Now the war between the house of Saul and the house of David was protracted.
The conflict between the house of Saul and the house of David represents a significant period in Israel's history, marked by civil war and political instability. This war followed the death of Saul, Israel's first king, and the anointing of David as king over Judah. The term "protracted" indicates a lengthy and drawn-out conflict, which reflects the deep divisions within the nation. The house of Saul, led by Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, sought to maintain control over Israel, while David, anointed by God through the prophet Samuel, was destined to unify the kingdom. This prolonged struggle can be seen as a test of faith and patience for David, who had been promised the throne but had to wait for God's timing. The conflict also highlights the consequences of Saul's disobedience to God, as his house gradually loses power and influence.

And David grew stronger and stronger,
David's increasing strength is both a physical and spiritual reality. Militarily, David's forces were gaining victories and consolidating power, as seen in his successful campaigns and the loyalty of his mighty men. Spiritually, David's strength is attributed to his reliance on God and his anointing as king. This growth in strength is a fulfillment of God's promise to David, as seen in 1 Samuel 16:13, where the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. David's rise is also a type of Christ, who, despite opposition, grows in influence and ultimately establishes His kingdom. The phrase underscores the divine favor upon David, contrasting with the decline of Saul's house.

while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker.
The decline of Saul's house is a direct result of Saul's disobedience and rejection by God, as prophesied in 1 Samuel 15:28. The weakening of Saul's house is evident in the loss of key battles, defections to David's side, and internal strife, such as the murder of Abner, Saul's former commander. This decline serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of turning away from God's commands. The weakening of Saul's house also sets the stage for the eventual unification of Israel under David's rule, fulfilling God's covenant promise to establish David's lineage, which ultimately leads to the coming of Jesus Christ, the eternal King.

And sons were born to David in Hebron:
David's time in Hebron marks a significant period in his life, as it was here that he was anointed king over the tribe of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4). Hebron, located in the Judean hills, was a city of refuge and a significant historical site, being associated with the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The birth of sons to David in Hebron signifies the establishment of his royal lineage and the fulfillment of God's promise to David regarding his descendants (2 Samuel 7:12-16).

His firstborn was Amnon:
Amnon, as the firstborn son, held a position of prominence and potential succession to the throne. However, his life was marked by tragedy and sin, as seen in 2 Samuel 13, where he committed a grievous act against his half-sister Tamar. This event set off a chain of violence and retribution within David's family, highlighting the complexities and challenges of David's household.

by Ahinoam of Jezreel:
Ahinoam of Jezreel was one of David's wives, and her mention here indicates the political alliances and marriages that were common in the ancient Near Eastern context. Jezreel was a city in the northern part of Israel, and Ahinoam's marriage to David may have been strategic, strengthening his political ties and influence. This reflects the broader biblical theme of God working through human relationships and political structures to accomplish His purposes.

his second was Chileab, by Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel;
Chileab, also known as Daniel in some texts, is the second son of David. His mother, Abigail, was previously married to Nabal, a wealthy but harsh man from Carmel. Abigail's marriage to David followed Nabal's death, which is detailed in 1 Samuel 25. This union is significant as it highlights David's growing influence and the consolidation of his power through strategic marriages. Abigail is noted for her wisdom and beauty, and her marriage to David brought legitimacy and alliances. Carmel, located in the Judean wilderness, was a fertile area, and its mention underscores the wealth and status associated with Abigail. Chileab's lack of mention in later narratives suggests he may have died young or was not involved in the political struggles of David's other sons.

his third was Absalom, the son of Maacah daughter of King Talmai of Geshur;
Absalom is a prominent figure in the narrative of David's reign, known for his rebellion against his father. His mother, Maacah, was the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, a small Aramean kingdom northeast of the Sea of Galilee. This marriage was likely a political alliance, strengthening David's ties with neighboring regions. Absalom's story is marked by ambition and tragedy, as he later leads a revolt against David, which is detailed in 2 Samuel 15-18. His actions and eventual death serve as a cautionary tale about the consequences of pride and rebellion. The mention of Geshur highlights the complex political landscape of the time, where marriages were often used to secure peace and alliances. Absalom's life and actions also foreshadow the internal strife that would plague David's kingdom, reflecting the broader theme of the challenges of leadership and the fulfillment of God's promises amidst human failings.

his fourth was Adonijah, the son of Haggith;
Adonijah, the fourth son of David, plays a significant role later in the narrative of 1 Kings. His name means "my Lord is Yahweh," which reflects the theistic culture of Israel. Adonijah's mother, Haggith, is one of David's wives, indicating the polygamous practices of the time, which were common among kings for political alliances and progeny. Adonijah's later attempt to claim the throne (1 Kings 1) parallels the earlier rebellion of his brother Absalom, highlighting the recurring theme of familial strife within David's house, as prophesied in 2 Samuel 12:10. This foreshadows the internal conflicts that would plague David's lineage, ultimately leading to the division of the kingdom.

his fifth was Shephatiah, the son of Abital;
Shephatiah, whose name means "Yahweh has judged," is less prominent in the biblical narrative, with no significant actions recorded. His mother, Abital, is another of David's wives, further illustrating the king's numerous marriages. The mention of Shephatiah and his mother serves to document the lineage and the complexity of David's family, which is crucial for understanding the succession issues that arise later. The listing of David's sons in this passage underscores the fulfillment of God's promise to David regarding his descendants (2 Samuel 7:12-16), while also setting the stage for the eventual rise of Solomon, who is not mentioned here but becomes the central figure in the continuation of David's dynasty.

and his sixth was Ithream
Ithream is listed as the sixth son of David, born during his reign in Hebron. The name Ithream means "abundance of people" or "advantage of the people," which may reflect the growing strength and influence of David's house. The listing of David's sons in this passage highlights the political alliances and familial ties that were significant in ancient Israelite society. Each son represented a potential heir and a connection to different tribes or influential families.

by David’s wife Eglah
Eglah is mentioned as one of David's wives, though little else is known about her from the biblical text. The inclusion of her name signifies her importance in the royal lineage, as each wife of David contributed to the expansion of his dynasty. The practice of polygamy was common among ancient Near Eastern kings, often used to secure political alliances and strengthen the king's position. Eglah's mention here underscores the complex family dynamics and the potential for rivalry among David's sons, which later plays a significant role in the narrative of David's reign.

These sons were born to David in Hebron
Hebron was a significant city in the history of Israel, serving as David's capital for seven and a half years before he moved his throne to Jerusalem. It was a city of refuge and a Levitical city, rich in patriarchal history as the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The birth of David's sons in Hebron marks the beginning of his consolidation of power and the establishment of his rule over Judah. This period in Hebron was crucial for David as he built alliances and strengthened his claim to the throne of all Israel. The mention of Hebron also connects David's reign to the promises made to the patriarchs, emphasizing the fulfillment of God's covenant through David's lineage.

During the war between the house of Saul and the house of David
This phrase sets the historical context of a prolonged conflict following the death of King Saul. The "house of Saul" refers to the remaining supporters and family of Saul, who was the first king of Israel. The "house of David" refers to David and his followers, who were anointed by God to succeed Saul. This period of civil war is significant as it highlights the transition of power from Saul to David, a key moment in Israel's history. The conflict is rooted in the divine rejection of Saul (1 Samuel 15:26-28) and the anointing of David as king (1 Samuel 16:1-13). This war is not just a political struggle but also a fulfillment of God's plan for Israel.

