II SAMUEL 2 COMMENTARYWritten and edited by Glenn Pease

PREFACE

This commentary is designed to give Bible students the thinking and wisdom of many

other authors all in one place to save the time of research. It is far from perfect, for I

quote from sources that have many imperfections, but the content is clear and valuable.

Sometimes I do not know the author, and anyone who does know the author can write

me, and I will give credit where it is deserved. Some I quote may, for some good reason,

desire that their wisdom not be made available in this way. They also can write and have

me delete their quotes. My e-mail is glenn_p86@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION

This chapter makes it so clear that you can be in the center of God's will and still

have a rough time getting to where God wants you to be. There is opposition and

conflict,and many obstacles to overcome. David has been anointed as king of Israel

for many years, and finally Saul's death makes it possible for him to move in the

direction of taking that position. However, he has to take small steps and become

the king of Judah for over 7 years before he can take the next step of becoming king

of all God's people. It was a long and hard journey, and it teaches us that we have

every reason to expect that being in God's will does not mean all will come easy, and

without a need for patience.

David Anointed King Over Judah

1 In the course of time, David inquired of the LORD .

"Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?" he asked.

The LORD said, "Go up."

David asked, "Where shall I go?"

"To Hebron," the LORD answered.

1. The implication is that David did not rush into taking the throne as king, but

patiently waited on the Lord seeking wisdom as to how he should go about

becoming the king. Saul had a great family, and many leaders in his government,

and it was a touchy subject that needed to be handled right, or it could provoke a

civil war. David had been running from Saul for years, and was a skilled warrior,

but was he ready to take on the leadership of government was the question. After

some time of struggle with the matter he went to the Lord seeking guidance as to

what his move should be. God made it easy by telling him the very town where he

should go to begin the process of taking the throne of Israel.

1B. Pink, “David would do nothing in this important crisis of his life—when all

which had for so long appeared a distant hope, now seemed to be rapidly becoming

a present fact—until his Shepherd should lead him. Impatient and impetuous as he

was by nature, schooled to swift decisions, followed by still swifter actions, knowing

that a blow struck speedily while all was chaos and despair in the kingdom, might at

once set him on the throne; nevertheless, he held the flesh, carnal policy, and the

impatience of his followers in check, to hear what God would say. To a man of

David’s experience it must have appeared that now was the opportune moment to

subdue the remaining adherents of the fallen Saul, rally around himself his loyal

friends, grasp the crown and the scepter, vanquish the gloating Philistines, and

secure unto himself the kingdom of Israel. Instead, he refused to take a single step

until Jehovah had signified His will in the matter.”

1C. Brian Morgan, “Notice the total lack of formality and absence of ritual in

David's prayers. There are no introductory formalities, no carefully worded

formulas, no complicated rituals. The directness and simplicity of his prayers are

reminiscent of a conversation between two intimate friends. David uses but two and

four words in Hebrew to state his questions, and each time God answers with

merely one word in Hebrew.”

1D. You will notice how brief this prayer is. David asked two simple questions, and

God answered both with two words each. God is very conservative in his word

usage, for there is no elaborate and lengthy communication. David is very specific in

his questions, and so they can be answered in just a couple of words. Sometimes we

think that the key to prayer being answered is the quantity of time we spend in

asking, but Bible prayers are often very short and specific. We need to simply get to

the bottom line and ask God directly for a specific answer to a specific question.

2. We would all love to have God give us specific information and guidance like this,

but most of us never hear God speak to us as it appears he spoke to David. This

seems to be a conversation in which God spoke out loud to David, and told his to to

to Hebron. It is not stated that he just got the feeling that was the best place, or that

he had some intuition about it, but that God spoke to him and said this is the place

to go. Knowing God's will would be so much easier if God would just tell us what to

do. God did this often in the Old Testament, but it is rare today that anyone hears

the audible voice of God giving them such specific information. Today we need to

search God's Word in print for guidance.

3. Pink, “Though the Lord had promised him the kingdom, though he had already

been anointed by Samuel unto the same, and though Saul was now dead, David was

not hasty to take matters into his own hands, but desired to submit himself unto

God’s directions and act only according to His revealed will. This evidenced the fact

that he really trusted in Him who had promised him the kingdom, to give it to him

in His own due time and manner; and thus he would possess it with a clear

conscience, and at the same time avoid all those appearances of evil with which he

might know the remaining adherents of Saul would be ready to charge him. So fully

did he fulfill the word of his early Psalm: "my Strength! upon Thee will I wait"

(59:9). We never lose anything by believing and patiently waiting upon God; but we

are always made to suffer when we take things into our own hands and rush blindly

ahead.

4. Hebron was the specific city that David was to go to as his first step to the throne.

It is good to learn a little more about this place that God chose. Pink gives us some

good information here. "And He said, Unto Hebron." There is a spiritual beauty in

this word which can only be perceived as we compare scripture with scripture. In

the Old Testament "Hebron" stands typically, for communion. This may be seen

from the first mention of the word: "Then Abram removed his tent, and came and

dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the

Lord" (Gen. 13:15). Again, "So he (Jacob) sent him (Joseph, on an errand of mercy

to his brethren) out of the vale of Hebron" (Gen. 37:14)―figure of the Father

sending the Son on a mission of grace unto His elect. "And they gave Hebron unto

Caleb" (Judges 1:20): the place of fellowship became the portion of the man who

followed the Lord "Fully" (Num. 14:24). How fitting, then, that the restored David

should be sent back to "Hebron"―it is ever back unto communion the Lord calls

His wandering child. O how thankful we should be when the Holy Spirit restores us

to communion with God, even though it be at the cost of disappointment and sorrow

(Ziklag) to the flesh.

5. W. Taylor, “The city in which, by divine direction, David established himself, was

not only one of the most ancient in existence, but also one which was encircled with

associations which to an Israelite must have been peculiarly sacred. There

Abraham, the father of the faithful, sojourned for a considerable portion of his life

in Canaan ; in the immediate neighborhood was the oak of Mamre, beneath which

the patriarch had so often offered sacrifice to Jehovah ; and hard by was the cave of

Machpelah, in which he buried the remains of Sarah, and in which his own ashes,

and those of Isaac and Jacob, were afterward deposited. Hence, of all the cities of

Palestine at that date, it must have had the richest attractions to the chosen people ;

and even yet, in its modern name, El-Khulil the Friend we can see a reference to him

who was styled, by way of eminence, the Friend of God. In the days of Joshua the

surrounding territory was given to Caleb, and it was made a city of refuge, and a

city of the Levites. It was, besides, one of the places to which David sent a portion of

the spoils which he had taken from the Amalekites. Hence, both from its holy

associations, its central situation, and the probable favor of its inhabitants toward

him, it was a most appropriate place for David's capital.”

6. Constable, “David again expressed his dependence on God by asking in prayer

where God wanted him to relocate. He realized that he could not make the wisest

choice alone since he did not have God's perspective. He wanted God to use him

most effectively, so he allowed God to place him in that spot. The territory of Judah

was the logical choice since that was David's tribal homeland and where he had the

greatest acceptance (cf. 1 Sam. 30:26-30). Verse 1 gives the key to David's triumphs,

namely, his dependence on God.”

7. Maclaren, “David did what we shall do, if we are wise—he asked God to guide

him. How that guidance was asked and given we are not here told; but the analogy

of 1 Samuel 30:7, 8 , suggests that it was by the Urim and Thummim, interpreted by

the high-priest. The form of inquiry seems to have been that a course of action,

suggested by the inquirer, was decided for him by a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No.’ So that there

was the exercise of common-sense and judgment in formulating the proposed

course, as well as that of God’s direction in determining it.”

8. Mark Mitchell, “Let's pause for a moment here. As David moves to this next stage

in his life he exemplifies what we might call a submitted ambition. There is no

question that his going up to Judah would be a clear statement that he was ready to

assume his role as king. And he wanted to be king. He knew this was God's will for

him. This was the moment he and so many others had been waiting for. It is

important to keep in mind here that David was not a man void of ambition. He did

not kill a Philistine giant without a certain degree of ambition. He did not take two

hundred Philistine foreskins without ambition. He did not dream about building a

house for God without ambition. But David's was a submitted ambition. It was an

ambition primarily for the glory of God. So, before he goes up, he inquires of the

Lord, not just to discern whether he should go up, but also, specifically, where he

should go up to. David knows that the moment has come, but he is unwilling to take

a step without the Lord's direction. That is a submitted ambition.”

9. Mitchell continues, “We see the same thing with Jesus when he made the

transition from his quiet life as a carpenter to his public ministry. After his baptism,

he was led out to the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil. Ambition

was one of the issues that came up then. Satan tried to get him to grasp for his

crown, his glory, apart from his Father's appointed process of suffering on the cross.

But Jesus resisted. During a critical passage in his life, Jesus exhibited a submitted

ambition.

In experiencing a transition in life, it is critical to not make any assumptions about

the next step. This is especially important, and difficult, when a transition involves a

move up or a move into a situation that we have been waiting for a long time. We

must not push ahead too fast. We can be honest about our desires and ambitions,

but we need to wait for God's timing. This is true even if the circumstances seem

perfect. From a human perspective, there was nothing to delay David in this case,

but he was still unwilling to move ahead without the Lord's clear direction. This

actually was a hallmark of David's life--seeking the Lord's guidance before making

important moves. It is one of the things that set him apart from Saul, and it was part

of what it meant for David to be a man after God's heart.”

2 So David went up there with his two wives, Ahinoam

of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel.

