2 SAMUEL 3 COMME�TARYWritten 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 .

1 The war between the house of Saul and the house of David

lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while

the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.

1. It is a sad reality that God's people can be at war with each other, and even be killing

each other. They worship the same God and have all the same beliefs, but they have

different loyalties in terms of government and power. Eventually all of the people of Israel

and Judah united behind David, but until then they fought each other. It is typical of civil

wars, that after they are over and their damage is evaluated, it is agreed that there should

be a better way of solving differences. The cost of a civil war is way too high, and

everything possible should be done to avoid such a conflict. This is true for individuals,

families, cities, churches, as well as for nations. Work like warriors for peace rather than

die as warriors for folly.

2. David was experiencing getting stronger all the time against the opposition of the

followers of Saul, but the fact is, David spent way too much of his life in battle, and the

result was that he was a bloody warrior, and due to that God would not let him fulfill his

dream of building a temple. It was left to Solomon who was a man of peace, but, of course,

it was David's battles that set him up to be a man of peace.

3. Pink, “The battle referred to at the end of the previous chapter, though it went so greatly

in favor of David, did not put an end to the warfare between him and Ishbosheth. Though

Saul himself was no more, yet his son and subjects refused to submit quietly to David’s

scepter. For another five years they continued to manifest their defiance, and many were

the skirmishes which took place between his men and the loyal subjects of David. The latter

was loath to employ harsh measures against them, and probably his magnanimity and

mildness were mistaken for weakness or fear, and encouraged his opponents to renew their

efforts for his overthrow. But little by little they were weakened, until Ishbosheth was

willing to make a league with David.”

4. Blaikie : The war does not seem to have been carried on by pitched battles, but rather by

a long series of those fretting and worrying little skirmishes which a state of civil war

breeds, even when the volcano is comparatively quiet.”

5. Civil wars are crazy, for it is people of the same family fighting and killing one another.

In Scripture the civil wars are God's people fighting and killing God's people. You would

think that there would be endless talks to prevent such nonsense, but the fact that they

happen in God's chosen people reveals just how proud and stubborn God's people can be.

In out own civil war as Americans we also have such strange facts as this: “Senator John J.

Crittendon of Kentucky had two sons who became major generals during the Civil War:

one for the �orth, one for the South.” “Missouri sent 39 regiments to fight in the siege of

Vicksburg: 17 to the Confederacy and 22 to the Union.” Brother against brother, and that

is what we see in the Bible. As we study the life of David we will see his own sons going to

war against him in power struggles to become king. It is all about power, and power hungry

people start wars with anyone in their way, even if it is family.

2 Sons were born to David in Hebron:

His firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel;

1. Even a busy warrior has time to make babies, however, and so David had a good crop of

them while he reigned in Hebron. Many are very critical of this taking of many wives by

David, and judged by �ew Testament standards they are right, but we have to judge him

by what was acceptable to God in that day. Pink is convinced that all of the problems that

came into David's life in the second half of II Samuel were due to God's judgment on him

for the sin of taking these wives. This is a subjective opinion, and we will look at it in a few

verses ahead when we cover the issue of polygamy.

3 his second, Kileab the son of Abigail the widow of �abal of

Carmel;

the third, Absalom the son of Maacah daughter of Talmai

king of Geshur;

1. Henry wrote of this family of David, “The increase of his own house. Here is an account

of six sons he had by six several wives, in the seven years he reigned in Hebron. Perhaps

this is here mentioned as that which strengthened David's interest. Every child, whose

welfare was embarked in the common safety, was a fresh security given to the

commonwealth for his care of it. He that has his quiver filled with these arrows shall speak

with his enemy in the gate, Psalms 127:5. As the death of Saul's sons weakened his interest,

so the birth of David's strengthened his. 1. It was David's fault thus to multiply wives,

contrary to the law (Deuteronomy 17:17), and it was a bad example to his successors. 2. It

does not appear that in these seven years he had above one son by each of these wives; some

have had as numerous a progeny, and with much more honour and comfort, by one wife. 3.

We read not that any of these sons came to be famous (three of them were infamous,

Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah); we have therefore reason to rejoice with trembling in the

building up of our families. 4. His son by Abigail is called Chileab (2 Samuel 3:3 ), whereas

(1 Chronicles 3:1 ) he is called Daniel. Bishop Patrick mentions the reason which the Hebrew

doctors give for these names, that his first name was Daniel--God has judged me (namely,

against �abal), but David's enemies reproached him, and said, "It is �abal's son, and not

David's," to confute which calumny Providence so ordered it that, as he grew up, he

became, in his countenance and features, extremely like David, and resembled him more

than any of his children, upon which he gave him the name of Chileab, which signifies, like

his father, or the father's picture. 5. Absalom's mother is said to be the daughter of Talmai

king of Geshur, a heathen prince. Perhaps David thereby hoped to strengthen his interest,

but the issue of the marriage was one that proved his grief and shame. 6. The last is called

David's wife, which therefore, some think, was Michal, his first and most rightful wife,

called here by another name; and, though she had no child after she mocked David, she

might have had before.”

2. Gill, “in (1 Samuel 27:8 ) we read of David's invading the land of the Geshurites; and the

Jews say F24 that he then took the daughter of this king captive, and she being a beautiful

woman married her, after made a proselyte according to the law in (Deuteronomy 21:10-

23) ; but it should be observed that David slew all the women of that country, and left not

any alive; and besides that lay to the south of Judah, whereas this Geshur, of which Talmai

was king, was a part of Syria, (2 Samuel 15:8 ) ; and lay to the north of the land of Israel;

and with this king David hereby entered into an alliance, to strengthen his interest against

Ishbosheth in those parts; of the trouble he met with from Absalom, see (2 Samuel 13:1-

18:33) … contrary to the expectations he had raised when he gave him the name of

Absalom, or Leabsalom, as in (1 Chronicles 3:2 ) ; that is, one given "for his father's peace".

4 the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith;

the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;

1. All of these marriages and sons were a part of his growing stronger, for they built

alliances with other people of power. S. Lewis Johnson Jr. wrote, “And the growing family

is grounds for further strengthening of himself. If you look at the individuals that he

married, and if we knew all of the details of them, the chances are that we’d see that many

of them were very, very useful for political purposes. For example, we read of Absalom the

son of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. So, by his marriages, David was

making relationships, which would ultimately strengthen his own kingdom. It’s not said

that he did it for that purpose but, nevertheless, we read in the midst of the war, the house

of David grew stronger and stronger and the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker. But

these things that were political strength were also the seeds of later trials and sins that King

David was forced to undergo.”

5 and the sixth, Ithream the son of David's wife Eglah.

These were born to David in Hebron.

1. David did not stop having son when he went on to become the king of Israel. The list

comes to 19, but this does not count children by concubines.

“His son by Abigail was Chileab or Daniel: 2 Samuel 3:3 and 1 Chronicles 3:1.

The most important thing of the lineage is the Davidic line to Christ(son of David) and that

was through Solomon, Bathsheba's son.

6 sons were born to him in Hebron where he reigned for 7 1/2 years. then he moved to

Jerusalem and reigned another 33 years and had 4 sons by Bathsheba. and 9 others while

in Jerusalem.

it does not include in 1 Chron. the sons of his concubines..but he also had a daughter

Tamar..

19 named sons =6, while in Hebron.Amnon,Daniel,Absalom,Adonijah, Shephatiah,Ithream.

4, while in Jerusalem by Bathsheba. Shimea, Shobab, �athan,Solomon.

9 , others while in Jerusalem. Ibhar, Elishama, Eliphelet, �ogah, �epheg, Japhia, Elishama,

Eliada, Eliphelet.”

1B. Here is the list of the 8 named wives that David eventually had.

8 Bathsheba`

7 `Egelah

6 'Abital

5 Chaggith

4 Ma`akah

3 Abigail

2 'Achino`am

1 Mikal

Eight wives were named in the Bible, but there were numerous other wives that were not

named.

2. David came to Hebron with two wives, but in the few years he reigned there he took on 4

more and now had 6 wives who bore him children. Here again, we have to show that

polygamy was approved by God in that day. So many men lost their lives in the constant

warfare that women were left with no means of support, and if they did not have a husband

they had to resort to prostitution. It was a blessing that men would take on more than one

wife and give them a home. This type of thing is not acceptable for �ew Testament

believers, but it was a necessity in Old Testament times. I will repeat a study here that I did

in chapter 2 because it is a constant criticism of David that he practiced polygamy, and

people need to see that God fully approved it. We need to listen to God, and go by his word

and not commentators and preachers who have not done the research. You will find this

study in Appendix A.

