This commentary on 2 Samuel 2 details David's gradual ascent to kingship, emphasizing the importance of seeking God's guidance during transitions in life. It highlights David's patience in waiting for divine direction, showcasing his commitment to God's will despite the challenges he faced. The analysis includes reflections on the spiritual significance of Hebron and David's relationships with his family and followers during this pivotal time.

1. II SAMUEL 2 COMMENTARY
Written and edited by Glenn Pease
PREFACE
This commentary is designed to give Bible students the thinking and wisdom of many
other authors all in one place to save the time of research. It is far from perfect, for I
quote from sources that have many imperfections, but the content is clear and valuable.
Sometimes I do not know the author, and anyone who does know the author can write
me, and I will give credit where it is deserved. Some I quote may, for some good reason,
desire that their wisdom not be made available in this way. They also can write and have
me delete their quotes. My e-mail is glenn_p86@yahoo.com
INTRODUCTION
This chapter makes it so clear that you can be in the center of God's will and still
have a rough time getting to where God wants you to be. There is opposition and
conflict,and many obstacles to overcome. David has been anointed as king of Israel
for many years, and finally Saul's death makes it possible for him to move in the
direction of taking that position. However, he has to take small steps and become
the king of Judah for over 7 years before he can take the next step of becoming king
of all God's people. It was a long and hard journey, and it teaches us that we have
every reason to expect that being in God's will does not mean all will come easy, and
without a need for patience.
David Anointed King Over Judah
1 In the course of time, David inquired of the LORD .
"Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?" he asked.
The LORD said, "Go up."
David asked, "Where shall I go?"
"To Hebron," the LORD answered.
1. The implication is that David did not rush into taking the throne as king, but

2. patiently waited on the Lord seeking wisdom as to how he should go about
becoming the king. Saul had a great family, and many leaders in his government,
and it was a touchy subject that needed to be handled right, or it could provoke a
civil war. David had been running from Saul for years, and was a skilled warrior,
but was he ready to take on the leadership of government was the question. After
some time of struggle with the matter he went to the Lord seeking guidance as to
what his move should be. God made it easy by telling him the very town where he
should go to begin the process of taking the throne of Israel.
1B. Pink, “David would do nothing in this important crisis of his life—when all
which had for so long appeared a distant hope, now seemed to be rapidly becoming
a present fact—until his Shepherd should lead him. Impatient and impetuous as he
was by nature, schooled to swift decisions, followed by still swifter actions, knowing
that a blow struck speedily while all was chaos and despair in the kingdom, might at
once set him on the throne; nevertheless, he held the flesh, carnal policy, and the
impatience of his followers in check, to hear what God would say. To a man of
David’s experience it must have appeared that now was the opportune moment to
subdue the remaining adherents of the fallen Saul, rally around himself his loyal
friends, grasp the crown and the scepter, vanquish the gloating Philistines, and
secure unto himself the kingdom of Israel. Instead, he refused to take a single step
until Jehovah had signified His will in the matter.”
1C. Brian Morgan, “Notice the total lack of formality and absence of ritual in
David's prayers. There are no introductory formalities, no carefully worded
formulas, no complicated rituals. The directness and simplicity of his prayers are
reminiscent of a conversation between two intimate friends. David uses but two and
four words in Hebrew to state his questions, and each time God answers with
merely one word in Hebrew.”
1D. You will notice how brief this prayer is. David asked two simple questions, and
God answered both with two words each. God is very conservative in his word
usage, for there is no elaborate and lengthy communication. David is very specific in
his questions, and so they can be answered in just a couple of words. Sometimes we
think that the key to prayer being answered is the quantity of time we spend in
asking, but Bible prayers are often very short and specific. We need to simply get to
the bottom line and ask God directly for a specific answer to a specific question.
2. We would all love to have God give us specific information and guidance like this,
but most of us never hear God speak to us as it appears he spoke to David. This
seems to be a conversation in which God spoke out loud to David, and told his to to
to Hebron. It is not stated that he just got the feeling that was the best place, or that
he had some intuition about it, but that God spoke to him and said this is the place
to go. Knowing God's will would be so much easier if God would just tell us what to
do. God did this often in the Old Testament, but it is rare today that anyone hears
the audible voice of God giving them such specific information. Today we need to
search God's Word in print for guidance.

3. 3. Pink, “Though the Lord had promised him the kingdom, though he had already
been anointed by Samuel unto the same, and though Saul was now dead, David was
not hasty to take matters into his own hands, but desired to submit himself unto
God’s directions and act only according to His revealed will. This evidenced the fact
that he really trusted in Him who had promised him the kingdom, to give it to him
in His own due time and manner; and thus he would possess it with a clear
conscience, and at the same time avoid all those appearances of evil with which he
might know the remaining adherents of Saul would be ready to charge him. So fully
did he fulfill the word of his early Psalm: "my Strength! upon Thee will I wait"
(59:9). We never lose anything by believing and patiently waiting upon God; but we
are always made to suffer when we take things into our own hands and rush blindly
ahead.
4. Hebron was the specific city that David was to go to as his first step to the throne.
It is good to learn a little more about this place that God chose. Pink gives us some
good information here. "And He said, Unto Hebron." There is a spiritual beauty in
this word which can only be perceived as we compare scripture with scripture. In
the Old Testament "Hebron" stands typically, for communion. This may be seen
from the first mention of the word: "Then Abram removed his tent, and came and
dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the
Lord" (Gen. 13:15). Again, "So he (Jacob) sent him (Joseph, on an errand of mercy
to his brethren) out of the vale of Hebron" (Gen. 37:14)figure of the Father
sending the Son on a mission of grace unto His elect. And they gave Hebron unto
Caleb (Judges 1:20): the place of fellowship became the portion of the man who
followed the Lord Fully (Num. 14:24). How fitting, then, that the restored David
should be sent back to Hebronit is ever back unto communion the Lord calls
His wandering child. O how thankful we should be when the Holy Spirit restores us
to communion with God, even though it be at the cost of disappointment and sorrow
(Ziklag) to the flesh.
5. W. Taylor, “The city in which, by divine direction, David established himself, was
not only one of the most ancient in existence, but also one which was encircled with
associations which to an Israelite must have been peculiarly sacred. There
Abraham, the father of the faithful, sojourned for a considerable portion of his life
in Canaan ; in the immediate neighborhood was the oak of Mamre, beneath which
the patriarch had so often offered sacrifice to Jehovah ; and hard by was the cave of
Machpelah, in which he buried the remains of Sarah, and in which his own ashes,
and those of Isaac and Jacob, were afterward deposited. Hence, of all the cities of
Palestine at that date, it must have had the richest attractions to the chosen people ;
and even yet, in its modern name, El-Khulil the Friend we can see a reference to him
who was styled, by way of eminence, the Friend of God. In the days of Joshua the
surrounding territory was given to Caleb, and it was made a city of refuge, and a
city of the Levites. It was, besides, one of the places to which David sent a portion of
the spoils which he had taken from the Amalekites. Hence, both from its holy

4. associations, its central situation, and the probable favor of its inhabitants toward
him, it was a most appropriate place for David's capital.”
6. Constable, “David again expressed his dependence on God by asking in prayer
where God wanted him to relocate. He realized that he could not make the wisest
choice alone since he did not have God's perspective. He wanted God to use him
most effectively, so he allowed God to place him in that spot. The territory of Judah
was the logical choice since that was David's tribal homeland and where he had the
greatest acceptance (cf. 1 Sam. 30:26-30). Verse 1 gives the key to David's triumphs,
namely, his dependence on God.”
7. Maclaren, “David did what we shall do, if we are wise—he asked God to guide
him. How that guidance was asked and given we are not here told; but the analogy
of 1 Samuel 30:7, 8 , suggests that it was by the Urim and Thummim, interpreted by
the high-priest. The form of inquiry seems to have been that a course of action,
suggested by the inquirer, was decided for him by a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No.’ So that there
was the exercise of common-sense and judgment in formulating the proposed
course, as well as that of God’s direction in determining it.”
8. Mark Mitchell, “Let's pause for a moment here. As David moves to this next stage
in his life he exemplifies what we might call a submitted ambition. There is no
question that his going up to Judah would be a clear statement that he was ready to
assume his role as king. And he wanted to be king. He knew this was God's will for
him. This was the moment he and so many others had been waiting for. It is
important to keep in mind here that David was not a man void of ambition. He did
not kill a Philistine giant without a certain degree of ambition. He did not take two
hundred Philistine foreskins without ambition. He did not dream about building a
house for God without ambition. But David's was a submitted ambition. It was an
ambition primarily for the glory of God. So, before he goes up, he inquires of the
Lord, not just to discern whether he should go up, but also, specifically, where he
should go up to. David knows that the moment has come, but he is unwilling to take
a step without the Lord's direction. That is a submitted ambition.”
9. Mitchell continues, “We see the same thing with Jesus when he made the
transition from his quiet life as a carpenter to his public ministry. After his baptism,
he was led out to the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil. Ambition
was one of the issues that came up then. Satan tried to get him to grasp for his
crown, his glory, apart from his Father's appointed process of suffering on the cross.
But Jesus resisted. During a critical passage in his life, Jesus exhibited a submitted
ambition.
In experiencing a transition in life, it is critical to not make any assumptions about
the next step. This is especially important, and difficult, when a transition involves a
move up or a move into a situation that we have been waiting for a long time. We
must not push ahead too fast. We can be honest about our desires and ambitions,

