Tabletalk Subscription
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining.You've accessed all your free articles.
Unlock the Archives for Free

Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.

Try Tabletalk Now

Already receive Tabletalk magazine every month?

Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.

{{ error }}Need help?

2 Samuel 3

“God do so to Abner and more also, if I do not accomplish for David what the LORD has sworn to him, to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul and set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan to Beersheba” (vv. 9–10).

Despite the many problems that exist in the United States, the nation continues to be lauded for its long history of peaceful transfers of power. When the president from one political party ends his term and is replaced by a newly elected president from another political party, there is usually a transition that occurs without any bloodshed. This phenomenon is unique in human history. Historically, violence has often attended the transfer of power from one regime to another.

The throne of ancient Israel did not pass from Saul to David without murder and treachery. Today’s passage describes the violent end of Abner, Saul’s general who appointed Saul’s son Ish-bosheth king after Saul died (2 Sam. 2:8–11). In 2 Samuel 3, we see Abner for who he truly was, a man bent on turning things to his own advantage. First, he had taken one of Saul’s concubines, which Ish-bosheth rightly saw as Abner making a play for the throne. Abner responded by going off to negotiate with David for the loyalty of the tribes of Israel that were not yet in submission to him as the king (3:1–19). Abner was driven not by loyalty to Saul or by a theological conviction that David was God’s choice for the monarchy. He only wanted to make sure he had a high position in whichever regime prevailed.

David’s peace with Abner did not please Joab, David’s general and brother of Asahel, whom Abner had killed (vv. 22–25; see 2:18–23). Three times we read that Abner had gone away “in peace” (3:21–23), which most likely refers to a promise of safe conduct granted by David. This makes what Joab did to Abner base treachery—he violated a royal promise and brought the king’s name into potential disrepute. In Hebron, Joab took the unsuspecting Abner aside and killed him. On one level, we can understand why Joab would have wanted to get revenge on Abner for killing Asahel. However, commentators note that Joab had no legitimate ground for his act. Asahel was not murdered; he was killed only after Abner repeatedly warned Asahel to leave him alone. Abner did not kill Asahel with ill intent, so Abner should have been afforded the protection offered in the Mosaic law to those guilty of manslaughter (Num. 35:9–34).

David mourned the illegal killing of Abner, confirming yet again that he would be a righteous king concerned for the law of God (2 Sam. 3:31–39). It was not his fault that Abner died, and he would not be held responsible for Joab’s craven act.

Coram Deo Living before the face of God

We may not resort to grossly immoral acts in order to advance our own position. However, all of us have the potential to be an Abner, to shift our loyalties depending on who seems to have the most power and to seek to put ourselves in places of prominence. That, however, is not the way of Christ, and it should not be the way of His people. Let us seek His kingdom, not our own advancement within it.

For Further Study
  • 1 Kings 2:1–9, 28–35
  • Psalm 147:6
  • Luke 12:22–34
  • Philippians 2:5–11

War between the Houses of David and...

Justice for Ish-Bosheth

Keep Reading The Nineteenth Century

From the May 2019 Issue
May 2019 Issue