And afterwards David heard [it], and he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before Jehovah for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner
David hears of Abner's murder only after it is done, and his first act is an oath. But why must a king disown a crime he had no part in, and can words settle it while the killer keeps his command?
David does more than regret Abner's death. He separates himself from it and hands the case to God.
How David recovers the precious features of his character in the middle of these difficult circumstances! Refusing any part in this evil, he proves that "in every way he was pure in the matter" (2 Cor. 7:11). He calls down God's judgment on Joab: "Let the blood of Abner the son of Ner fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father's house..." And again: "The LORD repay the evildoer according to his wickedness!" (v. 39). Later this judgment of God, which David spoke, came to pass (1 Kings 2:31-34).
He clears himself, and "my kingdom" with him. Shed blood was never a private matter between two men. It stained the whole land that let it stand.
God settled this case long ago (Gen. 9), and there has been, and can be, no taking it back: "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." That ground remains. Scripture here affirms the guilt that falls on a land which does not avenge such blood. Those who would do away with the death penalty today may well weigh it: "the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it."
Joab had a story ready: Abner had killed his brother Asahel, so this was blood-vengeance. The details of the killing destroy that defence.
Joab no doubt considered himself "the avenger of blood" for his brother Asahel. He was able to kill Abner just outside Hebron, the city of refuge (Josh. 20:7-9). Inside the city Abner would have been safe. Joab ignored that Asahel had died in battle. He killed Abner while acting as though they were on friendly terms. Joab had rebuked David for letting Abner deceive him, but Joab himself used far more cunning deception.
Revenge was the public reason. Underneath it lay something colder.
Joab commits murder in a time of peace, and so avenges himself for Asahel's death. Yet Abner had "killed him in the battle" (v. 30). That proves there was nothing blameworthy in Abner's act... That is the personal motive behind this terrible act. But anyone who knows Joab and his ambition to lead the army suspects another motive. Joab fears Abner's worth and authority, which by then stood out far more than his own merits. If Abner should succeed in making an alliance, wouldn't he have the first place? Joab has everything to gain through his revenge.
David's conscience was clear. But he took no action against the killer.
This news shook David deeply. For himself and his kingdom he disowned all responsibility for Abner's death. He does in effect ask God to step in and discipline Joab and his family, so that they would suffer for it. But did David forget that he was king, and responsible to carry out some judgment against Joab? Joab was guilty of cold-blooded, premeditated murder, and for this he deserved the death penalty. David very soon after ordered the death of the two men who murdered Ish-bosheth (ch. 4:10-12). The murder of Abner was just as serious. But it seems that because Joab was captain of his army, David treated him differently. There is no record of David even speaking to Joab about this, let alone applying any serious discipline. In this the weakness of David's kingdom is clear from the beginning.
Leaving a murderer in place had a price. Later David had a sin of his own to hide, and he turned to Joab.
Satan shows David the one way to escape public exposure of his sin: he becomes Uriah's murderer. The same David who had said: "Let the blood of Abner fall on the head of Joab" (2 Sam. 3:28-29) now takes this Joab, a murderer himself, as his accomplice and so becomes the slave of the man who had every interest in bringing him into bondage.
- Blood defiles. Shed blood does not stay between two men. It marks the land and the kingdom that fails to deal with it. That is why David clears his realm as well as himself.
- Blood disowned. David refuses any share in the crime. He proves himself pure in the matter and asks God to place the guilt where it belongs.
- Blood unavenged. Joab's claim to be the avenger collapses. Asahel died in battle, and a man pretending friendship struck Abner down outside the city of refuge.
- Blood spared. The murderer kept his command because he was useful. David never confronted him, and that was the first crack in his kingdom.
- Blood returns. The man David refused to judge became his accomplice in killing Uriah. The murderer he spared ended up ruling his king.
let it fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father's house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that has an issue, or that is a leper, or that leans on a staff, or that falls by the sword, or that lacks bread!
