherwise unmentioned here.
Although David's polygamy was less than ideal, his having children by his
wives is contrasted favorably in this section with Abner's sleeping with
one of Saul's concubines.
2Sa 3:6 It happened that while there was war between the house of Saul and
the house of David, Abner made himself strong on behalf of the house of
Saul-
The idea may be that Abner exalted himself to be the effective leader
of the house of Saul, with a view to becoming their leader in place of
Ishbosheth. He was after all Saul's cousin. But the narrative continues to
show that having recognized he was losing militarily (:1), he wanted to
seek peace with David. And he uses the argument about Rizpah as an excuse.
2Sa 3:7 Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of
Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Why have you gone in to my father’s
concubine?-
This could have been seen as an intentional challenge to Ishbosheth,
for sleeping with a king's concubine was an effective statement of having
taken the throne. This is what Absalom did to David during his rebellion.
Abner was Ishbosheth's uncle and Saul's cousin (1 Sam. 14:50) and
was the logical one to be king if Ishbosheth was incompetent. He is
presented as sleeping at noon and generally weak, so Abner maybe thought
he was doing the right thing for Saul's side by taking over as king. It
seems he did indeed plan to take over the throne from Ishbosheth... but he
re-thought and decided on loyalty to David, to God's word about David and
the unity of Israel. And David accepted that, suspicious as it would've
looked.
2Sa 3:8 Then was Abner very angry for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am
I a dog’s head that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness to the house of
Saul your father, to his brothers and to his friends, and have not delivered
you into the hand of David; and yet you charge me this day with a fault
concerning this woman!-
See on :11. David had made it very clear that he would not slay any of
the house of Saul. He had promised this to Saul and Jonathan, and was very
careful to show absolute grace to them. But God worked so that
despite keeping this oath, God all the same removed from the house of Saul
all serious contenders for the throne. So Ishbosheth was not at any real
risk of losing his life if Abner handed him over to David. It all seems to
me as if Abner was orchestrating this falling out in order to provide
himself with a face saving excuse to achieve unity with David, and as it
were surrender power on good terms. It is not even clear if he did indeed
sleep with Rizpah.
2Sa 3:9 God do so to Abner, and more also, if, as Yahweh has sworn to
David, I don’t do even so to him-
Abner was aware of the promises to David. I have elsewhere suggested
that the essence of the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7 had been made to him
at a far earlier stage. See on 1 Sam. 25:28, where Abigail uses the terms
of 2 Sam. 7 ["a sure / established house"] well before they are
recorded as being given. Abner realizes that God's promises require a man
to be in step with them, and in a sense, to be the human channel of their
fulfilment. And he is saying that he is willing to be that channel for
their fulfilment. Abner consistently comes over, as noted often on 2 Sam.
2, as indeed seeking the throne for himself, but not wanting excessive
bloodshed, and realizing that it would be better for all concerned if he
resigned any pretensions to power. And here he demonstrates, despite his
aggressive exterior, that he appreciates the promises to David and is not
going to be like Saul and fight in vain to stop God's word coming true.
It's possible that Abner is referring to the same unrecorded prophetic word mentioned by David's men in 1 Sam. 24:4,5- that David would have the kingdom instead of Saul. We note Abner was with Saul at that time in the wilderness. And yet as with David's men, we wonder whether Abner just imagined this word. Because if he indeed knew it, then why had he been disobedient to it by fighting against David for the kingdom not to be transferred from Saul to David? Of course it could be also that this is all a statement of repentance by Abner- that seeing God had said this, he was now going to be obedient to it. His defeats had made him realize that he was fighting against the fulfilment of God's word.
2Sa 3:10 to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the
throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba-
It was because David's heart was 'turned away' from sin, that God
'turned away' the kingdom from Saul to David (s.w. Ps. 119:37). As noted
on :9, Abner realizes this and seeks to now work for and not against God's
purpose for Saul. For God had promised to set up / establish the throne of
David, and Abner is now effectively repenting of fighting to stop that
happening.
2Sa 3:11 He could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him-
I suggest Abner was loud mouthed and crudely spoken (:8), but beneath
that rough exterior there was a genuine repentance, and always a desire to
avoid excessive bloodshed between brethren, as noted throughout 2 Sam. 2.
We too need to see through the surface level appearance of some brethren
to their spiritual essence.
