Outline of Chapter 3:

         v.       1           Civil War in Israel

         vv.     2–5           David’s Children Born to Him in Hebron

         vv.     6–11         Abner and Ishbosheth Throw Down

         vv.    12–16         Abner Pledges his Allegiance to David and Brings Michal back to David

         vv.    17–19         Abner Garners Support for David from the Elders of Israel and Benjamin

         vv.    20–21         Abner and David Feast Together and Abner Leaves to Gather Israel to David

         vv.    22–25         Joab Confronts David about Abner

         vv.    26–30         Joab Deceives Abner and then Kills Him/David asks for Divine Retribution

         vv.    31–38         David Mourns Abner’s Death and Eulogizes Abner

         v.       39           David asks for the Lord to Avenge the Death of Abner

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines:

         Introduction         The People of 2Samuel 3

         Introduction         Matthew Henry Summarizes 2Samuel 3

         v.       1              The Introverted Parallelism of 1Samuel 3:1

         v.       2              Why We Find David’s Progeny Listed Right here, During a Civil War Narrative

         v.       2              What’s Wrong with Polygamy?

         v.       3              Explanations as to Why Chileab is also called Daniel

         v.       7              What is Ishbosheth so Concerned about with Regards to Abner?

         v.       7              Ishbosheth Worries for no Reason about the Loyalty of Abner

         v.       8              Most Translations Place that to Judah with the Previous Phrase

         v.       8              Some Translations Place that to Judah with the Second Phrase

         v.      11              Why Ishbosheth Allows Abner to Leave after Making These Threats

         v.      18              The Four Interpretations of 2Sam. 3:18

         v.      19              Why the Benjamites are the Most Important Tribe for Abner to Convince

         v.      19              What are the Potential Problems of 2Samuel 3:6–19?

         v.      19              The Actions and Motivations of David, Abner and Ishbosheth

         v.      19              Some Incorrect Notions of the Events of 2Samuel 3

         v.      19              Interesting Theories and Notions of Commentators

         v.      22              Why it is Legitimate for Israel to Pillage

         v.      22              Client Nation USA versus Client Nation Israel

         v.      25              Theories About David’s Response to Joab

         v.      27              Incorrect Notions Part II

         v.      27              How is it that Joab is able to Catch Abner Off-Guard?

         v.      27              Joab is Wrong

         v.      29              Let’s Talk about the Cursing Joab’s Progeny

         v.      30              In Defense of Abner

         v.      30              Who Actually Killed Abner?

         v.      39              How Should We Interpret David saying “I am weak”?

I ntroduction: 2Sam. 3 is a fascinating chapter of political intrigue, power plays, deceit and revenge. But within all of this, we take note of David’s love life as well, and see his children named herein (those born to him in Hebron). Along with all of this, we get fascinating insights into the characters of David, Abner, Ishbosheth and Joab. We probably better understand these men from this chapter than from any other chapter.

We begin this chapter by noting that there was a long war which raged between David and Ishbosheth (v. 1) which appears to be suddenly followed by a list of David’s children who were born to him in Hebron (vv. 2–5). During this civil war, Ishbosheth calls Abner, his top general, in, and accuses him of having a sexual relationship with his father’s mistress (vv. 6–7). Abner reacts vehemently, and says that he will do all in his power to bring David to power over all Israel (vv. 8–10). Abner storms out, leaving Ishbosheth afraid of him (v. 11).

Ishbosheth then contacts David and tells him that he can deliver all Israel to him, which appeals to David, except that, David asks first that his wife, Michal, be brought to him (vv. 12–14). Interestingly enough, at this point, David sends messengers to Ishbosheth asking for the return of his wife, which Ishbosheth attends to personally (vv. 15–16). While this is going on, Abner is speaking to various groups of men and sending messengers to others, to convince them to give their allegiance to David (vv. 17–19). Soon thereafter, when the alliances are essentially in place, David has Abner come to him for a great feast (v. 20). Abner then excuses himself in order to put the final touches on these new alliances (v. 21). Almost immediately afterward, Joab rides back into town, and is furious with David, when he finds that Abner has been there and left (vv. 22–25). Joab storms out of David’s office, and sends messengers to bring back Abner (sent as messengers from David, most likely—v. 26). When Abner returns, Joab manages to take him aside and murders him (v. 27).

When David hears about what happened, he mourns Abner’s death, but feels powerless to do anything to Joab (vv. 28, 30–34). David instead calls upon God to execute His perfect justice (v. 29). Despite the fact that David does not execute Joab, it is clear to all Israel that David had nothing to do with Abner’s death; and that David’s actions and decisions pleased the people (vv. 35–39).

What is interesting is, nothing is said about David’s involvement in the civil war itself. We find out about David and his wives in this chapter, about David and Abner’s alliance, about David and Joab’s confrontation, and about David’s mourning for Abner—but David does not appear to take part in the actual civil war.

What I find fascinating about the Word of God, that, even in chapters which seem to be fairly straightforward, such as the narrative that we find in this chapter, there is a great deal to be dug out of this chapter by way of personal application. When I first put together the basic exegesis from the Hebrew, trying to make certain that I understood what was going on from the narrative standpoint, I often wondered, okay, but how is this applicable in any way to my life? However, as I got further into the narrative, examining the motivations and the actions of the principals involved, I found that there was a great deal to be learned from this, as well as a lot of personal application. Everything in Scripture has a purpose, although we may not always be able to determine what that purpose is. Much of what we read has application to our lives (however, do not think that every verse that you read is going to necessarily have some application to you). There is a balance, and in that balance we will find life lessons, if you will, that we might use to guide us in our walk on this earth. All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; and is a critic of thoughts and intents of the heart (2Tim. 3:16 Heb. 4:12b).

As we begin this chapter, bear in mind that there is no actual hard, chapter break between 2Sam. 2 and 3; in the original, we go directly from the parting of the ways between Joab and Abner (after Abner had killed Joab’s brother) to an overview of the civil war which ensued (v. 1 below).

Civil War in Israel

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so she is the war long between a house of Saul and between a house of David. And David is going and holding fast and a house of Saul is going and [they are] weak.

Septuagint                              And there was war for a long time between the house of Saul and the house of David; and the house of David grew continually stronger; but the house of Saul grew continually weaker.

Significant differences:           The Greek somewhat expands on the adjective long from the Hebrew. The description of David’s and Saul’s house in the Greek is definitely different from the Hebrew, having one less verb in each case, and the verb used in the Greek is somewhat different.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       This battle was the beginning of a long war between the followers of Saul and the followers of David. Saul's power grew weaker, but David's grew stronger.

