Original Meaning

Summary of the War Years (3:1–5)

RATHER THAN RECOUNT further gruesome details of the civil war, the text merely states that it goes on “a long time” (3:1) and that David gradually gains strength while Ish-Bosheth grows weaker. The summary statement substantiates the casualty count for the fateful battle near Gibeon (see 2:30–31): twenty of David’s men (including Asahel) versus 360 Benjamites of Abner’s army.

The inclusion of a list of David’s sons seems curious here. Apparently, the historian has this list before him and wants to incorporate it with other materials from the Hebron years of David’s rule. But there is surely more to it than that.10 In light of the emphasis on the growing strength of David contrasted with the waning strength of Ish-Bosheth in the immediately preceding verse (3:1), most likely this list of David’s sons born while he rules from Hebron is intended to intensify the contrast.11

The text includes the list of David’s impressive wives, some of whom have political significance. This may further contrast David with Ish-Bosheth, whose tenuous claim to his father’s throne is apparent in the next verses, where he suspects Abner of asserting his own claim to Saul’s throne by sleeping with Saul’s concubine. In addition, these verses prepare the reader for an important topic elsewhere in 2 Samuel: Who will succeed David as king?

Bridging Contexts

TWO QUESTIONS. As we have seen, the books of Samuel are primarily interested in two questions. (1) What is the acceptable nature of the new Israelite monarchy? First Samuel illustrated the deficiencies of the older tribal confederation with its center at Shiloh and its priestly leadership. We learned there that kingship is necessary in Israel and, if rightly constituted, even desirable. Gradually a nation is formed, with a monarchy that is similar to, yet also different from, the monarchies among Israel’s neighbors. Unlike Canaanite rulers, the powers of Israel’s new king are circumscribed by the unique configuration of Israel’s monarchy. The king is not free to initiate warfare whenever and against whomever he wishes, nor can he confiscate property or conscript an army without just cause or usurp the power of the priesthood (not to mention prophets!). This is truly a different kind of kingship.

(2) A further reason why Israel’s king is different is because of the answer to the second question addressed in the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as king of Israel? Yahweh alone is king of Israel, and he governs his people through his chosen anointed ones, who are merely viceroys under his command. The first anointed one, Saul, failed because he refused to accept Yahweh’s authority. The second anointed one, David, is ideal because he accepts Yahweh’s authority in principle and genuinely repents when he fails to accept it in practice.

As readers of the accounts of Saul and David in 1 Samuel, we have a privileged position as we approach the text. We have already learned that David is the legitimate replacement for Saul rather than Saul’s own son Ish-Bosheth. David has been anointed with oil by the venerable prophet Samuel, and at his anointing the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power (1 Sam. 16:1–13). Saul, by contrast, has been irrevocably condemned by Samuel and has forfeited the right to establish an eternal dynasty (13:5–15).

The second half of 1 Samuel describes the transfer of political and spiritual power from Saul to David and with agonizing clarity narrates Saul’s tragic self-destruction. While Saul was permitted to maintain his hold on the throne of Israel for a while, the prophet Samuel was clear that kingship would not pass to his descendants (1 Sam. 13:13–14). The promise of a lasting dynasty will eventually be given to David (2 Sam. 7:15–16). Ish-Bosheth is thus a tragic figure like his father. He is made king by human power structures, is mostly silent, and comes quickly to a violent end. Saul’s dynasty is truly over. Yet this unit also informs us of a son of Jonathan, who will become important later in the extended narrative (4:4).

As I have noted elsewhere in this commentary, Old Testament narratives can have different levels of interpretation: universal, national, and individual.17 Every individual narrative also plays some role in the greater national narrative of Israel’s history and thus also contributes to the ultimate narrative of God’s redemptive plan in history. This present unit of Scripture contributes on a number of levels to legitimize and explain David as the rightful successor to Saul. The individual accounts of the civil war between David and Ish-Bosheth illustrate the national drama, as summarized by the historian (3:1): “David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” This collection of individual narratives create trajectories moving in opposite directions: Ish-Bosheth’s leading inexorably down and David’s steadily up.

The ideal anointed one. I have also emphasized the growing messianism in 1 and 2 Samuel. On the universal level of interpretation, this unit makes its own contribution to Israel’s understanding of the ideal anointed one. The books of Samuel emphasize four main themes that contributed to the concept of messiah.18 (1) The ideal anointed one is God’s appointed ruler. (2) He trusts in God alone, who protects him. (3) The anointed one leads Israel to victory in battle against the nation’s enemies. (4) He is a just ruler.

In the previous passage (2:1–7), we saw how David faithfully trusted God alone for direction. This unit continues to illustrate that David is God’s appointed ruler, but it does so in different ways. It shows Yahweh’s protection and guidance being worked out in the political and military realms. David and his army are victorious in battle and only grow stronger as the war continues. Furthermore, David is innocent of any wrongdoing in the vicious murders of Abner and Ish-Bosheth. In fact, the narrator is careful to portray David as a just ruler in executing Ish-Bosheth’s assassins and eventually in avenging Joab’s bloody revenge (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). In other words, David is portrayed as victorious in battle and just in his actions, contributing further to the messianic ideal for Israel’s future.

Roadblocks. However, today’s Christian readers often stumble over a number of roadblocks, obstructing their ability to apply principles just cited. (1) Many struggle with the amount of warfare and bloodshed in Old Testament narratives. This unit is particularly brutal, and several subsequent passages in 2 Samuel will raise the same question. (2) This unit also contains examples of political conspiracy that result in murder but also play a role in Yahweh’s plan to bring David to power. (3) The role of women in the Old Testament often seems offensive to today’s readers. Note how Saul’s unnamed concubine becomes a political pawn (3:7–8) and how Michal, the daughter of Saul, is treated as a royal object to be bartered for (3:13–16). Such difficulties may make it difficult to build a bridge from the ancient context to our own.

In addressing these difficulties, we should begin with a reminder about the nature of biblical revelation. God has revealed his nature and his ways of dealing with human brokenness through inspired, sacred texts. We are not built up in faith and nurtured in Christian understanding primarily through an exploration of ancient history, even sacred biblical history. Such exploration will contribute to our understanding of God, but historical research is not sacred Scripture. Rather, the means of God’s grace in our lives is the text of Scripture itself, and when we read the Old Testament historical books, we must be aware of the special concerns and worldview represented there. These biblical books relate the events of the past in order to build our faith. They select, organize, and explain the past as a kerygmatic treatise (see the introduction on this point). It is not the ancient historical events themselves that make us stronger in faith. Rather, it is the text’s explanation of those actions and its interpretation of their significance that the Holy Spirit uses to strengthen our own experience with God.

In other words, obviously modern Christians are not to mimic the Old Testament’s understanding of warfare and seek to participate in murderous political conspiracy, any more than we would view and treat women as they are treated in this narrative. It is not the actions narrated that serve as Christian Scripture but the text’s selection, organization, and explanation that we need to heed. And the main point of this unit is Yahweh’s faithfulness to his anointed servant David, even in the nitty-gritty, everyday affairs of his political and military life. Through time, all the messy affairs of Ish-Bosheth’s rival monarchy in the north are resolved, and in Yahweh’s timing the way becomes clear for David to become king of all Israel (5:1–25). Navigating carefully through the cultural peculiarities of the ancient Near East and reading this unit in light of the surrounding narrative make it possible to see the message of the rise of Israel’s ideal king.

Let us now make a few comments on each of the difficulties mentioned above. (1) With regard to warfare in the Old Testament, one of the most difficult adjustments we must make is to learn to rejoice with national Israel when they witness Yahweh’s salvation accomplished through military strength.19 The sight of Egyptian corpses lying on the shore of the Red Sea symbolized Yahweh’s gracious deliverance of a defenseless Israel against the greatest military power of that day (Ex. 14:30). The sight of dead Egyptian soldiers strengthened their faith (14:31) and led to worshipful singing and praise (15:1–21). Indeed, Yahweh’s defeat of the Egyptian army became the concrete sign of his salvation and new life for Israel throughout the Old Testament.