2Sa 3:12 Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf saying, Whose is the
land? Make your alliance with me, and behold, my hand shall be with you,
to bring all Israel around to you-
Although Abner controlled more land of Israel than David, the
answer to his question, according to the law of Moses, was: "Yahweh" (Lev.
25:23 etc.). The land was God's. So they should not be fighting over who
ruled it. It's similar to how the two sides in the battle of 2 Sam. 2 both
realized at least subconsciously that brethren should not be fighting each
other. Unity arguments are accepted in the hearts of all members of God's
people, but it's a question of recognizing this in humility.
The idea seems to be 'The land is yours'. But he feared the consequences of his surrender, and wants there to be an agreement or alliance granting him personal safety. Saul had slain the priests of Nob because their hand was with David (s.w. 1 Sam. 22:17); perhaps Abner wishes to say that now, he too was with David and disassociated himself from Saul's actions. He saw that Yahweh's hand was with David in order to make him king over all Israel, and Abner now wanted to be working with that hand, with his hand in God's; and to cease resisting it.
2Sa 3:13 He said, Good; I will make a treaty with you; but one thing I
require of you. That is, you shall not see my face, unless you first bring
Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come to see my face-
We are left, intentionally, wondering what exactly were David's
motives here. He may have considered that Saul's daughter's marriage was
going to mean that her husband Paltiel was a potential contender for the
throne, and he wanted to remove that potential threat by breaking up their
marriage. But that would have reflected a lack of faith in the promises
that he would surely become king of Israel. Rather I suspect this was done
from motives of personal bitterness. He had killed men in order to get
Michal as wife, even though he ought to have been given her freely in
return for slaying Goliath. That she had married another man was an
intolerable insult for any Hebrew man, and it seems in weakness David
acted like a secular person rather than a spiritual one.
2Sa 3:14 David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, Deliver
me my wife Michal, whom I pledged to be married to me for one hundred
foreskins of the Philistines-
David was very astute and this nuances all his apparent grace to Saul's family. And yet the fact he was so sharply astute means that grace, which is so illogical, would have not come naturally to him. The desire to have Saul's daughter again as his wife was surely politically motivated. He was seeking to win over Saul's supporters, so resuming his marriage with Saul's daughter was going to help that. But David paid no attention to the pain he would cause her husband. Again we see his apparent grace to the house of Saul was nuanced by his undoubted political agenda. David may also have been looking for assurance that Abner really did have power in Benjamin and over the other tribes. If he could indeed bring Michal to David in relationship, then he would demonstrate that he had the power to bring all Israel to David. And knowing David's mixed motives, it's not to much to think that he wanted to hurt and punish both Michal and Paltiel. For to know your wife was sleeping with another man would've been hard for David to respond to in grace. David was clearly angry that he hadn't been given Michal as promised when he slew Goliath, and that even when he paid the required dowry and married Michal, Saul had given her to another man when Michal didn't go out to join her husband in the wilderness [cp. Abigail]. Paltiel's obvious love and affection for Michal is set up in contrast with David's heartless treatment of her, and him. We note that Michal loved David in 1 Sam. 18:20 but there is never any reference to David loving Michal. So it seems as David took Michal so Abner took Rizpah, likewise for political reasons. So although in 2 Sam. 2 David faithfully trusts in Yahweh and not his own strength, he now seems to fail and resorts to human tactics. It's typical of human faith that we can't seem to maintain it for long on a high level but always revert, at least temporarily, to the strength of our flesh.
As discussed on :13, it seems David felt bitterly the betrayal. He had actually paid 200 foreskins for her, and anyway Saul should have given her to him for slaying Goliath. Despite having many wives and children, he could not bear the thought that she was married to another man. And so he broke up an apparently loving marriage (:16) for the sake of his own pride and need for control. And he was to do the same with the marriage of Uriah and Bathsheba.
We note in 2 Sam. 3:1-16 David's bad treatment of Michal's
husband, who follows his wife with tears in a most unmasculine but genuine
response to David taking her from him. Paltiel walks behind her, when a
woman in those days was supposed to walk behind a man [cp. Russian
'zamuzhem', behind a husband, to describe a married woman]. Paltiel was
publically shamed; the way Abner abruptly tells him to stop following his
wife and go home is as if Abner treats Paltiel as a dog. He did this when
he already had at least six wives; the information about his wives and
children precedes the narrative about him breaking up Michal and Paltiel's
marriage. Although David calls Michal his "wife" [Heb. isshi], the record
calls Paltiel her husband [Heb. 'ish]. This failure is then repeated by
David when he takes Bathsheba and slays Uriah, breaking up a good marriage
even though he had many "sheep". He was wrong in how he treated Paltiel.
