2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:1–20:26 Story of King David. Most of 2 Samuel recounts the rise of David’s kingship, first over Judah and then over all Israel, and the major challenge to David’s rule resulting from David’s own sins.
c. 1000 B.C.
The book of 2 Samuel recounts David’s reign over Israel and his battles to establish Israel as the dominant power in Syria and Palestine. David expanded Israel’s borders from Saul’s fledgling territory until, by the end of his reign, he controlled all of Israel, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria, and Zobah. Other kingdoms, such as Tyre and Hamath, established treaties with him.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:1–27 David and the Death of Saul. The earliest history of the Israelite monarchy now moves into its second stage, the era of King David. The narrator first looks back to the end of Saul’s life (the death of Saul and his sons at Mount Gilboa; 1 Samuel 31). David, who is in Ziklag, hears of the death of Saul. But instead of rejoicing, he mourns Saul’s death and executes the man who claims to have killed Saul. His elegy shows his deep personal grief over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan in battle. David was not a vengeful rebel against Saul, and thus can receive the kingship in good conscience.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:1–2 Verse 1 follows the events of 1 Samuel 30; in 2 Sam. 1:2 an Amalekite man (cf. v. 8) arrives to report the events of 1 Samuel 31. Saul probably died at about the same time that David returned to Ziklag, since the Amalekite arrived on the third day after David’s return. The torn clothes and dirt are signs of mourning (see note on 1 Sam. 4:12).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:6–10 So I stood beside him and killed him (v. 10). The narrator (whom readers should believe) in 1 Samuel 31 says that Saul killed himself. Having already read that, readers know that this man is lying to gain favor with the person who was most likely to replace Saul as king. Saul had destroyed most of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), but since this man was the son of a sojourner (2 Sam. 1:13), his presence in Israel is no surprise. The crown and the armlet are the royal insignia; the crown was given to the king at the time of his investiture (2 Kings 11:12); “armlet” appears elsewhere only in Num. 31:50, where it is an ornament worn by Midianites.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:12 David and his men fasted as a sign of mourning (as in 1 Sam. 31:13; 2 Sam. 3:35). After this summary statement, the story resumes the actual dialogue between David and the young man who brought this news of Saul’s death.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:14 How is it you were not afraid … to destroy the LORD’s anointed? See note on 1 Sam. 24:6. As a sojourner who was subject to the laws of Israel (Lev. 24:22), the Amalekite should have recognized the sanctity of Saul as his king (contrast Saul’s armor-bearer; 1 Sam. 31:4–5). David himself had refrained from killing Saul (1 Samuel 24; 26). Clearly, David did not ascend to the throne through violence or disloyalty (cf. note on 2 Sam. 1:1–27).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:15 Go, execute him. David believed the Amalekite’s story (but see note on vv. 6–10), and on that basis had him put to death. David’s action provides clear evidence that he had no complicity in Saul’s death. Though the Amalekite intended to win David’s favor, David made it clear that his action constituted the murder of “the LORD’s anointed” (v. 14), for which the just punishment would be execution.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:16 Your blood be on your head means that the Amalekite (not David) is responsible for his own death (see Josh. 2:19; 1 Kings 2:32, 37; Ezek. 33:4).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:17–27 And David lamented. David’s lament is a profound expression of public and personal grief. As part of the historical records of David’s reign, the lament provides lasting evidence of David’s innocent ascent to the throne (cf. notes on vv. 1–27 and 14). Though grievously wronged by Saul, David nonetheless chose to remember Saul in a generous way, setting an example of graciously emphasizing the good that someone has done after that person dies. The recurring theme of how the mighty have fallen (vv. 19, 25, 27) provides the structure of David’s lament, which exhorts Israel first to mourn Saul (v. 23) and then to mourn my brother Jonathan (v. 26), then closes with the repetition of the haunting refrain, “How the mighty have fallen” (v. 27).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:18 The esv text, saying it should be taught, refers to the lament that follows. The Hebrew text (see esv footnote) is “the Bow should be taught to the people of Judah.” This may be a heading, meaning, “In order to give the men of Judah military training (with the bow and other weapons).” Compare the heading of Psalm 60, “A Miktam of David; for instruction.” Or, “the Bow” may be the name of the melody for this lament. The Book of Jashar is a non-biblical written source which also included Josh. 10:12–13 and, according to the Septuagint text, Solomon’s poem in 1 Kings 8:12–13.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:19 How the mighty have fallen! This is the theme line of David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan, repeated in v. 25 and at the end in v. 27. Verses 19 and 25 form a literary “envelope” (or inclusio) that constitutes an inverted distant parallelism. That is, v. 19a (Your glory … is slain on your high places) is parallel to v. 25b (“Jonathan lies slain on your high places”), while v. 19b (“How the mighty have fallen”) is repeated in v. 25a.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:20 Gath and Ashkelon are Philistine cities. David cannot bear to think about the Philistine victory celebrations (cf. the Israelite women rejoicing in 1 Sam. 18:6–7).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:21 let there be no dew or rain … nor fields of offerings! David wishes for lack of blessing on the place where Saul and Jonathan died. The line the shield of the mighty was defiled is paralleled by the next line, the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil (i.e., “not in proper condition,” since leather shields were treated with oil).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:22 Blood and fat are often used as a word pair to refer to the whole of a sacrifice. For bow of Jonathan, see 1 Sam. 20:20.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:23 The term lovely could be applied to outstanding “heroes” in Ugaritic. In life and in death means “all the time.” One might wonder whether Saul and Jonathan were really “in life … not divided.” In 1 Samuel 14 Jonathan acted without his father’s knowledge and readily criticized him, and they disagreed over David (see esp. 1 Sam. 22:8). Yet from the fact that the Amalekite specified that “his [Saul’s] son Jonathan” was dead (2 Sam. 1:4), it appears that Saul continued to treat him as his heir. Apparently they were able to maintain a relationship, working together and eventually fighting and dying together for Israel. This song, whose purpose is to celebrate and idealize, would not delve into these details.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:24 Scarlet cloth, colored with a dye made from the dried bodies of an insect, was a sign of prosperity (Prov. 31:21).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 1:26 Very pleasant refers to the way in which the relationship between David and Jonathan was uniquely “good,” i.e., in a “pleasant” or “lovely” way (v. 23; cf. 23:1, where the same word is translated “sweet” in the phrase “sweet psalmist of Israel”). Jonathan deeply loved and supported David (as seen in 1 Sam. 18:1–20:42; 23:16–18), in accordance with their covenant with the Lord. surpassing the love of women. David’s remark does not carry any sexual overtones. Rather, he is calling attention to Jonathan’s radical self-denial in giving up any right to the throne of Israel (1 Sam. 23:17); instead, he gave his absolute support to David as the Lord’s choice to succeed Jonathan’s father Saul, even to the point of risking his life for David (1 Sam. 20:30–33).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:1–5:5 David Becomes King. Judah makes David its king. Saul’s general Abner, however, seeks to restore Saul’s kingdom with Saul’s son Ish-bosheth as king. During the struggle between the two kingdoms, Abner, who has decided to go with David, is killed by David’s commander Joab. Later, Ish-bosheth is killed by two of his own men, but David executes them for murder. With no candidate for king in the house of Saul, all of Israel unites to anoint the hero David as king. There are many cases of Israelites’ shedding the blood of fellow Israelites, and this is tragic; but the narrator holds David innocent in each case, and thus he is qualified to be king over all Israel.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:1–3 With Saul no longer pursuing him and Ziklag burned, David, after inquiring of the Lord (as in 1 Sam. 23:2), moves to the Hebron area with his family and men. His wives were from the region, and he had sent parts of the spoil from his battle with the Amalekites to the elders of the area (1 Sam. 30:26–31). Hebron was the most important city of southern Judah and not far from Bethlehem. It was associated with Abraham (Gen. 13:18; 23:2; 25:10) and was a Levitical city (Josh. 21:13).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:4 Judah has apparently decided that having a king is a good thing; but rather than seeking out a relative of Saul (who was from the tribe of Benjamin, 1 Sam. 9:1), the people choose one of their own as king, the hero David, who was chosen by the Lord (1 Sam. 16:1–23; 25:30). Even in Saul’s time, Judah formed a separate part of the army (1 Sam. 11:8; 15:4), and now it was prepared to act independently from the rest of Israel.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:4b–7 See 1 Sam. 31:11–13. David seems to be presenting himself as Saul’s successor and suggesting that Jabesh-gilead should enter into a treaty relationship with Judah; Gilead, however, soon becomes part of Ish-bosheth’s kingdom (2 Sam. 2:8–9). David is not motivated by mere politics when he sends messengers to Jabesh-gilead. He is moved by their faithfulness toward their mutual sovereign and wants to reward them with blessings from the Lord and with his own work on their behalf.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:8–9 Abner tries to continue Saul’s kingdom, even on a reduced scale. (For Abner, see note on 1 Sam. 14:50–51.) Saul’s son Ish-bosheth appears as Eshbaal in the genealogies in 1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39. It is uncertain whether he is the Ishvi of 1 Sam. 14:49. (For his name, see note on 2 Sam. 4:4.) From these verses and 3:9, it appears that Ish-bosheth was little more than a puppet for Abner. Mahanaim, a city on the Jabbok River, was apparently the capital of Gilead. The fact that the capital had to be in Transjordan suggests the precariousness of Ish-bosheth’s reign. Gilead and the Ashurites and Jezreel refers to the northern and Transjordanian part of the country, Ephraim and Benjamin to the central and main part. Ish-bosheth did not necessarily have real control over all this area, especially since the Philistines apparently were in the Jezreel Valley (1 Sam. 31:7). All Israel is a summary description of the area just mentioned.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:10–11 For a time, there are two kings in the land of Israel. David has apparently decided that his allegiance to Saul as God’s anointed king does not extend to Saul’s descendants, as succeeding events will show. For example, in 4:11 he refers to Ish-bosheth just as a “righteous man,” not as a king or an anointed one. Ish-bosheth reigned two years, but David’s reign as king at Hebron in Judah lasted seven and a half years. It probably took some time after Ish-bosheth’s death for Israel to recognize David (5:1); the period when David was king in Hebron over all Israel before capturing Jerusalem (5:5) may also be included in the seven years and six months.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:12 Gibeon is about 6 miles (9.7 km) north-northwest of Jerusalem. The “pool” (v. 13) is probably the huge round cistern cut into the rock on the north side of the site of Gibeon. Excavations at Gibeon have uncovered an elaborate water system. One part of the system is a large, circular shaft (37 feet [11 m] in diameter), which was cut into bedrock to a depth of 82 feet (25 m). At the bottom was the water table that formed a pool. The pool was reached by a staircase also cut into the limestone. This is probably the pool mentioned in the present text (cf. Jer. 41:12).
c. 1010 B.C.
Immediately after Saul’s death, a struggle for power ensued between David and Ish-bosheth (or Eshbaal), Saul’s youngest and only surviving son. David ruled over his native tribe of Judah from Hebron, while Ish-bosheth ruled over the rest of Israel from Mahanaim across the Jordan River, and they fought against each other for seven years. David’s power continued to grow, and eventually Ish-bosheth and his commander Abner were assassinated, leaving David as the sole ruler of all Israel.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:13 This marks the first appearance of Joab the son of Zeruiah, though Abishai was referred to as his brother in 1 Sam. 26:6. Joab was commander over the army (2 Sam. 8:16) and appears frequently in 2 Samuel, often as a mover of events. Since Abner knows him and his brothers well (2:20–22), Joab probably came to Saul’s court soon after David’s rise to prominence. He was one of the three sons (Joab, Abishai, and Asahel) of David’s sister Zeruiah, and thus was David’s nephew (v. 18). Joab’s father probably died young, since he had a grave in Bethlehem (v. 32) and it was unusual for a man to be known by his mother’s name. Zeruiah is not identified in Samuel, but according to 1 Chron. 2:16, she and Abigail, the mother of Amasa (2 Sam. 17:25), were sisters of David and his brothers. Abigail is identified in 2 Sam. 17:25 as “the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah.” Therefore, it appears that Abigail and probably Zeruiah were maternal half-sisters of David by an earlier marriage of their mother. (David’s sister Abigail is a different Abigail from Nabal’s wife, who later became David’s wife; see note on 1 Sam. 25:3.)