In the account of David’s defeat of Goliath, the text invited us to rejoice at the sight of the decapitated Philistine, lying motionless in the Valley of Elah (1 Sam. 17:51), or at the news that the Philistine dead were strewn along the road from Gath to Ekron after the great Israelite victory (17:52). Obviously, these are not images we normally evoke when seeking to build Christian faith today, but they are important and powerful images in biblical revelation. We need to remember that ancient Near Eastern philosophy equated military strength with a nation’s deity. Victory in battle authenticated a deity’s superiority; this was part and parcel of the world in which ancient Israel moved. We must accept their cultural constraints without condemning their views, while learning the truths of the theological explanations given in Scripture.20 Thus, David’s and Joab’s victories are here expressions of Yahweh’s power and faithfulness.

(2) Similar cultural conditioning is necessary to understand the conspiracies and murders reported here. Joab’s treachery against Abner is not reported in order to serve as an example for us. Rather, the text clearly condemns his actions (through the words of David), and such actions eventually result in Joab’s own death (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). Likewise, the collusion to assassinate Ish-Bosheth is condemned—again through the words of David. These episodes are not narrated as Yahweh’s will, but they do illustrate that Yahweh is at work to accomplish his promises to David, even through such villainous and inane actions.

(3) Michal and Saul’s concubine are certainly mistreated in this passage. Royal women particularly were often trapped in the political struggles of the ancient world, because they were believed to legitimize one’s claim to the throne.21 The injustices of ancient Near Eastern culture are often reflected in the sacred biblical texts. That is not to say the text condones those injustices, even when there is no explicitly stated condemnation. Again, we must read these texts in light of the theological explanation of the extended unit. Ish-Bosheth’s rash accusation about the concubine (3:7) illustrates his growing weakness and his inevitable failure as king. It is not a laudatory acceptance of the way royal concubines were treated. Likewise, Michal’s return to David has points of contact with 1 Samuel and later in 2 Samuel, all illustrating David’s legitimacy as Saul’s successor.

Thus, we read these texts for what they teach us about God’s faithfulness to David and the Davidic dynasty, not as a means of critiquing contemporary views of warfare or the roles of women in society. There are other biblical texts (both Old and New Testament) for that. There are many indications, in fact, that the Old Testament’s view of women in general was consistently at odds with its ancient Near Eastern matrix and that it began a process (continued in the New Testament) of liberating women from the injustices of cultural mores.

Having attempted to overcome these obstacles, the reader should not miss the importance of the summary statement at 3:1: “The war between the house of Saul and the house of David lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” Like looking through a lens and adjusting the focus for a better view, this verse gives us a sharp picture of David as the anointed one who received the Spirit of the Lord in power (1 Sam. 16:13). Soon after his anointing, strangers around him recognized that the Lord was with him in a unique way (16:18). The biblical historian has followed this theme, illustrating that Yahweh is the moving force behind the historical events (18:14, 18).

Our summary statement at 2 Samuel 3:1 propels us forward to that day when David will become king of all Israel because of God’s powerful presence with him: “And he became more and more powerful, because the LORD God Almighty was with him” (5:10). All of the battles and intrigue narrated in here illustrate that God is with David. Old Testament historical books often teach by showing rather than by telling. By showing how these problems were resolved, this text illustrates again that God is blessing and preparing David, his ideal king of Israel.

Contemporary Significance

JUST AS THERE was a right way and a wrong way to become king in ancient Israel, so there is for believers a right and wrong way to fulfill the promises of God in our lives. And just as the righteous way illustrated in this text by David leads to strength and the wrong way illustrated by Ish-Bosheth to weakness, so there are consequences to the way we choose.

Corporate significance. This understanding of our text has a corporate significance. In the case of the early church, Christian believers waited patiently in prayer as instructed by Jesus for the promised Holy Spirit of God to become a reality (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 14). This devotion was not unlike David’s patiently waiting for God’s time and place to fulfill his promises. Sadly, the church has not always been so patient or, for that matter, so obedient to God’s call. At times the body of Christ on earth has been more like Ish-Bosheth than David.

For example, Pope Urban II devised a plan to rescue the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem from the hands of the Turks, who had closed the city to Christian pilgrims. On November 26, 1095 A.D., at the council in Clermont, the pope urged Christians to capture the Holy Sepulchre by force, wresting it “from the wicked race” in order to subject it again to Christendom.22 He shamelessly offered remission of sins and eternal life to anyone who took up the sword. The prospects of military conquest and unlimited spoils of war generated religious hysteria throughout France and Germany, and the first of the Crusades was under way.

In the spring and summer of 1096, soldiers began moving through the Rhine Valley, where thousands of Jews were victimized by the madness. Rumors spread that the Jews were aiding the cause of Islam. Approximately five thousand Jews were slaughtered at Worms, Mainz, and Cologne. More Jews would die with the thousands of Muslims who lost their lives later.23 This is without question the wrong way to make God’s promises a reality and to usher in the kingdom of heaven. The right way—the way of patience, trust, and hope—is illustrated by the early church and by King David. But the Crusaders replaced it with the way of Ish-Bosheth and Abner, a way of brute force and military power.

Individual significance. Beyond the corporate significance, this text also has individual significance. The Bible portrays two important gardens, where individuals typify the right way and the wrong way to fulfill God’s purposes in our lives. In the Garden of Eden, Eve recognized that the forbidden fruit would make her wise like God (Gen. 3:5). Of course, she and Adam had been created in God’s image and were as much like God as creatures could be. But she accepted the serpent’s view of reality and believed she could forge a better way than that planned by God.

By contrast, an individual praying fervently in the Garden of Gethsemane presents a different portrait (Matt. 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46). Faced with the supreme trial (“cup” is a metaphor for calamity and death), Jesus affirms his essential orientation around God’s will, for good or ill. The structure of his prayer itself emphasizes his obedient submission to that will,24 culminating in his resolute embrace of the right way: “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). These individuals, these two gardens, exemplify the choices before us as we too seek to make God’s purposes a reality in our lives.

Universal significance. This portrait of Jesus embracing his divine vocation leads to yet another level of significance beyond the corporate and individual. The figure stooped in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane fulfills for the Christian reader the messianic themes we have identified in the books of Samuel. David is celebrated in these texts as the ideal king, who willingly submits to God’s timing and direction and consistently repudiates the way of power politics and force. Jesus fulfills all that was right about David. Like David, he could have chosen the wrong way to accomplish his divine mission. In fact, Satan even tempted him with that (Matt. 4:1–11). But Jesus is the ideal king of Israel because he became king in the right way, through submission to his divine vocation as the Son of David and through patient waiting and service.

Original Meaning

Death of Abner (3:6–39)

BEFORE MOVING ON to David’s coronation over all Israel, the biblical historian relates two more details from this period of civil war: the deaths of Abner and Ish-Bosheth. Together these accounts substantiate the summary conclusion that “the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker” (3:1), and they effectively put to rest once and for all the prospects of a Saulide dynasty. They illustrate without stating explicitly that there is now no opposition to David’s reign as king over all Israel.

Abner, the general of Ish-Bosheth’s army, has grown in political influence and strength in the house of Saul (3:6). In light of 3:1, this means he has become stronger and stronger in an increasingly weak kingdom. The passage also confirms that Abner is the real power in the northern kingdom. He has influence with the army, the “elders of Israel,” and “the Benjamites” to sway the entire northern kingdom into David’s camp (3:9–10, 12, 17–21).

As we have seen elsewhere, sexual relations with a king’s wife or concubine in the ancient world was tantamount to a claim to that king’s throne.12 In his weakness, Ish-Bosheth suspects Abner will use his strength to take the throne of the northern kingdom. But Abner defiantly proclaims that he has been stubbornly “loyal” (ḥesed, “kind, faithful,” 3:8) to the house of Saul but has decided to turn all of Israel over to David, “from Dan to Beersheba” (3:10). He then defects to David, making a covenant-agreement (b^erit) with him. Abner moved quickly to exert his influence on the elders of Israel and specifically the tribe of Benjamin, so that he effectively lays the foundation for David to become king of a unified Israel.

