2 Samuel Chapters 1,2,3,4,5 Commentary

Second Samuel Chapters 1-5 “The book of 2 Samuel divides itself naturally in two sections: David’s rule over Judah (1:1-4:12) and, David’s rule over all Israel (5:1-24:25). Some commentators have found it advantageous to divide the book on its spiritual content rather than historical. In this case the book would be divided as follows: David’s triumphs (1:1-12:31) and, David’s troubles (13:124:25). The book of 2 Samuel begins much as the book of 1 Samuel ends, on a note of sadness. The death of Saul was a tragic turn of events for the people of Israel. Their aspirations, hopes, and futures appeared to have been crushed through the humiliating defeat of the Israelite armies at Mount Gilboa. It was in such tragic circumstances that Israel’s new champion made his appearance. The task of saving Israel from total destruction was one of great difficulty and complicated by many pressures” (Davis p. 111).

Chapter 1 1:1-4 David was still in the town of Ziklag when he received word of Saul’s death, and this news did not reach David until the third day of his return from Ziklag, after defeating the Amalekites (1 Samuel 30:1-25). 1:6-10 Many suspect that the Amalekite who brought this information to David was a mercenary soldier who had joined Saul’s forces. One question here is how do we harmonize the account given by this Amalekite with the information recorded in 1 Samuel 31:1-6? One possibility is that Saul attempted suicide but failed, and the Amalekite simply finished him off.

Others think that the story given by this Amalekite is a fabrication, and that he is seeking some sort of recognition and reward from David. “As a mercenary solider (or battlefield looter) he came across Saul’s body and took Saul’s crown and bracelet (1:10) to substantiate his story and thus ingratiate himself to David” (Laney p. 87). “The ironies of this event are not lost on the reader. Saul had lost his kingship because he had failed to kill an Amalekite king (1 Samuel 15:9,26); now an Amalekite that Saul had failed to eliminate would kill this Israelite king” (Bergen p. 287). The writer of 2 Samuel gives no indication that David questioned the truthfulness of the Amalekite’s account; on the contrary, he acted on the assumption that the words were true. In addition, the Amalekite’s description of Saul with his spear seems to be that of any eyewitness. “This narrative

1

account not only provides interesting historical data but also clears David of any suspicions that may have been aroused by his possession of Saul’s royal jewelry. David acquired them not by participating in the battle against Saul but by executing Saul’s killer” (Bergen p. 289).

1:11-12 Saul’s death meant freedom for David, yet instead of gloating over the demise of his enemy, David lamented the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, and the men of Israel. “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls” (Proverbs 24:17). 1:13-16 The sentence upon this Amalekite may seem harsh to our Western culture. Our culture claims to be “sensitive”, but I would argue that our culture is very insensitive, especially when it comes to evil. “David’s motive is a concept that needs to be recovered---a respect for those whom God anoints. This means leaving judgment (vengeance) with God. It means having respect for an office even when the office-holder may not act respectfully. It means trusting God with His plan for your life and not feeling that we need to take things into our own hands” (Williams pp. 240-241). Compare with 1 Peter 2:17.

1:17-18 The “song of the bow” is evidently the ballad that follows (19-27), this song was also recorded in the book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13). Once again we learn that there are no “lost books of the Bible”. The information that is recorded in the Bible was also recorded in other documents. 1:1920 “Though the fact of Saul’s death must have been delightful to the Philistines, David issued a poetic warning to the returning Philistine soldiers whom David must have observed passing by Ziklag on their way to nearby Philistine settlements: ‘Tell it not in Gath’” (Bergen p. 291). “At the heart of the poem was the wish that the joy of the Philistines in their victory would be short-lived” (Williams p. 243). 1:21-22 David called for the mountains of Gilboa to be denied life-giving dew and rain because it was on them that the blood of Saul had been shed. Both an anointed man and an anointed shield fell on Gilboa, and the mountain would never be the same again. Saul’s shield is pictured as lying upon the mountain, no longer polished and ready to be worn in action, but cast aside as worthless. Verse 22 emphasizes the bravery, determination, and ability of Saul and Jonathan. They had fought bravely to the end and took a number of Philistines with them.

