AH Joab Assignment
Andrew Hodge 18th August 2006
Old Testament Survey OTE 113
|
Joab
The son of Zeruiah
References: Libronix for searches and the occasional citation
Birth and Family Relationships:
David has six named brothers in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 - Eliab, Abinadab, Shimma, Nethaneel, Raddai and Ozem. In 1 Samuel 16:10 Jesse, David’s father, has eight sons, the eighth unnamed and presumed dead. David has two named sisters in 1 Chronicles 2:16 - Zeruiah and Abigail, and a further sister in 2 Samuel 17:25 - Nahash - who became the grandmother of Amasa, subsequently assassinated by Joab, Amasa’s cousin.
David’s sister Zeruiah has three named sons Abishai, Joab and Asahel. These three family members were mighty men in David’s armies and played a major role in his kingdom and in his military campaigns although at times their zeal borders on brutality. The greatest of all was Joab (“Jehovah is his Father”), and was for much of his career David’s Commander-in-Chief (1 Chronicles 27:34). Abishai is a brave and prominent soldier in a leadership position (2 Samuel 23:18). Asahel is reckoned as one of David’s mighty men (2 Samuel 23:24; 1 Chronicles 11:26; 27:7) and is not forgotten (but is killed early in his career - see below).Ö
David is therefore Joab’s uncle. The difference in age is not known but it is probably not much as David was the youngest of Jesse’s sons and Zeruiah is listed as the eldest sister. As they work, fight and grow together, both were in their most mature and productive years - David was 30 when he was anointed King over Judah and Benjamin in Hebron, and in his 71st year when he died in Jerusalem. Joab is executed in the same year as David dies (1 Kings 2:34) at the order of Solomon, on David’s recommendation (2:5-6). This suggests that there is a complex development of the relationship between these two great leaders. They were therefore contemporary for most of their lives, possibly growing up together in the same city - Bethlehem.Ö
Joab is always mentioned in Scripture as the son of Zeruiah his mother. His father, the usual patronymic, is unknown, but he was a Bethlehemite (2 Samuel 2:32), hence Zeruiah did not marry outside her tribe. Perhaps Joab’s relationship to David through his mother was much more important to describe him in any case.Ö
Joab never gets personally close to David - he is not described as his ‘friend’ like Hushai the Archite (2 Samuel 15:37) or his counsellor like Ahithophel the Gilonite (1 Chronicles 27:33); Ahithophel betrayed David to Absalom, but David had once valued not only his advice (2 Samuel 16:23), but his company as a friend (Psalm 41:9). Joab is none of these.Ö
Military Career:
Joab was perhaps the quintessential military leader (1 Chronicles 11:5-6 - the storming of Jerusalem is the event which raises him to Commanding General). He led from in front, his men were enthusiastic in following (2 Samuel 11:11), he enjoyed the military trust of his King, he was wise in both military tactics and in the politics required of a man who held such a responsible position. He rose to prominence early in the reign of David and I suspect appointing him as Commander-in-Chief was a natural evolution and did not require much deliberation.Ö
He selected his men on merit eg neither of his personal armour-bearers were Israelites (“The written text has the plural, “armourbearers,” for which the K’ri has substituted the singular. The plural is probably right, and if so, both Joab’s chief armourbearers, or squires, were foreigners, Zelek being an Ammonite and Nahari a Gibeonite.”)[1] although in actual battle, Joab used ten armourbearers (2 Samuel 18:15). Ö
There are some campaigns recorded in scripture where Joab was present but the victory is given rightly to King David (eg 2 Samuel 10:15-19 against Hadadazer, king of Zobah in Northern Syria). This does not mean that Joab was not prominent, but it does imply that he always did his duty. Scripture records one temporary military defeat against him, as the commander of David’s forces - with David also in the field - against the Edomites (Psalm 60:1-4; 2 Samuel 8:13-14; 1 Chronicles 18:12-13) although this bloody campaign was concluded with an Israelite victory. There is possibly a second record of defeat (Psalm 44:9-10), likewise temporary. It stands to human reason that armies that go out to fight against varying odds must experience varying early results, which in Israel’s case depend as much on their military capacity as on their current attitude toward their source of power - Jehovah. The LORD has the final say and under David’s leadership Israel’s armies are consistently victorious in their campaigning. Joab might be considered fortunate that he occupies such a prominent position in such a God-directed force, under a King that Jehovah was mightily using. Ö
