2 Samuel 3
02/04/2026
Today, I read 2 Samuel 3 NKJV. It sounds like Abner has finally had enough of Ishbosheth, and decided to place his loyalty with David, God's anointed. It sounds like Abner did a lot for his king, but was under appreciated. It also sounds like Ishbosheth wasn't much of a king since he fell into fearing Abner so easily.
Yes, your reading of 2 Samuel 3 captures some of the key dynamics very well. The chapter does portray a dramatic shift in loyalties, and it highlights the weaknesses in Ish-bosheth's kingship while showing Abner's growing frustration.
Let's break it down a bit based on the text (NKJV):
- Ish-bosheth's weakness
The text strongly supports your impression here. Ish-bosheth is portrayed as a weak figurehead. He only became king because Abner installed him (2 Sam 2). When challenged, he "could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him" (3:11). He quickly caves to David's demand to return Michal (vv. 14–16), even taking her from her current husband. He lacks the strength, authority, or courage to stand up to Abner or effectively lead. His fear and dependence on Abner make him look like a king in name only — more of a puppet than a ruler. - A few layers worth noting
While Abner's switch feels like a righteous turn toward "God's anointed" (as he himself says in v. 9–10), many biblical commentators point out that his motives seem mixed. He had known about God's promise to David for years yet actively opposed it by supporting Ish-bosheth. The switch appears driven more by personal offense and self-interest than sudden piety. He wanted to be on the winning side and perhaps secure a high position under David.
Sadly, the chapter ends tragically — Joab (David's commander) murders Abner in revenge for his brother Asahel's death (vv. 22–30), showing how blood feuds and personal vendettas kept complicating God's unfolding plan.
Abner's long service and the tipping point
Abner had been the powerful commander under Saul, and after Saul's death, he was the one who effectively propped up Ish-bosheth as king over most of Israel (see 2 Samuel 2:8–10). He fought David's forces for years (3:1 notes the "long war" between the houses of Saul and David). In verse 6, we're told Abner was "strengthening his hold on the house of Saul," suggesting he was the real power behind the throne.
Then comes the confrontation: Ish-bosheth accuses Abner of going in to Rizpah, Saul's concubine (v. 7). Whether the accusation was true or (more likely, based on many interpreters) a politically motivated charge to undermine Abner's growing influence, it was explosive. Taking a king's concubine was seen as a claim to the throne itself — a serious act of rebellion or treason.
Abner's furious response (vv. 8–9) is telling:
"Am I a dog’s head from Judah? ... This day I show loyalty to the house of Saul your father ... and you charge me today with a fault concerning a woman? God do so to Abner ... if I do not do for David as the LORD has sworn to him—to transfer the kingdom ... to David."
He flips instantly and vows to deliver the kingdom to David, even citing God's promise that David would rule. So you're right — it reads like Abner had finally had enough, especially if he felt chronically underappreciated or disrespected after years of holding everything together.
Overall, you're picking up on the human drama here very accurately: loyalty tested, power plays, ingratitude, fear, and shifting allegiances — all while God's sovereign purpose (David as king) steadily advances despite the messiness of the people involved.
I am unaware of how this plays out (no spoilers, please), but it seems like the murder of Abner was a real blow to David uniting the nation. Perhaps God allowed this so David's rise to ruling a united nation couldn't be credited to Abner. God does not like to share glory.
That's an insightful observation, and it's one that many readers of Scripture have pondered when they reach this point in the story. The murder of Abner by Joab (2 Samuel 3:27) does appear, on the surface, to be a major setback for the unification of Israel under David. Abner was the key military and political figure who could have smoothly brought the northern tribes over to David—he had already begun that process (vv. 17–19) and had the credibility to make it happen without prolonged fighting or suspicion.
Yet the text shows that God sovereignly worked through (and despite) this violent act to advance His plan for David’s kingship. Here are some key ways the chapter itself frames the outcome:
- David calls Abner “a prince and a great man” who has fallen (v. 38), showing genuine respect for Abner’s stature. But he also acknowledges his own weakness in dealing with “the sons of Zeruiah” (Joab and Abishai), saying they are “too harsh” for him, and leaves ultimate justice to the Lord: “The LORD shall repay the evildoer according to his wickedness” (v. 39).
David publicly and emphatically distances himself from the murder. He mourns deeply, fasts until evening, composes a lament, and leads the people in grieving (vv. 31–35). The result?
“All the people took note of it, and it pleased them … for all the people and all Israel understood that day that it had not been the king’s intent to kill Abner the son of Ner” (vv. 36–37).
Rather than damaging David’s reputation, his response actually strengthened it. The northern tribes and the people as a whole saw David as a man of integrity, justice, and honor—not someone who resorted to treachery or political assassination. This public display of righteousness helped build trust toward him.