5. but we need to wait for God's timing. This is true even if the circumstances seem
perfect. From a human perspective, there was nothing to delay David in this case,
but he was still unwilling to move ahead without the Lord's clear direction. This
actually was a hallmark of David's life--seeking the Lord's guidance before making
important moves. It is one of the things that set him apart from Saul, and it was part
of what it meant for David to be a man after God's heart.”
2 So David went up there with his two wives, Ahinoam
of Jezreel and Abigail, the widow of Nabal of Carmel.
1. David wasted no time in obeying God. He took his two wives and left for Hebron
just as God told him to do. It is always the best first step in any goal to obey the will
of God. David was a man after God's own heart, for when he knew the will of God,
he obeyed it. In contrast to the text where we see David in the will of God, there are
many who say David was out of God's will by having two wives. God does not say so,
and does not instruct him to leave them behind. It is reading into the text our
modern perspective to judge David here when God does not, and God did judge
David severely at times. The majority of pastor's I have read on this text say David
was sinning and out of God's will by having multiple wives. They make these
comments because they have not studied this issue in depth. I have done a through
study of the role of multiple wives in the Old Testament, and there is no doubt that
God was accepting of it in that time, and that he even ordained it, and fully
approved it. I have this study on the internet in my study of the wives of Abraham.
Those who condemn David on this matter write out of prejudice and ignorance.
Polygamy is forbidden in the New Testament, but we are not being honest to judge
Old Testament people based on what is not acceptable to Christians. David was to
have many more wives, and God even gave him extra wives when he became king.
For those interested in seeing God's approval of polygamy in the Old Testament, I
have copied a large portion of my study from Genesis and put it in Appendix A at
the end of this commentary.
2. Henry, “The care he took of his family and friends in his removal to Hebron. 1.
He took his wives with him ( 2 Samuel 2:2 ), that, as they had been companions with
him in tribulation, they might be so in the kingdom. It does not appear that as yet he
had any children; his first was born in Hebron, 2 Samuel 3:2 . 2. He took his friends
and followers with him, 2 Samuel 2:3 . They had accompanied him in his
wanderings, and therefore, when he gained a settlement, they settled with him.
Thus, if we suffer with Christ, we shall reign with him, 2 Timothy 2:12 . Nay, Christ
does more for his good soldiers than David could do for his; David found lodging for
them--They dwelt in the cities of Hebron, and adjacent towns; but to those who
continue with Christ in his temptations he appoints a kingdom, and will feast them at
his own table, Luke 22:29,30.”

6. 3 David also took the men who were with him, each with
his family, and they settled in Hebron and its towns.
1. David loved his men who ran with him from Saul, and fought with him to win
back their families from the enemies who captured them and destroyed their town
of Ziglag. It was a poor place to live now anyway, and so his faithful warriors were
doubtless happy to relocate to Hebron and the town around it. This was their first
time in years to have a permanent location where their families could be safe and
live a normal life.
2. David Chadwell, The situation changed dramatically! Saul and his sons were
killed by the Philistines. David was in the process of consolidating Israel under his
leadership. King Saul's loss to the Philistines in the battle that cost him and his sons
their lives was costly to Israel as a nation. Not only did Israel lose their king, but
they also lost territory and numerous battle-hardened, experienced warriors. Israel,
which was not in wonderful condition under Saul's leadership, was now weakened
further, vulnerable, and divided. The Philistines must have rejoiced at the situation
because circumstances surely favored them.
David and his forces [with God's approval] went to the area of Hebron where the
people made him king of Judah. He settled there, had sons by six wives [not likely
all the children he had in the Hebron area], formed political alliances through
marriages, and planted the seeds of what would become future disastrous rivalries
among sons who sought David's throne. The end result: there was a long period of
tension and civil war among the Israelites. In this period, David sought to
consolidate Israel as a single nation. In this civil war, the forces of Saul's family
steadily grew weaker and David's forces steadily grew stronger.”
4 Then the men of Judah came to Hebron and there
they anointed David king over the house of Judah.
When David was told that it was the men of Jabesh
Gilead who had buried Saul,
1. Here is the first step taken by the leaders of Judah. They could not anoint David
as king of all Israel, but they could anoint him as the king of Judah, which was the
southern part of Israel. David began as king over this half of the nation, and only
later became king of all Israel after a civil war between the two halves of the nation.
1B. Henry, “The honour done him by the men of Judah: They anointed him king
over the house of Judah, 2 Samuel 2:4 . The tribe of Judah had often stood by itself

7. more than any other of the tribes. In Saul's time it was numbered by itself as a
distinct body ( 1 Samuel 15:4 ) and those of this tribe had been accustomed to act
separately. They did so now; yet they did it for themselves only; they did not
pretend to anoint him king over all Israel (as Judges 9:22), but only over the house of
Judah. The rest of the tribes might do as they pleased, but, as for them and their
house, they would be ruled by him whom God had chosen. See how David rose
gradually; he was first anointed king in reversion, then in possession of one tribe
only, and at last of all the tribes.”
2. Pink,”“David had been privately anointed as Saul’s successor (1 Sam. 16:12,13),
now the principal princes in the tribe of Judah publicly owned him as their king.
They did not take it upon themselves to make him king over all Israel, but left the
other tribes to act for themselves. No doubt in this they acted according to the mind
of David, who had no desire to force himself on the whole nation at once, preferring
to obtain government over them by degrees, as Providence should open his way.
See how David rose gradually: he was first appointed king in reversion, then in
possession of one tribe only, and at last over all the tribes. Thus the kingdom of the
Messiah, the Son of David, is set up by degrees: He is Lord of all by divine
designation, but ‘we see not yet all things put under Him’: Heb. 2:8 (Matthew
Henry).
3. David was anointed three times. Once by Samuel, here by the men of Judah, and,
finally by all Israel in 5:3.
5 he sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead to say
to them, The LORD bless you for showing this
kindness to Saul your master by burying him.
1. Again, we see David showing the greatest respect for Saul by honoring those who
went to great lengths to get him body buried. This was his first public act as king.
He sent messengers to convey the blessing of God on them for honoring their king.
2. Pink, “David expressed his appreciation of what the men of Jabesh had done in
rescuing the bodies of Saul and his sons from the Philistines, and for the kindly care
they had taken of them. He pronounced the blessing of the Lord upon them, which
probably means that he asked Him to reward them. By thus honoring the memory
of his predecessor he gave evidence that he was not aiming at the crown from any
principles of carnal ambition, or from any enmity to Saul, but only because he was
called of God to it.”
3. Constable, “The people of Jabesh-gilead were very loyal to Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 11:1-
13; 31:11-13). David took special pains to express his sorrow over Saul's death to
those residents to show that the antagonism that had existed between Saul and

8. himself was one-sided. If he could win their favor, David could gain a foothold of
support in northern Israel. We see in these verses how David sought peace and unity
with those who had been loyal to Saul in Israel. First, he took the initiative in
contacting them (v. 5a). Second, he paid them a sincere compliment (v. 5b). Third,
he obliquely reminded them that he was now the Lord's anointed (v. 6). Finally, he
offered a treaty of friendship (vv. 6b-7).”
6 May the LORD now show you kindness and
faithfulness, and I too will show you the same favor
because you have done this.
1. David offers to back up the kindness of God with his own kindness because of
their love and loyalty to Saul. He needs people of loyalty to back him up too, and so
he appeals to these people as their next king. He urges them in the next verse to be
strong and brave, for he knows it is a hard transition that has to take place in
getting him to the throne of Saul. There is going to be opposition, and he needs loyal
people to support him.
2. Maclaren, “That town owed much to Saul ( 1 Samuel 11), and its gratitude lasted,
and dared much for him. It was a brave dash that they made across Jordan to carry
off Saul’s corpse from its ignominious exposure; for it both defied the Philistines,
and might be construed as hostile to David. But his heart was too true to ancient
friendship to do anything but glow with admiring sympathy at that exhibition of
affectionate remembrance. Reconciling death had swept away all memories of
Saul’s insane jealousy, and he owned a brother in every one who showed kindness to
the unfortunate king.
If the Jabesh-Gileadites are a pattern of long-memoried gratitude, David’s
commendation of them is a model of love which survives injuries, and of
forgivingness which forgets them. It was as politic as it was generous. Nothing could
have been better calculated to attach Saul’s most devoted partisans to him than
showing that he honored their faithful attachment to Saul, and nothing could have
more clearly defined his own position during his wanderings as being no rebel. The
dictates of true policy and those of devout generosity always coincide. It is ever a
blunder to be unforgiving, and mercifulness is always expedient.”
3. W. Taylor, “ No doubt his regard for the memory of Jonathan had something to
do with the sending of this message ; yet I suppose that this noble motive was
slightly alloyed by the anticipation that those who received it would be forward to
tender to him their allegiance. But if that hope entered at all into his calculations, it
was doomed to disappointment, for the men of Jabesh made no response. Perhaps
they remembered to David's disadvantage his recent sojourn among the Philistines,
and were suspicious of one who had, in their view, so compromised himself with