Historians might speculate about Abner’s motivations here. Perhaps he sees he has been supporting a candidate who cannot win and expects to earn a prestigious position in a united monarchy ruled by David or at least to be well rewarded monetarily. But we should limit ourselves to what the narrator describes about Abner. He becomes “very angry” and is insulted by Ish-Bosheth’s accusation against him (3:8). Abner expresses twice his decision to do for David what Yahweh has sworn (NIV “promised”) to do, that is, to transfer the house of Saul into David’s hands (3:9, 18). Abner does not offer ulterior motives. The narrator and we as readers are aware that David is the one suitable to serve as king of Israel. But Abner has no such privileged position. He appears to be doing the best he can in a nearly impossible situation.

In narrating Joab’s murder of Abner, the narrator goes to great lengths to emphasize David’s innocence. He painstakingly repeats the refrain that David sent him away “in peace” (three times in 3:21–23). When Joab summons Abner with the clearly premeditated intent to kill him, we are told explicitly, “David did not know it” (3:26). Finally, David personally leads the throng at the funeral, weeps aloud, sings a lament for Abner (as he had for Saul and Jonathan), and fasts all that day (3:31–35). In another important summary statement, the text explains that all the people of Israel accept David’s innocence and are greatly pleased by everything he has done. They understand (as the narrator hopes the reader will) “that the king had no part in the murder of Abner son of Ner” (3:36–37).

Bridging Contexts

TWO QUESTIONS. As we have seen, the books of Samuel are primarily interested in two questions. (1) What is the acceptable nature of the new Israelite monarchy? First Samuel illustrated the deficiencies of the older tribal confederation with its center at Shiloh and its priestly leadership. We learned there that kingship is necessary in Israel and, if rightly constituted, even desirable. Gradually a nation is formed, with a monarchy that is similar to, yet also different from, the monarchies among Israel’s neighbors. Unlike Canaanite rulers, the powers of Israel’s new king are circumscribed by the unique configuration of Israel’s monarchy. The king is not free to initiate warfare whenever and against whomever he wishes, nor can he confiscate property or conscript an army without just cause or usurp the power of the priesthood (not to mention prophets!). This is truly a different kind of kingship.

(2) A further reason why Israel’s king is different is because of the answer to the second question addressed in the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as king of Israel? Yahweh alone is king of Israel, and he governs his people through his chosen anointed ones, who are merely viceroys under his command. The first anointed one, Saul, failed because he refused to accept Yahweh’s authority. The second anointed one, David, is ideal because he accepts Yahweh’s authority in principle and genuinely repents when he fails to accept it in practice.

As readers of the accounts of Saul and David in 1 Samuel, we have a privileged position as we approach the text. We have already learned that David is the legitimate replacement for Saul rather than Saul’s own son Ish-Bosheth. David has been anointed with oil by the venerable prophet Samuel, and at his anointing the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power (1 Sam. 16:1–13). Saul, by contrast, has been irrevocably condemned by Samuel and has forfeited the right to establish an eternal dynasty (13:5–15).

The second half of 1 Samuel describes the transfer of political and spiritual power from Saul to David and with agonizing clarity narrates Saul’s tragic self-destruction. While Saul was permitted to maintain his hold on the throne of Israel for a while, the prophet Samuel was clear that kingship would not pass to his descendants (1 Sam. 13:13–14). The promise of a lasting dynasty will eventually be given to David (2 Sam. 7:15–16). Ish-Bosheth is thus a tragic figure like his father. He is made king by human power structures, is mostly silent, and comes quickly to a violent end. Saul’s dynasty is truly over. Yet this unit also informs us of a son of Jonathan, who will become important later in the extended narrative (4:4).

As I have noted elsewhere in this commentary, Old Testament narratives can have different levels of interpretation: universal, national, and individual.17 Every individual narrative also plays some role in the greater national narrative of Israel’s history and thus also contributes to the ultimate narrative of God’s redemptive plan in history. This present unit of Scripture contributes on a number of levels to legitimize and explain David as the rightful successor to Saul. The individual accounts of the civil war between David and Ish-Bosheth illustrate the national drama, as summarized by the historian (3:1): “David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” This collection of individual narratives create trajectories moving in opposite directions: Ish-Bosheth’s leading inexorably down and David’s steadily up.

The ideal anointed one. I have also emphasized the growing messianism in 1 and 2 Samuel. On the universal level of interpretation, this unit makes its own contribution to Israel’s understanding of the ideal anointed one. The books of Samuel emphasize four main themes that contributed to the concept of messiah.18 (1) The ideal anointed one is God’s appointed ruler. (2) He trusts in God alone, who protects him. (3) The anointed one leads Israel to victory in battle against the nation’s enemies. (4) He is a just ruler.

In the previous passage (2:1–7), we saw how David faithfully trusted God alone for direction. This unit continues to illustrate that David is God’s appointed ruler, but it does so in different ways. It shows Yahweh’s protection and guidance being worked out in the political and military realms. David and his army are victorious in battle and only grow stronger as the war continues. Furthermore, David is innocent of any wrongdoing in the vicious murders of Abner and Ish-Bosheth. In fact, the narrator is careful to portray David as a just ruler in executing Ish-Bosheth’s assassins and eventually in avenging Joab’s bloody revenge (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). In other words, David is portrayed as victorious in battle and just in his actions, contributing further to the messianic ideal for Israel’s future.

Roadblocks. However, today’s Christian readers often stumble over a number of roadblocks, obstructing their ability to apply principles just cited. (1) Many struggle with the amount of warfare and bloodshed in Old Testament narratives. This unit is particularly brutal, and several subsequent passages in 2 Samuel will raise the same question. (2) This unit also contains examples of political conspiracy that result in murder but also play a role in Yahweh’s plan to bring David to power. (3) The role of women in the Old Testament often seems offensive to today’s readers. Note how Saul’s unnamed concubine becomes a political pawn (3:7–8) and how Michal, the daughter of Saul, is treated as a royal object to be bartered for (3:13–16). Such difficulties may make it difficult to build a bridge from the ancient context to our own.

In addressing these difficulties, we should begin with a reminder about the nature of biblical revelation. God has revealed his nature and his ways of dealing with human brokenness through inspired, sacred texts. We are not built up in faith and nurtured in Christian understanding primarily through an exploration of ancient history, even sacred biblical history. Such exploration will contribute to our understanding of God, but historical research is not sacred Scripture. Rather, the means of God’s grace in our lives is the text of Scripture itself, and when we read the Old Testament historical books, we must be aware of the special concerns and worldview represented there. These biblical books relate the events of the past in order to build our faith. They select, organize, and explain the past as a kerygmatic treatise (see the introduction on this point). It is not the ancient historical events themselves that make us stronger in faith. Rather, it is the text’s explanation of those actions and its interpretation of their significance that the Holy Spirit uses to strengthen our own experience with God.

In other words, obviously modern Christians are not to mimic the Old Testament’s understanding of warfare and seek to participate in murderous political conspiracy, any more than we would view and treat women as they are treated in this narrative. It is not the actions narrated that serve as Christian Scripture but the text’s selection, organization, and explanation that we need to heed. And the main point of this unit is Yahweh’s faithfulness to his anointed servant David, even in the nitty-gritty, everyday affairs of his political and military life. Through time, all the messy affairs of Ish-Bosheth’s rival monarchy in the north are resolved, and in Yahweh’s timing the way becomes clear for David to become king of all Israel (5:1–25). Navigating carefully through the cultural peculiarities of the ancient Near East and reading this unit in light of the surrounding narrative make it possible to see the message of the rise of Israel’s ideal king.

Let us now make a few comments on each of the difficulties mentioned above. (1) With regard to warfare in the Old Testament, one of the most difficult adjustments we must make is to learn to rejoice with national Israel when they witness Yahweh’s salvation accomplished through military strength.19 The sight of Egyptian corpses lying on the shore of the Red Sea symbolized Yahweh’s gracious deliverance of a defenseless Israel against the greatest military power of that day (Ex. 14:30). The sight of dead Egyptian soldiers strengthened their faith (14:31) and led to worshipful singing and praise (15:1–21). Indeed, Yahweh’s defeat of the Egyptian army became the concrete sign of his salvation and new life for Israel throughout the Old Testament.

