2 Samuel Chapter 3
Abner’s Defection and Murder
A. Abner Defects from Ishbosheth
1. (2 Samuel 3:2-5) David’s Sons Born in Hebron
“And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; And the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron.”
During David’s seven-year reign in Hebron, six sons were born to him from six different wives. This reveals that David was not exempt from human weakness and disobedience, for he transgressed God’s commandment concerning kings in Deuteronomy 17:17, which says, “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” God’s original design for marriage is stated clearly in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh,” and reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
David’s polygamy was not a mark of spiritual success but rather a flaw in his character. His many wives reflected the common practice among kings who expressed their wealth, power, and alliances through marriage. Yet, as Scripture often does, it simply records the facts without editorial comment, allowing the consequences to unfold later in the narrative. The Lord still used David mightily, but the fruit of his polygamy brought turmoil to his household. Trapp aptly observed, “By six wives he had but six sons. God was not pleased with his polygamy.”
Each of these sons later became part of the unfolding tragedy in David’s family. Amnon committed incest with his half-sister Tamar and was murdered by his half-brother Absalom (2 Samuel 13:28-29). Chileab, also called Daniel (1 Chronicles 3:1), is scarcely mentioned again, suggesting he may have died young or lived without distinction. Absalom murdered Amnon and later led a rebellion against his father, seeking David’s throne (2 Samuel 15:10-14). Adonijah attempted to usurp the throne and later sought to marry Abishag, one of David’s concubines, for which Solomon ordered his execution (1 Kings 1:5; 2:13-25). Shephatiah and Ithream are barely mentioned again, implying either early death or insignificance in spiritual or royal matters (1 Chronicles 3:1-4).
Though the Lord’s covenant with David remained firm, his family suffered greatly from the seeds of disobedience sown in Hebron. It stands as a warning that divine favor does not erase the earthly consequences of sin.
2. (2 Samuel 3:6-7) Ishbosheth Accuses Abner of Impropriety with the Royal Concubine
“And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul. And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine?”
During the ongoing conflict between the houses of Saul and David, Abner grew in influence over Saul’s surviving dynasty. Ishbosheth, Saul’s weak son, sat on the throne in name, but Abner wielded the real power. Scripture says that Abner “made himself strong for the house of Saul,” meaning he consolidated authority, likely controlling the army and court affairs. His loyalty to Saul’s legacy was less about faithfulness and more about maintaining control.
When Ishbosheth accused Abner of sleeping with Rizpah, Saul’s former concubine, it was not merely a charge of immorality but one of treason. In ancient Near Eastern culture, the king’s wives and concubines symbolized royal authority. To take one was to make a claim to the throne itself. As Baldwin notes, “To take the wife or concubine of the late monarch was to appropriate his property and to make a bid for the throne.” The same principle appears later when Absalom takes David’s concubines in the sight of all Israel (2 Samuel 16:21-22) and when Adonijah requests Abishag, a symbolic act that sealed his fate (1 Kings 2:17-25).
This accusation reveals Ishbosheth’s insecurity and weakness as a ruler. His dependence on Abner had eroded his own authority, and this confrontation would soon sever their alliance. The situation also serves as a spiritual lesson. The concubine of the king represented something exclusively belonging to him, and in the same way, the Church belongs to Christ alone. It is spiritual treason for any man or institution to claim possession of His bride. Ephesians 5:25-27 declares, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”
Thus, the political treachery in Saul’s court mirrors a greater spiritual truth: Christ’s church must never be claimed or controlled by men seeking their own authority or glory.
Abner’s Defection and Murder
3. (2 Samuel 3:8–11) Abner’s Harsh Reply
“Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog’s head, which against Judah do shew kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me today with a fault concerning this woman? So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the LORD hath sworn to David, even so I do to him; To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba. And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him.”