But his conscience didn't kick in. And so one sin led him to another sin,
against Uriah, in essence the same but of far greater magnitude. We
reflect how his taking of Abigail in 1 Sam. 25 also involved the
displacement of her husband, Nabal- but by the hand of providence. It's as
if David intentionally misread this as meaning that he had the right to
remove the husbands of women he wanted. The progression is all so
psychologically credible. David wanted to test Ishbosheth and Abner's
loyalty [as Abner had formerly been Saul's general], and so he asked them
to get Michal back to him as his wife. He clearly didn't love Michal; it
was all for the sake of politics. We must be aware that sexual rights over
a woman, especially the wife of another, were seen as a sign of political
dominance and control; David lived in a culture where the politics of
power were sexualized. We think of Absalom sleeping with David's wives
publically. And we wonder whether his taking of Abigail was similarly
motivated. This usage of women rather than loving them is what led him to
the failure with Bathsheba. David is recorded as being loved by many
people- Jonathan, Michal, Saul's servants, all Israel etc. But he is never
recorded as loving anyone himself. Nathan's parable presents David as a
man with many animals, representing his women- possibly suggesting this
was how he saw his wives.
2Sa 3:15 Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Paltiel
the son of Laish-
"Her husband" reflects God's view that Paltiel and Michal
were married. David's argument that Michal was his wife originally wasn't
really accepted by God, because He accepts second marriages.
The request was made from Ishbosheth, who was technically the king of Israel, in order to prove David's authority over him. And it could be that Michal and Paltiel had fled from David to Mahanaim. But David's resumed marriage with Michal wasn't blessed; it all seems a very personal and political thing.
Prov. 18:22 LXX may allude to Michal: "He that puts away a good wife, puts away a good thing, and he that keeps an adulteress is foolish and ungodly". This reading would then be a justification of how Solomon's father David had put away his wife Michal, Saul's daughter, who had then married Phaltiel, a relationship Solomon liked to see as adultery. Constantly Solomon uses his knowledge of Divine truths to justify himself and his father, just as God's truth can likewise be abused today.
2Sa 3:16 Her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her
to Bahurim. Then Abner said to him, Go! Return! And he returned-
Bahurim was about 20 miles from Mahanaim, near Jerusalem. We have the tragic image of the loving husband walking
behind her weeping as she is led away from him. This was
not only a breach of Mosaic law, but displayed a sad elevation of politics
above others’ relationships and marriages. It may be significant that her
renewed marriage with David wasn’t blessed with any children (2 Sam.
6:23). The record elicits our sympathy for Paltiel, and leaves us with the
impression that David was heartless and callous when it came to others'
relationships.
2Sa 3:17 Abner had communication with the elders of Israel saying, In
times past, you wished for David to be king over you-
The northern tribes had been supportive of David, as all Israel had
been after the victory over Goliath. But Abner seems to admit that it was
he who had persuaded them otherwise. He is now showing the fruits of
repentance by undoing the division he had created.
2Sa 3:18 Now then do it; for Yahweh has spoken of David saying, ‘By the
hand of My servant David, I will save My people Israel out of the hand of
the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies’-
This was the Divine intention for Saul (1 Sam. 9:16), but Abner
recognizes that now it had all been transferred to David. The interests of
the nation as a whole, who had recently been defeated by the Philistines
at Gilboa, were better served by David than Abner. For David had God's
prophetic word on his side, and could bring deliverance. Abner had a
number of options open to him; he could have fled to a neighbouring
country, or sought some other way of resolving things with David. But he
comes over as genuinely repentant, and honestly doing what he can, no
matter at what loss of face, to bring Israel completely under David's
control. See on :22.
2Sa 3:19 Abner also spoke in the ears of Benjamin: and Abner went also to
speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and
to the whole house of Benjamin-
As noted on :18, Abner's repentance was genuine. Having persuaded the
northern tribes to accept his 'unity with David' plan, he then worked on
Benjamin, Saul's own tribe, his own tribesmen. He spoke in their ears, and
it "seemed good" to Benjamin as well as the other tribes to accept David
as king. There would have been hawks within Benjamin, who were not
persuaded; and some of them emerge in later history in rebellion against
David. But Abner must be credited with bringing about a remarkably quick
agreement that in practice paved the way for David to rule all Israel. And
it was only he, as the effective leader and army general, who could have
achieved this. "All that seemed good" may be alluded to in the description
of another unity process between brethren in Acts 15:25,28.