2B. I will quote some great commentators who are highly critical of David to show you why

we need to see the full picture before we follow such criticism. Pink, one of the best ever,

wrote these negative comments, and they do suggest that David went overboard, but God

even added more wives to his family later on, and so the reasoning here seems Biblical and

logical, but in the full story it will not hold up as a valid negative judgment: “Here we see

David giving way to the lusts of the flesh, and practicing polygamy; and as he sowed to the

flesh in his family life, so in the flesh he reaped corruption in his family. Three of the above-

mentioned sons were murdered! The subject of polygamy as a whole is too large a one for

us to deal with here, nor can we discuss it at length as it bore upon the lives of the different

patriarchs. God’s original creation of only one man and one woman indicates from the

beginning that monogamy was the Divine order for man to heed (Matthew 19:4, 5). The

first of whom we read in Scripture that had more wives than one, was Lamech (Gen. 4:19),

who was of the evil line of Cain. And while Moses, because of the hardness of Israel’s heart

(Matthew 19:8) introduced the statute of divorce, yet nowhere did the Mosaic law sanction

a plurality of wives. The limitation of one wife only is plainly suggested by such scriptures

as Proverbs 5:18 and 18:22.

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose; one

from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over

thee, which is not thy brother. But he shall not multiply horses to himself . . . neither shall

he multiply wives of himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:15-17). Here was a

definite and express law which the kings of Israel were required to obey, and thereby set

before their subjects an example of sobriety and marital fidelity. And this was the

commandment which David so flagrantly disobeyed, for no sooner was he anointed "king

over the house of Judah" (2 Sam. 2:4), than he began to multiply "wives" unto himself (3:2-

5). �ot only so, but when Abner sought to make a league with him, David laid it down as a

condition that his first wife, Michal, who had been given to another man (1 Sam. 25:44)

must be restored to him (2 Sam. 3:13), which was an open violation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

A little later on we read, "And David took him more concubines and wives out of

Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron" (2 Sam. 5:13). Here, then, was David’s

besetting sin, to which he yielded so freely—little wonder that his son Solomon followed in

his footsteps! And a Holy God will not tolerate evil, least of all in those whom He has made

leaders over His people. Though in the main David’s life was pleasing to God, and spiritual

excellencies were found in him, yet there was this one sad weakness. His giving way to it

brought down long and sever chastenings, and the record of it as a whole—the sowing and

the consequent reaping — is for our learning and warning.”

3. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Jr. also wrote of the negative life of David in taking these wives. He

wrote, “It has always raised a question among �ew Testament believers, how is it that we

have such words in the �ew Testament, by our Lord and others, that we are to marry and

we are not to divorce, we are to stay with the wife of our youth as long as we are alive, the

two of us? And so, how can we justify the strong words that Jesus says about marriage in

the light of the fact that so many in the Old Testament gathered to themselves many wives?

And, of course, David’s son Solomon followed his father’s example. Well, it illustrates the

fact that God tolerated the evil; although he did not approve of the evil.” �one of the

author who write this way in being critical of David deal with the positive verses in the law

where God is fully accepting of plural wives, and that is why I have Appendix A for those

who want to see the positive site that is ignored. There is no end to those who say David was

sinning in taking plural wives, but there is not a word of condemnation from God

concerning this behavior. Why was God silent if it was a sin so often practiced. See

Appendix A and you will see.

4. David Guzik gives us this brief history of these sons.

i. Amnon raped his half-sister and was murdered by his half-brother.

ii. Chileab is also known as Daniel in 1 Chronicles 3:1. The few mentions of this son

indicate that perhaps he died young or that he was an ungodly, unworthy man.

iii. Absalom murdered his half-brother and led a civil war against his father David,

attempting to murder David.

iv. Adonijah tried to seize the throne from David and David's appointed successor - then he

tried to take one of David's concubines and was executed for his arrogance.

v. We can fairly assume that Shephatiah and Ithream either died young or were ungodly

and unworthy men, mentioned only once again in the Scriptures - in a generic listing of

David's sons (1 Chronicles 3:1-4).

Abner Goes Over to David

6 During the war between the house of Saul and the house of

David, Abner had been strengthening his own position in the

house of Saul.

1. We are not given details, but Abner was a man who wanted to be powerful, and he

succeeded, for he made the next king of Israel the man he wanted there, because he could

control him. He was, in fact, the real king making all the decisions. He had been working

toward this for some time, for he knew that Saul would die someday, and that David was

supposed to be the next king. He figured he could throw a monkey wrench into that plan by

coming up with a plan of his own, and he did it. He was a great general and a clever

politician who knew how to get things done, especially when it came to what was best for

him. He became the number one power in the house of Saul.

2. ISBE gives us these details on Abner: “He was Saul's cousin; �er the father of Abner and

Kish the father of Saul being brothers, the sons of Abiel (1 Sam 14:50 f)....Despite the many

wars waged by Saul, we hear little of Abner during Saul's lifetime. �ot even in the account'

of the battle of Gilboa is mention made of him. Yet both his high office and his kinship to

the king must have brought the two men in close contact. On festive occasions it was the

custom of Abner to sit at table by the king's side (1 Sam 20:25). It was Abner who

introduced the young David fresh from his triumph over Goliath to the king's court (so

according to the account in 1 Sam 17:57). We find Abner accompanying the king in his

pursuit of David (1 Sam 26:5 ff). Abner is rebuked by David for his negligence in keeping

watch over his master (ibid., 15).” Abner has known David since his youth, and has had

personal encounters with him a number of times.

7 �ow Saul had had a concubine named Rizpah daughter of

Aiah. And Ish-Bosheth said to Abner, "Why did you sleep

with my father's concubine?"

1. Roger Christopherson, “Saul has been dead now for many years, and Rizpah had not

remarried. When Abner took Rizpah and had a child by her, king Ishbosheth tried to insult

Abner for even showing an interest in the Rizpah. Remember that Rizpah was of a royal

family, and Abner was from a poor common family, and even though Abner was politically

strong, the mixing of royal blood with common blood was just not done. When Saul was the

king, and Rizpah was taken to wife by the king, it made her of royal blood.

Ish-bosheth the king failed to realize that without Abner, he would be just a boy on the

street without a family, for all members of his family were dead. Abner made the king what

he was, and talked the heads and elders of the tribes to follow this boy, the son of Saul. This

is going to get Abner's anger up, for Abner knew that without his leadership, there would

be no royal house of Saul. The kingdom was dead before Abner revived it. Abner knew that

God had anointed David king over all Israel. Though Abner made many mistakes, he was

loyal to his king Saul and Saul's household when it ruled. He loved his country, and his

people.”

2. Here you have a king who gave up his throne by the simple act of insulting the man who

put him on that throne. There are certain people you ought not to insult when they are the

one who control your destiny. We do not have his motive recorded, and one wonders if he

was jealous and wanted Rizpah for himself, or was he just in a bad mood. Whatever

provoked him to provoke Abner led to the end of his short reign as king of Israel. This

reveals the power of the tongue to change the course of history.

3. There is speculation as to Abner's guilt. Some say he did it, and some say not. David

Guzik guesses not and writes, “We aren't specifically told, but Abner's response leads us to

believe that the accusation was false. It is possible that as he was strengthening his hold on

the house of Saul he took the concubine as an expression of his power and dominance. It is

more likely that because of Abner's increasing power Ishbosheth felt it necessary to invent

this accusation as grounds for getting rid of Abner.”

4. Rizpah, “Coal; hot stone, the daughter of Aiah, and one of Saul's concubines. She was

the mother of Armoni and Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 3:7; 21:8,10,11).

It happened that a grievous famine, which lasted for three years, fell upon the land during

the earlier half of David's reign at Jerusalem. This calamity was sent "for Saul and for his

bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." David inquired of the Gibeonites what

satisfaction they demanded, and was answered that nothing would compensate for the

wrong Saul had done to them but the death of seven of Saul's sons. David accordingly

delivered up to them the two sons of Rizpah and five of the sons of Merab (q.v.), Saul's

eldest daughter, whom she bore to Adriel. These the Gibeonites put to death, and hung up

their bodies before the Lord at the sanctuary at Gibeah. Rizpah thereupon took her place

on the rock of Gibeah (q.v.), and for five months watched the suspended bodies of her

children, to prevent them from being devoured by the beasts and birds of prey, till they

were at length taken down and buried by David.

Her marriage to Abner was the occasion of a quarrel between him and Ishbosheth, which

led to Abner's going over to the side of David (2 Samuel 3:17-21).

Source: Easton's Bible Dictionary

8 Abner was very angry because of what Ish-Bosheth said

and he answered, "Am I a dog's head-on Judah's side? This

very day I am loyal to the house of your father Saul and to

his family and friends. I haven't handed you over to David.

Yet now you accuse me of an offense involving this woman!

1. Affairs in government are nothing new, for here we see one that threatens the unity of

Israel's leadership. This conflict between the king and Abner was the beginning of the end

for Israel being separated from Judah with its own king rather than being united under

David as the one king over all God's people.