1. David wasted no time in obeying God. He took his two wives and left for Hebron

just as God told him to do. It is always the best first step in any goal to obey the will

of God. David was a man after God's own heart, for when he knew the will of God,

he obeyed it. In contrast to the text where we see David in the will of God, there are

many who say David was out of God's will by having two wives. God does not say so,

and does not instruct him to leave them behind. It is reading into the text our

modern perspective to judge David here when God does not, and God did judge

David severely at times. The majority of pastor's I have read on this text say David

was sinning and out of God's will by having multiple wives. They make these

comments because they have not studied this issue in depth. I have done a through

study of the role of multiple wives in the Old Testament, and there is no doubt that

God was accepting of it in that time, and that he even ordained it, and fully

approved it. I have this study on the internet in my study of the wives of Abraham.

Those who condemn David on this matter write out of prejudice and ignorance.

Polygamy is forbidden in the New Testament, but we are not being honest to judge

Old Testament people based on what is not acceptable to Christians. David was to

have many more wives, and God even gave him extra wives when he became king.

For those interested in seeing God's approval of polygamy in the Old Testament, I

have copied a large portion of my study from Genesis and put it in Appendix A at

the end of this commentary.

2. Henry, “The care he took of his family and friends in his removal to Hebron. 1.

He took his wives with him (2 Samuel 2:2 ), that, as they had been companions with

him in tribulation, they might be so in the kingdom. It does not appear that as yet he

had any children; his first was born in Hebron, 2 Samuel 3:2 . 2. He took his friends

and followers with him, 2 Samuel 2:3 . They had accompanied him in his

wanderings, and therefore, when he gained a settlement, they settled with him.

Thus, if we suffer with Christ, we shall reign with him, 2 Timothy 2:12 . Nay, Christ

does more for his good soldiers than David could do for his; David found lodging for

them--They dwelt in the cities of Hebron, and adjacent towns; but to those who

continue with Christ in his temptations he appoints a kingdom, and will feast them at

his own table, Luke 22:29,30.”

3 David also took the men who were with him, each with

his family, and they settled in Hebron and its towns.

1. David loved his men who ran with him from Saul, and fought with him to win

back their families from the enemies who captured them and destroyed their town

of Ziglag. It was a poor place to live now anyway, and so his faithful warriors were

doubtless happy to relocate to Hebron and the town around it. This was their first

time in years to have a permanent location where their families could be safe and

live a normal life.

2. David Chadwell, "The situation changed dramatically! Saul and his sons were

killed by the Philistines. David was in the process of consolidating Israel under his

leadership. King Saul's loss to the Philistines in the battle that cost him and his sons

their lives was costly to Israel as a nation. Not only did Israel lose their king, but

they also lost territory and numerous battle-hardened, experienced warriors. Israel,

which was not in wonderful condition under Saul's leadership, was now weakened

further, vulnerable, and divided. The Philistines must have rejoiced at the situation

because circumstances surely favored them.

David and his forces [with God's approval] went to the area of Hebron where the

people made him king of Judah. He settled there, had sons by six wives [not likely

all the children he had in the Hebron area], formed political alliances through

marriages, and planted the seeds of what would become future disastrous rivalries

among sons who sought David's throne. The end result: there was a long period of

tension and civil war among the Israelites. In this period, David sought to

consolidate Israel as a single nation. In this civil war, the forces of Saul's family

steadily grew weaker and David's forces steadily grew stronger.”

4 Then the men of Judah came to Hebron and there

they anointed David king over the house of Judah.

When David was told that it was the men of Jabesh

Gilead who had buried Saul,

1. Here is the first step taken by the leaders of Judah. They could not anoint David

as king of all Israel, but they could anoint him as the king of Judah, which was the

southern part of Israel. David began as king over this half of the nation, and only

later became king of all Israel after a civil war between the two halves of the nation.

1B. Henry, “The honour done him by the men of Judah: They anointed him king

over the house of Judah, 2 Samuel 2:4 . The tribe of Judah had often stood by itself

more than any other of the tribes. In Saul's time it was numbered by itself as a

distinct body (1 Samuel 15:4 ) and those of this tribe had been accustomed to act

separately. They did so now; yet they did it for themselves only; they did not

pretend to anoint him king over all Israel (as Judges 9:22), but only over the house of

Judah. The rest of the tribes might do as they pleased, but, as for them and their

house, they would be ruled by him whom God had chosen. See how David rose

gradually; he was first anointed king in reversion, then in possession of one tribe

only, and at last of all the tribes.”

2. Pink,”“David had been privately anointed as Saul’s successor (1 Sam. 16:12,13),

now the principal princes in the tribe of Judah publicly owned him as their king.

They did not take it upon themselves to make him king over all Israel, but left the

other tribes to act for themselves. No doubt in this they acted according to the mind

of David, who had no desire to force himself on the whole nation at once, preferring

to obtain government over them by degrees, as Providence should open his way.

"See how David rose gradually: he was first appointed king in reversion, then in

possession of one tribe only, and at last over all the tribes. Thus the kingdom of the

Messiah, the Son of David, is set up by degrees: He is Lord of all by divine

designation, but ‘we see not yet all things put under Him’: Heb. 2:8" (Matthew

Henry).

3. David was anointed three times. Once by Samuel, here by the men of Judah, and,

finally by all Israel in 5:3.

5 he sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead to say

to them, "The LORD bless you for showing this

kindness to Saul your master by burying him.

1. Again, we see David showing the greatest respect for Saul by honoring those who

went to great lengths to get him body buried. This was his first public act as king.

He sent messengers to convey the blessing of God on them for honoring their king.

2. Pink, “David expressed his appreciation of what the men of Jabesh had done in

rescuing the bodies of Saul and his sons from the Philistines, and for the kindly care

they had taken of them. He pronounced the blessing of the Lord upon them, which

probably means that he asked Him to reward them. By thus honoring the memory

of his predecessor he gave evidence that he was not aiming at the crown from any

principles of carnal ambition, or from any enmity to Saul, but only because he was

called of God to it.”

3. Constable, “The people of Jabesh-gilead were very loyal to Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 11:1-

13; 31:11-13). David took special pains to express his sorrow over Saul's death to

those residents to show that the antagonism that had existed between Saul and

himself was one-sided. If he could win their favor, David could gain a foothold of

support in northern Israel. We see in these verses how David sought peace and unity

with those who had been loyal to Saul in Israel. First, he took the initiative in

contacting them (v. 5a). Second, he paid them a sincere compliment (v. 5b). Third,

he obliquely reminded them that he was now the Lord's anointed (v. 6). Finally, he

offered a "treaty of friendship" (vv. 6b-7).”

6 May the LORD now show you kindness and

faithfulness, and I too will show you the same favor

because you have done this.

1. David offers to back up the kindness of God with his own kindness because of

their love and loyalty to Saul. He needs people of loyalty to back him up too, and so

he appeals to these people as their next king. He urges them in the next verse to be

strong and brave, for he knows it is a hard transition that has to take place in

getting him to the throne of Saul. There is going to be opposition, and he needs loyal

people to support him.

2. Maclaren, “That town owed much to Saul ( 1 Samuel 11), and its gratitude lasted,

and dared much for him. It was a brave dash that they made across Jordan to carry

off Saul’s corpse from its ignominious exposure; for it both defied the Philistines,

and might be construed as hostile to David. But his heart was too true to ancient

friendship to do anything but glow with admiring sympathy at that exhibition of

affectionate remembrance. Reconciling death had swept away all memories of

Saul’s insane jealousy, and he owned a brother in every one who showed kindness to

the unfortunate king.

If the Jabesh-Gileadites are a pattern of long-memoried gratitude, David’s

commendation of them is a model of love which survives injuries, and of

forgivingness which forgets them. It was as politic as it was generous. Nothing could

have been better calculated to attach Saul’s most devoted partisans to him than

showing that he honored their faithful attachment to Saul, and nothing could have

more clearly defined his own position during his wanderings as being no rebel. The

dictates of true policy and those of devout generosity always coincide. It is ever a

blunder to be unforgiving, and mercifulness is always expedient.”

3. W. Taylor, “ No doubt his regard for the memory of Jonathan had something to

do with the sending of this message ; yet I suppose that this noble motive was

slightly alloyed by the anticipation that those who received it would be forward to

tender to him their allegiance. But if that hope entered at all into his calculations, it

was doomed to disappointment, for the men of Jabesh made no response. Perhaps

they remembered to David's disadvantage his recent sojourn among the Philistines,

and were suspicious of one who had, in their view, so compromised himself with

their enemies ; or perhaps the influence of Ishbosheth and Abner, who were in their

immediate neighborhood, added to their own feeling of attachment to the house

of Saul for what he had done for them, kept them from giving any heed to the

overtures of David ; in any case, nothing came out of this politic "bid" of David's for

their support.”

4. We see that doing the right thing, and being kind and thoughtful does not always

pay off in people being kind and helpful in return. Good behavior pleasing to God is

an end in itself, and not just a tool to get something. Even if there is no positive

feedback, it is still the best thing to do to be what God would have us be in relation

to others, both friend and foe.

7 Now then, be strong and brave, for Saul your master

is dead, and the house of Judah has anointed me king

over them."