NLT                                        That was the beginning of a long war between those who had been loyal to Saul and those who were loyal to David. As time passed David became stronger and stronger, while Saul’s dynasty became weaker and weaker.

REB                                       The war between the house of Saul and the house of David was long drawn out, David growing steadily stronger while the house of Saul became weaker.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         As the war between the royal families of Saul and David dragged on, David's family became stronger and stronger, and Saul's family became weaker and weaker.

HCSB                                     The war between the house of Saul and the house of David was long and drawn out, with David growing stronger and the house of Saul becoming weaker.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. And David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul became weaker and weaker.

Young's Literal Translation     And the war is long between the house of Saul and the house of David, and David is going on and is strong, and the house of Saul are going on and are weak.

What is the gist of this verse? There is a civil war in Israel which is long and drawn out, with David’s side getting stronger while Abner’s side grows weaker.

Translation: And so the war is long between the house of Saul and the house of David. We don’t find this adjective long used very often. This would also make sense for this war to take place over a period of time less than 2 years, while Ishbosheth is ruling over Israel. Although I could come up with a scenario where the war between them was longer, that just seems less likely.

That a war seems long is a matter of perception. At present, we have been in Iraq for a few years—since I am not stationed there, the war seems rather brief to me, and for the most part, there are no battles, but rather skirmishes. Similarly, American casualties are low. A year’s worth of casualties for the US in Iraq is comparable to a couple months in Viet Nam and comparable to one battle from World War II. Furthermore, there is a lot more occurring other than skirmishes there. I am aware of at least one soldier who never used his weapon while there; and that there are innumerable building and infrastructure projects going on as we speak. On the other hand, a war where there are frequent confrontations of large groups of men, is going to seem lengthy after two years, which is the situation that we have here.

At this juncture, Gill suggests a time line: The recent battle, though so much in favour of David, did not, put an end to the war between him and Ishbosheth, which lasted five years longer; for it was when Ishbosheth had reigned two years that that battle was fought, and he reigned five years longer; for not till his death, and when David had reigned above seven years in Hebron, was he made king over all Israel; and during this time peace was not made, but the war carried on; though perhaps not in pitched battles, of which we no more read, but in skirmishes.

Back in the previous chapter, I suggested a time line, to account for the fact that Ishbosheth ruled for 2 years while David ruled for 7½ years. During the time the David ruled, the Philistines had a strong foothold in central Israel for perhaps as long as 3 years, which prevented any autonomy among the Israelites. Then Abner probably spend 2 or more years getting Ishbosheth situated, and then Abner went out and garnered support for Ishbosheth. At that point, Ishbosheth ruled for 2 years, which is most of chapters 2–4 of 2Samuel. After Ishbosheth dies (coming up in the next chapter), it will take another 6 months for David to gather popular support for his rule over all Israel. I think this makes far more sense than Gill’s rambling explanation above.

Translation: And David advances and is strong... David’s army goes out and they gain ground, they lose very few of their men, and morale is high. They continue to become stronger.

Here, by the way, David is a metonym for his army. Although David possibly did travel with his troops, this paragraph does not require that. That is, he can be named as the subject, even if he is simply giving the overall orders, but not going out into the field (which is not necessarily the case).

This is interesting, that, even though Israel desired a king in order to go to war against Israel’s enemies, we do not seem to have that situation here. That is, it does not appear as though David or Ishbosheth are going into battle themselves, nor are their armies engaged in war against their enemies, but against each other. Samuel warned Israel what might happen if Israel desired a king; however, this particular scenario was not a part of his warning.

Translation: ...and the house of Saul advances but [they are] weakening. Although the general Hebrew construction is not easy to deal with, this simply means that the army of Abner keeps going out to fight, but each time, it becomes weaker and weaker. More troops are killed, morale is low, and they are losing ground.

The house of Saul simply refers to Ishbosheth’s army led by Abner. The impression given by the previous chapter is, Ishbosheth probably did not travel with his army.

Matthew Henry waxes perhaps too poetically about this verse: David's side got ground. The house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker, lost places, lost men, sunk in its reputation, grew less considerable, and was foiled in every engagement. But the house of David grew stronger and stronger. Many deserted the declining cause of Saul's house, and prudently came into David's interest, being convinced that he would certainly win the day. The contest between grace and corruption in the hearts of believers, who are sanctified but in part, may fitly be compared to this recorded here. There is a long war between them, the flesh lusted against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; but, as the work of sanctification is carried on, corruption, like the house of Saul, grows weaker and weaker; while grace, like the house of David, grows stronger and stronger, till it come to a perfect man, and judgment be brought forth unto victory.

At least the beginning of Henry’s commentary gives us a good idea as to what was happening. However, even when Henry begins speaking of the war of the spirit against the flesh, I don’t want to necessarily rule these thoughts out. Matt. 10:35–36: For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Gal. 5:17: For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. Eph. 6:12: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. The war between our sin nature and our spiritual nature is a constant in our lives; the war between the spiritual forces that we cannot see is a constant in our lives; it is no wonder that we should see warfare between men, and rebellion against God’s plan (David should rule over Israel, not Ishbosheth; and Ishbosheth and Abner know this).

Keil and Delitzsch summarize this verse with a little less fanfare: The historian sums up in these words the historical course of the two royal houses, as they stood opposed to one another. “The war” does not mean continual fighting, but the state of hostility or war in which they continued to stand towards one another. They concluded no peace, so that David was not recognised by Ishbosheth as king, any more than Ishbosheth by David. Not only is there nothing said about any continuance of actual warfare by Abner or Ishbosheth after the loss of the battle at Gibeon, but such a thing was very improbable in itself, as Ishbosheth was too weak to be able to carry on the war, whilst David waited with firm reliance upon the promise of the Lord, until all Israel should come over to him.

This, by the way, is a summary verse, which summarizes much of what is to follow in this chapter. It is almost a title for this chapter, albeit, a lengthy one. How David becomes stronger and Saul’s house weaker will be discussed in the almost 40 verses which follow.

Unfortunately, this civil war will not be the last; we will later study civil wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (1Kings 14:30), and Asa and Baasha as well (1Kings 15:16, 32).

You may wonder why God allows this civil war to continue. First of all, God allows man free will, and that these events are a result of probably Saul’s last wish given to Abner before the battle against the Philistines began. Secondly, there are a number of men who are still loyal to Saul and to any in his line; many of these men have to be eliminated, which will happen in war. Therefore, God is going to wipe out (through David’s army) most of those who support Ishbosheth, Saul’s son.

