The writer also documented God's blessing on David in this record of how David wisely unified the nation of Israel and became the leader of all 12 tribes.
"The story of how David became king of all Israel follows, in most essentials, the same outline already established in the account of his accession to kingship over Judah (1:1-3:5). Both begin with a warrior trying to curry David's favor (an unnamed Amalekite, 1:1-13; Saul's army commander Abner, 3:6-21) and continue with the execution or murder of the warrior (1:14-16; 3:22-32), which is followed by a lament uttered by David (over Saul and Jonathan, 1:17-27; over Abner, 3:33-34). Near the center of each literary unit is a brief report of the anointing of David as king (over Judah, 2:1-7; over Israel, 5:1-5). David and his men are then successful in defeating their enemies (2:8-3:1; 5:6-12), and each unit concludes with a list of sons/children born to David (in Hebron, 3:2-5; in Jerusalem, 5:13-16). The similarities between the two sections point to the careful craftsmanship of a single author, who now sets about to tell his readers that just as the house of David has replaced Saul and his house in southern Canaan (1:1-3:5), so also David's house is about to replace that of Saul in the rest of the land as well (3:6-5:16)."35
Abner was the strong man in Israel. Ish-bosheth was simply a figurehead (v. 11). Abner's loyalty to the house of Saul is clear from his actions so far. However there was conflict between Ish-bosheth and Abner. In the ancient Near East the king's concubines were his tools for raising up heirs if the queen could not bear children or even if she could. Ish-bosheth regarded Abner's act as a sign of disloyalty. He seemed to be trying to have an heir by a royal concubine who could have, according to custom, become king one day (cf. 16:22; 1 Kings 2:22). We do not know whether this was Abner's plan or not. He implied denial of that motive but not the act. In any case, this incident resulted in Abner shifting his support from Ish-bosheth to David. Perhaps it was the last straw for Abner who had recently suffered a devastating defeat by David's men and who must have seen that he could not win.
"It was the exclusive right of the successor to the throne to cohabit with the concubine of the deceased king, who came down to him as part of the property which he inherited [according to ancient Near Eastern custom, not according to the Mosaic Law]."36
"It may be that Abner, as de factoruler of all Israel, offered David his allegiance in exchange for the position of sar saba'[commander of the army], the equivalent of his office in Eshbaal's army and the post currently held by Joab. V. 12 suggests something of the sort when it speaks of a personaldeal between these two men."37
The fact that Michal was Saul's daughter was clearly part of the reason David requested her (v. 13). Reunion with her would have tied David in to Saul's house and made him more acceptable to the northern tribes.
"By making her his queen he would divide the loyalties of citizens in the north: did loyalty to Saul's memory mean that they should be the subjects of his son, Ish-bosheth, or of his daughter? By such means David could weaken his opponent without killing a single Israelite soldier and without causing any resentment at all."38
It was contrary to God's will for David to remarry Michal (Deut. 24:1-4). God graciously blessed David in spite of his disobedience (vv. 2-5, 12-16).
Abner lobbied for David with Israel's leading men (v. 17) on the basis that they had previously favored David. Perhaps Abner and Ish-bosheth had blocked their efforts. He also did so because David was the Lord's anointed king (v. 18). The Benjamites needed special courting since Saul was a Benjamite. Abner probably expected a political appointment in David's administration for his efforts.
There were many reasons why Joab disliked Abner. He hated him because he was the rival commander-in-chief and because he evidently had a superior character in some respects (cf. v. 38). He also opposed Abner because he was a threat to Joab's career advancement if the alliance went through. Mostly Joab opposed Abner because Abner had killed his brother, Asahel, in battle (v. 30). Joab murdered Abner in a city of refuge, Hebron, where God had prohibited the taking of revenge (Num. 35:22-25). Abner may have been too sure of his own importance in David's eyes to suspect that one of David's officers would dare to attack him. David was very careful to let everyone know that Abner's murder was Joab's doing and not his. If it had been David's doing, he would have lost the support of the northern tribes.
"Rarely in the Old Testament has a narrator gone to such lengths, as has the writer of this passage, to preserve the good name of one of his characters. In one way and another, he assures us that neither David's heart nor his hand was set against Abner: Joab acted on his own account."39
Why did David not execute or at least punish Joab? The writer did not record the answer. However, we notice that David was characteristically too slow to discipline members of his own family when they deserved it (cf. Ammon, Absalom, et al.). Some interpreters of the Hebrew text believe what David wished on Joab's descendants was that they would continually experience diseases, violent death, and poverty. This is what God promised to bring on those of His people who despised His will (cf. Deut. 21:1-9).40
"We need not doubt David's genuine respect for Abner, but the funeral is also a media event. It is like a U.S. president with the returned body of a soldier from an unauthorized war. The president must lead national mourning, which is genuine, but at the same time must stage a media event designed to legitimate policy."41
For the first time the writer referred to David as "King David"(v. 31).42Now that the threat of the north had died with Abner, David's throne was secure enough to warrant this title.