Abner had continued to strengthen his position in the house of Saul
Abner, the son of Ner, was Saul's cousin and the commander of his army (1 Samuel 14:50). His role was crucial in maintaining the house of Saul's influence during the power struggle. By strengthening his position, Abner was consolidating power, possibly to ensure his own influence and survival in the shifting political landscape. This action reflects the common practice of military leaders in ancient times to secure their standing through strategic alliances and displays of strength. Abner's actions can be seen as both a political maneuver and a personal ambition, as he later seeks to negotiate with David (2 Samuel 3:12-21). This move by Abner also foreshadows the eventual unification of Israel under David, as Abner's defection to David's side becomes a pivotal moment in the narrative.

Now Saul had a concubine named Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah.
Concubines in ancient Israel held a status lower than that of a wife but were considered part of the household. Rizpah, as a concubine of Saul, would have been under his protection and part of his legacy. Her father, Aiah, is mentioned, indicating her family background, which was often significant in establishing social status. Rizpah's story later in 2 Samuel 21:8-14 highlights her loyalty and the tragic events surrounding her sons, showing her as a figure of maternal devotion and grief.

So Ish-bosheth questioned Abner,
Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was a weak king, often manipulated by Abner, the commander of Saul's army. This questioning indicates a power struggle and insecurity in Ish-bosheth's reign. Abner's role was crucial as he held military power and influence, often acting independently. This tension foreshadows the eventual shift of power to David, as Abner's loyalty wavers.

“Why did you sleep with my father’s concubine?”
Sleeping with a king's concubine was seen as a claim to the throne, as it symbolized taking over the king's harem and, by extension, his authority. This act was not just personal but political, suggesting Abner's possible ambitions or a challenge to Ish-bosheth's rule. This accusation reflects the instability and intrigue within Saul's house, contrasting with David's rise to power. Similar situations occur in 2 Samuel 16:21-22, where Absalom sleeps with David's concubines, further illustrating the political implications of such actions.

Abner was furious over Ish-bosheth’s accusation.
Abner, a powerful military leader and cousin to King Saul, was deeply offended by Ish-bosheth's accusation. This reflects the tension within the house of Saul after his death. Abner's anger indicates the fragile nature of Ish-bosheth's rule and the internal strife that plagued Saul's dynasty. The accusation likely involved a serious breach of trust or honor, which was a significant issue in ancient Near Eastern cultures.

“Am I the head of a dog that belongs to Judah?” he asked.
The phrase "head of a dog" was a derogatory term in ancient Israel, implying worthlessness or contempt. Dogs were considered unclean animals, and this metaphor suggests Abner felt deeply insulted. The mention of Judah highlights the tribal divisions and rivalries, as Judah was the tribe of David, Saul's rival. This reflects the political tension between the northern tribes loyal to Saul's house and the southern tribe of Judah, loyal to David.

“All this time I have been loyal to the house of your father Saul, to his brothers, and to his friends.
Abner emphasizes his loyalty to Saul's family, underscoring his role in maintaining the kingdom after Saul's death. His loyalty extended beyond Saul to his brothers and allies, indicating a broader network of support. This loyalty was crucial in the power dynamics of the time, as familial and tribal allegiances were central to political stability.

I have not delivered you into the hand of David,
Abner's statement reveals his power and influence, as he had the capability to shift allegiance to David but chose not to. This highlights the precarious position of Ish-bosheth, who relied heavily on Abner's support to maintain his rule. It also foreshadows the eventual transfer of power to David, as Abner's allegiance was a key factor in the political landscape.

but now you accuse me of wrongdoing with this woman!
The accusation likely involved Rizpah, Saul's concubine, which would have been seen as a claim to Saul's throne. In the ancient Near East, taking a king's concubine was a political act, symbolizing a claim to his authority. This accusation threatened Abner's honor and position, prompting his anger and eventual decision to support David. This incident reflects the complex interplay of personal relationships and political power in the biblical narrative.

May God punish Abner, and ever so severely
This phrase reflects the ancient Near Eastern practice of invoking divine retribution as a form of oath-taking. It underscores the seriousness of Abner's commitment. In biblical culture, invoking God's punishment was a way to emphasize the truthfulness and binding nature of one's words. This type of oath is seen elsewhere in Scripture, such as in Ruth 1:17, where Ruth makes a similar vow to Naomi. The use of such language indicates the gravity of the situation and Abner's determination to fulfill his promise.

if I do not do for David
Abner's declaration here marks a pivotal moment in the power dynamics of Israel. Abner, the commander of Saul's army, is shifting his allegiance from the house of Saul to David. This is significant because it represents a major political and military shift in favor of David, who had been anointed by Samuel as the future king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Abner's support would have been crucial in consolidating David's rule over all Israel, as Abner had considerable influence and authority.

what the LORD has sworn to him
This phrase acknowledges the divine promise made to David, which is a central theme in the books of Samuel. The LORD's promise to David is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:1-13, where David is anointed as king. This promise is further elaborated in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, where God makes a covenant with David, ensuring that his lineage will endure forever. Abner's recognition of this divine promise indicates his acceptance of God's will and the legitimacy of David's kingship. It also highlights the theme of God's sovereignty and faithfulness in fulfilling His promises, which is a recurring motif throughout the Bible.

to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul
This phrase indicates a significant shift in the leadership of Israel. Saul, the first king of Israel, was chosen by God but later rejected due to his disobedience (1 Samuel 15:26-28). The transfer of the kingdom signifies God's sovereign plan to establish a new dynasty through David, a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). This transition reflects the divine judgment on Saul's house and the fulfillment of God's promise to David.

and to establish the throne of David
The establishment of David's throne is a pivotal moment in biblical history, as it marks the beginning of the Davidic dynasty. This is significant because God made a covenant with David, promising that his throne would be established forever (2 Samuel 7:16). This covenant is foundational for the messianic hope, as it points to Jesus Christ, who is often referred to as the Son of David (Matthew 1:1). David's reign is characterized by a heart aligned with God's purposes, contrasting with Saul's failure.

over Israel and Judah
The unification of Israel and Judah under David's rule is a crucial development. Initially, David was anointed king over Judah, while Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, ruled over Israel (2 Samuel 2:8-10). The phrase indicates the consolidation of the tribes into a single nation under David's leadership, fulfilling God's plan for a united kingdom. This unity is a precursor to the eventual division after Solomon's reign, highlighting the importance of godly leadership in maintaining national cohesion.

from Dan to Beersheba
This phrase is a geographical expression denoting the entire land of Israel, from its northernmost city, Dan, to its southernmost city, Beersheba. It signifies the extent of David's rule and the comprehensive nature of his kingship. The use of this expression underscores the fulfillment of God's promise to give the land to the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21). It also highlights the peace and stability achieved under David's reign, as the nation is united from north to south.

