2 Samuel 3

For ten years David was an exile with a price on his head, fleeing from Saul and waiting for the time when God would put him on the throne of Israel. During those difficult years, David grew in faith and godly character, and God equipped him for the work He had chosen for him to do. When the day of victory did arrive, David was careful not to force himself on the people, many of whom were still loyal to the house of Saul. He took a cautious approach, and we can’t help but admire David for his wisdom and patience as he won the affection and allegiance of the people and sought to unify the shattered nation. “So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by the skillfulness of his hands” (Ps. 78: nkjv).

In order to govern,” said Napoleon on his deathbed, “the question is not to follow out a more or less valid theory but to build with whatever materials are at hand. The inevitable must be accepted and turned to advantage.” If this statement is true, then David was a very effective leader during the seven and a half years he ruled in Hebron. While Joab led the army of Judah, David watched and waited, knowing that the Lord would one day open the way for him to reign as king over all Israel. God called David not only to be the king of His people, but also their shepherd and spiritual leader. David had to wait on God’s timing while patiently enduring the consequences of the selfish ambitions and reckless actions of leaders who were motivated by pride and hatred. David learned to build with the materials at hand and to trust God to use disappointments to the advantage of his people.

The phrase “a long war” (vv. 1, 6) suggests a state of hostility for two years, occasional clashes rather than one long battle after another. David was biding his time, knowing that God would keep His promises and give him the throne of Israel. David’s government in Hebron was going from strength to strength (Ps. 84:7), while the alliance of tribes under Ish-Bosheth and Abner was getting weaker. However, the astute Abner was using his position in the house of Saul to strengthen his own authority, for he was getting ready to make David an offer the king couldn’t resist (v. 6).

As for David, his family was also increasing (see also 1 Chron. 3:1–4), and the king now had a growing harem like any other eastern monarch. Of course, David’s son Solomon would go far beyond what his father had done or what any Jewish king would do (1 Kings 11:3). David had moved to Hebron with two wives, and now he had six sons by six different wives. Polygamy started with Lamech, a descendant of Cain (Gen. 4:19), and was tolerated in Israel, but it was forbidden to Israel’s kings (Deut. 17:17).

Amnon, David’s firstborn, would rape his half-sister Tamar (chap. 13) and be murdered by Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who would be killed while trying to take the kingdom from his father (chap. 14–18). The fact that Absalom was related to royalty on his mother’s side might have encouraged his crusade for the kingdom. No doubt David’s marriage to Maacah was politically motivated so that David would have an ally near Ish-Bosheth. Chileab is called Daniel in 1 Chronicles 4:1. During David’s final illness, Adonijah would try to capture the throne and would be executed by Solomon (1 Kings 1–2). We know nothing about Shephatiah and his mother Abitai, and Ithream and his mother Eglah. After relocating his capital in Jerusalem, David took even more wives and concubines and had eleven more sons born to him (5:13–16).

Abner defects to David (vv. 6–11). Abner was a pragmatic politician as well as a shrewd general, and his basic principle was, “Always join the winning side.” When he perceived that the throne of Ish-Bosheth had no future, he decided to switch loyalties and thereby guarantee his own security and possibly save lives. David had a reputation for kindness, and he had shown remarkable patience with the house of Saul.

We aren’t told that Abner actually had intercourse with Saul’s concubine Rizpah, and he firmly denied it, but if he did, he committed a very serious offense. A deceased king’s harem belonged to his successor, in this case, Ish-Bosheth (see 12: and 16:15–23), and any man who even asked for one of those women was asking for the kingdom and guilty of treason. This is what led to the death of Adonijah (1 Kings 2:13–25). It’s possible that Abner did take Rizpah just to precipitate a quarrel with Ish-Bosheth and to declare his change of allegiance. If so, he succeeded. Of course, the king wasn’t strong enough to oppose Abner, who now announced that he was on David’s side. The phrase “throne of David” is used in verse 10 for the first time in Scripture, and as time passes, it will take on Messianic significance (Isa. 9:6–7).

Abner negotiates for David (vv. 12–21). This episode is a good example of ancient “shuttle diplomacy.” • Abner sent messengers to David offering to bring all Israel under his rule (v. 12). • David sent messengers to Abner accepting his offer, provided Abner first sent Michal to him. She was David’s wife and Ish-Bosheth’s sister (v. 13). • Abner told Ish-Bosheth to honor David’s request, and David also sent Ish-Bosheth a message asking that Michal be sent to Hebron (v. 14). • Abner conferred with the elders of Israel (vv. 17–18). • Abner conferred with the leaders of Benjamin (v. 19). • Abner and twenty representatives from the tribes came to Hebron, bringing Michal with them (vv. 15–16, 20). • Abner and David agreed on how to transfer the kingdom, and they shared a feast and made a covenant (v. 21).

In the early stages of these negotiations it would have been dangerous and unwise for David and Abner to meet personally, so they depended on their officials to make the necessary contacts. David had no reason not to cooperate with Abner since he had never personally been at war with him or King Saul. Outright war was the only alternative to this kind of diplomacy, and David was a man of peace. David had married into Saul’s family, so he had to show some respect both to Abner and IshBosheth, and he was determined to unite the tribes as quickly as possible and with the least amount of bloodshed. He had waited over seven years, and it was time to act.

