Annotations for 2 Samuel

1:1 Amalekites. See note on 1 Sam. 15:2.

1:2 with his clothes torn and dust on his head. Signs of distress and mourning (see note on 1 Sam. 4:12).

1:6 chariots. See note on 1 Sam. 13:5. While chariots are not mentioned in the account of Saul’s death in 1 Sam. 31 (where Saul’s injuries are inflicted by archers, see 1 Sam. 31:3), there is no necessary discrepancy here, as chariots often served as mobile firing platforms for archers. horsemen. Lit. “horse-masters” or “master horsemen,” a phrase that occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. In light of the late introduction of cavalry to Syria and Palestine, they are probably to be thought of as “charioteers.”

1:10 the crown that was on his head and the bracelet that was on his arm. From the evidence of reliefs, it is apparent that crowns of many shapes and sizes were worn by gods, kings and other important individuals throughout the ancient Near East from earliest times. The specific character of the Saul’s crown and armband is unknown, but given the fact that Saul was able to wear them into battle, it is fair to assume that they were of lightweight construction. Further support for this assumption comes from the fact that the Hebrew word here rendered “crown,” more properly connotes something like a “diadem” (i.e., a circular, ornamental headdress, sometimes bearing precious stones). Diadems could be added to the turbans frequently worn by ancient Near Eastern kings, priests and others. Israel’s high priest wore not only a fine linen turban, but a diadem as well, from the front of which hung a gold plate engraved with the words “HOLY TO THE LORD” (Ex. 28:36). Saul’s crown may have been a similar diadem with royal insignia attached. The nature of Saul’s armband is also uncertain, there being only one other mention of such an “armlet” in the Bible (Num. 31:50), but it too must have served to symbolize Saul’s royal status.

1:17–27 Among the various lamentations and elegies known from the ancient Near East, the best known is Gilgamesh’s lament for his dead friend Enkidu. David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan exhibits a number of general similarities—e.g., a broad public is addressed (v. 18); martial imagery is prevalent and deeds of valor are celebrated (vv. 21–22); physical prowess is highlighted (v. 23); deep affection and grief are expressed (v. 26); and there is a recurring refrain (vv. 19,25,27). Parallels like this do not suggest that David has borrowed an ancient Near Eastern lament; they just situate David in the literary world of the time, using genres and motifs that were familiar in those days.

1:18 Song of the bow. The sense of this title has puzzled commentators and sparked several explanations. The word “lament” is not explicitly stated in the Hebrew text, and the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) omits the word “bow.” The sense then would be that David is ordering that the lament he is about to take up should be taught to the children of Israel. If the word “bow” is retained, however, it may refer to Jonathan (whose bow is mentioned in v. 22) and serve as a title for the lament. Referring to Jonathan or Saul by the weapon(s) they wielded appears to be attested in the closing line of the lament, where “weapons of war” (v. 27) probably stands for Saul and Jonathan. The later designation of Elijah and Elisha as “the chariots and horsemen of Israel” (2 Kin. 13:14) offers an analogue. Book of Jasher. Appears to have been a book of early Israelite poetry, now lost. In addition to the present passage, it is mentioned in Josh. 10:12–13 in the account of Joshua’s exceptional day in defense of the Gibeonites. The name is generally assumed to derive from the Hebrew word meaning “upright, just, righteous,” and the like, suggesting that the Book of Jasher may have celebrated the exploits of heroic individuals in Israel or of the Israelites as a whole, as the Lord’s “upright” people. Alternatively, the name may reflect the Hebrew word for “song,” yielding simply the “Book of Song.”

1:20 uncircumcised. See note on Judg. 14:3.

1:21 shield of Saul, not anointed with oil. Ancient Near Eastern shields came in a variety of shapes and sizes. One of the most prevalent constructions involved a wooden shield covered with leather. Fifteenth-century BC wall paintings from the tomb of the Egyptian Rekhmire illustrate the various steps in the construction of such shields. To preserve and condition leather shields, oil was periodically rubbed into them (cf. Is. 21:5). An Old Babylonian text from Tell Asmar records “one sila of oil to rub the shield(s).”

1:26 my brother Jonathan ... Your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women. Some modern readers, unaware or neglectful of the Biblical and ancient Near Eastern background to such expressions of love, have tried to read a homosexual nuance into David’s words. However, “love language” was often used to express loyalty in legal contexts, where the legal (and not sexual) connotations of words such as “dear” and “beloved” is evident. The same is true of the Hebrew word for “love” in many contexts. Commentators have perhaps been led astray by David’s extolling of Jonathan’s love as “surpassing the love of women,” but David’s intent may simply have been to underscore the remarkably selfless character of Jonathan’s loyalty to David and willingness to defer to him with regard to the kingship (1 Sam. 18:3–4).

2:2 Ahinoam the Jezreelitess and Abigail ... the Carmelite. See notes on 1 Sam. 25:39b; 25:43.

2:4a anointed David king. See note on 1 Sam. 2:10. Several factors converge to make the anointing of David as king by the major southern tribe of Judah understandable: (1) the recent successes of the Philistines in the battle of Gilboa may have limited the ability of more northerly tribes to participate, even had they wanted to; (2) the death of most of Saul’s house would have created uncertainty regarding the succession, even for those unaware of or unwilling to accept the fact that Saul’s house had been rejected; (3) government by city-kings was well-known in Canaan and a previous attempt to establish a king had been initiated by a tribe (Judg. 9).