The description of Abner as "a prince and a great man"who had fallen that day in Israel (v. 38) has inspired eulogizers in funerals for generations. David's good public relations were essential for support, but they would not avert divine discipline for his disobedience.
"Saul the king is dead, Jonathan the heir apparent is dead, Abinadab and Malki-Shua (two of Jonathan's brothers) are dead (1 Sam 31:2), Abner the commander of the army is dead--and no other viable claimants or pretenders continue to block David's accession to the throne except Saul's son Ish-Bosheth and Jonathan's son Mephibosheth. Chapter 4 removes them from the scene, one explicitly and the other implicitly."43
Beeroth (v. 2) was a town near the border of Benjamin, possibly two miles south of Gibeon. Gittaim (v. 3) stood near the Israelite-Philistine border west of the central Benjamin plateau.
The writer introduced the information in verse 4 parenthetically here to prepare for what he would write about Mephibosheth in chapter 9. Mephibosheth was unfit to rule for two reasons: he was too young, and his physical condition made it impossible for him to provide military leadership. Evidently his condition emboldened his assassins to attempt their cowardly and ambitious plot.44
The repetition of the telling of Rechab and Baanah's act in verses 6 and 7 stresses its atrocious, opportunistic nature.
"The gift of Ish-Bosheth's head [to David, v. 8] is at the same time the gift of the kingdom."45
David's designation of Ish-bosheth as "a righteous man"(v. 11) implicitly denied him the title of king. Even though Ish-bosheth was Saul's son and so had a claim to the throne, he had not been anointed as king. David's treatment of the corpses of these two men and Ish-bosheth's (v. 12) also showed the people that Ish-bosheth's murder was not an act that he ordered or approved (cf. Matt. 26:52).46Ironically the long struggle between Ish-bosheth's men and David's men began and ended by a pool (cf. 2:13).
"With the death of Ish-Bosheth, no other viable candidate for king remains for the elders of the northern tribes. Meanwhile David sits in regal isolation, above the fray as always, innocent of the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, Abner, and now Ish-Bosheth. The way is open for his march to the throne of Israel."47
"In 2 Samuel 2-4, 9-20, and 1 Kings 1-2 we have a coherent story of accession, rebellion, and succession. The theme of giving and grasping is central, providing a key to David's fortunes."48
Note David's inconsistency in his dealings with Ish-bosheth's murderers and Abner's murderer, his nephew Joab. David succeeded at work, but he failed at home. He did not deal with the members of his own family as he should have, but he was more careful to manage the affairs of his government properly.49
In 1004 B.C. David became king of all Israel and Judah.50This was his third anointing (cf. 1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 2:4). The people acknowledged David's previous military leadership of all Israel as well as God's choice of him to shepherd His people as their king.
"In the ancient East, shepherd at an early date became a title of honor applied to divinities and rulers alike."51
This is the first time the Bible refers to a specific human ruler as a shepherd,52though as an analogy the term appears earlier (Num. 27:17) and with reference to God (Gen. 48:15; 49:24). The New Testament refers to David's greatest son, Jesus Christ, as the "Good Shepherd"(John 10:11, 14), the "Great Shepherd"(Heb. 13:20), and the "Chief Shepherd"(1 Pet. 5:4).
The fact that Samuel had anointed David when he was a youth was evidently now common knowledge in Israel. Therefore we should regard previous resistances to his assuming the throne after Saul's death as rebellions against the known will of God. The covenant (v. 3) was an agreement between the people and the king before God.53Probably it included a fresh commitment to the Mosaic Covenant.
"Thirty years old (v. 4) was regarded as an ideal age at which to take on responsibility (cf. Num. 4:3; Lk. 3:23)."54
Three prominent descendants of Jacob began their ministries at or near the age of 30: Joseph (Gen. 41:46), David (v. 4), and Jesus (Luke 3:23). The total years David reigned were 1011-971 B.C.