1. Your king is dead, and now you have a new king, for the house of Judah as

anointed me as their king. Don't give up in despair because you have lost your king,

for there is a new king before you who needs the same help and loyalty you gave to

Saul. I am that new king

2. Brian Morgan, “David describes what they did as an act of kindness (chesed:

"loyal-love"). Chesed means "a responsible keeping of faith with another with

whom one is in a relationship" (Sakenfeld). Who will return loyal-love to these men

now that Saul is dead? David implies that God will, and that he will, too, hinting

that he now occupies a new position of power. Further, David implies that since

their responsibility to Saul is complete they are free to make a fresh covenantal

relationship with him as the new king. The phrase, "let your hands be strong," is an

invitation to them to join his cause; in other words, "be stalwart," as men who can

be counted on for loyal service (McCarter).

So David meets these men in their grief, and expresses solidarity with them. Then he

uses the occasion as a stage to invite them to join the new regime. Though his offer is

bold, it is flavored with humility, for he puts himself forward in the language of

what others have recognized about him: "The house of Judah has anointed me king

over them." The implication is that they were being invited, not coerced, to join.

With such a carefully worded message, David is portrayed as an exceptional

statesmen. "David sends the community a positively worded letter in which he

communicates a blessing and a promise, recognizes loyalty, extends encouragement,

and announces a new development" (Fokkelman).” “Fokkelman points out that it is

remarkable that there is no sequel to the story. The city does not respond with a

message of appreciation, a call for help, or how it will serve David. We simply do not

hear any more about Jabesh. What did they do with their invitation? We do not

know.”

3. Jim Bomkamp, “As I read over this chapter, I believe that the biggest story is

really what is not written in the chapter. We can imagine how that David could have

acted like so many other leaders have done all throughout history upon the hearing

of such news. We can imagine that David might have done many things at this point,

none of which are listed in our chapter:

David could have immediately mustered his army to go and to kill off every last

descendant of Saul’s to assure that there would be no one alive who would now try

to vie for the kingdom.

David could have gathered his troops and mobilized them to go and to attack what

he knew would be left of King Saul’s army after most of that army by now had

surely strayed away to their homes.

David could have immediately moved to Israel with his men knowing that with King

Saul removed there surely could be nothing that could get in his way to keep him

from taking the throne.

David could have begun a political campaign. He could have sent some of his men to

each of the 12 tribes and begun to bid them to come and accept as king the one

whom the prophet Samuel had anointed to reign those many years ago, and then he

could have begun the campaign circle himself.

Etc., etc.

David however would not make a move without first consulting the Lord, and he

would make no power plays to force the kingdom into his hand. David had been

brought to the end of himself, and his many trials he encountered during the period

of his wanderings when the Lord was chastening him greatly...”

War Between the Houses of David and Saul

8 Meanwhile, Abner son of Ner, the commander of

Saul's army, had taken Ish-Bosheth son of Saul and

brought him over to Mahanaim.

1. Now enters the villain on the stage of David's history. Abner has been Saul's right

hand man as commander of his army, and he was also Saul's cousin. He has been

with Saul in all the years of his pursuit of David to kill him. He is not going to take

kindly to David trying to take the throne of Saul. In fact, he is going to do all he can

to make sure it does not happen. He takes Ishbosheth, the 4th

son of Saul over to the

other side of the Jordan for his safety, and makes him king of the Northern tribes.

So now we have two kings in Israel. David the king of the South, and Ishbosheth

king of the North. It was a clever move on his part, for it really kept him in power

over the military forces, and that was the main power at that time. This son of Saul

was not a great leader, but was a puppet of Abner, who was the real leader of Israel.

His ambition to stay in power and really play the role of king of Israel led to the first

civil war in Israel. It kept David from the throne of Israel for another seven and a

half years. Men of ambition can throw a monkey wrench into the best of plans.

2. Maclaren, “The puppet king is named Ishbosheth in the lesson, but 1 Chronicles

8:33 and 9:39 show that his real name was Esh-baal. The former word means ‘The

man of shame’; the latter, ‘The man of Baal.’ The existence of Baal as an element in

names seems to indicate the incompleteness of the emancipation from idolatry in

Saul’s time, and the change will then indicate the keener monotheistic conscience of

later days. Another explanation is that Baal (’ Lord’) was in these cases used as a

name for Jehovah, and was ‘changed at a later period for the purpose of avoiding

what was interpreted then as a compound of the name of the Phoenician deity Baal’

(Driver, Notes on Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel ).”

3. Grant, “Abner, the captain of Saul's army, could only understand natural

succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to elevate Ish-bosheth,

Saul's son, to the throne of Israel (vs.8-9). How many since him have thought that

the military has the right of such decisions! But this is God's prerogative, and He

had already anointed David as king of Israel (not only of Judah). Abner made

Mahanaim the headquarters of Ish-bosheth's kingdom. Mahanaim means "two

camps," therefore emphasizing the fact that Israel was divided. God would not

allow this to continue, but Ish-bosheth did reign over Israel for two years, during

which time there was "long war" between Judah and Israel. David reigned in

Hebron seven and a half years (v.11). It seems that, after his being recognized as

king by Israel (ch.5:1-3), he must have remained for a time in Hebron before going

up to Jerusalem to reign there.”

4. It is of interest to note that Abner was fully aware of David and his history, for he

was the one who brought David after killing Goliath back to Saul. We see it in this

text: “Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner

the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this young man?” And Abner

said, “By your life, O king, I do not know.” 56 The king said, “You inquire whose

son the youth is.” 57 So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took

him and brought him before Saul with the Philistine's head in his hand (). From this

point on Abner knew David, for he became a leader under him in the army of Israel.

He ate at Saul's table with David, and later led the forces of Saul in trying to catch

and kill David for Saul. He had been both a friend and a foe to David.

5. Gill, “took Ishbosheth the son of Saul; and who seems to be his only son left,

except what he had by his concubine. This man's name is Eshbaal in (1 Chronicles

8:33) (9:39) . Baal is the name of a shameful idol, and which was therefore

sometimes called Bosheth, "shame". See (Hosea 9:10) ; wherefore such names of

men, which had Baal in them, were changed for Besheth or Bosheth, as the names of

Jerubbaal and Meribbaal, who were called Jerubbesheth and Mephibosheth. See

(Judges 8:35) ; compared with (2 Samuel 11:21 ) , and (2 Samuel 4:4 ) with

(1 Chronicles 8:34 ) (9:40) . The latter of these, a son of Jonathan, bid fairest for the

crown by lineal succession, but he being but five years of age, and lame, this man

Abner judged fittest for his purpose; and though he knew it was the will of God, and

he had sworn that David should be king, yet so blind and obstinate was his

ambition, that he set up another against him:”

9 He made him king over Gilead, Ashuri and Jezreel,

and also over Ephraim, Benjamin and all Israel.

1. Constable gives us a brief history of how this act led to a complex issue for David

for the next few years. The path to the throne was a rough road. He wrote, “Abner's

initiative ignited conflict between Saul's and David's houses that occupied the

writer's attention in 2:8-32. This section is chiastic in its arrangement and focuses on

Abner's killing of Asahel (vv. 18-23). Whereas David was seeking peace and unity

(vv. 4b-7), Abner was seeking power and victory (vv. 8-32; cf. Ps. 120:7).

Ish-bosheth (lit. man of shame, boshet, "shame," being substituted for baal, "lord"

or "Lord," on occasion, cf. 1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39; Jer. 3:24; 11:13; Hos. 9:10) appears

only in chapters 2―4. He may be the Ishvi of 1 Samuel 14:49. Since he did not die in

battle with Saul and his brothers, he may have been somewhat cowardly. This

possibility may find support in the fact that Abner, rather than he, was the real

leader of Saul's forces. The people of Judah made David their king (v. 4), but Abner

single-handedly made Ishbosheth king over "all Israel" (v. 9). This was not God's

will since God had chosen David to succeed Saul (1 Sam. 13:14). Abner's act fueled

conflict between the northern and southern inhabitants of the land. "The distinctive

concepts of 'Judah and Israel' evolved during David's kingdom in Hebron, and after

a period of reunification these entities were allowed to live on in the United

Monarchy, though without an official division." When David eventually became

king of all Israel and Judah, seven and one-half years later, he ended Ish-bosheth's

two-year reign. Evidently it took Abner over five years to establish Ish-bosheth on

Israel's throne. Abner put his personal preferences and cultural precedent (that a

son of Saul would succeed his father) over God's will. Consequently life became very

complicated and problems followed in Israel, as always when people behave as

Abner did.”

2. Pink, “The nation in general had rejected the "Judges" whom God had raised up

for them, and had demanded a king; and now in the same rebellious spirit, they

refused the prince which the Lord had selected for them. In type it was Israel

preferring Barabbas to Jesus Christ. Abner prevailed till he got all the tribes of

Israel, save Judah, to own Ishbosheth as their king. All this time David was quiet,

offering no resistance: thus keeping his oath in 1 Samuel 24:21 and 22!”

3. "The believer’s progress must be gradual: his faith and his graces must be

proved, and his pride subdued, before he can properly endure any kind of

prosperity: and for these purposes the Lord often employs the perverseness of his

brethren, without their knowledge or contrary to their intention. In the professing

Church few honour those whom the Lord will honor: before Jesus came, and in

each succeeding generation, the very builders have rejected such as Heaven

intended for eminent situations; and His servants must be conformed to Him.

Ambition, jealousy, envy, and other evil passions, cause men to rebel against the

Word of God, but they generally attempt to conceal their real motives under

plausible pretenses. The believer’s wisdom, however, consists in waiting quietly and

silently under injuries, and in leaving God to plead his cause, except it be evidently

his duty to be active" (Thomas Scott).

