2 Samuel 3 27

2 Samuel 3:27 kjv

And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.

2 Samuel 3:27 nkjv

Now when Abner had returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him privately, and there stabbed him in the stomach, so that he died for the blood of Asahel his brother.

2 Samuel 3:27 niv

Now when Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into an inner chamber, as if to speak with him privately. And there, to avenge the blood of his brother Asahel, Joab stabbed him in the stomach, and he died.

2 Samuel 3:27 esv

And when Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the midst of the gate to speak with him privately, and there he struck him in the stomach, so that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.

2 Samuel 3:27 nlt

When Abner arrived back at Hebron, Joab took him aside at the gateway as if to speak with him privately. But then he stabbed Abner in the stomach and killed him in revenge for killing his brother Asahel.

2 Samuel 3 verses

2 Samuel 3 27 Meaning

This verse describes the treacherous murder of Abner by Joab upon Abner's return to Hebron. Joab, feigning a desire for a private conversation, lured Abner aside within the protective confines of the city gate. There, Joab fatally stabbed him in the stomach. The stated motive, "for the blood of Asahel his brother," references Abner's killing of Joab's brother Asahel in a prior battle, even though Abner had acted in self-defense after multiple warnings. This act, perpetrated in a place meant for justice and under a guise of peace, violated the sanctity of hospitality and proper conduct, casting a significant shadow over David's newly unifying kingdom and revealing Joab's calculating ruthlessness.

2 Samuel 3 27 Context

The immediate context of 2 Samuel 3:27 is a pivotal moment in the unification of Israel under David. After a prolonged civil war, Abner, the formidable general of Ish-Bosheth’s fading kingdom, had offered to switch allegiance to David, a crucial step for achieving nationwide peace. David accepted, demonstrating political wisdom by engaging Abner, even sharing a feast with him, and sending him away in peace. However, Joab, David’s chief military commander, was enraged by Abner's presence and potential threat to his own position, both militarily and politically. Moreover, Joab felt obligated by the ancient custom of blood vengeance for his brother Asahel, whom Abner had killed in self-defense. Thus, upon Joab's return from a raid, he secretly recalled Abner to Hebron, orchestrating the deceitful assassination described in this verse. This act jeopardized David's efforts for unity and complicated the narrative of his ascent, compelling David to publicly disavow Joab's actions.

2 Samuel 3 27 Word analysis

• And when Abner returned to Hebron:
  • Hebron (חֶבְרוֹן - Khevron): An ancient city with significant biblical history, particularly for David, as it was his first capital. Returning to Hebron signifies entering a place considered safe and perhaps under David's protection, which underscores the treachery.
• Joab took him aside:
  • took him aside (וַיֵּט אֹתוֹ - vayyet oto): Literally "and he turned him aside" or "he diverted him." This verb implies a deliberate leading away from a direct path or attention, highlighting Joab's deceptive intention to isolate Abner for his nefarious purpose. It suggests an action under false pretense.
• into the midst of the gate:
  • gate (שַׁעַר - sha'ar): The city gate was not just an entrance but a complex area, often containing chambers or recesses for various purposes: legal proceedings, public announcements, and social interaction. Taking someone "into the midst of the gate" (אֶל תּוֹךְ הַשַּׁעַר - el tokh ha-sha'ar) for a private conversation means moving them slightly out of the main thoroughfare but still within an ostensibly public or semi-public space where one might expect a degree of safety or formality. This makes Joab’s act more audacious and public, yet under the guise of discretion.
• to speak with him privately:
  • privately (בַּשֶּׁלֶךְ - ba-shelekh): This rare adverb (from H7953) denotes "quietly," "privately," or "in silence." It reinforces the deceptive nature of Joab's approach; he presented the encounter as a confidential and non-threatening discussion, lulling Abner into a false sense of security.
• and there he struck him in the stomach:
  • struck him (וַיַּכֵּהוּ - vayakkehu): A direct, forceful act of violence.
  • in the stomach (הַחֹמֶשׁ - hachomesh): Referring to the lower abdomen or "fifth rib" area. This was a common and often fatal place for a stab wound in ancient warfare, suggesting a precise, intentional killing blow aimed at a vital organ.
• so that he died: The direct and immediate consequence, leaving no doubt about the severity and intent of the blow.
• for the blood of Asahel his brother:
  • for the blood (עַל דְּמֵי - al demey): Explicitly states the justification for Joab's act: kinship revenge. However, this claim is problematic given the circumstances of Asahel’s death.
  • Asahel his brother: Joab’s slain brother, providing the supposed moral (but legally questionable) basis for his act.

2 Samuel 3 27 Bonus section

The Hebrew word חֹמֶשׁ (chomesh), translated as "stomach" or "fifth rib," highlights the precision and lethality of the blow. In ancient anatomical understanding, this vital area, often housing major organs, ensured a mortal wound. Its specific mention serves to emphasize the intentionality and deadliness of Joab's action, not a mere altercation.

Joab's act was a clear example of what might be considered "false piety." While invoking the culturally sanctioned custom of blood revenge for his brother, he distorted the true intent and parameters of the law to justify his political and personal vendetta. This contrasts with biblical principles emphasizing just judgment and intent (as seen in the laws for cities of refuge) over unchecked retribution. It also presents a polemic against the idea that personal vendettas, even when cloaked in tradition, are necessarily righteous in God's eyes.

2 Samuel 3 27 Commentary

Joab's assassination of Abner stands as a stark testament to the complexities and dark undercurrents beneath the surface of unifying Israel under David. Though seemingly a straightforward act of blood vengeance for his brother Asahel, Joab’s motivation was clearly multifaceted, encompassing deep-seated personal rivalry and political opportunism. Abner's defection to David, while strategic for the kingdom's unity, simultaneously threatened Joab's unique and indispensable position as David's top general.

The manner of the killing underscores its treacherous nature. Inviting Abner to a private conversation "in the midst of the gate"—a place historically associated with justice, judgment, and safety—was a profound breach of trust and hospitality. This was not a fair fight or an open act of war, but a calculated ambush disguised as a discreet discussion. Abner had just been sent away peacefully by David, enjoying what should have been an assurance of safety; Joab's act violated that implicit understanding, casting an initial shadow on David's integrity, which the king vigorously sought to dispel through public mourning and cursing Joab's house.

From a Mosaic Law perspective, Abner had killed Asahel in self-defense, warning him repeatedly before delivering the fatal blow. Such a case, by legal standard, would typically require refuge in a "city of refuge" rather than becoming the subject of a vengeful killing by a blood avenger outside due process. Joab's act thus constituted not rightful retribution but cold-blooded murder, motivated by self-preservation and the thirst for power. It revealed Joab's chilling pragmatism, prioritizing his own standing over the broader peace and ethical considerations. This event sets a precedent for Joab's future ruthless actions, notably the similar murder of Amasa, his cousin (2 Sam 20:8-10), solidifying his reputation as a formidable but morally compromised figure. The narrative serves as a grim reminder that even within the story of God's chosen king, human ambition, deceit, and violence often operate, requiring God's ultimate justice to prevail.