9. their enemies ; or perhaps the influence of Ishbosheth and Abner, who were in their
immediate neighborhood, added to their own feeling of attachment to the house
of Saul for what he had done for them, kept them from giving any heed to the
overtures of David ; in any case, nothing came out of this politic bid of David's for
their support.”
4. We see that doing the right thing, and being kind and thoughtful does not always
pay off in people being kind and helpful in return. Good behavior pleasing to God is
an end in itself, and not just a tool to get something. Even if there is no positive
feedback, it is still the best thing to do to be what God would have us be in relation
to others, both friend and foe.
7 Now then, be strong and brave, for Saul your master
is dead, and the house of Judah has anointed me king
over them.
1. Your king is dead, and now you have a new king, for the house of Judah as
anointed me as their king. Don't give up in despair because you have lost your king,
for there is a new king before you who needs the same help and loyalty you gave to
Saul. I am that new king
2. Brian Morgan, “David describes what they did as an act of kindness (chesed:
loyal-love). Chesed means a responsible keeping of faith with another with
whom one is in a relationship (Sakenfeld). Who will return loyal-love to these men
now that Saul is dead? David implies that God will, and that he will, too, hinting
that he now occupies a new position of power. Further, David implies that since
their responsibility to Saul is complete they are free to make a fresh covenantal
relationship with him as the new king. The phrase, let your hands be strong, is an
invitation to them to join his cause; in other words, be stalwart, as men who can
be counted on for loyal service (McCarter).
So David meets these men in their grief, and expresses solidarity with them. Then he
uses the occasion as a stage to invite them to join the new regime. Though his offer is
bold, it is flavored with humility, for he puts himself forward in the language of
what others have recognized about him: The house of Judah has anointed me king
over them. The implication is that they were being invited, not coerced, to join.
With such a carefully worded message, David is portrayed as an exceptional
statesmen. David sends the community a positively worded letter in which he
communicates a blessing and a promise, recognizes loyalty, extends encouragement,
and announces a new development (Fokkelman).” “Fokkelman points out that it is
remarkable that there is no sequel to the story. The city does not respond with a
message of appreciation, a call for help, or how it will serve David. We simply do not
hear any more about Jabesh. What did they do with their invitation? We do not

10. know.”
3. Jim Bomkamp, “As I read over this chapter, I believe that the biggest story is
really what is not written in the chapter. We can imagine how that David could have
acted like so many other leaders have done all throughout history upon the hearing
of such news. We can imagine that David might have done many things at this point,
none of which are listed in our chapter:
David could have immediately mustered his army to go and to kill off every last
descendant of Saul’s to assure that there would be no one alive who would now try
to vie for the kingdom.
David could have gathered his troops and mobilized them to go and to attack what
he knew would be left of King Saul’s army after most of that army by now had
surely strayed away to their homes.
David could have immediately moved to Israel with his men knowing that with King
Saul removed there surely could be nothing that could get in his way to keep him
from taking the throne.
David could have begun a political campaign. He could have sent some of his men to
each of the 12 tribes and begun to bid them to come and accept as king the one
whom the prophet Samuel had anointed to reign those many years ago, and then he
could have begun the campaign circle himself.
Etc., etc.
David however would not make a move without first consulting the Lord, and he
would make no power plays to force the kingdom into his hand. David had been
brought to the end of himself, and his many trials he encountered during the period
of his wanderings when the Lord was chastening him greatly...”
War Between the Houses of David and Saul
8 Meanwhile, Abner son of Ner, the commander of
Saul's army, had taken Ish-Bosheth son of Saul and
brought him over to Mahanaim.
1. Now enters the villain on the stage of David's history. Abner has been Saul's right
hand man as commander of his army, and he was also Saul's cousin. He has been
with Saul in all the years of his pursuit of David to kill him. He is not going to take
kindly to David trying to take the throne of Saul. In fact, he is going to do all he can

11. to make sure it does not happen. He takes Ishbosheth, the 4
th
son of Saul over to the
other side of the Jordan for his safety, and makes him king of the Northern tribes.
So now we have two kings in Israel. David the king of the South, and Ishbosheth
king of the North. It was a clever move on his part, for it really kept him in power
over the military forces, and that was the main power at that time. This son of Saul
was not a great leader, but was a puppet of Abner, who was the real leader of Israel.
His ambition to stay in power and really play the role of king of Israel led to the first
civil war in Israel. It kept David from the throne of Israel for another seven and a
half years. Men of ambition can throw a monkey wrench into the best of plans.
2. Maclaren, “The puppet king is named Ishbosheth in the lesson, but 1 Chronicles
8:33 and 9:39 show that his real name was Esh-baal. The former word means ‘The
man of shame’; the latter, ‘The man of Baal.’ The existence of Baal as an element in
names seems to indicate the incompleteness of the emancipation from idolatry in
Saul’s time, and the change will then indicate the keener monotheistic conscience of
later days. Another explanation is that Baal (’ Lord’) was in these cases used as a
name for Jehovah, and was ‘changed at a later period for the purpose of avoiding
what was interpreted then as a compound of the name of the Phoenician deity Baal’
(Driver, Notes on Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel ).”
3. Grant, “Abner, the captain of Saul's army, could only understand natural
succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to elevate Ish-bosheth,
Saul's son, to the throne of Israel (vs.8-9). How many since him have thought that
the military has the right of such decisions! But this is God's prerogative, and He
had already anointed David as king of Israel (not only of Judah). Abner made
Mahanaim the headquarters of Ish-bosheth's kingdom. Mahanaim means two
camps, therefore emphasizing the fact that Israel was divided. God would not
allow this to continue, but Ish-bosheth did reign over Israel for two years, during
which time there was long war between Judah and Israel. David reigned in
Hebron seven and a half years (v.11). It seems that, after his being recognized as
king by Israel (ch.5:1-3), he must have remained for a time in Hebron before going
up to Jerusalem to reign there.”
4. It is of interest to note that Abner was fully aware of David and his history, for he
was the one who brought David after killing Goliath back to Saul. We see it in this
text: “Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner
the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this young man?” And Abner
said, “By your life, O king, I do not know.” 56 The king said, “You inquire whose
son the youth is.” 57 So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took
him and brought him before Saul with the Philistine's head in his hand (). From this
point on Abner knew David, for he became a leader under him in the army of Israel.
He ate at Saul's table with David, and later led the forces of Saul in trying to catch
and kill David for Saul. He had been both a friend and a foe to David.
5. Gill, “took Ishbosheth the son of Saul; and who seems to be his only son left,

12. except what he had by his concubine. This man's name is Eshbaal in ( 1 Chronicles
8:33) (9:39) . Baal is the name of a shameful idol, and which was therefore
sometimes called Bosheth, shame. See (Hosea 9:10) ; wherefore such names of
men, which had Baal in them, were changed for Besheth or Bosheth, as the names of
Jerubbaal and Meribbaal, who were called Jerubbesheth and Mephibosheth. See
(Judges 8:35) ; compared with ( 2 Samuel 11:21 ) , and ( 2 Samuel 4:4 ) with
( 1 Chronicles 8:34 ) (9:40) . The latter of these, a son of Jonathan, bid fairest for the
crown by lineal succession, but he being but five years of age, and lame, this man
Abner judged fittest for his purpose; and though he knew it was the will of God, and
he had sworn that David should be king, yet so blind and obstinate was his
ambition, that he set up another against him:”
9 He made him king over Gilead, Ashuri and Jezreel,
and also over Ephraim, Benjamin and all Israel.
1. Constable gives us a brief history of how this act led to a complex issue for David
for the next few years. The path to the throne was a rough road. He wrote, “Abner's
initiative ignited conflict between Saul's and David's houses that occupied the
writer's attention in 2:8-32. This section is chiastic in its arrangement and focuses on
Abner's killing of Asahel (vv. 18-23). Whereas David was seeking peace and unity
(vv. 4b-7), Abner was seeking power and victory (vv. 8-32; cf. Ps. 120:7).
Ish-bosheth (lit. man of shame, boshet, shame, being substituted for baal, lord
or Lord, on occasion, cf. 1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39; Jer. 3:24; 11:13; Hos. 9:10) appears
only in chapters 24. He may be the Ishvi of 1 Samuel 14:49. Since he did not die in
battle with Saul and his brothers, he may have been somewhat cowardly. This
possibility may find support in the fact that Abner, rather than he, was the real
leader of Saul's forces. The people of Judah made David their king (v. 4), but Abner
single-handedly made Ishbosheth king over all Israel (v. 9). This was not God's
will since God had chosen David to succeed Saul (1 Sam. 13:14). Abner's act fueled
conflict between the northern and southern inhabitants of the land. The distinctive
concepts of 'Judah and Israel' evolved during David's kingdom in Hebron, and after
a period of reunification these entities were allowed to live on in the United
Monarchy, though without an official division. When David eventually became
king of all Israel and Judah, seven and one-half years later, he ended Ish-bosheth's
two-year reign. Evidently it took Abner over five years to establish Ish-bosheth on
Israel's throne. Abner put his personal preferences and cultural precedent (that a
son of Saul would succeed his father) over God's will. Consequently life became very
complicated and problems followed in Israel, as always when people behave as
Abner did.”
2. Pink, “The nation in general had rejected the Judges whom God had raised up
for them, and had demanded a king; and now in the same rebellious spirit, they

