With so many of our regular Bible study participants out of town during one week of our 2 Samuel series, these posts by Pastor Rob served as our background information:

So far, David has show kindness to the northern Israelites who buried Saul, to Abner and the men of northern Israel even after the death of Asahel, and to Ish-Bosheth in the peace covenant. Having read 1 Samuel (and in particular about the Amalekite who killed Saul in 1:1-16), what did you predict David would say and do to the ones who killed Ish-Bosheth? David doesn't take kindly to those who take things into their own (often bloody) hands and David is once again innocent of this killing (see Joab and Abner).
     To further the pain of inter-tribal conflict, Ish's assassins are his own Benjaminite kin. The additional mention of Mephibosheth reminds readers that Ish's death does not end succession claims to Saul's throne. It also foreshadows David's further expressions of covenant kindness.
     In the NRSV, Ish-Bosheth is referred to as Ishbaal, and similarly, Mephibosheth is referred to as Meribaal in 1 Chronicles 8-9. Many scholars believe that Scripture editors were offended by the pagan name "baal" within the royal lineage. They substituted the Hebrew word "bosheth", which means "shame" into where the idolatrous word "baal" had been.

For application:
     This story is the last in a series of narratives involving power and violence. It is tempting to want to describe David as a pious perfectionist. However, he was greatly tempted at times to assert his power through violence, and we have seen others in these narratives succumb to such temptations. Yet he adhered to his Godly integrity. It is also tempting to assert that within the current halls of power there resides few if any people of Godly integrity. Both of these assertions need to be resisted.
     These narratives do also remind us that violence is never far removed from power. The human impulse to aggregate power, to amass control, to inject such power into people's lives in all sorts of ways must always be tempered. Faithful leadership reflects God's desire to liberate, to free, and to give power away so that others may more freely live. Ultimately it is God who liberates; our role, as is David's, is to seek God's heart, to seek to follow what God desires in our leadership and in our service, to limit aggregating power and violence, and to promote human worth, dignity, and freedom.
     What are your thoughts?

     First, the summary about the sons of David seems out of place as it interrupts the narrative concerning Abner and Joab. However, 3:1 emphasizes the important theme that David's kingship does not come right away and is not without cost. Saul's reign and the leadership vacuum created by his death causes great difficulty.
     It is also important to remember that David is following God's lead and is letting kingship come to him rather than impose his rule on Israel (recall Jesus not imposing himself upon the two on the road to Emmaus). It is probably more accurate then to see this protracted "war" as a series of border hostilities rather than David's power campaign.
     The list of sons also serve as important foreshadows for what is to come.

     The objective of the rest of the chapter 3 narrative is to hold David innocent of Abner's blood. Abner, as in chapter 2, is portrayed as a sympathetic figure who does not want full scale inter-Israelite war, does not want to harm Asahel, and wants to help bring unity under David to Israel. David honors Abner in several ways including cursing the house of Joab. A dark and complex relationship between David and Joab seems to be brewing.
     Rizpah does not play much of a role in the narrative now, but she will later. Given that her father is named, it is not likely that she is a slave. Within a royal court, such women were regarded as something like second-tier wives taken from lower classes. Her two sons by Saul are considered a legitimate part of the royal household. Here, Abner's relations with Rizpah is taken by Ish-Bosheth as a threat to his throne. But Ish is shown to be be weak and afraid of Abner. Why did Ish not just take Rizpah as his own wife in the first place? It may have been because he was much younger than she (hence also his fear of Abner). Perhaps Abner recognizes Ish's weakness and thus turns his loyalty to David for the good of all Israel.
     Recall that Saul reneged on his promise of his daughter Michel to David, hoping to remove any claim David may have had on Saul's throne. Now, David seeks to right that wrong. This rightful marriage further solidifies David's legal and popular tie to the house of Saul, and certainly increases his acceptability among northern Israelites. David's direct request for her is given to Ish-Bosheth, not Abner, further showing David's respect for proper channels.
     When Abner departs from David, the text uses "shalom" (peace) three times to emphasize that all is well. Alliances are made not through coercion, but through covenant. In contrast, Joab acts out of the rashness that defines his family, and out of selfish revenge.

For application:
     1.  When selfishness reigns, bad things happen. The narrative of Saul and David, and now Joab and Abner, detail this extensively. How do we best resist the impulse for revenge, especially when it is so personal and emotional?
     2.  Godly leadership of all kinds can often be undermined by the likes of a Joab - the one or ones driven by personal motives and emotions. God meets our personal needs, sometimes in ways we do not expect, at the same time God expects us to look beyond ourselves to God's calling. Abner and David look to God (recall Abner's profession of David as God's anointed) for what is best for Israel while Joab seeks what is desirable for Joab. God's call is bigger in scope, in purpose, and in reward than we can imagine.

