You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog. Bible in One Year Readings Index
Chapter 3: The Rift Between Abner and Ishbaal and
the Blood Feud Between Abner and Joab
2 Samuel 3:2-5 ~ David's Family
There is a more extensive list of David's wives and children in 1 Chronicles 3:1-9.
Question: Among the commands God gave the Israelites concerning the rule of a human king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, which of these commands has David now broken? Answer: He has broken the command concerning acquiring many wives.
This is David's first misstep; he has a weakness for pretty women. Later we will see how this character flaw will lead to David's first relationship break with Yahweh. His marriage to Talmai, however, is probably a political marriage involving a convent treaty with her father who is the king of Geshur. This association shows that David is extending his influence to the north. Geshur is a small kingdom whose territory formed part of southern Golan, east of the Sea of Galilee (Josh 12:5; 13:11, 13). It was not conquered during the first phase of the conquest of Canaan and remained an independent Aramean kingdom at this time. Notice that David's "house"/family continues to grow while Saul's "house"/family is continually diminished.
2 Samuel 3:6-11 ~ Ishbaal Offends Abner
Abner had always been fond of David ever since he slew Goliath and entered Saul's service (1 Sam 17:55-56; 18:5). He must have felt conflicted knowing that David was God's anointed and yet having the obligations of his kinship attachment to the House of Saul (he was Saul's cousin and closest friend). It was his blood tie and affection for Saul that caused him to place Saul's remaining son on the throne, even though that son was a weak and feckless man.
Ishbaal's veiled accusation is not unreasonable. Marriage to or possession of the former wives, daughters or concubines of a king was seen as a legitimate claim to that man's throne. However, if Abner had designs on Saul's throne, as a member of the royal family he could have killed Ishbaal and taken the throne earlier. Perhaps he really loved the woman and Ishbaal may have been suggesting that he desires her for himself. It was the custom of new kings to assume the harem of their predecessors.
The comparison to a dog in the Biblical idiom regularly figures as a contemptible image. Dogs were considered scavengers. The phrase "attached/belonging to Judah" means that Abner is taking Ishbaal's words to suggest he is a traitor to his tribe of Benjamin in favor of David and the tribe of Judah. Perhaps this is the last of many insults Abner has patiently born. Abner understands the accusation and is insulted that he would be accused of such a treachery after all he has done to secure Ishbaal's throne. The result of this last insult is that Ishbaal has alienated the one man who could protect him. Abner's anger with Ishbaal, his fondness for David, his conviction that David is Yahweh's chosen, and perhaps his love for Saul's concubine, Rizpah, has now overcome his feelings of loyalty to the House of Saul. Remember the name of Saul's concubine. Both Abner and Rizpah are tragic figures in salvation history.
Question: What oath does Abner swear in the name of Yahweh?
Answer: He swears a self-curse in the name of Yahweh if he does not transfer his covenant loyalty to David.
2 Samuel 3:12-16 ~ Abner and David Reconcile
Abner sends a message to David, pledging his political support and the promise to convince the other tribes who recognize Ishbaal's kingship to abandon the House of Saul and acknowledge David as king of a united Israel. The conditions Abner requests for his support are lost to the text. Did he ask for Rizpah? David will make a similar request.
Question: What condition does David demand from Abner? See 1 Sam 18:20-27.
Answer: David requires that Abner use his influence with Ishbaal to have Saul's daughter Michal returned to David. David's marriage to Saul's daughter gave him a legitimate, political claim to the throne.
Question: What is the significance of the one hundred Philistine foreskins that David mentions in verse 14? See 1 Sam 18:25.
Answer: That was the "bride price" Saul demanded from David to marry his daughter. In other words, the marriage was legal and binding because Saul accepted David's "bride price."
When David had to flee from Saul's court to save his life, Saul gave Michal in marriage to another man (1 Sam 25:44). Tragically, Michal's second husband seems to have truly loved her as Michal once loved David even to the point of risking her own life to save David from her father (1 Sam 19:11-17). Now she had been torn from a husband who loves her to be returned to a man who probably never loved her and only sees her as a political advantage.
2 Samuel 3:17-21 ~ Abner Negotiates with the Elders of Israel on David's Behalf
Abner uses his considerable influence to convince the elders of Israel to transfer their support from Ishbaal to David. He has singlehandedly brought over the eleven tribes of Israel into David's camp, including his own and Ishbaal's tribe of Benjamin. Abner was Saul's commanding general for twenty years and the elders of Israel trust him. After a victory dinner, Abner is anxious make the arrangements to call a national assembly of all the tribes of Israel to announce their acceptance of David as their king. Abner has handed David his kingdom without a civil war between the tribes.