13. refused the prince which the Lord had selected for them. In type it was Israel
preferring Barabbas to Jesus Christ. Abner prevailed till he got all the tribes of
Israel, save Judah, to own Ishbosheth as their king. All this time David was quiet,
offering no resistance: thus keeping his oath in 1 Samuel 24:21 and 22!”
3. The believer’s progress must be gradual: his faith and his graces must be
proved, and his pride subdued, before he can properly endure any kind of
prosperity: and for these purposes the Lord often employs the perverseness of his
brethren, without their knowledge or contrary to their intention. In the professing
Church few honour those whom the Lord will honor: before Jesus came, and in
each succeeding generation, the very builders have rejected such as Heaven
intended for eminent situations; and His servants must be conformed to Him.
Ambition, jealousy, envy, and other evil passions, cause men to rebel against the
Word of God, but they generally attempt to conceal their real motives under
plausible pretenses. The believer’s wisdom, however, consists in waiting quietly and
silently under injuries, and in leaving God to plead his cause, except it be evidently
his duty to be active (Thomas Scott).
4. Brian Morgan, “In the first movement, David initiates his rule by asking, and
he receives divine sanction. But, in contrast, Abner does not ask; he takes. David
goes up in obedience, while Ish-bosheth is brought over and appointed king, with
no anointing. David governs by mutual consent of the governed who recognize a
spiritual authority emanating from within him. This spiritual authority gathers all,
beginning with himself, then his family, his men, and finally a whole community.
Ish-bosheth, on the other hand, rules by the purely arbitrary decrees of a strong
man. Acceptance of his rule is dictated from without. And although he rules over a
vast amount of territory, his authority derives solely from past loyalties; it has
nothing to do with his own character or reputation. David rules but one tribe, which
is loyal to him. But the king who has much territory has little time (a mere two years
before his rule comes to a drastic end), while the other king has little territory, but
all the time in the world. The point is that when David is faced with political
maneuvering by the opposition, he does nothing but wait, for time is his ally.”
10 Ish-Bosheth son of Saul was forty years old when he
became king over Israel, and he reigned two years. The
house of Judah, however, followed David.
1. The nation was divided, and had two kings. This forty year old king only reigned
for two years, and that was not a very long run for such a young man. It was less
than a third of the time David reigned in the South.
2. Wiersbe: Scripture doesn’t say much about Is-Bosheth, but it’s clear that he was

14. a weak puppet ruler manipulated by Abner (3:11; 4:1). He was certainly old enough
to fight in the army with his father and brothers, but Saul left him home to protect
the dynasty. (He was probably a weak soldier.) . . . There’s a modern touch to this
scenario, for our political and religious worlds are populated by these same three
kinds of people. We have weak people like Ish-Bosheth, who get where they are
because they have “connections.” We have strong, selfish people like Abner, who
know how to manipulate others for their own personal profit. We also have people
of God like David who are called, anointed, and equipped but must wait for God’s
time before they can serve.”
3. Henry, “Here is, I. A rivalship between two kings--David, whom God made king,
and Ishbosheth, whom Abner made king. One would have thought, when Saul was
slain, and all his sons that had sense and spirit enough to take the field with him,
David would come to the throne without any opposition, since all Israel knew, not
only how he had signalized himself, but how manifestly God had designated him to
it; but such a spirit of contradiction is there, in the devices of men, to the counsels of
God, that such a weak and silly thing as Ishbosheth, who was not thought fit to go
with his father to the battle, shall yet be thought fit to succeed him in the
government, rather than David shall come peaceably to it. Herein David's kingdom
was typical of the Messiah's, against which the heathens rage and the rulers take
counsel, Psalms 2:1,2. 1. Abner was the person who set up Ishbosheth in competition
with David, perhaps in his zeal for the lineal succession (since they must have a king
like the nations, in this they must be like them, that the crown must descend from
father to son), or rather in his affection to his own family and relations (for he was
Saul's uncle), and because he had no other way to secure to himself the post of
honor he was in, as captain of the host. See how much mischief the pride and
ambition of one man may be the occasion of.”
11 The length of time David was king in Hebron over
the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
1. He had to reign over half of Israel before he became king of all Israel. It seems
that he would never get to the goal he was anointed for as a young man. Dr. James
L. Wilson wrote, “We often speak of the patience of Job, perhaps we should pause
this morning and reflect about the patience of David. I am amazed at his willingness
to wait on the Lord to give him the throne in God's time. Maybe it is my own
impatience when it comes to waiting, but I am amazed that David could be so
patient with God. I'm afraid that I would have been tempted to take matters into
my own hands.. American humorist and essayist Arnold Glasow, said: The key to
everything is patience. You get the chicken by hatching the egg -- not by smashing
it.
2. “King David was thirty-seven years old when finally the eleven tribes sent a

15. delegation to confer with him, indicating that they would appreciate having him as
the king over all Israel. This was seven years and a half after the death of King Saul,
and probably about seventeen years after David had been anointed first by Samuel.
Faith and patience mark every step of those years and show us King David's
character as we could not otherwise have known it. Its grandeur was chiefly shown
in that it manifested a devotion to God and a submission to the Divine will.” author
unknown
12 Abner son of Ner, together with the men of Ish-
Bosheth son of Saul, left Mahanaim and went to
Gibeon.
1. We can easily see, from this, that Abner was really the controlling force, even
though he was not king. It was Abner, who was making the decisions. We do not see
this puppet king doing anything that reveals that he was active in making any
decisions, and he is never with his soldiers. He never went out to the battle with his
father Saul either, and so it is easy to suspect he had some handicap, or was just not
a fit specimen of a man for warfare. He was a king in great contrast to king David
who was a great warrior, and was always with his men in any battle..
13 Joab son of Zeruiah and David's men went out and
met them at the pool of Gibeon. One group sat down on
one side of the pool and one group on the other side.
1. “This Gibeon was about 6 miles from Jerusalem, and 26 miles from Hebron. It
was, also, 26 miles from Mahanaim. Even though David had no intention of coming
against Abner in force and taking the people, Abner had other plans about David
and Judah. Abner felt that Ish-bosheth should be uncontested ruler of all the people.
If Abner and David finally war against each other, both would lose. The Philistines
would benefit from this internal war.” source unknown
2. H. L. Rossier gives us some insight into this leader of David's troops: He does not
look so bad in this chapter, but his bad side comes out in the chapters ahead. “It is
worth noting that David does not appear in this conflict and plays no role in it, even
when it appears that it concerns him. One of his attendants, Joab, accompanied by
his brothers, leads the king's servants. In 1 Chronicles 2: 16 we see that they were
David's nephews, his sister Zeruiah's sons. Accordingly, they held a high position
and were closely related to the royal house. Joab, an ambitious man, seeks to
advance in the world and to win the first place in the kingdom. Though he is not
named — with just cause — among “David's mighty men,” he is a man of courage.

16. He can appreciate righteousness and unrighteousness, but he does not oppose
unrighteousness except when it runs counter to his personal designs; and when
something righteous runs contrary to his interests he suppresses it. Nothing stops
him; he has no scruples in satisfying his ambition. Someone has said of him: “We
find Joab wherever there is evil to do or much to gain.” Joab is a figure of political
flesh. It is to his advantage to support David's cause. If we compare Abner with
Joab, Abner is the better man. Nevertheless Joab comes on the scene as a champion
of the testimony. On this man the weight of military and other matters will soon be
resting; he is the man who will direct things in an under-handed way and who will
set many an intrigue in motion. In the presence of such cleverness David himself
feels weak (2 Sam. 3: 39). The moment the flesh takes over the testimony, see the
result: ruin, nothing but ruin. One man is fighting for David, and the other for one
whom God no longer recognizes. Is one better than the other? When the flesh is
supporting David — or Christ — the results are no better than when the flesh is
supporting the Antichrist.”
14 Then Abner said to Joab, Let's have some of the
young men get up and fight hand to hand in front of
us. All right, let them do it, Joab said.
1. Here we see the folly of man. In an effort to bring about peaceful relations of the
two kingdoms they decide to fight each other. Now why didn't I think of that as a
way of maintaining peace? All any fight can do is escalate the hostility of the two
groups, and that is just what happens here.
2. Constable does the best job of giving us the brief history of what is happening in
this chapter. He wrote, “There the forces of Ish-bosheth and David met for a peace
conference (v. 13). Abner broke off the peace talks, however, by suggesting that the
two sides determine which of them would win in a battle by champions (cf. 1 Sam.
17). Twelve soldiers from each side (v. 15), perhaps representing each of the twelve
tribes, engaged in hand-to-hand combat to decide the leadership of the nation. The
fight was a draw so the battle between the two armies escalated. Joab's men finally
got the upper hand. Abner warned Asahel twice to stop pursuing him and to fight
with someone else . (vv. 21-22). He evidently wanted to avoid a blood feud with
Joab's family that might go on for generations. Nevertheless Asahel kept pushing
Abner who finally killed him rather than simply knocking him out.
'Every man' who 'stopped when he came' to the place where Asahel had died (v.
23) does not refer to travelers or others who stop to pay their respects, as many
commentators believe (e.g., Baldwin, Hertzberg), but to David's men, Asahel's
pursuers, who stand transfixed in horror at the death of a fallen comrade . . .30
Many of David's soldiers stopped, but Joab and Abishai continued to pursue
Abner. The other soldiers from Benjamin, Saul and Abner's tribe, rallied around
Abner, and the hostility climaxed when they took a stand to defend themselves on a