2:4b–7 Jabesh Gilead represented a strong constituency of Saul since he rescued them (1 Sam. 11). David is arguing that since Saul and his family are dead, there is no further loyalty owed to them; they have “repaid” Saul by giving him proper burial, and David will see to their defense in the same way Saul had. By gaining favor from these staunch supporters of Saul, David hopes to sway others to follow him as well.

2:8 Abner ... took Ishbosheth the son of Saul ... to Mahanaim. In the aftermath of Israel’s defeat by the Philistines at the battle of Gilboa, Abner had little choice but to seek to establish a rump kingdom in Transjordan. The former heart of the kingdom of Saul west of the Jordan would have been too vulnerable to repeated Philistine attack.

2:9 He made him king over ... all Israel. Both the specific sites over which Ishbosheth is to have been made king, as well as the summary of his domain as “all Israel,” probably represent merely the territories to which Ishbosheth laid claim, irrespective of whether he actually exercised control over them. The scenario of a military strongman (in this instance Abner) propping up a weak heir to the throne is not without precedent in the ancient Near East.

2:13 Joab son of Zeruiah. Joab, who served as commander of David’s forces (see 8:16), is here mentioned for the first time in the Bible. He was a nephew of David, being one of three sons of David’s sister Zeruiah (1 Chr. 2:13–16). pool of Gibeon. A pool excavated at Gibeon was created by carving a cylinder some 39 feet (12 meters) in diameter and 35 feet (10.5 meters) deep into limestone bedrock, removing some 3,000 tons (2,720 metric tons) of limestone in the process. A 5-foot-wide (1.5-meter-wide) staircase spirals down the side of the cylinder, providing access to the flat floor of the large cylinder. The stairs do not end here, however, but continue in a narrower shaft some 45 feet (13.7 meters) farther down, until they reach the water table. The purpose of this two-part construction is somewhat mysterious, but it has been suggested that the large cylinder may have been a first phase, intended to serve as a cistern. (Given the dry summer season, larger settlements in Canaan found it necessary to find ways to capture and preserve water.) The narrower shaft may have been dug when it was determined that the spring feeding the other water system at Gibeon lay somewhere below the large cylinder.

2:14 The Hebrew terminology employed in this verse has led some interpreters to assume that the event involved some kind of sport or exhibition that became overly serious and turned out badly. The Hebrew word rendered “young men” can mean “youths,” and the Hebrew word rendered “fight” often means “play” or “sport”; thus, Abner’s suggestion would be that youths from the opposing sides arise and make sport (perhaps engage in mock fighting) for the entertainment of the others. More likely, however, what we have here is an example of representative combat by a team of select warriors to decide the fates of the opposing armies. The concept of representative combat has been encountered already in the contest between David and Goliath, where David gained a decisive victory, killing Goliath and putting the Philistine army to flight (see the article “Combat by Champions”). The term “young men” then refers here, as in other military contexts, to professional soldiers. The line between the two understandings of the contest, mock fighting or contest of champions, should perhaps not be too sharply drawn—one need only think of medieval jousting to understand that the line between sport and battle may have been thin. The purpose of “single combat,” or “representative combat,” whether by individuals or, as here, by a group of elite soldiers, was to decide victory without the necessity of wider bloodshed. The outcome here was decidedly inconclusive. However, “each one grasped his opponent by the head and thrust his sword in his opponent’s side; so they fell down together” (v. 16), with the result that “there was a very fierce battle that day” (v. 17).

2:21 take his armor for yourself. The rank or status of a soldier was indicated by the quality of his weapons, which would become the property of the victor if he was defeated in combat. Asahel wants to claim the enemy commander’s gear.

2:23 Abner struck him in the stomach with the blunt end of the spear. Unless the text should read “with a backward thrust,” then Abner’s ability to kill a man with the butt of his spear reflects both his own physical prowess and the fact that the butt end of spears would have typically been fitted with a metal casing useful for prodding and for sticking the spear into the ground (without damaging the spearhead itself); recall 1 Sam. 26:7, where Saul’s spear was “stuck in the ground near his head.” Archaeological excavations have uncovered numerous such end casings, and they can be seen also in wall paintings.

2:28 trumpet. Used as a signaling device (see note on Josh. 6:4).

2:32 buried him in his father’s tomb, which was in Bethlehem. In Israel’s monarchal period, it was common practice for important families to bury succeeding generations of their dead in rock-cut or cave tombs or tomb complexes—thus perhaps explaining the expression “rest with your ancestors” (7:12) or “gathered to his people” (Gen. 25:8; see note there). The bones of earlier burials would be either collected in a “charnel pit” or simply pushed to the periphery of the tomb, while the most recently deceased would be placed on a bench shelf, often surrounded by personal items (see note on Gen. 23:4).