1:23-24 From verse 24 it appears that Saul had succeeded in bringing a degree of prosperity to the nation. The wars of Saul were many times successful and, in fact, enriched the nation of Israel. In spite of his love for David, Jonathan was at his father’s side on the field of battle. 1:25-27 It is clearly a misuse of Scripture to claim that David is describing a homosexual relationship here (1 Corinthians 6:9), yet it does reveal the power of a true friendship and sadly, though David was married to a 2

number of women, he was never able to find such a friendship in marriage. Jonathan’s untimely death definitely left a gaping hole in David’s soul.

Chapter 2 2:1 “With the death of Saul, it would seem a perfectly natural thing for David to go immediately to Judah and Israel in an attempt to occupy the throne for which he had been anointed by Samuel. But such was not the spiritual character of David. He recognized that the throne of Israel came only by divine right and only in accordance to God’s will” (Davis p. 115).

If David were alive today on this earth, he would be the type of person who searches the Word of God, and who doesn’t place any confidence in his own feelings (Acts 17:11). “David did not want to make a move toward the throne unless God was in the move. Many of us fail to understand that the distance is often great between the time God puts a dream in our heart about our life and the fulfillment of that dream. We have lived too long with the ‘instant’ culture, where time is short-circuited.

Just as we enjoy instant potatoes and instant coffee, we also want instant character, instant maturity, and instant fulfillment. David’s experience is a reminder that there is no short-cut from where God meets us with a plan for our life and the fulfilling of that plan” (Williams p. 247).

2:2-4 The city of Hebron was located approximately twenty miles south of Jerusalem and between fifteen or twenty miles away from the town of Ziklag. The city was well protected being in the mountains. All of his men and their families relocated in the villages around Hebron. The tribal leaders then came to Hebron and anointed David king over the house of Judah. 2:4-7 Upon hearing of the kindness which the men of Jabeshgilead had bestowed upon the body of Saul, David sincerely praised them for their loyalty. In addition, to the men of this city, David claimed to be Saul’s legitimate successor. “With Saul dead and David anointed king over Judah, David invites the Jabeshites to enter into a mutual defense treaty with him” (Gaebelein p. 821). 2:8-11 Yet Abner, Saul’s general had a different idea. He took the remaining son of Saul, “Ishbosheth” (ihsh BOE sheth), and installed him as the new king of Israel in the city of “Mahanaim” (may huh NAY im). This was an ancient city in Gilead, east of the Jordan River in the vicinity of the River Jabbok. The selection of this city as the new capital in Israel demonstrates how much of the land west of the Jordan was presently under Philistine occupation. Ish-bosheth ruled over the territory east of the Jordan, “the Ashurites” (i.e., probably a reference to the tribal territory of Asher), Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin and all Israel. The tribe of Judah remained loyal to David. Hebron remained

3

David’s royal city for “seven years and six months” (2:11), apparently this was the amount of time it took for David to gain undisputed control of all Israel as well as to conquer Jerusalem.

In Second Samuel we encounter a tremendous amount of needless bloodshed because certain men were determined to have their own way instead of submitting to God’s plan.

2:12-16 Once Ish-bosheth had been declared king of the northern kingdom, it was only a matter of time before a military confrontation would occur between the two kingdoms. This took place at a little town approximately eight miles northwest of Jerusalem. The ancient site of Gibeon has been excavated, and a large pool, measuring 37 feet in diameter and 35 feet deep has been found at this site. “Initially, a standoff resulted at the pool as Joab refused to allow Saul’s forces to advance further” (Bergen p. 303). Evidently Joab (David’s general), had heard of Abner’s troop movements and had traveled some 23 miles from Hebron to meet them. “The impasse was finally broken as Abner challenged Joab to have their forces engage in a deadly contest involving hand to hand fighting. The contest ended almost as quickly as it had begun, without the aid of bows, spears, lances, or slings, each soldier could rely only on his hands and sword” (Bergen p. 303). This spot was hereafter named, “Helkath-hazzurim” (HEL kath hah ZUR im), or the field of sword-edges.

2:17 Evidently this contest quickly broke out into an all-out battle between both armies. 2:18-23 Joab had two brothers, “Abishai” (ah BISH a eye), and “Asahel” (AS ah hell). Remember, all three brothers are the sons of David’s half-sister. An incident occurred in the battle of Gibeon which was to have serious repercussion. During the battle, Asahel set his sights on Abner. He determined to chase down the old general and kill him.

“As he scampered up and down the rough hill of Benjamin, Abner spotted the young soldier bearing down on him. Twice Abner warned Asahel to turn aside lest he be killed. Abner knew that if he killed this young warrior Joab would never forgive him. Asahel, however, refused to be deterred.