It may seem weird to you that we begin this chapter with commentary on the civil war between Abner and David, and then suddenly stop and discuss the children born to David in Hebron; however, recall that there were no chapter breaks in the original. The end of 2Sam. 2 moved right into the beginning of 2Sam. 3 without any sort of notation of a chapter break. 2Sam. 3:1 is somewhat of a summary verse, which summarizes what follows the standoff between Abner and Joab in Gibeon. The remainder of 2Sam. 3 gives us a few events which took place during this civil war and during David’s reign in Hebron. Part of David’s concern, during this period of time, was devoted to his wives, and to having children (vv. 2–5). In fact, in the midst of all this, David even will get Ishbosheth to deliver his wife, Michal, to him (vv. 13–16).

Keil and Delitzsch also comment on what seems to be a sudden detour: The account of the sons who were born to David at Hebron does not break the thread, as Clericus, Thenius, and others suppose, but is very appropriately introduced here, as a practical proof of the strengthening of the house of David, in harmony with the custom of beginning the history of the reign of every king with certain notices concerning his family (vid., 2Sam. 5:13. 1Kings 3:1 14:21 15:2, 9, etc.).

Furthermore, David’s increase of wives and children stands in stark contrast to what follows—an argument between Ishbosheth and Abner over a former mistress of Saul’s. Vv. 2–5 illustrate just how David’s house grows stronger and stronger; and vv. 6–11 illustrate just how Saul’s house becomes weaker and weaker.

David's Children Born to Him in Hebron

2Chron. 3:1–4a

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so is born to David sons in Hebron. And so is his firstborn Amnon to Ahinoam the Jezreelitess.

Septuagint                              And sons were born to David in Chebron: and his first–born was Ammon the son of Achinoom the Jezraelitess.

Significant differences: None

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Several of David's sons were born while he was living in Hebron. His oldest son was Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam from Jezreel.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

HCSB                                     Sons were born to David in Hebron: his firstborn was Amnon, by Ahinoam the Jezreelite...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       And sons were born to David at Hebron: his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam of Jezreel...

Young's Updated LT              And there are born to David sons in Hebron. And his first-born is Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess.

What is the gist of this verse? The first son that David had born to him was Amnon, the son of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess.

Translation: And sons are born to David in Hebron. When David became king over Judah, this did give him certain privileges, which included being able to marry pretty much as many women as he desired. Whereas, David did not amass as many wives as did Solomon, he did marry a number of women. At some point in the future, we’ll have a list of those wives and their children.

David did not, insofar as we know, have any children when he was on the run from Saul. He did have two wives, as we know, but not having children was probably intentional on David’s part. When in Judah, he never knew when he would have to pick up stakes and move on; and when living in a protectorate of Gath, he knew that he was deceiving the king of Gath—so that made his time in Gath uncertain as well. However, once David moves to Hebron as king over Judah, he has some human stability, and he chose to enjoy this time, apparently.

I should speak to Solomon and David: Solomon learned a lot of his father, and part of that included Bible doctrine. However, he also learned from David’s example of having multiple wives, which Solomon was most excessive about—he had 1000 wives and mistresses, and the Song of Solomon chronicles his frustration and love for a woman that he could not have. In other words, you can have it all without having anything at all.

David has 3 nephews—now one deceased and two filled with revenge motivation—and these men could really used David’s steady hand and influence in their lives. It is much better to nip their problems in the bud, rather than to let their youthful exuberance and poor judgment get the best of them. However, David will not do this. He is content to be the uncle that they look up to; but he gives them no guidance that we can see. We know that he had the chance when Joab comes in to speak to him later in this chapter; but David offers no guidance and no boundaries.

David’s sons are going to be raised the same way—David will take a hands-off approach—and perhaps we can blame this on his father, who has David out watching the sheep at a very young age, and who seemed to have little confidence and few expectations in David (however, we did note an instance of Jesse teaching David).

So there is no misunderstanding, David is not supposed to have multiple wives, as per Deut. 17:17 (And he [any king over Israel] shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold). Is David aware of this? We really don’t know; however, David does seem to be well-schooled in the Law, so my opinion is, David did know. Furthermore, it would be reasonable that he would want to know about all passages related to being a king; so I suspect that he knew this and other passages for this reason as well.

Application: God has designed a family unit: one man, one woman, and children. I know of blended families and single mother families, and the problems which they face are almost insurmountable. Bringing in a new mother or a new father into a family often ends up as mutual toleration at best; out and out antagonism at worst. Having no father to speak of, means a child grows us without the guidance and insight of a father. A normal father, for instance, will do anything to protect the soul and body of his daughter. The mother might be enjoying sharing makeup with her daughter, buying clothes together, letting her daughter go out at a young age—but a father knows what men are like. Most fathers might even want to keep their daughters under lock and key until age 30. With both parents, there is a balance which is achieved. A daughter learns about what kind of man she should marry and she learns about what kind of wife she should be. Remove one of the parents, and you remove a key element in that young girl’s training. The same with a male. A young man sees how his father treats his mother, and learns from this. He observes the faithfulness and dedication of his mother and looks for this in a woman.

Application: I have heard the statistic that 3 out of 4 Black babies are born out of wedlock in the United States at this time. Half of these are young men, most of whom will grow up without a real father. At a certain age, many women are no longer able to reign in their young men, and they go out of control. They function without any morality and without any respect for others (which a father often enforces and teaches). And many of them go out and do exactly as their absent father has done. My point is, God has a perfect design, and this design, not matter how tempting it sounds, is not a marriage of one man to several women, as David is doing. What we should expect is difficulties from his sons, which we will find. However, at this point, we will simply get to know these children from birth.

Application: In case you were not aware, there are few nations in the history of the world with as a high a percentage of believers as we find in the United States. It is said that, of those who founded our country, 97% of them could be classified as Protestants. From my own experience, a larger percentage of the Blacks which I know appear to believe in Jesus Christ. Therefore, here, in the United States, we should expect to find innumerable attacks by Satan against God, Jesus Christ, and the divine institutions (marriage, family, volition and nation). In the day that I live, the assault on marriage and the family is almost unnerving. We have a huge divorce rate and a demand by those who do not fit into God design for marriage petitioning for marriage rights and for family rights. We find some school districts no longer using the colors red and green during Christmas (which is not called Christmas by many of them). We have the spring bunny rather than the Easter bunny. And the great Christmas songs which I recall singing in choir are rarely sung today in any public institution. We find Black families ravaged first by no father, which results in them being taken by drugs and by false religion (Islam or the Charismatic movement). We have a huge percentage of Blacks who see themselves first as Africans and secondly as Americans, which is symbolic of Satan’s attempt to take these people from their true Christian roots as Americans and associate them with the paganism of Africa. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, who want to move to America just to start on the bottom rung of the ladder so that they can pull themselves up; and we have so many Blacks who see themselves as being in a nation of oppression and no opportunity, who expect the government to subsidize their lives and lifestyle. These are Satanic attacks; Satan is real and his arguments and logic are greater than our own personal arguments; and, apart from Bible doctrine, we cannot stave off his attacks.