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:17 This transitional verse connects the first episode, dealing with the fight at Gibeon, and the second episode, where the death of Asahel is recounted. After this episode, the enmity between the surviving sons of Zeruiah and Abner, the killer of Asahel, will be a major factor.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:19 Asahel was one of David’s mighty warriors, “one of the thirty” (23:24; see also 1 Chron. 11:26; 27:7).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:23 Abner, an experienced warrior, apparently stopped suddenly, thrusting his spear backward so forcefully that it went right through Asahel’s body as he ran into it.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:28 Here, as in 18:16 and 20:22, Joab uses a trumpet to summon an army to mark the end of fighting after a victory.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 2:29 The Arabah is part of the Jordan Valley rift that is south of the Dead Sea.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:1–4:12 Chapters 3–4 describe the slow steps of the process whereby David grew stronger and stronger (3:1) and thus became king over all Israel. A major concern of the author is to show that David was not guilty of involvement in the death of Abner or Ish-bosheth.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:2–5 A list of David’s sons born in Hebron. David’s sons Amnon and Absalom come to the fore in chs. 13–18, and the struggle for the succession between Adonijah and Solomon is described in 1 Kings 1–2. The other sons are not mentioned in the narratives of Samuel–Kings. It is assumed that Chileab (called Daniel in 1 Chron. 3:1) died young, since he is not mentioned as a possible successor in 1 Kings 1. After the deaths of Amnon (2 Sam. 13:28–29) and Absalom (18:15), Adonijah is apparently the eldest surviving son of David. Geshur was north of the area controlled by Saul’s house, so David’s marriage with the daughter of its king was one of the steps in strengthening him against Ish-bosheth (3:1). Absalom apparently named a daughter after his mother Maacah (1 Kings 15:2; 2 Chron. 11:20–22).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:6–39 Abner, after a quarrel with Ish-bosheth, convinces the elders of Israel that they should go with David. But Abner is killed by Joab. The author repeatedly stresses that David had not consented to this (vv. 21, 26, 28, 37); indeed, since Abner was plotting to make David king of Israel, it would seem that David would have had nothing to gain and something to lose from Abner’s death.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:7 Saul’s concubine Rizpah had borne him two sons. She would later protect their bodies after their deaths (ch. 21). Taking a king’s wives seems to have been considered a prerogative of the throne (see 12:8; 16:21–22; 1 Kings 2:22), though that is not necessarily what Abner had in mind, even if the accusation about his relationship with Rizpah was true.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:9–10 As Saul’s general, Abner must have known about Saul’s recognition of David as his successor (1 Sam. 24:20). People in general also seem to have had knowledge about a promise of God to David (2 Sam. 3:18; see also 1 Sam. 24:4; 25:30).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:12–15 David clearly does not mind taking the Israelite kingdom from Ish-bosheth, and he stresses his closeness to Saul as Saul’s son-in-law. In 1 Sam. 18:25–27, David gave Saul 200 Philistine foreskins though Saul had demanded only 100 as a bride-price, so the extra hundred was in essence a gift. David here just states that he has legally paid the bride-price. Apparently because David never divorced Michal even though her father Saul had given her to another man (1 Sam. 25:44), he still describes her as his wife. David presumably expects Abner to support David’s argument when the matter is discussed in Ish-bosheth’s court.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:17–19 The Israelites, even the members of Saul’s own tribe of Benjamin, seem to think they are getting nowhere with Ish-bosheth as king.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:22–30 Here, as in 18:14 and 20:10, the motive for Joab’s actions in killing Abner can be seen either as concern for David’s position (3:25), concern for his own position (esp. since David had not told him what was going on, v. 23), personal revenge (v. 30), or a mixture. The readers are not told exactly what part Abishai (v. 30) plays, but he seems to have been a loyal supporter of his brother Joab (see 10:9–12; 18:2; 20:6–10; see also note on 8:13–14).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:25 Know your going out and your coming in mainly refers to military actions (as in 1 Sam. 18:13). In other words, Joab claims that Abner came as a spy.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:26 Sirah is about 2.5 miles (4 km) north of Hebron.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:27 into the midst of the gate. City gates were elaborate structures.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:28–39 Joab is apparently too important and useful for David to punish him for killing Abner, so he does the best he can by cursing him, having a funeral for Abner, and publicly mourning and chanting a lament for him. This is the only funeral described in detail in the OT. As elsewhere, tearing clothes, wearing sackcloth, and fasting are features of mourning. All Israel refers to Abner’s own countrymen. It was important for David and his future kingdom that “all Israel” know it was not the king’s will to put to death Abner son of Ner (see note on 1 Sam. 14:50–51).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:29 One who holds a spindle is one forced to do the work of spinning, i.e., in that culture, a woman.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 3:36 everything that the king did pleased all the people. The remarkable result of God’s blessing on these initial days of David’s reign.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 4:1–12 Chapter 4 relates the death of Saul’s son, the rival king Ish-bosheth.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 4:2–3 Beeroth is about 2 miles south of Gibeon and is one of the cities, led by Gibeon, that tricked Joshua into making a treaty with them (Josh. 9:17). The Beerothites had probably fled to Gittaim (which according to Neh. 11:33 was a city in Benjamin) at the time Saul put the Gibeonites to death (see 2 Sam. 21:1). Apparently after that the Benjaminites, including Rimmon and his family, came to live there. If this is correct, it suggests that the incident of the Gibeonites occurred early in Saul’s reign, since Rimmon, the father of Baanah and Rechab, is described as being “from Beeroth.” This passage stresses that those who killed Ish-bosheth were not partisans of David but were from Saul’s own tribe.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 4:4 The information about Mephibosheth is probably put here to show why there was no move to make him king after Ish-bosheth’s death—he was still a child, and he was crippled. He is further mentioned in 9:1–13; 16:1–4; 19:24–29; and 21:7. (The Mephibosheth in 21:8 is a different person, the son of Saul and Rizpah.) Apparently his real name was “Merib-baal” (1 Chron. 8:34; 9:40). Because “baal” could mean “lord” in general, the name probably referred to the Lord of Israel (as in 2 Sam. 5:20), but at some point, in order to avoid using the name of the god Baal, it was euphemistically changed in Samuel to “Mephibosheth,” boshet meaning “shame.” Similarly, Saul’s son Ish-bosheth is called “Eshbaal” in 1 Chron. 8:33 and 9:39, but “Ish-bosheth” in Samuel; and Jerubbaal (Judg. 9:1, 57) is called “Jerubbesheth” in 2 Sam. 11:21.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 4:7 This verse is an expansion of the previous verse.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 4:8 Saul, your enemy, who sought your life. It is true that Saul had sought David’s life. Nevertheless, David had already rejected killing Saul (1 Sam. 24:4–6; 26:8–9), and furthermore, that did not provide an excuse to kill a “righteous man” (2 Sam. 4:11).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 4:10–11 This refers to the incident in 1:13–16. The Amalekite had at least given the excuse that Saul had requested his own death, but Ish-bosheth’s death was outright murder. Yet David says nothing here about Ish-bosheth as the Lord’s anointed.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 4:12 Unlike the case of Joab, there is no problem with executing the killers of Ish-bosheth. For hanging a body after death, see 21:6 and Josh. 10:26.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:1–25 It is not clear how soon the events of ch. 5 followed those of ch. 4 (see note on 2:10–11). Presumably the deaths of Abner and Ish-bosheth caused a shock among David’s supporters in the north (3:19) and caused them to put off accepting David as king. Some of the shock seems to have remained at the time this account was written. David apparently just bided his time, waiting for the elders of Israel to decide that they wanted him as king.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:1–5 At last, David is accepted and anointed as king over the entire house of Israel. First, messengers from all the tribes come and ask him to become king; then the elders of Israel come themselves. David makes a covenant with them as representatives of the nation (cf. 1 Sam. 10:25), and they anoint him king over Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 11:15). David is one of them (see Deut. 17:15), he is a proven military leader, and he is the chosen of the Lord. Many critical scholars argue that the Bible contains little historically reliable information regarding David and his rule. Some believe it is mere fabrication. But no persuasive evidence contradicting the biblical account has been found. In 1993, an inscription was found at Tell Dan that mentions the “house of David,” and it dates to the ninth century B.C. The term “house of David” may also appear on the Moabite stone that comes from the same century.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:1 we are your bone and flesh. Even though there is a distinct division between Judah and the rest of Israel, they still recognize each other as kin (cf. “brothers,” 2:26–27).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:6–25 Jerusalem, the City of David. David captures the Jebusite city of Jerusalem to serve as the capital of his united Israel. He builds a palace in his royal city and continues to have children there. He also defeats the Philistines.
About four millennia ago, Melchizedek was king of Jerusalem, which was then called Salem (Gen. 14:18). This was an unwalled city, which was taken over in c. 1850 B.C. by the Jebusites, who built a city wall around it and called it Jebus (cf. 1 Chron. 11:4).
King David captured this city after having ruled for seven years in Hebron (2 Sam. 5:5). The city was strongly fortified, especially the area around the Gihon Spring, where massive towers dating from this period have been excavated. The Jebusites were so confident of their fortifications that they taunted David, saying that even the blind and the lame would prevent him from capturing their city (2 Sam. 5:6).
However, Joab, David’s commander-in-chief, managed to secretly enter the city through its water system and open the gates for David to take control (1 Chron. 11:6). The Jebusite Citadel was destroyed and replaced by the “stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David” (2 Sam. 5:7).
Later on in his life, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which stopped a plague sent by God upon Israel from reaching Jerusalem (2 Sam. 24:18–25).
• •
• •
• •
• •
c. 1005 B.C.
After securing his reign over all Israel, David moved his capital from Hebron, a southern city of Judah, to a more central and tribally neutral location at Jerusalem. At the time, Jerusalem (called “the stronghold of Zion”) was held by the Jebusites, and its terraced defensive walls and nearby steep hills and valleys made it seem impenetrable. But David sent men up a water shaft (believed by some to be Warren’s Shaft) to capture the stronghold, and he renamed it the city of David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:6–13 The account of David’s kingship over Israel starts with the capture of Jerusalem, on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin. It had not been controlled by any tribe, and thus it was both symbolically and geographically better suited to be the capital of all Israel than Hebron (in central Judah). Jerusalem was the “Salem” of Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18). It has been fortified since the Middle Bronze Age, i.e., the first half of the second millennium B.C. In the second half of the millennium it was one of the city-states of Canaan that was under the influence of Egypt. Several letters from the king of Jerusalem to the pharaoh exist among the fourteenth-century Amarna letters. The Jebusites are listed among the Canaanites in Gen. 10:16 and, broadly speaking, were considered to be among the Amorites (Josh. 10:5). The city was too strong to be conquered at the time of Joshua (Josh. 15:63; Judg. 1:21). The Jebusite city, the stronghold of Zion, was located on the western slope of the Kidron Valley above the city’s water source, the spring of Gihon. An extensive network of water tunnels has been excavated, one of which was probably the water shaft through which David’s men entered the city. This water shaft is often identified with “Warren’s Shaft,” which is directly over the water channel near the spring, though recent archaeological finds have challenged this. According to 1 Chron. 11:6, Joab led the attack and was therefore made David’s chief commander.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:6–8 the blind and the lame will ward you off. The Jebusites probably meant that the fortifications were so strong that the city needed no able-bodied defenders. David quotes their words in ordering the attack, referring to the Jebusite defenders as “the blind and the lame.” The blind and the lame shall not come into the house may mean that the Jebusites were not allowed at David’s court.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:6 The Canaanite or Jebusite city of Jerusalem was located on a hill known as “Ophel.” It is located in the southeastern part of the modern city. The Ophel was inhabited as far back as the Chalcolithic period (3rd millennium B.C.). The city is mentioned in Egyptian texts from the twentieth century B.C.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:8 water shaft. See note on vv. 6–13.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:9 the Millo. Cf. 1 Kings 9:15, 24; 11:27; 1 Chron. 11:8; 2 Chron. 32:5. The Hebrew word means “the fill.” It was a series of terrace walls, built on a steep slope, supporting the fill behind it in order to create level areas. Houses were then built on these artificial platforms, which were connected by narrow staircases. It was apparently the king’s duty to look after this construction. During heavy rainfalls, the fill became heavy and increased the pressure on the terrace walls, thus requiring regular maintenance of these walls. When this construction was neglected, the houses would fall down the steep slope and the city would disintegrate. Remains of these supporting walls have been found on the eastern slope of the city of David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:10 For the LORD, the God of hosts, was with him, as he was when David was first anointed in 1 Sam. 16:18.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:11 Hiram king of Tyre is mentioned in 1 Kings 5:1–18 as a friend of Solomon who provides the cedars to build the temple, just as here he provides David with cedars to build his house. Tyre was a trading empire, and it was in its interest to keep the inland trade routes, especially those through Israel to Egypt, open to its merchants. According to Josephus, however, Hiram did not begin to reign until near the end of David’s own reign. If that is correct, either this construction should be dated toward the end of David’s reign or the Hiram in 1 Kings is the successor (probably son) of the Hiram here, who continued his father’s good relationship with David. The cedars of Lebanon (which have now all but disappeared) were famous throughout the Near East. There are Assyrian reliefs of men cutting them down and transporting them to Nineveh.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:13–14 This is a summary statement about David’s kingship in Jerusalem (cf. 3:2–5); it does not mean that these sons were all born before 5:17. The birth of Solomon is mentioned in 12:24. None of the other sons play a major role in the Samuel–Kings narratives. The parallel passages 1 Chron. 3:5–8 and 14:4–7 list two more sons in addition, and comparison with a Dead Sea Scroll suggests that the two names might have been omitted in the Masoretic text of Samuel. Nathan (2 Sam. 5:14) was an ancestor of Jesus (Luke 3:31; see note on Luke 3:23–38), as was Solomon (Matt. 1:6–7).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:17–21 Until now the Philistines may have considered that David was to some extent still their vassal (1 Samuel 27); at least they must have been happy about his struggle with Ish-bosheth. But when David becomes king over Israel (i.e., both Israel and Judah) and even captures Jerusalem, they realize that he is a threat. went down to the stronghold. This is probably a stronghold toward the Philistine country. The Valley of Rephaim is the valley leading toward Jerusalem from the southwest. The incident in 2 Sam. 23:13–17 may have happened at this time. David inquired of the LORD as he did in 1 Sam. 23:2, 11; 30:8; and 2 Sam. 2:1. like a breaking flood. Throughout the ancient Near East writings, battles are described in terms of floods. “Baal” in Baal-perazim is here a common noun meaning “lord” (see note on 4:4). The Philistines left their idols there (5:21) is a reversal of 1 Samuel 4, where the Philistines carried off the ark of the covenant. According to 1 Chron. 14:12, David had the idols burned.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 5:22–25 It may be that the sound of marching was a distinct sound caused by the Lord that frightened the Philistines (as in 2 Kings 7:6). Another possibility is that the Philistines knew the sound was the sound of trees, so David was able to use the sound as cover for his attack. By this victory, David drove the Philistines out of the central hill country.
c. 1000 B.C.