"[Verses] 6-16 highlight key events of David's entire reign and are followed by summaries of his experiences in the military (vv. 17-25), cultic (ch. 6), and theological (ch. 7) arenas."55
Jerusalem was an excellent choice for a capital. It stood on the border between Benjamin and Judah so both tribes felt they had a claim to it. It was better than Hebron in southern Judah far from the northern tribes, or Shechem, Shiloh, or some other northern town that would have been too far from the Judahites. Joshua had captured Jerusalem (Josh. 10), but shortly after that the native inhabitants, the Jebusites, retook it (Judg. 1:21). It seems to have remained in Jebusite control since then. Its elevated location made it fairly easy to defend. David may have chosen Jerusalem also because he appears to have seen himself as the spiritual successor of Melchizedek, a former king of Jerusalem in Abraham's day (Gen. 14; cf. Ps. 110:4-6).56One scholar estimated that the population of the city at this time was about 2,500 people.57
"Jerusalem is usually described as a city-state, and the position envisaged after its storming by David and his troops is that it remained a city-state; the coming of David meant only a change of city ruler. . . . The inhabitants remained, but their fortress had now become the personal possession of David and was under his control."58
The interchange concerning the blind and the lame (vv. 6, 8) seems to be "pre-battle verbal taunting"(cf. 2 Kings 18:19-27).59The Jebusites claimed that their town was so secure that even disabled inhabitants could withstand an invasion.60David countered by taking them at their word and applying "the blind and the lame"to all the Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem. His hatred was for the Jebusites, using the figure that they themselves had chosen to describe themselves, not for literally blind and lame people. "The blind and the lame"evidently became a nickname for the Jebusites as a result of this event.
Joab captured the city for David, and from then on people referred to it as the City of David and Zion (1 Chron. 11:6).61The Millo (a transliteration of the Hebrew word, v. 9) probably consisted of terrace-like fortifications on the hill's east side. Some of the older commentators and others who did not have access to recent archaeological discoveries viewed the Millo as a large tower or castle.
"As was characteristic of all the great walled cities of Canaan, Jerusalem had a vertical water shaft connecting with a tunnel leading to an underground water supply outside the walls."62
It was through this secret passage that Joab took the city.63
"Two of the most significant events in world history now took place. The first was when David became king of a united Israel. The second was when he made Jerusalem the capital of his united realm."64
The writer identified the key to David's success in verse 10. The Lord chose David as His anointed by sovereign election. David had nothing to do with that. However, Yahweh continued to bless David because David related to God properly.
The information we have about Hiram, the king of Tyre, indicates that he reigned there about 980-947 B.C.65That would mean Hiram's reign coincided with only the last nine years of David's reign and the first 24 years of Solomon's reign. This information helps us see that David built his palace (v. 11) late in his reign. Verse 11 therefore evidently does not describe something that took place immediately after David captured and fortified Jerusalem (vv. 6-10). It was a later project. The writer probably mentioned it here because it illustrates another important evidence of David's control over all Israel.
"David has joined the nations. David is a practitioner of alliances and accommodations. . . . Jeremiah later sees that cedar and its accompanying opulence will talk Judean kings out of justice (Jer. 22:13-18). Verse 11 sounds like a historical report, but it is in fact an ominous act of warning."66
Verse 12 is key to understanding why David prospered as Israel's king. David realized that Yahweh was Israel's real sovereign. Saul was never willing to acknowledge this. He saw himself as the ultimate authority in Israel. In contrast, David regarded his own kingship as a gift from God. He realized, too, that God had placed him on the throne for the Israelites' welfare, not for his own personal glory. Saul failed here as well. David had a proper view of his role in Israel's theocratic government.
Second Samuel 5:10-16 is most likely a summary of David's entire reign followed by his military (5:17-25), cultic (i.e., formal worship; ch. 6), and theological (ch. 7) achievements. This pattern follows the conventional annalistic style of documenting the reigns of kings that was common in the ancient Near East.
Again David sinned by multiplying wives (Deut. 17:17). Nevertheless in spite of this sin God continued to bless him with fertility because he was God's elect and, for the most part, God's obedient servant. Fortunately God does not cut off all His blessings because His servants are less than perfect.
"This is the first time that concubines are mentioned in connection with David (cf. also 1 Chron 11:21)--and it is also the only time that the phrase concubines and wives' occurs in the Bible (the usual order is wives and concubines'; cf. 19:5; 1 Kings 11:3; 2 Chron 11:21; Dan 5:2-3, 23). By placing the word concubines' in emphatic position, the narrator is perhaps deploring David's proclivity for the trappings of a typical Oriental monarch, including a harem."67
In all parts of this section (3:6-5:16) the writer placed emphasis on God's blessing of David and the nation that came about as Judah and Israel united under David's anointed leadership.
