2 Samuel 3 30

2 Samuel 3:30 kjv

So Joab, and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.

2 Samuel 3:30 nkjv

So Joab and Abishai his brother killed Abner, because he had killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.

2 Samuel 3:30 niv

(Joab and his brother Abishai murdered Abner because he had killed their brother Asahel in the battle at Gibeon.)

2 Samuel 3:30 esv

So Joab and Abishai his brother killed Abner, because he had put their brother Asahel to death in the battle at Gibeon.

2 Samuel 3:30 nlt

So Joab and his brother Abishai killed Abner because Abner had killed their brother Asahel at the battle of Gibeon.

2 Samuel 3 verses

2 Samuel 3 30 Meaning

2 Samuel 3:30 states that Joab and his brother Abishai killed Abner, Saul's former commander. The direct motivation for this act was blood revenge for Abner having killed their brother Asahel during the previous conflict at Gibeon. This act of private vengeance occurred even though Abner had killed Asahel in self-defense in battle and was in the process of defecting to David.

2 Samuel 3 30 Context

The verse occurs during a pivotal time in Israel's history. Following King Saul's death, the nation was divided, with David ruling Judah and Ish-bosheth (Saul's son), largely controlled by Abner, ruling the other tribes of Israel. This chapter (2 Samuel 3) details Abner's decision to defect from Ish-bosheth to David, a move critical for uniting all Israel under David. David receives Abner warmly, even celebrating with him. Joab, David's military commander and nephew, views Abner with deep suspicion and personal hatred, primarily because Abner killed Joab's brother Asahel (2 Sam 2). Unbeknownst to David, Joab plots Abner's death. Joab and Abishai intercept Abner outside the city gates of Hebron, pretending to speak with him, and there, murder him. This act directly undermines David's political reconciliation efforts and puts David in a precarious position, as he mourns Abner and publicly condemns Joab's action. The verse emphasizes that Joab's motivation was revenge, despite Abner's plea in 2 Samuel 2:22 not to pursue him, and despite the killing occurring in the context of self-defense in battle.

2 Samuel 3 30 Word analysis

• So: Conjoins the previous narrative of Joab's suspicion and deceptive summoning of Abner with the decisive act. It indicates a culmination of Joab's intention.
• Joab: (יוֹאָב, Yo'av) David's formidable, yet ruthless and politically savvy commander. He frequently acts outside or against David's immediate will, motivated by loyalty to his own agenda or perceived slights against his family and position. His act here is driven by deep-seated personal revenge.
• and Abishai his brother: (וַאֲבִישַׁי אָחִיו, va'Avishai akhiv) Abishai, Joab's brother, another of David's mighty men (2 Sam 23:18). His involvement emphasizes that this was a familial act of revenge, a collective responsibility in blood feud, indicating shared intent and commitment to avenge Asahel. The Hebrew term akh for brother signifies this direct family tie.
• killed: (הָרְגוּ, hargu) From harag, meaning "to kill, slay." It's a direct, intentional act of taking a life. It's not passive, but an active, decisive killing. Unlike a legitimate execution, this was a private act outside of legal process.
• Abner: (אַבְנֵר, Avner) The highly significant commander of Saul's army. His political weight and shift of allegiance to David were crucial for national unity. His death at this moment represents a significant disruption and an act of extreme political recklessness by Joab, driven by personal vendetta.
• because: Expresses the direct cause or motivation for the killing.
• he had put their brother Asahel to death: Asahel (עֲשָׂהאֵל, Asahel), meaning "God has made," was known for his swiftness. The prior incident in 2 Sam 2:18-23 details that Asahel persistently pursued Abner, despite Abner's warning to turn back, and Abner, in self-defense, killed him with a backward thrust of his spear. Joab's claim of revenge is legally ambiguous given the context of self-defense in war, but psychologically paramount for him.
• in the battle: The setting for Asahel's death was warfare, not premeditated murder outside of conflict. This nuance is crucial; it was not cold-blooded murder on Abner's part.
• at Gibeon: The specific location of the earlier skirmish between the forces of David and Ish-bosheth, where Asahel fell. This precision underscores the lingering impact of that conflict and provides specific justification from Joab's perspective.

Words-group analysis:

• "So Joab and Abishai his brother killed Abner": This phrase directly assigns responsibility for the deed to the two brothers. It highlights their solidarity in this act of personal retribution and identifies the victim. The 'so' emphasizes that this killing was a planned, decisive culmination of Joab's deep-seated resentment and protective actions for his own position.
• "because he had put their brother Asahel to death": This provides the clear, immediate motive of the killing: blood revenge. It grounds Joab's actions in a cultural norm, the lex talionis (law of retaliation) and the avenger of blood concept, but crucially, it omits the significant context that Abner killed Asahel in self-defense during wartime, which, under Mosaic law (Num 35; Deut 19), would have offered Abner refuge from the avenger of blood. Joab ignores this nuance.
• "in the battle at Gibeon": This phrase defines the specific historical and tactical context for Asahel's death, emphasizing that it was a combat casualty rather than a criminal murder outside of war. This detail underscores the moral complexity of Joab's revenge, as it went against the spirit of refuge city laws for unintentional or battle-related killings.

2 Samuel 3 30 Bonus section

• The timing of Abner's assassination was particularly destructive. Abner was at the very point of brokering peace and unifying all of Israel under David's kingship. Joab's act destabilized this process and stained David's name, making it seem as if David was behind the murder to consolidate power, despite his genuine grief and public mourning for Abner (2 Sam 3:31-37).
• David's public lament and curses upon Joab's house (2 Sam 3:28-29) were crucial for distance himself from the murder in the eyes of the people, asserting his own innocence and reliance on divine justice rather than Joab's self-appointed role.
• Joab's motives likely extended beyond mere family revenge to include political self-preservation. Abner's prestige and military acumen, combined with David's apparent favor toward him, could have threatened Joab's own position as David's chief commander.
• The incident highlights the challenge of true leadership, even for a righteous king like David, in controlling powerful and ruthless subordinates who act outside moral or legal boundaries for personal or perceived group benefit.
• The "blood on the house of Joab" (1 Ki 2:33) became a legacy of divine judgment, fulfilled years later when Solomon ordered Joab's execution, partially in retribution for Abner's and Amasa's unjustified killings.

2 Samuel 3 30 Commentary

2 Samuel 3:30 exposes a brutal reality of a society wrestling with evolving legal and moral codes, demonstrating how deeply personal grievances could override strategic national interests and even principles of justice. Joab and Abishai's act of assassinating Abner, though framed as justified blood revenge for Asahel's death in battle, was ultimately a deeply personal, premeditated murder. Abner's act was one of self-defense within the parameters of warfare (2 Sam 2:18-23); had a City of Refuge existed and been utilized, Abner would likely have been absolved. However, Joab prioritized tribal-familial justice above legal due process and national unity. This event signifies a major blow to David's efforts for peaceful reconciliation, creating more instability. It also highlights Joab's cunning and ruthless character, a quality David acknowledged he could not control (2 Sam 3:39) but for which David later commanded Solomon to hold him accountable (1 Ki 2:5-6, 31-33). The verse contrasts personal vengeance, which often leads to unending cycles of retribution, with the divine prerogative for justice (Rom 12:19), anticipating later biblical teachings on forgiveness and entrusting vengeance to God.