4. Brian Morgan, “In the first movement, David initiates his rule by "asking," and

he receives divine sanction. But, in contrast, Abner does not ask; he takes. David

goes up in obedience, while Ish-bosheth is "brought over" and appointed king, with

no anointing. David governs by mutual consent of the governed who recognize a

spiritual authority emanating from within him. This spiritual authority gathers all,

beginning with himself, then his family, his men, and finally a whole community.

Ish-bosheth, on the other hand, rules by the purely arbitrary decrees of a strong

man. Acceptance of his rule is dictated from without. And although he rules over a

vast amount of territory, his authority derives solely from past loyalties; it has

nothing to do with his own character or reputation. David rules but one tribe, which

is loyal to him. But the king who has much territory has little time (a mere two years

before his rule comes to a drastic end), while the other king has little territory, but

all the time in the world. The point is that when David is faced with political

maneuvering by the opposition, he does nothing but wait, for time is his ally.”

10 Ish-Bosheth son of Saul was forty years old when he

became king over Israel, and he reigned two years. The

house of Judah, however, followed David.

1. The nation was divided, and had two kings. This forty year old king only reigned

for two years, and that was not a very long run for such a young man. It was less

than a third of the time David reigned in the South.

2. Wiersbe: Scripture doesn’t say much about Is-Bosheth, but it’s clear that he was

a weak puppet ruler manipulated by Abner (3:11; 4:1). He was certainly old enough

to fight in the army with his father and brothers, but Saul left him home to protect

the dynasty. (He was probably a weak soldier.) . . . There’s a modern touch to this

scenario, for our political and religious worlds are populated by these same three

kinds of people. We have weak people like Ish-Bosheth, who get where they are

because they have “connections.” We have strong, selfish people like Abner, who

know how to manipulate others for their own personal profit. We also have people

of God like David who are called, anointed, and equipped but must wait for God’s

time before they can serve.”

3. Henry, “Here is, I. A rivalship between two kings--David, whom God made king,

and Ishbosheth, whom Abner made king. One would have thought, when Saul was

slain, and all his sons that had sense and spirit enough to take the field with him,

David would come to the throne without any opposition, since all Israel knew, not

only how he had signalized himself, but how manifestly God had designated him to

it; but such a spirit of contradiction is there, in the devices of men, to the counsels of

God, that such a weak and silly thing as Ishbosheth, who was not thought fit to go

with his father to the battle, shall yet be thought fit to succeed him in the

government, rather than David shall come peaceably to it. Herein David's kingdom

was typical of the Messiah's, against which the heathens rage and the rulers take

counsel, Psalms 2:1,2. 1. Abner was the person who set up Ishbosheth in competition

with David, perhaps in his zeal for the lineal succession (since they must have a king

like the nations, in this they must be like them, that the crown must descend from

father to son), or rather in his affection to his own family and relations (for he was

Saul's uncle), and because he had no other way to secure to himself the post of

honor he was in, as captain of the host. See how much mischief the pride and

ambition of one man may be the occasion of.”

11 The length of time David was king in Hebron over

the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

1. He had to reign over half of Israel before he became king of all Israel. It seems

that he would never get to the goal he was anointed for as a young man. Dr. James

L. Wilson wrote, “We often speak of the patience of Job, perhaps we should pause

this morning and reflect about the patience of David. I am amazed at his willingness

to wait on the Lord to give him the throne in God's time. Maybe it is my own

impatience when it comes to waiting, but I am amazed that David could be so

patient with God. I'm afraid that I would have been tempted to take matters into

my own hands.. American humorist and essayist Arnold Glasow, said: "The key to

everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg -- not by smashing

it."

2. “King David was thirty-seven years old when finally the eleven tribes sent a

delegation to confer with him, indicating that they would appreciate having him as

the king over all Israel. This was seven years and a half after the death of King Saul,

and probably about seventeen years after David had been anointed first by Samuel.

Faith and patience mark every step of those years and show us King David's

character as we could not otherwise have known it. Its grandeur was chiefly shown

in that it manifested a devotion to God and a submission to the Divine will.” author

unknown

12 Abner son of Ner, together with the men of Ish-

Bosheth son of Saul, left Mahanaim and went to

Gibeon.

1. We can easily see, from this, that Abner was really the controlling force, even

though he was not king. It was Abner, who was making the decisions. We do not see

this puppet king doing anything that reveals that he was active in making any

decisions, and he is never with his soldiers. He never went out to the battle with his

father Saul either, and so it is easy to suspect he had some handicap, or was just not

a fit specimen of a man for warfare. He was a king in great contrast to king David

who was a great warrior, and was always with his men in any battle..

13 Joab son of Zeruiah and David's men went out and

met them at the pool of Gibeon. One group sat down on

one side of the pool and one group on the other side.

1. “This Gibeon was about 6 miles from Jerusalem, and 26 miles from Hebron. It

was, also, 26 miles from Mahanaim. Even though David had no intention of coming

against Abner in force and taking the people, Abner had other plans about David

and Judah. Abner felt that Ish-bosheth should be uncontested ruler of all the people.

If Abner and David finally war against each other, both would lose. The Philistines

would benefit from this internal war.” source unknown

2. H. L. Rossier gives us some insight into this leader of David's troops: He does not

look so bad in this chapter, but his bad side comes out in the chapters ahead. “It is

worth noting that David does not appear in this conflict and plays no role in it, even

when it appears that it concerns him. One of his attendants, Joab, accompanied by

his brothers, leads the king's servants. In 1 Chronicles 2: 16 we see that they were

David's nephews, his sister Zeruiah's sons. Accordingly, they held a high position

and were closely related to the royal house. Joab, an ambitious man, seeks to

advance in the world and to win the first place in the kingdom. Though he is not

named — with just cause — among “David's mighty men,” he is a man of courage.

He can appreciate righteousness and unrighteousness, but he does not oppose

unrighteousness except when it runs counter to his personal designs; and when

something righteous runs contrary to his interests he suppresses it. Nothing stops

him; he has no scruples in satisfying his ambition. Someone has said of him: “We

find Joab wherever there is evil to do or much to gain.” Joab is a figure of political

flesh. It is to his advantage to support David's cause. If we compare Abner with

Joab, Abner is the better man. Nevertheless Joab comes on the scene as a champion

of the testimony. On this man the weight of military and other matters will soon be

resting; he is the man who will direct things in an under-handed way and who will

set many an intrigue in motion. In the presence of such cleverness David himself

feels weak (2 Sam. 3: 39). The moment the flesh takes over the testimony, see the

result: ruin, nothing but ruin. One man is fighting for David, and the other for one

whom God no longer recognizes. Is one better than the other? When the flesh is

supporting David — or Christ — the results are no better than when the flesh is

supporting the Antichrist.”

14 Then Abner said to Joab, "Let's have some of the

young men get up and fight hand to hand in front of

us." "All right, let them do it," Joab said.

1. Here we see the folly of man. In an effort to bring about peaceful relations of the

two kingdoms they decide to fight each other. Now why didn't I think of that as a

way of maintaining peace? All any fight can do is escalate the hostility of the two

groups, and that is just what happens here.

2. Constable does the best job of giving us the brief history of what is happening in

this chapter. He wrote, “There the forces of Ish-bosheth and David met for a peace

conference (v. 13). Abner broke off the peace talks, however, by suggesting that the

two sides determine which of them would win in a battle by champions (cf. 1 Sam.

17). Twelve soldiers from each side (v. 15), perhaps representing each of the twelve

tribes, engaged in hand-to-hand combat to decide the leadership of the nation. The

fight was a draw so the battle between the two armies escalated. Joab's men finally

got the upper hand. Abner warned Asahel twice to stop pursuing him and to fight

with someone else . (vv. 21-22). He evidently wanted to avoid a blood feud with

Joab's family that might go on for generations. Nevertheless Asahel kept pushing

Abner who finally killed him rather than simply knocking him out.

"'Every man' who 'stopped when he came' to the place where Asahel had died (v.

23) does not refer to travelers or others who stop to pay their respects, as many

commentators believe (e.g., Baldwin, Hertzberg), but to David's men, Asahel's

pursuers, who stand transfixed in horror at the death of a fallen comrade . . ."30

Many of David's soldiers stopped, but Joab and Abishai continued to pursue

Abner. The other soldiers from Benjamin, Saul and Abner's tribe, rallied around

Abner, and the hostility climaxed when they took a stand to defend themselves on a

hilltop (v. 25). Abner tried to call a truce (v. 26), but Joab correctly blamed him for

starting the conflict in the first place (v. 27; cf. v. 14). Joab agreed to the truce,

however, and both armies went home. Abner's side lost 360 soldiers in this fight,

and 19 of Joab's men died. This incident accounts for the personal hostility that

later resulted in Abner's death and the disintegration of Ish-bosheth's throne. Note

that David played no part in it. God worked through Joab and Abner to place His

anointed on the throne of all Israel. This passage shows how hostilities between the

two factions in Israel escalated, as they often do in modern nations, neighborhoods,

and families. First, the opposing parties stopped talking (v. 12). Next, they started

fighting (v. 13). Then, Asahel kept pushing (v. 23). Finally, Abner insisted on

defending himself (v. 23).

3. What we have here is the craving of men for competition so they can see who is

the best. Men are hooked on competition, for it gives them such a thrill to be a

winner over other men. It fills the world with great entertainment and pleasure, but

it is also very dangerous from both a physical and spiritual point of view. In this

case it led to 24 men dying for no good purpose. Today we don't use weapons like

swords, but weapons like bats and balls to show that we are superior, and this can

be deadly on a whole different level that what we see here.

