2 Samuel 3:1–39

3:2 During David’s residence at Hebron he acquires four more wives in addition to Ahinoam and Abigail, whom he married earlier (2:2), and his family increases by at least six sons. The record here may be derived from an official archive in which only the eldest son of each wife is named. But it is clear that David is no longer a fugitive in the wilderness but is the founder of a dynasty, with sons to succeed him. However, the impact of three of these sons will prove to be far from positive (cf. Amnon in chs. 13–14; Absalom in chs. 15–19; Adonijah in 1 Kings 1–2).

3:3–5 In the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 3:1, the second son of David, Chileab, is called Daniel, possibly an alternative name. Since no more is heard of him, he probably died young. Absalom’s mother was from the royal family in Geshur, a minor Syrian kingdom northeast of the Sea of Galilee.¹ This marriage would have been politically motivated, giving David an ally north of the area controlled by the house of Saul. Nothing is known about the other wives listed. That “Eglah” is described as “David’s wife” is a curious piece of information, given that the preceding five women were also his wives. It may be a literary device to terminate the list.

This list of wives sounds an ominous note. In contrast to 1 Samuel 25:43, where David had two wives, a suboptimal situation tolerated under the Mosaic law (cf. comment on 1 Sam. 1:2), David now has clearly contravened the requirement that the covenant king should “not acquire many wives for himself” (Deut. 17:17). What makes matters worse is the fact that Maacah, and perhaps some of the others as well, is not an Israelite. The commitment of the royal family to the Lord is liable to be undercut from within.

3:6 Throughout the years of confrontation between north and south, whether by political machination or by military action, Abner has secured his position as a chief player in the deteriorating northern regime.

Abner was Saul’s cousin and was the commander of Saul’s army from the beginning of his reign (1 Sam. 14:50). After the death of Goliath, Abner brought David to Saul (1 Sam. 17:55–57) and, along with David, was a significant figure in Saul’s court (1 Sam. 20:25). He had been beside Saul in the wilderness of Ziph when David came on them while asleep (1 Sam. 26:14–16). His role in the battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31) is not stated, but he retained his loyalty to the house of Saul and had been instrumental in setting up Ish-bosheth’s kingdom (2 Sam. 2:8–9). He was, however, motivated by personal ambition and, recognizing the failure of the dynasty of Saul, aimed to retain a prominent position in whatever would replace it.

3:7 Rizpah, whose father was Aiah, had been Saul’s concubine, a recognized wife of lower status; she reappears in 21:8–11. In the light of the customs of the ancient Near East, initiating a sexual relationship with the concubine of a former ruler constituted a claim to be his successor (2 Sam. 12:8; 16:21; 1 Kings 2:21–22). Ish-bosheth levels the accusation that Abner has “gone in to” her (a euphemism for sexual relations). Ish-bosheth does not use her name. Rizpah (like Michal later in the chapter) is merely a pawn in the political maneuvering taking place.

3:8 Abner responds indignantly to Ish-bosheth’s accusation, which was probably true. His reference to a “dog’s head” (cf. 9:8) is the equivalent to saying, “Am I a disreputable character?” He has not promoted the interests of Judah, and he vehemently asserts his “steadfast love” (Hb. hesed) for the house of Saul. As regards his loyalty toward Ish-bosheth, he goes no further than the negative assertion that he has “not given you into the hand of David.” Abner’s use of “hand” here and in 3:12, 18 reveals that he views the situation as a matter of control and power. Who is the weakling Ish-bosheth to challenge him?

3:9–10 In a fit of temper, Abner solemnly calls down upon himself divine punishment (cf. v. 35) if he does not transfer his allegiance to David. He is probably taking advantage of the occasion to bring forward plans he has been developing for some time. He knows of the Lord’s promise to David, and it is a measure of his arrogance that Abner claims he can bestow the kingdom on David, not out of loyalty to the Lord but as a matter of political expediency. He expects to win David’s gratitude by inducing the northern tribes to transfer their allegiance. For “from Dan to Beersheba,” the furthest north to the deepest south of the land, cf. comment on 1 Samuel 3:20.