When Ishbosheth accused Abner of taking his father’s concubine, Abner’s response was one of fierce indignation. His words, “Am I a dog’s head,” expressed contempt and outrage at being treated like a traitor or a base, unclean animal. This idiom implied that Ishbosheth had insulted Abner’s loyalty, treating him as if he were a vile and treacherous dog aligned with Judah rather than a faithful defender of Saul’s house. Abner reminded Ishbosheth that he had preserved the remnants of Saul’s kingdom and spared Ishbosheth’s life, refraining from delivering him into David’s hand.
Abner’s anger suggests that the accusation may have been false or exaggerated. It is possible that Ishbosheth, feeling threatened by Abner’s growing power, invented the charge as an excuse to remove him. On the other hand, Abner might have taken the concubine as an assertion of dominance, symbolizing his authority within Saul’s fractured house. Either way, this confrontation marked the breaking point between the two men.
Abner’s declaration that he would now fulfill what “the LORD hath sworn to David” reveals that he already knew God’s will concerning the kingdom. The promise that the throne of Israel belonged to David had been well-known since the days of Samuel, as the prophet had anointed David in 1 Samuel 16:13, which says, “Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.” Abner’s words—“to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba”—were a confession that he had fought against God’s revealed plan.
If Abner knew that David was God’s chosen king, his continued resistance to David’s reign exposes a heart that acknowledged truth but refused to submit to it. He stands as a warning against those who know the will of God yet act contrary to it until it serves their own interest. Abner’s sudden change of allegiance was not driven by repentance or faith, but by pride wounded by Ishbosheth’s accusation. He chose to do the right thing for the wrong reason, motivated by personal offense rather than obedience to the Lord.
Abner’s situation mirrors the attitude of many who only turn toward God’s purposes when their own ambitions or egos are threatened. His life demonstrates that knowledge of divine truth without humble submission to it leads to hypocrisy and self-deception. As James 4:6 reminds us, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”
4. (2 Samuel 3:12–16) David Agrees to Receive Abner if He Brings Michal with Him
“And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose is the land? saying also, Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel unto thee. And he said, Well; I will make a league with thee: but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal Saul’s daughter, when thou comest to see my face. And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. And Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish. And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner unto him, Go, return. And he returned.”
Having broken with Ishbosheth, Abner sent envoys to David offering his allegiance and promising to bring all Israel under David’s rule. His bold question, “Whose is the land?” implied that the kingdom’s true authority rightly belonged to David, the man after God’s own heart. David agreed to make a covenant with Abner but set one condition: “Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal Saul’s daughter.”
Michal had been David’s wife by right and by covenant. 1 Samuel 18:27 records, “Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.” Yet Saul, in his jealousy, had later taken Michal away from David and given her to another man, as stated in 1 Samuel 25:44, “But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which was of Gallim.”
David’s demand for Michal served several purposes. First, it was a matter of justice and covenantal right; she was his lawful wife, unjustly taken from him. Second, it symbolized reconciliation with Saul’s house, for David’s acceptance of Saul’s daughter would demonstrate that he bore no personal grudge against Saul’s lineage. Third, it strengthened David’s political claim to the throne as Saul’s rightful son-in-law, providing visible continuity between the former dynasty and the new.
Though politically wise, the act had emotional cost. Michal’s second husband, Paltiel (or Phalti), followed her weeping as she was taken away, revealing genuine affection. Yet Abner, showing his characteristic sternness, ordered him to “Go, return,” and he obeyed. This brief scene portrays both Abner’s iron will and the tragedy of political maneuvering that disregards the human heart.
David’s insistence on reclaiming Michal also reflects his ongoing weakness for multiple wives. While it was legally justified, spiritually it reveals his failure to rest content within God’s ideal for marriage. Nevertheless, God used even these imperfect circumstances to advance His sovereign plan, uniting Israel under His chosen king.
5. (2 Samuel 3:17–19) Abner Rallies Support for David among the Other Tribes
“And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you: Now then do it: for the LORD hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies. And Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin: and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and that seemed good to the whole house of Benjamin.”
