2 Samuel 3:6-39

1. David’s acceptance of Abner 3:6-39

Abner was the strong man in Israel; Ish-bosheth was simply a figurehead (2 Samuel 3:11). Abner’s loyalty to the house of Saul is clear from his actions so far. However there was conflict between Ish-bosheth and Abner. In the ancient Near East the king’s concubines were his means for raising up heirs if the queen could not bear children, or even if she could. Ish-bosheth regarded Abner’s act as a sign of disloyalty. He seemed to be trying to have an heir by a royal concubine who could have, according to custom, become king one day (cf. 2 Samuel 16:22; 1 Kings 2:22). We do not know whether this was Abner’s plan or not. He implied denial of that motive but not the act. In any case, this incident resulted in Abner shifting his support from Ish-bosheth to David. Perhaps it was the last straw for Abner, who had recently suffered a devastating defeat by David’s men, and who must have seen that he could not win. "A dog’s head" (2 Samuel 3:8) seems to mean a worthless dog (cf. 2 Kings 6:25).

"It was the exclusive right of the successor to the throne to cohabit with the concubine of the deceased king, who came down to him as part of the property which he inherited [according to ancient Near Eastern custom, not according to the Mosaic Law]." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, pp. 301-2.]

"It may be that Abner, as de facto ruler of all Israel, offered David his allegiance in exchange for the position of sar saba’ [commander of the army], the equivalent of his office in Eshbaal’s army and the post currently held by Joab. 2 Samuel 3:12 suggests something of the sort when it speaks of a personal deal between these two men." [Note: James Vanderkam, "Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study," Journal of Biblical Literature 99:4 (1980):531-32.]

The fact that Michal was Saul’s daughter was clearly part of the reason David requested her (2 Samuel 3:13). Reunion with her would have tied David in to Saul’s house and made him more acceptable to the northern tribes.

"By making her his queen he would divide the loyalties of citizens in the north: did loyalty to Saul’s memory mean that they should be the subjects of his son, Ish-bosheth, or of his daughter? By such means David could weaken his opponent without killing a single Israelite soldier and without causing any resentment at all." [Note: David F. Payne, I & II Samuel, pp. 168-69.]

It was contrary to God’s will for David to remarry Michal (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). God graciously blessed David in spite of his disobedience (2 Samuel 3:2-5; 2 Samuel 3:12-16), but this sin undoubtedly weakened David.

Abner lobbied for David with Israel’s leading men (2 Samuel 3:17) on the basis that they had previously favored David. Perhaps Abner and Ish-bosheth had blocked their efforts. He also did so because David was the Lord’s anointed king (2 Samuel 3:18). The Benjamites needed special courting since Saul was a Benjamite. Abner may have expected an appointment in David’s administration for his efforts.

There were many reasons why Joab disliked Abner. He hated him because he was the rival commander-in-chief and because he evidently had a superior character in some respects (cf. 2 Samuel 3:38). He also opposed Abner because he was a threat to Joab’s career advancement, if the alliance went through. Mostly Joab opposed Abner because Abner had killed his brother, Asahel, in battle (2 Samuel 3:30). Joab murdered Abner in a city of refuge, Hebron, where God had prohibited the taking of revenge (Numbers 35:22-25). Abner may have been too sure of his own importance in David’s eyes to suspect that one of David’s officers would dare to attack him. David was very careful to let everyone know that Abner’s murder was Joab’s doing and not his. If it had been David’s doing, he would have lost the support of the northern tribes.

"Rarely in the Old Testament has a narrator gone to such lengths, as has the writer of this passage, to preserve the good name of one of his characters. In one way and another, he assures us that neither David’s heart nor his hand was set against Abner: Joab acted on his own account." [Note: Gordon, pp. 216-17.]

Why did David not execute or at least punish Joab? The writer did not record the answer. However, we notice that David was characteristically too slow to discipline members of his own family when they deserved it (e.g., Joab, Ammon, and Absalom). Some interpreters of the Hebrew text believe what David wished on Joab’s descendants was that they would continually experience diseases, violent death, and poverty. This is what God promised to bring on those of His people who despised His will (cf. Deuteronomy 21:1-9). One scholar believed David meant that Joab would always count among his descendants men fit only for the occupations of women, since David referred to one "who takes hold of a distaff" (i.e., a spindle). [Note: S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, p. 251.] Another writer suggested that David prayed that Joab’s household would never be without a corvée-worker, namely, a person forced to work without pay. [Note: Steven Holloway, "Distaff, Crutch or Chain Gang: The Curse of the House of Joab in 2 Samuel III 29," Vetus Testamentum 37:3 (July 1987):370-75.]

"We need not doubt David’s genuine respect for Abner, but the funeral is also a media event. It is like a U.S. president with the returned body of a soldier from an unauthorized war. The president must lead national mourning, which is genuine, but at the same time must stage a media event designed to legitimate policy." [Note: Brueggemann, p. 230.]

For the first time the writer referred to David as "King David" (2 Samuel 3:31). The writer had referred to David as the king previously (2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 2:7; 2 Samuel 2:11; 2 Samuel 3:17; 2 Samuel 3:21-24), but he never used the title "King David." Now that the threat of the north had died with Abner, David’s throne was secure enough to warrant this title.

The description of Abner as "a prince and a great man" who had fallen that day in Israel (2 Samuel 3:38) has inspired eulogizers in funerals for generations. David’s good public relations were essential for support, but they would not avert divine discipline for his disobedience.

"Thenius (156) once noted that it is very surprising that David should openly confess his own weakness and fear of Joab and Abishai, yet this may be a possible explanation as to why David as king and judge failed to punish Joab. Alternatively, one could argue that in some way or other Joab’s deed had some justification: his brother’s blood had been shed and the killer was known. Even at a later time a manslayer could be killed by the avenger of blood if he did not reach the city of refuge in time (see Deuteronomy 19:6). Only after David’s death was Joab’s deed interpreted (for political reasons?) as crime worthy of death." [Note: Anderson, p. 64. His reference is to O. Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels, p. 156.]