Application: One final note: none of these sons born to David in Hebron are ever celebrated as men of spiritual integrity; several of them whose background we do know, are infamous. If a man as great as David, with all the financial resources of a king, cannot control and guide several children by several wives, what do you think is going to happen to the children of the seeds that you so indiscriminately plant?

Application: What you need to understand is, a husband and a wife form a unit, insofar as their children are concerned. Although my parents were very different in personality and interests, I never played one against the other, because their decisions concerning us were made jointly; they backed up one another. They took their responsibility of raising children seriously, and did so as a team. David cannot function as a team with a half-dozen different wives. He does not have the time. There is no unity and no coordination of discipline and guidance for these children. Even as a king with the resources of a king, David cannot properly father these children he has fathered. There are too many mothers and not enough fathers; and no unity and no unbreakable bond has been established. Now, bear in mind, we are speaking of a great man; David has great spiritual integrity. Over and over again when we have studied him, we find indications of this greatness. However, you cannot take your spiritual greatness outside of God’s plan and make it work. It just won’t.

Even though the Law condemns polygamy (Deut. 17:17), the author of Samuel makes no comment; however, the disastrous interaction of the children from David’s polygamous unions will speak volumes (see 2Sam. 13–19 1Kings 1–2).

Application: Okay, you are now convinced as to the importance of the nuclear family; now, why does God allow David to have several wives? God is a gentleman and He respects our volition. God allows us to sin; He allows us to make grave mistakes. With David, this is a matter of teaching by example: if David, a man of great spiritual integrity and with almost unlimited resources, cannot control a half-dozen kids by as many wives, then it should be clear to us that we will be unable to properly raise our own children outside God’s pre-designed family unit. I am sure that this has been said before, but it does not take a village to raise a child; it takes a mother and a father.

Application: Now, you may not be contemplating polygamy, but are you contemplating divorce? Are you contemplating an affair? Are you contemplating sex outside of marriage? Are you contemplating marriage with the idea, “If it doesn’t work out, I can divorce her”? All of these are Satanic attacks upon marriage and the family unit, which God has designed and maintained throughout human history.

Translation: His firstborn is Amnon, [born to] Ahinoam the Jezreelitess. David married two women when on the run from Saul, and one of them was Ahinoam. Amnon means faithful. Amnon will rape his half-sister, Tamar, in 2Sam. 13. Because he rapes his half-sister, Absalom, his half-brother will kill him. This is a man who would have been heir to David’s throne.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And his second, Chileab to Abigail a woman of Nabal the Carmelite. And the third Absalom a son of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur.

Septuagint                              And his second son was Daluia, the son of Abigaia the Carmelitess; and the third, Abessalom the son of Maacha the daughter of Tholmi the king of Gessir.

Significant differences:           The Greek adds the additional words the son of. The Greek will also differ from the Hebrew when it comes to proper names; however, note that the Greek read Daluia and keep that in mind when we compare this to 1Chron. 3:1.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       David's second son was Chileab, whose mother was Abigail, who had been married to Nabal from Carmel. Absalom was the third. His mother was Maacah, the daughter of King Talmai of Geshu.

The Message                         ...Kileab, born of Abigail of Carmel, Nabal's widow--his second; Absalom, born of Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur--the third;...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The second was Chileab, born to Abigail (who had been Nabal's wife) from Carmel. The third was Absalom, whose mother was Maacah (the daughter of King Talmai) from Geshur.

HCSB                                     ...his second was Chileab, by Abigail, the widow of Nabal the Carmelite; the third was Absalom, son of Maacah the daughter of King Talmai of Geshur;...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

LTHB                                     And his second was Chileab, of Abigail the former wife of Nabal of Carmel. And the third was Absalom the son of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai the king of Geshur.

Young's Updated LT              and his second is Chileab, of Abigail wife of Nabal the Carmelite, and the third is Absalom son of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur.

What is the gist of this verse? David’s second and third sons are named: Chileab, David’s son by Abigail, former wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and Absalom, David’s third son, born to Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur.

Translation: His second [son was] Chileab by Abigail the widow [lit., wife] of Nabal the Carmelite. We have already studied how David met his wife Abigail. Abigail was an intelligent woman who acted to protect her husband and family from David by providing David with what was due to him for work that he had done for Nabal. Nabal, when he realized what he had done and how close he came to buying the farm, bought the farm, apparently by heart failure. We studied all of this in 1Sam. 25. Beyond that chapter, the mention of her as David’s wife in Ziklag and in Hebron, and the mention of her son here, there is nothing else which we learn about Abigail in Scripture.

The name Daniel is given in 1Chron. 3:1 rather than Chileab. There could be a variety of reasons for this, but the simplest and most reasonable is, Chileab was this boy’s name and Daniel was the adult name (I have at least two friends like this). Time sometimes has an effect on a person’s name—prior to the year 2003, any art historian who referred to Leonardo Da Vinci with one name invariably used the name Leonardo; however, since the book The Da Vinci Code came out (which is a work of fiction based upon so-called facts which are chiefly fictional), we have a generation of people who refer to Leonardo as Da Vinci. The book of Samuel was composed very close the time time of the events which are herein recorded, and the book of Chronicles was written several hundred years later based upon other documents (including this one). There are clear clues which imply that the writer of Chronicles was looking at this book of Samuel when writing his book.

Now, maybe you are more concerned with Abigail being continually called the wife of Nabal. This figure of speech is known as an ampliatio [pronounced AM-plee-A-tee-oh], which means to call a new thing by an old name. We have the same situation even in Matt. 1:6 where Bathsheba is called the wife of Uriah (your Bible may insert a bunch of words to explain this away, but in the Greek, it reads simply, by the [one] of Uriah). In fact, in the Greek, we do not even have the name Bathsheba.

Translation: The third [was] Absalom, the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. Absalom will play a big part in David’s life when David gets out of fellowship with Bathsheba. Absalom will be a part of David’s discipline. In fact, we will see a lot of Absalom in 2Sam. 13–18. Often, we find the sins of other believers used to discipline us for things we have done wrong.

Absalom will later avenge the rape of his half-sister Tamar by killing the perpetrator, Amnon. He will later conspire against his father David in order to make himself king.

Although there are several Maacah’s mentioned in Scripture, this wife of David is only found here and in 1Chron. 3:2.