As he closed in on Abner, the wily old general abruptly stopped and thrust backward with the butt of his spear. Asahel was struck with such force that the butt of the spear ripped through his belly and exited his back.

Asahel died on the spot” (Smith pp. 328-329).

2:24-26 At the end of the day, Abner was able to rally his troops and occupied a strategic location, somewhere in the wasteland east of Gibeon. Just as Abner had earlier proposed that hostilities begin (14), so also---doubtless sensing the hopelessness of the situation—he now 4

proposes that they cease. Abner’s words, “Shall the sword devour forever?”, sounds good, but they have a hallow ring, especially in light of the fact that he was the one who had suggested the fight in the first place, and he was also the one who had installed a king to compete with David. Abner appears to be the type of person who cries out for unity and that “we be brethren”, only when it is to his advantage. 2:27-28 Some view Joab as telling Abner, “if you hadn’t suggested that we fight, this battle would have never started”. 2:29-32 Under cover of darkness, Abner quickly gets his army out of that area and makes an all night march back to headquarters. This battle had clearly been a victory for David and his men.

Chapter 3 3:1 The previous battle was only one of many, and consistently David’s army was winning these confrontations. 3:2-5 Here we are given a description of David’s family. While at Hebron, the following children were born to David, “Amnon” (AM nun); “Chilead” (KIL ih ab); “Absalom”, “Adonijah” (add oh NYE juh); “Shephatiah” (shef uh TIGH uh); and “Ithream” (ITH ree uhm). We also learn here that David had married some additional women while he was at Hebron, and one of them was a foreign princess (3:3). For a king to have many wives was typical among the nations, and yet God expected something different from the kings which ruled His people (Deuteronomy 17:17). In addition, David should have known better than using a marriage as a tool for forming an alliance with a foreign power. God’s people did not need such alliances (Exodus 23:32; 34:12; Deut. 7:12). The reader should be impressed that in having so many wives and sons, David was in a sense unable to raise any them to be his successor. Three of the sons mentioned in the above verse would turn out to be bad apples (Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah). Human wisdom said that a king needed many potential heirs, and God’s wisdom said that the king needed one godly heir. The city of “Geshur” (GEH sure), was the center for a small Aramean kingdom on the eastern slopes of Mount Hermon, situated north of Bashan and south of Syria.

3:6-11 The real power behind Ish-bosheth’s kingdom, was Abner.

“However, Abner’s motives for supporting the dynastic claims of this younger member of his clan may have been less than selfless. Perhaps Abner saw in Ish-bosheth a person who could be manipulated and otherwise controlled. Whether or not Abner was actively plotting to claim the throne of Israel, Ish-bosheth believed he was and set about identifying ‘evidence’ to prove it. The son of Saul concluded that his older relative had had sexual contact with ‘Rizpah’ (RIZ puh), a concubine in Saul’s

5

harem. This act, if it had actually occurred, would mean that Abner was exercising a privilege reserved for the king and thus was using that action to proclaim himself king (cf. 2 Samuel 16:21-22)” (Bergen p. 307). “Abner does not deny the charges but refutes Ish-bosheth’s veiled suggested that the affair with Rizpah was politically motivated. He questions, ‘Am I a dog’s head that belongs to Judah?’ That is, ‘Am I a contemptible traitor?’” (Laney p. 91). In a fit of anger, Abner vows to transfer the kingdom of Saul to David. Verse 11 makes it clear that Ish-bosheth was a very weak ruler.

3:12-13 Abner immediately started to negotiate with David, and David agrees to terms of peace, only if his wife Michal is returned to him. 3:14-16 Michal returns to David, despite protests from her second husband, “Paltiel” (PAL tih uhl). While we might be tempted to feel sorry for Paltiel, we need to remember that Michal was David’s rightful wife, since he had betrothed her by paying the price of a hundred Philistine foreskins. In addition, since David had never divorced Michal, her relationship with Paltiel was technically an adulterous one. “Thus David’s demand to have Michal returned amounted to an act designed to restore a state of righteousness in the land” (Bergen p. 309). In addition, by having Michal (Saul’s daughter) back, David was reestablishing the marital link between himself and the house of Saul. “David was legally repositioning himself back into the house of Saul. Thus, he was legitimizing his claim to being qualified to rule over territories once ruled by Saul” (Bergen p. 309). Ishbosheth, who is portrayed throughout chapters 2-3 as a weak and passive figure, did not resist David’s demand, perhaps in part because he recognized the sinfulness of his father’s actions in separating Michal from David (1 Samuel 25:44).