Soon after David moved his capital to Jerusalem, the Philistines prepared to attack David’s forces at the nearby Valley of Rephaim. David defeated them, but they regrouped and prepared for a second attack. This time David attacked them from the rear and struck them down from Gibeon (or perhaps Geba) to Gezer.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:1–23 Zion, the Place of Worship. Jerusalem was not only to be the political capital of a united Israel, it was to be the religious center also. David brought the ark of the Lord of hosts from Baale-judah, where it had been most of the time ever since the Philistines returned it in 1 Samuel 6. Psalm 132 refers to this occasion.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:1–2 Baale-judah. In 1 Sam. 7:1, the name of the city where the ark was kept is given as Kiriath-jearim; the fact that the name by David’s time was Baale-judah suggests that 1 Sam. 4:1–7:2 existed as an earlier set of narratives and was carefully fit to the larger context of the books. the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. See note on 1 Sam. 4:3–4.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:3–4 They carried the ark on a new cart. Presumably this refers to a ritually clean cart, as the Philistines had done when returning the ark (1 Sam. 6:7). But that was not the method that the Lord had commanded his people to use. Rather, God’s command was that the ark should be carried by the Levites, using poles placed through rings on the sides of the ark (see Ex. 25:14–15; Num. 4:15; 7:9; Deut. 10:8; 31:9, 25; cf. Josh. 3:15). Uzzah and Ahio were probably brothers of Eleazar (cf. 1 Sam. 7:1), though they may have been sons, since it is phonetically possible that “Uzzah” is a variation of “Eleazar,” similar to the variants “Uzziel” in 1 Chron. 25:4 and “Azarel” in 1 Chron. 25:18 or King Uzziah (2 Kings 15:32–34; 2 Chron. 26:1) and Azariah (2 Kings 15:1–7).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:5 Before the LORD, as in Ex. 28:29, means that the Lord himself was present above the ark (see note on 1 Sam. 4:3–4). Both this passage and 1 Sam. 4:1–7:2 show that the ark was not just an arbitrary symbol of God’s presence, but God himself manifested his presence in a special way where the ark was, so the ark should not be treated lightly. with songs and lyres. Music is part of worship in most societies, and it was an important part of Israelite worship. The prophets in 1 Sam. 10:5 were accompanied by harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre. David sings God’s praises in 2 Sam. 22:50, and in his old age he organized musicians to praise the Lord in the temple (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:1–5). The Psalms contain many references to using music in worship, as in Psalms 32; 71; 92; 149; and 150. For descriptions of lyres, harps, and tambourines, see note on 1 Sam. 10:5. The word translated castanets appears only here in the Bible. Since it means “shaking,” “castanets” is a reasonable guess. It might also be a “sistrum,” an instrument consisting of metal rings or disks shaken on rods. There were various types of cymbals in the ancient Near East; some were several inches in diameter. Some were held upright while playing, like the modern orchestral cymbal; in other cases, the two cymbals of the pair were held horizontally with rods, one above the other. If one follows the alternative translation in the esv footnote (reading “fir trees” for “songs”) the meaning may be “branches of fir trees” (cf. Matt. 21:8), or “instruments made of fir wood.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:6–11 and God struck him down (v. 7). The death of Uzzah resembles the outbreak against Beth-shemesh in 1 Sam. 6:19. Touching the ark was a direct violation of God’s law (Num. 4:15). Even though Uzzah’s motive was clearly to prevent desecration, his fault was occasioned by the earlier mistake in the mode of transporting the ark (see note on 2 Sam. 6:3–4). afraid of the LORD. This incident was a dramatic reminder to David of God’s holiness and of the necessity of approaching God only according to his revealed instruction, so much so that David was afraid even to bring the ark back to Jerusalem.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:11 and the LORD blessed Obed-edom. The presence of the Lord brings much blessing to the household where the Lord is honored.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:12–15 those who bore the ark. This time the ark is carried, as is proper (v. 13; 1 Chron. 15:12–15; see also 2 Sam. 15:24). The text may indicate that only one sacrifice was offered at the beginning of the journey, when they had gone six steps. But some interpreters think it means that David sacrificed every six steps. There are other references to repeated sacrifices in relation to processions in Near Eastern literature. Solomon also sacrificed a huge number of animals when he dedicated the temple (1 Kings 8:63). he sacrificed. Here and in 2 Sam. 6:17 it is doubtful that David himself killed all the animals, but it was done at his direction, and this emphasizes that he was the central figure in the retrieval of the ark. David’s ephod was the simple linen robe worn by priests (cf. 1 Sam. 2:18). The ram’s horn was an instrument used especially for signaling. with rejoicing. David is filled with joy because the ark coming to Jerusalem means that God himself is bringing the blessing of his presence to David and his kingdom.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:14 David danced before the LORD. The term for “dancing” in vv. 14 and 16 does not appear elsewhere in Scripture and seems to describe a whirling dance. Dancing expresses joy (cf. Ex. 15:20–21; Ps. 30:11) and can be a part of jubilant worship (cf. Ps. 149:3; 150:4).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:16–19 Michal … despised him in her heart. Michal is identified not as David’s wife but as the daughter of Saul, and she shares in Saul’s lack of spiritual discernment. She should have been rejoicing with David “and all the house of Israel” (v. 5) at this great occasion, for the Lord himself was coming to dwell in the midst of his people in Jerusalem. The motif of a royal woman looking out a palace window is common in the Bible (see Judg. 5:28; 2 Kings 9:30), as well as on ivories discovered in Syria, Phoenicia, and Israel. The tent corresponds to the tabernacle of Exodus 26. These gift items are mentioned in a list formula, as in 1 Sam. 6:17 and 25:18.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 6:20–23 Although David returns to the members of his household for the purpose of blessing them, he is greeted by his wife Michal’s sarcastic comment, “How the king of Israel honored himself today.” No doubt she felt he should have worn his royal robes as would befit a king, but David stresses that he was dressed simply before the LORD. Michal accuses David of uncovering himself, which seems to be a reflection more of Michal’s bitterness and contempt for David than a true statement of fact. The “linen ephod” worn by David (v. 14) was a simple white garment worn by priests in the fulfillment of their duties (1 Sam. 22:18). had no child. The text does not say what caused her childlessness, leaving the reader to reflect on whether it was a natural result of the rift between Michal and David, or whether it was due to God’s judgment of Michal (as would seem to be the case) for her contempt toward David in his divinely appointed role as king of Israel.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:1–29 Davidic Covenant: Eternal Throne. This chapter, with its messianic promise, is a key passage in the history of salvation. The Lord promises to make one family, that of David, the representative of his people forever. Verses 8–17 are often described as the “Davidic covenant,” even though the term “covenant” does not appear there. But in Ps. 89:3 this promise is described using the words, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one.” David expresses his desire to build a house for the Lord. But the Lord does not approve, and instead states on his own initiative that he will establish David’s house (i.e., dynasty) eternally, promising him an eternal throne: “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16). This is not, however, a guarantee that every occupant of the throne of David will himself enjoy the blessings without regard for his own piety (v. 14). Psalm 132:11 says that on this occasion the Lord swore to David with “a sure oath,” from which he would not turn back, that “one of the sons of your body I will set on your throne” (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12). This points to Solomon, who would “sit on the throne of Israel” and build “the house for the name of the LORD” (1 Kings 8:20), and eventually to Jesus, the Messiah who would sit on the throne eternally, thus establishing David’s throne forever (2 Sam. 7:16; Luke 1:32–33). See 2 Chron. 13:5; 21:7; Ps. 89:20–38; Isa. 55:3; Jer. 33:17, 20–22; etc.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:1–3 David contrasts his own cedar house (5:11) with the tent that houses the ark (6:17). It was common in the ancient Near East for a king to build a temple to honor his god. the LORD is with you. Nathan probably means these words as a general comment on David and gives his own opinion as David’s counselor. That night, however, he receives a specific revelation from God, which he delivers to David as a prophet, the messenger of God.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:6–7 I have not lived in a house. Nothing in the regulations about the ark in Exodus suggests that it was placed in a building; rather, it needed carrying poles (Ex. 25:10–16). The shrine at Shiloh did have a door and was called a “house” or “temple” (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3, 15; see note on 1 Sam. 1:7, 9), but even a tent could be called a “house,” and since there is also a reference to the “entrance of the tent of meeting,” it may be that some kind of structure was built around the tent at Shiloh. The ark had also been in the house of Abinadab (2 Sam. 6:3) for several decades, but that was considered a temporary expedient.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:8–17 God will not let David build him a house; rather, he will build David a house, i.e., a ruling dynasty (see note on 1 Chron. 17:10b–14). According to 1 Kings 5:3, Solomon said David was not able to build the temple “because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him,” and in 1 Chron. 22:8 David says the Lord said he could not do so because “you have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth” (see note on 1 Chron. 22:6–16).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:12 Your offspring after you refers to Solomon.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:14 Hebrews 1:5 applies the words I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son to Christ because, as Messiah, Jesus inherits David’s role as representative of God’s people (his “son,” Ex. 4:22–23; cf. Ps. 89:26–27).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:18–29 In this moving prayer, David uses the phrase O Lord GOD (or “O LORD God”) eight times, expressing his close intimacy with his God. This is instruction for mankind (v. 19) means that all people can learn about God’s faithfulness and grace from his promises to David. The phrase could also be translated, “Is this your custom for mankind?” i.e., “You do not usually do this for humans.” there is none like you, and there is no God besides you (v. 22). This is an explicit statement of monotheism (cf. 1 Sam. 2:2). Then follows the expression who is like your people Israel, which describes the incomparability (hence the uniqueness) of Israel, God’s people, whom he has redeemed from Egypt and established for himself forever.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 7:18 Who am I, O Lord … , that you have brought me thus far? In spite of dramatic military success and the popular acclaim of the whole nation, David humbly considers himself unworthy of all the Lord’s blessings, attributing his success instead to the Lord (cf. Prov. 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). He understands rightly that the covenant (2 Sam. 7:8–17) expresses God’s faithfulness to his promises to his people (vv. 21–29).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:1–18 Catalog of David’s Military Activities. Chapter 8 is a catalog of David’s military victories, from the old enemies, the Philistines, to the Transjordan nations of Moab and Ammon, through the Syrian countries, and all the way to “the River” (the Euphrates), ending with a statement about his administration. The varied events of this chapter are not necessarily chronological with the rest of the book. The Ammon war of chs. 10–12 may have been the prelude to David’s defeat of the important kingdom of Zobah in this chapter. Chapter 8 has ties with the title to Psalm 60: “when he strove with Aram-naharaim and with Aram-zobah [cf. 2 Sam. 8:3], and when Joab on his return struck down twelve thousand of Edom in the Valley of Salt [cf. v. 13].” The older empires in Egypt and Mesopotamia were at a low point, which allowed David to take advantage of the international situation.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:1 Metheg-ammah is otherwise unknown—perhaps it refers to a type of land. After the time of David, there are no references to battles with the Philistines until the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:8).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:3–12 The events of chs. 10–12 may have been the prelude to 8:3, as suggested by the references in ch. 10 to Zobah and Hadadezer (10:6, 16). If so, Hadadezer—after the disastrous defeat by David and the defection of his vassals (10:19) and the defeat of Ammon (12:31)—went to the Euphrates to try to restore his power over his vassals but was attacked on the way by David. Zobah and Damascus were both in Syria (Hb. ’Aram). Zobah was in the northern part of the Lebanon Valley (see Josh. 11:17; 12:7), in what is now called the Bekaa Valley. Hadadezer’s name does not appear outside the Bible, but there are similarities to an unnamed Syrian king of David’s time mentioned in Assyrian annals. Having captured chariot horses, David apparently decided to experiment with a small chariot force. It is not clear why he would hamstring the other horses (2 Sam. 8:4). It was probably to keep them from being used again by enemy soldiers, but it also may have been in response to the warning in Deut. 17:16 that the king must not acquire many horses for himself (cf. Josh. 11:6–9). The hamstrung horses supposedly could have been used as farm or pack horses. Hamath was on the middle Orontes River; it bordered Zobah on the north. The treasures (2 Sam. 8:11) later became part of Solomon’s treasure, used either to build the temple or were placed in the temple treasury (1 Kings 7:51; 1 Chron. 18:8).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:4 While the verse says that David took from him 1,700 horsemen, 1 Chron. 18:4 says that he “took from him 1,000 chariots” and “7,000 horsemen.” The Septuagint agrees with Chronicles. Although there is not enough information available to account for this difference, one possible explanation is that someone miscopied the text of Samuel, and the Septuagint (along with Chronicles) retains the true reading.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:6 And the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went. The narrator continues to point to God’s blessing, not David’s skill, as the reason for David’s victories (cf. v. 14; 1 Sam. 18:12).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:13–14 The Valley of Salt must have been in the Edomite territory south and east of the Dead Sea. First Chronicles 18:12 states that Abishai killed the Edomites. The deeds of David’s generals were ascribed to David, just as the deeds of Abishai’s men were ascribed to Abishai. Joab seems to have led the campaign; it was at this time that Hadad, of the royal house of Edom, escaped to Egypt (1 Kings 11:14–22; title of Psalm 60).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:15–18 This is a list of David’s officials (for similar lists, cf. 20:23–26; 1 Kings 4:1–6). Like the list in Kings, this one starts with the office of the king. It was the task of the king to establish justice and equity (see 1 Kings 10:9). Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud appears as recorder in all three lists. The offices of “recorder” and “secretary” (2 Sam. 8:17) were common in surrounding countries. Jerusalem, like other city-states of the time, had a long history of civil administration, which David could take over and use.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:17 Zadok helped David during Absalom’s rebellion (15:27–28; 17:15; 19:11) and later supported Solomon (1 Kings 1:8). His father Ahitub was probably a different person from Ahitub the father of Ahimelech, priest at Nob (1 Sam. 22:9). Abiathar appeared in 1 Samuel accompanying David (1 Sam. 22:20; 23:6; 30:7) and worked with Zadok during Absalom’s rebellion. Abiathar apparently named his son Ahimelech after his father (1 Sam. 22:20), a common practice. For Abiathar’s genealogy, see note on 1 Sam. 2:27–28. Other passages such as the account of Absalom’s rebellion and the lists of officials in 2 Sam. 20:25 and 1 Kings 4:4 refer to the priests as “Zadok and Abiathar.” It is often suggested that “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar” is a scribal error for “Abiathar son of Ahimelech.” Another possibility is that Abiathar retired his position as one of the chief priests in favor of a son, as Zadok later did (1 Kings 4:2), and then perhaps the son later died or had some other problem, so Abiathar resumed the position. The secretary Seraiah might be the same as the “Sheva” (2 Sam. 20:25) and “Shisha” (1 Kings 4:3) mentioned in the other two lists, but this is not established. It may be that it was a foreign name, which would be especially liable to variant spellings.