And for fear of Abner
Abner was the commander of Saul's army and a powerful figure in Israel. His influence was significant, and he held considerable sway over the northern tribes. The fear Ish-bosheth had for Abner highlights the political instability and the power dynamics at play during this period. Abner's role as a kingmaker is evident, as he was instrumental in establishing Ish-bosheth as king over Israel after Saul's death. This fear also underscores the lack of true authority Ish-bosheth had, as he was reliant on Abner's support to maintain his rule.

Ish-bosheth did not dare
Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was a weak and indecisive leader, contrasting sharply with David's strong and charismatic leadership. His inability to confront Abner shows his lack of confidence and authority. This phrase reflects the internal conflict within the house of Saul and the challenges Ish-bosheth faced in asserting his kingship. The political tension between Ish-bosheth and Abner foreshadows the eventual decline of Saul's dynasty and the rise of David as the undisputed king of Israel.

to say another word to him
This indicates a complete submission to Abner's authority, highlighting the imbalance of power between the two. Ish-bosheth's silence can be seen as a strategic move to avoid conflict, but it also reveals his dependency on Abner. This dynamic is crucial in understanding the eventual shift of power to David, as Abner later defects to David's side, further weakening Ish-bosheth's position. The inability to speak against Abner also reflects the broader theme of God's providence in establishing David's kingdom, as the internal strife within Saul's house paves the way for David's ascension.

Then Abner sent messengers on his behalf to say to David
Abner, the commander of Saul's army, was a powerful figure in Israel. His decision to send messengers to David indicates a significant political move. This action follows a dispute with Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, which led Abner to shift his allegiance. The use of messengers highlights the formal and diplomatic nature of this communication, common in ancient Near Eastern politics. Abner's initiative reflects his recognition of David's growing power and God's anointing of David as king, as seen in 1 Samuel 16:1-13.

To whom does the land belong?
This rhetorical question underscores the political tension and the struggle for control over Israel. It implies a challenge to Ish-bosheth's legitimacy and suggests that the rightful ruler should be the one who can unite and govern the land effectively. The land of Israel, promised to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 15:18-21), is central to the covenantal promises and the identity of the nation. Abner's question hints at the divine right of kingship, which David embodies as God's chosen leader.

Make your covenant with me
Covenants in the ancient Near East were binding agreements that often included political alliances. Abner's proposal for a covenant with David signifies a shift in loyalty and a strategic alliance. This covenant would not only solidify David's claim to the throne but also bring about the unification of the northern tribes with Judah. The concept of covenant is foundational in the Bible, reflecting God's covenants with Noah, Abraham, and David himself (2 Samuel 7:12-16).

and surely my hand will be with you
Abner's promise of support is significant given his military prowess and influence. His backing would provide David with the necessary strength to consolidate his rule over all Israel. This phrase indicates a transfer of power and allegiance, which is crucial for David's kingship. The imagery of the "hand" often symbolizes power and action in biblical texts, as seen in God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 13:3).

to bring all Israel over to you
Abner's offer to bring all Israel under David's rule fulfills the divine promise of a united kingdom under David's leadership. This unification is a pivotal moment in Israel's history, setting the stage for the establishment of Jerusalem as the political and spiritual center. It also prefigures the messianic kingdom, where Jesus, a descendant of David, will reign over a united people (Luke 1:32-33). The phrase reflects the fulfillment of God's promise to David and the foreshadowing of Christ's eternal kingdom.

“Good,” replied David,
David's response indicates his approval and willingness to engage in negotiations. This reflects his strategic mindset and political acumen. David, anointed by God as king, often sought to unify the kingdom under his rule, and this agreement would further that goal. His response also shows his readiness to reconcile and build alliances, a common practice among ancient Near Eastern kings to strengthen their reign.

“I will make a covenant with you.”
Covenants in the biblical context were solemn agreements, often involving mutual commitments and obligations. David's offer to make a covenant signifies a formal and binding agreement, which was a serious and sacred undertaking. This reflects the biblical theme of covenants as seen with Noah, Abraham, and Moses, where God established His promises with His people. David's covenant here is a political move to solidify his claim to the throne and ensure loyalty from Abner, Saul's former commander.

But there is one thing I require of you:
David sets a condition for the covenant, demonstrating his wisdom and foresight. By placing a requirement, David ensures that the agreement is not only beneficial to him but also addresses his personal and political needs. This reflects the biblical principle of counting the cost and ensuring that agreements are equitable and serve a greater purpose.

Do not appear before me unless you bring Saul’s daughter Michal when you come to see me.”
Michal, Saul's daughter, was David's first wife, whom Saul had given to another man during David's exile. By demanding her return, David asserts his rights and strengthens his claim to Saul's legacy. This move is both personal and political, as Michal's return would symbolize David's legitimate connection to Saul's house, thus reinforcing his position as king. The demand for Michal also fulfills the bride price David paid with the defeat of the Philistines, highlighting themes of justice and restitution. This action foreshadows the restoration and reconciliation themes found in the New Testament, where Christ restores and reconciles humanity to God.

Then David sent messengers to say to Ish-bosheth son of Saul
David's action of sending messengers reflects the political and diplomatic practices of the time. Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was a rival king reigning over Israel while David ruled Judah. This request highlights the ongoing tension between the house of Saul and David. The use of messengers indicates the formal nature of the communication, as direct confrontation could have led to conflict. This act also underscores David's strategic approach to consolidating his rule over all Israel.

“Give me back my wife, Michal”
Michal, Saul's daughter, was David's first wife, given to him as a reward for his military victories. Her return was not only a personal matter but also a political one, as reclaiming Michal would strengthen David's claim to Saul's throne by re-establishing his connection to the former king's family. This request can be seen as a move to legitimize his kingship and unify the divided kingdom under his rule.

whom I betrothed to myself for a hundred Philistine foreskins.”
David's bride price for Michal was a significant and dangerous task, requiring him to kill Philistines, Israel's enemies. This act demonstrated David's bravery and military prowess, qualities that endeared him to the people and solidified his reputation as a leader. The mention of the bride price serves as a reminder of David's rightful claim to Michal, as he fulfilled the condition set by Saul. This reference also highlights the cultural practices of the time, where bride prices were common, and often involved significant challenges or displays of valor.

So Ish-bosheth sent
Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, was made king over Israel by Abner, Saul's military commander, after Saul's death. His reign was marked by political instability and conflict with David, who was anointed king over Judah. Ish-bosheth's actions here reflect his attempt to assert authority and legitimacy, as Michal was David's first wife and her return would strengthen his claim to the throne.

and took Michal
Michal, the daughter of Saul, was originally given to David as a wife after he defeated Goliath and fulfilled Saul's bride price of 100 Philistine foreskins. Her removal from Paltiel and return to David was not only a personal matter but also a political maneuver, as it symbolized the restoration of David's rights and status within the house of Saul. This act also highlights the lack of agency women had in ancient Israelite society, often being used as pawns in political alliances.

from her husband Paltiel
Paltiel, also known as Palti, was given Michal as a wife by Saul after David fled from Saul's court. This marriage was likely intended to sever Michal's ties with David and solidify Saul's opposition to him. Paltiel's emotional response to Michal's removal, as described in the following verses, underscores the personal cost of political decisions and the human element often overlooked in biblical narratives.

son of Laish
Laish is mentioned as Paltiel's father, providing a genealogical context that was important in ancient times for establishing identity and social standing. The mention of Laish may also serve to highlight the legitimacy of Paltiel's marriage to Michal, as genealogies were often used to assert claims and rights within the community.