3B. Steve Zeisler is a pastor, and he gives us an illustration. He wrote, “For years, I

played on one of the church's softball teams in a league made up entirely of church

sponsored teams from this area. I was always a defensive liability. I was there

mostly as comic relief and each game the team had to decide where to put me so that

I would not ruin our chances. Frequently, therefore, I was the catcher, and because

of this I began to know some of the umpires from the local association of

professional umpires. I will never forget what one umpire said after a brutal game

in which he was vilified and the teams were at sword's point, As he walked off the

field, he said, "There is nothing I hate more than umpiring church leagues. There is

less joy, less honesty, and less good will in these games than anywhere else." He was

disgusted by the level of competitiveness exhibited. I was embarrassed for myself

and for everyone else on the field because this presumably non-Christian umpire

wanted nothing to do with the churches he saw represented in front of him.

Competitiveness having to win and to be the best, not being able to rejoice without

having success and not being able to accept somebody else's success without

acquiring it ourselves is a sure announcement that you or I have been swayed by the

thinking of this world. Though we may be Christians, we are not living like

Christians.”

3C. Epperson's Law.When a man says it's a silly, childish game, it's probably

something his wife can beat him at. - Don Epperson, quoted by Bill Gold in

Washington Post, Reader's Digest January, 1980

4. The whole point of many of the foolish things we read in the Bible is to help us

avoid be as stupid as these people were. Sometimes even the best of God's people

blow it, as we will see in our study of David, and we need to learn from their

mistakes to be wiser. God's Word is for prevention as well as guidance, and we need

to pay attention to both. This chapter has its focus on prevention.

15 So they stood up and were counted off-twelve men

for Benjamin and Ish-Bosheth son of Saul, and twelve

for David.

1. The number "twelve" has always been a representative of the whole. Each side

sends twelve of their best men to engage in combat with the enemy. Twelve may

have been selected because each side is trying to prove they are the true Israel.

16 Then each man grabbed his opponent by the head

and thrust his dagger into his opponent's side, and they

fell down together. So that place in Gibeon was called

Helkath Hazzurim.

1. This had to be one of the cruelest and most stupid plans in the history of warfare.

Each side lost 12 of their best men, and 24 good soldiers died because of the stupid

decisions of their leaders. This is one of the best illustrations in history of the folly of

war. It is possibly the first illustration in history of a suicide mission, for these men

were sent into this combat to die, and it was certain that they would. The whole

thing lasted just minutes, or maybe ever seconds. It was a meaningless waste of life,

and it proved nothing, for the draw left the two sides just where they started. It was

the least effective combat in history. Both sides are condemned for this bloodshed,

for it displayed a low level of respect for life. There are no good guys against bad

guys here, for all are bad.

1B. There are plans that just seem stupid, but when they full story is told, they turn

out to be wise after all. Such is the case in the following story. “A couple of young

fellers were fishing at their special pond off the beaten track when out of the bushes

jumped the Game Warden. Immediately, one of the boys threw his rod down and

started running through the woods like a bat out of hell, and hot on his heels came

the Game Warden. After about a half mile the fella stopped and stooped over with

his hands on his thighs to catch his breath and the Game Warden finally caught up

to him. "Let's see yer fishin' license, Boy!!" the Warden gasped as he grabbed him

by the collar. With that, the fella pulled out his wallet and gave the Game Warden a

valid fishing license. "Well, son," said the Game Warden, "you must be about as

dumb as a box of rocks! You don't have to run from me if you have a valid license!"

"Yes, sir," replied the young feller. "But my friend back there, well, he don't have

one." Unfortunately, the story here does not have such a clever ending. It was just

plain stupid, and that is the ending.

2. Grant, “Verse 16 seems to indicate that all these men, on both sides, were

prepared to catch each other by the head, each one simultaneously piercing the

other with his sword, so that they fell down together. They did not stop to consider

that they were all Israelites, and therefore brethren. But since that time the people

of God have too often used the sword of the word of God cruelly against others of

God's people when they might have used it for the positive good of others.”

3. You can understand why the battleground came to be called Helkath Hazzurim,

that is, the “field of daggers.”

4. Henry, “Joab, having been bred up under David, had so much wisdom as not to

make such a proposal, yet had not resolution enough to resist and gainsay it when

another made it; for he stood upon a point of honour, and thought it a blemish to his

reputation to refuse a challenge, and therefore said, Let them arise; not that he was

fond of the sport, or expected that the duels would be decisive, but he would not be

hectored by his antagonist. How many precious lives have thus been sacrificed to the

caprices of proud men! Twelve of each side were accordingly called out as

champions to enter the lists, a double jury of life and death, not of others', but their

own; and the champions on Abner's side seem to have been most forward, for they

took the field first (2 Samuel 2:15), having perhaps been bred up in a foolish

ambition thus to serve the humour of their commander-in-chief. But, (2.) However it

began, it ended in blood (2 Samuel 2:16): They thrust every man his sword into his

fellow's side (spurred on by honour, not by enmity); so they fell down together, that

is, all the twenty-four were slain, such an equal match were they for one another,

and so resolute, that neither side would either beg or give quarter; they did as it

were by agreement (says Josephus) dispatch one another with mutual wounds.

Those that strike at other men's lives often throw away their own and death only

conquers and rides in triumph. The wonderful obstinacy of both sides was

remembered in the name given to the place: Helkath-hazzurim--the field of rocky

men, men that were not only strong in body, but of firm and unshaken constancy,

that stirred not at the sight of death.”

17 The battle that day was very fierce, and Abner and

the men of Israel were defeated by David's men.

1. It appears that the battle of the 24 was over quickly, but it stimulated all of the

soldiers on both sides to get into the conflict, and, who could ever guess it would

happen, both sides begin to engage in full scale warfare. The peace conference is

over, and human folly has prevailed again. David is God's choice, and so it was good

that his men defeated the forces trying to hold him back from becoming king, but

we have here a case of God's chosen people killing each other. If that is not folly, I

don't know what is.

2. This could be called the most stupid war in the Bible, for it was just based on an

emotional reaction of male testosterone. These men were all acting like big shots,

and they wanted to win a competition with the other side. It all stated like it was just

a friendly competition, but then anger and revenge took over and everyone wanted

to see the blood flow in the opposition camp. We think women are the emotional sex,

but when it comes to competition men are the worst, for they will go all the way to

killing for the sake of winning a competition. Asahel lost all control and went mad in

his effort to kill Abner, and there was no reason for this madness. His emotions cost

him his life, and it was for nothing.

3. Brian Morgan, “In the end, the battle site is given a new name, Helkath-

hazzurim, the "field of the stone knives." What a contrast to this pool "with its

living water and the rocky quality of the blood-soaked field turned cemetery."[4]

Now that the "sport" is over, the deadlock gives way to real conflict, and the

escalation knows no bounds. As the sun sets, the narrator uses but one word to

describe this day of blood: "the battle was severe." Severe: a word out of the "nerve

of sacred memory" (Paul Celan), a word that evokes David's painful lament for the

dead on Gilboa and the tears that ensued (2 Sam 1:17). But the grief of this day is

even more pronounced, because it results from a battle between brothers--the

children of Abraham killing their own seed. Who won? Abner is described as the

loser, but no victor is listed. In a civil war, there are no winners.”

18 The three sons of Zeruiah were there: Joab, Abishai

and Asahel. Now Asahel was as fleet-footed as a wild

gazelle.

1. Zeruiah was the mother of the three sons mentioned above. She and Abigail were

earlier specified as the sisters of David. These three young fighters for David are his

nephews, then.

2. Brian Morgan, “Here we are introduced to the three sons of Zeruiah again, those

macho men whose fiery passions are quick to court danger and deny obstacles.

These were the sons who were so eager for David to slay Saul in the cave of Engedi,

sons who would use theology in the service of their private war. It took a severe

rebuke from David to keep their zeal in check. Now they appear again.”

19 He chased Abner, turning neither to the right nor to

the left as he pursued him.

1. Here we have one of the earliest chase scenes in history. It is not in speeding cars

as they twist and swerve through the city of Hollywood, but of two swift runners on

foot. One is out to catch the other and kill him, and the other is running for his life.

Abner is the one fleeing for his life, and Asahel is the good guy out to put an end to

his miserable life.

20 Abner looked behind him and asked, "Is that you,

Asahel?" "It is," he answered.

1. Both of these men would be in the Olympics today, for they are able to run full

speed and still carry on a conversation. They know each other, for Asahel was

David's nephew, and was well known.

21 Then Abner said to him, "Turn aside to the right or

to the left; take on one of the young men and strip him

of his weapons." But Asahel would not stop chasing

him.

1. It appears that Abner is challenging Asahel to fight a one on one battle, and so he

had to get armored up to make it fair, and so he pointed out where he could pause

and strip a young soldier of his armor, and make it a fair and equal fight. Abner

was in his armor, and this makes it even more amazing that he could keep ahead of

Asahel. He was tired of running and wanted to stop and fight.

22 Again Abner warned Asahel, "Stop chasing me!

Why should I strike you down? How could I look your

brother Joab in the face?"

1.Abner did not want to kill him, because he knew his brother Joab would come to

fight with him, if he did. He tried to persuade Asahel to give up his mission to kill

him, for he knew killing this young man would spell greater trouble for him. He

already has lost this battle with the forces of Joab, and he does not want to face him

again as an angry man.