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 8:18 Benaiah was in charge of David’s personal force of Cherethites and … Pelethites. He was one of David’s “mighty men” (23:20–22). Like Zadok, he supported Solomon against Adonijah and became commander of the whole army under Solomon (1 Kings 1:1–2:46; 4:1–6). The Cherethites and Pelethites were foreigners who made up the king’s bodyguard (cf. 1 Sam. 28:2). David’s sons were priests. It is not known what their duties were, but obviously their duties were not important compared to those of the Levitical priests Zadok, Abiathar, and Ahimelech, who were concerned with the ark (2 Sam. 15:24); the other lists do not mention David’s sons in this capacity. They may have been just chaplains for the rituals carried out in the royal family. The priestly line and the royal line were essentially separate.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 9:1–13 Mephibosheth. David keeps his promise to Jonathan and Saul that he would not destroy their descendants (1 Sam. 20:14–17, 42; 24:21–22) as often happened in changes of dynasty (cf. 2 Kings 10; 11; etc.).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 9:2–4 For Ziba, the servant (here the Hb. word is ‘ebed) of Saul’s house, see note on v. 9. The exact location of Lo-debar is unknown, but it seems to have been in northern Transjordan (17:27). Mephibosheth had probably been taken to Transjordan soon after Saul’s death (4:4), during the time his uncle Ish-bosheth ruled from the Transjordanian city of Mahanaim (2:8).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 9:6–8 For the name Mephibosheth, see note on 4:4. Note that the word father (Hb. ’ab) in 9:7 means “father” in one sentence and “grandfather” in the next. This phenomenon can also be seen in some of the genealogies (e.g., probably 1 Sam. 9:1). In 2 Sam. 9:9–10, the “grandson” is literally “son” (Hb. ben), as can be seen in the translation of the same Hebrew phrase in 16:3. Dead dog is a term of self-abasement here and in 1 Sam. 24:14; in 2 Sam. 16:9 it is used for contempt.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 9:9 Ziba is here referred to as a servant (Hb. na‘ar, “young man, servant”), but because Ziba had 15 sons (v. 10), it was probably the more specific “steward of an estate.” Ziba had probably continued to be the steward in charge of the land after Saul’s death, but had paid the benefits of the estate to David or to someone to whom David had assigned the land. But from now on he is required to pay the benefits to Mephibosheth.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 9:11 Mephibosheth ate at David’s table, like one of the king’s sons. The arrangement David sets up for Mephibosheth is similar to that of at least David’s older sons. Though the king’s sons “ate at David’s table,” some of them lived in their own houses in Jerusalem (13:7, 20) and had fields and agricultural lands of their own to support them (13:23; 14:30).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 9:12 Mica (or “Micah”) had many descendants, through whom the house of Saul and Jonathan was preserved (1 Chron. 8:35–40; 9:41–44).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 10:1–12:31 Israel-Ammon War. The Ammonite war is the background of the next three chapters. As far as David’s empire went, it led to his domination of the Syrian kingdoms (see 8:3–12; 10:15–19). More importantly to the biblical writer, however, it was the setting for David’s great sin (11:1–12:25).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 10:1–19 Beginning of Israel-Ammon War. The war began because the Ammonites disgraced David’s ambassadors; it did not result from any wrongdoing by David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 10:1–5 Nahash was presumably the Nahash of 1 Samuel 11. David wants to deal loyally with Hanun because of his father Nahash, who showed “loyalty” to David in accordance with their treaty. While his loyalty, or “kindness” (Hb. hesed), toward Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9) was “for Jonathan’s sake,” this “kindness” is for diplomatic reasons: David wants to keep the Ammonites as peaceful neighbors. It may be that the princes of the Ammonites (10:3) are alarmed by the representatives of David, who had conquered Moab (8:2), the country directly south of them. Humiliating the official envoys (10:4) certainly means breaking off diplomatic relations. David allows his messengers to remain at Jericho so that they would not have to display their humiliation in court.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 10:6–8 Beth-rehob, Zobah, Maacah, and Tob were Syrian kingdoms in the northern Transjordan and Lebanon Valley. For the relationship of this passage with 8:3–4, see note on 8:3–12. Hiring armies was not uncommon (2 Kings 7:6). The numbers of troops are mentioned according to the usual list formula (see note on 1 Sam. 6:17–18). Syrians can also be translated “Aram” or “Arameans,” the normal term for Syria or the Syrians. “Aramaic,” the later common language (cf. 2 Kings 18:26), was the language of Syria. The gate (2 Sam. 10:8) is that of the city of Rabbah (11:1), the capital of Ammon, near present-day Amman, Jordan.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 10:9–19 David’s army under Joab is trapped between the Syrians and the Ammonites, but they defeat the Syrians and force them to leave. Hadadezer of Zobah (see 8:5) attacks again at Helam, apparently a city in northern Transjordan, but is again defeated.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 10:12 let us be courageous … and may the LORD do what seems good to him. Joab expresses both faith in God and a resolve to fight with all his strength. Faith and human effort are not incompatible with each other. Joab is a complicated figure: as here, he can express sturdy piety (e.g., 24:3), and he can also display a chilling ruthlessness in preserving David’s and his own position (e.g., 18:14–15; 20:9–10, 20–22). It is not surprising that David does not trust him to treat Solomon well after Joab supported Adonijah (1 Kings 1:7, 19; 2:5–6).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:1–12:25 David and Bathsheba. The story of the Ammonite war continues up through 11:1 and is concluded in 12:26–31. In between comes the account of David and Bathsheba (11:2–12:25). The story of the war thus is a “frame” around the story of David and Bathsheba: “Joab/Rabbah” and “David/Jerusalem” in 11:1 correspond to “Joab/Rabbah” in 12:26 and “David/Jerusalem” in 12:31.
View this chart online at http://kindle.esvsb.org/c76
| David’s Rise (1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 10) | David’s Failures (2 Samuel 11–20) |
|---|---|
| Eager holy warrior | Remains in palace |
| Marries honorably | Adultery with Bathsheba |
| Protects Saul’s life | Plots Uriah’s death |
| Decisive | Indecisive |
| Prayers effective | Prayers ineffective |
| Fearless when outnumbered | Fearfully takes census |
| Attracts thousands of followers | Loses thousands of followers |
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:1 With the defeat of the Syrians, David is free to concentrate on besieging Rabbah (10:14). the time when kings go out to battle. … But David remained at Jerusalem. The connection of these two phrases hints that something is wrong: the kings go out to battle, but this king does not. And all Israel went out to battle, but Israel’s leader did not. Readers can see a contrast between the king who is at leisure (11:2) and the soldiers on the field (v. 11).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:2 The woman bathing is probably “purifying herself from her uncleanness” (v. 4) after her menstrual period (Lev. 15:19–24). Clearly, then, the child who would be conceived in 2 Sam. 11:5 was not Uriah’s. Beautiful is literally “very good in appearance.” Compared with the usual Hebrew adjective yapah for “beautiful” (as in 1 Sam. 25:3, where it is used of Abigail), the emphasis here is more distinctly on the woman’s appearance. A terraced structure, first built in the fourteenth or thirteenth century B.C., has been found in Jerusalem as part of the city of King David. Over 50 feet (15 m) in height, it may have served as the foundation for a large base that held the highest buildings of Jerusalem. David’s palace perhaps sat there, overlooking the entire city (see illustration).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:3 Uriah the Hittite is listed among David’s top warriors, the “thirty,” in 23:39.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:4 Given the elaborate attempt David makes (vv. 6–13) to cover up the initial act of his adultery, it is hardly likely that he makes his intention clear when he summons Bathsheba. Probably David makes inquiry about the welfare of the family of his trusted general during Uriah’s absence and gives Uriah’s wife the honor of a private interview, even sending messengers (plural) to invite Bathsheba; after Uriah’s death, David takes Uriah’s widow under his protection as his own wife (v. 27).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:6–13 The king had certain rights, but clearly adultery was not one of them. Instead of repenting and trying to settle the matter openly, David tries to cover it up by making it appear that his child by Bathsheba is Uriah’s.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:9 Sexual intercourse was a source of ritual impurity (Ex. 19:15; Lev. 15:18), and so it was avoided during a military campaign, as is mentioned in 1 Sam. 21:5. (See Deut. 23:9. “Evil” in that passage refers to something “unseemly” or “improper,” rather than morally evil. Certainly “excrement” [Deut. 23:13] is not morally evil, but like intercourse it does make one unclean.) Uriah considered himself still on duty, in contrast to David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:14–15 It is ironic that Uriah should unknowingly take with him the letter that orders him killed. David is hopelessly overwhelmed by the need to cover up his wrongdoings, even if it means taking another person’s life—and even more, the life of a faithful soldier.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:21 Abimelech was a son of Gideon, who was also known as Jerubbaal (Judg. 8:29–9:57). Here, the element “baal” in a name is changed to “bosheth” (“shame”), so it becomes son of Jerubbesheth, as can be seen elsewhere in Samuel with the names Ish-bosheth and Mephibosheth (see note on 2 Sam. 4:4). Did not a woman. Abimelech had told his armor-bearer to kill him “lest they say of me, ‘a woman killed him’” (Judg. 9:54), but this was said of him anyway.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:25 Do not let this matter displease you. David probably knows that Joab would not have been happy about killing a good commander. David is saying, “He might have been killed anyway.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:26–27 The mourning period was probably seven days (Gen. 50:10; 1 Sam. 31:13).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 11:27 But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD is literally, “The matter that David did was evil in the eyes of the LORD”; see 12:9 and Ps. 51:4. This contrasts with David’s words to Joab two verses earlier, “Do not let this matter displease you.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:1–31 David started by breaking the tenth commandment (coveting, Ex. 20:17), then the seventh (adultery, Ex. 20:14), and then the sixth (murder, Ex. 20:13), while the Lord silently watched his behavior. Here at last the Lord calls him to account for standing above the law. Psalm 51 was composed in response to this occasion. Nathan apparently asks David to intervene in a legal matter. The “parable” (2 Sam. 12:1–4) is similar to the plea of the wise woman of Tekoa in ch. 14 and that of the prophet in 1 Kings 20:35–43. In all these cases, it is pointed out to the king that his own actions do not match his judgments.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:4 That the Lord has special concern for the poor is a major theme in the Bible, and as his representative, the king and other judges were supposed to protect against abuse by the powerful (Ex. 23:6; Lev. 19:15; Prov. 31:9; Isa. 3:14; etc.). The rich man took the poor man’s lamb, just as David “took” Bathsheba (see 2 Sam. 11:4).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:5–6 David has a true concern for justice when he is not blinded by his own passion (cf. his ready acceptance of Abigail’s words in 1 Sam. 25:32–33). For fourfold, see Ex. 22:1.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:7–13 This passage has similarities with Nathan’s prophecy in ch. 7. In both, the Lord looks back on what he has done by grace for David. But while in ch. 7 the Lord graciously promised him an enduring house, here he announces that David by his own deeds will experience misery in his house. David has despised the Lord and his word.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:8 gave you … your master’s wives. There is no other record of David marrying Saul’s wives, but he was certainly in a position to do so.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:9 This sin was against the Lord, as David should have known through the word of the LORD (cf. Ps. 51:4). With the sword is a general term for causing violent death, as in 2 Sam. 11:25, not necessarily a reference to the specific mode of death (see 11:24).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:10–11 the sword shall never depart from your house. David’s sons Amnon (13:29), Absalom (18:15), and Adonijah (1 Kings 2:25) all will die by the sword. he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. Absalom will rebel against David and publicly lie with David’s concubines on a rooftop (2 Sam. 16:22).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:13–14 David confesses and appears to have genuine repentance. Yet the results of his actions remain. As the esv footnote explains, for scorned the LORD the Masoretic text has “scorned the enemies of the LORD,” but this may not be the original wording. Modern scholars conclude that the word “enemies” was inserted (either by the author himself, or by a copyist) as a euphemism to avoid directly saying the words “scorn the LORD.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:15–23 When the child falls ill, David still hopes that the Lord might change his mind and so petitions him with fasting (as in Judg. 20:26; Ezra 8:23; Est. 4:16; Ps. 35:13; etc.). washed and anointed himself … ate. Because fasting and refraining from anointing were also part of ordinary mourning (1 Sam. 31:13; 2 Sam. 3:35; 14:2), David’s actions puzzle his servants, who seem to have thought he had been mourning.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:20 The house is presumably the tent where the ark of the covenant was housed (6:17). “House” can also refer to a tent, as it may in Ugaritic and Akkadian.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:23 I shall go to him. Some interpreters understand David to be saying simply that he, like the child, will someday die. But “shall go to him” seems to indicate the expectation of future personal reunion.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:24–25 First Chronicles 3:5 suggests that Solomon was the fourth son of David by Bathsheba. This verse may skip over a number of years to introduce the most important child of the union. And the LORD loved him hints at Solomon’s future role as king; God’s grace has triumphed over David’s terrible sin. The line promised to David will continue through this son of David and Bathsheba, and from this line the Messiah will eventually come (Matt. 1:6).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 12:26–31 End of Israel-Ammon War. Having recorded the birth of Solomon, the author returns to the siege of Rabbah, last mentioned in 11:25. The “city of waters” was probably that section of the city that controlled the water supply. With no water, the surrender of the city itself would follow shortly. Therefore, Joab calls David to come to the front so that the king can get credit for its capture.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:1–14:33 Absalom’s Banishment and Reinstatement. Chapters 13–20 show the “evil … out of your own house” that Nathan warned David of in 12:11, namely, the rebellion of his son Absalom. Absalom kills his half brother Amnon to avenge the rape of his sister, but is eventually pardoned by David. Absalom then forms a conspiracy and declares himself king, but the rebellion is put down and Absalom is killed. In the aftermath there is an attempt by a group of Benjaminites to withdraw from Israel, but the attempt is thwarted. Often in this section the narrator has to follow several simultaneous story lines. Several times he backtracks and picks up a line by repeating the last statement in that line with expansion or variation (see 13:34a and 37; 15:37 and 16:15; 18:17b and 19:8b; 18:33 and 19:4; 19:24a and 25). The writer of 1–2 Kings uses this same technique to keep track of reigns in Judah and Israel.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:1–22 After a time suggests that some time has passed since the end of ch. 12. This is an account of both rape and incest—the brother-sister relationship between Tamar and Amnon is referred to a dozen times. This rape was an outrageous thing (see Gen. 34:7; Deut. 22:21; Judg. 20:6; Jer. 29:23) that was not done in Israel (2 Sam. 13:12). Since it occurred in the royal family, it had implications for the whole nation.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:1–2 Tamar was Absalom’s full sister and the half sister of Amnon, David’s eldest son. he made himself ill. Amnon’s “love” could better be described as “lust.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:3 The term crafty (Hb. khakam) is normally translated as “wise” or “skillful.” Here, however, it is used in a negative sense.