3:2–5 The numeric growth of David’s family attests to the growing strength of his house, in contrast to the house of Saul (v. 1). Four additional wives (or concubines) aid in the process of David’s siring six sons, and in 5:13–16, after David’s arrival in Jerusalem, further wives/concubines will be added, and at least eleven more children will be born to David (cf. 1 Chr. 3:1–9). It was common practice among powerful kings in the ancient Near East to multiply wives and children. Kings established their political strength through the network that was established through marriage alliances. The Biblical narrator withholds judgment for the time being on David’s “royal” behavior, though the instruction in Deut. 17:14–20 to future kings of Israel is that they “must not take many wives” (Deut. 17:17).

3:7 Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine? In the ancient Near East, a household might at times include a primary wife and one or more subordinate wives or concubines, the latter being defined as women by whom a man might father children, but who brought no dowry into the relationship and thus did not enjoy the status of full wife. While monogamy may have been the (flexible) norm among common folk in the ancient Near East (see note on 1 Sam. 1:2), polygamy was common among the powerful, especially kings (for David’s growing harem, see notes on 1 Sam. 25:39b,43). A king’s wives and concubines were a reflection of his power and position, often involving political alliances through marriage, and so for an outsider to sleep with one of these women was, among other things, a direct assault on the husband’s status and position. In the Bible, to sleep with a royal wife or concubine was tantamount to usurping the throne (see note on 2 Sam. 16:21), and even to ask to marry a concubine of a deceased king was considered treason (1 Kin. 2:22). In the present episode, the narrator does not state explicitly whether Abner had or had not slept with Saul’s concubine Rizpah, but it does state that “Abner was strengthening his hold on the house of Saul” (v. 6), perhaps aggravating Ishbosheth’s suspicions. Abner’s incensed response in v. 8 to Ishbosheth’s charge—unless he was simply feigning indignation—suggests that he was innocent of the specific charge.

3:8 dog’s head. This expression is found nowhere else in Biblical or ancient Near Eastern literature, and so its significance can only be surmised. Dogs were not highly regarded in the ancient Near East, and to be a “dog” was at best to be insignificant, to be a “dead dog” was to be less significant still (see note on 1 Sam. 24:14), and to be a “dog’s head” was to be perhaps worst of all (particularly if “head” is being used euphemistically for the opposing end of the dog). In the OT specifically, dogs were considered unclean (Lev. 11:26–28), aggressive scavengers (2 Kin. 9:35–36), and disgusting (Prov. 26:11), so Abner’s choice of image aptly captures his sense of outrage at Ishbosheth’s accusation.

3:13 bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come. Several ancient Near Eastern law codes stipulate what was to be done when a husband was either voluntarily or involuntarily absent from his wife for a long period. The Mesopotamian Laws of Eshnunna, e.g., state that if a man is taken prisoner by an invading force and carried away to a foreign country, he shall receive his wife back upon his return, even if she has been taken by another man, but if a man “repudiates his city and his master and then flees,” he shall have no right to reclaim his wife upon his return. The Code of Hammurapi addresses the issue similarly, adding that a woman incurs no blame by entering the house of another man, but only if “there are not sufficient provisions in [her absent husband’s] house.” If the husband has voluntarily deserted his city and his wife and she “enters another’s house,” then upon his return “because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband.” Middle Assyrian laws run along similar lines, but qualify the code in further respects. To name but one example, even if a woman was voluntarily deserted by her husband and was left without “oil or wool or clothing or provisions or anything else,” she was still required to “remain [the exclusive object of rights] for her husband for five years” before considering other options. In the light of ancient Near Eastern legal tradition, David was within his rights to demand the return of his wife Michal—his absence from her was involuntary, necessitated by Saul’s attempts to kill him—and Saul should probably be faulted for giving her to another man (1 Sam. 25:44). Saul’s treatment of Michal was almost certainly motivated more by political considerations than by concern for her best interests, and the same can probably be said of David’s motivation in demanding her back. She is a pawn in a power play. Michal was David’s tie to the former royal house of Benjamin, and her return to his own house would have served his own royal ambitions. Further, the text’s poignant picture of Paltiel “weeping behind” (v. 16) seems intended to contrast Paltiel’s affection with David’s political maneuvering.

3:27 Joab took him aside in the gate. City gateways in ancient Israel were not simple openings, but complex affairs often involving several chambers, where elders would sit and business was transacted. Joab’s action would not have aroused Abner’s suspicion but, as the text indicates, would only have suggested that Joab wished to have a private word with him. Given the prominence of the city of Hebron in David’s day, it likely would have had a sizable gate complex in which Joab could catch Abner unawares.

