God’s will through human conflict (2 Sam 2:12-3:5)

One of the fascinating aspects of the Book of Samuel is how it describes human motivation and conflict that move the story forward with characterisations that portray the good and bad in individuals. Often, there is scarce mention of God, yet a bird’s eye view helps us see a scarlet thread run through the narrative. God’s purposes are achieved, though a closeup of events only suggests complications, delay and God’s will thwarted. This is an important lesson to learn because our lives are likewise lived in the closeup moments, where we do not always, or even often, discern how the Lord is moving things forward. It is only in retrospect, at certain junctures, that we get a glimpse of a pattern and can trace the work of God’s hand.

Civil war and hints of God’s hand

Our reading gives us such a close snapshot of the human level of the story without interpreting it overtly ‘from above’. Abner’s move to bring his troops from the Transjordan (Mahanaim) to Gibeon (2 Sam 2:12), in Benjamite territory (only 9.5km from Jebus, later Jerusalem) and close to Judah, may have been an attempt to strengthen the southern border of the kingdom.[1] The public contest and the fighting afterwards is brutal (2 Sam 2:16-17) and gives us a taste of the civil war that will continue for a long time (2 Sam 3:1). A hint of how God is moving events forward may be discerned in the way the battle goes against Abner and his men (v.17) so that they sustain heavy losses compared to David’s troops (2 Sam 2:30-31). The early part of chapter 3 emphasises this further as David grows stronger (2 Sam 3:2). The list of his sons demonstrate that David is settled enough now to father children and their existence gives hope for the future of his dynasty.[2] Of course, success is not automatically a signal of God’s support, but together with what we know of His will to make David king of Israel, it is safe to assume His hand in the matter.

The seed of later conflict

The rest of the chapter zooms in on the encounter between Abner and Joab’s brother, Asahel, which sows the seed of later conflict between the generals that will lead to Abner’s murder. Surprisingly perhaps, the narrator is not propagandistic in presenting David’s side as faultless and his opposition as worthless. Abner, though on the wrong side of God’s will, is nevertheless a sympathetic character. His attempt to stop Asahel, Joab’s brother, from pursuing him (2 Sam 2:21-22) seems to arise from a desire not to take advantage, nor to arouse Joab’s animosity and evoke a blood feud.[3] Although killing in war should not lead to avenging the person’s blood, but Abner may have known about Joab’s violent nature (something we shall discover in the next chapter and beyond). Asahel may be swift-footed, but he is foolhardy in trying to take out the general. He is no match for Abner, an older and more seasoned fighter,[4] whose strength is well-illustrated by the force he thrusts his spear into his opponent in the end (2 Sam 2:23). The events move inexorably towards their conclusion, though there are only hints here of what God is doing.

Human choices and God’s will

Once again, I am reminded of Jesus’ story and how the feelings and choices of those involved moved the great redemption of humanity forward. The Jewish religious leadership felt envy and feared for their position (John 11:47-48; Mk 15:10), while Pilate seemed irritated by the chief priests’ attempt to use him to get rid of a troublemaker (John 18:28-32). Yet his feeble attempts to save Jesus were of no avail and eventually, he chose to please the crowds (Mk 15:15). What had to happen, would happen, though God did not overrule or take responsibility away from the players in the drama. They remained accountable. Nevertheless, in a mysterious way what they intended furthered the purposes of God. Once again, we may take encouragement from this. Our circumstances, the foibles, even the evil intentions of people in our lives are not outside of God’s purview. Somehow, though we do not know how, God can work all those intentions and actions into His good will for us.

---

[1] David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), 337.

[2] Ibid., 341. Christians may feel uneasy about David having several wives, but this was the cultural reality of the ancient world and not illegal at the time. The original biblical design is for one man to have one woman in marriage and polygamy is not approved but God does not correct all that is wrong with the world at the same time. This practice was tolerated although the Bible makes clear through its various stories that no good came of such arrangements. In practice, most people were monogamous, as acquiring a wife was expensive business (bride money to be paid). Thus, only the rich could afford more than one wife. In the case of kings, marriage was often the means to cement connections and get support from the spouse’s kin and tribe.

[3] In Israelite thinking, the murder of someone required a close relative called ‘the avenger (or redeemer) of blood’ (go’el ha-dam) to hunt down and execute the murderer (Deut 19:11-13). Contrary to what this looks like to us, it was a judicial process. The spilt blood of the dead was seen to ‘cry out’ from the ground for justice (Gen 4:10) and it polluted the land, so that the blood had to be avenged/redeemed by the shedding of the murderer’s blood (Num 35:33). However, this law applied to murder, not to killing in warfare.

[4] Abner was Saul’s cousin (1 Sam 14:50) and campaigned with him throughout the king’s reign, while Joab and his brothers were David’s nephews (sons of his sister, Zeruiah; 1 Chron 2:15-16), so of a younger generation than Abner.

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.