In the account of David’s defeat of Goliath, the text invited us to rejoice at the sight of the decapitated Philistine, lying motionless in the Valley of Elah (1 Sam. 17:51), or at the news that the Philistine dead were strewn along the road from Gath to Ekron after the great Israelite victory (17:52). Obviously, these are not images we normally evoke when seeking to build Christian faith today, but they are important and powerful images in biblical revelation. We need to remember that ancient Near Eastern philosophy equated military strength with a nation’s deity. Victory in battle authenticated a deity’s superiority; this was part and parcel of the world in which ancient Israel moved. We must accept their cultural constraints without condemning their views, while learning the truths of the theological explanations given in Scripture.20 Thus, David’s and Joab’s victories are here expressions of Yahweh’s power and faithfulness.

(2) Similar cultural conditioning is necessary to understand the conspiracies and murders reported here. Joab’s treachery against Abner is not reported in order to serve as an example for us. Rather, the text clearly condemns his actions (through the words of David), and such actions eventually result in Joab’s own death (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). Likewise, the collusion to assassinate Ish-Bosheth is condemned—again through the words of David. These episodes are not narrated as Yahweh’s will, but they do illustrate that Yahweh is at work to accomplish his promises to David, even through such villainous and inane actions.

(3) Michal and Saul’s concubine are certainly mistreated in this passage. Royal women particularly were often trapped in the political struggles of the ancient world, because they were believed to legitimize one’s claim to the throne.21 The injustices of ancient Near Eastern culture are often reflected in the sacred biblical texts. That is not to say the text condones those injustices, even when there is no explicitly stated condemnation. Again, we must read these texts in light of the theological explanation of the extended unit. Ish-Bosheth’s rash accusation about the concubine (3:7) illustrates his growing weakness and his inevitable failure as king. It is not a laudatory acceptance of the way royal concubines were treated. Likewise, Michal’s return to David has points of contact with 1 Samuel and later in 2 Samuel, all illustrating David’s legitimacy as Saul’s successor.

Thus, we read these texts for what they teach us about God’s faithfulness to David and the Davidic dynasty, not as a means of critiquing contemporary views of warfare or the roles of women in society. There are other biblical texts (both Old and New Testament) for that. There are many indications, in fact, that the Old Testament’s view of women in general was consistently at odds with its ancient Near Eastern matrix and that it began a process (continued in the New Testament) of liberating women from the injustices of cultural mores.

Having attempted to overcome these obstacles, the reader should not miss the importance of the summary statement at 3:1: “The war between the house of Saul and the house of David lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” Like looking through a lens and adjusting the focus for a better view, this verse gives us a sharp picture of David as the anointed one who received the Spirit of the Lord in power (1 Sam. 16:13). Soon after his anointing, strangers around him recognized that the Lord was with him in a unique way (16:18). The biblical historian has followed this theme, illustrating that Yahweh is the moving force behind the historical events (18:14, 18).

Our summary statement at 2 Samuel 3:1 propels us forward to that day when David will become king of all Israel because of God’s powerful presence with him: “And he became more and more powerful, because the LORD God Almighty was with him” (5:10). All of the battles and intrigue narrated in here illustrate that God is with David. Old Testament historical books often teach by showing rather than by telling. By showing how these problems were resolved, this text illustrates again that God is blessing and preparing David, his ideal king of Israel.

Contemporary Significance

JUST AS THERE was a right way and a wrong way to become king in ancient Israel, so there is for believers a right and wrong way to fulfill the promises of God in our lives. And just as the righteous way illustrated in this text by David leads to strength and the wrong way illustrated by Ish-Bosheth to weakness, so there are consequences to the way we choose.

Corporate significance. This understanding of our text has a corporate significance. In the case of the early church, Christian believers waited patiently in prayer as instructed by Jesus for the promised Holy Spirit of God to become a reality (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 14). This devotion was not unlike David’s patiently waiting for God’s time and place to fulfill his promises. Sadly, the church has not always been so patient or, for that matter, so obedient to God’s call. At times the body of Christ on earth has been more like Ish-Bosheth than David.

For example, Pope Urban II devised a plan to rescue the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem from the hands of the Turks, who had closed the city to Christian pilgrims. On November 26, 1095 A.D., at the council in Clermont, the pope urged Christians to capture the Holy Sepulchre by force, wresting it “from the wicked race” in order to subject it again to Christendom.22 He shamelessly offered remission of sins and eternal life to anyone who took up the sword. The prospects of military conquest and unlimited spoils of war generated religious hysteria throughout France and Germany, and the first of the Crusades was under way.

In the spring and summer of 1096, soldiers began moving through the Rhine Valley, where thousands of Jews were victimized by the madness. Rumors spread that the Jews were aiding the cause of Islam. Approximately five thousand Jews were slaughtered at Worms, Mainz, and Cologne. More Jews would die with the thousands of Muslims who lost their lives later.23 This is without question the wrong way to make God’s promises a reality and to usher in the kingdom of heaven. The right way—the way of patience, trust, and hope—is illustrated by the early church and by King David. But the Crusaders replaced it with the way of Ish-Bosheth and Abner, a way of brute force and military power.

Individual significance. Beyond the corporate significance, this text also has individual significance. The Bible portrays two important gardens, where individuals typify the right way and the wrong way to fulfill God’s purposes in our lives. In the Garden of Eden, Eve recognized that the forbidden fruit would make her wise like God (Gen. 3:5). Of course, she and Adam had been created in God’s image and were as much like God as creatures could be. But she accepted the serpent’s view of reality and believed she could forge a better way than that planned by God.

By contrast, an individual praying fervently in the Garden of Gethsemane presents a different portrait (Matt. 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46). Faced with the supreme trial (“cup” is a metaphor for calamity and death), Jesus affirms his essential orientation around God’s will, for good or ill. The structure of his prayer itself emphasizes his obedient submission to that will,24 culminating in his resolute embrace of the right way: “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). These individuals, these two gardens, exemplify the choices before us as we too seek to make God’s purposes a reality in our lives.

Universal significance. This portrait of Jesus embracing his divine vocation leads to yet another level of significance beyond the corporate and individual. The figure stooped in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane fulfills for the Christian reader the messianic themes we have identified in the books of Samuel. David is celebrated in these texts as the ideal king, who willingly submits to God’s timing and direction and consistently repudiates the way of power politics and force. Jesus fulfills all that was right about David. Like David, he could have chosen the wrong way to accomplish his divine mission. In fact, Satan even tempted him with that (Matt. 4:1–11). But Jesus is the ideal king of Israel because he became king in the right way, through submission to his divine vocation as the Son of David and through patient waiting and service.

Original Meaning

Rival Monarchies (2:8–11)

DAVID’S OFFER TO BECOME KING in the north (2:4b–7) is no match for a genuine son of Saul in the light of Israel’s new impulse toward dynastic succession. Events in the north quickly move against David, and his hopes for a peaceful transition of power over a unified Israel are not to be realized. This paragraph leaves us with competing royal houses and illustrates that union between north and south was always a tenuous proposition in ancient Israel.

For the first time, our historian tells us of “Ish-Bosheth son of Saul” (2:8). His name means “Man-of-Shame” and is probably a euphemistic substitution for Ish-Baal, “Man-of-Baal” (referring to the Canaanite fertility god Baal).2 Ish-Bosheth is not referred to elsewhere in the Bible outside this unit.3 The only time he speaks in this passage, he wrongly accuses his most loyal supporter (Abner) and consequently drives him into the camp of his rival, David (3:7). The only time he appears to function as king, he pathetically gives an order to return Michal, the daughter of Saul (i.e., his half-sister), to David. Thus, his only royal action is an act of acquiescence to David’s demands (3:13–16). Descriptions of his inner life are characterized by fear (3:11; 4:1), and his death is ignominious in the same way his father’s was (4:5–12).