3:29 David would have gained much benefit from an alliance with Abner, so he is truly distressed by Joab’s unsanctioned act of violence. In distancing himself from Joab’s egregious murder of Abner, David curses Joab using formulaic language familiar from elsewhere in the ancient Near East. First, he calls down upon Joab’s family the worst of chronic and socially ostracizing diseases. Appended to the Code of Hammurapi, e.g., is a curse threatening any potential offender with divine action that would “inflict upon him in his body a grievous malady, an evil disease, a serious wound that never heals, whose nature no physician knows, which he cannot allay with bandages, which like a deadly bite cannot be rooted out.” David concludes his curse by invoking death (“falls by the sword”) and poverty (“lacks food”) on Joab’s family. Less certain in its interpretation is the middle element in which David expresses his desire that the family of Joab never be without someone “who leans on a staff.” While the NKJV rendering is traditional, it seems less likely than two other possibilities. One is that David is condemning Joab’s male descendants to be effeminate and unworthy of warfare. This reading is based on the fact that the Hebrew word rendered “staff” by the NKJV is more likely, in view of Semitic cognates and its rendering in Prov. 31:19, to mean “spindle” or “distaff,” a weaving tool associated in the ancient Near East with female activities. The Hittite Soldier’s Oath offers an example of the curse of effeminacy on disloyal soldiers. Their oaths would “change” those who were disloyal into women by having them dress as women, break their weapons, and be given women’s accessories. Alternatively, taking the key word to mean “work-duty” or “tax in the form of conscripted labor,” David’s curse may have been that Joab’s family would never be without someone working on a “chain gang,” i.e., forced labor (see note on Josh. 16:10).

4:4 a son who was lame in his feet. That Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth—called Merib-Baal in 1 Chr. 8:34; 9:40 (on intentional name distortions, see note on 1 Sam. 25:25)—is described as lame in [both] feet may suggest that he had received a spinal cord injury. It is possible, however, that he received (compound) fractures that either were not or could not be set properly. Medicine designed to treat illness and injury was practiced in the ancient Near East from early times, and although splinting was practiced, compound fractures were generally hopeless.

4:12 cut off their hands and feet, and hanged them by the pool. See note on 1 Sam. 31:4; cf. 1 Sam. 5:3–4. Though mutilation of this sort was not uncommon in the ancient Near East, there may be a special significance here, namely, removal of the offending members—hands that committed the murder and feet that brought the news.

5:3 elders of Israel. See note on Judg. 2:7.

5:6 Jerusalem. David’s interest in Jerusalem (where he would eventually establish his royal capital) likely stemmed from its strategic location and relatively independent status. Occupied already in the third millennium BC (and even earlier), Jerusalem in the time of David lay within the territorial allotment of the small tribe of Benjamin, close to the northern border of Judah, but it had never come under full Israelite control. The city had been conquered by Judah in the period of the judges (Judg. 1:8), but neither Judah nor Benjamin had been successful in permanently occupying the city or in driving out its Jebusite inhabitants (Josh. 15:63; Judg. 1:21). Thus, David may have viewed Jerusalem as an ideal candidate for a national capital—centrally located between the northern and southern tribes within one of the smaller tribes that would be unlikely to evoke jealousy from the others, and not yet conquered. Jebusites. See note on Deut. 7:1. the blind and the lame will repel you. An exchange of taunts or insults prior to battle was common practice in the ancient Near East. The meaning of the Jebusites’ taunt has elicited considerable discussion and numerous suggestions, but no interpretation has achieved a consensus. Perhaps it was suggestive of over-confidence—i.e., “even our handicapped can keep you at bay”—or simply of a determination to fight to the last man (even be he blind or lame). Or perhaps it involved some kind of hex, or harked back to a prior treaty between David and the Jebusites in which the blind or lame were invoked in the ratification ceremony. Perhaps the precise meaning of the taunt is beyond recovery (apart from the basic Biblical explanation that by it the Jebusites meant “David cannot get in here”).

5:7 stronghold of Zion. The etymology of the name “Zion,” which occurs here for the first time in the Bible, has not been firmly established, but suggestions include “castle,” “bare place,” “bare hill,” etc. The stronghold of Zion probably referred originally to a fortress atop the recently discovered stepped stone structure on the northeast side of the city overlooking the Kidron Valley. The name eventually was extended to designate Jerusalem itself (e.g., 2 Kin. 19:21; Is. 2:3) or even the entire nation of Israel (e.g., Ps. 149:2; Is. 46:13).

5:8 water shaft. Since Charles Warren’s discovery in 1867 of an approximately 50-foot (15-meter) vertical shaft not too far from the Gihon spring but within the walls of the ancient City of David, many scholars have assumed that David’s instructions to “use the water shaft to reach those ‘lame and blind’ who are David’s enemies” must relate to what came to be called “Warren’s Shaft.” This view was never universally accepted, however, and has recently been rejected by many scholars. In the end, it is difficult to retrace with any confidence Joab’s daring entry into the Jebusite city (cf. 1 Chron. 6:11 and NKJV text note). Certainly, the general notion that he entered through some kind of water shaft or water tunnel system, even if not the specific structure discovered by Warren, seems reasonable enough.

5:9 called it the City of David. The practice of renaming a captured (or purchased) city and making it one’s capital and principal residence is attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Such cities, which were often considered part of the ruler’s personal estate, not only enjoyed the most ambitious building projects but also, as far as the administrative personnel were concerned (typically relatives of the king), enjoyed such privileges as exemption for taxation, military duty or corvée labor. These latter privileges stemmed not least from the fact that from Mesopotamia to Egypt such cities were typically “temple cities,” which were to be governed by the god alone and therefore free of obligations toward the government.