Talmai is mentioned in both of these places, but he is also named as the man that Absalom flees to in 2Sam. 13:37 (which will be covered when we get there). Although there is another Talmai mentioned in Num. 13:22, they are separated in time by about 400 years, and in distance, about 200 miles. Now, there might be a familial relationship here, as the Jews referred to the sons of Anak as giants (“We are grasshoppers in their sight!”) and Bashan, who once ruled in the general area of Geshur, was one of the last of the giants (Deut. 3:11). There does appear to be another connection between the peoples of these two areas, as David is said to have made raids against the Geshurites when he was living in Ziklag (which is next door to southern Judah; 1Sam. 27:8). That we have such a relationship should not strike us as odd, as the tribe of Dan left their territory in central Israel and moved up into the far north (Judges 18). The only point that you should walk away with here, is that we are not dealing with territories or peoples which remain static over hundreds of years. So, if in one passage, we run into a people living in city A; we should not have a fit if, 100 years later, there are traces of them in city B.

The mention of Geshur is interesting, as it is small principality of Syria, northeast of Bashan. Recall that David has spent all of his time in Judah. Going northward from there is central Israel, partially controlled by the Philistines. Going northward from there is northern Israel, which will follow after Ishbosheth. Going eastward from there is eastern Israel, Transjordan, also controlled by Ishbosheth. And directly above Transjordan is Syria and Bashan. So, in the ancient world, this woman Maacah lived a pretty far distance from David. How their paths crossed, how they met, would be a fascinating story, but one, unfortunately, not found in Scripture. It would be reasonable that, as Ishbosheth began to take in more area, that Talmai decided to ally himself with David, and such an alliance would be established by marriage. This alliance would benefit Talmai in the north, if Ishbosheth moved against him; and it would benefit David in the south, as he now had Ishbosheth flanked from the north and the south. Absalom, because he is Talmai’s grandson, will later seek refuge with him.

Given that there are probably ties between Talmai in the north and the Geshurites whom David wiped out in the south, David’s meeting and marriage to Maacah would be a fascinating read, I would guess. Perhaps Talmai sought to insure peace with David once David took control of Judah. The best we can do here is speculate.

Gill reasonably speculates that David wanted such an alliance, as Ishbosheth was the territory between them. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown suggest the same thing: This marriage seems to have been a political match, made by David, with a view to strengthen himself against Ish-bosheth's party, by the aid of a powerful friend and ally in the north. Piety was made to yield to policy, and the bitter fruits of this alliance with a heathen prince he reaped in the life of the turbulent Absalom.

Matthew Henry suggests: Absalom's mother is said to be the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a heathen prince. Perhaps David thereby hoped to strengthen his interest, but the issue of the marriage was one that proved his grief and shame.

There are those who suppose that contradictions abound in Scripture, and one set of those often refers to one man called by different names in different places; and another set of those is, a group of people is found in one territory, and then, suddenly, in another passage, they are found elsewhere. The Bible may or may not give us a full explanation as to exact reasons; however, that does not mean that there is some kind of a contradiction in these areas. As you have seen in this verse, we are able to come up with reasonable theories as to why Chileab is called Daniel, and also reasonable explanations as to why David might have married Maacah, even though her father is fairly far northeast of David. It would not be difficult for us to come up with possible circumstances under which Maacah and David met. Even though the Scripture does not give us any direct information on these things, this is not enough to warrant the allegation that there are contradictions in the Word of God.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And the fourth Adonijah son of Haggith. And the fifth Shephatiah son of Abital.

Septuagint                              And the fourth was Ornia, the son of Aggith, and the fifth was Saphatia, the son of Abital.

Significant differences:           None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The fourth was Adonijah, whose mother was Haggith. The fifth was Shephatiah, whose mother was Abital.

The Message                         ...Adonijah, born of Haggith—the fourth; Shephatiah, born of Abital—the fifth;...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

HCSB                                     ...the fourth was Adonijah, son of Haggith; the fifth was Shephatiah, son of Abital;...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

MKJV                                     And the fourth was Adonijah, the son of Haggith. And the fifth was Shephatiah, the son of Abital.

Young's Updated LT              And the fourth is Adonijah son of Haggith. And the fifth is Shephatiah son of Abital.

What is the gist of this verse? .

Translation: The fourth [son was] Adonijah, the son of Haggith. Adonijah was David’s fourth son, also mentioned in the list in 1Chron. 3, but known more for his attempt to succeed David instead of Solomon in 1Kings 1–2. Solomon will put him to death.

Haggith is David’s 5^th wife and mentioned only in connection with her son Adonijah.

Translation: The fifth [son was] Sephatiah, the son of Abital. The name Shephatiah is almost identical to the name Jehoshaphat, with the Yah at the end instead of the beginning. They both mean Yah is judge; Yah has judged. David’s fifth son, Shephatiah, is only mentioned here and in the family line in 1Chron. 3:3. His mother, Abital, is only found in these two places. These two lists, by the way, are almost identical. Chronicles is in a slightly abbreviated format.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And the sixth Ithream to Eglah a woman of David. These were born to David in Hebron.

Septuagint                              And the sixth [was] Jetheraam, the son of Ægal the wife of David. These were born to David in Chebron.

Significant differences: None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       The sixth was Ithream, whose mother was Eglah, another one of David's wives.

The Message                         ...Ithream, born of Eglah—the sixth. These six sons of David were born in Hebron.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The sixth was Ithream, born to David's wife Eglah. These sons were born to David while he was in Hebron.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

MKJV                                     And the sixth was Ithream, by Eglah, David's wife. These were born to David in Hebro.

Young's Updated LT              And the sixth is Ithream, of Eglah wife of David. These have been born to David in Hebron.

What is the gist of this verse? The sixth son of David, Ithream, is named here; and we are told these were the sons born to David while he lived in Hebron.

Translation: And the sixth [son], Ithream, [was born] to Eglah, David’s wife. Ithream (which means excellence or profit of the people) is found only here and in David’s line in 1Chron. 3:3. His mother, Eglah (which means heifer; chariot; round) is also named only in these two passages.

It is interesting that we have the final phrase wife of David tacked on here (as well as in 1Chron. 3:3, where it reads his wife). This suggests to me that this portion of these two books either had the same source, or the writer of Chronicles used the book of Samuel, as well as other sources, to complete his own book. I do not really understand the significance of Eglah being called David’s wife here, although the other women were David’s wives as well. One explanation which is offered is, this is the final wife of this list, and therefore, the list is completed with the phrase wife of David. Although I do not find that explanation to be completely satisfying; I do not have an alternate one. Gill suggests that there was nothing else which distinguished her, so this phrase was thrown in. That explanation strikes me as being particularly lame, which Gill agrees with, citing the previous two wives as equally undistinguished in Scripture.