3:11 Ish-bosheth cowers before Abner’s harangue. He realizes he has created an impossible situation for himself and considers silence to be prudent. “He feared him” both in regard to the power Abner wields in the kingdom and also in regard to the threat to his personal safety.

3:12 Abner loses no time in approaching David through agents authorized to act on his behalf. He brings two issues before David:

(1) “To whom does the land belong?” (lit., “To whom land?”) is not an obvious starting point for negotiations, and the text is often taken to be corrupt here. The question might indicate that Abner considers himself the real power in the north, with whom David must negotiate, or perhaps he simply poses a question about the future of the land: “Who is to rule the land?”

(2) “Make your covenant with me” invites David to come to an understanding with Abner, the power broker. David claims the land by divine promise; Abner claims to control the larger part of it. Although Abner does not spell out his own future role, he acknowledges David’s position and promises to back David (“my hand shall be with you”; cf. comment on 3:8) and “to bring over all Israel to you.”

3:13 Although David’s speedy acceptance of Abner’s overture is somewhat surprising, he accepts that Abner can deliver on his promise, and his declaration “I will make a covenant with you” emphatically expresses his willingness to proceed.

“But” introduces a single, shrewd stipulation. Abner will be granted access to David’s court only if he openly demonstrates his break with the house of Saul by restoring David’s first wife, Michal (1 Sam. 18:20–28; 25:44). David’s description of her as “Saul’s daughter” shows that his demand arises not from personal attachment but from a desire for political advantage. This link with the house of Saul will be of value in effecting reconciliation with the northern tribes.

3:14 David does not engage in secret negotiation with Abner but formally directs his request to Ish-bosheth for the return of Michal, for whom he paid the stipulated bridal price (1 Sam. 18:20–27), after which David and Michal lived together as man and wife (1 Sam. 19:11). Had David divorced Michal, he could not have reclaimed her (Deut. 24:1–4), but their marriage had been dissolved without his consent. So her return through proper channels reverses any remaining humiliation to David from Saul’s earlier action.

3:15 Ish-bosheth complies with David’s request. He may feel flattered at being asked. Perhaps he considers David’s claim to be legitimate. Most probably, because of his fear of Abner he realizes he cannot stand up to both Abner and David. So he orders Michal to be taken from her husband, Paltiel, to whom Saul had given her. Paltiel had little say in the matter when she became his wife (1 Sam. 25:44)—and none at all in the termination of the relationship.

3:16 In this telling scene, power politics ride roughshod over human relationships. Paltiel accompanies Michal on her return journey as far as Bahurim, near Jerusalem (cf. comment on 16:5). His deep emotion is clear to all, but there is no hint of David’s attitude to Michal on her return. Abner escorts Michal, and he brusquely intervenes to stop mere sentiment interfering with matters of state, forbidding Paltiel from entering Judah: “Abner said to him, ‘Go, return.’ And he returned.” No matter how he feels, Paltiel has no option but to comply.

3:17 The sequence of events is not clear. Possibly “Abner conferred with the elders of Israel,” whose approval was needed, either face-to-face or through emissaries, even before he knows of David’s response. Opinion polls do not exist, but Abner has accurately gauged the elders’ mood. They have long realized that the divided state of the nation holds out little prospect of security and that David has grown progressively stronger (v. 1).

3:18 Abner now urges them to act on their preference for David, which would be in accordance with God’s will. As in verse 9, it is not clear precisely what promise Abner refers to; perhaps he is referencing the pronouncement regarding Saul, “He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines” (1 Sam. 9:16), and applying it to David as his appointed successor (1 Sam. 15:28). Abner is effectively admitting that he has failed to achieve this deliverance. The elders’ response, though not stated, is evidently positive.