Her husband followed her
This phrase refers to Paltiel, the husband of Michal, Saul's daughter. Michal had been given to David as a wife, but Saul later gave her to Paltiel. The emotional attachment Paltiel had for Michal is evident as he follows her, highlighting the personal cost of political maneuvers in ancient Israel. This reflects the complex family dynamics and political alliances of the time.

weeping all the way to Bahurim
Bahurim was a village near the Mount of Olives, on the road from Jerusalem to the Jordan Valley. The mention of weeping underscores the deep sorrow and personal loss experienced by Paltiel. This emotional display contrasts with the often political and strategic nature of marriages in the ancient Near East. Bahurim is also mentioned in other biblical narratives, such as when Shimei curses David (2 Samuel 16:5).

Then Abner said to him, “Go back.”
Abner, the commander of Saul's army, was instrumental in negotiating Michal's return to David as part of a political alliance. His authority and command over the situation are evident as he instructs Paltiel to return. This reflects the power dynamics at play, where personal desires are often overridden by political necessity. Abner's role in this narrative foreshadows his later defection to David's side.

So he returned home.
Paltiel's compliance with Abner's command highlights the limited agency individuals had in the face of political decisions. His return home signifies the end of his relationship with Michal, emphasizing the theme of loss and the impact of political decisions on personal lives. This moment also serves as a reminder of the broader narrative of David's rise to power and the fulfillment of God's promise to him.

Now Abner conferred with the elders of Israel
Abner, the commander of Saul's army, was a powerful and influential figure in Israel. His decision to confer with the elders signifies a pivotal moment in the transition of power from the house of Saul to David. The elders of Israel were leaders and representatives of the tribes, and their support was crucial for any king. This meeting indicates Abner's recognition of David's growing influence and the need for a unified Israel under a legitimate king. Historically, such councils were common in ancient Near Eastern cultures, where tribal leaders played significant roles in governance.

and said, “In the past you sought David as your king.
This phrase acknowledges the previous desire of the Israelites to have David as their king, even during Saul's reign. David's reputation as a warrior and leader was well-established, especially after his victory over Goliath and his successes in battle. The people's earlier inclination towards David reflects the divine anointing he received through the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 16:1-13). This moment also highlights the fulfillment of God's promise to David, as the tribes of Israel begin to recognize him as their rightful leader. The reference to past desires underscores the continuity of God's plan and the eventual establishment of David's kingdom, which is a type of the eternal kingdom of Christ.

Now take action
This phrase is a call to immediate and decisive action. In the context of 2 Samuel 3, Abner, the commander of Saul's army, is speaking to the elders of Israel, urging them to support David as king. The urgency reflects the need for Israel to unify under God's chosen leader. This call to action is reminiscent of other biblical moments where God's people are urged to act in faith, such as Joshua leading the Israelites into the Promised Land (Joshua 1:2).

because the LORD has said to David
This phrase underscores the divine authority behind David's kingship. God's promise to David is a central theme in the books of Samuel, where David is anointed by Samuel as king (1 Samuel 16:12-13). The divine endorsement of David's rule is a fulfillment of God's covenant promises, highlighting the importance of divine will in the leadership of Israel.

‘Through My servant David
The term "My servant" signifies a special relationship between God and David, indicating David's role as a chosen instrument of God's purposes. This designation is also used for other key figures in the Bible, such as Moses (Numbers 12:7) and the prophetic "Servant" in Isaiah (Isaiah 42:1), who is often seen as a type of Christ. David's role as a servant foreshadows the ultimate Servant, Jesus Christ, who fulfills God's redemptive plan.

I will save My people Israel
This promise of salvation is central to the narrative of Israel's history. God's commitment to saving His people is a recurring theme, seen in the Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 6:6) and throughout the judges' period. The deliverance through David prefigures the ultimate salvation brought by Jesus Christ, who delivers His people from sin and death.

from the hands of the Philistines
The Philistines were a constant threat to Israel during the time of the judges and the early monarchy. David's military victories over the Philistines (1 Samuel 17, 2 Samuel 5:17-25) demonstrate God's power and faithfulness in delivering His people from their enemies. This deliverance is a type of the spiritual victory over sin and evil achieved through Christ.

and of all their enemies.’”
This phrase extends the promise of deliverance beyond the Philistines to all adversaries of Israel. It reflects the comprehensive nature of God's protection and provision for His people. The ultimate fulfillment of this promise is seen in the eschatological hope of peace and security under the reign of Christ, as prophesied in passages like Isaiah 9:6-7 and Revelation 21:4.

Abner also spoke to the Benjamites.
Abner, the commander of Saul's army, was a key figure in the power dynamics of Israel. The Benjamites were the tribe of Saul, Israel's first king, and thus had a vested interest in the leadership of the nation. Abner's communication with them indicates his strategic efforts to consolidate support for David, who was from the tribe of Judah. This move was significant because it showed Abner's shift in allegiance from the house of Saul to David, which was crucial for David's eventual kingship over all Israel. The Benjamites' acceptance of David's rule would have been pivotal, given their loyalty to Saul.

Then he went to Hebron to tell David
Hebron was an important city in Judah and served as David's capital during his reign over Judah before he became king over all Israel. It was a city of refuge and had historical significance as the place where Abraham settled. Abner's journey to Hebron signifies a formal and public acknowledgment of David's leadership. This act of going to David in Hebron also symbolizes a transfer of power and a unification effort, as Hebron was a central location for the tribes of Israel.

all that seemed good to Israel
This phrase suggests that Abner was acting in the interest of national unity and peace. The term "Israel" here refers to the northern tribes, which had been under the rule of Ish-bosheth, Saul's son. Abner's actions were aimed at bringing these tribes under David's rule, which was seen as beneficial for the nation. This aligns with God's promise to David that he would be king over all Israel, as seen in 1 Samuel 16:1-13 when Samuel anointed David.

and to the whole house of Benjamin.
The inclusion of the house of Benjamin highlights the importance of gaining the support of Saul's own tribe. This was a significant political move, as it demonstrated that even Saul's closest kin were willing to accept David as king. The house of Benjamin's support would have been crucial in legitimizing David's rule and ensuring a smooth transition of power. This also reflects the broader theme of reconciliation and unity among the tribes of Israel, which was a key aspect of David's reign.

When Abner and twenty of his men came to David at Hebron
Abner, the commander of Saul's army, was a significant figure in the power dynamics of Israel. His decision to come to David marks a pivotal moment in the unification of the kingdom. Hebron, located in the Judean hills, was David's capital at the time and a city of refuge, indicating its importance both politically and spiritually. The number twenty, while not symbolically significant in this context, suggests a delegation of importance, showing Abner's serious intent. This meeting is a turning point in the civil war between the house of Saul and the house of David, as Abner seeks to transfer the allegiance of the northern tribes to David.