You may find it interesting that Jewish tradition believes Eglah to be equivalent to Michal, which means, I suppose, she took on an alternate name when she returned to David (which does not square with 2Sam. 5). In this chapter, David will see to it that Michal is taken from her husband, who apparently loves her very much (we do not know how reciprocal her feelings are). However, it will be clear that Michal takes little pleasure in David when we come to 2Sam. 6. Whether she is bitter over his behavior concerning the Ark of God, or whether she is jealous of his other wives, or whether she did not like being uprooted and taken to him—we really don’t know how much these factors play into hers and David’s relationship; however, I would think it very likely that she and David did not have children for several years after this chapter.

You may wonder, did the Rabbis of old simply pull this notion that Eglah = Michal out of their...hat? Not really. Here, Eglah is called David’s wife, and the Rabbis take this to mean his principle wife, which they see as Micah, his first wife. In case you have no concept of logic, this by no means constitutes a proof of their position; simply an explanation as to where they came up with this notion (which, still seems very unlikely).

There is another Jewish tradition that this is Saul’s widow. Neither of these traditions is very likely.

Translation: These [sons] were born to David in Hebron. While David lived in Hebron, he had 6 sons born to him, all listed here and at the beginning of 1Chron. 3. Although David possibly had daughters born to him as well (e.g., Tamar, who may or may not have been born to David while he was in Hebron—1Chron. 3:9).

That David has the sons, almost as if there is no war going on, is a testament to the fact that David’s house grew stronger and stronger. The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker (Ishbosheth is not said to have multiple wives or children during this time period); only Abner seems to making himself a man a great power (as we will see in the next verse).

In other words, these few verses dealing with David and his wives and sons is not just thrown in here, without purpose, without a thought to literary cohesion. This is an illustration as to how David’s house continues to grow stronger (1Sam. 3:1 reads: Now there was a long war between the house of David; and [the house of] David grew steadily strong, but the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker). Similarly, what follows, an argument between Abner and Ishbosheth over a former mistress of Saul’s, clearly indicates that the house of Saul is growing weaker and weaker. Vv. 2–11 illustrate the truth of v. 1.

Abner and Ishbosheth Throw Down

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                          Now while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner the son of Ner ruled the house of Saul.

Masoretic Text                       And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul.

Peshitta                                  And so he is in is the war between a house of Saul and between a house of David, and Abner has strengthened in a house of Saul.

Septuagint                              And it came to pass while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abenner was governing the house of Saul.

Significant differences:           The final verb is questionable in its meaning; the Greek gives one interpretation of it. The problem with the Greek is they leave out the preposition. The Latin is in agreement with the Greek; the Syriac is closer to the Hebrew. In any case, we do not have a serious difference.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       As the war went on between the families of David and Saul, Abner was gaining more power than ever in Saul's family.

The Message                         Abner took advantage of the continuing war between the house of Saul and the house of David to gain power for himself.

REB                                       As the war between the houses of Saul and David went on, Abner gradually strengthened his position in the house of Saul.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

Barnes                                   And it came to pass, while the war between the house of Saul and the house of David lasted, that Abner assisted the house of Saul. [Barnes is usually more literal than this; however, this translation gives a good sense of the verse].

God’s Word™                         During the war between the families of Saul and David, Abner strengthened his position in Saul's royal family.

HCSB                                     During the war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner kept acquiring more power in the house of Saul.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

ESV                                       While there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner was making himself strong in the house of Saul.

LTHB                                     And it happened while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner was making himself strong for the house of Saul.

Young’s Updated LT             And it comes to pass, in the war being between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner has been strengthening himself in the house of Saul.

What is the gist of this verse? As the war continues, Abner increases his authority and respect in the house of Saul (i.e., among those in central and northern Israel).

Translation: And it is [that] while [there] was war between the house of Saul and the house of David,... We have the verb to be used twice in this first half of the verse. The first time it is used, we are speaking of something which has come to pass or has happened. The second is a reference to the civil war going on. This simply reintroduces us to the narrative which deals with the civil war between northern and southern Israel.

Translation: ...that Abner was strengthened [and became more powerful] in the house of Saul. Because we have primarily seen Abner pick up Ishbosheth and set him up as king in eastern Israel, we tend to think of him as the primary force here in the house of Saul. This indicates that his power and authority possibly even threatened that of Ishbosheth, as it continued to grow as the war continued.

Now, you may recall that the Bible has already told us that the house of David was increasing in strength and the house of Saul was decreasing—this is completely true. However, within northern and eastern Israel, Abner’s fame and power and authority continued to grow. The idea is, even without him doing anything about it, he could be seen as a possible threat to the crown of Ishbosheth. Abner apparently negotiated alliances between Ishbosheth and the elders of the northern and eastern territories; Abner is the one who is out front in this war against David. Ishbosheth appears to be little more than a figurehead, deserving of his position simply by his birth.

Clarke believes that Abner is taking steps to put himself up as king over northern Israel. I personally see this as unlikely because, when he and Ishbosheth have a serious argument, instead of taking steps to tout himself as king over Israel, Abner will go over to David’s side instead. And, in support of David, Abner makes contact with a great many of the elders whom he would have made contact with anyway, if he was looking to rule over northern and eastern Israel. In other words, I don’t think that Abner has any intention of setting himself up as king at any point in time. His loyalty to Ishbosheth is based upon his loyalty to Saul; when Ishbosheth breaks this bond, Abner will move his support to David, rather than attempt to establish himself on his own.

We’ve just examined David’s line which developed in Hebron, albeit somewhat volatile in the future. This will be compared to Saul’s line through Ishbosheth. So, while David has a multitude of wives and children within a few years of establishing himself in Hebron, all we will hear about Ishbosheth is, he will obsess over one of his father’s mistresses, as we will see in the next verse.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And to Saul a mistress and her name Rizpah daughter of Aiah. And so he says unto Abner, “Why have you gone in unto a mistress of my father?”

Septuagint                              And Saul had a concubine, Respha, the daughter of Jol; and Jebosthe the son of Saul said to Abenner, Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine?

Significant differences:           The Septuagint, Vulgate and Peshitta all have Ishbosheth said to Abner; the LXX adds the son of Saul.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       He had even slept with a wife of Saul by the name of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah. But Saul's son Ishbosheth told Abner, "You shouldn't have slept with one of my father's wives!"

The Message                         Saul had had a concubine, Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah. One day Ish-Bosheth confronted Abner: "What business do you have sleeping with my father's concubine?"

REB                                       Now Saul had a concubine named Rizpah daughter of Aiah. Ishbosheth challenged Abner, ‘Why have you slept with my father’s concubine?’