     Abner, Saul's military leader, gathers his forces at Gibeon, a non-Israelite city aligned with Israel that is within Benjaminite tribal territory and is close to Saul's capital at Gibeah. Abner's mission may have been to test Philistine control of this land, but he runs into Joab, David's nephew and leader of some of David's forces. (It is worth noting that David may have maintained authority over Judah with the approval of the Philistines who may have still assumed that David was a renegade Israelite.)
     Confrontation seems immanent between Abner and Joab, both Israelites, which is perhaps why Abner proposes a limited battle, 12 vs. 12. This small scale battle then gets out of control.
     The three sons of David's sister, Zeruiah, are intemperate warriors. Recall Abishai wanted to kill Saul while Saul was sleeping (1 Sam. 26), and Asahel seems to be rash and fleet of foot. Abner is a seasoned fighter and does not want to kill Asahel for fear of Joab. The narrative goes to great lengths to describe how Abner has no choice but to kill.
     This battle reminds us of the end of Judges in which inter-tribal warfare, brother killing brother, becomes the epitomy of tragedy. And as in Judges, these killings involve Benjaminites. It is an awful scene described with graphic imagery.
     Clearly David must be a ruler who will unite a fractious, scattered, and inter-violent Israelite nation. Saul's rule has left a wake of brother-on-brother killing; the journey from the time of the judges to the aftermath of the first monarch is a sad journey indeed. David has his hands full, but he seems determined to follow God's will.

For application:
     "Blessed are the peacemakers..."  Are these just trite words? Human beings have been and will always be violent - prone to tribal conflict that, if left unchecked, devolves into hatred, irrationality, and violence, whether the tribes are Judah vs. Benjamin, Ukraine vs. Russia, or even Democrat vs. Republican. How might Christians be better peacemakers?

      The next step in David’s ascension occurs here in 2 Samuel 2. Mourning of Saul has ended. Time to move on, literally. As usual, David inquires of the Lord as to what next steps to take. He is told to go to Hebron in Judah, one of the towns to which David gave the spoils of his Amalekite victory (1 Sam. 30:26). Hebron was where Abraham bought land to bury Sarah and where Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Leah were buried. It is deeply and historically significant land. Hebron’s other roots are with the patriarch, Caleb, which is significant because David’s wives are specifically mentioned here: Abigail  was the wife of Nabal, a prominent Calebite landholder (and as was made clear in 1 Sam. 25, Abigail was likely far more respected than Nabal), and Ahinoam  who was also from a clan in the Calebite area. David is therefore already related by marriage to these two important clans in the area and as such he may have also had important claims on land in the area.
      Verse 3 indicates that he may have had as many as 2,000 people with him.
Verse 4 states that “the men of Judah” “anoint” David as king of the Judahite region, which includes Hebron. We recall that David had been previously anointed by Samuel thus conferring upon David a sacred calling of God (1 Sam. 16:13). Here, it is the people who authorize his rule thus legitimizing David by both God and the people – the broadest possible basis for his leadership.
      As we often find in 1 & 2 Samuel, there is contrast here in chapter two. David inquires of God for his next steps and is legitimated by God and the people. Abner takes it upon himself  to raise up Ish-Bosheth as the new king of Israel – more Saul-like self-centeredness. Ish’s rule is brief and unsuccessful. In contrast, David’s rule will be long and gracious. His first act as ruler of Judah is to issue kind words and promises to Jabesh-Gilead for taking care of Saul’s body. By being respectful of Saul to the end (and beyond), David is really being respectful of God’s anointing of Saul. Jabesh-Gilead is in the northern region of Israel (Judah is in the southern region), so David expresses gratitude and friendship to an area of Saul’s influence, the beginning of reunification (or perhaps more accurately Israel’s first true unification as a nation) under David.

For application:
      Leadership that is appropriate to God’s kingdom is always shared leadership that is accountable to God and to the people. This is true for Ancient Israel’s success, for the founding of our nation (our Founders looked to lessons learned in Ancient Rome, England, AND lessons learned in the Bible), and it is true of our Presbyterian tradition. What are your thoughts or questions about leadership as it relates to David and the Biblical lesson?
      Some critics suggest that with 2,000 people David did not just go to Hebron, but rather his actions were more like a coup. The elders of Judah, by this logic, would have had no choice but to make him king. Is this a legitimate read of this text? Why or why not?