2Sa 3:20 So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. David
made Abner and the men who were with him a feast-
The feast was surely a sign of acceptance and reconciliation, an idea
which is continued in the feast of the Lord's supper which we experience
in our days. The twenty men would have been the escort for both Abner and
Michal.
2Sa 3:21 Abner said to David, I will arise and go, and will gather all
Israel to my lord the king, that they may make a covenant with you, and
that you may reign over all that your soul desires. David sent Abner away;
and he went in peace-
Abner had already secured the general agreement of the other tribes
(:19), and now he wanted them to send representatives to make a covenant
with David. This would have been a guarantee of their safety, and finally
was achieved in 2 Sam. 5:1. The name "Abner" is stressed many times in
:17-21, because this whole unity process depended solely upon him. His
assassination was therefore all the more shameful.
2Sa 3:22 Behold, the servants of David and Joab came from an engagement,
and brought in a great spoil with them-
"An engagement" is literally "a raid" and connects with how
the men who would assassinate Ishbosheth were also "captains of raiders"
(2 Sam. 4:2). There is some thread of similarity being drawn by the record
between these men and Joab. The point was that they were all used by God
in order to one by one remove the contenders for the throne [i.e. Abner
and Ishbosheth]; and so to providentially leave the way open for David to
take the throne over all Israel. In this lies the significance of this
otherwise irrelevant detail about Joab having just lead a raid.
Abner had rightly argued that God's promise to deliver Israel from the Philistines was to now be fulfilled through David (:18). We presume this victory of Joab had been against the Philistines. We recently read of how David divided the spoil from the fight with the Amalekites amongst Judah in order to demonstrate in hard terms his ability to save them from their neighbours, and we wonder if he did likewise.
But Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away,
and he was gone in peace-
Here we have the hand of providence; for if Joab had been in Hebron
when Abner was there, he would have surely murdered him and the whole
peace process would have been majorly derailed, likely leading to more
bitter civil war. We can note from this that unity between brethren is
God's will and He will work, within the confines provided by human
freewill, to enable it.
2Sa 3:23 When Joab and all the army who was with him had come, they told
Joab saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he has sent him
away, and he is gone in peace-
The "they" were presumably those who like Joab considered that David
was again being naive towards the house of Saul, and should have murdered
Abner instead of making peace with him. Constantly we see David's belief
in grace and unity leading him to do things which harder minded
individuals found more than annoying; they reacted against it in the
harshest of terms. Three times we read that David sent Abner away
in "peace" (:21,22,23). This strong emphasis suggests the "peace" was of
forgiveness. Abner had repented and David had forgiven him. But this kind
of grace was unheard of for the likes of Joab and society of those days.
In their eyes, treason against a king was a capital offence, and grace
didn't come into it.
2Sa 3:24 Then Joab came to the king and said, What have you done? Behold,
Abner came to you. Why is it that you have sent him away, and he is quite
gone?-
The implication is that David should have murdered him, and not let
him go away in peace, with a guarantee of safe passage. We see the
internal harmony of the record in that Joab's reaction here to Abner's
being sent away in peace is in spirit so similar to his frustration with
David over the death of Absalom (2 Sam. 19:6). We note the internal
consistency in the record of Joab's character; another reason to believe
these records are absolutely credible and inspired by God. See on 2 Sam.
20:10.
2Sa 3:25 You know Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive you, and
to know your going out and your coming in, and to know all that you do-
Throughout the preceding verses, I have sought to demonstrate Abner's
sincere repentance and genuine desire for unity under David. But Joab
speaks as if he knows for sure that Abner is fake, and that David knows
this too. Hatred of brethren leads to conspiracy theories about them being
entertained, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And then those
theories become perceived as not only absolute fact in the mind of those
who have nursed them, but they reflect their positions on to others,
claiming that others in their hearts know them to be true. These ancient
histories speak directly to the situations we encounter in relationships
today.
2Sa 3:26 When Joab had come out from David, he sent messengers after
Abner, and they brought him back from the well of Sirah; but David didn’t
know it-
Joab's desire to personally murder Abner was premeditated, and he
bears complete responsibility for it. He would have been given life in
prison for this kind of behaviour today. But he was not demoted or
disciplined much by David, because David himself, whilst strongly
disagreeing with Joab's actions, failed to perceive the value of human
life as he ought to have done. This is cited as a reason why he couldn't
build the temple. And because of this, Joab went on to commit another such
murder in 2 Sam. 20:10.