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Saul had a concubine named Rizpah (Aiah's daughter). Ishbosheth asked Abner, "Why did you have sex with my father's concubine?"

HCSB                                     Now Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah daughter of Aiah, and Ish-bosheth questioned Abner, "Why did you sleep with my father's concubine?"

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

LTHB                                     And Saul had a concubine, and her name was Rizpah the daughter of Aiah. And Ishbosheth said to Abner, Why have you gone in to my father's concubine?

Young’s Updated LT             And Saul has a concubine, and her name is Rizpah daughter of Aiah, and Ish-Bosheth says unto Abner, “Why have you gone in unto the concubine of my father?”

What is the gist of this verse? Ishbosheth accuses Abner of sleeping with Rizpah, Saul’s mistress. What he is really accusing Abner of is, an attempt to consolidate power to himself.

Translation: And Saul had a mistress [lit., to Saul a mistress] and her name [is] Rizpah, daughter of Aiah. Rizpah is going to be mentioned twice in Scripture: here, where Abner is accused of having an affair with her (with the end result of gaining power over Ishbosheth); and the second time is when David turns her sons over to the Gibeonites in 2Sam. 21. Given that her sons are named in Scripture as being men of signficance, we may reasonably conclude that she was a favorite of Saul’s (we do not have a full list of his mistresses).

Fausset says that she is a Hivite, descended from Gibeon through Aiah, and quotes Gen. 36:14. In Scripture, most often when someone is called the son [or, daughter] of Charlie Brown, this indicates that Charlie Brown is generally well-known to the reader and is probably the father or, at most, the grandfather. Therefore, he is probably wrong in this regard. He goes on to make a few comments about foreign wives, saying that they were often chosen as inferior wives by Solomon, Rehoboam, etc.

There are several things which could be at play when dealing with foreign wives in general: (1) Union with a foreign wife could represent a political treaty, and children produced as a result of this union could be seen as an enforcement of that treaty; (2) the Old Testament indicates that the Jews should not be united with non-Jews primarily because they might be swayed by the gods of these women (which would result in a foreign woman being a mistress rather than a wife); and (3) the man involved can be simply attracted to foreign women, and that the foreign wives/mistresses have no political significance.

Translation: So [Ishbosheth] said to Abner, “Why have you had sex with [lit., gone in unto] my father’s mistress?” As far as the immediate text goes, it is unclear to me (and to most other exegetes) whether or not Abner had an affair with Saul’s mistress. However, such a move can be seen as an attempt to consolidate political power. Ishbosheth is naturally concerned, because he sees himself as king, and seems to have become concerned about Abner, just as Saul was concerned about David. Ishbosheth here is not taking some sort of a moral stand, saying that it is wrong, somehow, for there to be any sort of a union between Abner and Rizpah; he is concerned that this is a power-play, which concern Abner reads loud and clear.

Of course, you are more interested in whether Abner really had sex with Rizpah or not. Abner does not, at least in the pages of Scripture, unequivocally deny this. Whether there is a relationship or not and whether or not that relationship had progressed to a sexual one is information not known to us. However, interestingly enough, Abner will go to David, and there will be no mention of taking Rizpah with him. Abner’s real concern is that this [real or imagined action on the part of Abner] is a political move; and Abner responds to that accusation with no little emotion. What is clear is, Ishbosheth is no leader; all the initiative throughout has been on Abner’s shoulders; and now, Ishbosheth questions the loyalty of perhaps his most loyal subject. Clearly, Ishbosheth is not making any connection between his actions and what the results of his actions might be. He probably has an expected outcome, but has not prepared himself for the way Abner will actually react.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                          And he was exceedingly angry for the words of Isboseth, and said: “Am I a dog”s head against Juda this day, who have shown mercy to the house of Saul your father, and to his brothers and friends, and have not delivered you into the hands of David, and have you sought this day against me to charge me with a matter concerning a woman?

Masoretic Text                       And so he burns to Abner very [much] over words of Ishbosheth and so he says, “[Am] a head of a dog I that to Judah the day? I make grace with a house of Saul your father, unto his brothers and unto his friends and I have not caused you to find in a hand of David. And so you have visited upon me an iniquity of the woman the day.

Peshitta                                  Then Abner was exceedingly displeased at the words of Ashbashul, and Abner said, “Am I the leader of vicious men in Judah? This day I show kindness to the house of Saul your father, to his brothers and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David, and yet you charge me today with this iniquity concerning a woman?

Septuagint                              And Abenner was very angry with Jebosthe for this saying; and Abenner said to him, “Am I a dog”s head? I have this day wrought kindness with the house of Saul your father, and with his brothers and friends, and have not gone over to the house of David, and do you this day seek a charge against me concerning injury to a woman?

Significant differences:           This is a long verse, and Abner is speaking in great anger, so we would expect some difficulties in the translation of this verse. Like the English translations, the Greek found it easier to make Abner the subject of the first verb, and therefore leaves out the preposition. The Latin leaves out to Abner altogether, although he is clearly the subject of the sentence.

Both the Greek and Latin include an and before his brothers, which is reasonble. I suspect that Abner did not use the and as he was speaking with great emotion. In the Hebrew, an and should be there; that is common Hebrew construction; but Abner, speaking with great anger, leaves it out.

The verb in the second to the last sentence has to be carefully translated. I think that the Greek is an approximation, but it is not a good translation (and I doubt that there was a different verb in their Hebrew manuscripts).

The final sentence shows a disagreement in what happened with the woman. I don’t think that there is a problem with the original Hebrew but how it was interpreted. The words found here are very different.

The Peshitta is almost exactly what we find in the Hebrew, with the exception of the one sentence where Abner asks (in the Peshitta), “Am I the leader of vicious men in Judah?” This shows only a slight resemblance to what we find in the other 3 texts.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Abner was very angry at what Ishbosheth had said, and he told Ishbosheth: Am I some kind of worthless dog from Judah? I've always been loyal to your father's family and to his relatives and friends. I haven't turned you over to David. And yet you talk to me as if I've committed a crime with this woman.

The Message                         Abner lost his temper with Ish-Bosheth, "Treat me like a dog, will you! Is this the thanks I get for sticking by the house of your father, Saul, and all his family and friends? I personally saved you from certain capture by David, and you make an issue out of my going to bed with a woman!

NLT                                        Abner became furious. “Am I a Judean dog to be kicked around like this?” he shouted. “After all I have done for you and your father by not betraying you to David, is this my reward—that you find fault with me about this woman?