2 Samuel 3:22-27 ~ Joab Kills Abner
Knowing Joab's enmity against Abner, David may have sent him on the raid to avoid having a confrontation between the two men at the banquet. When Joab discovers Abner has been to Hebron he is outraged that David let him go.
Question: What two accusations does Joab make?
Answer: He accuses David that he let an enemy go and he accuses Abner of only coming to spy on David.
He sends messenger to call Abner back to Hebron, probably telling him David needs to confer with him again. When Abner returns, Joab assassinates him by stabbing him in the belly; it is the same mortal wound that killed his brother. Abner killed Joab's brother in self-defense on the battlefield, but Joab has murdered Abner.
2 Samuel 3:28-39 ~ David's Reaction to Abner's Murder
Question: Why is it necessary for David to immediately declare his innocence concerning the death of Abner? In what precarious position has Abner's death placed David?
Answer: Abner was highly esteemed by the tribes of Israel. If the other tribes believed that David had committed such a treacherous act as killing Abner after his efforts to bring the other eleven tribes to acknowledge David as their king, David would lose all the support Abner had won for him.
Question: What measures does David take to assure the tribes of Israel that he is innocent and did not order Abner's death?
Answer:
- He swears by God's divine name that he is innocent of Abner's death.
- He curses his own kinsmen who are responsible for Abner's death.
- He orders the people, including Joab and Abishai, to publically mourn Abner's death.
- He leads the burial procession behind Abner's brier and buries Abner in his capital city.
- He composes and sings a public lament for Abner.
- He pronounces Abner's death unjustified.
- He fasts and utters a self-curse against himself if he breaks the fast before sundown.
It is hard to accept as credible David's claim that he is too weak to punish Joab. David loves his nephews who have been unfailingly faithful in serving him. They were among the first to join him in his exile when he was completely alone (1 Sam 22:1). The lack of will to inflict harsh punishment on members of his family is a weakness for which David will pay a heavy price. As you may recall, God judged the High Priest Eli for his failure to punish his sons when they sinned (1 Sam 2:12-13a, 17; 29-33). At the end of his life, David is still troubled by the failure of justice concerning holding Joab accountable for Abner's death. On his deathbed, David bequeaths the task of seeking justice for the innocent blood of Abner by prosecuting Joab to his son Solomon (1 Kng 2:5-6).
CHALLENGE: “Matthew contains passages where Jesus indicates that it’s possible to get remarried after a divorce for reasons of ‘unchastity.’”
DEFENSE: Jesus nowhere says that you can remarry after such a divorce. The exceptive clauses do not imply this.
In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (cf. Matt. 19:9).
The phrase “except on the ground of unchastity” is not found anywhere else that the New Testament treats this subject. All other instances are exceptionless (see Mark 10:11–12; Luke16:18; Rom. 7:2–3; 1 Cor. 7:12). This is significant because unchastity was common in the ancient world. If it allowed a person to divorce and remarry, it would have been pastorally irresponsible in the extreme for the other New Testament authors not to mention this.
Many of their readers had spouses who had committed one or another form of unchastity (particularly in Corinth and Rome—where the four writings mentioned above were written or directed). Many readers thus could have remarried on this theory, but—under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16)—the authors of these books indicated that they could not.
Whatever the exceptive clauses mean, they don’t mean that a couple can get divorced and remarried if one party commits unchastity (whether understood as adultery or other sexual sin). If that were what was meant then, as John P. Meier points out, “Obviously, the only thing to do for a faithful Christian couple who wanted a divorce would be to commit adultery, after which a dissolution of the marriage would be allowed. What we wind up with is divorce on demand, with a technical proviso of committing adultery” (The Vision of Matthew, 253).
This does not fit the disciples’ reaction to Jesus teaching on divorce and remarriage in Matthew, as they say: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (Matt. 19:10). Nobody would think it is expedient not to marry if unchastity would allow you to divorce and remarry. Unchastity was far too common. Their reaction is only intelligible if they understood him as not allowing remarriage following divorce. For more on the meaning of the exceptive clauses, see Day 123.
Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist
No comments:
Post a Comment