Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament2 SAMUEL 3
ABNER DECIDED TO AID DAVID;
ABNER WAS MURDERED BY JOAB;
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CIVIL WAR
Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: and David waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
This progressive shift of power from the house of Saul to that of David fulfilled Samuel's prophecy in 1 Sam. 15:28.
During this extended conflict, there was not a succession of many battles, but an atmosphere of constant hostility. At least part of Abner's attention had to be directed against the encroaching demands of the Philistines; and, having lost the most of his able soldiers in the battle that resulted in Saul's death, Abner doubtless became less and less successful in his forays against the Philistines. In all probability, that failure was the basic reason which lay behind Abner's decision to switch allegiance to David. Abner, of course wanted to be king, as indicated by his taking one of Saul's concubines, but when it became evident that he would be unable to deliver northern Israel from the dominant power of the Philistines, he perceived that his own personal interests would probably be best served by his changing sides in the conflict.
REPORT OF SONS BORN TO DAVID AT HEBRON
And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; and his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; and the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David's wife. These were born to David in Hebron.
In a collective sense, these sons of David were nothing special. Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar, the full sister of Absalom (2 Samuel 13:1) and was murdered by Absalom, who also rebelled against his father and sought to dethrone him. Practically nothing is known of Chileab, who is called Daniel in 1 Chr. 3:1. Adonijah had himself proclaimed king during the final illness of David; but upon what pretext we are not told. It has been supposed that Chileab (his older brother) was dead; and, if so, he might have claimed to be David's oldest living son, the other older sons Absalom and Ammon both having been killed. Nothing is known either of Shephatiah or Ithream except what is stated here. Regarding Adonijah, Beecher declared that, "His conduct gives us no reason"F1 to have a high opinion of him. If we may judge, therefore, by the behavior of the three sons whose records have come down to us, the group of sons mentioned here could not have been, in any sense, ideal princes of David's kingdom.
Among David's many sins, his polygamy must be cited as one of the worst. "It resulted in friction, hatred, and division in his household."F2 Apparently, love for the women he married had little to do with David's marriages, in which financial, political and other motives also entered. For example, his marriage to a daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, strengthened his relative position with regard to the house of Saul, because, "It cemented an alliance which helped to isolate Ishbosheth, since Geshur was an Aramaean state lying north of Gilead."F3 "Talmai's capital was Bashan where Og was once king (Deuteronomy 3:11)."F4
Ithream, of Eglah, David's wife
(2 Samuel 3:5). As Willis noted: This statement that Eglah was David's wife is a mystery.F5 The statement applies equally to all six of the wives mentioned here, and commentators are puzzled by the appearance of these words regarding Eglah. Matthew Henry stated that, Some think that `Eglah' is another name for Michal, David's first and most rightful wife, and that, although she had no child after mocking David, she might have borne a son before that.F6 To this writer, the most logical explanation, while unprovable, is that there were two prominent women named Eglah known to the people of that time, and that David's wife was added here to distinguish between them.
THE RIFT BETWEEN ABNER AND ISHBOSHETH
And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong in the house of Saul. Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and [Ish-bosheth] said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father's concubine? Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ish-bosheth, and said, Am I a dog's head that belongeth to Judah? This day do I show kindness unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David; and yet thou chargest me this day with a fault concerning this woman. God do so to Abner, and more also, if, as Jehovah hath sworn to David, I do not even so to him; 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 Beer-sheba. And he could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him.
This paragraph, along with what has been written earlier, identifies Abner as, "Not only the founder but the grave-digger of the kingdom of Ishbosheth."F7
Why have you gone in to my father's concubine?
(2 Samuel 3:7). It was the exclusive right of the successor to the throne to cohabit with the concubines of the deceased king.F8 Right here is the full explanation of why it is stated in 2 Sam. 2:10 that Ishbosheth reigned only two years. Afterward and until Abner's defection to David the real king and ruler of northern Israel was no one else but Abner. Ishbosheth, although nominally king, was no such thing. He would soon show the nominal king who was the real master.F9
Although Abner pretended to miss the point of Ishbosheth's objection, "He was not stupid enough really to have missed it, but he pretended to treat the objection as a criticism made on moral grounds."F10
A concubine whose name was Rizpah
(2 Samuel 3:7). We shall meet with this noble woman again in 2 Sam. 3:21.