It may also be that because of his connection with Israel and David, Joab’s necessarily minor defeats are glossed over, so in general we read about a string of military successes, sometimes against significantly superior forces (2 Samuel 10:7-9). He uses frontal attacks as well as cunning to secure victory (2 Samuel 20:15-22; 1 Chronicles 19:10-14). When necessary, he effectively delegates command to a trusted fellow-soldier (2 Samuel 10:10, 20:23). When required, he prosecutes a war ruthlessly and unto the bitter end (eg against the Edomites 1 Kings 11:15-16) regardless of potential consequences. After his death, the result of his fierce slaughter of the Edomites is a continuous thorn in the flesh for Solomon as the Edomites seek revenge on Israel.Ö
Although Joab invokes the Name of the LORD when entering battle (2 Samuel 10:12) he is effectively trusting his own abilities, his fellow warriors and his tactics, even though on this occasion against the Ammonites and the Syrians God appears to have given him a remarkably easy victory. Joab ‘dedicates’ spoil to the Temple (1 Chronicles 26:28) but I believe this is out of duty and convention, rather than any personal dedication to Jehovah. agreed
As time goes by, David appears to delegate more of the actual fighting and campaigning to Joab, preferring to remain behind in Jerusalem. Hence the shameful consequent story of Uriah and Bathsheba. This could mean that Joab was possibly a good bit younger than David
Political Career:
Joab’s political career was generally straightforward, with one clear exception. He firmly supported the King - ie whoever happened at the time to be legitimately occupying the throne - and had conventional ideas about the succession of the monarchy from father to eldest son. He continued to do his duty even when asked to do non-military things (1 Chronicles 11:8). His inability to see the hand of God in the selection of successor lead to his death in that he supported Adonijah, David’s eldest surviving son, over Solomon, God’s clear and predicted choice (1 Chronicles 22; 23:1).Ö
The exception comes at the beginning of his public career at his first mention in Scripture (2 Samuel 2:8 and ff). This account may seem strange to a NT ear. First, Joab chooses David rather than the previous king, Saul or Saul’s successor Ishbosheth. On the one hand, this choice demonstrates how narrow-minded the nation was in adherence to each of their own tribe, or perhaps at this time Joab’s political sense was not well developed. He may have been carried away with David’s successes, his personality or his style of leadership, had noticed the spiritual bankruptcy of Saul’s rule (although Joab was in no way a spiritual leader or a particularly devout person) or merely on account of his blood relationship with his uncle. In any event we see him as already being important in the leadership of David’s forces. Ö
He goes to face Abner, the Commander-in-Chief of the ‘Northern’ forces nominally loyal to Saul and his successors (the Northern forces included Benjamin at this time - Saul and Abner’s tribe - the whole Kingdom had not yet formally split) at the pool of Gibeon, early after Saul’s defeat and death at Mount Gilboa. The unstated purpose of this confrontation was to determine military supremacy in the old way ie ‘our champions will fight yours and whichever group loses will serve the winner’. Ö
It is not known whether this course of action was agreed to by either David or Ishbosheth. If agreed by David, then Joab was significantly entrusted with fending off a conflict between Judah and the remaining tribes. If not, then Joab was taking a substantial liberty with his Leader’s authority, although in his zeal to do what was ‘right’ he may have wanted to give his King a fait accompli on a plate. Part of Joab’s personality was to act decisively whenever he thought something needed to be done, and it usually needed to be done now.