David held a feast for them
Feasting in ancient Near Eastern culture was a sign of hospitality and covenant-making. By holding a feast, David demonstrates his willingness to reconcile and form alliances, a strategic move to solidify his rule over all Israel. This act of hospitality also reflects David's character as a leader who seeks peace and unity. The feast can be seen as a precursor to the eventual unification of the tribes under David's kingship, foreshadowing the peace and prosperity that would come with his reign. This gesture of goodwill is reminiscent of other biblical instances where meals signify covenant relationships, such as the Last Supper, pointing to the ultimate reconciliation through Christ.

Then Abner said to David
Abner, the commander of Saul's army, approaches David, indicating a significant shift in allegiance. This moment is pivotal as it represents a move towards unifying the kingdom under David. Abner's decision to speak to David highlights the political dynamics at play and the weakening of Saul's house.

“Let me go at once, and I will gather all Israel
Abner's proposal to gather all Israel signifies his influence and authority. It reflects the tribal nature of Israel at the time, where unity was often fragile. Abner's willingness to bring the tribes together under David's rule is a strategic move to consolidate power and ensure stability.

to my lord the king
By referring to David as "my lord the king," Abner acknowledges David's rightful claim to the throne. This acknowledgment is crucial as it comes from a former supporter of Saul, indicating a broader acceptance of David's kingship. It also fulfills the divine promise made to David regarding his future as king.

that they may make a covenant with you
Covenants were solemn agreements often sealed with religious rituals. Abner's intention to facilitate a covenant underscores the seriousness of the political alliance and the commitment to David's leadership. This echoes the biblical theme of covenants as foundational to Israel's relationship with God and its leaders.

and that you may rule over all that your heart desires.”
This phrase suggests the fulfillment of God's promise to David, as seen in 1 Samuel 16:1-13, where David is anointed as king. It also reflects the biblical theme of God's sovereignty in establishing leaders according to His will. David's rule is portrayed as divinely ordained and aligned with God's purposes.

So David dismissed Abner, and he went in peace.
David's dismissal of Abner in peace indicates a moment of reconciliation and trust. It contrasts with the violence and betrayal often seen in the narrative of Saul's house. This peaceful departure foreshadows the eventual unification of Israel under David's reign and highlights David's role as a king who seeks peace and justice.

Just then David’s soldiers and Joab returned from a raid, bringing with them a great plunder.
This phrase highlights the military prowess and success of David's forces. Joab, David's nephew and commander of his army, is a key figure in David's military campaigns. The mention of a raid and great plunder indicates the ongoing conflicts during this period, as David consolidates his power over Israel. The acquisition of plunder was a common practice in ancient warfare, serving as both a reward for the soldiers and a means to support the kingdom's economy. This reflects the turbulent times and the necessity for David to establish his rule through military strength.

But Abner was not with David in Hebron,
Abner, the son of Ner, was the commander of Saul's army and a significant political and military leader in Israel. His absence from Hebron, where David had established his capital, is crucial. Hebron, located in the Judean hills, was an important city both historically and spiritually, serving as David's base before he captured Jerusalem. Abner's absence suggests a moment of political tension and transition, as he had recently pledged allegiance to David, shifting the balance of power in Israel.

because David had sent him on his way in peace.
This phrase underscores David's diplomatic approach and his desire to unify the kingdom without unnecessary bloodshed. By sending Abner away in peace, David demonstrates his willingness to reconcile and integrate former adversaries into his administration. This act of sending Abner in peace is significant, as it reflects David's strategic and merciful leadership style, which is often seen as a foreshadowing of the peace and reconciliation brought by Jesus Christ. David's actions here are in line with his broader efforts to establish a united Israel under his rule, fulfilling God's promise to him.

When Joab and all his troops arrived
Joab, the commander of David's army, returns from a military campaign. Joab is a key figure in David's reign, known for his military prowess and sometimes ruthless actions. The arrival of Joab and his troops signifies a moment of transition and potential conflict, as Joab's loyalty to David is strong, but his personal vendettas often complicate political matters.

he was informed
This phrase indicates that Joab receives news upon his return, setting the stage for his reaction. The communication of information in ancient times was crucial, as it often determined the actions of leaders and commanders. Joab's response to this information will be pivotal in the unfolding narrative.

“Abner son of Ner came to see the king
Abner, the son of Ner, is a significant military leader, previously serving as the commander of Saul's army. His visit to King David marks a critical political move, as Abner seeks to transfer the allegiance of the northern tribes of Israel to David. This meeting is a turning point in the unification of Israel under David's rule.

who sent him on his way in peace.”
David's decision to send Abner away in peace reflects his desire for reconciliation and unity within the kingdom. This action demonstrates David's political acumen and his commitment to establishing a peaceful and united Israel. The peaceful dismissal of Abner contrasts with Joab's later actions, highlighting the tension between personal vendettas and political strategy.

So Joab went to the king and said,
Joab, the commander of David's army, approaches King David. This reflects the hierarchical structure of ancient Israel, where military leaders had direct access to the king. Joab's role as a military leader is significant, as he often acts independently, sometimes in opposition to David's wishes, highlighting the tension between political and military authority.

“What have you done?
Joab's question indicates his disapproval and surprise at David's actions. This reflects the cultural expectation of loyalty and the importance of strategic decisions in leadership. Joab's tone suggests a challenge to David's authority, which is a recurring theme in their relationship.

Look, Abner came to you.
Abner, the commander of Saul's army, had come to David seeking to negotiate peace and unite the kingdom under David's rule. This meeting is pivotal in the transition of power from the house of Saul to David. Abner's visit signifies a shift in political alliances and the fulfillment of God's promise to David to become king over all Israel.

Why did you dismiss him?
Joab questions David's decision to let Abner leave without securing a firm alliance. This reflects the strategic importance of Abner's support for David's consolidation of power. Joab's concern is rooted in the potential threat Abner poses if he returns to Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, and continues to oppose David.

Now he is getting away!
Joab's urgency underscores the potential loss of a critical opportunity to solidify David's rule over all Israel. This phrase highlights the tension between immediate military strategy and long-term political goals. Joab's reaction foreshadows his subsequent actions, which are driven by personal vendetta and political calculation, ultimately leading to Abner's murder.

Surely you realize
This phrase indicates a level of expectation or assumption of awareness. In the context of 2 Samuel 3, Joab is speaking to King David, suggesting that David should be aware of Abner's intentions. This reflects the tension and suspicion prevalent in the political landscape of Israel during this time, as the kingdom was transitioning from Saul's rule to David's.

that Abner son of Ner
Abner was a prominent military leader and the cousin of King Saul, serving as the commander of Saul's army. His lineage as the son of Ner places him within the tribe of Benjamin, which was significant as it was Saul's tribe. Abner's role in the narrative of 2 Samuel is crucial, as he initially supported Saul's son Ish-bosheth before defecting to David's side, highlighting the shifting allegiances during this period.

came to deceive you
Joab accuses Abner of deceit, suggesting that his motives for visiting David were not genuine. This reflects the broader theme of political intrigue and betrayal that runs throughout the books of Samuel. Deception was a common tactic in ancient Near Eastern politics, and Joab's suspicion may have been fueled by his own experiences and the volatile nature of the time.

and to track your movements
The idea of tracking movements implies espionage or intelligence gathering, which was a critical aspect of ancient warfare and political strategy. Joab's accusation suggests that Abner's visit was a cover for gathering information on David's plans and military strategies, which would have been valuable to any rival faction.

and all that you are doing.
This phrase encompasses the entirety of David's actions and decisions, indicating that Joab believed Abner's intentions were to gain comprehensive insight into David's rule. This reflects the broader narrative of David's rise to power and the challenges he faced from both internal and external threats. The suspicion of Abner's motives underscores the precarious nature of David's early reign and the constant vigilance required to maintain his position as king.