What the Lord has sworn (to David) to transfer the kingdom. and set up the throne of David
(2 Samuel 3:9). These words of Abner, like those of Saul and Jonathan at an earlier date, acknowledge explicitly that all of them knew that it was God's will for David to succeed Saul.F11 In this light, the shameful criminality of Abner in setting up Ishbosheth appears extremely wicked. The following is an accurate comment on Abner's behavior:
"With the utmost arrogance and insolence he lets Ishbosheth know that he had raised him up and that he could put him down and that he would indeed do so. He knew that God willed that David should have the kingdom, but Abner opposed it with all his might from a principle of ambition, but now he will comply with God's will from a principle of revenge, under cover of some regard for God's will, which was but a pretence."F12
ABNER PROPOSED A COVENANT WITH DAVID
And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose is the land? saying [also], Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel unto thee. And he said, Well; I will make a league with thee; but one thing I require of thee: that is, thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal, Saul's daughter, when thou comest to see my face. And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. And Ish-bosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Paltiel the son of Laish. And her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim. Then said Abner unto him, Go, return: and he returned.
Payne explained this demand on the part of David as a maneuver that would, "Greatly strengthen David's claim to Saul's throne; and the fact of Ishbosheth's meek compliance is significant."F13 We agree with Tatum that, "David did not seek the return of Michal in love, but rather as a political move."F14 It is also perfectly evident that Michal and Paltiel loved each other, and there is hardly a more pitiful scene in all the Bible than that of the brutal, arbitrary separation of this man and his wife by the self-seeking, power-brokers of that era. "The feelings of Michal were not consulted here. The love which she once had for David had been fully transferred to Paltiel, because two people cannot live separate lives for as long as Michal and David had been separated, and then pick up the threads of their old affections again."F15 It is virtually certain that Michal never forgave David for his breaking up her marriage with Paltiel. This would explain her mocking reference to David at a later time.
When once the God-given law of marriage has been violated, the law which requires a man and his wife to live together "until death do us part" -- once that command is broken, there is no way to repair the resulting damage to human lives. God has revealed no "remedy" to cure the mess that people make for themselves with multiple marriages, divorces, etc. Why? There really is no way to make "everything all right" after the law of God has been flouted and disobeyed.
And, since God has not given any "remedy" for such sad conditions, people should be warned against letting any church or any preacher or religious prelate lay down the rules on how to "fix the situation." Some things CANNOT be "fixed." DeHoff put it this way: "Some of the problems, no human being can solve."F16
Young pointed out that what David did (by taking Michal back as his wife) was against God's law. "According to the law of Deut. 24:1-4, David could not legitimately receive his wife back after her marriage to Paltiel."F17 This action must therefore be reckoned among the shameful sins of this "man after God's own heart." There was only one way in which David was entitled to be so-called, and that lay in his absolute refusal to love and trust any other god except the Lord God. Even when condemned for his gross and lustful sins, David continued to confess his unworthiness, seek God's forgiveness, and pledge again to walk in the paths of righteousness.
Michal. whom I betrothed at the price of a hundred foreskins of the Philistines
(2 Samuel 3:14). The snide critical comment that, This passage knows nothing of David's paying double the price demanded,F18 is typical of the unfairness of much criticism. There is no contradiction whatever between what is said here and what was reported in 1 Sam. 18:25,27. What David mentioned here was not what he paid, but what the price was! And in both accounts, the price is given as a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. Compare 1 Sam. 18:24 and 2 Sam. 3:14 here. What David actually paid is not mentioned here.
ABNER SOLICITS THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL FOR DAVID
And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, In times past ye sought for David to be king over you: now then do it; for Jehovah hath 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. And Abner also spake 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.
For some time you have been seeking to make David king over you
(2 Samuel 3:18). Evidently, following the death of Saul, there had been an attempt to make David king of all Israel, but David's involvement with the Philistines and Abner's personal ambition had frustrated that effort.
The Lord has promised. by the hand of David to deliver (Israel) ... from all their enemies
(2 Samuel 3:18). Here Abner went far beyond the text of anything found in the Holy Scriptures.F19 Abner's mention here of what he called the Lord's promise that David would deliver the Israelites from the hand of the Philistines gives the clue behind the real reason for Abner's changing over to David. Abner had not been successful in breaking the Philistines' strangle-hold on the greater part of northern Israel. At that time, all Israel was sorely in need of a deliverer.