5:11 Hiram king of Tyre. Tyre was a major Phoenician seaport city situated on an island off the Mediterranean coast some 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Mount Carmel and 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Sidon. Only about 100 miles (160 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, Tyre’s commercial and cultural influence was felt throughout the ancient world and throughout the duration of Israel’s history. In the time of David, Tyre, under king Hiram I, experienced its first golden age. Hiram’s generosity to David is a testimony to the impressiveness of David’s own accomplishments, but it was likely also motivated by self-interest: Hiram may well have wanted to make sure that David did not deny him access to inland trade routes and necessary agricultural produce (cf. the goods supplied to Sidon and Tyre in Ezra 3:7). Hiram I is not mentioned in ancient Near Eastern texts outside the Bible, but the much later Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC) includes a different Hiram of Tyre in a list of those from whom he received tribute. Yet another Hiram is attested in the early tenth-century BC sarcophagus inscription of Ahiram, king of Byblos. cedar trees. The cedars of Lebanon (Cedrus libani), which could grow to heights of 130 feet (40 meters) and live as long as 3,000 years, were much admired in the ancient Near East, and their timbers were much coveted for the construction of temples and palaces. The beauty, aroma and durability of the wood was unsurpassed, and the kings of Mesopotamia and Egypt were importing cedar timbers from the Lebanese region as early as the fourth millennium BC. About a century before David’s reign, the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser I (1115–1076 BC) includes the following in a report of an expedition to Lebanon and the Mediterranean: “I went to Lebanon (Lab-na-a-ni). I cut (there) timber cedars for the temple of Anu and Adad, the great gods, my lords, and carried (them to Ashur).”

5:13 David took more concubines and wives. See notes on 1 Sam. 25:39b,43.

5:17 the Philistines went up. David’s rule over Judah from Hebron had not been contested by the Philistines, but the extension of his domain to include the northern tribes posed a threat to Philistine interests that they could not ignore. stronghold. Its identity is debated. In the present context, one naturally thinks of the “stronghold of Zion” captured by David in v. 7 and occupied by him in v. 9. However, some regard the expression “went down” as inappropriate in reference to Jerusalem and suggest that David returned to a stronghold of prior acquaintance, perhaps at Adullam.

5:18 Valley of Rephaim. Generally identified with the Wadi el-Ward, the Valley of Rephaim would have run essentially east-west about a mile (1.5 kilometers) south of the present-day Old City of Jerusalem. The deployment of Philistines in this valley made good strategic sense, as it would have hindered Judahite reinforcements from joining David in Jerusalem.

5:21 left their images there. On ancient Near Eastern conceptions of the involvement of the god(s) in warfare and on the common practice of carrying off defeated deities, see note on 1 Sam. 5:2. While the captured gods of defeated foes were often placed in the temples of the more powerful, victorious deities, the Biblical text here gives no indication that David followed this practice. The parallel account in Chronicles completes the picture: “The Philistines had abandoned their gods there, and David gave orders to burn them in the fire” (1 Chr. 14:12; cf. the instructions of Deut. 7:5,25). While less common than subordinating (or simply adding) captured gods to the existing pantheon, the practice of denigrating the power of and even destroying captured gods is known in the ancient Near East. Ashurbanipal, e.g., exemplifies the former practice with the following remark regarding the gods of the Elamites: “I counted their gods and goddesses as powerless ghosts.” In another place, he attests the latter practice as well, again in reference to the Elamite gods: “I smashed their gods and thereby soothed the heart of the lord of lords.”

5:23–24 Though there are uncertainties of interpretation in these verses—e.g., are we to read “mulberry trees” or, perhaps, a place-name?—two typical aspects of Israelite warfare are evident: clever strategies capitalizing on deception and surprise and divine assistance through the orchestration of natural or supernatural events (cf. 2 Kin. 7:6, where Yahweh “caused the Arameans to hear the sound of chariots and horses and a great army”). Here it is not clear whether only David and his army could hear the sound or whether the Philistines also heard it and thought they were being attacked by a much larger force.

5:24 the LORD will go out before you. The concept of the Divine Warrior was not unique to Israel (see note on 1 Sam. 14:6). A major tenet of Divine Warrior theology was that God or the gods went before the troops to enable victory by demoralizing, confusing or terrifying the enemy. At times the deity would “thunder” against the enemy (1 Sam. 2:10; see note there), cause the earth to shake (see 1 Sam. 14:15 and note) or in other ways befuddle, trick and dispirit the enemy.

6:1–23 Various studies have compared the present episode to ancient Near Eastern accounts of ceremonies accompanying the return of a deity to its temple. While aspects of these studies are illuminating, the more pertinent analogues to David’s bringing the ark up to Jerusalem are ancient Near Eastern accounts of the introduction of a national god to a new royal city. Examples include inscriptions of the Assyrian kings Sargon II (721–705 BC), Sennacherib (704–681 BC), and Esarhaddon (680–669 BC), each of which recounts the arrival or restoration of a deity in a (new) royal city. Most lavish of all is the account of Ashurbanipal II’s inauguration of the palace in Calah: First, “he invited into it Ashur, the great lord and the gods of his entire country,” to whom he, secondly, offered sacrifices of extraordinary quantity and variety, and then, thirdly, “treated for ten days with food and drink 47,074 persons, men and women,” along with other guests, bringing the total to 69,574. David’s actions here in ch. 6 follow a similar pattern: Yahweh, as represented by the ark of God, is brought into the new royal city of David, sacrifices are offered, and the people are treated to a banquet.