2. Henry, “How generous Abner was in giving him notice of the danger he exposed

himself to, and advising him not to meddle to his own hurt, 2 Chronicles 25:19 . 1. He

bade him content himself with a less prey (2 Samuel 2:21 ): "Lay hold of one of the

young men, plunder him and make him thy prisoner, meddle with thy match, but

pretend not to one who is so much superior to thee." It is wisdom in all contests to

compare our own strength with that of our adversaries, and to take heed of being

partial to ourselves in making the comparison, lest we prove in the issue enemies to

ourselves, Luke 14:31. 2. He begged of him not to put him upon the necessity of

slaying him in his own defence, which he was very loth to do, but must do rather

than be slain by him, 2 Samuel 2:22 . Abner, it seems, either loved Joab or feared

him; for he was very loth to incur his displeasure, which he would certainly do if he

slew Asahel. It is commendable for enemies to be thus respectful one to another.

Abner's care how he should lift up his face to Joab gives cause to suspect that he

really believed David would have the kingdom at last, according to the divine

designation, and then, in opposing him, he acted against his conscience.”

23 But Asahel refused to give up the pursuit; so Abner

thrust the butt of his spear into Asahel's stomach, and

the spear came out through his back. He fell there and

died on the spot. And every man stopped when he came

to the place where Asahel had fallen and died.

1. Asahel was fast on his feet, but it is questionable just how swift he was in the

brain department. He was inches away from an armed man he was trying to kill,

and all Abner had to do was push his spear back into him and take him out of the

race for good. It seems he had no weapon to do the same to this man ahead of him.

He was traveling light, and apparently hoped to fist fight Abner to death. He was

not very smart in combat like the man he was chasing, and it cost him his life. He

was given a chance to get armed, but he refused that offer, and that was his best

chance to win this conflict. Henry wrote, “How we are often betrayed by the

accomplishments we are proud of. Asahel's swiftness, which he presumed so much

upon, did him no kindness, but forwarded his fate, and with it he ran upon his

death, instead of running from it.”

2. Asahel was a well like young man, and everyone felt sad about his death. They

honored his life by recognizing his place of death. They would pause there and

reflect on the sadness of such a loss of a good life for no good purpose. This may

have been a good memorial to cause others to learn the value of self-control. He

needed to learn how to slow down as well as how to speed up. An epitaph that would

fit his grave site would be the actual one in Pennsylvania that conveys the tragedy of

a foolish mistake. His is a case where God did not appoint his death, but it was due

to a foolish mistake based on his zeal without knowledge.

Memory of an accident in a Union-town, Pennsylvania cemetery:

Here lies the body

of Jonathan Blake

Stepped on the gas

Instead of the brake.

3. An unknown author gives us this information: “In this section of 2 Samuel, which

takes us to the end of chapter 4, we have three sections or scenes, each of which

narrates the violent death of a prominent figure. The first, which we take tonight,

ends with the death of Asahel, David's nephew, the son of his sister. The next ends

with the violent death of Abner and the last ends with the assassination of Ish-

Bosheth. What is important to notice is that in all of this history David is passive.

Others do the fighting, the plotting, the killing. In the next section of the book, when

David has become king of Israel, he will show himself a great warrior, defeating

Israel's enemies and extending her borders. But in the civil war that preceded his

reign in Israel he was not the principle player.”

4. Brian Morgan, “Here we see how unrestrained zeal can blind us from being able

to assess reality. Unwilling to turn from his fixation, "Asahel gets the butt end of

Abner's spear, which penetrates with such force that it comes out his back. With a

surprising reverse impact, Asahel is dead on the spot" (Fokkelman). The blazing

speed of the text is brought to an abrupt halt, and all are forced to stop and feel the

shocking blow to the belly. Misdirected zeal blinds and kills; it doesn't matter whose

side you are on.”

5. Morgan goes on to give us some New Testament parallels with the three brothers

in this account. He wrote, “Peter, James and John would seem to be the New

Testament counterparts of the sons of Zeruiah. Perfect type casts, they were

impetuous, passionate, bold, vengeful, quick to draw blood. When they were not

received at a Samaritan village, James and John asked the Lord whether he wanted

them to "call fire down from heaven," and Jesus had to rebuke them. They even

created controversy within their own circle by their ambition to be "first." Rightly

did Jesus label them the "sons of thunder." And when the climactic confrontation

was at hand, not by a pool this time, but in a garden, Peter, obsessed with his desire

for action, took a sword and drew blood. Yes, these were men possessed by zeal.”

6. "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.

" - Proverbs 19:2 “Zeal, according to the dictionary is an ardent interest or desire.

It doesn't say what the object of the desire is. But the virtue of Zeal only has God as

the object. Anything else is a waste, or even dangerous, because we can make gods of

lesser things, and this nearly always ends in disaster. This is the case for zealots:

they have created some idea and then pursue this shadow of themselves fanatically.

Spiritually, the worst thing for a human being is to create a "God-image" in their

head and then pursue it madly like a dog chasing its tail. It is an excuse for the worst

crimes and atrocities, with an apparently clear conscience. Once a false God has

been created in the mind, the human vices are amplified and rationalized, with the

worst possible results: evil is done but God is blamed.” author unknown

7. Spurgeon wrote about the danger of pride and presumption that fits this young

man who died because of it. He wrote, “A man says, "I have great faith, I shall not

fall;poor little faith may, but I never shall." " I have fervent love,"says another

man, "I can stand, there is no danger of my going astray; as for my brother over

there, he is so cold and slow, he will fall, I dare say." Says another, "I have a most

burning hope of heaven, and that hope will triumph; it will purge my soul from

sense and sin, as Christ the Lord is pure. I am safe." He who boasts of grace, has

little grace to boast of. But there are some who do that, who think their graces can

keep them, knowing not that the stream must flow constantly from the fountain

head, else the bed of the brook shall soon be dry, and ye shall see the pebbles at the

bottom. If a continuous stream of oil come not to the lamp, though it burn brightly

to-day, it shall smoke to-morrow, and noxious will be the scent thereof. Take heed

that thou neither glory in thy talents nor in thy graces.” The point is, we must all

face our limitations, and know the strengths of the enemy, and not run in where

angels fear to tread. Everyone agrees he died because he was a young hothead who

felt he was invincible, and could face any challenge. He was wrong.

8. His brief life was not entirely wasted, for it becomes a great example for all of us

to learn about the folly of letting our emotions carry us away on missions of disaster.

Frederick Buechner wrote, “Of the 7 deadly sins, anger is possibly the most fun. To

lick your wounds, to smack your lips over grievances long past, to roll over your

tongue the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, to savor to the last

toothsome morsel both the pain you are given and the pain you are giving back—in

many ways it is a feast fit for a king. The chief drawback is that what you are

wolfing down is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.”

9. Just because you can do something well, such as run fast, does not mean that it is

always wise to do it. In this case it was folly to put his gift to use, for it was a fellow

son of Abraham he was trying to kill, when they were supposed to be trying to work

out a way to live together with their differences. He had a gift or a talent, but he

should have buried it and not used it at this time. He should have backed off to live

and fight another day when his speed could be of use. He was racing after a

seasoned warrior far superior to him, and with some tricks up his sleeve that he had

not idea about. He was totally taken by surprise. We need to learn to choose our

battles, and not make the mistake of the man represented by this epitaph:

Here lies the body of Wilbur Jay

Who died maintaining his right of way.

He was right, dead right as he sped along,

But he's just as dead as if he was wrong.

24 But Joab and Abishai pursued Abner, and as the sun

was setting, they came to the hill of Ammah, near Giah

on the way to the wasteland of Gibeon.

1. Why these brothers did not stay together is not known, for together they likely

could have taken Abner out. They were not the runners like this brother who died

in the pursuit of Abner.

25 Then the men of Benjamin rallied behind Abner.

They formed themselves into a group and took their

stand on top of a hill.

1. The scene is changed now, and no longer are they chasing a fleeing army, but one

that is united on a hill, which always gives them an advantage against any army

coming up the hill. Now Abner can speak from a position of advantage, and he

persuades Joab to give up pursuing him, for it will only lead to many more dying for

no good cause.

26 Abner called out to Joab, "Must the sword devour

forever? Don't you realize that this will end in

bitterness? How long before you order your men to stop

pursuing their brothers?"

1. “We see that, finally, Abner decides that fighting among the tribes of Israel are of

no advantage. He calls out to the two brothers, who are in hot pursuit to avenge the

death of their brother Asahel. Abner had enough men with him, that he could have

killed the two brothers. He would not, however, be ahead, because this would cause

a bitter war with David. He shows that he is a statesman, here, by trying to stop this

futile battle.” Author unknown

2. These hot heads are beginning to think that maybe they are letting their emotions

lead them rather than commonsense. They are more cool headed now, and it seems

like they have already gone way too far in this conflict. Abner starts speaking some

commonsense, and Joab was ready to listen. Was it really sensible to get revenge for

the loss of his hot headed brother who should have backed off trying to kill Abner?

Was it worth the loss of many other lives to pursue this man who really did not want

to kill his brother? He was listening to reason now, and decided that it was the wise

thing to do to forget this meaningless warfare and go home.