2Sa 3:27 When Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the
midst of the gate to speak with him quietly, and struck him there in the
body, so that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother-
The language of striking in the body recalls how Abner had struck
Joab's brother Asahel in the body (see note on 2 Sam. 2:23), although as noted there,
Abner did not wish to do this. The manner of death was really Asahel
running into his own death at the spear point, despite Abner warning him
about it, rather than Abner consciously slaying him. Joab is therefore
presented as far less ethical than Abner. As Asahel had intended to kill
Abner by a blow to his back as he fled from him, so his brother Joab slew
Abner from behind. And Joab didn't learn from this; he does the same to
Amasa (2 Sam. 20:10). See on 2 Sam. 4:6.
We surely have here the excuse Joab gave ["for the blood of Asahel"]. Abner had done all he could that Asahel not die and probably only intended to wound him with the blunt end of his spear. Joab's clear concern was that Abner would replace him as general and second in command. Joab's later murder of Amasa was from similar fears.
The other contenders for the throne all died "in the midst" of somewhere- Saul "in the midst of the battle" (2 Sam. 1:25), Abner killed in the midst of the gate, and Ishbosheth killed in the midst of his house (2 Sam. 4:6). The idea is that there was some common Divine hand in the removal of these men, all by His providence rather than David's own strength.
2Sa 3:28 Afterwards, when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are
guiltless before Yahweh forever of the blood of Abner the son of Ner-
I have sought to demonstrate so far that Abner consistently comes
over as indeed having sought the throne for himself, but not wanting
excessive bloodshed, and finally repenting. He realized that it would be
better for all concerned if he resigned any pretensions to power. He
demonstrates, despite his aggressive exterior, that he appreciates the
promises to David and is not going to be like Saul and fight in vain to
stop God's word coming true. I therefore consider David's grief for his
murder as not at all theatrical, but genuine. And all Israel also realized
this.
2Sa 3:29 Let it fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house.
Let there not fail from the house of Joab one who has an issue, or who is
a leper, or who leans on a staff, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks
bread-
This was a stinging curse for one who had been so loyal to David,
effectively wishing his exclusion from God's people (Lev. 13:46). And it
was an age when curses were believed to have real power. But we
note that David doesn't dissociate from Joab; he remains in power
throughout David's life. And this lack of real discipline means that he
does the same to Amasa (2 Sam. 20:10). Disciplining others wasn't David's
strong point, and he paid for it. Like all of us, he was a mixture of
softness and hardness.
2Sa 3:30 So Joab and Abishai his brother killed Abner, because he had
killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle-
This was indeed the motivation, but additionally I suggest that Joab
wanted to be seen as the king maker, and disliked the way that Abner was
going to go down as the architect of Israel's unity because of his own
repentance, humility and resignation of his own aspirations to power.
"In
the battle" is perhaps added to show that any attempt by Joab to appeal to
the laws of avenging blood was totally inappropriate and out of context.
2Sa 3:31 David said to Joab, and to all the people who were with him, Tear
your clothes, and clothe yourselves with sackcloth, and mourn before
Abner. King David followed the bier-
The fact David had to tell Joab to do this shows that Joab was not
the least bit repentant.
2Sa 3:32 They buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice,
and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept-
This continues the frequent theme of David and his people being at
one, sharing the same feelings. It looks ahead to the unity of the Lord
Jesus with His people (see on 2 Sam. 5:1).
2Sa 3:33 The king lamented for Abner and said, Should Abner have died as a
fool dies?-
We have here a lament song, composed and sung by David the musician,
as he did over Saul and Jonathan. He sees Abner as a "fool" in that he had
failed to perceive just how bad was Joab. Although Joab might have
appealed to the laws about revenging slain blood, David clearly considered
that they did not apply. For effectively, Abner had slain Asahel against
his will and in self defence against a man literally aiming to stab him in
the back. We could also translate "Should Abner die as Nabal
died?". He insists Abner is not the type who had to be slain by Divine
stroke.
2Sa 3:34 Your hands were not bound, nor your feet put into fetters. As a
man falls before the children of iniquity, so you fell. All the people
wept again over him-
His hands were free to fight and his feet free to run away;
so he was killed by deceit.