6:2 Baale Judah. Another name for Kiriath Jearim (cf. 1 Sam. 6:21). If the site has been correctly identified, then the journey from Baale to Jerusalem would have been seven to eight miles (about 12 kilometers). the ark of God. See note on Ex. 25:16. cherubim. See note on Ex. 25:18.

6:3 new cart. While the choice of a “new” cart was doubtless motivated by a desire for ritual purity, it was nevertheless an inappropriate choice. Recalling Philistine precedent set in 1 Sam. 6:7, this mode of transporting the ark entirely neglected the divine directive that the ark, equipped with rings and poles (Ex. 25:12–14; 37:5), was to be carried, not carted (e.g., Num. 4:15, 19; 7:9; Deut. 10:8; Josh. 3:8).

6:5 The musical instruments mentioned in this verse are for the most part well-known both in the Bible and in the ancient Near East generally (see 1 Sam. 10:5; 18:6; see the articles “Harp”; “Music and Musicians”). sistrums. Mentioned only here in the Bible, a sistrum was a metallic instrument known particularly among the ancient Egyptians. Several wires were attached to a metal hoop in such a way that shaking the instrument would produce a jingling sound. The etymology of the Hebrew word suggests that the key aspect of the instrument was that it was a “shaker” of some sort. This has led to the alternative suggestion that the instrument may have been a “(pottery) rattle.” Dozens of pottery rattles, averaging about four inches (ten centimeters) in height, have been discovered in ancient Palestine. Used from as early as the second millennium BC until they were generally replaced by metal bells in the ninth century BC, these rattles consisted of enclosed hollow pottery vessels containing one or more small pellets.

6:13 six paces. The nature of the ritual procedure described in this verse has been described in two distinct ways. The first is that after those carrying the ark had taken their first six steps without incident, a sacrifice was performed in thanksgiving for the apparent divine approval of David’s second attempt to transport the ark to Jerusalem. The second, likelier interpretation is that a sacrifice was offered each time the bearers of the ark had taken six steps. While the number of sacrificial animals would have been considerable (though not compared with Solomon’s ceremony to install the ark in the temple, 1 Kin. 8:5,63) and the ritual procession rather slow moving, Assyrian sources offer a possible analogue to such a procession. When restoring the image of Marduk to Babylon, the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal offered a sacrifice every two miles (three kilometers) over a distance of 250 miles (400 kilometers). David would have made the same number of sacrifices as Ashurbanipal within a half mile (0.8 kilometers).

6:14 danced. Scrutiny of the Hebrew words used to describe David’s dancing suggest that it was an exuberant, energetic leaping and whirling about. While ancient Near Eastern literature provides no other examples of kings dancing in such processions, instances of the queen joining in a ritual dance, followed by other dignitaries, are known from Hittite sources. Depictions of dancers in a broad range of ancient Near Eastern pictorial sources give some sense of what this dancing may have been like. Dancing was done either in groups or singly, and was often quite acrobatic. Dancing took place in a variety of settings and for a variety of reasons, as it has in most cultures up to the present time. It could be a spontaneous expression of joy and playfulness; on occasion it could verge into eroticism; and it was often a component of cultic ceremonies. Dancing was not always evaluated positively; an Akkadian letter from the first half of the second millennium BC criticizes a woman who had “greatly aggravated the matter.” The letter explains: “In addition to dancing about every day, she has slighted us by consistently behaving thoughtlessly.” Mostly, though, dancing was deemed a reflex of joy and well-being. David’s whirling dance apparently combined personal exuberance with cultic performance. ephod. See note on 1 Sam. 2:18; David apparently laid aside his royal insignia and clothed himself in a priestly garment (or perhaps the attire of a dancer) in order to participate in the procession.

6:15 trumpet. See note on Josh. 6:4.

6:20 How glorious was the king of Israel today. David’s humbling of himself before Yahweh finds at least general analogy in Mesopotamian ritual texts. A ritual text from the reign of late thirteenth- or early twelfth-century BC Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I, e.g., describes the king’s divestment of royal insignia and humble appearance as supplicant before the god Assur. Following his humiliation, the king is “reinvested with the symbols of office, is crowned, and is extolled with praises and wishes for a long reign.”

7:1 rest. Pertains to God’s provision of stability and security for the kingdom or community. In the ancient Near East, kings built temples to provide rest for the god (a place where the god would be cared for). God had promised to provide rest for His people Israel in Deut. 12:10, and here has provided it for His chosen king. When rest is achieved, the king can rule as he maintains order and justice for his people. These same desires for both God and king are common in the ancient world.

