Abner was strengthening his hold on the house of Saul (2 Samuel 3:6)
It seems that Abner supported a weak man like Ishbosheth in power so that he could be the power behind the throne.
Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine (2 Samuel 3:7)
Ishbosheth accused Abner of a serious crime. Taking a royal concubine was regarded as both sexual immorality and treason.
And David said, “Good, I will make a covenant with you. But one thing I require of you: you shall not see my face unless you first bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come to see my face.” (2 Samuel 3:13)
David already had so many wives, so then why take Michal now?
Michal was the daughter of Saul, and as such, David was the son-in-law of the kingdom of Israel. He took Michal for political reasons to strengthen his hand over Israel.
Joab took him aside in the gate (2 Samuel 3:27)
Joab carefully engineered this murder so that the killing was done outside the gate of Hebron. This was because Hebron was a city of refuge (Joshua 20:7), and it was against the law for Joab, as Asahel’s blood avenger, to kill Abner inside the city.
28 Afterward, when David heard it, he said, “My kingdom and I are guiltless before the Lord forever of the blood of Abner, the son of Ner.29 Let it rest on the head of Joab and on all his father’s house; and let there never fail to be in the house of Joab one who has a discharge or is a leper, who leans on a staff or falls by the sword, or who lacks bread.”30 So Joab and Abishai, his brother, killed Abner because he had killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. (2 Samuel 3:28-30)
In 2 Samuel 3, David curses Joab for committing murder but then quickly makes him commander of his Army. Why would he place him so high in the Kingdom if he was that upset with him?
The character of Joab is an interesting one to study. Sometimes he's the ultimate war hero. Sometimes he's ruthless and insubordinate. At one point, he's David's accessory to the murder of Uriah. On another, he rebukes David for mourning the death of his rebellious son. He's not exactly easy to figure out, and that makes him a lot like us.
Was the curse of David actually effective?
Given David's status as prophet and king and the tendency of these biblical blessings and curses to be central to characters' lives, we would expect it to be a true curse. But we see at least some of it confirmed in the very story, as Joab himself "falls by the sword." So, while he gets to continue living by the sword for David's sake, he dies by it as well. It looks like God is confirming the curse by mentioning that. Then Joab's line drops off the narrative altogether, further confirming it. It looks like God took intentional steps in the narrative to tell us that Joab's curse was effectve.
Was David right to rank someone so unfaithful so highly?
This is the harder question. To answer it, we must look to the one David is meant to foreshadow: King Jesus. It's true that Jesus is a friend of sinners and that He welcomes the lowest of the low into his Kingdom. A character like Joab, if he repents and comes to Christ, will be brought in as a royal son. But regarding those already in His kingdom, Jesus rewards faithful servants, not wicked ones, by setting them over more. David does the exact opposite, failing to show us what Jesus' rule will be like. So, no, David was not right to appoint an unfaithful man as commander again and again. Even King David could not perfectly point us to King Jesus.
It seems that Abner supported a weak man like Ishbosheth in power so that he could be the power behind the throne.
Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine (2 Samuel 3:7)
Ishbosheth accused Abner of a serious crime. Taking a royal concubine was regarded as both sexual immorality and treason.
And David said, “Good, I will make a covenant with you. But one thing I require of you: you shall not see my face unless you first bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come to see my face.” (2 Samuel 3:13)
David already had so many wives, so then why take Michal now?
Michal was the daughter of Saul, and as such, David was the son-in-law of the kingdom of Israel. He took Michal for political reasons to strengthen his hand over Israel.
Joab took him aside in the gate (2 Samuel 3:27)
Joab carefully engineered this murder so that the killing was done outside the gate of Hebron. This was because Hebron was a city of refuge (Joshua 20:7), and it was against the law for Joab, as Asahel’s blood avenger, to kill Abner inside the city.
28 Afterward, when David heard it, he said, “My kingdom and I are guiltless before the Lord forever of the blood of Abner, the son of Ner.29 Let it rest on the head of Joab and on all his father’s house; and let there never fail to be in the house of Joab one who has a discharge or is a leper, who leans on a staff or falls by the sword, or who lacks bread.”30 So Joab and Abishai, his brother, killed Abner because he had killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. (2 Samuel 3:28-30)
In 2 Samuel 3, David curses Joab for committing murder but then quickly makes him commander of his Army. Why would he place him so high in the Kingdom if he was that upset with him?
The character of Joab is an interesting one to study. Sometimes he's the ultimate war hero. Sometimes he's ruthless and insubordinate. At one point, he's David's accessory to the murder of Uriah. On another, he rebukes David for mourning the death of his rebellious son. He's not exactly easy to figure out, and that makes him a lot like us.
Was the curse of David actually effective?
Given David's status as prophet and king and the tendency of these biblical blessings and curses to be central to characters' lives, we would expect it to be a true curse. But we see at least some of it confirmed in the very story, as Joab himself "falls by the sword." So, while he gets to continue living by the sword for David's sake, he dies by it as well. It looks like God is confirming the curse by mentioning that. Then Joab's line drops off the narrative altogether, further confirming it. It looks like God took intentional steps in the narrative to tell us that Joab's curse was effectve.
Was David right to rank someone so unfaithful so highly?
This is the harder question. To answer it, we must look to the one David is meant to foreshadow: King Jesus. It's true that Jesus is a friend of sinners and that He welcomes the lowest of the low into his Kingdom. A character like Joab, if he repents and comes to Christ, will be brought in as a royal son. But regarding those already in His kingdom, Jesus rewards faithful servants, not wicked ones, by setting them over more. David does the exact opposite, failing to show us what Jesus' rule will be like. So, no, David was not right to appoint an unfaithful man as commander again and again. Even King David could not perfectly point us to King Jesus.
Chapters