1B. “Davis: A dog in the ancient �ear East was something thoroughly contemptible. They

were chiefly found prowling around the towns in a half-wild condition, living off offal

and garbage. . . Ish-bosheth was clearly not in a position to challenge the power of

Abner. This is made clear in verse 11 and indicates that Ish-bosheth was extremely

weak. He had no real power apart from Abner and his men. Abner concluded that the

future of the northern kingdom was rather dark under the leadership of such an

incompetent monarch and decided to change his allegiance from Ish-bosheth to David.”

2. Constable, “Abner was the strong man in Israel. Ish-bosheth was simply a figurehead (v.

11). Abner's loyalty to the house of Saul is clear from his actions so far. However there was

conflict between Ish-bosheth and Abner. In the ancient �ear East the king's concubines

were his tools for raising up heirs if the queen could not bear children or even if she could.

Ishbosheth regarded Abner's act as a sign of disloyalty. He seemed to be trying to have an

heir by a royal concubine who could have, according to custom, become king one day (cf.

16:22; 1 Kings 2:22). We do not know whether this was Abner's plan or not. He implied

denial of that motive but not the act. In any case, this incident resulted in Abner shifting

his support from Ish-bosheth to David. Perhaps it was the last straw for Abner who had

recently suffered a devastating defeat by David's men and who must have seen that he

could not win.”

3. Henry, “Here, I. Abner breaks with Ish-bosheth, and deserts his interest, upon a little

provocation which Ish-bosheth unadvisedly gave him. God can serve his own purposes by

the sins and follies of men. 1. Ish-bosheth accused Abner of no less a crime than debauching

one of his father's concubines, 2 Samuel 3:7 . Whether it was so or no does not appear, nor

what ground he had for the suspicion: but, however it was, it would have been Ish-

bosheth's prudence to be silent, considering how much it was his interest not to disoblige

Abner. If the thing was false, and his jealousy groundless, it was very disingenuous and

ungrateful to entertain unjust surmises of one who had ventured his all for him, and was

certainly the best friend he had in the world. 2. Abner resented the charge very strongly.

Whether he was guilty of the fault concerning this woman or no he does not say (2 Samuel

3:8), but we suspect he was guilty, for he does not expressly deny it; and, though he was, he

lets Ish-bosheth know, (1.) That he scorned to be reproached with it by him, and would not

take reproof at his hands. "What!" says Abner, "Am I a dog's head, a vile and contemptible

animal, that thou exposest me thus? 2 Samuel 3:8 . Is this my recompence for the kindness I

have shown to thee and thy father's house, and the good services I have done you?”

4. Gill, “and said, [am] I a dog's head; such a mean, vile, contemptible person with thee, as

if no better than a dog, and as useless and as unserviceable as a dead dog, the head of a dog

cut off; see (1 Samuel 24:14 ) (2 Samuel 9:8 ) ; or am I esteemed and to be treated as a head

of dogs, a keeper of a pack of hounds, and not as a general of the armies of Israel? so Jarchi

and others; but it seems rather to respect the filthy nature of a dog, that will couple with

any; and so the sense is, am I such a filthy lustful creature that care not with whom I lie, no

more, than a dog?”

9 May God deal with Abner, be it ever so severely, if I do not

do for David what the LORD promised him on oath

1. Here we see Abner confessing that he knew David was promised by God to be the next

king after Saul, and yet with this full knowledge of God's will, he fought against it, and

even hoped to prevent it so he could have the power instead. He lived in full disobedience to

what he knew God wanted, for he wanted the place of power for himself. It was only when

he realized that he might come out ahead by going with the kingship of David that he

reversed his rebellion, and became a promoter of David. He had delayed the will of God for

over 5 years, but now was falling into line with what he should have been doing the day

after Saul died. Better late than never, but the war he started ended up killing him because

of what he had to do in killing Joab's brother. Had he never rebelled against God's will

there would have been no such killing, and he would not have been murdered. Joab did

great wrong in killing him, but in the broader picture we see that he played a major role in

getting himself killed by his rebellion against what he knew God wanted for David.

2. Henry, “With the utmost degree of arrogance and insolence he lets him know that, as he

had raised him up, so he could pull him down again and would do it. He knew that God

had sworn to David to give him the kingdom, and yet opposed it with all his might from a

principle of ambition; but now he complies with it from a principle of revenge, under

colour of some regard to the will of God, which was but a pretence. Those that are slaves to

their lusts have many masters, which drive, some one way and some another, and,

according as they make head, men are violently hurried into self-contradictions. Abner's

ambition made him zealous for Ish-bosheth, and now his revenge made him as zealous for

David. If he had sincerely regarded God's promise to David, and acted with an eye to that,

he would have been steady and uniform in his counsels, and acted in consistency with

himself. But, while Abner serves his own lusts, God by him serves his own purposes, makes

even his wrath and revenge to praise him, and ordains strength to David by it.”

10 and transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul and

establish David's throne over Israel and Judah from Dan to

Beersheba."

1. We have no idea if Abner slept with Saul's concubine, but we know the accusation of

doing so made him so mad that he was ready to give up the whole idea of opposing David,

and instead, giving him the support he needed to take the throne over all of Israel. He was

ready to became a traitor to his king rather than endure any such insults. He had the

power, and so he had to be taken seriously, and so the king backed off, and we have no

conclusion as to his actual guilt. If he did have the affair, he was able to escape any negative

consequences by powerful threats that the king knows he could keep. They shut the king

up, and the issue is dropped. An unknown author wrote, “It is not entirely clear whether

Abner is offended because he never touched the concubine or offended because his

touching her was a trifle that Ish-Bosheth should have been grateful to overlook, dependent

as he was on Abner's help.”

11 Ish-Bosheth did not dare to say another word to Abner,

because he was afraid of him.

1. This verse leaves no doubt as to who is running the show here, for Abner had all the

power in his hands, and the king had to bow to him or else. Fear can close an accusing

tongue quite quickly. A man can see when another man is getting so angry that any more

words could lead to deadly violence. Ish-Bosheth was a weak king, but he had some

common sense, and he never let another word come out of his mouth, for that could have

been his last word had he uttered it. Kings live longer who know how to shut their mouth at

the right time, and this goes for commoners as well.

12 Then Abner sent messengers on his behalf to say to David,

"Whose land is it? Make an agreement with me, and I will

help you bring all Israel over to you."

1. Abner was just mad enough to carry out his threat and let David know he was willing to

be his partner in becoming the rightful king of all Israel.

2. Gill, “saying, whose [is] the land? the land of Israel, is it not thine, David? verily it is; to

whom does it belong but unto thee, to whom the Lord has given it? not to any of Saul's

posterity: this he ordered the messengers to say in the first place, in order to ingratiate

himself to David, and gain his messengers an audience. The Targum is, “I swear by him

that made the earth;'' so Jarchi says, it is an oath by him whose the earth is, even by the

living God, whose is the earth, and the fulness thereof:”

13 "Good," said David. "I will make an agreement with you.

But I demand one thing of you: Do not come into my

presence unless you bring Michal daughter of Saul when you

come to see me."

1. It was good news to David to hear of Abner's change of mind, and he said for him to

come and we will make an agreement. There was a “but” however, for he was not to come

without bringing his ex-wife Michal the daughter of Saul. She was his first wife, but had

been given to another man when David was an outlaw running from Saul.

2. Constable, “The fact that Michal was Saul's daughter was clearly part of the reason

David requested her. Reunion with her would have tied David in to Saul's house and made

him more acceptable to the northern tribes. "By making her his queen he would divide the

loyalties of citizens in the north: did loyalty to Saul's memory mean that they should be the

subjects of his son, Ish-bosheth, or of his daughter? By such means David could weaken his

opponent without killing a single Israelite soldier and without causing any resentment at

all."

3. W. Taylor, “When he opened up negotiations with David for the transfer of the kingdom,

the son of Jesse did not show himself overeager to respond. He, too, had his dignity to

consult, and he declared that he could not enter into a league with him until he had sent

unto him Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom he had first wedded. A man who had already

six wives had no great need for a seventh, and we do not suppose that there was much

affection for Michal remaining inDavid's heart. Still, she had been wrongfully taken from

him, and the giving of her to another was a grievous and deliberate insult offered to him by

Saul, for which it was natural that he should now desire some sort of apology. Moreover,

the making of such a request to Abner would be an admirable test of his sincerity ; and so,

when it was at once complied with, he declared his readiness to enter into negotiations with

him. Thereupon, after communicating with the elders of Israel and with his kinsmen of the

tribe of Benjamin, Abner went to Hebron, accompanied by twenty men ; and in the absence

of Joab and Abishai, he was hospitably entertained by David, and dismissed with many

tokens of good-will.”

14 Then David sent messengers to Ish-Bosheth son of Saul,

demanding, "Give me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to

myself for the price of a hundred Philistine foreskins."

1. Typical of many commentators Constable wrote, “It was contrary to God's will for David

to remarry Michal (Deut. 24:1-4). God graciously blessed David in spite of his disobedience

(vv. 2-5, 12-16), but this sin undoubtedly weakened David.” This is hard to believe when

God gave David the wives of Saul when he became the king of Israel. We never hear God

uttering one word of David's sin for having multiple wives.