After reconciling with David, Abner began the process of uniting the kingdom under his rightful king. He approached the elders of Israel, reminding them that they had previously desired David to reign over them, yet had never acted upon that conviction. His challenge was simple and direct: “Now then, do it.” Abner acknowledged that God had already spoken concerning David, declaring through the prophet Samuel that David would be the instrument by which He would deliver Israel from their enemies.
It is significant that this appeal came from Abner, not from David. David refused to force himself upon the people or seize the throne through ambition. Instead, he waited for Israel to willingly submit to him. This pattern reflects the heart of Christ, who, though Lord of all, does not impose His kingship upon unwilling hearts. He reigns where He is invited. As Revelation 3:20 says, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”
David’s restraint illustrates three kinds of responses toward divine authority. Some people refuse to let the Lord rule over any part of their lives, rejecting His lordship altogether. Others, like those who allowed David only to reign in “Hebron,” submit partially, yielding certain areas to Christ but withholding others. Yet the mature believer recognizes that Jesus Christ deserves absolute sovereignty over every part of life. Philippians 2:10–11 proclaims, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Abner, once an opponent of David, now became a voice calling others to surrender to God’s appointed king. His change of allegiance demonstrates how God can turn even His adversaries into instruments for His purpose. Still, Abner’s motives remained mixed; while he finally acted according to God’s will, his personal ambition had played a role in delaying that obedience.
Abner’s urgent exhortation, “Now then, do it,” holds a timeless spiritual application. The time for submitting to God’s chosen King is always now. To delay is to disobey. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 6:2, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” Charles Spurgeon, preaching from this very passage, noted that Israel’s talk of making David king would have been meaningless unless it was acted upon. In the same way, one’s profession of faith means nothing without the decisive surrender of the will to Christ. Spurgeon urged, “Until the deed is done, remember you are undone; till Christ is accepted by you as King, till sin is hated and Jesus is trusted, you are under another king. Whatever you may think of it, the devil is your master.”
Abner’s mention of the Lord’s word regarding David shows that the prophecies of his kingship were well known across Israel. Although we have no direct record of the specific prophecy Abner cited, it likely referred to what the nation had heard from Samuel when David was anointed. As 1 Samuel 13:14 records, “The LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people.” The knowledge of this promise had spread widely, yet few had acted upon it.
Just as David’s kingship was publicly affirmed yet privately resisted, so Christ’s lordship is acknowledged by many but submitted to by few. Israel’s lukewarm attitude toward David foreshadowed the spiritual apathy of those who acknowledge Christ’s authority but never yield to His reign. As Luke 19:14 laments, “But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.”
6. (2 Samuel 3:20–21) David Formally Receives Abner with a Feast
“So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast. And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they may make a league with thee, and that thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth. And David sent Abner away; and he went in peace.”
Abner arrived in Hebron with twenty men as representatives of the northern tribes. David, demonstrating remarkable wisdom and grace, welcomed them with a feast. This act of hospitality was a visible sign of reconciliation. Instead of viewing Abner as a former enemy, David treated him as an honored guest. A lesser man would have harbored resentment against the general who had once opposed him in battle, but David chose the path of forgiveness and diplomacy.
This feast symbolized the peace that would soon unite Israel under one throne. Abner pledged to gather the remaining tribes and present them to David, so that “thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth.” Though Abner’s earlier actions had prolonged division and bloodshed, his newfound zeal to establish David’s kingdom now advanced God’s purpose. His promise reflected God’s original intent revealed in 2 Samuel 5:2, “The LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.”
David’s willingness to forgive and feast with Abner reflects the heart of Christ, who receives repentant sinners not as outcasts but as friends. Luke 15:20 beautifully parallels this moment: “But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.” Just as David made peace with one who had once opposed him, so the Lord Jesus offers peace and fellowship to those who once lived as His enemies but now come in repentance.
When the meeting concluded, David sent Abner away “in peace.” The phrase underscores that David’s dealings were transparent and honorable. His leadership was marked by grace rather than vengeance, patience rather than pride. The stage was now set for the unification of Israel under David’s reign, though treachery would soon disrupt this newfound peace.