Abner we have met before as the commander of Saul’s army. He is identified as Saul’s cousin when first introduced as the military general (1 Sam. 14:50–51). Abner was also present when the young shepherd boy David killed Goliath (17:55, 57). He apparently sat regularly at King Saul’s table (20:25), and he was present when David spared Saul’s life (26:5, 7, 14–15). He was one of the most powerful men in Saul’s kingdom, and this text is clear that Abner was the real power behind Ish-Bosheth’s kingship. All hopes for a lasting Saulide dynasty in the north rested with this rugged military man. This is strikingly clear in the Hebrew causative verb of 2 Samuel 2:9 (“He made him king”), which is the same terminology used when Samuel the prophet made Saul king over Israel (1 Sam. 8:22; 12:1).4 Make no mistake about it, Abner is the power behind the new king in the north! We might call Ish-Bosheth’s rise to power in Israel “an inside job,” which has all the trappings of hardcore political intrigue and conspiracy.5

Mahanaim is located along the Jabbok River in the part of the Transjordan known as Gilead. The Hebrew name probably means “two camps,” which played an important role in the narrative of Jacob’s wrestling with God and the naming of Peniel (Gen. 32:2, 7–10, 22–30). The city probably served as a gateway to the iron resources of the area and seems to have functioned as the administrative seat for Gilead in Saul’s day and throughout most of the early monarchy.6 If Abner wants Ish-Bosheth to claim the throne of Israel, his power play may have a better chance if based in this municipal center far away from political and social forces in the south.7

So Ish-Bosheth has become king in the north by means of an auspicious confluence of factors. He has the support of the powerful general of his father’s army, and he has staked his claim using a strategically important Transjordanian city far from southern control. Our text portrays this move as a calculated power play. It is a daring maneuver, but one that Abner and Ish-Bosheth take boldly when they assert control over “all Israel” (2:9). Unfortunately for these conspirators, the house of Judah follows David (2:10).

The specific phraseology used in this paragraph seems intentional in order to underscore the contrast between David and Ish-Bosheth (esp. in light of David’s coronation in Judah in the preceding paragraphs). Unlike David’s rise to power, there is no mention here of divine direction or of seeking divine approval (cf. 2:1). Nor is there mention of public anointing or popular support. Ish-Bosheth is part of a political power move, planned and executed by a military strongman. He is a puppet in Abner’s hands. By contrast, David rises to power through sensitivity to Yahweh’s guidance and timing. He seeks direction from no human but from God alone. Once he has Yahweh’s message in hand, he moves forward with no hesitation or timidity. David’s is no power play; rather, his is a “faith play.”

Thus, we can expect the contrast between Saul and David to continue, even now that Saul is dead. Ish-Bosheth, the hapless son of Israel’s first king, simply takes his father’s place as the antithesis of David. Authority and power in the northern kingdom are located in Abner and in his ability to thwart David’s armies. By contrast, authority and power in the southern kingdom are located solely in Yahweh and in David’s faithfulness to Yahweh’s command. In sum, Ish-Bosheth is not a suitable king, any more than his father was suitable to reign over Yahweh’s people. But David continues to reveal what it means to be a man after God’s own heart, a ruler of God’s own selection, who exhibits like-mindedness with God (see comments at 1 Sam. 13:14).

At the outset of these two reigns, we learn that in Israel there is a right way and a wrong way to become king. Like the Amalekite of 2 Samuel 1, Abner and Ish-Bosheth fail to understand how the Israelite monarchy is to be unique from other kingdoms. The Amalekite who brought the news of Saul’s death to David at Ziklag assumed that by bearing the news he could enter into the power-sharing structure of the new kingdom. If he could be quick enough and smart enough to beat others to the draw, perhaps he could position himself to benefit from the distribution of power in David’s new kingdom. But he failed to grasp the uniqueness of the Israelite monarchy, and he paid with his life. Likewise, Abner and Ish-Bosheth understand only the wrong way to become king. David continues to illustrate the right way one becomes king.

Bridging Contexts

TWO QUESTIONS. As we have seen, the books of Samuel are primarily interested in two questions. (1) What is the acceptable nature of the new Israelite monarchy? First Samuel illustrated the deficiencies of the older tribal confederation with its center at Shiloh and its priestly leadership. We learned there that kingship is necessary in Israel and, if rightly constituted, even desirable. Gradually a nation is formed, with a monarchy that is similar to, yet also different from, the monarchies among Israel’s neighbors. Unlike Canaanite rulers, the powers of Israel’s new king are circumscribed by the unique configuration of Israel’s monarchy. The king is not free to initiate warfare whenever and against whomever he wishes, nor can he confiscate property or conscript an army without just cause or usurp the power of the priesthood (not to mention prophets!). This is truly a different kind of kingship.

(2) A further reason why Israel’s king is different is because of the answer to the second question addressed in the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as king of Israel? Yahweh alone is king of Israel, and he governs his people through his chosen anointed ones, who are merely viceroys under his command. The first anointed one, Saul, failed because he refused to accept Yahweh’s authority. The second anointed one, David, is ideal because he accepts Yahweh’s authority in principle and genuinely repents when he fails to accept it in practice.

As readers of the accounts of Saul and David in 1 Samuel, we have a privileged position as we approach the text. We have already learned that David is the legitimate replacement for Saul rather than Saul’s own son Ish-Bosheth. David has been anointed with oil by the venerable prophet Samuel, and at his anointing the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power (1 Sam. 16:1–13). Saul, by contrast, has been irrevocably condemned by Samuel and has forfeited the right to establish an eternal dynasty (13:5–15).

The second half of 1 Samuel describes the transfer of political and spiritual power from Saul to David and with agonizing clarity narrates Saul’s tragic self-destruction. While Saul was permitted to maintain his hold on the throne of Israel for a while, the prophet Samuel was clear that kingship would not pass to his descendants (1 Sam. 13:13–14). The promise of a lasting dynasty will eventually be given to David (2 Sam. 7:15–16). Ish-Bosheth is thus a tragic figure like his father. He is made king by human power structures, is mostly silent, and comes quickly to a violent end. Saul’s dynasty is truly over. Yet this unit also informs us of a son of Jonathan, who will become important later in the extended narrative (4:4).

As I have noted elsewhere in this commentary, Old Testament narratives can have different levels of interpretation: universal, national, and individual.17 Every individual narrative also plays some role in the greater national narrative of Israel’s history and thus also contributes to the ultimate narrative of God’s redemptive plan in history. This present unit of Scripture contributes on a number of levels to legitimize and explain David as the rightful successor to Saul. The individual accounts of the civil war between David and Ish-Bosheth illustrate the national drama, as summarized by the historian (3:1): “David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” This collection of individual narratives create trajectories moving in opposite directions: Ish-Bosheth’s leading inexorably down and David’s steadily up.

The ideal anointed one. I have also emphasized the growing messianism in 1 and 2 Samuel. On the universal level of interpretation, this unit makes its own contribution to Israel’s understanding of the ideal anointed one. The books of Samuel emphasize four main themes that contributed to the concept of messiah.18 (1) The ideal anointed one is God’s appointed ruler. (2) He trusts in God alone, who protects him. (3) The anointed one leads Israel to victory in battle against the nation’s enemies. (4) He is a just ruler.

In the previous passage (2:1–7), we saw how David faithfully trusted God alone for direction. This unit continues to illustrate that David is God’s appointed ruler, but it does so in different ways. It shows Yahweh’s protection and guidance being worked out in the political and military realms. David and his army are victorious in battle and only grow stronger as the war continues. Furthermore, David is innocent of any wrongdoing in the vicious murders of Abner and Ish-Bosheth. In fact, the narrator is careful to portray David as a just ruler in executing Ish-Bosheth’s assassins and eventually in avenging Joab’s bloody revenge (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). In other words, David is portrayed as victorious in battle and just in his actions, contributing further to the messianic ideal for Israel’s future.

Roadblocks. However, today’s Christian readers often stumble over a number of roadblocks, obstructing their ability to apply principles just cited. (1) Many struggle with the amount of warfare and bloodshed in Old Testament narratives. This unit is particularly brutal, and several subsequent passages in 2 Samuel will raise the same question. (2) This unit also contains examples of political conspiracy that result in murder but also play a role in Yahweh’s plan to bring David to power. (3) The role of women in the Old Testament often seems offensive to today’s readers. Note how Saul’s unnamed concubine becomes a political pawn (3:7–8) and how Michal, the daughter of Saul, is treated as a royal object to be bartered for (3:13–16). Such difficulties may make it difficult to build a bridge from the ancient context to our own.