In other words, the immediate crisis becomes an opportunity for David to demonstrate the kind of character that makes him worthy to rule—not through military conquest or clever alliances alone, but through humility, mercy, and dependence on God’s justice.
Your point about God not wanting to share glory is very much in line with a recurring biblical theme. Scripture repeatedly shows that God orchestrates events so that no human instrument—whether a powerful general like Abner or a skillful warrior like Joab—can claim primary credit for His purposes.
- If Abner had successfully delivered the kingdom to David, many might have said, “Abner made David king” (a sentiment Abner himself seemed to lean toward in his negotiations—he wanted to be the one who “accomplish[ed] for David what the LORD has sworn” [v. 9–10]).
- If David had relied on military victories or political maneuvering alone, the glory could have gone to human strength.
- Instead, God allows human schemes, sins, and even murders to occur, yet He turns them in such a way that He alone receives the credit when the kingdom is finally united under David (see how this unfolds later without spoiling the details).
The pattern appears throughout Scripture: God often strips away human helpers or props so that it becomes clear the outcome is from Him (think Gideon’s army reduced to 300, or the repeated emphasis that “the battle is the LORD’s”). David’s rise is messy, full of human failure, yet unmistakably directed by God’s hand.
So yes, Abner’s death looked like a disaster in the moment, but God used even Joab’s sinful act (and David’s response to it) to clear the way for a purer, more God-centered path to the throne. It’s a reminder that God’s glory shines brightest when human strength and cleverness are removed from the equation.
What do you think about David’s decision not to immediately punish Joab? Does that fit with the picture of him as God’s anointed, or does it raise questions for you?
I think this shows a consistency in David's character. It would be so easy to get upset at Joab for derailing his path to national kingship. But, true to his character, David retains his faith in God to work it out on His schedule, while David still honors the deserving.
Yes, I think you're exactly right—this moment is a beautiful window into the consistency of David's character, especially when contrasted with how most people (then and now) would have reacted.
Joab's murder of Abner was not just a personal betrayal; it was a massive, immediate political disaster for David’s ambitions. Abner had just spent days traveling through the northern tribes, rallying them to David’s side (2 Samuel 3:17–19). The momentum was finally shifting. One act of vengeance from Joab, and that momentum could have been lost—replaced by suspicion, fear, and renewed division. Most leaders would have been furious, perhaps even tempted to remove Joab on the spot to “clean up the mess” and regain control of the narrative.
Yet David does none of that.
Instead, he does three striking things that reveal the core of who he is:
- He refuses to take personal vengeance or political expediency He doesn’t lash out at Joab, doesn’t quietly approve of the act, and doesn’t use it as an opportunity to eliminate a rival commander. He openly calls it wickedness (v. 39) and entrusts justice to God: “May the LORD repay the evildoer according to his wickedness.” That’s a remarkable restraint. He’s willing to live with a dangerous, insubordinate general rather than stain his hands or his conscience to “fix” the situation.
- He honors Abner publicly and extravagantly Even though Abner had been his enemy for years, David mourns him as a “prince and a great man” who has fallen in Israel (v. 38). He leads the entire nation in lament, weeps at the grave, fasts, and refuses to eat until evening. This isn’t mere political theater; the text says the people noticed and approved because they saw it was genuine (v. 36). David honors the dignity of the man, even when that man’s death technically served David’s long-term interests.
- He keeps entrusting the outcome to God’s timing and methods He doesn’t panic or scramble to repair the damage through human means. He doesn’t try to replace Abner with someone else or rush negotiations with the northern tribes. He simply grieves rightly, speaks truthfully, and waits. That posture of faith—that God can still bring the kingdom together even after this bloody interruption—is one of the clearest marks of David as God’s anointed.
You’re spot on that this is not the behavior of someone who is primarily driven by ambition or control. A man obsessed with seizing the throne would have reacted very differently. Instead, David consistently shows that he believes God is the one who establishes kings (as he said earlier to Saul: “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the LORD’s anointed” — 1 Samuel 24:6). He’s willing to wait, to suffer setbacks, to live with unresolved tension (like Joab still being commander), and to honor what is honorable—because he trusts that God’s promise doesn’t depend on perfect circumstances or perfect helpers.
This pattern shows up again and again in David’s life: sparing Saul twice, mourning Saul and Jonathan despite everything, refusing to take the crown by force even when the people wanted to make him king earlier. It’s the same heart that produces the psalms of waiting, refuge, and trust in God’s deliverance.
It makes his eventual kingship over all Israel so much more clearly God’s doing, not David’s maneuvering. And it’s one reason the New Testament can call him “a man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22)—not because he was sinless, but because his fundamental posture was one of dependence and honor toward God, even in the middle of chaos.