2. Guzik, “1 Samuel 18:20-30 describes how David used this unusual payment instead of a

dowry for the right to marry the daughter of King Saul. i. "He might have said two

hundred; but he thought better to speak with the least." (Trapp) Guzik says David did this

for three reasons:

i. David remembered that Michal was simply his wife by both love and right, and that King

Saul took her away as part of a deliberate strategy to attack and destroy David.

ii. David wanted to show that he harbored no bitterness towards Saul's house, and he

would show this through his good treatment of Saul's daughter.

iii. David wanted to give himself a greater claim to Saul's throne as his son-in-law.

3. Gill, “When Abner's messengers returned to him, and acquainted him with the condition

of David's entering into a league with him, it is highly probable that Abner sent them or

others to David, to let him know that he could not do this of himself; that it was advisable

for him to write to Ishbosheth, whose sister she was, and demand her of him; and that then

he would use his interest with Ishbosheth to grant it, and this method David took: saying,

deliver [me] my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the

Philistines; two arguments he made use of to enforce his demand; one is, that it was his wife

he required, to whom he had a right, and no other man; and the other is, that he had

purchased her at a great expense, at the risk of his life, in slaying an hundred Philistines,

whose foreskins he paid in for her at the instance of Saul; he mentions but one hundred,

though he gave two hundred as her dowry, no more being required than one hundred; see

(1 Samuel 18:25,27 ) . Josephus very wrongly says six hundred ; the Syriac and Arabic have

here two hundred.”

15 So Ish-Bosheth gave orders and had her taken away from

her husband Paltiel son of Laish.

1. This was a sad political move that had to be done for the survival of Ish-Bosheth. It was

cruel to the husband however, but with Abner on David's side he was calling the shots now,

and it was a necessity that Paltiel lose his wife for the good of the country. Usually it is men

who go to war and lose their lives for the good of the country, but here was a man who kept

his life, but gave up his wife for that good end.

16 Her husband, however, went with her, weeping behind her

all the way to Bahurim. Then Abner said to him, "Go back

home!" So he went back.

1. This is a really sad picture of a weeping man unwilling to give up a woman he loves so

dearly. He had to be ordered to go back home or he never would have left her out of his

site. He knew that there was a limit as to how far he could go in holding on to her, for if he

refused to let her go, he would be let go from this life. We have all heard of cars and homes,

and all kinds of possessions being repossessed, but this is really a rare event where a wife is

being repossessed from another man who has had her as a wife for a number of years.

2. An unknown author, “"The circle of misery" brought on by Saul's callousness now

widens to include Paltiel, Michal's new husband. Saul, of course, had no right to give

David's wife to another man, as the narrator makes clear by the way he puts it in 1 Samuel

25:44. "Saul gave David's wife…" The point of all of this is, of course, that with the

transfer of Michal, Saul's daughter, Israel is publicly being transferred to David as well. It

is the public demonstration that Ish-Bosheth is ceding power to David.”

3. We have a strange detail recorded here, for this weeping husband is never seen again,

and we have no idea of what he did after he returned home. It is a detail that points out

how little and unknown people get caught in the web of powerful people working out their

plans for power. It is going on all the time as masses of unknown people are getting killed

and displaced by wars that have nothing to do with them, but are started by others who are

fighting for power. They suffer losses, not because they have done any wrong, but because

they are in the way of the conflict of others. Paltiel just happened to love a woman who at

this point in history was an important asset in the life of David. It was a smart move on his

part to take her, but it was at a great cost to a man who had no choice but to go along with

the decision. He had no power to do otherwise.

4. An unknown author has much to say about this sad picture. “One way or another, we are

being shown how in the ordinary course of affairs, as God's providence works out his

purpose in the world, smaller people often suffer for no other reason than that they are

caught up in the maelstrom of conflict between the great and powerful. This is a fact of life

and the Bible does not hide it from us. Most people in the world are not in a position to

exercise influence over events in the world. Most of us are caught up in those events, for

better or for worse. Think of folk who have lost their jobs in recent days because of what

Arab terrorists did a month ago. What are we to do with this? Well, part of thinking

biblically about our daily life is the recognition that much of what happens is a complete

mystery to us, we cannot explain it. It does not seem fair or right to us, but it happens

nonetheless. And what does the Bible tell us in view of that fact? "Fear God and keep his

commandments," that is all. Don't think you will make sense of this world, for you will not.

Don't imagine that the good guys will always win and the bad guys lose: that a man who

loves his wife like Paltiel obviously did, will always get to keep her or that a marriage that

seemed to be made in heaven - Michal, Saul's daughter who loved David, and David, Saul's

successor - will turn out happily.

In my work I live with this all the time. Most of the tears that are shed before me are

Paltiel's tears. And I have no explanation for them except that this sinful, dying world, even

though it is also a world of grace, is hard on people and will be and must be until it comes

to an end. We cannot say this often enough to ourselves because we are always so tempted

and so often succumb to the temptation to think that it is possible to provide a simpler

explanation. We think we can explain the sorrows of another or think we ought to be able

to explain our own. Our comfort, the Bible tells us repeatedly, lies not in explanation, but in

two things: the knowledge that God knows what he is doing, even if we do not, and the fact

that Jesus Christ entered this world and suffered the same confusing sorrows we suffer and

so knows what we are going through. The older we get, and the wiser, the more often we

should be found silent, shaking our heads, turning our eyes to heaven and confessing to our

God and Father that we are trusting him - in defiance of what we see and hear - we are

trusting him to do right! Here is the lesson and it is one we American, psychologized, and

often superficially scientifically minded, Christians need to take to heart. We do not know

what God is doing. Much suffering in the world is beyond any satisfactory explanation.

Much injustice comes from what we might well have thought or predicted would have

produced justice and harmony. One image of the truly biblically minded saint is that of a

man or a woman with a hand over his or her mouth and eyes lifted to heaven!”

4. S. Lewis Johnson Jr. sees no reason to feel sorry for this man as he writes, “Paltiel comes

along, following after her, weeping. And so all of who are Christians, we get a tear or so in

our eye and say, my, isn’t that terrible. Why break up their relationship? Why break up

their relationship? He, obviously, has high affection for her. She probably has affection for

him. They’ve lived together for a good while. I confess, his tears do not move me to pity.

We say “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware. But caveat ruptor is also a truth of God. Let

the one who takes or seizes aware to. And Paltiel fell in with Saul and when Saul took

Michal away. He took Michal. It was a mistake on his part. He was wrong in doing that.

And now, he suffers the consequences of it. So his tears, which were tears because he’s

losing Michal, ought to be tears of repentance for his sin against God and his sin against

David. So don’t feel compassionate towards Paltiel, because in so doing, you fail to

understand some things that are far more important than tears and sweet feelings,

sentiment.”

5. Clarke, “If genuine affection did not still subsist between David and Michal, it was a pity

to have taken her from Phaltiel, who had her to wife from the conjoint authority of her

father and her king. �evertheless David had a legal right to her, as she had never been

divorced, for she was taken from him by the hand of violence.”

17 Abner conferred with the elders of Israel and said, "For

some time you have wanted to make David your king.

1. Gill, “saying, ye sought for David in time past [to be] king over you;

that is, at the death of Saul, and not before; for it was pretty generally known throughout

the kingdom that David was anointed by Samuel and Saul himself had declared that he

knew the kingdom would come to him; so that upon his death it was the general

expectation and desire of the people that the government would devolve upon him, as it

doubtless would, if Abner had not set up one of Saul's house, and persuaded the Israelites

to own him their king.”

18 �ow do it! For the LORD promised David, 'By my servant

David I will rescue my people Israel from the hand of the

Philistines and from the hand of all their enemies.' "

1. Abner knew the promise of God, and yet had the audacity to set up his own king over

Israel rather than go directly to David and arrange for him to take the throne. He was

power hungry and wanted to control the nation of Israel. Possibly, his motive was to keep

the system and methods of Saul going, for he loved them. We don't know all of his motives,

but all of a sudden he has reverted back to what he knows is the will of God, and is on

board for David to become the king. He is ready to scrap his plan, and get back to God's.

This is a good thing, but it was a bad thing that it took him so long to surrender to what he

knew God wanted. Better late than never, but never late is better yet.

19 Abner also spoke to the Benjamites in person. Then he

went to Hebron to tell David everything that Israel and the

whole house of Benjamin wanted to do.

1. Abner was a great deal maker, and what we would say was an effective politician and

negotiator, for he was able to convince everyone that David was the man to take over as

king of Israel. The man he fought for all these years is now the man he is rooting for, and he

persuaded all the key people to agree with him that David was the man for the job. The

Benjamites were key people, for that was the tribe of Saul, and they would be the last to

accept Saul's great enemy, which was David. They jumped on the band wagon too, and so

the show was ready to go on the road to get David on the throne as king.

