II SAMUEL 3 Lesson # 3
GOD’S PLAN AND HUMAN PLANS
I. Introduction:
Note: Today’s chapter deals with two issues: God’s positive plans and humans who mess them up. God would like to bless and develop us, but we often see good things messed up by other people. It is often leaders within the believing community, within the church, that do this.
Q Have you ever seen an individual mess up a good thing for the group?
An = We are going to watch that situation unfold in our chapter.
II. Contrasting Situations: David’s House and Saul’s House. II Samuel 3:1-11.
A. The State of David’s House: II Samuel 3:1-5.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:1-5.
Q Whose house was growing stronger?
An = David’s house. It was a steady growth of strength.
Q Why does the author tell us here about David’s many children, especially male children that were born to him at Hebron?
An = It does not seem the place to give genealogical background here, but if we see this information in the larger context of II Samuel 3:1-11 I think you will see a pattern. See if after reading the next few verses you can see the pattern. There is a symmetrical pattern.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:6-11.
Q What do verses 1 and 6 have in common?
An = Both speak of war between the House of David and Saul and then health of houses are spoken of. In verse one we see David’s House is growing stronger vis-a`-vis Saul’s and in verse 6 we see that Saul’s House is dominated by Abner and not Saul’s son.
Q There is a contrast between 2-5 and 7-11 can you see what it is?
An = What ever else 2-5 is saying it is clearly showing us that David’s House has a future, there are heirs to the throne being born. Verses 7-11 show us that Ish-bosheth’s House is full of contention that is leading to its dissolution. Abner is fed-up with Ish-bosheth and now threatens to help David gain the throne over all Israel.
Note: Abner could have been seeking legitimization through marriage. If you married into the royal family it could raise the significance of your position. Ish-bosheth clearly saw this happening and confronted Abner about it. Ish-bosheth had to say something to Abner.
Q What motivated Abner’s decision to turn the kingdom over to David?
An = It could be motivated by anger (8b), but notice he then gets religious (9b). It could also be true that Abner realized that this kingdom was headed for disaster anyway.
Q Why did Ish-bosheth not say anything?
An = He was afraid of this great warrior. So the course is set to see David’s House finally succeed. What is ironic is that the very man that caused David’s Kingdom to be delayed in being established is the tool that swears to bring it about.
III. Abner’s Actions To Bring Israel Over To David. II Samuel 3:12-21.
A. The Issue of Michal: II Samuel 3:12-16.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:12-16.
Q Does David need a wife?
An = Hardly, we are told in the narrative that he has six wives in 3:2-5.
Q So why does David want his former wife Michal back?
An = It must have been hard to see Saul take your wife and give her to another man and so his pride was certainly involved. However, most scholars see this issue of marrying a King’s daughter as a form of legitimization. David seems to seek “political image” advantage with recovering of his former wife, the daughter of Saul.
Q Did David’s political maneuvering cause personal or family pain?
An = Yes, he did. He broke up a family unit. Notice, David did not pray about this or about accepting Abner’s offer to help him unify the nation. (If some asks if David was breaking a Deuteronomy law about remarriage 24:1-4, he is probably not doing so, since their separation was forced, Gordon , p. 219).
B. Abner’s Political Action: Reunification. II Samuel 3:17-21.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:17-21.
Note: Abner is presented as the most powerful political person among the Northern tribes, and so there was probably no one who could get their attention as easily as Abner.
Q What reasons did Abner give for accepting David as King?
An = He appeals to a former desire to do so (3:17), divine approval (3:18a), and the hope of military deliverance from the Philistines (3:18b). Saul had failed them in their hope to end the threat of the Philistines. There was little hope that the weak Ish-bosheth could do anything. David was a proven, victorious warrior. Remember: the sign of anointing was often military victory.
IV. Joab’s Contribution to Unification: Murder. II Samuel 3:22-30.
A. Joab’s Verbal Reaction to Abner’s Efforts: II Samuel 3:22-25.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:22-25.
Q Was Joab happy over the possibility of Abner bringing about peace without war?
An = No.
Q Why was Joab so suspicious?
An = He might have been a naturally distrustful person. Clearly there is the hatred stemming from the murder of his brother Asahel recorded in chapter 2. Finally, there might have been jealousy that he would move from number two to a lesser position in David’s army with the coming of such a competent and great man as Abner.
B. The Murder of Abner: II Samuel 3:26-30.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:26-30.
Q Was the killing of Abner honorable?
An = No at all. Even if Joab killed him for revenge, his brother was killed in battle by Abner and Abner tried to prevent the killing. Abner’s death was murder.
Q How many times is the word peace (shalom) mentioned in 3:21-23?
An = Three times, once in 21, 22 and 23. I think this is your author’s way of saying Abner was double crossed and not by David. David did want peace.
Q How did David react?
An = He was very displeased. He first disavowed his own part of the killing and then pronounced a five-fold curse on the House of Joab.
Q What did Joab’s action do for the hope of political reunification without further bloodshed?
An = It greatly imperiled the chance of unity and peace. Joab’s action to work out his own personal issue of revenge jeopardized the unity of God’s people.
Q Have you ever seen this? Has someone’s need for revenge or their personal issues of jealousy stopped a positive unity among God’s people?
An = The Bible is aware that such things happen. That is why it tells this story. It wants us to see that God understands that personal greed, jealousy or need for revenge can often stop the positive coming together of God’s people.
Q Is it easy to lose hope when such things happen?
V. David’s Public Lament to Joab’s Murder: II Samuel 3:31-39.
A. The Funeral: II Samuel 3:31-35.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:31-32.
Q Who is commanded to tear their clothes, put on sackcloth and walk before Abner?
An = Joab and his men. They are made to publicly grieve for Abner and are not allowed to gloat over the death of their enemy. David sticks their nose in it. He forces Joab to comply. He commands outward signs of grief.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:33-35.
Note: David publicly honors Abner and openly admits that his death was a wrongful death. The lament is a indirect indictment of Joab.
B. Public Response to David’s Actions and David’s Private Thoughts: II Samuel 3:36-37.
>>>> Have someone read II Samuel 3:36-39
Q Did David succeed in saving the hope of a bloodless unification?
An = Yes, he did. He exerted himself and acted boldly. David declared his innocence (28), cursed Joab (29), demanded outward lament out of Joab and his men (31), wept in front of all the people (32), chanted a lament over Abner (33-34), fasted (35), praised Abner (38), declared his unhappiness with Joab (39). Through out these actions David clearly was not happy with Joab and publicly distanced himself from Joab’s action.
Q Should David have done more?
An = It is hard to say. Joab will get his in the end and Joab will cause David personal grief before II Samuel is over, as we shall see.
Note: As leaders, we all have personal baggage from our past.
Q Whether as christian workers, influential men in the church, as fathers or as leaders in business, can we afford to bring our personal baggage into the leadership we provide?
An = If we cannot solve our problems we seriously hurt others. Joab had a personal grief in the loss of his brother, but he had no right to bring that into the hope of unification without war. David had been wronged by having his wife taken away from him in his youth, but he did not do well tearing her away from her new husband. You will soon see that she never loved him like she did when she was young.