In addressing these difficulties, we should begin with a reminder about the nature of biblical revelation. God has revealed his nature and his ways of dealing with human brokenness through inspired, sacred texts. We are not built up in faith and nurtured in Christian understanding primarily through an exploration of ancient history, even sacred biblical history. Such exploration will contribute to our understanding of God, but historical research is not sacred Scripture. Rather, the means of God’s grace in our lives is the text of Scripture itself, and when we read the Old Testament historical books, we must be aware of the special concerns and worldview represented there. These biblical books relate the events of the past in order to build our faith. They select, organize, and explain the past as a kerygmatic treatise (see the introduction on this point). It is not the ancient historical events themselves that make us stronger in faith. Rather, it is the text’s explanation of those actions and its interpretation of their significance that the Holy Spirit uses to strengthen our own experience with God.

In other words, obviously modern Christians are not to mimic the Old Testament’s understanding of warfare and seek to participate in murderous political conspiracy, any more than we would view and treat women as they are treated in this narrative. It is not the actions narrated that serve as Christian Scripture but the text’s selection, organization, and explanation that we need to heed. And the main point of this unit is Yahweh’s faithfulness to his anointed servant David, even in the nitty-gritty, everyday affairs of his political and military life. Through time, all the messy affairs of Ish-Bosheth’s rival monarchy in the north are resolved, and in Yahweh’s timing the way becomes clear for David to become king of all Israel (5:1–25). Navigating carefully through the cultural peculiarities of the ancient Near East and reading this unit in light of the surrounding narrative make it possible to see the message of the rise of Israel’s ideal king.

Let us now make a few comments on each of the difficulties mentioned above. (1) With regard to warfare in the Old Testament, one of the most difficult adjustments we must make is to learn to rejoice with national Israel when they witness Yahweh’s salvation accomplished through military strength.19 The sight of Egyptian corpses lying on the shore of the Red Sea symbolized Yahweh’s gracious deliverance of a defenseless Israel against the greatest military power of that day (Ex. 14:30). The sight of dead Egyptian soldiers strengthened their faith (14:31) and led to worshipful singing and praise (15:1–21). Indeed, Yahweh’s defeat of the Egyptian army became the concrete sign of his salvation and new life for Israel throughout the Old Testament.

In the account of David’s defeat of Goliath, the text invited us to rejoice at the sight of the decapitated Philistine, lying motionless in the Valley of Elah (1 Sam. 17:51), or at the news that the Philistine dead were strewn along the road from Gath to Ekron after the great Israelite victory (17:52). Obviously, these are not images we normally evoke when seeking to build Christian faith today, but they are important and powerful images in biblical revelation. We need to remember that ancient Near Eastern philosophy equated military strength with a nation’s deity. Victory in battle authenticated a deity’s superiority; this was part and parcel of the world in which ancient Israel moved. We must accept their cultural constraints without condemning their views, while learning the truths of the theological explanations given in Scripture.20 Thus, David’s and Joab’s victories are here expressions of Yahweh’s power and faithfulness.

(2) Similar cultural conditioning is necessary to understand the conspiracies and murders reported here. Joab’s treachery against Abner is not reported in order to serve as an example for us. Rather, the text clearly condemns his actions (through the words of David), and such actions eventually result in Joab’s own death (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). Likewise, the collusion to assassinate Ish-Bosheth is condemned—again through the words of David. These episodes are not narrated as Yahweh’s will, but they do illustrate that Yahweh is at work to accomplish his promises to David, even through such villainous and inane actions.

(3) Michal and Saul’s concubine are certainly mistreated in this passage. Royal women particularly were often trapped in the political struggles of the ancient world, because they were believed to legitimize one’s claim to the throne.21 The injustices of ancient Near Eastern culture are often reflected in the sacred biblical texts. That is not to say the text condones those injustices, even when there is no explicitly stated condemnation. Again, we must read these texts in light of the theological explanation of the extended unit. Ish-Bosheth’s rash accusation about the concubine (3:7) illustrates his growing weakness and his inevitable failure as king. It is not a laudatory acceptance of the way royal concubines were treated. Likewise, Michal’s return to David has points of contact with 1 Samuel and later in 2 Samuel, all illustrating David’s legitimacy as Saul’s successor.

Thus, we read these texts for what they teach us about God’s faithfulness to David and the Davidic dynasty, not as a means of critiquing contemporary views of warfare or the roles of women in society. There are other biblical texts (both Old and New Testament) for that. There are many indications, in fact, that the Old Testament’s view of women in general was consistently at odds with its ancient Near Eastern matrix and that it began a process (continued in the New Testament) of liberating women from the injustices of cultural mores.

Having attempted to overcome these obstacles, the reader should not miss the importance of the summary statement at 3:1: “The war between the house of Saul and the house of David lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” Like looking through a lens and adjusting the focus for a better view, this verse gives us a sharp picture of David as the anointed one who received the Spirit of the Lord in power (1 Sam. 16:13). Soon after his anointing, strangers around him recognized that the Lord was with him in a unique way (16:18). The biblical historian has followed this theme, illustrating that Yahweh is the moving force behind the historical events (18:14, 18).

Our summary statement at 2 Samuel 3:1 propels us forward to that day when David will become king of all Israel because of God’s powerful presence with him: “And he became more and more powerful, because the LORD God Almighty was with him” (5:10). All of the battles and intrigue narrated in here illustrate that God is with David. Old Testament historical books often teach by showing rather than by telling. By showing how these problems were resolved, this text illustrates again that God is blessing and preparing David, his ideal king of Israel.

Contemporary Significance

JUST AS THERE was a right way and a wrong way to become king in ancient Israel, so there is for believers a right and wrong way to fulfill the promises of God in our lives. And just as the righteous way illustrated in this text by David leads to strength and the wrong way illustrated by Ish-Bosheth to weakness, so there are consequences to the way we choose.

Corporate significance. This understanding of our text has a corporate significance. In the case of the early church, Christian believers waited patiently in prayer as instructed by Jesus for the promised Holy Spirit of God to become a reality (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 14). This devotion was not unlike David’s patiently waiting for God’s time and place to fulfill his promises. Sadly, the church has not always been so patient or, for that matter, so obedient to God’s call. At times the body of Christ on earth has been more like Ish-Bosheth than David.

For example, Pope Urban II devised a plan to rescue the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem from the hands of the Turks, who had closed the city to Christian pilgrims. On November 26, 1095 A.D., at the council in Clermont, the pope urged Christians to capture the Holy Sepulchre by force, wresting it “from the wicked race” in order to subject it again to Christendom.22 He shamelessly offered remission of sins and eternal life to anyone who took up the sword. The prospects of military conquest and unlimited spoils of war generated religious hysteria throughout France and Germany, and the first of the Crusades was under way.

In the spring and summer of 1096, soldiers began moving through the Rhine Valley, where thousands of Jews were victimized by the madness. Rumors spread that the Jews were aiding the cause of Islam. Approximately five thousand Jews were slaughtered at Worms, Mainz, and Cologne. More Jews would die with the thousands of Muslims who lost their lives later.23 This is without question the wrong way to make God’s promises a reality and to usher in the kingdom of heaven. The right way—the way of patience, trust, and hope—is illustrated by the early church and by King David. But the Crusaders replaced it with the way of Ish-Bosheth and Abner, a way of brute force and military power.

Individual significance. Beyond the corporate significance, this text also has individual significance. The Bible portrays two important gardens, where individuals typify the right way and the wrong way to fulfill God’s purposes in our lives. In the Garden of Eden, Eve recognized that the forbidden fruit would make her wise like God (Gen. 3:5). Of course, she and Adam had been created in God’s image and were as much like God as creatures could be. But she accepted the serpent’s view of reality and believed she could forge a better way than that planned by God.

