# Question concerning David and Joab



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 29, 2008)

Why did David relegate the responsibility of bringing Justice upon Joab, to Solomon? Why didn't David immediately execute Joab after Joab killed Abner.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 29, 2008)

Politics. Power. War. Family. This is my take:

Joab would have pulled the "patriot" defense, and would likely have got away with his deed: 2Sam 3:25 Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest."

If David sought Joab's conviction and execution, _for murder and treason,_ he could have (from the earthly viewpoint), winning or losing the judgment might have lost the union of the people he had just achieved, chiefly by losing the Judahites. If he acted similar to Saul, and just summarily executed Joab on his own prerogative as supreme dictator, he would have undermined his position morally. As it was, Joab's twisted vengeance nearly cost the unity anyway, and it took a public mourning by David (vv 31, 32, 37) to redress what had been so long in the making and nearly undone.

William E. Gladstone said: "Justice delayed is justice denied." In this case, we might say Justice slept, or bided her time. What David declared in 3:29, 1 Ki 2:6 saw fulfilled.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 1, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Politics. Power. War. Family. This is my take:
> 
> Joab would have pulled the "patriot" defense, and would likely have got away with his deed: 2Sam 3:25 Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest."
> 
> If David sought Joab's conviction and execution, _for murder and treason,_ he could have (from the earthly viewpoint), winning or losing the judgment might have lost the union of the people he had just achieved, chiefly by losing the Judahites. If he acted similar to Saul, and just summarily executed Joab on his own prerogative as supreme dictator, he would have undermined his position morally. As it was, Joab's twisted vengeance nearly cost the unity anyway, and it took a public mourning by David (vv 31, 32, 37) to redress what had been so long in the making and nearly undone.


this is the thing that bothers me. Even after David mourns, Joab continually served David valiantly especially when it came to the children of Ammon. Joab willingly refused to conquer the city, so that David would get the honor. Couldn't David have found time during his reign to admonish Joab?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 1, 2008)

Do not forget that Joab betrayed David by siding with Adonijah against Solomon, who was David's proclaimed heir (1 Kings 2:13 with 2:10)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 1, 2008)

Keyon,
Admonish him? David probably wanted to throttle Joab!

Why assume that Joab was not looked right in the eye by David, behind closed doors, and told that David suffered him to live. That it wasn't worth the time, blood, and treasure David knew it would take to bring this matter to a close. Joab's vanity and temper nearly undid all the efforts at unity. For his part, David retained the services of his ablest commander. Joab got to live.

Joab was constrained to always work diligently for David's honor. If it ever looked as though he were setting himself up, possibly for a coup, David had Abner's murder to bring up. Like TedKeneddy knew he would never be more than a Sntr from Massachusetts after Chappaquiddick, Joab would never be more than CJCS. Just the ranking lieutenant of David. And everything Joab did FOR David, to make his name great, meant he could not possess that glory for himself--it just made David stronger. Compare that to Absolom's treachery, as he undermined the people's confidence in his father.

Joab knew in his heart that David would be justified if he called him to account. Joab was a powerful man, that is, he was general of the armies. For David to move against him, he would need either a case that would unite the nation on his side, or accept the inevitability of _another _civil war. "But we just got *DONE* with a civil war! Aw, man!"

For David to promise Joab that he would keep him for now, but later he was going for his head--what kind of subordinate would accept conditions like those? An idiot.

Later, when a new king would arise (Solomon), when Joab was old and no longer commanding armies, David was sure justice would have its due. As Fred noted, Joab tried to continue in power at the end of his life, into a new administration. He tried to play kingmaker. He wanted to remain the _éminence grise_, and live high for a few more years.


If we look at these situations as true-to-life scenarios, as we read them with a social and political sophistication, we can see how so much of our own time, of all history, is reflected in the biblical vignettes. This is not a recommendation to read Redemptive History as a political tract or manual--how to do or not do things. But rather, as we _evaluate_ those situations in light of biblical morality and wisdom, we learn how to interpret our own life and times.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 1, 2008)

thanks a lot Bruce, you are insightful as usual.

As for Joab the thing that rubbed me the wrong way about him was when he killed Absalom. He did this not in the heat of battle but when Absalom was totally helpless hanging in the tree.

But I have to agree with you, if David had brought justice to Joab it would have brought on a civil war.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 1, 2008)

Slippery said:


> thanks a lot Bruce, you are insightful as usual.
> 
> As for Joab the thing that rubbed me the wrong way about him was when he killed Absalom. He did this not in the heat of battle but when Absalom was totally helpless hanging in the tree.




That was Joab's _modus operendi_. Abner, Amasa, Absalom.

The irony here is that Beneniah dealt with Joab exactly as Joab would have dealt with another - without pity, following order.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword."


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 1, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> That was Joab's _modus operendi_. Abner, Amasa, Absalom.


he had a thing for A's.  Can it be construed that Joab lost all respect for David during the Uriah incident? That would seem to embolden him more in his rebellion.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 1, 2008)

Slippery said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > That was Joab's _modus operendi_. Abner, Amasa, Absalom.
> ...



Maybe,

But I see it more as a part of his character. When he wanted revenge (Abner), he took it. When he was threatened (Amasa) he lashed out. When he thought he could put up a show of religion to save his skin (1 Kings 2:28f) he did.

I actually preached on this passage a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.cckpca.org/sermonfiles/1kings/20080217AM_Fred Greco_1Kings_02.mp3


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 1, 2008)

thanks a lot for the link Fred.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Mar 1, 2008)

Slippery said:


> Can it be construed that Joab lost all respect for David during the Uriah incident? That would seem to embolden him more in his rebellion.



Did Joab ever have respect for King David? I don't believe he really ever did. Like Fred said, it seems to be a character thing with Joab. He was power hungry and full of pride. This is why he smote Amasa after David seemed to be elevating him to more power in II Samuel 20. 

One thing is for sure, Joab knew he had one over on David after the Uriah incident, and I think that is exactly the way he liked it. That to me shows there was no respect factor at all. Joab was a bloody man, and one that David continually asked about, "What have I to do with thee?"


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 1, 2008)

Slippery said:


> thanks a lot for the link Fred.



You're welcome!


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 1, 2008)

I just finished listening the sermon Fred. It was pretty insightful, and it helps me tremendously as I go through 2 Samuel.


----------