3:19 Since Saul was a Benjaminite, special consideration must be shown to their sensitivities. “Spoke to” and “to tell” both employ the idiom “speak in the ears of,” probably implying that Abner does so personally. Again his negotiations are successful, and he can report to David “all that Israel and the whole house of Benjamin thought good to do.”

3:20 David welcomes Abner in right royal style. A feast often sealed the successful conclusion of negotiations, and such is probably its significance here. Incidentally there is no mention of the recently returned Michal at this banquet; she has already been sidelined. The “twenty men” are more probably Abner’s personal bodyguard than a delegation representing the northern tribes.

3:21 Abner emphasizes what he is in a position to do for David (cf. v. 10). “I will arise and go” is not an attempt to dictate to David but is a submission of a proposal. Abner undertakes to ensure attendance of key personnel from the north at an installation service where they will pledge allegiance to David in a “covenant with you,” with mutual responsibilities (cf. comments on 5:1–3). In this way David will achieve his aim of extending his rule throughout the whole land.

“So David sent Abner away” describes how David as the host, whom Abner has recognized as “my lord the king,” grants his guest permission to depart and to implement his proposal. “And he went in peace” (repeated in 3:22, 23) stresses that Abner and David part on good terms. Evidently there were rumors that David was complicit in Abner’s subsequent death, and so the narrator is at pains to distance David from the following events.

3:22 The rapprochement between north and south has progressed to the satisfaction of both sides, but “just then” (lit., “And behold!”) Joab bursts upon the scene and shatters the harmonious arrangements. He had been raiding hostile tribes just as David had done from Ziklag (1 Sam. 27:8), although there is no hint as to whether his absence has been fortuitous or contrived by David. When Joab returns, Abner has already left Hebron, and it is again highlighted that “he had gone in peace” (cf. 2 Sam. 3:21).

3:23 Evidently not all in David’s court are comfortable with his compact with Abner, and Joab is soon informed of the situation. By repeating “he has gone in peace” (cf. comment on 3:21), the narrator reiterates David’s goodwill.

3:24 Many factors contribute to Joab’s furious reaction, including possibly anger at being excluded from the discussions. Indeed, reconciliation between David and Abner would have threatened Joab’s own position (cf. Joab’s treatment of Amasa in 20:8–10; note also the rival patronage in dedicating spoils to the temple in 1 Chron. 26:28). However, Joab’s reaction is dominated by a desire for vengeance against the killer of his brother (2 Sam. 2:23). “So that he is gone” does not state, yet clearly implies, that Abner is now out of Joab’s grasp. There is a telling omission from the earlier “sent him away, and he had gone in peace” (3:22).

3:25 Although Joab seemingly has no information about Abner’s exact intentions, he expresses concern that David is trusting one who has betrayed Ish-bosheth. In the light of what happens next, it is ironic that Joab then accuses Abner of deception, alleging that he came to spy on David’s military movements and his plans. Possibly the vehemence of Joab’s objections and the doubts he sows unnerve David, so that he is unable to reply to Joab—a situation similar to that of Ish-bosheth before his angry general (v. 11).

3:26 Joab takes immediate action to recall Abner, possibly implying that David wished to see him again. The cistern of Sirah was located at most a few miles north of Hebron. “But David did not know about it” again stresses David’s innocence—Joab acts deceptively and without authority.

3:27 Relying on David’s safe conduct, Abner returns, not suspecting Joab’s role. “Joab took him aside,” the same action Abner urged on Asahel (2:21). Joab hustles Abner into one of the side rooms within the city gate and “struck him in the stomach [khomesh, as in 2:23]” to avenge the death of his brother—and also to remove a potential rival at court.

3:28 Some time passes before David is informed of Abner’s death. He realizes there will be those who will see his hand behind the “convenient” death of Abner, and he protests his innocence and that of the people over whom he rules. This was not a state-sponsored assassination.

3:29 The narrator does not explain why David takes only limited action against Joab (cf. comment on 3:39). The curses he invokes to “fall upon” (“swirl down upon”; cf. 1:16) Joab probably reflect those used in ratifying the covenant with Abner. Joab will be penalized for shedding Abner’s blood by the recurrent presence in his family line of individuals who suffer from running sores or unclean skin conditions, are effeminate weaklings, die in battle, or are generally impoverished.