3:17-21 Abner becomes a very skilled spokesman for David. Immediately he starts meeting with the elders from the various tribes. Remember, it was the tribal elders who had demanded the creation of an Israelite monarchy in the first place (1 Samuel 8:4-5). In addition, who better qualified to rule Israel and engage the Philistines in battle than, “David who has killed his ten thousands”? (17) Besides, David’s was God’s choice for king (18). After he had secured support of the other tribes, Abner approached the tribe of Benjamin. This tribe was the base of Saul’s support. Abner with a twenty-man honor guard came to David at Hebron and welcomed him with open arms. Abner promised to bring the entire nation to David (21), and he was sent away with David’s blessing.

3:22-27 But Joab was suspicious of Abner, and without David’s knowledge, lured Abner into a trap and killed him. However, no approval of this evil deed is implied. Hebron was a city of refuge (Joshua 20:7) and 6

not even a blood avenger could slay a murderer there without a trial (Numbers 35:10-28). Joab’s motivation may have been twofold, first, he killed Abner because Abner had killed his brother in self-defense (3:30) Secondly, Joab did not want a high-ranking officer from Saul’s army threatening his position as commander of David’s troops.

3:28-39 David immediately distances himself from the above treachery and the curse he called down upon Joab and his family, and how he responded to the death of Abner, made it clear to all the people that David had not conspired to have Abner killed. “It indicated that it was not David’s desire to secure a kingdom by means of intrigue or murder” (Davis p. 124). “On his deathbed David would later cite Joab’s murder of Abner as one of two reasons for ordering his general’s execution” (1 Kings 2:5-6)” (Bergen p. 313). In this text we also learn that Joab had not acted alone, his brother Abishai had assisted him. David calls Joab and his brother in this context, “wicked” men (34). “David also contrasted his style of leadership with that of Joab and Abishai. Whereas they were rash and rough, David was sensitive and restrained. He explicitly rejected their approach as being excessive. No doubt David’s comments were meant to reassure the Israelites who had not yet accepted him as their king that he would avoid a bloody purge of those who had resisted his claim of sovereignty over all Israel” (Bergen p. 315). David wants everyone to know that Israel has needlessly lost a great man! “For David to pronounce a curse upon the house of Joab in perpetuity (29) would indicate that David’s anger was real and that this was not just a slap on the wrist” (Williams p. 260). Instead of trying to destroy his enemies, often David left the door open by making his enemies into his friends, yet note how Joab placed personal and unjustified revenge as a higher priority than national unity and peace. Sadly, often personal ambition, pride, and envy get in the way of true unity.

Chapter 4 4:1-7 Ish-bosheth is assassinated by “Baanah” (BAY UH nah) and “Rechab” (REE kab), individuals who had been commanders in Saul’s army. These two Benjaminites had originated from Beeroth, a former Gibeonite settlement located about four miles northwest of Jerusalem. In verse 4, the writer reminds us that with the death of Ish-bosheth, only one of the male members of Saul’s family was left, i.e., “Mephibosheth” (meh FIB oh shehth). He was five years old when his father Jonathan died in battle and had been accidentally dropped by his nurse, and thus was crippled in the process.

7

4:8-12 David is not impressed by the actions of Baanah and Rechab. “In verse 11 David calls Ish-bosheth a ‘righteous’ man, for he was not guilty of any wicked deed or crime. He had merely assumed the throne upon Saul’s death at the encouragement of Abner. The mutilation and exposure of the assassins’ bodies served as a public denouncement of their evil deed (Deuteronomy 21:22)” (Laney p. 93). “One cannot help but be impressed with the ethical and political sophistication that David brought to Israel’s politics. This was in contrast to the approach adopted

by King Saul. David did not follow the philosophy that the end justifies the means. He was convinced of the providential and sovereign control of his God. He believed that in the proper time and way would be open for the unification of the land and the establishment of one throne” (Davis p.

124).