Why did David make the return of Michal a condition for further negotiation? First of all, she was still his wife, even though Saul had given her to another man. Ten years before, when they were wed, Michal loved David very much (1 Sam. 18:20), and we have reason to believe that David loved her. It was good diplomacy to invite his “queen” to join with him, and the fact that she came from the house of Saul helped to strengthen the bonds of unity. By claiming the daughter of Saul, David was also claiming all the kingdom, and when Abner brought Michal to Hebron, it was a public announcement that he had broken with the house of Saul and was now allied with David.

It looked as though everything was in good order for a peaceful transition, but there were hidden land mines in the diplomatic field and they were ready to explode. Ish-Bosheth was still on the throne and David would have to deal with him and the loyal supporters of the house of Saul. Abner had killed Asahel, and Joab was biding his time until he could avenge his brother’s death.

Joab reproaches David (vv. 22–25). David had sent Joab and some of his men on a raid to secure wealth to help support the kingdom. On his return, when Joab heard that David had received Abner and given him a feast, his anger erupted and he rebuked the king. The key idea in this paragraph is that Saul’s general and the man who killed young Asahel had come and gone “in peace” (vv. 21–23), and Joab couldn’t understand it. His own heart was still pained at the death of his brother, and Joab couldn’t understand his sovereign’s policies. Of course, Joab was protecting his own job just as Abner was protecting his, but unlike David, Joab didn’t have any faith in what Abner said or did. Joab was certain that Abner’s visit had nothing to do with turning the kingdom over to David. The wily general was only spying out the situation and getting ready for an attack.

The text records no reply from David. Joab had never been easy to deal with (3:39), and the fact that he was a relative made the situation even more difficult. The dynamics of David’s family—the multiplied wives, the many children and various relatives in places of authority —created endless problems for the king, and they weren’t easy to solve. David’s silence wasn’t that of agreement, because he didn’t agree with his general; it was the silence of restraint and the evidence of a deep desire to put the nation back together again. David wasn’t promoting “peace at any price,” because he was a man of integrity, but he wasn’t prepared to let his impetuous general conduct a personal vendetta in the name of the king. The sentiments of Psalm 120 could certainly apply to David’s situation at this time.

Joab deceives Abner and kills him (vv. 26–27). Joab accused Abner of being a liar (v. 25) but practiced deception himself! We’re often guilty of the sins we say others commit, and “it takes a thief to catch a thief.” Joab must have sent the messengers in the name of the king or Abner would have been more cautious. Abner hadn’t seen Joab at the king’s house, so he probably assumed that David’s general was still away on his raiding expedition. Joab and his brother Abishai (v. 30) were waiting for Abner, took him to a secluded part of the city gate, and stabbed him under the fifth rib, the same place he had stabbed Asahel (2:23).

Everything about the death of Abner was wrong. The two brothers knew what their king wanted, yet they deliberately put their own interests ahead of that of the kingdom. Asahel had been pursuing Abner on the battlefield, so he was another casuality of war, but the death of Abner was murder. Hebron was a city of refuge, a sanctuary where an accused murderer could get a fair trial, but the two brothers never gave the elders in Hebron a chance to hear the case. Abner killed Asahel in self-defense, but when Joab and Abishai killed Abner, it was pure revenge, and Abner never had an opportunity to defend himself. Asahel’s death occurred in broad daylight where everybody could witness what happened, but Abner was deceived and led into the shadows. Abishai had accompanied David into Saul’s camp and had seen him refuse to kill his father-in-law (1 Sam. 26:6ff.), so he knew that David would never countenance the murder of Saul’s general. We wonder if Abner died thinking that David had been involved in the plot to kill him.

David honors Abner (vv. 28–39). When David heard the news of Abner’s death, he immediately disclaimed any part in what his two nephews had done. In fact, he went so far as to call down a curse on the house of Joab, naming some of the plagues that Moses had warned about in the covenant (Deut. 28:25–29, 58–62). David issued a royal edict that commanded Joab and his army to mourn over Abner and to attend his funeral. The phrase “all the people” is used seven times in vv. 31–37 (kjv) and refers to the men in Joab’s army (2:28; 12:29). David commanded them all to tear their garments, put on sackcloth, and weep over the death of a great man, and David himself followed the bier to the place of interment. Because Joab and Abishai were among the official mourners, it’s likely that many of the people didn’t know that they were the murderers. David didn’t call them to trial, and it’s likely that his statements in verses 29 and 39 were spoken privately to his inner council. He tried to shield them as much as possible, although they certainly didn’t deserve it.

As he did for Saul and Jonathan, David wrote an official elegy to honor the dead general (vv. 33–34, 38). He made it clear that Abner hadn’t died because of some foolish act on his part, and he had never been a prisoner at any time in his military career. He had fallen before wicked men who had deceived him. David further honored Abner by burying him in the royal city of Hebron and not taking him back to Benjamin. Later, David said to his confidential servants that Abner was “a prince and a great man.” David also appointed Abner’s son Jaasiel as chief officer over the tribe of Benjamin.

David’s lament for himself in verse 39 was heard by his select “inner circle” and expressed the problems David had with his own family. The word “weak” doesn’t suggest that David was not strong enough to be king, but rather that he was “restrained and gentle” in contrast to the “hard” approach of his nephews. David had experienced God’s gentleness (22:36), and he tried to deal with others as God had dealt with him. He no doubt went too far in this approach when it came to his own family (18:5, 14), but David was a man after God’s own heart (Ps. 103:8–14). All David could do was leave the judgment with the Lord, for He never makes a mistake.