c. 985 B.C.
In retaliation for the incestuous rape of his sister, Absalom killed his brother Amnon at Baal-hazor and fled to Geshur. After three years, arrangements were made for Absalom to return to Jerusalem, and later he and David were reconciled. Soon after this, however, Absalom led a coup against David in Hebron, and David fled to Mahanaim. When Absalom attacked David’s forces in the forest of Ephraim, Absalom was defeated and killed, allowing David to return to Jerusalem.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:6–8 The word for cakes (Hb. lebibah) is used only here in Scripture. It is related to the word “heart” (Hb. lebab), so it may have been thought of as a food for the sick. The word translated baked (v. 8) usually means “boiled” (see 1 Sam. 2:13), so it may be a type of dumpling. It apparently never occurred to David to be suspicious, and Tamar, of course, would obey her father.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:12–13 such a thing is not done in Israel. Intercourse between brother and sister, even half brother and half sister, was forbidden in Lev. 18:9, and the stress on the outrageousness makes it seem likely that this prohibition was accepted at the time of David. he will not withhold me from you. Perhaps Tamar is saying that David would be willing to bend the rules, or perhaps she is just trying to escape.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:15–17 While Amnon’s response to Tamar may be an archetypal example of a “blame the victim” mentality, it is particularly striking in the context of sexual lust. wrong in sending me away. Tamar’s appeal is based on the fact that within this ancient Near Eastern cultural setting Amnon’s actions required marriage (Deut. 22:28–29). Put this woman out. Amnon’s hatred and contempt of his sister is expressed by his final refusal to heed her wishes or even use her name.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:16 this wrong … is greater than the other. If a man seduced an unmarried (or unbetrothed) woman, he had to marry her, unless her father refused; if he raped her, he was not permitted to divorce her (Ex. 22:16; Deut. 22:28–29). Having ruined her life, he had a responsibility toward her.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:18 The only other place this kind of robe appears in the Bible is in the Joseph story (Gen. 37:3, as the esv footnote explains).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:19 Putting ashes (or dirt) on one’s head and tearing one’s clothes were expressions of grief or humiliation (see note on 1 Sam. 4:12), as was covering the head with the hand(s) or a garment (2 Sam. 15:30; Est. 6:12; Jer. 2:37).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:20 Do not take this to heart, perhaps because it would be easier to remain quiet, or perhaps because Absalom was determined to take vengeance in his own time. Absalom himself did take it to heart (cf. vv. 23–29).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:21 David was very angry, but he did not do anything. He showed favoritism toward his eldest son (see esv footnote; cf. 3:2), which was the source of many of the later problems in David’s family (cf. 1 Kings 1:6). Heads of households have to deal justly with members of their household, but because of his sin with Bathsheba, David had lost his moral courage and clarity of judgment.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:22 Spoke … neither good nor bad may mean “do nothing against” (see Gen. 31:24, 29).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:23 As seen in 1 Samuel 25, sheepshearing was a time of feasting. Absalom invited all the king’s sons, and the next four verses explain how he gives the invitation. Absalom invited David, probably guessing that he would decline, in order to lend an aura of importance to the occasion and to mask his true intentions. If he had started out by inviting Amnon, it could have seemed suspicious.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:29 The king’s sons seem to have normally ridden mules. Absalom even rides one into battle (18:9).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:37 Talmai was Absalom’s maternal grandfather (3:3).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 13:39 The Hebrew for the spirit of the king longed to go out to Absalom is difficult. It could also mean “the spirit of the king ceased to go out against Absalom” (cf. esv footnote). The Hebrew lacks the word “spirit,” but the verb “longed” or “ceased” is feminine and thus implies that the spirit or soul is properly inferred as the subject. (Some manuscripts of the Septuagint, together with a text from Qumran, explicitly have “the spirit of the king,” though this may also be an inference.) The author is thus telling readers either that David yearned to see his son or that he no longer wanted to take vengeance on him; in either case, readers are set up for Absalom’s return in the next chapter.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:1–3 the king’s heart went out to Absalom. This does not necessarily imply that his thoughts were positive, just that he was thinking about the matter. Joab recruited a wise woman and put the words in her mouth in an effort to push the king toward reconciliation with Absalom. (Later, however, Joab certainly does not seem to favor Absalom; cf. 18:10–18.) Tekoa, hometown of Amos (Amos 1:1), is in the Judean hills about 10 miles (16 km) south of Jerusalem, near Bethlehem.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:4–7 The woman, using a “parable” as Nathan did (cf. 12:1–7), appeals to the king to set aside the ordinary laws demanding the death of a murderer (e.g., Num. 35:31), not because of any extenuating circumstances in the killing but for the good of the family. David must have first associated the woman’s account with the story of Cain and Abel, and then soon realized that it would apply to Absalom’s murder of Amnon.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:7 heir. Apparently Absalom was now considered the heir, at least in popular sentiment. The idea of a smoldering coal is an image of “hope for the family.” Neither name nor remnant means “no remaining posterity.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:8–17 Perhaps David already suspects that Joab is involved in the woman’s coming to him, so he deliberately uses the vague word “anyone” (If anyone says anything to you) in v. 10. The woman, however, sticks to her own story by referring to my son, while she uses a very sensitive term, avenger of blood (v. 11), which would apply to the king himself, who has been thinking about his own son (v. 1). She asks for an immediate ruling on her own (bogus) case so that she can comment on it (cf. vv. 13–14). By his words in v. 11b, David indirectly expresses his determination (As the LORD lives) to bring back his own lost son. The woman says what Joab has sent her to say (vv. 13–14) and then goes back to her made-up story (vv. 15–17). This in v. 15 would refer both to her real message in vv. 13–14 and to her “family problem” in vv. 5–7. This woman wisely finishes her dialogue with King David by mentioning her own problem, thus placing herself on the side of the needy and helpless, not in the position of an accuser of the king.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:18–20 David suspects the woman’s real purpose (cf. vv. 1–17). Having patiently heard her out, he now asks her straightforwardly if Joab was involved in her coming to him with her story.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:24 he is not to come into my presence. David’s forgiveness is incomplete, as Absalom complains in v. 32. David is confused: he is unwilling to punish, but also unwilling to forgive fully, so the situation festers.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:25–27 These verses prepare readers for what is told later about Absalom, especially how he “stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (15:6) by his personal charms. The reference to his abundant hair looks ahead to his manner of death, i.e., by being caught by his head in a tree (see 18:9). The king’s weight indicates that there was a royal standard at the Israelite court.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:27 Since the three sons are unnamed and Absalom says he had no sons (18:18), these sons probably died young. His daughter, Tamar, was probably named for his sister (see note on 13:1–2).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:28–32 Believing that Joab could orchestrate a long-awaited audience with the king, Absalom compels Joab’s attention by setting his field on fire. He finds his current status unsatisfactory and wants either restoration to the royal household or, if guilty, execution (v. 32).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 14:33 the king kissed Absalom. The kiss points to Absalom’s restoration and closes the section consisting of chs. 13–14, which is a prologue to the revolt of Absalom in chs. 15–19. Clearly the king’s kiss was less than full restoration since Absalom himself will soon “kiss away” the hearts of Israel (15:5–6).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:1–19:43 Absalom’s Rebellion. This long section of 2 Samuel is divided into six parts: (1) Absalom’s conspiracy and proclaiming himself king (15:1–12); (2) David’s escape from Absalom, and the people he met on the way (15:13–16:14); (3) the war council where the competition between Ahithophel and Hushai determines David’s fate (16:15–17:23); (4) David’s favorable reception at Mahanaim (17:24–29); (5) the battle and the death of Absalom (18:1–19:8a); and (6) David’s return to Jerusalem (19:8b–43).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:1–12 Absalom’s Conspiracy. Absalom plans his conspiracy and proclaims himself king.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:1 a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run before him. Absalom’s self-exalting pride stands in contrast to David’s humility (1 Sam. 26:9–11; 2 Sam. 7:18; 15:25–26). Later Adonijah behaves similarly, exalting himself, “saying ‘I will be king’” (1 Kings 1:5). See also 1 Sam. 8:11.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:3 there is no man designated by the king to hear you. Absalom’s statement must be somewhat of an exaggeration, for the widow of Tekoa got a hearing, and if it were known that there was no chance of a hearing, people would not have come.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:4 Oh that I were judge in the land! Absalom is appealing to the tradition of the king as “judge” (cf. Prov. 31:9; Isa. 11:3–5), which is closely bound to the concept of the Lord as judge (Ps. 96:10; Isa. 33:22), not to the judgeships of the previous era (as seen in the book of Judges). Thus Absalom is saying, “Oh that I were king!” (see 1 Sam. 8:5). This is in line with his chariot and runners (2 Sam. 15:1). Since Absalom’s conduct was public (“beside the way of the gate,” v. 2), news of what he was doing must have quickly reached David, but he did nothing to stop it (see notes on 13:21; 14:24).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:7 Hebron, the chief city of Judah, was where David ruled as king of Judah (2:4) and where Absalom was born (3:2–3).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:10 The phrase the tribes of Israel sometimes refers to all of Israel, and at other times refers to Israel as opposed to Judah. Here, it refers to all of Israel, including Judah. It is clear that Judah participated in the rebellion. Absalom raises his revolt in Hebron, and his named associates—Ahithophel of Giloh (15:12; see Josh. 15:51) and Amasa, David’s nephew (2 Sam. 17:25)—are both from Judah. Furthermore, in 19:11 David asks why the elders of Judah are reluctant to bring him back. In chs. 15–18, “Israel” usually means “Absalom’s side,” while David’s side is referred to as “David’s servants” or “the army.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:12 These sacrifices were apparently part of a coronation ceremony (see 1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9–11) formally asserting Absalom’s kingship (2 Sam. 15:10; 16:16).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:13–16:14 David’s Escape from Absalom. This section describes David’s flight from Jerusalem to the Jordan River. Psalm 3 is said to have been composed in response to this occasion. David flees Jerusalem, lest the city be destroyed. On the way he meets a loyal band of foreigners, the priests Abiathar and Zadok, his friend Hushai, Mephibosheth’s servant Ziba, and the Benjaminite Shimei.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:18–20 The Cherethites and the Pelethites are David’s bodyguard (8:18). The Gittites (i.e., men from Gath) are not likely David’s own 600 men who had gone with him from Israel to Ziklag (1 Sam. 27:2), since they had come yesterday (2 Sam. 15:20), that is, recently, and could go back to their homes.