17. hilltop (v. 25). Abner tried to call a truce (v. 26), but Joab correctly blamed him for
starting the conflict in the first place (v. 27; cf. v. 14). Joab agreed to the truce,
however, and both armies went home. Abner's side lost 360 soldiers in this fight,
and 19 of Joab's men died. This incident accounts for the personal hostility that
later resulted in Abner's death and the disintegration of Ish-bosheth's throne. Note
that David played no part in it. God worked through Joab and Abner to place His
anointed on the throne of all Israel. This passage shows how hostilities between the
two factions in Israel escalated, as they often do in modern nations, neighborhoods,
and families. First, the opposing parties stopped talking (v. 12). Next, they started
fighting (v. 13). Then, Asahel kept pushing (v. 23). Finally, Abner insisted on
defending himself (v. 23).
3. What we have here is the craving of men for competition so they can see who is
the best. Men are hooked on competition, for it gives them such a thrill to be a
winner over other men. It fills the world with great entertainment and pleasure, but
it is also very dangerous from both a physical and spiritual point of view. In this
case it led to 24 men dying for no good purpose. Today we don't use weapons like
swords, but weapons like bats and balls to show that we are superior, and this can
be deadly on a whole different level that what we see here.
3B. Steve Zeisler is a pastor, and he gives us an illustration. He wrote, “For years, I
played on one of the church's softball teams in a league made up entirely of church
sponsored teams from this area. I was always a defensive liability. I was there
mostly as comic relief and each game the team had to decide where to put me so that
I would not ruin our chances. Frequently, therefore, I was the catcher, and because
of this I began to know some of the umpires from the local association of
professional umpires. I will never forget what one umpire said after a brutal game
in which he was vilified and the teams were at sword's point, As he walked off the
field, he said, There is nothing I hate more than umpiring church leagues. There is
less joy, less honesty, and less good will in these games than anywhere else. He was
disgusted by the level of competitiveness exhibited. I was embarrassed for myself
and for everyone else on the field because this presumably non-Christian umpire
wanted nothing to do with the churches he saw represented in front of him.
Competitiveness having to win and to be the best, not being able to rejoice without
having success and not being able to accept somebody else's success without
acquiring it ourselves is a sure announcement that you or I have been swayed by the
thinking of this world. Though we may be Christians, we are not living like
Christians.”
3C. Epperson's Law.When a man says it's a silly, childish game, it's probably
something his wife can beat him at. - Don Epperson, quoted by Bill Gold in
Washington Post, Reader's Digest January, 1980
4. The whole point of many of the foolish things we read in the Bible is to help us
avoid be as stupid as these people were. Sometimes even the best of God's people
blow it, as we will see in our study of David, and we need to learn from their

18. mistakes to be wiser. God's Word is for prevention as well as guidance, and we need
to pay attention to both. This chapter has its focus on prevention.
15 So they stood up and were counted off-twelve men
for Benjamin and Ish-Bosheth son of Saul, and twelve
for David.
1. The number twelve has always been a representative of the whole. Each side
sends twelve of their best men to engage in combat with the enemy. Twelve may
have been selected because each side is trying to prove they are the true Israel.
16 Then each man grabbed his opponent by the head
and thrust his dagger into his opponent's side, and they
fell down together. So that place in Gibeon was called
Helkath Hazzurim.
1. This had to be one of the cruelest and most stupid plans in the history of warfare.
Each side lost 12 of their best men, and 24 good soldiers died because of the stupid
decisions of their leaders. This is one of the best illustrations in history of the folly of
war. It is possibly the first illustration in history of a suicide mission, for these men
were sent into this combat to die, and it was certain that they would. The whole
thing lasted just minutes, or maybe ever seconds. It was a meaningless waste of life,
and it proved nothing, for the draw left the two sides just where they started. It was
the least effective combat in history. Both sides are condemned for this bloodshed,
for it displayed a low level of respect for life. There are no good guys against bad
guys here, for all are bad.
1B. There are plans that just seem stupid, but when they full story is told, they turn
out to be wise after all. Such is the case in the following story. “A couple of young
fellers were fishing at their special pond off the beaten track when out of the bushes
jumped the Game Warden. Immediately, one of the boys threw his rod down and
started running through the woods like a bat out of hell, and hot on his heels came
the Game Warden. After about a half mile the fella stopped and stooped over with
his hands on his thighs to catch his breath and the Game Warden finally caught up
to him. Let's see yer fishin' license, Boy!! the Warden gasped as he grabbed him
by the collar. With that, the fella pulled out his wallet and gave the Game Warden a
valid fishing license. Well, son, said the Game Warden, you must be about as
dumb as a box of rocks! You don't have to run from me if you have a valid license!
Yes, sir, replied the young feller. But my friend back there, well, he don't have
one. Unfortunately, the story here does not have such a clever ending. It was just
plain stupid, and that is the ending.

19. 2. Grant, “Verse 16 seems to indicate that all these men, on both sides, were
prepared to catch each other by the head, each one simultaneously piercing the
other with his sword, so that they fell down together. They did not stop to consider
that they were all Israelites, and therefore brethren. But since that time the people
of God have too often used the sword of the word of God cruelly against others of
God's people when they might have used it for the positive good of others.”
3. You can understand why the battleground came to be called Helkath Hazzurim,
that is, the “field of daggers.”
4. Henry, “Joab, having been bred up under David, had so much wisdom as not to
make such a proposal, yet had not resolution enough to resist and gainsay it when
another made it; for he stood upon a point of honour, and thought it a blemish to his
reputation to refuse a challenge, and therefore said, Let them arise; not that he was
fond of the sport, or expected that the duels would be decisive, but he would not be
hectored by his antagonist. How many precious lives have thus been sacrificed to the
caprices of proud men! Twelve of each side were accordingly called out as
champions to enter the lists, a double jury of life and death, not of others', but their
own; and the champions on Abner's side seem to have been most forward, for they
took the field first (2 Samuel 2:15), having perhaps been bred up in a foolish
ambition thus to serve the humour of their commander-in-chief. But, (2.) However it
began, it ended in blood (2 Samuel 2:16): They thrust every man his sword into his
fellow's side (spurred on by honour, not by enmity); so they fell down together, that
is, all the twenty-four were slain, such an equal match were they for one another,
and so resolute, that neither side would either beg or give quarter; they did as it
were by agreement (says Josephus) dispatch one another with mutual wounds.
Those that strike at other men's lives often throw away their own and death only
conquers and rides in triumph. The wonderful obstinacy of both sides was
remembered in the name given to the place: Helkath-hazzurim--the field of rocky
men, men that were not only strong in body, but of firm and unshaken constancy,
that stirred not at the sight of death.”
17 The battle that day was very fierce, and Abner and
the men of Israel were defeated by David's men.
1. It appears that the battle of the 24 was over quickly, but it stimulated all of the
soldiers on both sides to get into the conflict, and, who could ever guess it would
happen, both sides begin to engage in full scale warfare. The peace conference is
over, and human folly has prevailed again. David is God's choice, and so it was good

20. that his men defeated the forces trying to hold him back from becoming king, but
we have here a case of God's chosen people killing each other. If that is not folly, I
don't know what is.
2. This could be called the most stupid war in the Bible, for it was just based on an
emotional reaction of male testosterone. These men were all acting like big shots,
and they wanted to win a competition with the other side. It all stated like it was just
a friendly competition, but then anger and revenge took over and everyone wanted
to see the blood flow in the opposition camp. We think women are the emotional sex,
but when it comes to competition men are the worst, for they will go all the way to
killing for the sake of winning a competition. Asahel lost all control and went mad in
his effort to kill Abner, and there was no reason for this madness. His emotions cost
him his life, and it was for nothing.
3. Brian Morgan, “In the end, the battle site is given a new name, Helkath-hazzurim,
the field of the stone knives. What a contrast to this pool with its
living water and the rocky quality of the blood-soaked field turned cemetery.[4]
Now that the sport is over, the deadlock gives way to real conflict, and the
escalation knows no bounds. As the sun sets, the narrator uses but one word to
describe this day of blood: the battle was severe. Severe: a word out of the nerve
of sacred memory (Paul Celan), a word that evokes David's painful lament for the
dead on Gilboa and the tears that ensued (2 Sam 1:17). But the grief of this day is
even more pronounced, because it results from a battle between brothers--the
children of Abraham killing their own seed. Who won? Abner is described as the
loser, but no victor is listed. In a civil war, there are no winners.”
18 The three sons of Zeruiah were there: Joab, Abishai
and Asahel. Now Asahel was as fleet-footed as a wild
gazelle.
1. Zeruiah was the mother of the three sons mentioned above. She and Abigail were
earlier specified as the sisters of David. These three young fighters for David are his
nephews, then.
2. Brian Morgan, “Here we are introduced to the three sons of Zeruiah again, those
macho men whose fiery passions are quick to court danger and deny obstacles.
These were the sons who were so eager for David to slay Saul in the cave of Engedi,
sons who would use theology in the service of their private war. It took a severe
rebuke from David to keep their zeal in check. Now they appear again.”
19 He chased Abner, turning neither to the right nor to
the left as he pursued him.

21. 1. Here we have one of the earliest chase scenes in history. It is not in speeding cars
as they twist and swerve through the city of Hollywood, but of two swift runners on
foot. One is out to catch the other and kill him, and the other is running for his life.
Abner is the one fleeing for his life, and Asahel is the good guy out to put an end to
his miserable life.
20 Abner looked behind him and asked, Is that you,
Asahel? It is, he answered.
1. Both of these men would be in the Olympics today, for they are able to run full
speed and still carry on a conversation. They know each other, for Asahel was
David's nephew, and was well known.
21 Then Abner said to him, Turn aside to the right or
to the left; take on one of the young men and strip him
of his weapons. But Asahel would not stop chasing
him.
1. It appears that Abner is challenging Asahel to fight a one on one battle, and so he
had to get armored up to make it fair, and so he pointed out where he could pause
and strip a young soldier of his armor, and make it a fair and equal fight. Abner
was in his armor, and this makes it even more amazing that he could keep ahead of
Asahel. He was tired of running and wanted to stop and fight.
22 Again Abner warned Asahel, Stop chasing me!
Why should I strike you down? How could I look your
brother Joab in the face?
1.Abner did not want to kill him, because he knew his brother Joab would come to
fight with him, if he did. He tried to persuade Asahel to give up his mission to kill
him, for he knew killing this young man would spell greater trouble for him. He
already has lost this battle with the forces of Joab, and he does not want to face him
again as an angry man.