20 When Abner, who had twenty men with him, came to

David at Hebron, David prepared a feast for him and his

men.

1. This was a very important delegation, and David treated them with great respect, for

they were men who would make the path to the throne much easier. They were opponents

who are now key supporters of his getting to that throne.

21 Then Abner said to David, "Let me go at once and

assemble all Israel for my lord the king, so that they may

make a compact with you, and that you may rule over all

that your heart desires." So David sent Abner away, and he

went in peace.

1. Abner has become the key person in arranging for David to become the king. He plays a

major role in negotiating with the leaders of Israel to fulfill the promise of God to David.

He is now going to assemble all Israel for the final stage.

2. We have a civil war between the �orth and the South, between Israel and Judah. In this

war the South wins, and it was largely due to Abner who switched loyalties from his king to

the king of the South, who was David. One man changed the whole civil war into a peace

conference to designed to get David to the throne of all Israel.

22 Just then David's men and Joab returned from a raid and

brought with them a great deal of plunder. But Abner was no

longer with David in Hebron, because David had sent him

away, and he had gone in peace.

1. �otice that three verses in a row stipulate that Abner went away in peace. This repetition

makes the murder of Abner all the more evil, and Joab guilty of a terrible sin against what

is just and fair. He was shooting down a man in cold blood who was walking toward him

with a white flag waving. He had come in peace, and had a right to be so treated, but

instead he was murdered.

23 When Joab and all the soldiers with him arrived, he was

told that Abner son of �er had come to the king and that the

king had sent him away and that he had gone in peace.

1. Somebody who felt just like Joab was eager to tell him of the unbelievable news that

their great enemy was here, and David did not arrest him for being the traitor he is, but

sent him away in peace like he was not the cause of so many of our problems for many

years. Men have died at this mans hands, and even your brother, and yet he has gone away

in peace like all of these battles with him never really happened.

24 So Joab went to the king and said, "What have you done?

Look, Abner came to you. Why did you let him go? �ow he

is gone!

1. Henry, “What hast thou done? As if David were accountable to him for what he did:

"Why hast thou sent him away, when thou mightest have made him a prisoner? He came as

a spy, and will certainly betray thee." I know not whether to wonder more that Joab had

impudence enough to give such an affront to his prince or that David had patience enough

to take it. He does, in effect, call David a fool when he tells him he knew Abner came to

deceive him and yet he trusted him. We find no answer that David gave him, not because he

feared him, as Ish-bosheth did Abner (2 Samuel 3:11 ), but because he despised him, or

because Joab had not so much good manners as to stay for an answer.”

2. Brian Morgan, “As soon as Joab's anger is spent, he insults David for his naivete. "Don't

you know anything?" he is saying to the king, in effect. The verb "know," used four times

in verses 25-26, is the theme word that brackets this text. Joab says that Abner was merely

a spy who was hiding behind the guise of peacemaker. Chastising David for his ignorance,

Joab says that Abner has come "to know" the king's "going out and coming in" (a Hebrew

expression of totality). Joab is a pragmatic realist. A determined cynic, a man of the world,

he appraises people instantly. But his assessment of Abner is based on past history, coupled

with the experience of his own heart. Good as it is, it blinds him to the wondrous workings

of God. He lacks the faith to see any potential for the divine spark which can break into an

Abner's life and transform him from without.”

25 You know Abner son of �er; he came to deceive you and

observe your movements and find out everything you are

doing."

1. Joab is making false accusations against Abner because he hated him for killing his

brother. Roger Christopherson wrote, “Joab was still mad over the death of his brother

that Abner killed, and when he heard that Abner was here at Hebron, and left it in peace,

Joab became very angry at David. This was very bold and showed disrespect to talk to the

king in this manner, even though he was Joab's uncle.” This family relationship made it

hard for David to deal with Joab in the severe way he should have.

2. Grant, “Joab knew nothing of this until he returned from a raid in which he and his men

had been successful in gaining "much spoil." However, when he heard of David's favorable

reception of Abner, he sensed danger, -- not actually danger to David, but danger as regards

his own position in David's government. He would see Abner as a threat to his prominence.

Immediately he went in to David and remonstrated strongly with him (v.24). He made it

clear that he thought David ought to have killed Abner when he had the opportunity, or to

have at least imprisoned him. He claims that Abner came as a spy to deceive David and

learn of David's activities in order to take advantage of him. Of course this was not true,

but Joab wanted an excuse for getting rid of Abner. �othing is said of how David

responded to Joab's accusation. Joab saw his opportunity to act quickly. Without David's

knowledge, he sent messengers after Abner to bring him back. Abner, fully unsuspecting,

came back willingly. Joab was ready to meet him at the gate of the city, and there took him

aside as though to speak privately to him, and immediately plunged him through with his

weapon "under the fifth rib," as Abner had done to Asahel (ch.2:23), killing him instantly

with this blow to the heart (v.27).”

3. Brian Morgan, “Strangely, David makes no response to Joab's charges. Was he unable to

answer a word? Or was he silenced in fear, loath to rebuke Joab's anger in the privacy of

his own office, just as Ish-bosheth, the puppet king of the �orth, was silenced by his

general, Abner? Whatever the truth of the matter, it is obvious that the king's passion for

peace made no impact on Joab, for he leaves the royal office, fully charged for the task that

he is about to undertake.”

26 Joab then left David and sent messengers after Abner, and

they brought him back from the well of Sirah. But David did

not know it.

1. David had not role in this plot to kill Abner. Joab kept it a secret from him, for he knew

he could not kill Abner with David's permission. Abner had stopped at this well for a rest,

and the messengers were able to catch up to him and bring him back. He, doubtless,

thought it was David calling him back, and so he was deceived.

27 �ow when Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside

into the gateway, as though to speak with him privately. And

there, to avenge the blood of his brother Asahel, Joab

stabbed him in the stomach, and he died.

1. We can understand why Joab hated Abner, for he did kill his brother, but it was in self

defense. His brother was determined to kill him, and would have had Abner not had a

clever way to outwit him. Joab was here killing a man whom he was pretending to accept

into the camp of David for a peaceful talk. Abner was not wise to trust him, but he had just

had a great time with David and felt safe. He put his guard down, and it cost him his life.

2. W. Taylor, “This cold-blooded deed must be branded with the deepest condemnation;

Joab violated what was equivalent to a flag of truce ; and though some may remind us of

the old law of blood-revenge, and affirm that, under the Mosaic institute, Joab, as the next

of kin to Asahel, had a perfect right to do as he did, there are two things which go to bar

this plea; for Asahel was slain in battle, and Hebron was a city of refuge, in which Abner's

life ought to have been respected, until at least he had been tried by the elders. Hence this

act of Joab was not only cruelly treacherous, but also a flagrant violation of the law of God.

David was greatly afflicted by it, and took every means, short of putting Joab to death, to

show that he had no hand whatever in its instigation. He proclaimed a public mourning for

Abner, and went himself to the funeral, making lamentation over him with a song, which

has been here preserved, and mourning yet more deeply for what he calls his own

helplessness, for thus he speaks : " I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these

men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me : the Lord shall reward the doer of evil

according to his wickedness."

But David was weak, not so much because Joab was strong, as because he himself shrank

from doing what he knew to be right in the case. Had he put Joab to death, public opinion

would have sustained him in the execution of justice ; and even if it had not, he would have

had the inward witness that he was doing his duty to the state. For a magistrate to be weak,

is to be wicked. He is set to administer and execute the law without fear or favor; and

whensoever he swerves from justice from either cause, he is a traitor at once to God and to

the commonwealth. " Weak !" this is not to speak like a man, not to say a king. Oh, what

suffering may I not even say what sin ? David might have saved himself from, if he had

only thus early rid himself of the tyrannic and overbearing presence of Joab ! I wonder if in

after-days, when his soul was vexed and chafed by the conduct of his unscrupulous nephew,

David ever thought of his sinful weakness in this moment of emergency. He spared the

serpent, only to be himself stung by it at last.”

3. “Vengeance was on his mind, no doubt. But we cannot believe that a man like Joab was

not, at the same time, eliminating a dangerous rival as the top military man in Israel.”

unknown author Gill also comments, “...but this was not the only reason, and perhaps not

the chief; but, as Josephus observes, because he was fearful if Abner was received into the

friendship of the king, he would be preferred unto him, and take his place as general of the

army, as being an older and more experienced officer; so Procopius Gazaeus, and

Theodoret.”

4. Henry, “He very treacherously sent for Abner back, and, under colour of a private

conference with him, barbarously killed him with his own hand. That he made use of

David's name, under pretense of giving him some further instructions, is intimated in that,

but David knew it not, 2 Samuel 3:26 . Abner, designing no harm, feared none, but very

innocently returned to Hebron, and, when he found Joab waiting for him at the gate,

turned aside with him to speak with him privately, forgetting what he himself had said

when he slew Asahel, How shall I hold up my face to Joab thy brother? (2 Samuel 2:22 ), and

there Joab murdered him (2 Samuel 3:27 ), and it is intimated (2 Samuel 3:30 ) that Abishai

was privy to the design, and was aiding and abetting, and would have come in to his

brother's assistance if there had been occasion; he is therefore charged as an accessary:

Joab and Abishai slew Abner, though perhaps he only knew it who is privy to the thoughts

and intents of men's hearts.”