Chapter 5 5:1-5 From these verses it is apparent that many in Israel had long viewed David as a champion of Israelite causes, and that he had already proven himself a worthy king. The elders realized that David had been appointed

by God to be their king. Verse 4 informs us that David would die at the age of 70. 5:6 “David’s first task as king was to eliminate the foreign wedge between the northern and southern tribes and to establish a capital in a neutral area. Both objectives were accomplished with the conquest of the Jebusite fortress at Jerusalem. Jebus, situated near the border of Judah and Benjamin, was an excellent fortress city because the surrounding deep valleys made it naturally defensible on three sides” (Laney p. 94). In addition, the inhabitants of the city were very selfconfident as to the security of their city. They boasted that the city was so secure against David that the blind and lame could defend it.

5:7-8 “David’s conquest of the city was considered a military marvel; his strategy is apparently delineated in verse 8” (Bergen p. 321). After examining the cities defenses, David concluded that anyone who conquers the Jebusites will have to use the water tunnel (shaft). This tunnel has been found. Today it is called “Warren’s tunnel”, which is a vertical shaft forty-nine feet long dug through rock, providing residents of city access to the waters from the Gihon Spring during times of siege.

Evidently, on one of his patrols, David had found the entrance to this spring, and this tunnel. Though difficult to climb, it proved to be the Achilles heel of the Jebusite fortress. “Once key members of David’s strike force had successfully entered the city by means of the shaft and secured the passageway, others would have poured into the heart of the city and brought about its subjugation” (Bergen p. 321). Additional information is

8

found in 1 Chronicles 11:4-9. From the fact that Joab became commander of David’s army, we infer that he was the first to climb this water course (5:8). “After, the Jebusites had removed the wooden steps in the shaft leading from the inside of the city to the water supply below.

These actions did not deter David and his forces. Led apparently by Joab (1 Chronicles 11:6), they pursued the attack through the narrow water shaft” 1

5:9-10 David then built up Jerusalem, expanding its area by means of retaining walls and narrow terraces, which today we know as the “millo” (MILL oh). This millo may have either been a solid tower full of earth or a bastion strengthening a weak point in the wall. The word “millo” means “to fill”, hence “a mound”. Apparently it served as part of Jerusalem’s northern defenses since the city was most open to attack from that direction, and “suggests that part of David’s project included bringing dirt and rock to the hilltop and depositing these inside massive cliffside retaining walls in order to create a larger, more level surface on which Jerusalem could be constructed” (Bergen p. 322).

5:11-12 International recognition of David’s rule over Israel came quickly.

Soon Hiram (HIGH rum), King of Tyre, sent messengers to begin negotiations with David. Later Hiram will play a significant part in the building of the temple under Solomon. “One author has suggested that Hiram may have been motivated by the fact that Tyre shared a common enemy with Israel in the Philistines” (Williams p. 271). Note the end of 1

The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times, Ralph Gower, p. 204

9

verse 12, David understood that he had not received this unparalleled success so that he might experience personal aggrandizement; rather it was for the sake of the Lord’s people.

5:13-16 Sadly, in the area of marriage, David adopted the practice of a harem like the kings of other nations. The Law had spoken very clearly on this matter (Deuteronomy 17:17). “True to Samuel’s prophetic words, David had become a king who took the nation’s daughters (1 Samuel 8:13)….In fact, it was his unauthorized acquisition of a wife that shattered his regency and took away still greater blessings that could have been his” (Bergen p. 324).

5:17 David’s success and this new unity in Israel didn’t go unnoticed by the Philistines.

5:18 The Philistines spread out in the Valley of Rephaim (REF ih yuhm), which is a steep walled canyon less than a mile SW of Jerusalem.

5:19 David had acquired a wonderful habit in fleeing from Saul, that is, before he took any action, he sought God’s counsel in the matter. He realized that the “secret to success” wasn’t in himself, his own wisdom, cleverness or skill, but in the power of God. 5:20 The name “Baal-perazim” (BAY uhl PER uh zem), means the “lord of breaches”.

5:21 This victory was so convincing that the Philistines in their haste to retreat abandoned the idols they have brought to the battlefield. Now, shouldn’t that have convinced honest men that such idols were powerless? No only is your “god” unable to walk, but he can’t even keep himself from being captured? Later, David and his men burned these idols with fire (1 Chronicles 14:12).

5:22-25 The Philistines try another attack, but this time God tells David to use the well-known tactic of outflanking the enemy. He was commanded to send a group of men behind the enemy, thereby permitting them to be attacked on all sides. The sound of marching in the tops of the Balsam trees, “was to be understood as a definite sign that the Lord had gone out in front of His earthly forces. David’s men struck the Philistines and pursued them for some twenty miles.

10