22. 2. Henry, “How generous Abner was in giving him notice of the danger he exposed
himself to, and advising him not to meddle to his own hurt, 2 Chronicles 25:19 . 1. He
bade him content himself with a less prey ( 2 Samuel 2:21 ): Lay hold of one of the
young men, plunder him and make him thy prisoner, meddle with thy match, but
pretend not to one who is so much superior to thee. It is wisdom in all contests to
compare our own strength with that of our adversaries, and to take heed of being
partial to ourselves in making the comparison, lest we prove in the issue enemies to
ourselves, Luke 14:31. 2. He begged of him not to put him upon the necessity of
slaying him in his own defence, which he was very loth to do, but must do rather
than be slain by him, 2 Samuel 2:22 . Abner, it seems, either loved Joab or feared
him; for he was very loth to incur his displeasure, which he would certainly do if he
slew Asahel. It is commendable for enemies to be thus respectful one to another.
Abner's care how he should lift up his face to Joab gives cause to suspect that he
really believed David would have the kingdom at last, according to the divine
designation, and then, in opposing him, he acted against his conscience.”
23 But Asahel refused to give up the pursuit; so Abner
thrust the butt of his spear into Asahel's stomach, and
the spear came out through his back. He fell there and
died on the spot. And every man stopped when he came
to the place where Asahel had fallen and died.
1. Asahel was fast on his feet, but it is questionable just how swift he was in the
brain department. He was inches away from an armed man he was trying to kill,
and all Abner had to do was push his spear back into him and take him out of the
race for good. It seems he had no weapon to do the same to this man ahead of him.
He was traveling light, and apparently hoped to fist fight Abner to death. He was
not very smart in combat like the man he was chasing, and it cost him his life. He
was given a chance to get armed, but he refused that offer, and that was his best
chance to win this conflict. Henry wrote, “How we are often betrayed by the
accomplishments we are proud of. Asahel's swiftness, which he presumed so much
upon, did him no kindness, but forwarded his fate, and with it he ran upon his
death, instead of running from it.”
2. Asahel was a well like young man, and everyone felt sad about his death. They
honored his life by recognizing his place of death. They would pause there and
reflect on the sadness of such a loss of a good life for no good purpose. This may
have been a good memorial to cause others to learn the value of self-control. He
needed to learn how to slow down as well as how to speed up. An epitaph that would
fit his grave site would be the actual one in Pennsylvania that conveys the tragedy of
a foolish mistake. His is a case where God did not appoint his death, but it was due

23. to a foolish mistake based on his zeal without knowledge.
Memory of an accident in a Union-town, Pennsylvania cemetery:
Here lies the body
of Jonathan Blake
Stepped on the gas
Instead of the brake.
3. An unknown author gives us this information: “In this section of 2 Samuel, which
takes us to the end of chapter 4, we have three sections or scenes, each of which
narrates the violent death of a prominent figure. The first, which we take tonight,
ends with the death of Asahel, David's nephew, the son of his sister. The next ends
with the violent death of Abner and the last ends with the assassination of Ish-
Bosheth. What is important to notice is that in all of this history David is passive.
Others do the fighting, the plotting, the killing. In the next section of the book, when
David has become king of Israel, he will show himself a great warrior, defeating
Israel's enemies and extending her borders. But in the civil war that preceded his
reign in Israel he was not the principle player.”
4. Brian Morgan, “Here we see how unrestrained zeal can blind us from being able
to assess reality. Unwilling to turn from his fixation, Asahel gets the butt end of
Abner's spear, which penetrates with such force that it comes out his back. With a
surprising reverse impact, Asahel is dead on the spot (Fokkelman). The blazing
speed of the text is brought to an abrupt halt, and all are forced to stop and feel the
shocking blow to the belly. Misdirected zeal blinds and kills; it doesn't matter whose
side you are on.”
5. Morgan goes on to give us some New Testament parallels with the three brothers
in this account. He wrote, “Peter, James and John would seem to be the New
Testament counterparts of the sons of Zeruiah. Perfect type casts, they were
impetuous, passionate, bold, vengeful, quick to draw blood. When they were not
received at a Samaritan village, James and John asked the Lord whether he wanted
them to call fire down from heaven, and Jesus had to rebuke them. They even
created controversy within their own circle by their ambition to be first. Rightly
did Jesus label them the sons of thunder. And when the climactic confrontation
was at hand, not by a pool this time, but in a garden, Peter, obsessed with his desire
for action, took a sword and drew blood. Yes, these were men possessed by zeal.”
6. It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.
- Proverbs 19:2 “Zeal, according to the dictionary is an ardent interest or desire.
It doesn't say what the object of the desire is. But the virtue of Zeal only has God as
the object. Anything else is a waste, or even dangerous, because we can make gods of
lesser things, and this nearly always ends in disaster. This is the case for zealots:
they have created some idea and then pursue this shadow of themselves fanatically.

24. Spiritually, the worst thing for a human being is to create a God-image in their
head and then pursue it madly like a dog chasing its tail. It is an excuse for the worst
crimes and atrocities, with an apparently clear conscience. Once a false God has
been created in the mind, the human vices are amplified and rationalized, with the
worst possible results: evil is done but God is blamed.” author unknown
7. Spurgeon wrote about the danger of pride and presumption that fits this young
man who died because of it. He wrote, “A man says, I have great faith, I shall not
fall;poor little faith may, but I never shall. I have fervent love,says another
man, I can stand, there is no danger of my going astray; as for my brother over
there, he is so cold and slow, he will fall, I dare say. Says another, I have a most
burning hope of heaven, and that hope will triumph; it will purge my soul from
sense and sin, as Christ the Lord is pure. I am safe. He who boasts of grace, has
little grace to boast of. But there are some who do that, who think their graces can
keep them, knowing not that the stream must flow constantly from the fountain
head, else the bed of the brook shall soon be dry, and ye shall see the pebbles at the
bottom. If a continuous stream of oil come not to the lamp, though it burn brightly
to-day, it shall smoke to-morrow, and noxious will be the scent thereof. Take heed
that thou neither glory in thy talents nor in thy graces.” The point is, we must all
face our limitations, and know the strengths of the enemy, and not run in where
angels fear to tread. Everyone agrees he died because he was a young hothead who
felt he was invincible, and could face any challenge. He was wrong.
8. His brief life was not entirely wasted, for it becomes a great example for all of us
to learn about the folly of letting our emotions carry us away on missions of disaster.
Frederick Buechner wrote, “Of the 7 deadly sins, anger is possibly the most fun. To
lick your wounds, to smack your lips over grievances long past, to roll over your
tongue the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, to savor to the last
toothsome morsel both the pain you are given and the pain you are giving back—in
many ways it is a feast fit for a king. The chief drawback is that what you are
wolfing down is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.”
9. Just because you can do something well, such as run fast, does not mean that it is
always wise to do it. In this case it was folly to put his gift to use, for it was a fellow
son of Abraham he was trying to kill, when they were supposed to be trying to work
out a way to live together with their differences. He had a gift or a talent, but he
should have buried it and not used it at this time. He should have backed off to live
and fight another day when his speed could be of use. He was racing after a
seasoned warrior far superior to him, and with some tricks up his sleeve that he had
not idea about. He was totally taken by surprise. We need to learn to choose our
battles, and not make the mistake of the man represented by this epitaph:
Here lies the body of Wilbur Jay

25. Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he was wrong.
24 But Joab and Abishai pursued Abner, and as the sun
was setting, they came to the hill of Ammah, near Giah
on the way to the wasteland of Gibeon.
1. Why these brothers did not stay together is not known, for together they likely
could have taken Abner out. They were not the runners like this brother who died
in the pursuit of Abner.
25 Then the men of Benjamin rallied behind Abner.
They formed themselves into a group and took their
stand on top of a hill.
1. The scene is changed now, and no longer are they chasing a fleeing army, but one
that is united on a hill, which always gives them an advantage against any army
coming up the hill. Now Abner can speak from a position of advantage, and he
persuades Joab to give up pursuing him, for it will only lead to many more dying for
no good cause.
26 Abner called out to Joab, Must the sword devour
forever? Don't you realize that this will end in
bitterness? How long before you order your men to stop
pursuing their brothers?
1. “We see that, finally, Abner decides that fighting among the tribes of Israel are of
no advantage. He calls out to the two brothers, who are in hot pursuit to avenge the
death of their brother Asahel. Abner had enough men with him, that he could have
killed the two brothers. He would not, however, be ahead, because this would cause
a bitter war with David. He shows that he is a statesman, here, by trying to stop this
futile battle.” Author unknown
2. These hot heads are beginning to think that maybe they are letting their emotions
lead them rather than commonsense. They are more cool headed now, and it seems
like they have already gone way too far in this conflict. Abner starts speaking some