5. An internet site to answer questions has this to say about vengence: “It is tempting to try

to take on the role of God and seek to punish those who we feel deserve it. But because we

are sinful creatures, it is impossible for us to take revenge with pure motives. This is why

the Mosaic Law contains the command: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one

of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD” (Leviticus. 19:18).

Even David, a “man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), refused to take revenge on

Saul, even though David was the innocent party being wronged. David submitted to God's

command to forego vengeance and trust in Him: “May the LORD judge between you and

me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not

touch you (1 Samuel 24:12).”

28 Later, when David heard about this, he said, "I and my

kingdom are forever innocent before the LORD concerning

the blood of Abner son of �er.

1. David made sure that nobody would blame him for this atrocity, for he made a public

proclamation to the fact that he was innocent of Abner's blood, and declared it before the

Lord. This would be blasphemy if not true, and so David was willing to risk everything to

make his innocence obvious to all.

2. Constable, “Joab murdered Abner in a city of refuge, Hebron, where God had prohibited

the taking of revenge (�um. 35:22-25). Abner may have been too sure of his own

importance in David's eyes to suspect that one of David's officers would dare to attack him.

David was very careful to let everyone know that Abner's murder was Joab's doing and not

his. If it had been David's doing, he would have lost the support of the northern tribes.”

"Rarely in the Old Testament has a narrator gone to such lengths, as has the writer of this

passage, to preserve the good name of one of his characters. In one way and another, he

assures us that neither David's heart nor his hand was set against Abner: Joab acted on his

own account."

3. Spurgeon wrote about the disgrace and shame that a good friend and partner can bring

on a believers name because of their sinful and rash decisions. He wrote, “David was a

great king and a good king, but his character was compromised by the conduct of Joab,

who had been one of his chief friends and supporters. Abner came to David, in Hebron, and

proposed terms of peace which David accepted. But Joab could not bear that Abner should

be his rival and, therefore, he most treacherously murdered him. This abominable act was

greatly to the detriment of David’s character—he could not prevent the crime, certainly he

had not instigated it—and yet it was only natural that all the people would suppose that

David had a hand in it because Joab was not merely one of his subjects, but his prime

minister!

Dear Friends, in a similar way, the character of our great Lord and King among the sons of

men is very much in the hands of His people, especially in the hands of those who are more

prominent than others, and whom He uses in His service more than others. We may go and

do, on our own account, things that shall bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ our

Lord and King! He will have no part nor lot in them, nothing that He has taught will

suggest them, and nothing that He desires will urge us, thus, to act. We may, however, of

our own free will, even those of us whom the Lord uses most, bring grievous dishonor on

His holy name. Jesus has often to lift up His pierced hands and when we ask Him, “What

are these wounds in Your hands?” He has to answer, “Those with which I was wounded in

the house of My friends.” It is evident to each one of you that all the vile insults of infidels

could never dishonor Christ as the inconsistencies of His own disciples! �o slur ever

comparatively attaches to the glorious name of the Well-Beloved from His avowed enemies,

let them slander Him as they may. But a blot does fall upon His sacred name through the

inconsistencies and follies of those who call themselves His disciples, but who are not truly

His followers, or, being so, are not careful to walk consistently with their profession!

�ow, it is to the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ that His cause and His Character survive

all the follies and all the sins of His professed people. There was an eminent minister who

once said that Christianity must be true since it survived pulpits. And another one added

that he felt more sure of its being true because it survived ministers, for, taking them all

round, they were more likely to destroy than to build up the cause of Christ! These things

were said only in semi-earnest, but there is a great deal of serious truth about them. The

cause of Christ must be true because the Master has survived His disciples! His wisdom has

not been eclipsed by our folly. His power has not been lessened by our weakness. The glory

of His holiness has not been beclouded by the unholiness of His people. The sun has risen in

spite of the many clouds. The morning has come notwithstanding the mists of the night.

Blessed King, You conquer with the poorest soldiers that ever fought a battle and You get to

Yourself the greater, rather than the less renown, because Your victories are won by such

poor followers!”

29 May his blood fall upon the head of Joab and upon all his

father's house! May Joab's house never be without someone

who has a running sore or leprosy or who leans on a crutch

or who falls by the sword or who lacks food."

1. This is as strong as language can be in cursing Joab for this hideous murder. David is

praying that Joab and all his family be plagued by disease, and that they have handicapped

people in their family forever. Also, he wants that family to have people perishing in battle,

and others who have to live in poverty with meager food on which to live. It is a terrible

curse, and it makes clear that David is extremely hateful of this crime. Some interpret the

leaning on a crutch to mean getting old, and others say it refers to a spindle and means for

men in his line to be wimps who can only do a woman's work at the spindle, and so no more

great generals are to come from his line.

2. Roger Christopherson, “This is a seven fold curse that David is putting on the family of

Joab for murdering Abner. "One that has issue" is having children, the curse of Joab was

that no more children would be born within that family. Some member of that family

would become a leper, and "to lean on the staff" was to "grow old". The curse stated that

the family members would not live to see an old age, while the last part of the curse was

that they would starve. This is quite a curse to place on the entire family of Joab, because of

his murder of Abner, a good man. This curse was on the house of his own nephew, the son

of his sister and her husband.”

David knew that this act happened in his land, and that he was in a way responsible for

bringing Abner to Hebron in the first place. This then was a memorial to Abner who fell at

the hands of some very cruel and wicked hands. The killers were his own sister's sons, yet

David was the rightful ruler under God, and he had to pass this hard sentence on his own

nephews. It was his sisters family that this sentence would fall on. It was not a happy day

for David in any matter.” Doing this had to be hard for David, but he had to make it clear

that he was truly sad for the loss of this man who was loved by the people of Israel, and

such a curse as this on his own family would be clear proof of his sincerity.

3. Grant, “ He does virtually ask for the intervention of God in discipline to Joab and to his

family, that they might suffer as a consequence of this. But did David forget that he was

king, and responsible to carry out some judgment against Joab? Joab had actually been

guilty of cold-blooded, premeditated murder, and for this he deserved the death penalty.

David very soon after ordered the death of the two men who murdered Ish-bosheth

(ch.4:10-12). The murder of Abner was just as serious, but evidently because Joab was

captain of his army, David made a difference. There is no word of David even speaking

directly to Joab about this, let alone exercising more serious discipline. In this the weakness

of David's kingdom is evident from the beginning.”

4.Henry, “Let his posterity be stigmatized, blemished with an issue or a leprosy, which will

shut them out from society; let them be beggars, or cripples, or come to some untimely end,

that it may be said, He is one of Joab's race." This intimates that the guilt of blood brings a

curse upon families; if men do not avenge it, God will, and will lay up the iniquity for the

children. But methinks a resolute punishment of the murderer himself would better have

become David than this passionate imprecation of God's judgments upon his posterity.

4. Gill, “or that leaneth on a staff; being blind, as Aquila renders the word; or through

weakness of body, not being able to walk without one; or through some disease of the feet,

as the Jewish writers generally understand it; and R. Isaiah interprets it of the gout

particularly: the word for "staff" is rendered "spindle", (Proverbs 31:19) ; and to this sense

it is rendered here in, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and then the meaning

is, let his posterity, or some of them, be so poor, that they shall be obliged to get their

livelihood in so mean a way as by spinning; or let them be of such an effeminate disposition,

as be more fit to handle the spindle, and do the, work of women, than to use the sword:”

30 (Joab and his brother Abishai murdered Abner because he

had killed their brother Asahel in the battle at Gibeon.) 1. Their motive was revenge for Abner killing their brother, but the fact is, it was not

murder when Abner killed their brother. It was self defense in battle, but here it was pure

cold blooded murder in a time of peace. Had Abner murdered their brother they did have a

right to kill him in revenge, for that was a part of the kinsman redeemer laws of Israel, but

he had not been murdered. We see here the importance of distinguishing between killing

and murdering. It is a world of difference, and not making that distinction led these

brother to do a great evil.

31 Then David said to Joab and all the people with him,

"Tear your clothes and put on sackcloth and walk in

mourning in front of Abner." King David himself walked

behind the bier.

1. Pink, "The generosity of his nature shines out again in his indignation at Joab’s murder

of Abner, though he was too meek to avenge it. There is no more beautiful picture in his life

than that of his following the bier where lay the bloody corpse of the man who had been his

enemy ever since he had known him, and sealing the reconciliation which Death even

makes in noble souls, by the pathetic dirge he chanted over Abner’s grave (3:31). We have a

glimpse of his people’s unbounded confidence in him, given incidentally when we are told

that his sorrow pleased them, ‘as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people’ (3:36). We

have a glimpse of the feebleness of his new monarchy as against the fierce soldier who had

done so much to make it, in his acknowledgment that he was yet weak (3:39)" (Alexander

Maclaren).