B. Joab Murders Abner
1. (2 Samuel 3:22–25) Joab Learns that Abner Has Joined David’s Side
“And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace. When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace. Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.”
When Joab returned from a successful military raid, bringing considerable spoil, he learned that Abner had been to see David and had been sent away in peace. The repetition of this phrase—“he is gone in peace”—emphasizes that David had acted honorably and had made peace with Abner in good faith. However, Joab saw this through an entirely different lens.
Joab confronted David angrily, accusing him of reckless trust. His words—“Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee”—reflect deep suspicion and hostility. Joab viewed Abner’s visit not as reconciliation but as espionage, believing Abner intended to gather intelligence about David’s movements and strategies. From Joab’s perspective, Abner remained an enemy and a potential threat.
Joab’s outrage was fueled by several motives. First, he genuinely feared Abner might be a deceiver and a double agent working for Ishbosheth, the rival king. Second, his personal grudge burned fiercely—Abner had killed his younger brother Asahel during battle (2 Samuel 2:23), making Joab the avenger of blood according to the law in Numbers 35:19, which states, “The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.” Third, Joab’s pride and position were threatened. As Saul’s former general, Abner had extensive military experience and could easily surpass Joab in rank under David’s growing kingdom.
Joab’s concern for David’s safety may have contained a trace of truth, but his actions revealed that he allowed bitterness and jealousy to control him. His response was rooted more in vengeance and self-preservation than loyalty or discernment. Scripture warns that unchecked anger opens the door to sin, as Ephesians 4:26–27 commands, “Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil.” Joab’s wrath, left unresolved, soon led to treachery and bloodshed.
2. (2 Samuel 3:26–27) Joab Murders Abner
“And when Joab was come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, which brought him again from the well of Sirah: but David knew it not. And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.”
Without David’s knowledge or consent, Joab sent messengers to recall Abner, luring him back under false pretenses. When Abner returned to Hebron, Joab met him at the city gate, pretending to speak with him privately. In that moment of deceit, Joab thrust his dagger into Abner’s abdomen, killing him instantly. Scripture states that he did this “for the blood of Asahel his brother.”
The setting of this murder is profoundly significant. Hebron was one of Israel’s designated cities of refuge, as established in Joshua 20:7, “And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjatharba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah.” According to the law in Numbers 35:25, a person who had killed another unintentionally could flee to a city of refuge for protection until judged. Abner, who had slain Asahel in self-defense during open battle, was thus legally safe inside Hebron’s boundaries. Joab, aware of this law, deceitfully drew Abner outside the gate before striking him.
This act of calculated vengeance made Joab’s sin far darker. It was not an act of lawful retribution but of premeditated murder under the guise of justice. Joab exploited the letter of the law while violating its spirit, a hypocrisy common to those who justify wrongdoing with religious or moral pretense. He may have convinced himself that he was avenging honor or defending David’s kingdom, but in truth, he acted from pride and rage.
Joab’s murder of Abner exemplifies a tragic principle: sin justified in the name of righteousness still brings dishonor to God. Many fall into the same trap—believing they serve a noble cause while acting in direct violation of divine command. As Spurgeon once warned, “We may even deceive ourselves into the belief that we are honoring our Lord and Master when we are, all the while, bringing disgrace upon His name.”
The gate of Hebron, meant to be a place of safety and refuge, became instead the site of betrayal and murder. Joab’s act would bring reproach upon David’s administration, forcing him to publicly distance himself from the crime. Moreover, Joab’s treachery sowed seeds of distrust and blood guilt that would linger over his legacy until Solomon’s reign, when Joab himself would die in judgment for his violence (1 Kings 2:5–6, 28–34).
3. (2 Samuel 3:28–30) David Renounces Joab’s Evil Murder of Abner
“And afterward when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the LORD for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner: Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread. So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.”
When David learned of Abner’s death, he immediately declared his innocence before the Lord. “I and my kingdom are guiltless before the LORD for ever from the blood of Abner.” His response reveals a man of integrity and a ruler conscious of divine accountability. He recognized that Joab’s act of vengeance could easily stain his entire administration with the reputation of treachery and violence. David wanted to make it clear before God and man that he had no part in Abner’s murder.