As soon as Joab had left David
Joab, the commander of David's army, had just left a meeting with King David. This indicates a moment of transition and potential tension, as Joab was known for his strong personality and decisive actions. Joab's loyalty to David was often mixed with personal vendettas, as seen in his previous actions and future decisions. This phrase sets the stage for Joab's independent actions, which often conflicted with David's intentions.

he sent messengers after Abner
Joab's decision to send messengers after Abner highlights his personal vendetta against Abner, who had killed Joab's brother Asahel in battle (2 Samuel 2:23). This act of sending messengers shows Joab's initiative and possibly his disregard for David's authority or wishes. It reflects the ongoing power struggles and personal conflicts within the kingdom, which were common in the turbulent period of the united monarchy.

who brought him back from the well of Sirah
The well of Sirah is a specific location, likely near Hebron, where Abner was intercepted. This geographical detail underscores the historical and narrative accuracy of the account. Wells were significant in ancient times as places of gathering and sustenance, often serving as landmarks. The act of bringing Abner back suggests a level of coercion or deception, as Abner was likely unaware of Joab's intentions.

But David was unaware of it
This phrase indicates a lack of communication or possible deception within David's administration. David's unawareness of Joab's actions suggests a disconnect between the king and his military commander, highlighting the complexities of leadership and governance. It also sets the stage for the unfolding drama, as David's ignorance of Joab's actions would later have significant political and personal repercussions. This lack of awareness can be seen as a foreshadowing of the challenges David would face in maintaining unity and justice within his kingdom.

When Abner returned to Hebron
Hebron was a significant city in the tribal territory of Judah, serving as David's capital before Jerusalem. It was also a city of refuge, where individuals accused of manslaughter could seek asylum. Abner's return to Hebron signifies his attempt to negotiate peace and consolidate the kingdom under David, following his defection from Ish-bosheth, Saul's son.

Joab pulled him aside into the gateway
The gateway of a city was a place of legal transactions and important discussions. Joab's action of pulling Abner aside suggests a pretense of a private conversation, which was a common tactic in ancient times to lower one's guard. Joab, David's military commander, had personal motives against Abner, as Abner had killed Joab's brother Asahel in battle.

as if to speak to him privately
This phrase indicates deception. Joab's intention was not to have a private conversation but to exact revenge. The act of speaking privately was a ruse to isolate Abner from any potential protectors, highlighting Joab's cunning and the personal vendetta he harbored.

and there Joab stabbed him in the stomach
Stabbing in the stomach was a brutal and personal method of killing, often associated with vengeance. This act of violence was not only a personal vendetta but also a violation of the sanctuary that Hebron, as a city of refuge, was supposed to provide. Joab's actions were against the spirit of justice and mercy that the cities of refuge represented.

So Abner died on account of the blood of Joab’s brother Asahel
This phrase underscores the theme of blood vengeance, which was a prevalent cultural practice in ancient Israel. The death of Asahel at the hands of Abner during a previous battle set the stage for this act of retribution. However, Abner had killed Asahel in self-defense during wartime, which complicates the moral and legal justification for Joab's actions. This incident reflects the cycle of violence and the challenges of leadership and justice in David's rise to power.

Afterward, David heard about this
David's hearing of the event refers to the murder of Abner by Joab. Abner, a former commander of Saul's army, had defected to David, seeking to unite Israel under David's rule. The news of Abner's death would have been significant, as it threatened the fragile peace and unity David was working to establish. This moment highlights the political tension and the challenges David faced in consolidating his kingdom.

and said, “I and my kingdom are forever guiltless before the LORD
David's declaration of innocence is crucial. In the ancient Near Eastern context, a king was often held responsible for the actions of his subjects. By proclaiming his and his kingdom's innocence, David distances himself from the murder, emphasizing that it was not sanctioned by him. This statement also reflects David's awareness of divine justice and his desire to maintain a righteous standing before God, which is a recurring theme in his life and reign.

concerning the blood of Abner son of Ner.
Abner's death was a significant event, as he was a key figure in the power dynamics of Israel. The mention of "blood" underscores the seriousness of the crime, as bloodshed was a grave matter in biblical law, often requiring atonement or retribution. Abner's murder by Joab was an act of personal vengeance, not justice, as Joab sought to avenge his brother Asahel's death. This act of bloodshed could have led to a cycle of violence and retribution, which David sought to avoid. David's response also reflects the biblical principle that God is the ultimate judge and avenger of innocent blood, as seen in passages like Deuteronomy 32:35.

May it whirl over the head of Joab and over the entire house of his father
This phrase is part of a curse pronounced by King David against Joab, the commander of his army, after Joab killed Abner, the commander of Saul's army. The "it" refers to the bloodguilt of Abner's murder. In ancient Israel, bloodguilt was a serious matter, often requiring retribution or divine justice. The "head" symbolizes leadership and responsibility, indicating that Joab, as the head of his family, bears the primary guilt. The mention of "the entire house of his father" extends the curse to Joab's family lineage, reflecting the biblical principle of generational consequences for sin (Exodus 20:5).

and may the house of Joab never be without one having a discharge or skin disease
This part of the curse involves physical afflictions that would render a person ceremonially unclean according to Levitical law (Leviticus 15:2, Leviticus 13:2). Such conditions would exclude individuals from participating in temple worship and community life, symbolizing a state of perpetual impurity and separation from God. This reflects the severity of Joab's crime in David's eyes, as it not only brought physical consequences but also spiritual and communal alienation.

or one who leans on a staff
Leaning on a staff suggests physical weakness or disability, possibly due to age or injury. In the cultural context of ancient Israel, physical strength was highly valued, especially for men who were expected to work and fight. This part of the curse implies a loss of vitality and capability within Joab's family, a perpetual reminder of the consequences of his violent actions.

or falls by the sword
This phrase indicates a violent death, often seen as a consequence of living by the sword (Matthew 26:52). It suggests that Joab's family would be marked by violence and bloodshed, a fitting retribution for Joab's own violent act against Abner. This reflects the biblical principle of sowing and reaping, where one's actions bring about corresponding consequences (Galatians 6:7).

or lacks food
Lacking food signifies poverty and deprivation, a stark contrast to the prosperity and provision expected in a blessed household. In the historical context, famine and hunger were often seen as signs of divine displeasure or judgment (Deuteronomy 28:48). This part of the curse underscores the comprehensive nature of the judgment against Joab's house, affecting their physical, social, and economic well-being.

