We have heard Christadelphian speak and denounce Joab in the most scathing terms. He has been described as “an unmitigated villain”, “an unprincipled man”, “an utterly selfish and unscrupulous person” and so on.
My own reading of the Old Testament does not convey this impression at all, and these out-and-out denunciations seem to me to be most unfair and do not (in my opinion) indicate a “right dividing of the Word of God”. We are not called upon to “whitewash” Joab, but we ought to avoid being prejudiced against him.
Our rightful admiration for David need not lead us to conclude that he was always right, and that all who opposed him must therefore have been always wrong.
What are the unvarnished facts about Joab? He was the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, and was therefore David’s nephew. This family relationship may account for much of the antipathy which David undoubtedly entertained for Joab.
Joab’s rise to prominence in Israel was entirely due to his outstanding bravery in being the first Israelite to enter the then hostile city of Jerusalem, despite the bitter opposition of the Jebusite garrison. David wished to capture Jerusalem, and in an unguarded moment promised that “whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain” (1 Chron. 1 1. 6). Probably David was sorry he had made such a rash promise when it turned out that his nephew Joab had won the coveted honour.
From this incident we learn that Joab was indeed “a mighty man of valour”.
Undoubtedly he had a soldier’s viewpoint, and a rather rough-handed conception of justice, which was typical of soldiers in those early days.
Perhaps the first incident in Joab’s career as David’s Commander-in-chief is narrated in 2 Sam. 2. Abner, the son of Ner, had been Saul’s Commander-in-chief, and when Saul died Abner made Ish-bosheth (Saul’s son) King over Israel, in wilful defiance of the fact that David was “the Lord’s anointed”. In other words, Abner led the army opposed, to David’s army, led by Joab. In the ensuing conflict Abner was defeated by Joab but in his flight from Joab’s soldiers, he killed Asahel, Joab’s brother.
Those were the days when near-relatives considered it their duty to avenge the slain man, and thence forwards Joab determined to kill Abner.
Now we are told in 2 Sam. 3. 6 that “Abner made himself strong in the house of Saul”, and presumably would have continued to lead the anti-Davidic army had not Ishbosheth accused him of fornication. In a fit of anger Abner declared that he would go over to the other side. “God do so to me and more also, if, as the Lord hath sworn to David, I do not even so to him”. This means, of course, that Abner knew all Ithe time that David was the rightful king. Yet, despite this knowledge, it was only anger against Ishbosheth which brought Abner over to David’s side.
It was to be expected that the soldierly Joab did not believe that Abner was genuine in his sudden profession of loyalty to David. “Thou knowest Abner, the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee”, Joab told David, and straightway went out and slew Abner, “for the blood of Asahel, his brother” (2 Sam. 3. 25).
The fact, recorded in 2 Sam. 4. 1, that “when Ishbosheth heard that Abner was dead, his hands became feeble”, makes one wonder if indeed Abner’s defection to David was genuine. Be this as it may, David never forgave Joab for slaying Abner, but Joab’s suspicions together with the fact that he was the “avenger of blood”, explains that act as being in a sense, justifiable, at that time. (We must not make the mistake of judging Joab by later Christian standards.)
But perhaps the incident which has provoked the most criticism of Joab is the death of Absalom.
Fairness demands that we review the main features of the case. Absalom rebelled against David, his father, and seems to have wearied from their allegiance a considerable number of David’s subjects. Absalom made himself king, and would have killed David (see 2 Sam. 17. 3).
In the ensuing battle with David’s forces, no less than 20,000 soldiers lost their lives, but David had commanded that Absalom (the cause of all the trouble) must not be harmed! This was quite unfair, of course, but David had a very “soft spot” for Absalom, and when Joab—the unsentimental soldier —slew Absalom, and then stopped the fighting (thereby saving hundreds, and perhaps thousands of lives), David was very annoyed.
Yet in this we feel that David was quite unfair to Joab. Absalom deserved to die, for he had been the sole cause of the deaths of twenty thousand soldiers, and would even have killed his own father, simply to gratify his own ambition!
Joab has also been severely criticised over the death of Amasa, Absalom’s commander-in-chief, and therefore leader of the forces opposed to Joab. Although he had been captain of the rebel forces, Amasa was appointed by David as his Commander-inchief, to supersede Joab.
There is no suggestion whatever that Joab was in any way inefficient (quite the contrary in fact), and we can only conclude that David’s action in deposing him was entirely due to David’s enmity against Joab for killing the worthless and dangerous Absalom.
We can well understand that Joab would be jealous of Amasa, and, when Amasa failed to carry out David’s orders, this jealousy would be reinforced by grave doubts about Amasa’s loyalty, and there is little wonder that the still-loyal Joab should slay Amasa.
Joab’s motives in opposing David’s plan to number Israel have even been maligned, yet we know that the numbering was wrong. Here we quote 2 Sam. 24. 3: “And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold . . . but why cloth my Lord the King delight in this thing? Notwithstanding the King’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host.”
If Joab’s motives were bad, as alleged, it would seem that the other captains were equally to blame. And this seems to me to exonerate Joab completely.
The only other incident in Joab’s stormy life with David concerns his support of Adonijah as David’s successor, whereas David himself favoured Solomon. Whether Joab knew that David had already named Solomon as his successor is not clear, but we must remember that Adonijah was the oldest surviving son of David,and,as such his natural successor. But when Adonijah made his submission to Solomon, Joab ceased his own opposition, and he scarcely deserved, after a life-long service to David, to be killed by order of Solomon.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One