The slaying of Abner not only defied moral law but also jeopardized David’s mission to unify Israel under righteous leadership. Joab’s private vengeance endangered public trust, creating suspicion that David had achieved power through bloodshed. For a newly forming kingdom, such an impression was devastating. Therefore, David distanced himself completely, affirming that his throne would not be founded upon human deceit or unlawful killing.
David pronounced a solemn curse upon Joab’s house, saying, “Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house.” This imprecation invoked divine justice, leaving judgment in God’s hands rather than taking it himself. He named five afflictions—disease, leprosy, crippling weakness, violent death, and poverty—as perpetual reminders of Joab’s guilt. Yet, though David condemned Joab verbally, he did not remove him from command. His silence in discipline contrasted with his outcry in speech.
This hesitation reveals one of David’s recurring flaws: his tendency to tolerate dangerous men for the sake of stability. Joab’s military skill made him indispensable, but his ruthlessness made him untrustworthy. Later, this same Joab would defy David again by murdering Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14) and Amasa (2 Samuel 20:10). David, who had been fearless in battle, now appeared reluctant to confront sin within his own ranks. His unwillingness to deal with Joab’s blood guilt ultimately left it for Solomon to settle, as recorded in 1 Kings 2:5–6, where David warned his son: “Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me… do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.”
David’s reaction shows the tension between moral leadership and political necessity. While he could not execute judgment himself without destabilizing the army, he still committed the matter to God, trusting that divine justice would prevail. The lesson is enduring: leaders must never allow expedience to silence righteousness.
4. (2 Samuel 3:31–39) David Leads the Mourning for Abner
“And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And king David himself followed the bier. And they buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept. And the king lamented over Abner, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth? Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou. And all the people wept again over him. And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or ought else, till the sun be down. And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them: as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. For all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of Ner. And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me: the LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.”
David’s public mourning for Abner was sincere and politically wise. He commanded Joab and the entire court to tear their garments, put on sackcloth, and lament for the fallen general. In an extraordinary gesture of humility, “King David himself followed the bier,” walking behind the coffin as an ordinary mourner. This act demonstrated that David’s heart was not hardened by political ambition but moved by grief for a man who might have been a great ally in uniting the kingdom.
David’s lament, “Died Abner as a fool dieth?” captures both sorrow and indignation. Abner’s death was not the result of judgment or guilt, but treachery. “Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters,” he said, meaning Abner had not been condemned, imprisoned, or given a fair trial. He fell not in battle but “before wicked men.” This public declaration underscored that Abner was murdered unjustly.
When the people urged David to eat, he swore an oath to fast until sunset, showing deep mourning and respect for the slain. This gesture reassured the people of David’s innocence and compassion. The text emphasizes, “All the people took notice of it, and it pleased them.” His genuine humility and righteousness endeared him to the nation, restoring confidence in his leadership. The people recognized that “it was not of the king to slay Abner.”
David’s words at the grave—“Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?”—acknowledge Abner’s greatness even in death. He honored the man despite his former opposition, a mark of grace and magnanimity that set David apart from lesser kings. Yet David also confessed his weakness: “I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me.” Joab and Abishai, the sons of Zeruiah, were powerful but ruthless men whose strength David could not yet restrain. The statement reveals both his human limitation and his reliance upon divine justice—“The LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.”
This event demonstrates that David’s kingdom would be established not through the sword but through righteousness. His restraint, mourning, and submission to God’s justice contrast sharply with Joab’s vengeance. In David’s conduct, we see a foreshadowing of Christ, who, though wronged, chose forgiveness and left judgment to the Father. Romans 12:19 declares, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
Even though this affair brought turmoil, God used it to affirm David’s integrity and distinguish his rule from the violence of Saul’s era. As Proverbs 14:4 wisely observes, “Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox.” In other words, productive kingdoms will inevitably experience disorder and complexity, yet in the midst of such “messes,” God’s purposes continue to prevail.