Joab and his brother Abishai
Joab and Abishai were sons of Zeruiah, David's sister, making them David's nephews. Joab was the commander of David's army, known for his military prowess and strategic mind. Abishai, also a warrior, often accompanied Joab in battles. Their familial connection to David placed them in positions of influence and power within his kingdom. The brothers were fiercely loyal to David but often acted independently, sometimes contrary to David's wishes.

murdered Abner
Abner was the commander of Saul's army and a significant figure in the power struggle following Saul's death. He initially supported Saul's son, Ish-bosheth, as king over Israel but later sought to transfer his allegiance to David. Joab's murder of Abner was a personal vendetta disguised as a political act. This act of murder was against the cultural norms of hospitality and peace negotiations, as Abner had come to Hebron under the pretense of peace.

because he had killed their brother Asahel
Asahel, the younger brother of Joab and Abishai, was known for his speed and agility. During the battle at Gibeon, Asahel pursued Abner with the intent to kill him. Despite Abner's warnings to turn aside, Asahel persisted, leading Abner to kill him in self-defense. This event set the stage for Joab and Abishai's desire for revenge, highlighting the cultural importance of blood vengeance in ancient Israelite society.

in the battle at Gibeon
The battle at Gibeon was part of the ongoing conflict between the house of Saul and the house of David. Gibeon was a significant city located northwest of Jerusalem, known for its large pool where the battle began. This conflict was a microcosm of the larger struggle for power in Israel, as David sought to consolidate his rule over all the tribes. The battle and its aftermath illustrate the turbulent and violent nature of the period, as well as the personal vendettas that often influenced political actions.

Then David ordered Joab and all the people with him
David, as the anointed king, exercises his authority over Joab and the people. Joab, David's military commander, had killed Abner, Saul's former army commander, in an act of vengeance. This order reflects David's desire to publicly distance himself from Joab's actions and to honor Abner, demonstrating his commitment to justice and reconciliation. The people with Joab likely included soldiers and officials, indicating the importance of this public mourning.

Tear your clothes, put on sackcloth
Tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth were traditional expressions of mourning and repentance in ancient Israel. This act signified deep sorrow and humility. By commanding this, David emphasizes the gravity of Abner's death and the need for national lamentation. It also serves as a public declaration of David's innocence in Abner's murder, aligning with cultural practices of expressing grief.

and mourn before Abner
Mourning before Abner signifies respect and acknowledgment of his status. Abner was a significant figure, having been the commander of Saul's army and a key player in the power dynamics of Israel. This public mourning underscores the importance of unity and reconciliation in the kingdom, as Abner had recently pledged allegiance to David, seeking to unite the northern tribes with Judah.

And King David himself walked behind the funeral bier
David's personal participation in the funeral procession highlights his sincerity and respect for Abner. Walking behind the bier was a sign of honor and mourning, showing David's genuine grief and his desire to be seen as a just and compassionate leader. This act also prefigures the humility of Christ, who, though a king, walked among His people and shared in their sorrows. David's actions here can be seen as a type of Christ's humility and servant leadership.

When they buried Abner in Hebron
Hebron is a significant city in biblical history, located in the hill country of Judah. It was one of the oldest cities in the region and served as a major center for the patriarchs, including Abraham, who purchased the cave of Machpelah there as a burial site for his family (Genesis 23:19). Hebron later became King David's first capital before he moved his reign to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:3-5). The burial of Abner, a prominent military leader and cousin to King Saul, in Hebron signifies the importance of the city as a place of honor and respect. Abner's burial here also reflects the political and tribal dynamics of the time, as Hebron was a stronghold for David's supporters.

the king wept aloud at Abner’s tomb
The king referred to here is David. His public mourning for Abner demonstrates his genuine grief and respect for Abner, despite their previous conflicts. David's lamentation is a political and personal statement, showing his disapproval of Abner's murder by Joab, David's own military commander. This act of mourning helps to solidify David's position as a just and honorable leader, distancing himself from the act of vengeance and bloodshed. It also serves to unify the tribes of Israel by showing that David valued Abner's contributions and sought peace among the factions.

and all the people wept
The collective mourning of the people indicates Abner's influence and the respect he commanded among the Israelites. It also reflects the cultural practices of communal grieving in ancient Israel, where public expressions of sorrow were common during funerals. This shared grief underscores the impact of Abner's death on the nation and highlights the tension and instability during the transition of power from the house of Saul to David. The people's response also supports David's position as a leader who empathizes with his subjects, further legitimizing his rule over a united Israel.

And the king sang this lament for Abner:
David, the king, expresses his grief through a lament, a common practice in ancient Israel to mourn the dead. Laments were often poetic and expressed deep sorrow. David's lamentation for Abner, the commander of Saul's army, highlights the respect and honor he held for him despite being on opposing sides. This act reflects David's character and his adherence to God's command to love one's enemies. The lament also serves as a public declaration of Abner's unjust death, distancing David from any involvement in the murder orchestrated by Joab.

Should Abner die the death of a fool?
In ancient Israel, dying "the death of a fool" implied dying without honor or in a manner unworthy of one's status. Abner was a respected military leader, and his death at the hands of Joab was treacherous and deceitful, not in battle as would befit a warrior of his stature. This phrase underscores the injustice of Abner's death and serves as a critique of Joab's actions. It also reflects the biblical theme of justice and righteousness, as seen in Proverbs 26:10, which speaks against the folly of unjust actions. David's lamentation can be seen as a type of Christ, who also mourned over Jerusalem and sought justice and righteousness.

Your hands were not bound, your feet were not fettered.
This phrase highlights the injustice of Abner's death. In ancient Near Eastern culture, binding the hands and feet was a common practice for captives or criminals. Abner, however, was neither a captive nor a criminal; he was a respected military leader and a key figure in the unification of Israel under David. His unbound state signifies that he was not subdued by force or legal means, but rather treacherously murdered. This reflects the broader biblical theme of unjust suffering, reminiscent of Jesus Christ, who was also innocent yet suffered at the hands of the wicked.

As a man falls before the wicked, so also you fell.
This part of the verse underscores the treachery and betrayal involved in Abner's death. Joab, who killed Abner, acted out of personal vendetta rather than justice. The phrase "falls before the wicked" suggests a sense of helplessness and victimization, drawing a parallel to other biblical figures who suffered unjustly, such as Abel at the hands of Cain. It also foreshadows the ultimate betrayal and fall of Jesus Christ, who was delivered into the hands of sinners despite His innocence.

And all the people wept over him even more.
The communal mourning for Abner indicates his importance and the respect he commanded among the people. In the cultural context of ancient Israel, public mourning was a significant expression of grief and solidarity. This collective lamentation reflects the nation's recognition of the loss of a great leader and the injustice of his death. It also mirrors the mourning seen in other parts of Scripture, such as the weeping over Lazarus in John 11, and anticipates the sorrow of the disciples at the crucifixion of Christ. The people's response underscores the gravity of the situation and the impact of Abner's death on the nation.