Keil and many other dependable scholars suggest that this paragraph has the nature of a parenthesis, recounting what Abner had already done before his first trip to David and the episode involving Michal.F20
DAVID PREPARED A FEAST FOR ABNER AND HIS MEN
Verses 20, 21
So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast. And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they may make a covenant with thee, and that thou mayest reign over all that thy soul desireth. And David sent Abner away; and he went in peace.
There was one big thing wrong with this arrangement, and that was the fact that, although David knew of Joab's murderous hatred of Abner, due to his having slain Asahel, he did not take Joab into his confidence here and brief him on what was afoot with Abner. In fact, some have supposed that, it is not unlikely that David had sent Joab on some kind of a foray in order to have him out of Hebron at the time of Abner's visit. As H. P. Smith stated it, "Not improbably David had so planned it."F21 This error on the part of David resulted in Abner's murder and the collapse of the prospective union of the two Israels.
JOAB'S ANGRY REBUKE OF DAVID
And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from a foray, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace. When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace. Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.
"H. P. Smith thought that Joab's anger at David was because David had sent Abner away in peace, when, as a kinsman of Asahel, he should have taken action."F22 If that was Joab's reason for anger, it was without any justification whatever. Killing during a battle neither required nor allowed that the next of kin should avenge the death. Abner's slaying of Asahel was justified as being in a battle and in self-defense and absolutely unavoidable, except upon the premise that Abner should have sacrificed his own life to avoid it. David himself gave this evaluation of the killing of Abner in 1 Kings 2:5. "Joab ... murdered (Amasa and Abner), avenging in time of peace blood which had been shed in war and putting innocent blood upon the girdle of my loins." This contradicts what H. P. Smith stated, namely, that, "By tribal morality, David as kinsman of Asahel was bound to take blood revenge as much as Joab himself."F23 Keil stated that:
"This act of Joab in which Abishai was also concerned (2 Samuel 3:30), was a treacherous act of assassination, which could not even be defended as blood-revenge, since Abner had slain Asahel in battle after repeated warnings, and only for the purpose of saving his own life. The principle motive for Joab's action was his most contemptible jealousy, or the fear lest Abner's reconciliation to David should diminish his own influence with the king. The same was true later in his murder of Amasa (2 Samuel 22:10)."F24
Following this insulting tirade against his king, Joab rushed off to carry out his own diabolical scheme of jealous envy against Abner. We must agree with R. Payne Smith that, "Had David acted openly, all would have been done with Joab's consent and approval."F25
JOAB AND ABISHAI'S MURDER OF ABNER
And when Joab was come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, and they brought him back from the well of Sirah: but David knew it not. And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the midst of the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there in the body, so that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. And afterward, when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before Jehovah for ever of the blood of Abner the son of Ner: let it fall upon the head of Joab, and upon all his father's house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth by the sword, or that lacketh bread. So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.
One may only pity David's helplessness in this situation. Much as was the case with Ishbosheth and Abner, David was dependent upon the man who commanded his army. The only difference was that Joab was loyal to what he believed to be the interests of the king, whereas Abner changed his loyalty to David.
The terrible curse which David invoked upon the house of Joab finally culminated in Solomon's slaughter of Joab between the horns of the altar, following Joab's backing of Adonijah to be the successor of David. Among David's last words, were those in which he admonished Solomon not to allow the gray hairs of Joab to go down to the grave in peace. The incredible damage to the entire history of Israel which resulted from this shameful assassination of Abner could hardly be overestimated. The eventual division of the kingdom in the reign of Rehoboam was due in part to the mistrust and hatred that followed this terribly unjust action of Joab and Abishai.
They brought him (Abner) back from the cistern of Sirah
(2 Samuel 3:26). Josephus tell us that this place was located only, Twenty furlongs from Hebron,F26 that is, about two miles.