7:2 Nathan the prophet. Mentioned here for the first time. He will play a significant role also in ch. 12 and in 1 Kin. 1. That David should approach a prophet to seek (oracular) approval for his intent to build a temple is in keeping with general ancient Near Eastern practice. From the late third millennium BC, we have the example of Gudea of Lagash who set out to build a temple for his god, but not without first receiving divine approval. Examples of kings seeking divine sanction for temple building could easily be multiplied, and there are also instances of divine sanction being withheld. We only learn of these latter instances from later kings reporting on the failures of their predecessors, and the reasons are not given. See the article “Prophets and Prophecy.” a house of cedar. The mention of cedar is suggestive of the refinement and luxury of David’s palace (on cedar, see note on 5:11). David evidently viewed his palace as in some sense symbolic of his now established rule (cf. 5:11–12) and thought it only appropriate that God’s rulership be similarly symbolized by a permanent dwelling for the ark. In wishing to build a temple for the God who had given him victory, David was not unlike other ancient Near Eastern monarchs, who liked to crown their achievements with temples to their patron deities. David’s focus on the ark links ch. 7 with ch. 6, which recounts David’s bringing of the ark to Jerusalem.

7:5–16 Texts from Mari offer instructive parallels to this dynastic oracle. These include divine installation of the king (cf. v. 8), father-son imagery (cf. v. 14), reference to a sanctuary as a “house” (cf. vv. 6,7,13), “house” as a palace/dynasty (cf. v. 11b,16), mention of throne (cf. vv. 13,16), land/kingdom (cf. vv. 12,13,16) and extent of rule (cf. v. 16). Besides these common features, the dynastic oracles from Mari and the Bible differ markedly in some respects; chiefly, the Mari oracles are “obligatory,” i.e., conditional, placing the king under obligation, while the Davidic oracle is promissory, and thus unconditional (for David had already met the conditions). Furthermore, while Yahweh rejects David’s desire to build Him a temple, the deity of the Mari oracles (Adad) is adamant that the king, Zimri-Lim, should build him a temple.

7:14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. The father-son relationship between God and king is seen at various times in the ancient Near East and in different places. At times this is linked with the idea of divine kingship, such as in Egypt and the Ur III Dynasty in Mesopotamia. In Egypt the king was seen as the son of Re, the sun-god. The Ur III kings were the sons of the goddess Ninsun and the deified Lugalbanda, and some of them were deified even during their lifetime. At other times kings are more reticent to claim the kinship of the gods.

It is noticeable in Assyria that the claims of kings become more grandiose the greater the size of the kingdom, although they still stop short of claims to divine kinship. Closer to home, in Ugaritic literature, the Kirta epic describes Kirta, king of Bêtu-Hubur, as the son of the god El, the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. Aramean kings even included such claims among their throne names: Ben-Hadad, e.g., means “son of Hadad.” There is no concept of divine kinship here. These sorts of examples show us that royal ideology in Israel followed the established patterns of kingship in the ancient world. Yahweh used much of the same rhetoric that would have been familiar to people of this time.

7:15 My mercy shall not depart from him. Lit. “love shall not depart.” On “love” language used in ancient Near Eastern contexts to express covenant loyalty or the like, see notes on 1:26; 19:6. Covenantal use of love language is well illustrated in a later Biblical passage describing the relationship of Hiram, king of Tyre, to David: “When Hiram king of Tyre heard that Solomon had been anointed king to succeed his father David, he sent his envoys to Solomon, because he had always been on friendly terms with [lit. “had been one loving (or a lover of)] David” (1 Kin. 5:1). A noteworthy conceptual parallel to the present passage, though involving a covenant agreement between two human rulers, is found in the Hittite Bronze Tablet introduced in the note on Lev. 19:18. The “Great King” Tudhaliya IV promises the vassal Kurunta that the treaty between them will remain in force and will apply even to Kurunta’s descendants. Even should a son or grandson of Kurunta commit treason, the covenant will remain inalienable: “I ... will not throw out your son.” The offender, if proven guilty, will be punished, to be sure: “they shall do to him whatever the king of the land of Hatti decides. But they may not take from him his ‘house’ [i.e., dynasty] and land ...” Similar with respect to succession is a section of a treaty between the Hittite king Hattusili III and Ulmi-Teshshup. In general, the gods of the ancient Near East did not seek “love” (either emotional or legal) from their worshipers, nor did they make covenant relations with them.

7:22 any God besides You. See the article “Monotheism, Monolatry and Henotheism.”

8:1 he took Metheg Ammah from the hand of the Philistines. Whether Metheg Ammah is to be understood as a proper place-name or as two simple common nouns is unclear. If the former, the site is attested only here (but cf. “hill of Ammah” in 2:24), and its location remains unknown. If, following the second option, one takes the combination as two common nouns, various readings are possible. One might read the words as “the reins of the forearm,” an idiomatic usage suggesting control or supremacy, in this instance over the Philistines. Or, with slight emendation, one might read “the common lands,” yielding the sense that David took control of the outlying (nonurban) lands from the Philistines. The parallel phrase in 1 Chr. 18:1 reads “Gath and its towns [or daughters].” Gath was viewed by early rabbinical scholars as the foremost of Philistine cities, so that supremacy over Gath constituted effective supremacy over the Philistines.