2. Constable quotes another author, “Why did David not execute or at least punish Joab?

The writer did not record the answer. However, we notice that David was characteristically

too slow to discipline members of his own family when they deserved it (cf. Ammon,

Absalom, et al.). Some interpreters of the Hebrew text believe what David wished on Joab's

descendants was that they would continually experience diseases, violent death, and

poverty.38 This is what God promised to bring on those of His people who despised His will

(cf. Deut. 21:1-9).39 "We need not doubt David's genuine respect for Abner, but the funeral

is also a media event. It is like a U.S. president with the returned body of a soldier from an

unauthorized war. The president must lead national mourning, which is genuine, but at the

same time must stage a media event designed to legitimate policy."

3. It had to be torture for Joab to walk in the funeral procession of the man he murdered.

He was despised by the people for this crime of passion, and now he has to walk in front of

all whom he has offended by his evil act. It was hard for David as well. Spurgeon gives us

this comment, “a most dastardly and treacherous murder! David had nothing to do with it;

he did his best to exonerate himself from it, and pronounced an awful curse upon Joab the

murderer, and upon all his posterity. He had not, however, the manly courage to summon

Joab to the bar as a murderer. David was afraid of him; the man had all the army at his

back: and instead of being, as in his youthful days, fearless of man, David became for

awhile a time-server, and permitted the guilty to escape. He prepared a glorious funeral for

Abner, and made Joab himself walk as mourner in the train, accompanied by his king, who

sang a poetic and mournful dirge over the bleeding corpse. Then said David to his courtiers

and friends, “I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah

be too hard for me. The men who have been my bravest comrades, and stood by me in the

darkest hour, have been too hard for me; they have compelled me to submit to an action

which my soul detests; they are criminals whom I cannot punish. The sons of Zeruiah be

too hard for me.”

32 They buried Abner in Hebron, and the king wept aloud at

Abner's tomb. All the people wept also.

1. Abner was both a good man and a bad man. He had mixed motives when he was good,

and selfishness was always a key factor in his agenda, but he had become a friend of David,

and was ready to give him full support and loyalty. David was deeply touched by him, and

truly felt deep sorrow at his untimely death. It was not a silent weeping, but an out loud

weeping for all to hear, and the people joined in and wept with him.

2. Henry, “David himself followed the corpse as chief mourner, and made a funeral oration

at the grave. He attended the bier (2 Samuel 3:31 ) and wept at the grave, 2 Samuel 3:32 .

Though Abner had been his enemy, and might possibly have proved no very firm friend,

yet because he had been a man of bravery in the field, and might have done great service in

the public counsels at this critical juncture, all former quarrels are forgotten and David is a

true mourner for his fall. What he said over the grave fetched fresh floods of tears from the

eyes of all that were present..”

33 The king sang this lament for Abner:

"Should Abner have died as the lawless die?

1. He died without honor, but was stabbed in surprise while trusting his murderer to be his

friend. He died like a lawless man shot down without a chance of defending himself. In

Western movies the bad guy usually even gets the first shot in a gun fight, but Abner never

had a chance. It was not a fight at all, but a cruel surprise.

34 Your hands were not bound,

your feet were not fettered.

You fell as one falls before wicked men."

And all the people wept over him again.

1. David is saying you were not bound and fettered like a criminal sentenced to die by legal

authority before godly justice loving people, but you were murdered like one who has been

killed by outlaws who care not for whom they murder as long as they get their way. This is

another clear slam at the evil of Joab, for he is portrayed as the outlaw who killed him in

cold blood. This was the sad aspect of his death that made the people weep, for it was such

a senseless death.

2. Gill, “...as a man being before bloodthirsty and deceitful men, falls before them, through

treachery and deceit, privately and unawares, so fell Abner before Joab and Abishai; this

David said in the presence of Joab, and before all the people, to declare the plain fact how it

was, to express his detestation of it, and to show he had no hand in it; and Joab must be an

hardened creature to stand at the grave of Abner, and hear all this, and not be affected with

it:”

35 Then they all came and urged David to eat something

while it was still day; but David took an oath, saying, "May

God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I taste bread or

anything else before the sun sets!"

1. This act of fasting made it clear that he was truly sad over the loss of Abner.

36 All the people took note and were pleased; indeed,

everything the king did pleased them.

1. People noted the deep sorrow of David, and they were convinced that he was truly sorry

for the folly of one of his men doing such a dastardly deed. Everything David did he did

right to win the approval of the people who might have turned on him had he had an

attitude of pride and satisfaction at the clever murder of this great leader in Israel.

37 So on that day all the people and all Israel knew that the

king had no part in the murder of Abner son of �er.

1. Rossier, “What gains the heart of Israel is the king's indignation against this evil, his

distress about a crime which had dishonored the character of the Lord and of His anointed.

David's humiliation, his fasting, his public mourning in the presence of all the people —

this is what wins over Israel. “And all the people and all Israel understood that day that it

was not of the king to put Abner the son of �er to death”

38 Then the king said to his men, "Do you not realize that a

prince and a great man has fallen in Israel this day?

1. David gives the highest praise possible to this man who has been murdered. He was

working toward peace and unity between Israel and Judah. He was the power to bring the

feud to an end, and David had deep appreciation for him even though he was also the

power that kept him from being the king of Israel for years.

39 And today, though I am the anointed king, I am weak, and

these sons of Zeruiah are too strong for me. May the LORD

repay the evildoer according to his evil deeds!"

1. Zeruiah was David's sister, and these two sons of her's were not under David's control.

He could not keep them in line, and do what was best for his kingdom. They had minds and

emotions that were independent of David's, and the result was they did what damaged his

image and purpose. He had to wipe his hands of them and leave them in the hands of God

to judge them for their folly and wickedness. David acknowledges that he is weak and

cannot control all those who are a part of his government. Every leader, including the

president of the United States feels this way, for there are always men or women in their

administration who go off and do deeds of folly and bring scandal to their house. They

must confess they are weak and cannot control everything that goes on under their

leadership. Humans are all limited in how they can control the acts of other humans. Free

will is the burden of leaders just as it is the burden of God, for he has given man the

freedom to say no to God's revealed will and go his way to do what is evil and folly. It was

the weakness of Jesus when he wept over Jerusalem and said “I would, but you would not.”

1B. Brian Morgan, “Following David's assessment of Abner, we get one of those rare but

coveted glimpses into the heart of the king, as David gives his assessment of himself. It is

one of pained resignation: "And as for me, this day I am weak, thought anointed king. And

these men the sons of Zeruiah are too difficult for me!" What an admission from the head

of state! The word "weak" is better translated "soft, delicate, tender"--a perfect

counterpoint to "hard," the attribute of the sons of Zeruiah. David is saying, "Here I am,

the anointed king of all Israel, but when it comes to these tough family members, I am

soft." "He now expresses the gap between his inner world, feelings of vulnerability and the

very beginning of his divinely-willed kingship on the one hand and the harsh demands of

politics and military matters...on the other. The innocence of the individual disappears into

this gap."[6] David did not have a thick skin.

Unable to carry out the rebuke of Joab directly, David falls back on divine retribution,

invoking God's personal name to take the appropriate action. The word repay (shalem) is

well chosen, and rounds out our story. It is same root as the word peace (shalom), used

three times in the opening verses of the account. Shalem means "to repay, bring to a

completion." Since Abner left David's presence in peace (shalom), but was betrayed, may

God repay (shalem) the evildoer completely, is David's rebuke.”

2. “David cannot deal with Joab as he deserves, but leaves the judgment to God. Given that

David summarily executes the assassins of Ish-Bosheth in the next chapter - men he had

much less reason to fear, of course - , it is hard to believe that this failure to deal with Joab

is not some indication of a weakness on David's part. �ot an uncharacteristic weakness of

leaders, by the way: a refusal to stand up to their important supporters and assistants.

Joab's deeds will eventually catch up with him. Remember, before his death, David

instructs his son Solomon to punish Joab and Solomon had him executed. 1 Kings 2:5-6, 28-

35. What Joab thought about all of this we are left to wonder.” unknown author

2B. Gill, “..his sister's sons, Joab and Abishai, they were a check upon him; he could not do

what he would, their influence was so great, both in the court and in the camp; the one was

general of the army, and the other a considerable officer in it, and both variant men, and

very respectable among the people, for their achievements in war, and the success they had;

so that they were very much out of the reach of David to bring them to justice, without

shaking his kingdom; and therefore in point of prudence he thought it best to connive at

this fact until he was more established in the kingdom. Whatever may be said for this

conduct, it is certain he was too dilatory, and which did not sit easy upon his mind, and

therefore gave it in charge to Solomon before his death not to suffer Joab to go to his grave

in peace, (1 Kings 2:5,6,31-34 ).”