3. Henry, “He that was most forward to fight was the first that had enough of it. He

that made a jest of bloodshed (Let the young men arise and play before us, 2 Samuel

2:14) is now shocked at it, when he finds himself on the losing side, and the sword he

made so light of drawing threatening to touch himself. Observe how his note is

changed. Then it was but playing with the sword; now, Shall the sword devour for

ever? It had devoured but one day, yet to him it seemed forever, because it went

against him; and very willing he is now that the sun should not go down upon the

wrath. Now he can appeal to Joab himself concerning the miserable consequences of

a civil war: Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? It will be

reflected upon with regret when the account comes to be made up; for, whoever gets

in a civil war, the community is sure to lose. Perhaps he refers to the bitterness that

there was in the tribes of Israel, in the end of their war with Benjamin, when they

wept sorely for the desolations which they themselves had made, Judges 21:2. Now

he begs of Joab to sound a retreat, and pleads that they were brethren, who ought

not thus to bite and devour one another. He that in the morning would have Joab

bid the people fall upon their brethren now would have him bid them lay down their

arms. See here, 1. How easy it is for men to use reason when it makes for them who

would not use it if it made against them. If Abner had been the conqueror, we

should not have had him complaining of the voraciousness of the sword and the

miseries of a civil war, nor pleading that both sides were brethren; but, finding

himself beaten, all these reasonings are mustered up and improved for the securing

of his retreat and the saving of his scattered troops from being cut off. 2. How the

issue of things alters men's minds. The same thing which looked pleasant in the

morning at night looked dismal. Those that are forward to enter into contention will

perhaps repent it before they have done with it, and therefore had better leave it off

before it be meddled with, as Solomon advises. It is true of every sin (O that men

would consider it in time!) that it will be bitterness in the latter end. At the last it bites

like a serpent those on whom it fawned.”

27 Joab answered, "As surely as God lives, if you had

not spoken, the men would have continued the pursuit

of their brothers until morning."

1. Joab is actually thanking Abner for speaking up and putting a halt to this

nonsense, for had he not stopped to speak with honesty and reason, the battle would

have gone on even if Joab and his men had to march all night to continue the

conflict. Here we see the importance of communication. Somebody has to interject

some sense into the conflict, or it just goes on driven by emotion even if there is no

meaning to it all. Somebody has to stop the folly by reasoning things out. Most

conflict has no value or meaning in the long run. It is emotion driven, and until

somebody stops to ask what is the meaning of this, and the value of this, it will

continue. People need to think rather than act when they are angry, for only

meaningful thinking will be able to put an end to nonsense. Joab realized that

Abner had to kill his brother or his brother would have killed him. It was tragic, but

adding to the tragedy by killing other innocent people would not make sense.

2. Gill, “surely then in the morning the people had gone up everyone from

following his brother; they would have gone away and never fought at all; they were

not desirous of shedding their blood, and following after them to slay them: thus he

lays the blame upon Abner, and makes him to be the cause and beginner of the war.

Some render the particle by "if", and give the sense, that if he had spoken what he

last did sooner, the people would long before this time have desisted from pursuing

them; for it was not from a thirst after their blood, and a desire to luke vengeance

on them, that they pursued them, but to bring them to submission, and lay down

their arms; for they could not in honour retreat until they desired it; but the former

sense seems best, and is the general sense of the Jewish commentators.”

3. Henry, “Joab, though a conqueror, generously grants it, and sounds a retreat,

knowing very well his master's mind and how averse he was to the shedding of

blood. He does indeed justly upbraid Abner with his forwardness to engage, and

lays the blame upon him that there had been so much bloodshed as there was

(2 Samuel 2:27 ): "Unless thou hadst spoken," that is, "hadst given orders to fight,

hadst bidden the young men arise and play before us, none of us would have struck

a stroke, nor drawn a sword against our brethren. Thou complainest that the sword

devours, but who first unsheathed it? Who began? Now thou wouldst have the

people parted, but remember who set them on to fight. We should have retired in

the morning if thou hadst not given the challenge." Those that are forward to make

mischief are commonly the first to complain of it. This might have served to excuse

Joab if he had pushed on his victory, and made a full end of Abner's forces; but like

one that pitied the mistake of his adversaries, and scorned to make an army of

Israelites pay dearly for the folly of their commander, he very honourably, by sound

of trumpet, put a stop to the pursuit (2 Samuel 2:28 ) and suffered Abner to make an

orderly retreat. It is good husbandry to be sparing of blood. As the soldiers were

here very obsequious to the general's orders, so he, no doubt, observed the

instructions of his prince, who sought the welfare of all Israel and therefore not the

hurt of any.”

4. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “That 27th verse, incidentally, is rather difficult to

render. Now, there are a few in the audience who may know some Hebrew, but if

you look at this, you’ll find it’s rather difficult to be certain of the sense. The

general sense given by the majority of interpreters and students is, “If you had not

spoken,” Joab is speaking, “Surely the men would not have given up the pursuit of

their brethren until the morning.” In other words, Joab is saying, “If you had not

said what you have said, then we would have pursued you through the evening and

into the morning.”

On the other hand, it’s possible that Joab is referring to the first gathering at the

pool of Gibeon and he is referring to that. And he is saying, “If you had not

spoken,” that is, if you had not challenged us to the combat where the twenty-four

men fought, “If you had not spoken, the people would have gone away in the

morning.” In other words, we would have stood looking at each other across the

pool. We didn’t want to fight. You made us fight. We would have gone away in the

morning, every one from his brother, so there would not have been any fratricidal

conflict at all.”

5. “No doubt, in large part, Joab's willingness to break off the engagement, was due

to the fact that Abner's men had regrouped on the hill and were poised to inflict

more casualties on his men.” unknown author

28 So Joab blew the trumpet, and all the men came to a

halt; they no longer pursued Israel, nor did they fight

anymore.

1. Finally some common sense prevailed, and the conflict ended before many others

were killed in all out warfare.

2. Brian Morgan, “Joab, unlike Asahel, is able to let go and listen to reason. He

blows the shophar, and all the army halts from the pursuit, thus ending the fight. In

both cases something extraordinary has to break in from without to cause brothers

to give up the chase and let go of their zeal. In the first instance, it was the shocking

death of one whose misdirected zeal consumed him; in the second, it was the

penetrating drones of the shophar, beckoning to all under the name of "brother."

3. Sometimes we make mistakes that cost us, but they are made because we do not

know there is a better way. Such is the case in this story: “Red Smith, a sport writer

tells of a friend of his who had a great day of fishing on Lake stocco, Ontario. He

landed a five and a half pound small mouth bass. He filleted it and cooked it and

enjoyed it. But the next day he went into the nearby village and bought some

supplies. He told the clerk about his good luck, and the clerk was in shock. “You ate

it?” he said, and then told him of the contest going on. The winner yesterday won

2,000 dollars with a four and a quarter lb. Bass. It was the most expensive meal he

had ever eaten. He could have had the 2,000.”

In Joab's situation he knew it would be a mistake to continue this battle. He already

lost a brother and some good men, and his troops killed several hundred fighting

men of Israel. All of this was bad news to take back to David who wanted no part of

becoming king by power. He waited for God to work it out, and refused to fight his

own people to get to the throne. Joab already made mistakes, and he realized he

could not afford to make any more.

4. Wise is the general who knows there is a time to halt marching toward a battle,

and retreat to go a different way. “It was 1804. Napoleon Bonaparte stared with

frustration across the English Channel toward his nemesis. Behind him was the

invincible Grande Armee, nearly 200,000 crack veterans, all straining at the leash to

crush the hated English. Everything was ready for the invasion: the transport

barges, the escort fleet, ammunition, cavalry, artillery, ambulance wagons, even

field bakeries. Every last detail had been meticulously planned. It was merely a

matter or crossing the 28 miles of water in a single night's journey. Yet for month

after month Napoleon paced the beach at Boulogne, hesitating to act. Finally, after

over a year of waiting, he suddenly turned his huge army around and marched it

into the heart of Europe. The plan to invade England was laid aside forever. The

thing that had stopped the great conqueror at the height of his career was the Royal

Navy, Britain's "wall of oak." Out of sight, just over the horizon, it was nevertheless

always foremost in Napoleon's doubts. And though the future Emperor's own fleet

outnumbered the British, he dared not test it. That is the power of deterrence, that

the true effectiveness of a strategic system is in the mind of the enemy.”

29 All that night Abner and his men marched through

the Arabah. They crossed the Jordan, continued

through the whole Bithron and came to Mahanaim.

1. Abner and his men left the place where the battle would have taken place. By

marching all night they put a lot of distance between the two armies, and this

assured that no more conflict would take place at this time.

30 Then Joab returned from pursuing Abner and

assembled all his men. Besides Asahel, nineteen of

David's men were found missing.

1. 12 of this 19 were the poor soldiers who were enlisted in the hand to hand conbat

where they all dies in seconds for no purpose, and so only 7 others died in actual

conflict on the battlefield.

2. Gill, “This has made some think that the twelve men of the servants of David

were not killed in the duel, or otherwise there must be but seven slain in the battle;

though that is not more strange than that in the battle with Midian not one should

be slain, and, yet a terrible slaughter was made of the Midianites, (Numbers 31:1-

54) . So in a sharp battle between the Spartans and Arcadians, ten thousand of the

latter were slain, and not one of the former F17. Stilicho killed more than an

hundred thousand of the army of Rhadagaisus, king of the Goths, without losing one

of his own men, no, not so much as one wounded, as Austin affirms F18. At the battle

of Issus the Persians lost an hundred ten thousand men, and Alexander not two

hundred F19. Julius Caesar killed in the three camps of Juba, Scipio, and Labienus,

ten thousand men, with the loss of fifty men only {t}. After these instances, not only

the case here, but that between the Israelites and Midianites, cannot be thought

incredible, for the sake of which the above are produced. This account, according to

Josephus F21, was taken the day following.”

31 But David's men had killed three hundred and sixty

Benjamites who were with Abner.