The second strange part of this account was its manner of attack. Importantly, Abner issues a challenge, which Joab accepts (2:14). Twelve selected warriors from Benjamin (representing Saul/Ishbosheth) and twelve from Judah (David) approached each other, grabbed each other’s beard and stabbed each other in the side, resulting in twenty four simultaneous deaths. There followed a general melee, David’s servants prevailed, losing nineteen men plus Joab’s brother Asahel at the hand of Abner, and the Benjamites losing 360.Ö
Joab and Asahel made a point of pursuing Abner, and Abner was grateful near the end of the day to be able to gather his forces on a commanding ridge in order to make a stand. By this time he had unwillingly killed Asahel. He calls down to Joab that continued pursuit will only result in more deaths that would inevitably result in a prolonged personal blood-feud (2:22) between the affected Israeli families - “bitterness in the latter end” (2:26). Little does Abner know that the Lord will allow his own death to occur exactly on account of this. Ö
Joab’s reply shows that he has the facts right and in context. He rightly blames Abner for invading Judah, for provoking a conflict by his challenge already resulting in needless deaths, and acknowledges that continued fighting will only make things worse long into the future. Joab demonstrates further wisdom in that he is willing to break off the customary night-long pursuit, and he is also mindful that David would never have challenged Ishbosheth for rulership of all Israel in any case, as David had demonstrated repeatedly that he would leave that up to the Lord (shown by multiple passages in 1 Samuel where David refuses to harm Saul when it was well within his power to do so, against the urging of his men, and in the presence of Abner; and see 2 Samuel 5:1-5). Nevertheless, the upshot of this is continued war between the houses of Saul and David - really Abner vs Joab - for at least two years while Ishbosheth was supported by Abner (2 Samuel 3:6).Ö
Joab’s conduct during this episode shows that he is not afraid to do what he believes is right, that he is not averse to killing when necessary, and that he will vigorously protect his King and his tribe by whatever means he believes is appropriate at the time. His decisions are tempered with wisdom and he believes he has a well developed sense of what is right and what is wrong. His life is a series of black and white situations - no grey to be seen. It must be remembered that he is not described as ‘a man after God’s own heart’ so we must expect that he does not possess Godly standards for everything that he does.Ö
These qualities explain why he allowed himself to agree to David’s demand to kill Uriah. He knew what David wanted him to do even though he may not have been aware at the time why David wanted it done. Uriah was not important enough in the scheme of things that he should refuse to do this; David and the Monarchy were still more important to him than the odd political murder or two. Pragmatism - perhaps carried to an extreme. Ö
Toward the end of this sorry episode with Uriah, Joab almost finishes taking the city of Rabbah from the Ammonites, but is careful to tell his King to arrive quickly so that he might personally enter the city as its putative conqueror. Joab is always mindful not to put himself in a situation which might be seen as usurping David’s authority. David is always the King; Joab always the servant.Ö
Joab may not have been the first to notice, but as David’s failure to father his family becomes obvious in his unbalanced favouritism for Absalom, Joab is the first one ready to do something about it, recognising that if such behaviour continued it would destabilise David’s kingdom (2 Samuel 14:1). This occurs on account of David’s previous banishment of Absalom from Jerusalem because of his son’s open opposition to David’s rule, and Absalom’s arrangement of the murder of his elder half-brother Amnon for raping his full sister Tamar. However David mourns excessively for Absalom’s absence and Joab recognises that it is politically desirable that the two should be able to see each other again.Ö
With wisdom, he devises a plot to bring the issue out into the open so that David is forced to deal with it (14:2-21). It was nevertheless a risky approach - in public at court - and Joab is grateful to the King that he ‘found grace in thy sight, my lord, O king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant’ (14:22), expressing the conventional and necessary form of thanks (and his own relief that his plot had succeeded). Absalom comes back to Jerusalem but is not allowed to see the king. He deliberately threatens Joab to secure him an audience with David by burning Joab’s crop, and Absalom is restored to his father (2 Samuel 14:28-33). But Absalom continues in aggressive opposition to David and his army threatens to overrun Jerusalem. One wonders at this point whether Joab realises he has probably worsened the political situation by his plotting.Ö
Later, after the battle where Absalom is personally killed by Joab, Joab remonstrates rather harshly to David that his excessive grief over his dead son is likely to lose him the kingdom altogether (2 Samuel 19:1-8). What Joab said was true and demonstrates his pragmatic approach to the situation, but his forthright manner may well have diminished any harmony left between him and the King.
His political assassinations:
Apart from the multitudes of men personally and efficiently slaughtered by him or under his command in ‘legitimate’ battle, Joab carries out two high-profile killings in cold blood - “shedding the blood of war in peace” (1 Kings 2:5).
The first is Abner.