26. commonsense, and Joab was ready to listen. Was it really sensible to get revenge for
the loss of his hot headed brother who should have backed off trying to kill Abner?
Was it worth the loss of many other lives to pursue this man who really did not want
to kill his brother? He was listening to reason now, and decided that it was the wise
thing to do to forget this meaningless warfare and go home.
3. Henry, “He that was most forward to fight was the first that had enough of it. He
that made a jest of bloodshed (Let the young men arise and play before us, 2 Samuel
2:14) is now shocked at it, when he finds himself on the losing side, and the sword he
made so light of drawing threatening to touch himself. Observe how his note is
changed. Then it was but playing with the sword; now, Shall the sword devour for
ever? It had devoured but one day, yet to him it seemed forever, because it went
against him; and very willing he is now that the sun should not go down upon the
wrath. Now he can appeal to Joab himself concerning the miserable consequences of
a civil war: Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? It will be
reflected upon with regret when the account comes to be made up; for, whoever gets
in a civil war, the community is sure to lose. Perhaps he refers to the bitterness that
there was in the tribes of Israel, in the end of their war with Benjamin, when they
wept sorely for the desolations which they themselves had made, Judges 21:2. Now
he begs of Joab to sound a retreat, and pleads that they were brethren, who ought
not thus to bite and devour one another. He that in the morning would have Joab
bid the people fall upon their brethren now would have him bid them lay down their
arms. See here, 1. How easy it is for men to use reason when it makes for them who
would not use it if it made against them. If Abner had been the conqueror, we
should not have had him complaining of the voraciousness of the sword and the
miseries of a civil war, nor pleading that both sides were brethren; but, finding
himself beaten, all these reasonings are mustered up and improved for the securing
of his retreat and the saving of his scattered troops from being cut off. 2. How the
issue of things alters men's minds. The same thing which looked pleasant in the
morning at night looked dismal. Those that are forward to enter into contention will
perhaps repent it before they have done with it, and therefore had better leave it off
before it be meddled with, as Solomon advises. It is true of every sin (O that men
would consider it in time!) that it will be bitterness in the latter end. At the last it bites
like a serpent those on whom it fawned.”
27 Joab answered, As surely as God lives, if you had
not spoken, the men would have continued the pursuit
of their brothers until morning.
1. Joab is actually thanking Abner for speaking up and putting a halt to this
nonsense, for had he not stopped to speak with honesty and reason, the battle would
have gone on even if Joab and his men had to march all night to continue the
conflict. Here we see the importance of communication. Somebody has to interject

27. some sense into the conflict, or it just goes on driven by emotion even if there is no
meaning to it all. Somebody has to stop the folly by reasoning things out. Most
conflict has no value or meaning in the long run. It is emotion driven, and until
somebody stops to ask what is the meaning of this, and the value of this, it will
continue. People need to think rather than act when they are angry, for only
meaningful thinking will be able to put an end to nonsense. Joab realized that
Abner had to kill his brother or his brother would have killed him. It was tragic, but
adding to the tragedy by killing other innocent people would not make sense.
2. Gill, “surely then in the morning the people had gone up everyone from
following his brother; they would have gone away and never fought at all; they were
not desirous of shedding their blood, and following after them to slay them: thus he
lays the blame upon Abner, and makes him to be the cause and beginner of the war.
Some render the particle by if, and give the sense, that if he had spoken what he
last did sooner, the people would long before this time have desisted from pursuing
them; for it was not from a thirst after their blood, and a desire to luke vengeance
on them, that they pursued them, but to bring them to submission, and lay down
their arms; for they could not in honour retreat until they desired it; but the former
sense seems best, and is the general sense of the Jewish commentators.”
3. Henry, “Joab, though a conqueror, generously grants it, and sounds a retreat,
knowing very well his master's mind and how averse he was to the shedding of
blood. He does indeed justly upbraid Abner with his forwardness to engage, and
lays the blame upon him that there had been so much bloodshed as there was
( 2 Samuel 2:27 ): Unless thou hadst spoken, that is, hadst given orders to fight,
hadst bidden the young men arise and play before us, none of us would have struck
a stroke, nor drawn a sword against our brethren. Thou complainest that the sword
devours, but who first unsheathed it? Who began? Now thou wouldst have the
people parted, but remember who set them on to fight. We should have retired in
the morning if thou hadst not given the challenge. Those that are forward to make
mischief are commonly the first to complain of it. This might have served to excuse
Joab if he had pushed on his victory, and made a full end of Abner's forces; but like
one that pitied the mistake of his adversaries, and scorned to make an army of
Israelites pay dearly for the folly of their commander, he very honourably, by sound
of trumpet, put a stop to the pursuit ( 2 Samuel 2:28 ) and suffered Abner to make an
orderly retreat. It is good husbandry to be sparing of blood. As the soldiers were
here very obsequious to the general's orders, so he, no doubt, observed the
instructions of his prince, who sought the welfare of all Israel and therefore not the
hurt of any.”
4. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “That 27th verse, incidentally, is rather difficult to
render. Now, there are a few in the audience who may know some Hebrew, but if
you look at this, you’ll find it’s rather difficult to be certain of the sense. The
general sense given by the majority of interpreters and students is, “If you had not
spoken,” Joab is speaking, “Surely the men would not have given up the pursuit of
their brethren until the morning.” In other words, Joab is saying, “If you had not

28. said what you have said, then we would have pursued you through the evening and
into the morning.”
On the other hand, it’s possible that Joab is referring to the first gathering at the
pool of Gibeon and he is referring to that. And he is saying, “If you had not
spoken,” that is, if you had not challenged us to the combat where the twenty-four
men fought, “If you had not spoken, the people would have gone away in the
morning.” In other words, we would have stood looking at each other across the
pool. We didn’t want to fight. You made us fight. We would have gone away in the
morning, every one from his brother, so there would not have been any fratricidal
conflict at all.”
5. “No doubt, in large part, Joab's willingness to break off the engagement, was due
to the fact that Abner's men had regrouped on the hill and were poised to inflict
more casualties on his men.” unknown author
28 So Joab blew the trumpet, and all the men came to a
halt; they no longer pursued Israel, nor did they fight
anymore.
1. Finally some common sense prevailed, and the conflict ended before many others
were killed in all out warfare.
2. Brian Morgan, “Joab, unlike Asahel, is able to let go and listen to reason. He
blows the shophar, and all the army halts from the pursuit, thus ending the fight. In
both cases something extraordinary has to break in from without to cause brothers
to give up the chase and let go of their zeal. In the first instance, it was the shocking
death of one whose misdirected zeal consumed him; in the second, it was the
penetrating drones of the shophar, beckoning to all under the name of brother.
3. Sometimes we make mistakes that cost us, but they are made because we do not
know there is a better way. Such is the case in this story: “Red Smith, a sport writer
tells of a friend of his who had a great day of fishing on Lake stocco, Ontario. He
landed a five and a half pound small mouth bass. He filleted it and cooked it and
enjoyed it. But the next day he went into the nearby village and bought some
supplies. He told the clerk about his good luck, and the clerk was in shock. “You ate
it?” he said, and then told him of the contest going on. The winner yesterday won
2,000 dollars with a four and a quarter lb. Bass. It was the most expensive meal he
had ever eaten. He could have had the 2,000.”
In Joab's situation he knew it would be a mistake to continue this battle. He already

29. lost a brother and some good men, and his troops killed several hundred fighting
men of Israel. All of this was bad news to take back to David who wanted no part of
becoming king by power. He waited for God to work it out, and refused to fight his
own people to get to the throne. Joab already made mistakes, and he realized he
could not afford to make any more.
4. Wise is the general who knows there is a time to halt marching toward a battle,
and retreat to go a different way. “It was 1804. Napoleon Bonaparte stared with
frustration across the English Channel toward his nemesis. Behind him was the
invincible Grande Armee, nearly 200,000 crack veterans, all straining at the leash to
crush the hated English. Everything was ready for the invasion: the transport
barges, the escort fleet, ammunition, cavalry, artillery, ambulance wagons, even
field bakeries. Every last detail had been meticulously planned. It was merely a
matter or crossing the 28 miles of water in a single night's journey. Yet for month
after month Napoleon paced the beach at Boulogne, hesitating to act. Finally, after
over a year of waiting, he suddenly turned his huge army around and marched it
into the heart of Europe. The plan to invade England was laid aside forever. The
thing that had stopped the great conqueror at the height of his career was the Royal
Navy, Britain's wall of oak. Out of sight, just over the horizon, it was nevertheless
always foremost in Napoleon's doubts. And though the future Emperor's own fleet
outnumbered the British, he dared not test it. That is the power of deterrence, that
the true effectiveness of a strategic system is in the mind of the enemy.”
29 All that night Abner and his men marched through
the Arabah. They crossed the Jordan, continued
through the whole Bithron and came to Mahanaim.
1. Abner and his men left the place where the battle would have taken place. By
marching all night they put a lot of distance between the two armies, and this
assured that no more conflict would take place at this time.
30 Then Joab returned from pursuing Abner and
assembled all his men. Besides Asahel, nineteen of
David's men were found missing.
1. 12 of this 19 were the poor soldiers who were enlisted in the hand to hand conbat
where they all dies in seconds for no purpose, and so only 7 others died in actual
conflict on the battlefield.