Then all the people came and urged David to eat something while it was still day
In the context of 2 Samuel 3, David is mourning the death of Abner, the commander of Saul's army. The people urging David to eat reflects the cultural practice of providing food to those in mourning, as seen in Jeremiah 16:7. This act of communal support highlights the unity and respect the people had for David, recognizing his leadership and grief. The phrase "while it was still day" indicates the urgency and immediacy of their concern, as eating during daylight was customary.

but David took an oath, saying,
David's response by taking an oath demonstrates his deep sincerity and commitment to his mourning. Oaths were serious declarations in ancient Israel, often invoking God's name as a witness to one's promise, as seen in Numbers 30:2. This reflects David's integrity and his desire to honor Abner's memory fully.

“May God punish me, and ever so severely,
This phrase is a common form of oath in the Old Testament, emphasizing the seriousness of the vow. It reflects the belief in divine retribution for breaking an oath, as seen in Ruth 1:17. David's invocation of God's punishment underscores his earnestness and the gravity of his commitment to mourning.

if I taste bread or anything else before the sun sets!”
David's refusal to eat until sunset signifies his deep mourning and respect for Abner. Fasting was a common expression of grief and penitence in biblical times, as seen in 1 Samuel 31:13. The mention of "before the sun sets" aligns with the Jewish understanding of a day, which begins and ends at sunset, highlighting the completeness of his mourning period. This act of fasting can also be seen as a type of Christ, who fasted and showed deep compassion and empathy for others' suffering.

All the people took note
This phrase indicates a collective awareness among the Israelites. The context here is the aftermath of Abner's death, a significant event in the power struggle between the house of Saul and the house of David. The people observing David's actions suggests a shift in public opinion, crucial for David's consolidation of power. This awareness can be seen as a fulfillment of God's promise to David, as the people begin to recognize his leadership. The phrase also reflects the importance of public perception in ancient Israel, where the king's actions were closely watched by the populace.

and were pleased
The people's pleasure indicates approval of David's conduct, particularly his mourning for Abner. This approval is significant because it shows that David's actions aligned with the cultural expectations of justice and honor. In the ancient Near Eastern context, mourning for a fallen leader like Abner would have been seen as a sign of respect and integrity. This public approval also serves to legitimize David's rule, as it demonstrates that he is seen as a just and rightful leader by the people.

In fact, everything the king did pleased them
This statement underscores the growing support for David among the Israelites. It suggests that David's actions were consistently in line with the expectations and values of the people. This approval can be seen as a divine endorsement of David's kingship, as God had chosen him to lead Israel. The phrase also highlights the importance of a king's relationship with his subjects in biblical times, where the king's favor with the people was often seen as a reflection of his favor with God. This approval can be connected to the broader biblical theme of God's chosen leaders being recognized and accepted by the people, as seen in the stories of Moses and Joshua.

So on that day
This phrase indicates a specific moment in time, highlighting the immediate aftermath of the events surrounding Abner's death. The context is the period of King David's reign, a time of political consolidation and civil strife following the death of Saul. The phrase underscores the importance of the events of that particular day in shaping the perceptions of the people.

all the troops and all Israel
This phrase emphasizes the widespread impact of the events, affecting not just the military forces but the entire nation. The mention of "all Israel" suggests a unified national sentiment, which is significant given the division between the northern tribes and Judah. The troops, representing the military might and loyalty, are crucial in the stability of David's reign. This unity is a precursor to the eventual unification of the kingdom under David.

were convinced
The term "convinced" indicates a change in perception or belief, suggesting that there may have been initial doubts or suspicions regarding David's involvement in Abner's death. This reflects the political tension and intrigue of the time, where trust was fragile, and leaders had to carefully manage their reputations.

that the king had no part in the murder
This phrase is critical in exonerating David from any involvement in the assassination of Abner. In the ancient Near Eastern context, a king's reputation was vital for maintaining authority and legitimacy. David's innocence in this matter is crucial for his moral and political standing, as it aligns with his character as a man after God's own heart, as described in 1 Samuel 13:14.

of Abner son of Ner
Abner was a significant military leader and the commander of Saul's army. His death was a pivotal event in the power struggle between the house of Saul and David. Abner's defection to David's side was a major political shift, and his murder by Joab, David's commander, could have been seen as a strategic move to eliminate a rival. However, David's public mourning and distancing from the act demonstrate his desire for justice and righteousness, aligning with the biblical theme of God's anointed king acting with integrity.

Then the king said to his servants
This phrase indicates a moment of reflection and communication from King David to those who serve him. David, as the anointed king of Israel, often used such moments to instruct and guide his followers. The context here is the aftermath of Abner's death, a significant event in the power dynamics of Israel. David's communication with his servants shows his leadership style, which often involved direct and personal interaction. This reflects the biblical principle of servant leadership, as seen in Jesus Christ, who taught and led His disciples through personal engagement.

Do you not realize
David's question suggests that his servants may not fully grasp the significance of the event that has occurred. This rhetorical question is a call to awareness and understanding, emphasizing the importance of discernment in leadership. It reflects the biblical theme of wisdom and understanding, as seen in Proverbs, where the pursuit of wisdom is highly valued. David's question encourages his servants to see beyond the immediate circumstances and recognize the broader implications.

that a great prince has fallen today
The term "great prince" refers to Abner, the commander of Saul's army and a key figure in the political landscape of Israel. His death marked a turning point in the struggle for power between the house of Saul and the house of David. The phrase "has fallen" is often used in the Bible to denote the death of a significant leader or warrior, as seen in the lament for Saul and Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1. This highlights the theme of mortality and the transient nature of human power, contrasting with the eternal kingship of Christ.

in Israel?
The mention of "Israel" situates the event within the broader narrative of the nation chosen by God. Israel's history is marked by periods of unity and division, and the death of Abner was a pivotal moment in the unification of the tribes under David's rule. This reflects the biblical theme of God's sovereignty in guiding the history of His people, as seen in the prophetic writings that speak of a future united kingdom under the Messiah. David's recognition of Abner's significance underscores the importance of unity and reconciliation, themes that are fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who unites all believers into one body.

And I am weak this day
David acknowledges his vulnerability and the challenges he faces despite his position. This reflects the human condition of leaders who, despite their authority, experience moments of weakness. In the broader biblical narrative, this highlights the theme of reliance on God rather than personal strength. David's admission of weakness is reminiscent of Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 12:9, where God's power is made perfect in weakness.

though anointed as king
David was anointed by Samuel as the future king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:13), signifying God's choice and blessing. Despite this divine appointment, David's path to kingship was fraught with challenges, including Saul's pursuit and internal strife within his own ranks. The anointing signifies God's promise and purpose, yet it does not exempt David from trials, illustrating the tension between divine promise and earthly reality.

and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too fierce for me
The sons of Zeruiah, Joab and Abishai, were David's nephews and key military leaders. Their fierce nature and actions often conflicted with David's more measured approach. This tension highlights the challenges of leadership and the difficulty of managing strong-willed subordinates. Joab's actions, in particular, often put David in difficult positions, as seen in his unauthorized killing of Abner earlier in this chapter.

May the LORD repay the evildoer according to his evil!
David entrusts justice to God, reflecting a key biblical principle of divine retribution. This echoes the sentiment found in Deuteronomy 32:35, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord." David's reliance on God for justice underscores his faith and the biblical theme that ultimate justice belongs to God. This also foreshadows the New Testament teaching in Romans 12:19, where believers are encouraged to leave room for God's wrath rather than seeking personal vengeance.