3:30 Abishai shared Joab’s desire for revenge and is also implicated in the slaughter of Abner. Though Joab may have received some popular support for avenging a brother’s death, Asahel’s death was not the valid subject of a blood feud because it had occurred in self-defense in time of war. The disgrace of Joab’s actions is intensified by two factors: Hebron was a city of refuge (Josh. 20:7), in which one who had committed manslaughter—which Abner technically had not done—was safe from the avenger of blood, and Abner was under royal protection.

3:31 While Joab is too powerful for David to level a murder charge against him, David puts him in his place by requiring him and all of his men to tear their clothes, put on sackcloth (both actions associated with deep sorrow), and engage in public mourning for Abner. David deliberately engineers the funeral procession in order to separate himself from Joab and his contingent. He places them “before Abner,” perhaps as a guard of honor, while he “followed the bier,” the position assigned to the chief mourner. The narrator’s first use of the title “King David” here perhaps implies that he wears royal regalia out of respect for Abner. This also drives home the point that Abner’s murder was not carried out with royal approval.

3:32 Abner is buried “at Hebron,” not in his hometown of Gibeon (1 Chron. 9:35–36). David’s public grief at Abner’s grave further distances him from his subordinate’s action. At this military funeral, the troops and the population as a whole weep.

3:33 David has composed a funeral dirge to pay tribute to Abner. “Should Abner die as a fool dies?” poses an initial question to the mourners in order to stir reflection. A “fool” (Hb. nabal; cf. 1 Sam. 25:25) is one who acts disgracefully or whose conduct estranges him from society as morally worthless. David is pointing out that, although Abner died in such a fashion, this should not have happened to such an astute politician and honorable man.

3:34 David then directly addresses the departed. Abner had not been a prisoner, sentenced by a court; his death was not an execution. Instead, he was treacherously assassinated “before the wicked [lit., “the sons of wrongdoing”; cf. 7:10]”—a clear reference to Joab and Abishai, falling just short of an outright accusation of murder.

3:35–37 By repeating “all the people” (vv. 35, 36, 37), the narrator conveys David’s innocence as generally accepted by those closest to the events. Moreover, David places himself under a solemn vow to fast until nightfall out of respect for Abner (cf. 1:12, and also David’s resolve in Ps. 141:4). In the later hours of the day, the people seek to persuade him “to eat” (Hb. barah, not the usual word for eating but one used for consuming food while weak; cf. 2 Sam. 13:5), but David solemnly rejects the possibility (cf. comments on 1 Sam. 3:17; 2 Sam. 3:9). His reaction in this matter and in all others commands general respect.

Accounts of what occurred would have been taken north by the twenty men who had accompanied Abner. The narrator is careful to bring out that it was accepted not only in Hebron but also throughout “all Israel” that David had not colluded in Abner’s death.

3:38 David also feels obliged to explain privately to his court officials why he took no action regarding Joab. David readily concedes the positive qualities of his opponents—a trait lacking in Joab. Abner had been “a prince” (or “ruler”; elsewhere “commander,” 1 Sam. 14:50), one capable of leadership, and “a great man” with personal presence. These terms may possibly be taken together as a hendiadys meaning “great leader.”

3:39 David concedes, “I was gentle today,” a term suggesting weakness bordering on timidity (cf. “fainthearted”; Deut. 20:8). Even though the “anointed king” possesses authority to act summarily (2 Sam. 1:15; 4:12), and although David wishes to distance himself from Joab’s act, he must admit that “These men, the sons of Zeruiah, are more severe than I [or “too strong for me”; NIV].” Perhaps they enjoy a strong power base among the troops; another factor is undoubtedly David’s inability to deal effectively with family members. By handing the murderers over to divine justice, David recognizes that their violent action should be penalized, but in effect he confesses that he himself is incapable of doing so.