By contrast, an individual praying fervently in the Garden of Gethsemane presents a different portrait (Matt. 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46). Faced with the supreme trial (“cup” is a metaphor for calamity and death), Jesus affirms his essential orientation around God’s will, for good or ill. The structure of his prayer itself emphasizes his obedient submission to that will,24 culminating in his resolute embrace of the right way: “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). These individuals, these two gardens, exemplify the choices before us as we too seek to make God’s purposes a reality in our lives.

Universal significance. This portrait of Jesus embracing his divine vocation leads to yet another level of significance beyond the corporate and individual. The figure stooped in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane fulfills for the Christian reader the messianic themes we have identified in the books of Samuel. David is celebrated in these texts as the ideal king, who willingly submits to God’s timing and direction and consistently repudiates the way of power politics and force. Jesus fulfills all that was right about David. Like David, he could have chosen the wrong way to accomplish his divine mission. In fact, Satan even tempted him with that (Matt. 4:1–11). But Jesus is the ideal king of Israel because he became king in the right way, through submission to his divine vocation as the Son of David and through patient waiting and service.

Original Meaning

War Between the Rival Monarchies (2:12–32)

THE ACCOUNT OF the civil war between the house of David in the south and the house of Ish-Bosheth in the north is held together literarily by the march of the generals with their armies from their respective capitals to Gibeon (2:12–13) and by their return after the conflict (2:29–32).

The first section records an example of the ancient custom of representative combat, in which man-to-man fighting substituted for full-fledged battle between opposing armies in an effort to settle disputes without recourse to extensive bloodshed.8 It is hoped that the standoff at the pool of Gibeon (2:13) might be resolved by such representative combat, in this case involving twelve infantrymen from each army. But the twenty-four champions are all killed, and no side can claim an undisputed victory (2:14–16).

As a result, the hostilities continue, and the blood-letting becomes severe. Our historian summarizes the events of that day with the words (2:17): “Abner and the men of Israel were defeated by David’s men.” Joab’s presence at Gibeon in Benjamin, the home tribe of Saul, may indicate Joab’s army had made successful advances north into Ish-Bosheth’s territory.9 Abner’s proposal to use representative combat may have been an attempt to impede Joab’s advance.

The episode between Abner and Joab’s brother Asahel serves two purposes in the narrative (2:18–28). (1) In the immediate context it explains how the death of Asahel sickens both sides (“every man stopped when he came to the place where Asahel had fallen,” 2:23). It is a turning point in the conflict between soldiers who know each other and feel a certain bonhomie for each other. As a result, both sides lose the heart and will for warfare and declare a truce (2:28). (2) In the larger narrative, the episode explains why hostility between Joab and Abner continues. This vendetta will continue to characterize David’s and Solomon’s military, not only in 3:26–27 but also soon after David’s death (1 Kings 2:28–35).

Bridging Contexts

TWO QUESTIONS. As we have seen, the books of Samuel are primarily interested in two questions. (1) What is the acceptable nature of the new Israelite monarchy? First Samuel illustrated the deficiencies of the older tribal confederation with its center at Shiloh and its priestly leadership. We learned there that kingship is necessary in Israel and, if rightly constituted, even desirable. Gradually a nation is formed, with a monarchy that is similar to, yet also different from, the monarchies among Israel’s neighbors. Unlike Canaanite rulers, the powers of Israel’s new king are circumscribed by the unique configuration of Israel’s monarchy. The king is not free to initiate warfare whenever and against whomever he wishes, nor can he confiscate property or conscript an army without just cause or usurp the power of the priesthood (not to mention prophets!). This is truly a different kind of kingship.

(2) A further reason why Israel’s king is different is because of the answer to the second question addressed in the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as king of Israel? Yahweh alone is king of Israel, and he governs his people through his chosen anointed ones, who are merely viceroys under his command. The first anointed one, Saul, failed because he refused to accept Yahweh’s authority. The second anointed one, David, is ideal because he accepts Yahweh’s authority in principle and genuinely repents when he fails to accept it in practice.

As readers of the accounts of Saul and David in 1 Samuel, we have a privileged position as we approach the text. We have already learned that David is the legitimate replacement for Saul rather than Saul’s own son Ish-Bosheth. David has been anointed with oil by the venerable prophet Samuel, and at his anointing the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power (1 Sam. 16:1–13). Saul, by contrast, has been irrevocably condemned by Samuel and has forfeited the right to establish an eternal dynasty (13:5–15).

The second half of 1 Samuel describes the transfer of political and spiritual power from Saul to David and with agonizing clarity narrates Saul’s tragic self-destruction. While Saul was permitted to maintain his hold on the throne of Israel for a while, the prophet Samuel was clear that kingship would not pass to his descendants (1 Sam. 13:13–14). The promise of a lasting dynasty will eventually be given to David (2 Sam. 7:15–16). Ish-Bosheth is thus a tragic figure like his father. He is made king by human power structures, is mostly silent, and comes quickly to a violent end. Saul’s dynasty is truly over. Yet this unit also informs us of a son of Jonathan, who will become important later in the extended narrative (4:4).

As I have noted elsewhere in this commentary, Old Testament narratives can have different levels of interpretation: universal, national, and individual.17 Every individual narrative also plays some role in the greater national narrative of Israel’s history and thus also contributes to the ultimate narrative of God’s redemptive plan in history. This present unit of Scripture contributes on a number of levels to legitimize and explain David as the rightful successor to Saul. The individual accounts of the civil war between David and Ish-Bosheth illustrate the national drama, as summarized by the historian (3:1): “David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” This collection of individual narratives create trajectories moving in opposite directions: Ish-Bosheth’s leading inexorably down and David’s steadily up.

The ideal anointed one. I have also emphasized the growing messianism in 1 and 2 Samuel. On the universal level of interpretation, this unit makes its own contribution to Israel’s understanding of the ideal anointed one. The books of Samuel emphasize four main themes that contributed to the concept of messiah.18 (1) The ideal anointed one is God’s appointed ruler. (2) He trusts in God alone, who protects him. (3) The anointed one leads Israel to victory in battle against the nation’s enemies. (4) He is a just ruler.

In the previous passage (2:1–7), we saw how David faithfully trusted God alone for direction. This unit continues to illustrate that David is God’s appointed ruler, but it does so in different ways. It shows Yahweh’s protection and guidance being worked out in the political and military realms. David and his army are victorious in battle and only grow stronger as the war continues. Furthermore, David is innocent of any wrongdoing in the vicious murders of Abner and Ish-Bosheth. In fact, the narrator is careful to portray David as a just ruler in executing Ish-Bosheth’s assassins and eventually in avenging Joab’s bloody revenge (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). In other words, David is portrayed as victorious in battle and just in his actions, contributing further to the messianic ideal for Israel’s future.

Roadblocks. However, today’s Christian readers often stumble over a number of roadblocks, obstructing their ability to apply principles just cited. (1) Many struggle with the amount of warfare and bloodshed in Old Testament narratives. This unit is particularly brutal, and several subsequent passages in 2 Samuel will raise the same question. (2) This unit also contains examples of political conspiracy that result in murder but also play a role in Yahweh’s plan to bring David to power. (3) The role of women in the Old Testament often seems offensive to today’s readers. Note how Saul’s unnamed concubine becomes a political pawn (3:7–8) and how Michal, the daughter of Saul, is treated as a royal object to be bartered for (3:13–16). Such difficulties may make it difficult to build a bridge from the ancient context to our own.

In addressing these difficulties, we should begin with a reminder about the nature of biblical revelation. God has revealed his nature and his ways of dealing with human brokenness through inspired, sacred texts. We are not built up in faith and nurtured in Christian understanding primarily through an exploration of ancient history, even sacred biblical history. Such exploration will contribute to our understanding of God, but historical research is not sacred Scripture. Rather, the means of God’s grace in our lives is the text of Scripture itself, and when we read the Old Testament historical books, we must be aware of the special concerns and worldview represented there. These biblical books relate the events of the past in order to build our faith. They select, organize, and explain the past as a kerygmatic treatise (see the introduction on this point). It is not the ancient historical events themselves that make us stronger in faith. Rather, it is the text’s explanation of those actions and its interpretation of their significance that the Holy Spirit uses to strengthen our own experience with God.