REB                                       Abner, angered by this, exclaimed, ‘Do you take me for a Judahite dog? Up to now I have been loyal to the house of your father Saul, to his brothers and friends, and I have not betrayed you into David’s hands; yet you choose this moment to charge me with an offence over a woman.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Ishbosheth's question made Abner very angry. "Have I been behaving like some Judean dog?" he asked. "Until now I've been faithful to your father Saul's family, to his relatives and friends, and I haven't handed you over to David. But now you charge me with a crime because of this woma.

HCSB                                     Abner was very angry about Ish-bosheth's accusation. "Am I a dog's head who belongs to Judah?" he asked. "All this time I've been loyal to the house of your father Saul, to his brothers, and to his friends and haven't handed you over to David, but now you accuse me of wrongdoing with this woman!

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Amplified Bible                Then Abner was very angry at the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog’s head [despicable and hostile] against Judah? This day I keep showing kindness and loyalty to the house of Saul your father, to his brothers, and his friends; and have not delivered you into the hand of David; and yet you charge me today with a fault concerning this woman?

Keil and Delitzsch (updated)  “Am I a dog”s head, holding with Judah? Today (i.e., at present) I show affection to the house of Saul your father, towards his brothers and his friends, and did not let you fall into the hand of David, and you reproach me today with the fault with the woman?” [This is all the verse which Keil and Delitzsch rendered].

LTHB                                     And Abner was exceedingly angry over the words of Ishbosheth. And he said, Am I a dog's head, that I deal with kindness with the house of your father Saul in regards to Judah today, to his brothers, and to his friends, and have not caused you to be found in the hand of David, and you charge a stroke against me with this woman today?.

MKJV                                     And Abner was very angry over the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog's head, who shows kindness against Judah this day to the house of Saul your father, to his brothers, and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David? Am I a dog's head that you charge me today with a fault concerning this woman today?.

Young’s Updated LT             And it is displeasing to Abner exceedingly, because of the words of Ish-Bosheth, and he says, “The head of a dog am I—that in reference to Judah to-day I do kindness with the house of Saul your father, unto his brothers, and unto his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David—that you charge against me iniquity concerning the woman to-day?

What is the gist of this verse? Abner is extremely upset because of the accusations of Ishbosheth, and responds with great emotion. He asks if Ishbosheth sees him as the lowest form of creature and then makes it clear that Ishbosheth should know of his faithfulness to Saul’s house, so that such an accusation is meaningless (he does not actually deny the allegation, but its implication).

Translation: And it evoked great emotion in Abner over the words of Ishbosheth,... This is a difficult portion to render (although the overall meaning is easy to comprehend). Abner is not really the subject of the verb, even though this is how most English Bibles render it. What is actually the subject of the verb is the accusation of Ishbosheth. This accusation causes great emotion to well up in Abner. What Ishbosheth says makes Abner extremely angry.

Now, the implication of Ishbosheth’s accusation is, Abner is attempting to consolidate some political power through sleeping with Saul’s mistress, Rizpah. However, Abner is upset primarily because his loyalty should be clear to Ishbosheth. Ishbosheth should not be the least confused by his loyalty.

I hope that you notice a parallel here; King Saul was also extremely paranoid about his power, and, as David’s popularity grew, Saul’s suspicions also increased, until he made it is mission to destroy David. Ishbosheth has the same suspicions (probably fostered by someone else in the palace, sucking up to Ishbosheth, to gain a little more power himself). Had Ishbosheth just stopped to think this through, he would not be concerned about Abner’s actions in the least. Abner was as faithful to him as David was to Saul.

What Abner will say is fascinating. Do you recall that, when in a difficult situation with Joab and his small army that Abner guided their confrontation and said just the right thing in order to extricate himself and his men? Abner was, of course, sincere; but he was still very cool under fire. Abner will lose this coolness; he will lose control here. It is not that he says things which are not true; but he does paint himself into a corner. However, bear in mind, Abner can read people; he was able to read and calm Joab, even though he had just killed Joab’s brother minutes previous. Abner will sense Ishbosheth’s fear; he will sense his weakness; so, even though he paints himself into a corner, Abner still retains the upper hand.

Translation: ...and he said, “Am I a dog’s head with regards to Judah this day? I don’t know if we have had this expression before (I don’t recall it); however, a dog is one of the lowest creatures in the eyes of the Jews. They were not the loyal pets that we know of today, but they were mangy, angry, ugly animals who would roam into the cities and eat the scraps of food which had been thrown out (or left out); and when it came to meat, they would be downright protective, whether they stole this meat or not. In case you don’t know what I am talking about, throw a piece of steak down by your dog, and then try to take it away. If your dog is the least bit little hungry, this is not going to be seen by him as a game. The result is going to be a whole lot different than the tug of war that you both engage in with your socks. Bear in mind that your dog is also tame.

This refers to the lowest possible creature in the eyes of the Jews (see Deut. 23:18 1Sam. 24:14–15 2Sam. 9:8 16:9 2Kings 8:13). Furthermore, when Abner says, with reference to Judah, he is asking, “Do you see me as a traitor, loyal to Judah?” Abner is being called a dog’s head with loyalties to Judah. That is, Abner is this debased thing, and part of the reason is, his loyalty is with the territory of Judah.

Another interpretation might be, there is nothing lower than a dog, unless it is just a dog’s head; and there is nothing lower than a dog’s head, unless it is a dog’s head from Judah (which territory is loyal to David rather than to Ishbosheth).

Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge gives us a similar phrase; however, they do not identify the time frame of that phrase: This was a proverbial expression among the Hebrews to denote whatever was deemed worthless and contemptible. Something similar to this was the answer of the Turkish commander at Beer, on the Euphrates, to a request made to see the castle. “Do they,” said he, “take me for a child, or an ass’s head, that they would feed me with sweet meats, and dupe me with a bit of cloth? No, they shall not see the castle.” 

After playing around with this phrase a little, and seeing what all the other translators have done, I am thinking that the gist of this phrase is, Abner asks, “Am I some Judean dog’s head?” However, several see the reference to Judah as belonging with the next phrase, and have placed it there instead (I will give you a side by side comparison when we cover the next portion of this verse).

Translation: I manufacture grace to the house of your father Saul, [and] to his family and to his friends,... Abner is angry and he leaves out the and. I do not think that this is a scribal error, but simply indicates how exasperated Abner is at this time. “I cannot believe that, after all I have done, that you call me into the palace and make these kinds of accusations.” The house of Saul essentially refers to Ishbosheth and the royal line of Saul. His family refers to anyone related to Saul. There are going to be wives, in-laws, mistresses, uncles, cousins, etc., most of whom are not really in line for the throne, but come as a package deal with the throne. That is, Saul’s family is a royal family, as long as someone in Saul’s line is on the throne.