30. 2. Gill, “This has made some think that the twelve men of the servants of David
were not killed in the duel, or otherwise there must be but seven slain in the battle;
though that is not more strange than that in the battle with Midian not one should
be slain, and, yet a terrible slaughter was made of the Midianites, (Numbers 31:1-
54) . So in a sharp battle between the Spartans and Arcadians, ten thousand of the
latter were slain, and not one of the former F17. Stilicho killed more than an
hundred thousand of the army of Rhadagaisus, king of the Goths, without losing one
of his own men, no, not so much as one wounded, as Austin affirms F18. At the battle
of Issus the Persians lost an hundred ten thousand men, and Alexander not two
hundred F19. Julius Caesar killed in the three camps of Juba, Scipio, and Labienus,
ten thousand men, with the loss of fifty men only {t}. After these instances, not only
the case here, but that between the Israelites and Midianites, cannot be thought
incredible, for the sake of which the above are produced. This account, according to
Josephus F21, was taken the day following.”
31 But David's men had killed three hundred and sixty
Benjamites who were with Abner.
1. It is quite clear that David's fighting men were far superior to those of Abner.
David was smart to bring his men who fought with him to be his guard, and a part
of his army. They were seasoned fighters, and they showed their worth in this
conflict. But the bottom line is this: 380 good men died in a meaningless battle based
on pride and emotions that set brothers against brothers in the family of God. This
was a meaningless man caused tragedy, and the only reason for its being recorded
was for us to learn the folly of letting our pride lead us into conflict.
32 They took Asahel and buried him in his father's
tomb at Bethlehem. Then Joab and his men marched all
night and arrived at Hebron by daybreak.
1. Two armied marching away from each other all night put a lot of distance
between them and this was the best plan for peace at this time. Separation of angry
people is always a helpful strategy for maintaining peace.
APPENDIX A

31. POLYGAMY IN O.T.
There is no question that polygamy was forbidden in the New Testament and it is
clearly labeled a sin, but this is not the case in the Old Testament where it was just a
part of the way of life even for God's chosen people. The fact that it is so in this part
of God's revelation is no basis for it being accepted by anyone as God's will in New
Testament times. It was just valid then and it is not now. When I say it was valid I
mean that God clearly accepted it as a way of life for people in that age. The laws he
gave to regulate the lives of his people included laws dealing with men who take
more than one wife. One of the common problems of more than one wife is that one
would be loved more than the other, and this would lead to the man treating the one
less loved unfairly. In order to protect the unloved wives, God gave specific laws.
When we see the cumulative impact of the following verses in God's Word we will
have to acknowledge that polygamy was not just permitted by God but approved,
and this in spite of the many problems that it created, and they were many, but that
is true also of monogamy.
Ex. 21:10-11says this to the man who takes a second wife, If he marries another
woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11
If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any
payment of money. In other words, if a man does not treat his first wife right
because he now has more affection for his new wife, she is free to leave him and not
have to pay a cent to do so. He loses a slave, for now he has no wife to do all the
chores, which is what she would be doing since he has taken a new wife.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other,
and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16
when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to
the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife
he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the
firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his
father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. In other words you
cannot play favorites with your wives on this issue. If you have fallen out of love
with the wife who gave you your first son, that does not change your obligation to
her and her son.
How can you have laws about polygamy if polygamy is itself unlawful. Why not say,
If a man has two wives he is a rebel and is to be cast out of the tribe. That is not
said because it was an acceptable way of life, and not forbidden. You do not have
laws to relulate what is unlawful, you only have penalties. Imagine laws like the
above dealing with stealing. If a man steals let it be kept under a thousand dollars at
the most. If a man commits adultery make sure that it is with someone from a

32. different state. You can see that is insane, for to make laws regulating something
means that that something is valid and legitimate.
Deuteronomy 17:16-17 says of the king, The king, moreover, must not acquire
great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more
of them, for the LORD has told you, You are not to go back that way again. 17 He
must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate
large amounts of silver and gold. Not many wives it says, but it does not say he is to
have only one. Several were acceptable to God, but not the great harem of Solomon
and others who had up in the teens and more. Gideon had 70 sons and so we know
he had a harem of considerable size.
Rabbi Abraham Twersky in 'Let Us Make Man' tells the story of a man who
consulted a psychiatrist explaining that his family had insisted that he come. What
does your family think is wrong? the psychiatrist asked.
They think something is wrong because I like pancakes, he explained.
That's absurd! exclaimed the psychiatrist, there's nothing wrong with liking
pancakes. I too like pancakes!
The man's eyes brightened with evident joy. You do? he said. Then you must
come to my house. I have trunks and trunks full of pancakes in my attic.
When we analyze the obvious insanity of collecting crates of pancakes we realize
that pancakes are a food whose purpose is to satisfy one's hunger and appetite. They
are a means to a specific end. Collecting them without regard to their utilization for
their appropriate purpose is insanity. In other words, insanity is when something
which is a means becomes an end in and of itself.
In Ezek. 23 God even portrays himself as married to two women. It is an xxx rated
chapter to be read only in private, and it deals with his two wives becoming
prostitutes. They are really two groups of people from Samaria and Jerusalem. In
other words Jews who go after other gods like prostitutes go after men. It is a
violently sexual chapter that illustrates that God is not embarrassed to portray
himself as the husband of two whoring wives.
In Jeremiah 3 God has two wives and they are Israel and Judah, and they are
unfaithful to him. It is less violent in its sexual images, but still not fit for mixed
audiances. God even gets a divorce from Israel in this chapter. You will never hear
sermons from these two chapters, for no pastor would want to read them in church.
Deut. 25:5-10 In this unusual case polygamy is not just approved but demanded. It
was a disgrace not to take an extra wife. If brothers are living together and one of
them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her
husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law
to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so
that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 However, if a man does not want
to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, My

33. husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill
the duty of a brother-in-law to me. 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him
and talk to him. If he persists in saying, I do not want to marry her, 9 his
brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his
sandals, spit in his face and say, This is what is done to the man who will not build
up his brother's family line. 10 That man's line shall be known in Israel as The
Family of the Unsandaled. This man is labeled as a disgraceful brother who will
not be a polygamist for the sake of his brother that his name might live.
In Judaism, levirate marriage, known as yibbum, is a marital union mandated by
the Torah in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, obliging a brother to marry the widow of his
childless deceased brother. There is a provision known as chalitza by which one or
both of the parties may choose to become free of this duty. According to some
variants of modern Jewish law, yibbum is strongly discouraged, and chalitza is
preferred.
2 Samuel 5:11-16, Now Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, along with
cedar logs and carpenters and stonemasons, and they built a palace for David. 12
And David knew that the LORD had established him as king over Israel and had
exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel.
13 After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and
more sons and daughters were born to him. 14 These are the names of the children
born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 15 Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg,
Japhia, 16 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet.
God was blessing David as the king, and he felt free to take a number of wives and
concubines. He became one with all of these women and bore sons through
them.David is never condemned for his many wives and concubines. His only
condemnation for any female relationship is his adultery with Bathsheba.
In I Kings 11:1-6 we read of how Solomon failed greatly because of his many wives,
and it is shown to be in contrast with David who also had many wives and
concubines, though not as many, but who was able to still remain faithful to God
and not be led astray by them. King Solomon, however, loved many foreign
women besides Pharaoh's daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians
and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the
Israelites, You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your
hearts after their gods. Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had
seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led
him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and
his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his
father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech
[a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the
LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.
David was able to handle polygamy fine and not let it damage his spiritual life.
Never is his taking multiple wives called a sin or anything that displeased the Lord.

34. This man after God's own heart had at least 18 wives, 8 of whom are named -
Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Eglah, Maacah, Abital, Haggith, and
Bathsheba, and 10 women/concubines
Not only did God not condemn David for his many wives, he actually gave him a
number of them himself. In II Sam. 12:7- we read, Then Nathan said to David,
You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you
king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's
house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel
and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9
Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You
struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You
killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never
depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the
Hittite to be your own. God was so angry at David for his taking the wife of Uriah,
but not a word about all his other wives, for they were given to him by God and
were legitimate wives. God is saying clearly, polygamy is fine, but adultery is wicked
and will be severely punished. If polygamy was wrong, he should have been
punished even if he had not committed adultery, but it was not wrong in the eyes of
God. He would not have given David the wives of Saul had he not approved of
polygamy.
Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not
aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the
matter of Uriah the Hittite. 1 Kings 15:5.
Even the evil kings who led the people astray and who suffered judgment were not
condemned for their taking many wives.
Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2Chro. 11:21). This line in
Judah may have been the origin of the Talmudic limitation of the eighteen wives to
the king.
The father of the Prophet Samuel had two wives (1Sam. 1:2). The sons of Issachar
are recorded as having many wives and sons (1Chro. 7:4).
The lineage of Christ is descended from the second wife of Zerubbabel who was a
Persian princess and daughter of Darius.
Because polygamy is so contrary to New Testament teaching Christians tend to be
dishonest about its reality in the Old Testament, and they say things like,
Yes, but God never condoned polygamy.
Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy.
Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's.
Yes, but God never approved of polygamy.
This ignores all the facts above plus the fact that most of the great men of God in the

35. Old Testament had more than one wife, and that God used polygamy to produce 4
of the 12 tribes of Israel who became his chosen people.
Circumcision is a good example that is like polygamy. It is demanded by God for all
of his chosen people in the Old Testament, and because of that the Jews in the New
Testament felt it was an obligation for all believers to be circumcised. But Paul says
not so, for what was required in the Old is no longer required in the New. In other
words. God changed things radically because of what Jesus did for us in fulfilling
the law. Acts 15:1 1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the
brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot
be saved. The Gentile Christians wanted no part of this, and so there was
controversy among Christians over circumcision. Acts 15 is about this conflict and it
was resolved by saying the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Paul then wrote
about it to the Galatians and said, Gal. 5:6: For in Christ Jesus neither
circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
Gal. 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails
anything, but a new creation. The old is gone and the new is come. Who can then
say that circumcision was not the will of God in the Old, and that he merely endured
it but never approved it? It was clearly his will then, but it changed when a new
plan was put in place, and so it was with polygamy.
Elmer Towns gives us these insights on polygamy. Why did God allow polygamy in
the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy.
The best anyone can do is “informed” speculation. There are a few key items to
consider. First, there has always been more women in the world than men. Current
statistics show that approximately 50.5% of the world population are women, with
men being 49.5%. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied
by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men.
Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate
of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men.
Third, due to the patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for a woman to
provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on
their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried
women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. Fourth, the significant
difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many
women in an undesirable situation (to say the least).
So, it seems that God allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who
could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives, and serve as
the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a
polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery,
starvation, etc. In addition to the protection / provision factor, polygamy enabled a
much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and
multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple
women in the same time period…causing humanity to grow much faster than if each
man was only able to produce one child each year. Again, these are only “informed”

36. speculations.