Joab has murdered Abner, the man who was about to seal an alliance between David and all Israel. Instead of putting his own army commander on trial, David answers with a five-part curse on Joab and his whole family — disease, weakness, violent death and hunger.
Joab had a legal cover story. He could claim he was acting as the relative whose duty it was to avenge a killing — but the details of where and how he struck expose him.
Joab no doubt considered himself "the avenger of blood" for his brother Asahel. He was able to kill Abner just outside Hebron, the city of refuge (Joshua 20:7-9). Inside the city Abner would have been safe. Joab ignored that Asahel had died in battle. He killed Abner while pretending to be on friendly terms with him. Joab had rebuked David for letting Abner deceive him, yet he himself used far more cunning deception in dealing with Abner.
Under the public duty lay a private interest.
This is the personal motive behind this terrible act. But anyone who knows Joab and his ambition to command the army suspects another motive. Joab fears Abner's worth and authority, which at that time stood out far more than his own merits. If Abner should succeed in concluding an alliance, wouldn't he have the first place? Joab has everything to gain through his vengeance.
David's first move was to separate himself from the crime.
Rejecting any share in this evil, David proves that at every point he was innocent in the matter (2 Corinthians 7:11). He calls for God's judgment on Joab. … Later God carries out this judgment that David pronounced (1 Kings 2:31-34).
What convinced Israel was not a royal statement but the king's grief.
What gains the heart of Israel is the king's anger at this evil. He is distressed by a crime that had dishonoured the character of the Lord and of His anointed. David's humiliation, his fasting, his public mourning in the presence of all the people — this is what wins over Israel.
The five items picture disease, weakness and ruin running down a family line. (Where the ESV has "who holds a spindle," older translations read "leans on a staff.") Commentators differ on what David was doing. One reads his words as a duty dodged — a king handing to God what he held the sword to do himself.
David does in effect ask God to step in and discipline Joab and his family, so that they would suffer as a result. But did David forget that he was king, and responsible to carry out some judgment against Joab? Joab had actually been guilty of cold-blooded, premeditated murder, and for this he deserved the death penalty. Very soon after, David ordered the death of the two men who murdered Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 4:10-12). The murder of Abner was just as serious. But David treated it differently, evidently because Joab was captain of his army.
Another reads it as a king whose judgment was right but whose power fell short.
David's fasting and tears bore witness to how deeply he felt Abner's death, and how truly he judged Joab's iniquity. But sadly, his power was not equal to his heart.
Joab outlived his crime and kept on winning.
Joab might believe that his schemes had succeeded, and that as the victor he would keep on prospering. For many long years he had been at the head of David's armies, honoured among the people of God, victorious over their enemies. But all this activity was without value, either in the eyes of God or those of David. … In the end he received his due under the government of God, and perished miserably by the sword in the very house of God where he believed he had found a refuge. … God did not forget his crimes, and the blood he shed came back on his own head and on his descendants (1 Kings 2:22-34).
The last turn in the story is what David himself became. The man he had cursed became his partner in murder.
David becomes the murderer of Uriah, his own servant, to escape public exposure of his fault. … The same David who had said of Abner's blood, "May it fall upon the head of Joab," now takes this Joab, a murderer himself, as his accomplice. So he becomes the slave of the man who had every interest in bringing him into bondage.
- Crime. Joab killed Abner outside the city of refuge. He dressed up private ambition, and revenge for a battlefield death, as the lawful duty of an avenger.
- Clearing. David refused any share in the blood. His fasting and open mourning, not his words alone, persuaded Israel that he was innocent in the matter.
- Curse. David did not execute the murderer who commanded his army. He asked God to deal with Joab's house instead. One commentator reads this as a duty avoided; another as power David did not yet have.
- Carried out. The curse was not empty. Joab prospered for years, then fell by the sword. His blood-guilt came back on his head and on his descendants.
- Cost. The curse came home. David later used the very murderer he had cursed, and became the slave of his own accomplice.