1. It is quite clear that David's fighting men were far superior to those of Abner.

David was smart to bring his men who fought with him to be his guard, and a part

of his army. They were seasoned fighters, and they showed their worth in this

conflict. But the bottom line is this: 380 good men died in a meaningless battle based

on pride and emotions that set brothers against brothers in the family of God. This

was a meaningless man caused tragedy, and the only reason for its being recorded

was for us to learn the folly of letting our pride lead us into conflict.

32 They took Asahel and buried him in his father's

tomb at Bethlehem. Then Joab and his men marched all

night and arrived at Hebron by daybreak.

1. Two armied marching away from each other all night put a lot of distance

between them and this was the best plan for peace at this time. Separation of angry

people is always a helpful strategy for maintaining peace.

APPENDIX A

POLYGAMY IN O.T.

There is no question that polygamy was forbidden in the New Testament and it is

clearly labeled a sin, but this is not the case in the Old Testament where it was just a

part of the way of life even for God's chosen people. The fact that it is so in this part

of God's revelation is no basis for it being accepted by anyone as God's will in New

Testament times. It was just valid then and it is not now. When I say it was valid I

mean that God clearly accepted it as a way of life for people in that age. The laws he

gave to regulate the lives of his people included laws dealing with men who take

more than one wife. One of the common problems of more than one wife is that one

would be loved more than the other, and this would lead to the man treating the one

less loved unfairly. In order to protect the unloved wives, God gave specific laws.

When we see the cumulative impact of the following verses in God's Word we will

have to acknowledge that polygamy was not just permitted by God but approved,

and this in spite of the many problems that it created, and they were many, but that

is true also of monogamy.

Ex. 21:10-11says this to the man who takes a second wife, "If he marries another

woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11

If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any

payment of money." In other words, if a man does not treat his first wife right

because he now has more affection for his new wife, she is free to leave him and not

have to pay a cent to do so. He loses a slave, for now he has no wife to do all the

chores, which is what she would be doing since he has taken a new wife.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other,

and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16

when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to

the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife

he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the

firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his

father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him." In other words you

cannot play favorites with your wives on this issue. If you have fallen out of love

with the wife who gave you your first son, that does not change your obligation to

her and her son.

How can you have laws about polygamy if polygamy is itself unlawful. Why not say,

"If a man has two wives he is a rebel and is to be cast out of the tribe." That is not

said because it was an acceptable way of life, and not forbidden. You do not have

laws to relulate what is unlawful, you only have penalties. Imagine laws like the

above dealing with stealing. If a man steals let it be kept under a thousand dollars at

the most. If a man commits adultery make sure that it is with someone from a

different state. You can see that is insane, for to make laws regulating something

means that that something is valid and legitimate.

Deuteronomy 17:16-17 says of the king, "The king, moreover, must not acquire

great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more

of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He

must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate

large amounts of silver and gold." Not many wives it says, but it does not say he is to

have only one. Several were acceptable to God, but not the great harem of Solomon

and others who had up in the teens and more. Gideon had 70 sons and so we know

he had a harem of considerable size.

Rabbi Abraham Twersky in 'Let Us Make Man' tells the story of a man who

consulted a psychiatrist explaining that his family had insisted that he come. "What

does your family think is wrong?" the psychiatrist asked.

"They think something is wrong because I like pancakes," he explained.

"That's absurd!" exclaimed the psychiatrist, "there's nothing wrong with liking

pancakes. I too like pancakes!"

The man's eyes brightened with evident joy. "You do?" he said. "Then you must

come to my house. I have trunks and trunks full of pancakes in my attic."

When we analyze the obvious insanity of collecting crates of pancakes we realize

that pancakes are a food whose purpose is to satisfy one's hunger and appetite. They

are a means to a specific end. Collecting them without regard to their utilization for

their appropriate purpose is insanity. In other words, insanity is when something

which is a means becomes an end in and of itself.

In Ezek. 23 God even portrays himself as married to two women. It is an xxx rated

chapter to be read only in private, and it deals with his two wives becoming

prostitutes. They are really two groups of people from Samaria and Jerusalem. In

other words Jews who go after other gods like prostitutes go after men. It is a

violently sexual chapter that illustrates that God is not embarrassed to portray

himself as the husband of two whoring wives.

In Jeremiah 3 God has two wives and they are Israel and Judah, and they are

unfaithful to him. It is less violent in its sexual images, but still not fit for mixed

audiances. God even gets a divorce from Israel in this chapter. You will never hear

sermons from these two chapters, for no pastor would want to read them in church.

Deut. 25:5-10 In this unusual case polygamy is not just approved but demanded. It

was a disgrace not to take an extra wife. "If brothers are living together and one of

them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her

husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-

law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so

that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 However, if a man does not want

to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My

husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill

the duty of a brother-in-law to me." 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him

and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," 9 his

brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his

sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build

up his brother's family line." 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The

Family of the Unsandaled." This man is labeled as a disgraceful brother who will

not be a polygamist for the sake of his brother that his name might live.

In Judaism, levirate marriage, known as yibbum, is a marital union mandated by

the Torah in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, obliging a brother to marry the widow of his

childless deceased brother. There is a provision known as chalitza by which one or

both of the parties may choose to become free of this duty. According to some

variants of modern Jewish law, yibbum is strongly discouraged, and chalitza is

preferred.

2 Samuel 5:11-16, Now Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, along with

cedar logs and carpenters and stonemasons, and they built a palace for David. 12

And David knew that the LORD had established him as king over Israel and had

exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel.

13 After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and

more sons and daughters were born to him. 14 These are the names of the children

born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 15 Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg,

Japhia, 16 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet."

God was blessing David as the king, and he felt free to take a number of wives and

concubines. He became one with all of these women and bore sons through

them.David is never condemned for his many wives and concubines. His only

condemnation for any female relationship is his adultery with Bathsheba.

In I Kings 11:1-6 we read of how Solomon failed greatly because of his many wives,

and it is shown to be in contrast with David who also had many wives and

concubines, though not as many, but who was able to still remain faithful to God

and not be led astray by them. "King Solomon, however, loved many foreign

women besides Pharaoh's daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians

and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the

Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your

hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had

seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led

him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and

his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his

father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech

[a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the

LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done."

David was able to handle polygamy fine and not let it damage his spiritual life.

Never is his taking multiple wives called a sin or anything that displeased the Lord.

This man after God's own heart had at least 18 wives, 8 of whom are named -

Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Eglah, Maacah, Abital, Haggith, and

Bathsheba, and "10 women/concubines"

Not only did God not condemn David for his many wives, he actually gave him a

number of them himself. In II Sam. 12:7- we read, "Then Nathan said to David,

"You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you

king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's

house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel

and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9

Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You

struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You

killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never

depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the

Hittite to be your own." God was so angry at David for his taking the wife of Uriah,

but not a word about all his other wives, for they were given to him by God and

were legitimate wives. God is saying clearly, polygamy is fine, but adultery is wicked

and will be severely punished. If polygamy was wrong, he should have been

punished even if he had not committed adultery, but it was not wrong in the eyes of

God. He would not have given David the wives of Saul had he not approved of

polygamy.

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not

aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the

matter of Uriah the Hittite. " 1 Kings 15:5.

Even the evil kings who led the people astray and who suffered judgment were not

condemned for their taking many wives.

Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2Chro. 11:21). This line in

Judah may have been the origin of the Talmudic limitation of the eighteen wives to

the king.

The father of the Prophet Samuel had two wives (1Sam. 1:2). The sons of Issachar

are recorded as having many wives and sons (1Chro. 7:4).

The lineage of Christ is descended from the second wife of Zerubbabel who was a

Persian princess and daughter of Darius.

Because polygamy is so contrary to New Testament teaching Christians tend to be

dishonest about its reality in the Old Testament, and they say things like,

"Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."

"Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."

"Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".

"Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

This ignores all the facts above plus the fact that most of the great men of God in the

Old Testament had more than one wife, and that God used polygamy to produce 4

of the 12 tribes of Israel who became his chosen people.

Circumcision is a good example that is like polygamy. It is demanded by God for all

of his chosen people in the Old Testament, and because of that the Jews in the New

Testament felt it was an obligation for all believers to be circumcised. But Paul says

not so, for what was required in the Old is no longer required in the New. In other

words. God changed things radically because of what Jesus did for us in fulfilling

the law. Acts 15:1 "1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the

brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot

be saved." The Gentile Christians wanted no part of this, and so there was

controversy among Christians over circumcision. Acts 15 is about this conflict and it

was resolved by saying the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Paul then wrote

about it to the Galatians and said, "Gal. 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither

circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."

Gal. 6:15: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails

anything, but a new creation." The old is gone and the new is come. Who can then

say that circumcision was not the will of God in the Old, and that he merely endured

it but never approved it? It was clearly his will then, but it changed when a new

plan was put in place, and so it was with polygamy.

Elmer Towns gives us these insights on polygamy. "Why did God allow polygamy in

the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy.

The best anyone can do is “informed” speculation. There are a few key items to

consider. First, there has always been more women in the world than men. Current

statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with

men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied

by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men.

Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate

of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men.

Third, due to the patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for a woman to

provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on

their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried

women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant

difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many

women in an undesirable situation (to say the least).

So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who

could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives, and serve as

the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a

polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery,

starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a

much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and

multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple

women in the same time period…causing humanity to grow much faster than if each

man was only able to produce one child each year. Again, these are only “informed”

speculations."