Joab

Joab has continually confounded me during my sojourning in Samuel and Chronicles.

Here are some facts:

*He was the son of Zeruiah, a sister of David.  So, Joab was David's Nephew

*Joab has been with David since the cave of Adullam when 400 men and his family come to support him.

*He had two brothers, Abashai and Asahel.

*He was a brave commander, not afraid to fight and seize the moment.  2 Samuel 10: 9-14

*Joab was from Judah.  Abner, Ishbosheth, (and Saul) were from the tribe of Benjamin, representing Israel.

Abner

Deffinbaugh brings up some interesting background on Abner, commander of Israel while Saul is living and after his death:

*Abner's father was probably Ner, the brother of Kish (who was Saul's father). This would intensify the loyalty Abner had toward Saul.

*Abner was there when David slew Goliath. He didn't step up to the plate then.

*As David was a captain of a thousand in Saul's army of which Abner was the commander. Abner was surely familiar with David then too.

*The second time David could have taken Saul's life, he stole Saul's water jug and spear. After retreating, he taunted Abner and asked him why he wasn't defending Saul as he should be.

"As we put all of these elements together, we see that Abner is guilty for failing to protect his king, and thus worthy of death. His failure is divinely caused (by God putting all of them to sleep), thus making Saul vulnerable to Abishai, who wants to kill him but is prevented from doing so by David. David is shown to be a protector of Saul’s life, more effective than Abner. David then pronounces a curse on the one who may be turning Saul against him. Who comes out looking most guilty in all of this? Is it not Abner?" -Bob Deffinbaugh, A Study of 2 Samuel

Also this comment from BD on Abner and Asahel:

"He is not willing to do so, because he knows he will then have to face Joab, his older brother (not to mention Abishai). When Asahel refuses to give up his pursuit, Abner runs him through, not with the point of his spear but with the butt of his spear. This must take incredible strength and ability, and Abner is fully up to it, as he seems to know."

Joab and his older brother, Abishai, are not about to let the death of their brother pass without what they consider the only appropriate response -- killing Abner, who kill Asahel. If they kill Abner in the context of war, it will not be viewed as a murder but a necessary part of war (see 3:28-34; 1 Kings 2:30-33). The problem seems to be that while there is an initial victory for the men of Judah, the servants of David, Abner, and his men are able to reconnoiter, and in a position to be able to successfully defend themselves from atop a hill (2 Samuel 2:25). When Abner recommends that they call a cease fire, Joab agrees, stating that it is inevitable anyway (2:26-28).-BD

Here Deffinbaugh seems to conclude that Abner is influential in Saul's bad opinion of David. Saul was swayed by the opinions of man throughout his life. Examples: Saul goes ahead and offers sacrifice because Samuel is late and men are fleeing. Saul became jealous because the people credited David of slaying ten thousand, while Saul only had slain thousands.

David as King, Snapshots from 2 Samuel

2 Samuel, Chapter 2

On the Situation After Saul Died and Before David Assumes Kingship: 

This was a decisive and important move for it immediately alienated him from the Philistines with whom he had taken refuge and made an alliance; it signified the quasi-independence of Judah from Israel, an attitude which would find complete expression at the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death (1Ki_12:16); and it asserted David’s reign as being in rivalry with that of Saul’s son, Ish-Bosheth, who succeeded his father in the North. -BKC

On Hebron

Unto Hebron - The metropolis of the tribe of Judah, one of the richest regions in Judea. The mountains of Hebron were famed for fruits, herbage, and honey; and many parts were well adapted for vines, olives, and different kinds of grain, abounding in springs of excellent water, as the most accurate travelers have asserted. -Adam Clarke

Hebron was well suited for the temporary capital of David’s kingdom, being situated in a strong position in the mountains of Judah, amidst David’s friends, and withal having especially sacred associations (see the marginal references note). It appears to have also been the center of a district 2Sa_2:3.  -Barnes

Re David's Polygamy

David had his share of sin---the premeditated murder of Uriah and his accumulation of wives in general--six total at this point in 2 Samuel. In the Biblical Illustrator, W. G. Blaikie describes it thus:

"Though polygamy was not allowed to David, it certainly was winked at; it was not imputed to him as guilt; it ‘was not treated as an act of rebellion against God’s law. But, on the other hand, this toleration of polygamy did not and could not prevent the evils to which, from its very nature, it gives rise. There could be no unity in David’s family, none of that delightful feeling of oneness, which gives such a charm to the home. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that feeling of chastity, which has such a purifying influence in a family, could scarcely flourish. And further, as the absence of delicacy must have been characteristic of David, so was it also of his children; the unbridled passions of some of his sons gave rise to the most dismal tragedies; and left blots on their name that even time could never wash out."

David had much greater success in his public life than he did in his private.  It's a rare person who has both.  Perhaps the polygamy led to his indulgent nature toward his children, or at least, it would certainly cause the wives to pit their children against each other and spoil them in this way.  In any event, the polygamy has its consequences.

In our modern day, I think of multiple marriages and divorces as having many of these same consequences.   Whether God "allows" for these instances is one point, but another is that it almost always creates an environment of disharmony in the homes affected.  This seems like a natural consequence of the outgrowth of the choice to divorce and remarry.  Family life becomes increasingly complicated and fragmented.  It certainly lacks the unity of a one home one partner marriage.

The Partial Obedience of Saul

The Partial Obedience of Saul

1 Samuel 15

Saul is told to strike the Amalekites.  He musters Israel to fight, conquers them, but makes the mistake of keeping what is worthwhile:

1Sa 15:9  But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction.

In some odd way, this reminds me of Cain and Abel.  If the sacrifice is worthless in the giver's eyes, then it becomes an insult to the Lord instead of a pleasure.  What good is it to destroy only the "despised and worthless"? In 1 Samuel 15:11, we are given insight into the Lord's thoughts on Saul directly:

1Sa 15:11  "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night.

Samuel and the Lord seem more grieved and affected than Saul.  Perhaps this is the problem?  The Lord's regret centers upon two complaints (1) that---"he has turned his back from following me" (2) "and has not performed my commandments."

Fearful comment by MacLaren---which type of "devoted" do we wish to be?  We are part of His plan whether we acknowledge Him and cooperate with Him or whether we stiffen our necks and deny His ways.  Although there is an initial cost of obedience, inconvenience, uncertainty on the front end, I prefer that to the back end where you become a reluctant part of His plan and experience the consequences of disobedience.

"The terrible old usages of that period are brought into play again, and the whole nation with its possessions is ‘devoted’. The word explains the dreadful usage. There are two kinds of devotion to God: that of willing, and that of unwilling, men; the one brings life, the other, death. The massacre of the foul nations of Canaan was thereby made a direct divine judgment, and removed wholly from the region of ferocious warfare." -MacLaren