The sons of Zeruiah, Joab and Abishai [who was also party to the murder, :30] are called not sons of Zeruiah but sons of iniquity. It is the phrase used for the Gentiles outside of covenant with God (2 Sam. 7:10); another hint that David had been given many of those promises before the time when Nathan is recorded as presenting them to him. See on 1 Sam. 25:28. David laments that Abner was deceived into his death, assuming others had the same desire for peace which he had. He had been free to fight or run, but did not because he was deceived. Or David may mean that Abner had done nothing to deserve even prison; because David had forgiven him, and Abner had genuinely repented.
2Sa 3:35 All the people came to cause David to eat bread while it was yet
day. David swore saying, God do so to me, and more also, if I taste bread,
or anything else, until the sun goes down-
David strangely binds himself under the same curse as Saul had
enforced upon the people in 1 Sam. 14:24. We wonder why this was. Perhaps
it was simply that he truly loved Saul, and had him in mind at this time
of hatred against the house of Saul; and so subconsciously he alludes to
the words of Saul, although out of context. This again adds veracity to
the record; this is typical of language usage at times like this.
2Sa 3:36 All the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as
whatever the king did pleased all the people-
This means that the people also were persuaded that Abner was genuine
in his repentance, and had been honestly trying to do his best to undo the
division his power seeking had caused. Otherwise they would not have
agreed with David.
2Sa 3:37 So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was
not of the king to kill Abner the son of Ner-
In days of limited communication and the inevitable miscommunications
this resulted in, it was quite an achievement to persuade all Israel that
Abner's murder had not been orchestrated by David. The depth of David's
convictions about Abner's sincerity was so great that somehow it spread
throughout the land.
Politically, the murder of Abner was a stroke of good fortune
for David. Saul's son was weak, and now the only other leader of the
opposition had been murdered. Had David proactively tried to kill Abner,
the followers of Saul would not have naturally come under his control. And
then an internal feud, apparently about money or wealth, leads to
Ishbosheth the Saulide "king" being murdered by his own men (2 Sam. 4).
This chain of events set David up to be king over all Israel. But David
waited on God to fulfil the promise that he would be king of all Israel,
even if it took seven years after Saul's death. Despite David's political
astuteness, his trust in God's word is indeed admiral. With Abner's death
and Israel's acceptance that David had no part in it, David was now the
natural king of all Israel. David's attitude contrasts with that of
Absalom and the others who later tried to grasp the Kingdom from David.
David waited in trusting faith for the Kingdom and he received it, in good
measure. The others tried to grasp it in their own strength and by their
own device; and failed. Likewise the promise to David that his dynasty
would continue to reign (2 Sam. 7) was given to him by grace and in love,
and David accepted it in total humility. The very opposite to the grasping
spirit of those who later tried to take his throne. David is likewise to
be commended for not just grabbing Abigail from Nabal, but waiting for
Nabal to die by God's hand. This highlights his later failure with
Bathsheba.
2Sa 3:38 The king said to his servants, Don’t you know that a prince and a
great man has fallen this day in Israel?-
"Prince" suggests that David may well have considered elevating Abner
to some position of senior rulership in the united kingdom. As captain of
Saul's army, it may have been David's intention to replace Joab [who was
captain of David's army] with Abner. This would have been another reason
why Joab wanted to murder him. But the man's greatness was in his humility
and desire for unity, built around the fruits of his very genuine
repentance and hatred of bloodshed between brethren.
2Sa 3:39 I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons
of Zeruiah are too hard for me. May Yahweh reward the evildoer according
to his wickedness-
This was the language and exact situation David had experienced when on
the run from Saul. He was anointed king, but weak, and he had to leave
Yahweh to reward Saul for his wickedness. But he now transfers all those
feelings about Saul onto Joab. This was how strongly David viewed the
hatred of Joab for Abner. "Weak" translates a word meaning
humble or tender and which therefore has connections with Messianic
prophecies- the same word is in Zech. 9:9, "Your king comes, meek...".
David could be implying here that he is the Messianic king- the meek and
"anointed king". Whereas the sons of Zeruiah didn't fit that description
because they were not humble. They were "hard" just as Nabal had been
"hard" (1 Sam. 25:3) but as noted on :33, they wrongly treated Abner as
Nabal. When they were in fact the Nabal who deserved judgment.
Or we can read this as David saying that now Joab had made it so much harder to achieve unity in Israel. How now could they all be coaxed under David's kingship, seeing David's man and nephew Joab had just killed Saul's cousin Abner? We are indeed weaker without all our brethren.
Previous Chapter
