A. David Becomes King (2 Sam. 1:1-5:5)

After Saul and Jonathan died, a messenger with torn clothes and head covered with dirt approached David in Ziklag, where he had been since defeating the Amalekites (2Sam 1:1-2; cf. 1Sa 30). Bowing before David (as though before a king?), the courier related that Saul, Jonathan, and many others had died; he did not mention Saul’s other sons (v.4; cf. 1Sa 31:2). Apparently wanting to ingratiate himself, the messenger lied that he had killed the wounded Saul at the latter’s request. He presented the king’s belongings as proof (vv.5-10). However, since the narrator described Saul’s death as suicide (1Sa 31:4-5), the messenger had to have found Saul already dead (McCarter, II Samuel, 62-64). Surely the messenger did not expect David’s reaction. Though a fulfillment of prophecy, David and his men lamented what had happened (1:11-12). Instead of earning favor, the messenger—whose situation scarcely improved when he admitted that he was an Amalekite—was rewarded with death (vv.13-16). If the anointed David had not taken Saul’s life, how could this foreigner do so? His fabrication only underscored his stupidity.

The episode concludes with David’s formal lament (2Sam 1:17-27). The dirge begins and ends with Israel’s glory and weapons abandoned on the battle site, highlighted by the refrain, “How the mighty have fallen!” (vv.19, 27; cf. v.25). In between, David pleaded that the terrible news be kept from the Philistines so that their women could not gloat, as Israelite women once did at Philistine defeats (v.20; cf. 1Sa 18:7; 21:11; 29:5). David even cursed the battlefield (v.21). Finally, he extolled Saul and Jonathan for their heroism, then Saul for his largess and Jonathan for his intimate friendship (vv.22-26).

Personal feelings aside, the death of Saul and Jonathan paved the way for David’s takeover. But David made no immediate moves; instead, he sought (š'l) the Lord and was told to go to Hebron (2Sam 2:1). When David and his entourage arrived, the men of Judah anointed him king, apparently confirming what Samuel had done (vv.2-4a; cf. 1Sa 16:1-13). But David continued to show respect for Saul and his family by affirming the people at Jabesh-Gilead who had buried the slain leader (2:4b-7).

David became king of Judah (= southern territory) while Ish-Bosheth, Saul’s son, became the king over Israel (= northern territory), a move engineered by Abner, Saul’s military leader. In Ish-Bosheth’s case there was no divine direction, no seeking God, and no anointing (vv.8-11).

From a human standpoint, conflict between these factions was understandable. From the standpoint of God’s will, it was inevitable. After an initial stalemate, illustrated by a bizarre form of ritualized combat, David’s forces gained the upper hand (2Sam 2:12-17). But Saul’s forces scored, too. Abner slew a persistent if not impulsive (cf. 2Sa 2:18-32) Ashael, brother of David’s officer Joab. Yet this presaged an ominous future (2:18-23). Curiously, Saul and Jonathan died though swift (qll; cf. 1:23), while Ashael perished because he was swift (qll; 2:18-23).

In this initial confrontation the House of Saul lost 360 troops, the House of David only 19 (vv.24-31). Hostilities then ceased temporarily.

Though the ensuing war was long, victory for David’s house was only a matter of time (2Sam 3:1). A measure of strength was reflected in David’s many wives and sons. By contrast, in the house of Saul a dispute arose over one of Saul’s concubines—no wives of Ish-Bosheth are mentioned (vv.2-8). Ish-Bosheth’s position was seriously compromised when Abner withdrew his loyalty as a result of the quarrel. But the loyalty may have been questionable anyway, given Abner’s awareness of God’s promise that David was destined to rule over Judah and Israel. In any case, Ish-Bosheth was so intimidated that he kept silent (vv.9-11).

Ish-Bosheth got weaker, and David even stronger, as illustrated by David’s demand for Michal in response to Abner’s offer (cf. 1Sa 25:44). Ish-Bosheth actually acquiesced in this, apparently too dim-witted to realize the political implications (2Sam 3:12-16). When Abner finally encouraged Israel’s elders (and later folk in Benjamin, Saul’s home) to make David king, something they apparently believed was God’s will, Ish-Bosheth’s days in office were numbered (vv.17-21).

But the negotiations went awry when Joab found out about Abner’s role, for Joab had a personal and a political stake in the affair (cf. 2Sam 2:18-23, 32). Without David’s knowledge, Joab lured Abner to camp and assassinated him with the same technique Abner had used on Ashael: a sword in the belly (3:27; cf. 2:23). Unlike David, who foreswore or was prevented from taking personal vengeance against his enemies, Joab plunged (quite literally!) ahead (3:27, 30; cf. 1Sa 24-26).

The effects of Joab’s blunder were mitigated when David lamented publicly, asserted his innocence, and exposed the guilty party (2Sam 3:28-35). Whether David truly grieved or was merely being politic is not clear. But the upshot was that he was exonerated (vv.36-38). Interestingly, though Joab had killed an enemy, David feared these sons of Zeruiah (v.39; cf. 2:18).

Robbed of Abner’s skill and power, Ish-Bosheth (now reduced to “Saul’s son” in the Hebrew text) and Israel lost heart. They had good reason to fear. Ominously, the narrator mentions two semiforeign leaders of raiding bands and also interjects information about how Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth had become crippled: a nurse dropped him when she hastily fled upon hearing the news of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (2Sam 4:1-4). This juxtaposition of external and internal troubles portends further reverses for the house of Saul.

David once escaped being killed in his own bed (cf. 1Sa 19:11-16), but Ish-Bosheth was less fortunate. Baanah and Recab stabbed him (cf. 2Sam 2:23; 3:27), decapitated him (cf. 1Sa 31:9), and triumphantly presented the head to David. But David treated these assassins as he had the messenger who lied (though David did not know he had lied) about killing Saul. The king dismissed the accusation that Ish-Bosheth had sought his life or that Yahweh had wrought vengeance. So David had the men killed, desecrated their corpses, and then buried Ish-Bosheth’s head (4:5-12).

The death of Ish-Bosheth and Abner made it possible for David to rule all Israel. Nevertheless, he remained an object while all the tribes of Israel were the subject of the action. Israel cited its symbolic kinship with David (cf. Ge 29:14; Jdg 9:2), acknowledged that he acted like a king militarily (cf. 1Sa 17; 18:13-14, 16, 27, 30; 19:8; 23:1-5; 27:8-9; 30:1-20) though Saul was king, and finally appealed to a hitherto unknown divine statement (had they paraphrased or invented it?). They anointed David (cf. 1Sa 16:12-13; 2Sa 2:4) and made a covenant with him (cf. 1Sa 10:25). The standard “royal” formula which is used emphasized David’s tenure: he would not be prematurely killed (5:1-5; cf. 1Sa 13:1; 1Ki 14:21; 15:1, 9-10, 25).