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:23 The brook Kidron runs just east of Jerusalem; the Mount of Olives (v. 30) is to the east of the brook.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:24–37 Though David leaves the city, by the providence of God he is able to set up a messenger system—Hushai, to Zadok and Abiathar, to their sons (via a maid, 17:17), to David (15:36).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:25–26 Carry the ark of God back into the city. David does not try to use the ark as some sort of “good luck charm,” in contrast to the attitude of the elders in 1 Sam. 4:3. Perhaps he realizes that Absalom’s rebellion is partly the result of his own sins (2 Sam. 12:10), and he does not know how far the Lord intends to punish him (let him do to me what seems good to him). His symbols of mourning and penitence and acceptance of malice (15:30; 16:10) are probably related to this. Since he also considers the rebellion wrong, however, he is willing to use prayer and the human opportunities God gives him (15:28, 31, 34; see Neh. 4:9).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:27 Are you not a seer? Perhaps David is implying that Zadok does not know precisely what God will do about David (see note on vv. 25–26); or maybe he is indicating that Zadok, because the people hold him in honor as a seer, will be allowed to pass safely into the city, where he will be most useful to David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:28 The fords of the wilderness were at the west bank of the Jordan River.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:30 Going barefoot and with his head covered were signs of mourning (cf. Est. 6:12; Isa. 20:2). weeping as he went. David had many reasons to weep: his own misfortunes and the dangers he now faced; the troubles now facing Israel and his own family, for which he was partly responsible; and the dishonor that would surely come to God as a result of all this.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:31–32 Ahithophel was David’s trusted counselor (v. 12; cf. 16:23), but now he was among the conspirators. This led David to pray, “O LORD, please turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.” His prayer was answered in the very next verse by the arrival of Hushai, who would prove invaluable to him (see 16:15–17:23 and notes).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:33–36 whatever you hear … tell. Although earlier David may have questioned Zadok’s “seeing” (v. 27), it is clear that what Zadok and Abiathar “hear” from the undercover work of Hushai in Jerusalem (v. 34) will benefit David and his followers (vv. 35–36; cf. 17:15–16, 22).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 15:37 David’s friend. “Friend” may be a title because it is not the normal word for “friend” and it seems to be one kind of royal official described in 1 Kings 4:5. David is called the friend of Hushai in 2 Sam. 16:17, however, so it also expresses a relationship.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:1–4 Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth (the disabled grandson of Saul, whom David had taken into his care; see ch. 9), arrives with provisions for David and his people. Ziba implies that the gifts are entirely his idea, and that Mephibosheth himself sees David’s plight as an opportunity to reclaim the kingdom (Today the house of Israel will give me back the kingdom of my father). Mephibosheth will later present a somewhat different version of the situation (19:24–29). As the next section and ch. 20 show, some Benjaminites still felt animosity toward David, so David may have been very unsure about Mephibosheth’s loyalty. Behold, all that belonged to Mephibosheth is now yours. David judged too quickly, without opportunity to hear a defense from the accused Mephibosheth. Cf. notes on 13:21 and 14:24. The list of food items in 16:1 is similar to the list in 1 Sam. 25:18.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:5 Shimei is apparently a prominent man (19:16). Bahurim is a Benjaminite town on the north side of the Mount of Olives, though it did have inhabitants who supported David (17:18). Shimei will act very differently the next time he meets David (19:16).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:8 Shimei was probably blaming David for the deaths of Abner (3:26–30) and Ish-bosheth (ch. 4), and possibly for the deaths of Saul’s sons and grandsons (21:1–9) or even that of Saul himself, though he is not necessarily accusing David of actual complicity in the deaths. Since the writer of Samuel goes to great lengths to absolve David from complicity, one can surmise that some people harbored ill will toward David because of the house of Saul, even at the time 1–2 Samuel was written.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:9 As always, Abishai is ready to act (cf. 1 Sam. 26:8). Cursing a ruler is forbidden in Ex. 22:28.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:10 What have I to do with you? David’s point is that he and Abishai do not see things the same way, and it would be disastrous for him to take Abishai’s advice.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:11 let him curse, for the LORD has told him to. David expresses his trust in God’s providence (cf. 15:25–26; 16:12). He still wonders whether all this opposition is the Lord’s just punishment for his sin, and he humbly endures the abuse.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:12 It may be … that the LORD will repay me with good for his cursing today. Cf. the opposite perspective in Prov. 24:17–18: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls … lest the LORD see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him” (cf. Prov. 26:2; also 1 Pet. 2:19–23; 3:9).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:14 arrived weary at the Jordan. The journey was 21 miles (36 km) from Jerusalem to the Jordan, and the road descended about 3,500 feet (1,067 m).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:15–17:23 Ahithophel and Hushai. The writer resumes his account from 15:37. For “Israel,” see note on 15:10.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:15–17 As the rebellious Absalom arrives in Jerusalem, Ahithophel, who has deserted to him from David (see note on 15:31–32), comes with him. Soon Hushai, a friend of David (see notes on 15:31–32; 15:37), arrives as well, proclaiming “Long live the king!” Why did you not go with your friend? (i.e., David; cf. 15:37). Understandably, Absalom questions the sincerity of Hushai’s greeting.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:18–19 No … I will serve you. Hushai probably knows it will be hard to convince Absalom that he has forsaken David and is now supporting Absalom.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:21–22 Following Ahithophel’s advice, Absalom publicly had sexual relations with several of David’s concubines who had been left behind to “keep the house” (15:16). Such an outrageous action would indeed have strengthened … the hands of Absalom’s followers, as he made it clear that he was claiming the throne. Nathan had prophesied such an event (cf. in the sight of all Israel with “in the sight of this sun,” 12:11), and the rooftop of 16:22 may have been the very rooftop from which David had seen Bathsheba (11:2).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 16:23 The high estimation of Ahithophel’s advice suggests that Hushai has a difficult task before him, in which he can succeed only with the help of the Lord.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:1–23 This chapter presents the crucial contest between Ahithophel and Hushai before Absalom and the elders of Israel (vv. 4, 14). Ahithophel makes the very sound proposal to attack and kill David immediately. With no one else to turn to, he says, the whole country would embrace Absalom. If this “good counsel” (v. 14) had been followed, it is likely that David, whose large group was indeed weary and discouraged (v. 2; see 16:14), would have been defeated. Absalom, however, decides to hear the opinion of Hushai. He trusts him enough to hear him but, sensibly, not enough to invite him to take part in the deliberations of the war council (Call Hushai, 17:5). Hushai gives a vivid, time-consuming speech full of similes, making a proposal that is flattering to Absalom as leader of all Israel (v. 11), but that will let David regroup and choose his own time and place of battle with his experienced, trained force. Hushai apparently then withdraws while the council considers the proposals. Hushai knows that if Ahithophel’s advice is accepted, there will be no time to lose, so even before he hears the results of the deliberations he sends word to David that he should at least cross the Jordan River (vv. 15–16). The council rejects Ahithophel’s good counsel in favor of Hushai’s deceptive and wrong counsel. The writer specifically says that this rejection was the work of the Lord: for the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel (v. 14). The poor decision seals Absalom’s doom. When Absalom finally gathers his army and goes after David (v. 24), David is already in Mahanaim in Gilead, with the forest of Ephraim (18:6) between him and Absalom.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:1 Ahithophel suggests that he himself lead the force against David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:7–13 my counsel is that all Israel be gathered to you … and that you go to battle in person (v. 11). Hushai appeals to Absalom’s pride and suggests that Absalom, not Ahithophel, should gather even more support and then personally lead the forces against David (v. 11). Hushai also stresses the undisputed facts of the bravery of David and his men and David’s reputation as a soldier among all Israel.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:13 Cities were often attacked by pulling down the walls by means of ropes attached to grappling hooks. Since cities were usually built on high places, they were hard to rebuild once the stones of their walls had been dragged into the valley. For attacking an entire city in order to get one person who had fled there, cf. 1 Sam. 23:7–13; 2 Sam. 20:14–22.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:17 En-rogel, now known as “Job’s Well,” is just south of where the Kidron Valley joins the Hinnom Valley, on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:7; 18:16). It would have been dangerous for the priests’ sons, apparently known supporters of David (2 Sam. 17:18), to be seen in Jerusalem. Therefore, a necessary link in the chain from Hushai to David is the female servant, probably a maid in the household of one of the priests whose normal duties took her to the water.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:23 He set his house in order and hanged himself. Ahithophel is wise enough to realize that the rejection of his advice means the defeat of Absalom and his own ruin, for God is with David, not Absalom.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:24–29 David Arrives at Mahanaim. From the place where he crossed the Jordan River (see 16:14), David had traveled another 37 miles (59 km) north.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:24 As Hushai suggested (v. 11), Absalom gathers all the men of Israel and goes after David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:25 For Absalom’s cousin Amasa, see note on 2:13.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 17:27 Mahanaim, a city in the deep canyon of the Jabbok River, is where Ish-bosheth had his capital. Shobi the son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites apparently was the brother of Hanun, the king of Ammon (10:2). David had probably set him on the throne in place of his brother (12:30). It is remarkable that he did not try to revolt at this time. Machir had sheltered Mephibosheth in his childhood (9:4). Barzillai later accompanies David on his trip back to Jerusalem (19:31–39). The fact that these people came from a distance suggests that David had real support in the area of Gilead.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:1–19:8a Death of Absalom. After a brief description of the battle, the author focuses on how Absalom died and on David’s grief over his son’s death.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:2–3 Ittai was mentioned in 15:19. David’s men believe that the success or failure of the rebellion depends on whether Absalom can kill David, an opinion that was also expressed by Ahithophel (17:3).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:5 Deal gently … with … Absalom. Why did David make this request? Was it out of pure fatherly love, or also a feeling of guilt toward Absalom?