3. Rossier, “Alas, even with power in his hands what could he have done against these

“wicked men?” God alone could have worked for good. The sons of Zeruiah were too hard

for David (v. 39). He himself recognized his weakness as it became manifest at that time.

How we can empathize with David when he says: “I am this day weak, though anointed

king!” (v. 39). That which is taking place touches his heart as a serious form of discipline.

Yes, you were weak indeed, beloved servant of the Lord, despite your anointing, but do not

fear; God will be your strength and your safeguard in weakness, and your feet will be kept

from falling if you seek your strength in communion with Him. Such is the case for us too.

Two inseparable things are our safeguard: the realization of our weakness, joined with

dependence on God and His Word. In this chapter David began by using his power and,

acting on his own initiative, he did not consult the Lord. The events overwhelming him lead

him to become aware of his incapability, but now once again he will be swift to learn the

dependence which he had so quickly forgotten.”

4. Spurgeon jumps on this combination of being anointed king, and yet being weak. He sees

this as a common condition of children of God. He wrote, “...it is quite possible that he may

be groaning out, “I am weak;” for weakness and Divine Anointing may stand together. You

may be the object of God’s grandest purposes; and yet in yourself, you may be the meanest

of men. “God may yet intend to accomplish by you the greatest marvels, and it may be

needful that, as a prelude to these wonders, you who are God’s anointed should be

compelled to feel very deeply your utter weakness.

God’s children are often very weak in faith: they stagger at the promise through unbelief. It

is not always in their power to “set to their seal that God is true.” They always have the seal

of God on them, but they cannot always set their seal to God’s promise. There are times

when the strength of the flesh through sin has overcome the powers of the soul, — when we

can get no further than to cry, “I would, but I cannot believe, I do not doubt his love to his

people, but it is a grave question with me, whether I am one of his people at all.” Christians

have ebbs of faith as well as floods; they have winters as well as summers, they have times

of drought, and years of famine. Sometimes they are diminished and brought low through

oppression, affliction and sorrow; the eye of their faith grows dim, and the light of God’s

countenance being withdrawn from them, it is a woeful day for them, and they sigh, and

cry, and groan, and scarce can call their lives their own. “Oh!” cries one, “that is my

condition, but I thought I could not be a child of God, for I said, ’If it be so, why am I

thus?’” Oh! this is a common failing with the Lord’s people. Think not that thy name is cut

out of the register because of the weakness of thy faith; for there be many in heaven whose

names on earth were Little-Faith, and Ready-to-Halt, and Despondency, and Much-Afraid.

You may be an anointed king, and yet exceedingly weak in your faith.”

5. Then Spurgeon put his focus on the weakness of David and wrote, “Let us remark that

David was weak only in the flesh, and that the Christian truly is only weak there. Why was

David weak? “Because,” said he, “the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me. I cannot subdue

them; I cannot keep them under; I cannot manage any kingdom whilst such turbulent

spirits as these interfere and intermeddle with everything.” Ah! David, and didst thou not

know this before? How different is this from thy language when thou wast but a lad! Did

not the Philistine say to thee, “Come to me, and I will give thy flesh to the fowls of heaven;”

didst thou know thyself to be weak then? And yet thou saidst, “Thou comest to me with a

sword and with a spear, but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the

armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied” Ah! what a fall is there. David! oughtest thou not

now to have said the same? “ Joab, I come to thee in the name of the Lord God of hosts,

and though all the hosts of Israel are at thy beck and command; I will do equal justice to

strong and weak, and thy murderous spirit shall die, and suffer because of what thou hast

done in this my kingdom.” Oh, that David’s virgin-throne should have been stained with

the unavenged blood of a murdered man! Here was want of faith, you see. David had as

strong a God as ever; but he was weak in the flesh; and that, my brethren, blessed be God,

is the only weakness a Christian can know. We are never weak in our God, we are always

weak in ourselves. Whenever you are in the midst of a difficulty, and you sit down and say,

“I cannot do this,” who ever thought you could? You ought to have known that you could

do nothing. But if your difficulty be never so severe, and your position never so trying, is

the everlasting arm too weak for your defense? Is the eternal eye unable to see through the

difficulty? Or has eternal love failed you? “Oh, but I am so weak!” Of course thou art, and

the weaker thou art the better. But Jehovah is not weak; the Eternal One fainteth not,

neither is he weary; there is no searching of his understanding. David was weak, because he

lived by sight; if he had lived as in the days of his youth, by faith in the covenant God who

had anointed him, he never would have complained of weakness, but would have done his

duty, even should heaven itself totter about his ears.”

6. W. Taylor has a long but valuable comment on this occasion of David's anointing which is

not given much detail here, but is spelled out in more detail in I Chron. 12. He wrote, “The

circumstances connected with his coronation are too remarkable to be passed lightly by.

The assembly was not one of the elders of Israel alone, though they appear to have been the

spokesmen on the occasion, but it was virtually an aggregate gathering of the nation. The

particular numbers present from each tribe are given in the book of Chronicles (i Chron.

xii., 23-40), from which we learn that Judah, Simeon, Levi, Benjamin, and in fact all the

tribes, were present in force, with the single exception of Issachar, which sent only two

hundred men ; but they made up in influence for their smallness in number ; for they are

described as " men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do."

The entire number present was two hundred and eighty thousand ; and it is most

important that we should observe the ground on which they rest their choice of David, the

ceremony that was observed in connection with his coronation, and the rejoicings that were

made over it. " Behold," they say, " we are thy bone and thy flesh." He was no alien who

had come across some narrow ocean channel, or some lofty mountain chain, to conquer

them for himself; "Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest

out and broughtest in Israel."

They had not forgotten the day when he overthrew the giant in the Valley of Elah, nor had

they lost sight of the fact that the only really brilliant portion of Saul's reign was that in

which David was by his side. They added, " and the Lord said to thee, ' thou shalt feed my

people Israel, and thou shalt be captain over Israel.' " But why should they thus refer to

God's choice of David ? I answer, for two reasons. First : because, although they had

known all along that David had been fore-appointed to the throne, they had yet been strug-

gling against that arrangement; and so, it was fitting now that they should express their

repentance, and declare their readiness to receive him in God's name, and as from God's

hand. Second : because they wished to remind him and them- selves that the real king of

their nation was Jehovah, and that he and they alike were under allegiance to him. This

reference to the will of the Lord, too, will enable us to understand what is meant when it is

said that " King David made a league with them in Hebron, before the Lord." He pledged

himself, both to the people and to God, to rule in accordance with the principles which had

already been laid down by Jehovah for the administration of the national affairs. It is a

mistake, therefore, to suppose that the Jewish monarchy was an absolute and

unconstitutional one. On the contrary, there were in it the highest securities on the one

hand, for the liberties of the people; and on the other, for the prerogative of the king. They

chose him, it is true, but they also pledged themselves to obey him so long as he ruled in

accordance with the divine law. He was their ruler, but his authority was recognized only in

so far as it was confirmed and regulated by the divine statute-book. Thus both he and they

recognized God as the real sovereign of the nation ; and so long, at least, as David sat on the

throne, the theocracy was a reality, and not a mere name.

In this, indeed, as we have more than once observed, we have one great fundamental

difference between the administration of Saul and that of David. Saul accepted the

monarchy, designing to make it as absolute and autocratic as that of other kings ; but

David counted himself only an under-shepherd, and desired to regulate his conduct as a

ruler by the commands of God. The perception of this feature in his character gave the

people great confidence in him, and formed, we may be sure, one reason for their joy on

this memorable occasion; for, as soon as the anointing was over, they began a feast which

lasted for three days, and which is thus described by the sacred historian : " There they

were with David three days, eating and drinking : for their brethren had prepared for

them. Moreover, they that were nigh them, even unto Issachar and Zebulon and �aphtali,

brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, and meat, meal, cakes

of figs, and bunches of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and sheep abundantly : for

there was joy in Israel."* �or are we to suppose that this joy was only a social thing. It had

a religious element in it also; and it was probably on this occasion, when Levites and

priests, together with the princes of the tribes, and the men of war from every quarter were

assembled once more under one ruler in whom they all had confidence, that the Psalmist

composed and sang that song of degrees which is so familiar to us all: "Behold, how good

and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity ! It is like the precious

ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard : that went

down to the skirts of his garments ; as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended

upon the mountains of Zion : for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for

evermore." * i Chron. xii., 39, 40. t Psa. cxxxiii.

APPE�DIX A

POLYGAMY I� O.T.

There is no question that polygamy was forbidden in the �ew 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 �ew 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." �ot 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, �ow 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, �athan, Solomon, 15 Ibhar, Elishua, �epheg, 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." �evertheless, 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. �ever 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"

�ot 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 �athan 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 �ow,

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 �ew 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 �ew 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 �ew. 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."