Two years after his challenge to Joab at the pool of Gibeon, Abner loses his patience with Ishbosheth, Saul’s son and successor who he had initially supported, over an incident with one of Saul’s concubines (2 Samuel 3:7), and he determines to transfer his energies and allegiance to David, along with his tribe Benjamin (in effect ‘the kingdom’ which was every tribe except Judah - 3:8-11) ‘to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba’. From the outside, such a decision would rightly be viewed with some suspicion, given Abner’s previous loyalties, and Joab may have justified his action on the grounds that having a man who was capable of changing sides like that should not be allowed into David’s ranks. Also, Abner is a clear rival to Joab not only in his position as Army Commander, but also for the king’s favour.Ö
In the North, Abner convinces the elders of Israel and Benjamin that they should cross over to David (fundamentally because David was supported by God - 2 Samuel 3:9), he goes to David in Hebron (while Joab is away fighting), is well received by David himself with a feast, and returns northward to fulfil his promise. Shortly after, Joab returns to David, is incensed at David’s behaviour and is unashamed in saying so to his face, and accuses Abner of spying. Joab lures the unsuspecting Abner back to Hebron without David’s knowledge, and personally kills him there ‘in the gate…….for the blood of his brother Asahel’ (2 Samuel 3:12-27), which is Joab’s bottom line.Ö
Joab must have felt at this time that his priorities were 1. loyalty to family ( in the context of Numbers 35 - the revenger of blood); 2. loyalty to tribe (Judah); 3. loyalty to King. It has been said 2 that Joab killed Abner as a result of his own bitterness toward him on account of his brother Asahel’s ‘murder’, with a refusal to forgive, rather than a colder, calculating application of the law of the family avenger. Ö
Joab is generally portrayed as a man who is passionate about the things he believes in, and although he has no hesitation in killing when he believes it to be justified, there must have been some emotional involvement in murdering Abner, more than just the application of a Law. Joab harboured his intent to kill Abner for at least two years. It should be noted that Joab’s and Asahel’s brother Abishai did not take it upon himself to be the avenger even though he is listed first in 1 Chronicles 3:16 and therefore is presumed to be the eldest. This suggests that of all his brothers, Joab is most concerned with upholding family honour, even to an extreme.
As Joab matured, and particularly as he was given command of all Israel’s forces, his loyalty to the nation as a whole would have increased, superseding his loyalty to Judah alone. In terms of avenging his family, he is satisfied with Abner’s death.
David was devastated that Abner was murdered, particularly as Abner was the direct means of uniting all Israel and, in David’s opinion, was ‘a prince and a great man’ (2 Samuel 3:38). However, he did not on this account directly punish Joab except to make him follow the proper norms in grief in public recognition of either Abner’s greatness, or as a sign that Joab remained subject to the King - ‘Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner’ (3:31), commands David. He pronounces a curse on Joab’s family and descendants (2 Samuel 3:29) but David is either weak in his control of Joab at this point, or is fully aware of Joab’s methods and family involvement and is exercising mercy. I prefer the former.
2 Brunson, Mac and Caner, Ergun Why Churches Die: Diagnosing the Lethal Poisons in the Body of Christ Broadman and Holman, Nashville, Tennessee 2005 ISBN 978-0-8054-3181-0 pp 96-99
David may have privately appreciated the service done him by Joab on this occasion, but reading between the lines suggests that their relationship would have cooled (3:29) from mutual personal cooperation to Monarch and Commander, the Ruler and the Ruled, both wanting to fulfil their roles in the best way they could, even if that was at the expense of each other. David does not forgive Joab for killing Abner (1 Kings 2:5-6), and this must have interfered at times with the running of the kingdom, but it says much for the interdependence of these two leaders that the prosperity and military success of the Nation remained paramount, at least in Joab’s mind, and under God, in David’s.
His second killing is Amasa.
This occurs more than a decade later in the second half of David’s reign while David is suffering from the effects of his earlier sinfulness in the way he has mismanaged his family. Absalom has created and led a popular revolt against his father, and Absalom’s small army - led by Amasa (2 Samuel 17:25), Joab’s cousin - chases David and his loyal followers out of Jerusalem. Joab is not with David at this point in time because of David’s anger at him for killing Absalom in the immediately previous battle (against David’s specific order but which in the context of the situation and given Joab’s loyalty to his King, was the right political thing for Joab to do).
Further, David deposes Joab and replaces him with Absalom’s General, Amasa, giving him Joab’s personal robe of office. A more galling set of circumstances for Joab could not be imagined, particularly as it is evident to everyone (even David: 2 Samuel 20:4-6) that Amasa is a poor army commander.
Joab and the soldiers loyal to him set out after Amasa, who had been given an order by David to bring an evil dissident Benjamite to justice. Joab catches up with Amasa along the way and under the pretence of camaraderie fatally wounds him with one blow “under the fifth rib”, in the middle of the road, allowing him to wallow in his own intestines and blood while he dies. David’s army subsequently voluntarily follows Joab for he was and always had been their natural leader (20:7-13). David’s response to this is not recorded but Joab is reinstated as Commander (20:23).