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:6–8 The forest of Ephraim was actually not in Ephraim, but east of the Jordan in Gilead. Gilead was apparently known for its forests (Jer. 22:6). Here David’s experienced army could effectively attack a much larger force, most of whom were apparently unable to move around effectively in a forest (the forest devoured more people … than the sword).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:9 Mules were the normal mounts of the king’s sons (13:29). his head caught fast in the oak. Most take this to mean that the specific part of Absalom’s head that got tangled in the tree was his hair (cf. 14:26). In God’s providence, the source of his pride became the cause of his downfall.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:14 The narrator stresses repeatedly (vv. 5, 12) that David had ordered all the troops to spare Absalom. Joab probably worries that Absalom, who had risen from disgrace once before, even using Joab himself (14:1–24), might be able to cause problems again.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:17 every one to his own home. See note on 1 Sam. 4:10.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:18 I have no son. See note on 14:27. The author contrasts the memorial pillar with Absalom’s actual tomb, a big pile of rocks (18:17; cf. Josh. 7:26; 8:29). The “Absalom’s Tomb” now seen in the Kidron Valley in Jerusalem is a Hellenistic or Roman-period structure.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:19–23 today you shall carry no news, because the king’s son is dead. Joab does not seem to be trying to hide anything from David (Go, tell the king what you have seen). But he apparently wants to protect Ahimaaz, son of Zadok the priest, from having to deliver the bad news to David. Then Ahimaaz … outran the Cushite. It may be that the Cushite took a direct road over the mountains, while Ahimaaz took the longer but easier way along the plain.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:24 The two gates are the outer gate and the inner gate of the gate complex.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:25 A man running alone would be a messenger; a group would probably be men fleeing.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:29 a great commotion. Ahimaaz may have been trying to break the news gently. He must have known Absalom was dead, or else he would have just said he did not know anything.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 18:33 O Absalom, my son, my son! David is overcome with grief. He has lost another son whom he loved. First he lost Absalom’s love and loyalty, and now he has lost Absalom’s life and all hope of reconciliation. It is possible that David is beginning to see how God’s punishment for his sin with Bathsheba (prophesied by Nathan in 12:10–11) has tragically come to pass; but his grief is clouding his sight of his duties toward his loyal troops (19:1–8).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:2 So the victory that day was turned into mourning. David lets his own grief overcome not just his kingly responsibilities but even his gratitude to God for saving the nation.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:4–6 Because David has covered his face with grief, he has covered with shame the faces of his loyal servants. you love those who hate you and hate those who love you. The words for “love” and “hate” here can mean “be loyal” and “be disloyal.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:8 David makes peace with his men, behaving as king and sitting in the gate. Kings and elders are often described as sitting at the gate (Deut. 25:7; Ruth 4:11; 1 Kings 22:10; Jer. 39:3); at the excavations at Dan, what appears to be a canopy base has been found within the Iron Age gate. In the wake of Absalom’s failed rebellion, David will have to work at reuniting the nation.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:8b–43 David’s Return to Jerusalem. Although David can return to Jerusalem in triumph, there are still occasions for division. As Nathan had prophesied, because of David’s sin, the “sword [would] never depart” from his house (12:10).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:8b–15 The whole country finally agrees to bring David back, but even this creates problems as it shows the division between Judah and the rest of Israel. Israel (in this chapter referring to the northern tribes) had spoken with David about coming back to Jerusalem, but David has to make a special appeal to Judah. So a Judean contingent accompanies David back, apparently without consultation with the other tribes. However, Israel and Judah argue over the ceremony of David’s triumphal return to his capital (vv. 41–43).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:10–11 why do you say nothing? The question highlights the factions that developed within both Israel and Judah concerning the validity of David’s return to the throne. David uses the support he is getting from Israel to motivate Judah to action.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:13 commander of my army. It seems shocking to demote the victorious loyal general Joab in favor of the soundly defeated rebel general Amasa (17:25). Perhaps David pointed out that Joab had disobeyed his specific order about Absalom (18:5). He probably could have added that, if Joab claimed it had been necessary to kill Absalom, he (David) was also doing what was necessary to reunite the nation.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:15 Gilgal was an important religious center near Jericho and the Jordan River (Josh. 4:19; 5:10; 1 Sam. 10:8; 11:14; 13:12; 15:21), but its location is uncertain.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:16–23 At the Jordan (see v. 15), David meets various people he had encountered during his flight from Jerusalem. The first of these is Shimei, who had cursed him as he fled (16:5–13). Now that the Lord has repaid David with good for his patience under Shimei’s cursing (16:12), Abishai thinks Shimei should be put to death as he deserves. But David wants this to be a day of rejoicing, not retribution. However he apparently did not fully forgive Shimei (cf. 1 Kings 2:8–9, 36–46).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:24–30 David also met Mephibosheth the son of Saul. Mephibosheth was actually Jonathan’s son (4:4) and Saul’s grandson. But here the narrator emphasizes that Saul’s rightful heir (9:1–3) is submitting to David. Mephibosheth tells David that Ziba was lying when he said Mephibosheth had chosen to stay in Jerusalem (16:3). The narrator does not directly state which one is telling the truth—after all, he may not have had direct information—but the sorrow evidenced in 19:24 suggests that he believes Mephibosheth, and Mephibosheth’s gracious humility in v. 30 also supports this view. In a city facing invasion, when even the king’s household was grateful for two donkeys (16:1), it is not surprising that Mephibosheth, who was lame (19:26), was stuck when his own donkey was taken by Ziba.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:25 To Jerusalem implies that Mephibosheth “came down” (v. 24) from his home and arrived in Jerusalem to meet the king, and that this event occurred later, after David had come to Jerusalem.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:31–40 As he crossed the Jordan (see v. 15), David also met Barzillai, who had helped him in Mahanaim (v. 32; cf. 17:27). I will provide for you with me in Jerusalem. David wanted to repay Barzillai’s kindness, but Barzillai, who was eighty years old, preferred to return home, that I may die in my own city. David never forgot Barzillai’s help (1 Kings 2:7).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 19:41–43 Apparently David left Mahanaim and came to the Jordan without allowing time for all the northern tribes to come and accompany him. They resent this, being the larger group and considering themselves more loyal to David (vv. 9–11) than Judah, which they accuse of “privatizing” the king. The men of Judah retort that David did not favor his own tribe with grants (unlike Saul in 1 Sam. 22:7). In making Jerusalem his capital and bringing the ark there, David seems to have made an effort to be an Israelite king, not a Judahite king ruling Israel. But he was not able to overcome the division. We, our, and us in 2 Sam. 19:42–43 are singular—“I,” “my,” and “me”—in the Hebrew, suggesting the acrimony of the debate.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:1–26 Sheba’s Rebellion. Sheba’s rebellion is directly connected with the split within the nation seen in 19:41–43. It does not seem to have gained support outside of his own clan (20:14), but the feeling that the king was not treating them well seems to have lingered among the northern tribes, then increased under Solomon (who did not require Judah to supply him with food in the list in 1 Kings 4:7–19), and finally caused the nation to split in two (1 Kings 12).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:1 Seeming to say, “If we do not have 10 shares, we have none,” Sheba revolts. His rallying cry will later be used by Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:16). Saul (1 Sam. 13:3) and Absalom (2 Sam. 15:10) also announced their rebellions by a trumpet.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:3 The ten concubines are those whom Absalom had claimed in 16:22.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:4–5 David had made Amasa commander in 19:13, replacing Joab. Three days is a rather short time if he is supposed to gather men from all over Judah, and indeed he failed to gather an army in the set time that had been appointed him.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:6 When Amasa failed to produce an armed force on schedule (v. 5), David turned to Abishai, brother of Joab, David’s former general whom he had passed over in favor of Amasa (see note on 19:13). Abishai and Joab had often worked together in battle (3:30; 10:9–10; 18:2; also 1 Kings 11:15; 1 Chron. 18:12), so David probably should not have been too surprised at what soon transpired (2 Sam. 20:10). Sheba … will do us more harm than Absalom. David seems to have overestimated Sheba’s strength. Though “all the men of Israel” had initially followed him, apparently only the members of Sheba’s own Bichrite clan were truly committed to his cause (v. 14). Your lord’s servants refers to David’s standing army, as does “the servants of David” in 18:7.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:8–10 Readers are not told why Amasa was in Gibeon instead of Judah. The sword conspicuously falls out of Joab’s belt, but when he takes Amasa’s beard with his right hand, with his left hand he either picks it up again or gets out a hidden sword (cf. the story of Ehud in Judg. 3:15–23). Compare Joab’s similar murder of Abner in 2 Sam. 3:27 and his execution of Absalom in 18:14. brother. Joab and Amasa were first cousins.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:11–13 The people who are addressed in v. 11 and who stopped at the sight of Amasa were probably the “men of Judah” of v. 4 who had come from Judah to Gibeon with Amasa.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:14 Sheba and his men go to Abel, in the north of Israel, just west of Dan.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:15 The mound is a ramp built against the wall to get near its top. battering the wall. This might mean that Joab’s men were undermining the walls or, more generally, attacking the walls, as by battering rams.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:16–22 The woman is wise (v. 16), i.e., skilled in choosing means for an end (in this case, to avert destruction) and in persuasive speech. In this narrative, “wisdom” is not necessarily morally positive. A mother in Israel (v. 19) describes a main city with associated (daughter) villages (cf. Judg. 1:27). Israel is the heritage of the LORD. Joab denies (2 Sam. 20:20) that he has any desire to swallow up or destroy (the woman’s words): he will be content if Sheba is handed over to him. The woman goes one better, persuading the townspeople to cut off the head of Sheba to end the siege decisively. The hill country of Ephraim (v. 21) includes Benjaminite territory.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:22 Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king. Apparently David did not punish Joab for the murder of Amasa (since Joab was still commander at the end of David’s reign; 1 Kings 1:19), but he did not forgive him either (1 Kings 2:5).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 20:23–26 This list is very similar to the lists in 8:15–18 and 1 Kings 4:1–6. The posts and officials overlap to a large degree, but the order is different, and unlike the others, this one does not start out with the king. For Benaiah (2 Sam. 20:23), see note on 8:18. An official in charge of the forced labor (20:24) is not mentioned in ch. 8, so it is possible that this list is dated toward the end of David’s reign. The office is probably listed after the bodyguards as a military office because it involved mostly captured peoples, at least at first. Adoram was eventually stoned to death by the northern tribes at the time of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:18). He is probably the same person as Adoniram in 1 Kings 4:6. The office of overseeing the forced labor is not mentioned again in the Bible, but a seventh-century seal bearing a similar title has been found. For the offices of recorder (2 Sam. 20:24) and secretary, and Zadok and Abiathar (v. 25), see notes on 8:15–18 and 8:17. David’s priest (20:26) may have been similar to a private chaplain or adviser, probably the same office as Solomon’s “priest and king’s friend” (1 Kings 4:5).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:1–24:25 Epilogue. These last four chapters form an epilogue. There are six sections arranged concentrically. The first section deals with a drought, the last with a plague. The second and fifth talk about David’s heroes, and the middle two are psalms of David. They are not placed in chronological order with the rest of the book (note the vague expression “in the days of David” in 21:1). The last section is climactic, describing the events leading to the purchase of the land on which Solomon would build the temple.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:1–14 Famine and the Death of Saul’s Sons. When told by the Lord that a famine is the result of Saul’s misdeed against the Gibeonites, David has Saul’s sons slain to make atonement.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:1–2 Joshua 9 tells how the Gibeonites tricked the Israelites into guaranteeing their safety with an oath (Josh. 9:15). Because of his zeal, Saul had broken that oath and killed some Gibeonites. This incident is not recorded elsewhere, but Saul’s ability to act ruthlessly (though hardly out of zeal for Israel) is also shown in 1 Sam. 22:16–19.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:3–6 Asked how Saul’s misdeeds against them could be atoned, the Gibeonites requested that seven of his sons be given to them to be put to death. This apparently ignores the command in Deut. 24:16: “nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers.” Various explanations have been offered as to why God allowed this to happen: (1) These seven were accomplices in Saul’s acts. Yet the text in no way suggests this; furthermore, even Merab’s oldest son could scarcely have been more than 10 when Saul died, because David must have been at least in his late teens when Merab married (1 Sam. 18:19) and was no more than 30 when Saul died (2 Sam. 5:4). See also note on 4:2–3. (2) A more plausible suggestion is that God still exacted punishment from Saul’s house for some of the evil that Saul had done; this is consistent with a pattern elsewhere in which serious sins, especially of a king, result in punishment on the sinner’s descendants as well (cf. Ex. 20:5; 1 Sam. 2:33–34; 3:13–14; 1 Kings 14:10–11; 2 Kings 9:7–9). (3) A third suggestion is that the execution of seven men was excessive punishment, because although the Lord told David that Saul’s actions had caused the famine (2 Sam. 21:1), he did not tell David to put anyone to death. In that case, the solution proposed by the Gibeonites was excessively vindictive, while the text hints that a monetary payment (see v. 4) and the restoration of land (see v. 5) may have been sufficient. In any case, the narrator never tells readers that God approved of David’s action here; thus David may simply be acting according to widespread beliefs or the Gibeonite demands rather than divine command (see notes on 13:21; 16:1–4). The relief from the famine (21:14) does show that the payment was enough (and indeed more than enough), but it is also a response to David’s decency with the bones of these victims, as well as those of Saul and Jonathan.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:7–8 The writer lists the sons of Saul who were handed over to the Gibeonites. Mephibosheth the son of Rizpah (Saul’s concubine; see 3:7) is different from Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, who was spared. Likewise Barzillai, grandfather of five of the hanged men, is not the Barzillai of 19:31–40. For Merab’s marriage to Adriel, see 1 Sam. 18:19.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:9 The beginning of barley harvest was April.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:10–14 Rizpah, mother of two of the men hanged by the Gibeonites, sheltered their bodies from the birds and wild animals (cf. 1 Sam. 17:44, 46; Ps. 79:2). According to Deut. 21:22–23, the bodies of those who are hanged should be buried that same day (see Josh. 8:29). Until rain fell upon them may mean “until the rain should have fallen upon them.” It may have been decided that the men would not be buried until the rains fell and the famine stopped. This suggests that, when David heard what Rizpah was doing, he buried them earlier than planned, and then God responded (2 Sam. 21:14), probably by sending rain. David also took the bones of Saul and … his son Jonathan (see 1 Sam. 31:12–13) and, presumably, buried them alongside the seven others of Saul’s family who had just been killed. Saul was apparently from Gibeah (1 Sam. 11:4), but his family could have originally come from the Benjaminite town of Zela (Josh. 18:28).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:15–22 Philistine Wars. This section recounts four fights of David’s men with Philistine giants. “There was war again” suggests that this is an excerpt from some writing about David’s wars.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:16 The giants (Hb. rapah) are usually understood as referring to the Rephaim, the ancient, pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan (e.g., Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deut. 2:10–11, 20–21; 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12; 17:15).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:19 Elhanan … struck down Goliath the Gittite. Since in 1 Samuel 17 David killed Goliath of Gath (“Gittite” means someone from Gath), this statement has caused endless controversy. (1) Some say that the deed of Elhanan was later attributed to David, or that the name “Goliath” only later became attached to David’s victim, but these interpretations would deny the truthfulness of 1 Samuel 17, and other solutions are preferable. (2) Based on the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 20:5, some think that “Lahmi the brother of” has been deleted from the text before “Goliath” in this verse, and given some of the challenges encountered in establishing the original text of 1–2 Samuel (see Introduction to 1–2 Samuel: Text), this is a distinct possibility. (3) Another suggestion is that the passages refer to two different men named Goliath. Because there are so many duplicate names in the OT, this is also a possibility. (4) A final suggestion, similar to the third solution, is that “Goliath” was a common noun for a giant, just as “Achish” (1 Sam. 21:10; 27:2) may have been a title or common noun for a Philistine ruler (just as “Pharaoh” is a title of the king of Egypt, not a name). There is therefore no conflict in saying that both David and Elhanan killed [a] “Goliath.” The name “Goliath” is traceable back to the non-Semitic Anatolian name Walwatta, and the name has been found in an early Philistine inscription.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 21:21 Jonathan may be the Jonathan listed as one of David’s 30 mighty men (23:32). Shimei was David’s third eldest brother. His name is given in various forms in 1 Sam. 16:9; 17:13; 2 Sam. 13:3; and 1 Chron. 2:13.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:1–51 Song of David. David’s song is almost identical with Psalm 18. There are many differences in spelling, etc., in the Hebrew text of the two passages, but few of the differences come across in a translation. Most of these differences can be understood when one realizes that, while the book of Psalms, regularly used in worship, uses “standard” Hebrew spelling, the spelling in the Samuel passage is much more phonetic in character because as a narrative it was written as it was meant to be heard. In other words, David’s personal song of 2 Samuel 22 has been adapted to serve as a public hymn in Psalm 18 (see note). Such phonetic spelling is common throughout the books of Samuel (see Introduction to 1–2 Samuel: Text).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:1 The heading to David’s song does not refer to one particular incident, but to David’s deliverance from the hand of all his enemies. Similar elaborate descriptions, followed by “He said” (v. 2), can be found in the headings of second-millennium Egyptian songs.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:5–6 The name Sheol can refer to the place of the dead; here it is used as a synonym for “death.” All four lines say in prose, “I was facing death.”