Abner was a very evil man and fully deserved to die for his long and bitter opposition to David at a time when he most certainly knew that he was opposing God's will, but that in no way justified the totally unjustifiable murder inflicted upon him by the evil hands of Joab and Abishai. "This evil deed brought upon David an evil name, and four or five more years had to elapse before the tribes could be induced to take him as their king."F27
One who has a discharge, or who is leprous, or who holds a spindle, or who is slain by the sword, or who lacks bread
(2 Samuel 3:29) The five curses here invoked by David upon the head of Joab and upon his father's house were itemized by Willis as: (1) gonorrhea; (2) leprosy; (3) effeminacy; (4) untimely death; and (5) hunger.F28
David did not content himself with this imprecation against Joab; he also took further action against Joab. "During the intervening years, Joab was deprived of his office, which he regained only by an act of daring bravery (1 Chronicles 11:6)."F29
DAVID, THE CHIEF MOURNER AT ABNER'S FUNERAL
Then David said to Joab and to all the people who were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird on sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And King David followed the bier. They buried Abner at Hebron; and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept. And the king lamented for Abner, saying,
Should Abner die as a fool dies?
Your hands were not bound,
Your feet were not fettered;
As one falls before the wicked
you have fallen.
And all the people wept again over him. Then all the people came to persuade David to eat bread while it was yet day; but David swore, `God do so to me and more also, if I taste bread or anything else until the sun goes down.' And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them, as everything that the king did pleased all the people. So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it had not been the king's will to slay Abner the son of Ner. And the king said to his servants, `Do you not know that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel? And I am this day weak, though anointed king; these men, the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me. The Lord requite the evildoer according to his wickedness.'"
Here David exerted himself mightily to dissociate himself from the crime of Abner's treacherous assassination; and Willis was of the opinion that, "The north Israelites were convinced of David's sincerity."F30 However, we have some reservations in agreeing with this. There was some reason why it took an additional five years to unite all Israel under David's authority. And it seems to us, that had Abner lived, that objective might have been achieved much sooner. Some reluctance on the part of northern Israel must surely have followed the death of Abner.
And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And king David followed the bier. And they buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept. And the king lamented for Abner, and said, Should Abner die as a fool dieth? Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so didst thou fall. And all the people wept again over him. And all the people came to cause David to eat bread while it was yet day; but David sware, saying, God do so to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or aught else, till the sun be down. And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of Ner. And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me: Jehovah reward the evil-doer according to his wickedness.
(2 Samuel 3:39). Young noted that, Although David dealt harshly with the Amalekites, put to death the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul, and ordered the execution of the men who murdered Ishbosheth, David failed to act in the case of the misdeeds of Joab. He washed his hands and left the family of Joab to the judgment of God.F31
I am this day weak, though anointed king
(2 Samuel 3:39). This is the sad truth with many a man in high office. He is bound by the prejudices, vices, and ambitions of his subordinates, upon whom, in many instances, he is dependent for the continuation of his authority. So it was with David here. He could not afford to order the execution of Joab to whom the army most certainly was loyal. Furthermore, without the ability and loyalty of Joab, David's kingship might have been endangered. Only the providence of God could have brought out of this situation the glorious Israel that later developed.
Footnotes for 2 Samuel 3
1: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 57.
2: John T. Willis, p. 299.
3: The New Bible Commentary, Revised, p. 303.
4: Albert Barnes, Samuel, p. 77.
5: John T. Willis, p. 300.
6: Matthew Henry's Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 458.
7: The New Layman's Bible Commentary, p. 406.
8: C. F. Keil, Keil and Delitzsch's Old Testament Commentaries, Vol. 2b, p. 301.
9: Arthur S. Peake's Commentary, p. 287.
10: The Interpreter's Bible, Vol 2, p. 1057.
11: The New Bible Commentary, Revised, p. 303
12: Matthew Henry's Commentary, op. cit., p. 459.
13: The New Bible Commentary, Revised, p. 303.
14: The Teachers' Bible Commentary, p. 181.
15: The Interpreter's Bible, op. cit., p. 1057.
16: George DeHoff's Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 187.
17: Wycliffe Old Testament Commentary, Old Testament, Samuel, p. 294.
18: International Critical Commentary, Samuel, p. 277.
19: The Pulpit Commentary, op. cit., p. 66.
20: C. F. Keil, Keil and Delitzsch's Old Testament Commentaries, op. cit., p. 303.
21: International Critical Commentary, op. cit., p.279
24: C. F. Keil, Keil and Delitzsch's Old Testament Commentaries, op. cit., p. 306.
25: The Pulpit Commentary, op. cit., p. 67.
26: Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, p. 207.
27: The Pulpit Commentary, op. cit., p. 68.
28: John T. Willis, p. 305.
29: The Pulpit Commentary, op. cit., p. 68.
30: John T. Willis, p. 300.
31: Wycliffe Old Testament Commentary, op. cit., p. 394.