In my view both of these killings were politically justifiable, particularly that of Amasa. If Joab had not acted in this way, David’s rule may well have been seriously compromised. The same could be said of Joab’s fearlessness in despatching Absalom against David’s specific order. As mentioned above, Joab’s sense of ‘what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong’ is very uncompromising and he is able to discern the ‘big political picture’ much more easily than David.
David’s numbering of the people (2 Samuel 24:1-9):
This episode is toward the end of David’s reign when peace had been achieved throughout the Land. In the parallel passage 1 Chronicles 1:21, the temptation to number the people is ascribed to Satan, presumably acting on the pride in David’s heart - a continuing thirst for war and an exultation in victory - the natural results of his God-given talents, but the very reasons why God prevented him from building the Temple.
Joab, if not number two in the kingdom was still very influential as ‘Captain of the host’, sees the folly of the proposal, whereas David is blind to it. It should be noted that Joab’s objection is on the grounds that it is not only unnecessary, but is a significant impost on the whole population. David’s realisation is that it was sin to have ordered this and he effectively deals with it in repentance (2 Samuel 24:10), but he still reaped what he sowed and the nation suffered (24:12-25). Ö
Although Joab vigorously protested, the King prevailed, and Joab and his fellow army commanders take nine months and twenty days to number the people from Dan to Beersheba. Joab did his duty, but had the common sense to stop before things had gone too far: 1 Chronicles 21:6 “But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king’s word was abominable to Joab.” The King and his Captain knew each other extremely well by this time, and Joab was not chastised for this; and when Joab brought him the final number (1 Chronicles 27:24) David recognised his sin and confessed it before God.
Death:
While remaining the Captain of David’s host, Joab was still in a very influential position regarding who he would support to succeed to the Kingship when it became clear that David had not long to live.
Given Joab’s character of “what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong” approach, it is perhaps not surprising that he would follow the eldest of David’s surviving sons, Adonijah, not withstanding the revelation of David previously, in Joab’s presence, that God had selected Solomon to be his successor (1 Chronicles 28:1-6). This was a fatal mistake.Ö
Joab may have done this for several reasons. First, he is a stickler for the correct (secular) political approach, disdaining the spiritual approach of his King. Second, Adonijah, making a bid for the throne as the eldest of David’s sons, ingratiated himself with Joab (1 Kings 1:19). Third, he misread the allegiance of the ‘common’ people to David when they were asked by the rulers (Zadok the Priest, Nathan the Prophet, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada all supporting David), to support Solomon as successor (1 Kings 1:41).Ö
Solomon is rapidly installed as David’s successor by popular acclaim (1 Kings 1:32-40) which short-circuits Adonijah’s pretensions. When Joab hears that Abiathar the priest - co-conspirator in supporting Adonijah - is condemned to death by Solomon, he fears for his own life. [Adonijah, Solomon’s elder brother, is eventually killed by Solomon because he would not stop plotting against the throne.] Although Abiathar’s sentence is commuted to exile, Joab knows that he cannot expect similar leniency. He flees to the sanctuary of the temporary Temple at Gibeon (grasping the horns of the sacrificial altar where it was prohibited for a non-priest to be) perhaps with the mistaken idea that he was safe from death there.Ö
Solomon despatches Benaiah to kill him but initially Benaiah does not carry out this order for it would mean killing on the Temple grounds. Solomon overrides the prohibition (in accordance with the Law - Exodus 21:13-14) and apparently Joab is killed next to the altar, ironically by the man who succeeded him as Army Commander in Chief. Solomon’s grounds for this is that the Lord exacts the appropriate retribution in any case and Joab’s descendants will have no peace, the execution being completely justified because of Joab’s murder of Abner and Amasa (1 Kings 2:26-34). He is buried “in his own house in the wilderness”.
Conclusion:
Joab’s life does not measure up to the standard of his name “Jehovah is his Father”. He is in no way motivated by spiritual ideals or standards and is governed by strong social and political pragmatism. He has high ambition, and uses his blood relationship with his King and his willing connivance in David’s plot against Uriah to influence the King for the Nation’s political good.
He is ruthless to the point of brutality in the execution of his duty, seeing the ‘big picture’ much more clearly than David, putting sentiment aside to achieve a successful reign for his King.
David sometimes wilts under this pressure and fails to effectively curb Joab’s excesses, but in the end, each needs the other.
Without Joab, David’s reign would likely have had fewer military successes, less land conquered, less peace, less harmony at home and more political instability, although ultimately everything was, and remains, under God’s control.
----
[1]The Pulpit Commentary: 2 Samuel, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones, 573 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004).