In other words, obviously modern Christians are not to mimic the Old Testament’s understanding of warfare and seek to participate in murderous political conspiracy, any more than we would view and treat women as they are treated in this narrative. It is not the actions narrated that serve as Christian Scripture but the text’s selection, organization, and explanation that we need to heed. And the main point of this unit is Yahweh’s faithfulness to his anointed servant David, even in the nitty-gritty, everyday affairs of his political and military life. Through time, all the messy affairs of Ish-Bosheth’s rival monarchy in the north are resolved, and in Yahweh’s timing the way becomes clear for David to become king of all Israel (5:1–25). Navigating carefully through the cultural peculiarities of the ancient Near East and reading this unit in light of the surrounding narrative make it possible to see the message of the rise of Israel’s ideal king.

Let us now make a few comments on each of the difficulties mentioned above. (1) With regard to warfare in the Old Testament, one of the most difficult adjustments we must make is to learn to rejoice with national Israel when they witness Yahweh’s salvation accomplished through military strength.19 The sight of Egyptian corpses lying on the shore of the Red Sea symbolized Yahweh’s gracious deliverance of a defenseless Israel against the greatest military power of that day (Ex. 14:30). The sight of dead Egyptian soldiers strengthened their faith (14:31) and led to worshipful singing and praise (15:1–21). Indeed, Yahweh’s defeat of the Egyptian army became the concrete sign of his salvation and new life for Israel throughout the Old Testament.

In the account of David’s defeat of Goliath, the text invited us to rejoice at the sight of the decapitated Philistine, lying motionless in the Valley of Elah (1 Sam. 17:51), or at the news that the Philistine dead were strewn along the road from Gath to Ekron after the great Israelite victory (17:52). Obviously, these are not images we normally evoke when seeking to build Christian faith today, but they are important and powerful images in biblical revelation. We need to remember that ancient Near Eastern philosophy equated military strength with a nation’s deity. Victory in battle authenticated a deity’s superiority; this was part and parcel of the world in which ancient Israel moved. We must accept their cultural constraints without condemning their views, while learning the truths of the theological explanations given in Scripture.20 Thus, David’s and Joab’s victories are here expressions of Yahweh’s power and faithfulness.

(2) Similar cultural conditioning is necessary to understand the conspiracies and murders reported here. Joab’s treachery against Abner is not reported in order to serve as an example for us. Rather, the text clearly condemns his actions (through the words of David), and such actions eventually result in Joab’s own death (1 Kings 2:5–6, 32–34). Likewise, the collusion to assassinate Ish-Bosheth is condemned—again through the words of David. These episodes are not narrated as Yahweh’s will, but they do illustrate that Yahweh is at work to accomplish his promises to David, even through such villainous and inane actions.

(3) Michal and Saul’s concubine are certainly mistreated in this passage. Royal women particularly were often trapped in the political struggles of the ancient world, because they were believed to legitimize one’s claim to the throne.21 The injustices of ancient Near Eastern culture are often reflected in the sacred biblical texts. That is not to say the text condones those injustices, even when there is no explicitly stated condemnation. Again, we must read these texts in light of the theological explanation of the extended unit. Ish-Bosheth’s rash accusation about the concubine (3:7) illustrates his growing weakness and his inevitable failure as king. It is not a laudatory acceptance of the way royal concubines were treated. Likewise, Michal’s return to David has points of contact with 1 Samuel and later in 2 Samuel, all illustrating David’s legitimacy as Saul’s successor.

Thus, we read these texts for what they teach us about God’s faithfulness to David and the Davidic dynasty, not as a means of critiquing contemporary views of warfare or the roles of women in society. There are other biblical texts (both Old and New Testament) for that. There are many indications, in fact, that the Old Testament’s view of women in general was consistently at odds with its ancient Near Eastern matrix and that it began a process (continued in the New Testament) of liberating women from the injustices of cultural mores.

Having attempted to overcome these obstacles, the reader should not miss the importance of the summary statement at 3:1: “The war between the house of Saul and the house of David lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.” Like looking through a lens and adjusting the focus for a better view, this verse gives us a sharp picture of David as the anointed one who received the Spirit of the Lord in power (1 Sam. 16:13). Soon after his anointing, strangers around him recognized that the Lord was with him in a unique way (16:18). The biblical historian has followed this theme, illustrating that Yahweh is the moving force behind the historical events (18:14, 18).

Our summary statement at 2 Samuel 3:1 propels us forward to that day when David will become king of all Israel because of God’s powerful presence with him: “And he became more and more powerful, because the LORD God Almighty was with him” (5:10). All of the battles and intrigue narrated in here illustrate that God is with David. Old Testament historical books often teach by showing rather than by telling. By showing how these problems were resolved, this text illustrates again that God is blessing and preparing David, his ideal king of Israel.

Contemporary Significance

JUST AS THERE was a right way and a wrong way to become king in ancient Israel, so there is for believers a right and wrong way to fulfill the promises of God in our lives. And just as the righteous way illustrated in this text by David leads to strength and the wrong way illustrated by Ish-Bosheth to weakness, so there are consequences to the way we choose.

Corporate significance. This understanding of our text has a corporate significance. In the case of the early church, Christian believers waited patiently in prayer as instructed by Jesus for the promised Holy Spirit of God to become a reality (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 14). This devotion was not unlike David’s patiently waiting for God’s time and place to fulfill his promises. Sadly, the church has not always been so patient or, for that matter, so obedient to God’s call. At times the body of Christ on earth has been more like Ish-Bosheth than David.

For example, Pope Urban II devised a plan to rescue the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem from the hands of the Turks, who had closed the city to Christian pilgrims. On November 26, 1095 A.D., at the council in Clermont, the pope urged Christians to capture the Holy Sepulchre by force, wresting it “from the wicked race” in order to subject it again to Christendom.22 He shamelessly offered remission of sins and eternal life to anyone who took up the sword. The prospects of military conquest and unlimited spoils of war generated religious hysteria throughout France and Germany, and the first of the Crusades was under way.

In the spring and summer of 1096, soldiers began moving through the Rhine Valley, where thousands of Jews were victimized by the madness. Rumors spread that the Jews were aiding the cause of Islam. Approximately five thousand Jews were slaughtered at Worms, Mainz, and Cologne. More Jews would die with the thousands of Muslims who lost their lives later.23 This is without question the wrong way to make God’s promises a reality and to usher in the kingdom of heaven. The right way—the way of patience, trust, and hope—is illustrated by the early church and by King David. But the Crusaders replaced it with the way of Ish-Bosheth and Abner, a way of brute force and military power.

Individual significance. Beyond the corporate significance, this text also has individual significance. The Bible portrays two important gardens, where individuals typify the right way and the wrong way to fulfill God’s purposes in our lives. In the Garden of Eden, Eve recognized that the forbidden fruit would make her wise like God (Gen. 3:5). Of course, she and Adam had been created in God’s image and were as much like God as creatures could be. But she accepted the serpent’s view of reality and believed she could forge a better way than that planned by God.

By contrast, an individual praying fervently in the Garden of Gethsemane presents a different portrait (Matt. 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–46). Faced with the supreme trial (“cup” is a metaphor for calamity and death), Jesus affirms his essential orientation around God’s will, for good or ill. The structure of his prayer itself emphasizes his obedient submission to that will,24 culminating in his resolute embrace of the right way: “Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). These individuals, these two gardens, exemplify the choices before us as we too seek to make God’s purposes a reality in our lives.

Universal significance. This portrait of Jesus embracing his divine vocation leads to yet another level of significance beyond the corporate and individual. The figure stooped in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane fulfills for the Christian reader the messianic themes we have identified in the books of Samuel. David is celebrated in these texts as the ideal king, who willingly submits to God’s timing and direction and consistently repudiates the way of power politics and force. Jesus fulfills all that was right about David. Like David, he could have chosen the wrong way to accomplish his divine mission. In fact, Satan even tempted him with that (Matt. 4:1–11). But Jesus is the ideal king of Israel because he became king in the right way, through submission to his divine vocation as the Son of David and through patient waiting and service.