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:7 Having described his situation, David now describes the Lord’s response. Heard (Hb. shama‘) does not simply mean a passive “hearing”; it implies an attentive listening and, usually, a positive response. Temple probably refers to the heavenly temple of God, from which he came down (v. 10; see Ps. 11:4; Mic. 1:2–3).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:8–16 The Lord’s sudden appearance to help David is described in vivid metaphor. The natural phenomenon that would cover most of the description is a volcano, which causes earthquake, smoke, fire, fiery coals, and ash clouds. Earthquake imagery is often associated with the Lord (Ps. 77:18; Isa. 5:25; 24:18). Earthquakes, if not volcanoes, were well known in that region; see Amos 1:1. Judges 5:4–5 reads, “LORD, when you went out from Seir … the earth trembled and the heavens dropped, yes, the clouds dropped water. The mountains quaked before the LORD.” Many of the references can also be taken as storm images; describing battle in terms of a storm is common both in the Bible and in other ancient Near Eastern literature. In this song, the Lord is depicted as a mighty warrior riding in a chariot drawn by the wind or a cherub. David is probably thinking mainly of actual fighting, though he may have also been thinking of some instances of spiritual battle.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:10 The Lord bowed (or “spread open” or “parted”; Hb. natah) the heavens.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:15 Them refers to David’s enemies.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:17 many waters. Cf. v. 5, where “waves” and “torrents” of trouble were overwhelming David.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:20 The Hebrew for broad place is the opposite of an expression for being “greatly distressed” (lit., “the matter is narrow for”) in 1 Sam. 30:6; 2 Sam. 13:2; etc.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:26–27 In Hebrew these are four lines, all of the form “With the X [person] you show yourself X.” To the crooked, i.e., to deceptive, dishonest people, God shows himself tortuous, i.e., he makes simple truths seem confusing and impossible to understand.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:28 This verse restates the theme of Hannah’s song at the beginning of Samuel (1 Sam. 2:7–8): God controls human destiny, humbling the proud but raising the humble.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:32–33 This also (cf. note on v. 28) is similar to 1 Sam. 2:2 (in Hannah’s song), extolling the Lord as a rock and the one and only God. It also reflects back to the beginning of David’s song (2 Sam. 22:2–3), calling God a refuge. The first part of the song (vv. 2–31) has described the fight in terms of the actions of the Lord; this next section (vv. 32–49) covers the fight with enemies in terms of what David did, thanks to the Lord, who equipped him for battle (v. 40).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:35 A bow of bronze is probably a bow reinforced with bronze, which would be difficult to draw but powerful. Note that “bronze” is a symbol of strength in Job 6:12; 40:18; Jer. 1:18; etc. God gave David skill and strength to conduct warfare and defeat his enemies.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:47–49 These verses end the second half of David’s song, summarizing what the Lord has done and repeating the key word rock.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 22:50–51 This is the conclusion of the whole of David’s song, with a reference to ch. 7 and to the last verse of the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:10).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:1–7 Last Words of David. The “last words of David” are a song praising God for establishing his house as the ruler; the song reflects back to God’s promise in 7:8–19. Like the wisdom psalms, it also contrasts the just ruler and worthless men. This psalm uses two different metaphors. One compares the righteous ruler to the morning light at sunrise and the shafts of sunshine on the grass after rain; the other compares worthless men to uprooted thorns.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:1 This long title section is similar to some Egyptian poems with a title. The formula the oracle of … the oracle of the man also appears in Num. 24:3, 15 (see also Prov. 30:1). The man who was raised on high refers to David’s kingly position. the sweet psalmist of Israel. Many psalms declare David as their author; cf. David’s musical gifts in 1 Sam. 16:18; 2 Sam. 1:17–18; Amos 6:5.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD speaks by me shows that David represents himself as a prophet, whose songs and wise sayings come from God (cf. Matt. 22:43; Acts 1:16; 2:30; 4:25; Heb. 4:7).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:3 The king who rules justly over men is one who rules in the fear of God, according to the divine statutes.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:4 Like the morning light, like the sun … like rain are images for bringing health and life. He in this verse is the just ruler of the previous verse, not God.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:5 This verse refers to the covenant God made with David in ch. 7 (see also Ps. 89:29; 132:12). Ordered in all things and secure is probably legal terminology, stressing the validity of the covenant.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:7 The Hebrew for consumed with fire may be rendered “consumed with fire in the sitting” (see esv footnote), which perhaps suggests “consumed with fire on the spot.” For fire as an instrument of God’s judgment, cf. Isa. 9:18; 10:17.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:8–39 David’s Heroes. This list of David’s mighty men begins formally with “These are the names of” and ends with the total number, “thirty-seven in all” (v. 39). (For lists, see note on 1 Sam. 6:17–18.) The list is divided into two groups: “the three,” i.e., Josheb-basshebeth, Eleazar, and Shammah (2 Sam. 23:8–12), and “the thirty” (23:18–39). Thirty-four names are listed among “the thirty”: this could mean that (1) “thirty” is a round number, or (2) the group began with 30 members and continued to be called “the thirty” when others were added; or (3) the group remained at 30, but when some died they were replaced by other names on this list (the parallel list in 1 Chron. 11:10–47 has 16 additional names in 1 Chron. 11:41–47, probably for this reason). These 34 names plus “the three” make up the “thirty-seven” of 2 Sam. 23:39.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:11–12 Shammah was defending the plot, or rather the lentils in it, against theft. Compare the Philistines’ robbing the threshing floors in 1 Sam. 23:1.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:13–17 These three men were apparently not the above “three,” but rather members of the “thirty.” This episode may have occurred while David was fleeing Saul, or possibly during one of the Philistine attacks in 5:17–25. Oh, that someone would give me water … from the well of Bethlehem. The taste of the water differs from place to place, and of course the water that one grew up drinking tastes best. David’s words are not a command; it probably did not occur to him that someone might actually act on his words. This episode shows the love that his men had for their leader and his regard for them.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:16–17 He poured it out to the LORD. This may at first seem wasteful of David, and ungrateful, but it is a gesture showing great value. He likens the water to the blood of his men, and for David to drink the water obtained at the risk of their lives would have been to take their blood lightly. But to pour it out before the Lord was a way of saying that he was not worthy of it, and he was offering it to the Lord instead. Such “drink offerings” were often poured out before the Lord: see Gen. 35:14; Num. 15:7–10; 28:7–15; etc.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:18–39 This is the list of David’s “thirty men.” They are Abishai, Benaiah, and the men listed in vv. 24–39. Most of the first dozen and a large part of the remainder are Judahites, so the group was probably formed early in David’s career. The list has 34 names, probably representing 35 men (see note on v. 32). Probably those of “the thirty” who died in battle, such as Asahel (v. 24; 2:18–23) and Uriah (11:17; 23:39), were replaced by others. Some of the names appear as officers in 1 Chronicles 27, and most appear in the list in 1 Chron. 11:20–47, which is an expansion of this but is not labeled as being a list of “the thirty” (cf. 2 Sam. 23:24 and 1 Chron. 11:26).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 23:32 The sons of Jashen probably refers to two men, possibly twins. In the list of names, however, they seem to be counted as one item. The translation of vv. 32–33 given here is the most natural, but it should be noted that those verses have been translated a number of ways (see also 1 Chron. 11:34–35).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:1–25 The Census and the Threshing Floor. The Lord’s anger and David’s sin lead to a plague, but also to the purchase of a site in Jerusalem to offer burnt offerings to the Lord.
c. 975 B.C.
David ordered his commander Joab to take a census of all the people in the regions in which he exercised direct control. The reason for this census was probably to assess David’s military capacity (see 2 Sam. 24:9; 1 Chron. 21:5). Joab’s men left Jerusalem and began the census at Aroer, on the edge of the Arnon River. They progressed to Jazer near Rabbah, to Gilead, and on to Dan. After turning toward Sidon and the fortress of Tyre, they headed to Beersheba in the Negeb of Judah, and then they returned to Jerusalem.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:1 Here the text says, the LORD … incited David, while 1 Chron. 21:1 reads, “Satan … incited David.” The Lord allowed Satan to incite David. God himself never does evil, but sometimes he uses evil moral agents (demons and sinful human beings) to accomplish his purposes. For more on how to reconcile the two accounts, see note on 1 Chron. 21:1; see also notes on Gen. 50:18–21; 1 Sam. 16:14; Mark 14:21; Acts 2:23; 4:28; 18:9–11; 27:30; 2 Tim. 2:10.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:3 By numbering the people for military purposes (v. 9), David apparently showed lack of trust in the Lord to supply the necessary men when needed, and wrongful pride in the hundreds of thousands of forces at his command (see v. 10). Joab knew it was wrong. Exodus 30:12 has a reference to the need for a “ransom” after the counting. Cf. note on 1 Chron. 21:5–6.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:5–8 The details of the census trip are not certain, but it seems that the men began at Aroer, a city on the Arnon River on the border with Moab, went north through Gilead and Bashan, and then went north-northwest to Dan. From there they went to the coast (the fortress of Tyre is probably not the city of Tyre, but an Israelite fortress), then south to Beersheba, and then back to Jerusalem.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:9 The numbering yields 800,000 valiant men in Israel and 500,000 in Judah. For the discrepancy in these numbers and those cited in 1 Chron. 21:5–6, see note there.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:10 David’s heart struck him. His conscience convicted him that his census was sin (see v. 17; and note on v. 3). I have sinned. The text does not specify why it was sin, but such an action could have been motivated by pride, trust in self, and lack of trust in the Lord.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:13 Although the Hebrew reads “seven years of famine”(see esv footnote), the text here follows the Septuagint and 1 Chron. 21:12, three years of famine, which makes good sense. If the Masoretic text is original, then “seven” is possibly used symbolically, since that time frame was a common theme in the ancient Near East (see Gen. 41:30; 2 Kings 8:1). Chronicles, then, would give the nonfigurative period. Famine, sword, and pestilence is a well-known trio of disasters (Jer. 14:12; 18:21; Ezek. 5:17; etc.). Probably the number of people who would die in each of these disasters would be approximately equal; pestilence kills faster (three days’) than famine (“three years”).
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:17 Behold, I have sinned. … But these sheep, what have they done? David pleads that the people may not suffer for his sin, but he is the representative of God’s people, and thus they bear the consequences of his behavior, whether good or evil. Please let your hand be against me. David offers personally to bear the punishment for this sin, but God does not accept the offer. This is, however, a worthy gesture on David’s part, and sets the pattern for his ultimate descendant, the Messiah, who will bear the punishment due his people.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:18 Go up. From David’s home there was a yet higher place, the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. The Jebusites were the previous inhabitants of Jerusalem (see 5:6), some of whom still lived there.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:20 Araunah looked down. Threshing floors were usually on a high place so that the wind could blow the chaff away. This location would later become the site of the temple (see note on v. 25). It is on the top of the hill to the north of the city of David, about 450 yards (412 m) from it. (See illustration.)
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:23–24 David feels that because he is the one who sinned, and because it is for the sake of the nation, he should pay for the sacrifice. He pays fifty shekels of silver for the threshing floor and the oxen. First Chronicles 21:25 says that he paid “600 shekels of gold by weight for the site”; probably the “site” mentioned there is the larger piece of land on Mount Moriah.
2 SAMUEL—NOTE ON 24:25 God accepted David’s burnt offerings, and through the peace offerings David enjoyed the presence of the Lord. Thus God responded to the plea for the land. But this site will become much more significant in the future, for as the parallel account (in 1 Chron. 22:1) states, this threshing floor is the site on which Solomon would build the temple to the Lord—making this a fitting end to the story of David.