8:2 With two lines he measured off those to be put to death. Unparalleled in Biblical and extra-Biblical literature, David’s method of casting lots to reduce the soldiers of Moab by two-thirds strikes modern readers as cruel and arbitrary, especially in view of the fact that David had earlier trusted the Moabites (1 Sam. 22:3). A case could be made, however, that, in an ancient Near Eastern context, in which combatants were often either all sold into slavery or all executed, the sparing of one third of the enemy soldiers to return to their homes was not without mercy. Furthermore, even when defeated combatants were retained as slaves, they were often mutilated (e.g., blinded) to keep them under control (see note on 1 Sam. 11:2); long-term imprisonment of large numbers of prisoners was not an option, though brief internment was sometimes practiced where repatriation or political negotiations were anticipated. the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought tribute. In the ancient Near East, subjugated territories were typically expected to send tribute in the form of various kinds of payment (e.g., precious metals and other goods, agricultural produce, livestock, even labor forces). In addition to the symbolic and, indeed, economic value of the conqueror’s receiving tribute, this system had the effect of depressing the economy of the conquered land and helping to assure its continued submission, much in the same way that deportation (or, as in the present instance, execution) depleted the workforce and defense forces of the conquered land. From as early as Sumerian times in the first half of the third millennium BC, references to tribute can be found in the extant literature. Assyrian sources contain numerous references to Israel having to pay tribute. The most famous instance—that of Jehu bringing tribute and bowing before Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC)—is depicted on the well-known Black Obelisk. Other explicit references to Assyria exacting tribute from Israel can be found in the records of Adadnirari III (810–782 BC), Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC), Sargon II (722–705 BC), Sennacherib (705–681 BC), Esarhaddon (681–669 BC) and Ashurbanipal (668–627 BC).

8:3 he went to recover his territory at the River Euphrates. Ambiguity regarding the antecedent of “he” has given rise to debate as to whether it was David or Hadadezer who went to “recover [control over] his territory” (or possibly “restore his monument”). On the one hand, it can be argued that, because David would have passed through the territory of Hadadezer en route to the Euphrates River (probably in the vicinity of Emar) and would otherwise not likely have encountered Hadadezer so far north, it may have been David who went to “recover his territory.” On the other hand, however, if it was Hadadezer who had to restore order in his northern territories, David may have seized the opportunity of Hadadezer’s preoccupation with the north to attack him from the south.

8:4 hamstrung all the chariot horses ... spared enough. See note on Josh. 11:6. According to the “law of the king” in Deut. 17:16, Israel’s kings “must not acquire great numbers of horses.” Prior to Joshua’s encounter with the Hazor coalition of northern Canaanite kings, Yahweh had instructed Joshua to “hamstring their horses and burn their chariots,” which he did (Josh. 11:6,9). David’s action is thus largely in keeping with these precedents, though his retention of “a hundred” of the chariot horses may suggest an early stage in a growing reliance on military might (see note on 24:1).

8:7 shields of gold. Should probably read “bow (and arrow) cases,” a judgment based on Aramaic technical terminology and supportive Semitic cognates.

8:10 sent Joram. his son That the king of Hamath’s son should bear the name Joram (“Yahweh is exalted”) seems surprising, and indeed his original name may have been Hadoram (“[the god] Haddu/Hadad is exalted”), as in 1 Chr. 18:10. Perhaps the name Joram was adopted or imposed in keeping with Israel’s growing dominance under David. The adoption of a second name in royal circles is a practice well attested throughout the Near East.

8:11 dedicated these to the LORD. In keeping with the common ancient Near Eastern belief that the gods gave victory (see the article “Divine Warfare”), it was appropriate and expected that a valuable portion of the spoils of victory would be dedicated to the deity. While no battle was fought against Hamath to gain the gifts brought by Tou’s son Joram—“articles of silver ...of gold ... of bronze” (v. 10)—it was David’s victory over Hadadezer that prompted Tou king of Hamath to subordinate himself voluntarily to David (see the article “David’s ‘Empire.’”). While in some instances that which was dedicated to God was killed or destroyed, precious metals would typically be placed in the sacred precinct, under the administration of the priests and for the maintenance of the sanctuary (cf. 1 Chr. 26:26–28). The gift signals the commencement of diplomatic relations between the two states. There is no indication that Tou is accepting a vassal-suzerain relationship with David. Rather, as one powerful king to another he is employing the age-old diplomatic protocol of exchanging commodities such as precious metals (1 Chr. 18:10). all the nations which he had subdued. See the article “David’s ‘Empire.’”

8:13 David made himself a name. May recall Yahweh’s promise to David in 7:9 that He would make David “a great name, like the name of the great men who are on the earth.” Alternatively, “name” may connote a victory monument of some sort. The effect, in either case, may have been much the same. The Old Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad I (1813–1781 BC), e.g., boasts: “I established my great name and my steles in the land of Lebanon on the shore of the Great Sea.” Making a name is accomplished by anything that provides for perpetuating the memory of someone, whether great accomplishments, successful kingship, or something as basic as having a family (family members are most likely to remember someone after they die).

8:16–17 over the army ... recorder ... priests ... scribe. See the similar, if fuller, listing at 20:23–26. Each of these titles designates a high-ranking official in David’s government. Among Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors, similar “cabinets” of high-ranking officials are attested. The Neo-Assyrian cabinet, e.g., included the following: treasurer, palace herald, chief cupbearer, chief eunuch, chief judge, grand vizier, and commander-in-chief. over the army. The fact that in the list of David’s officers the chief military commander, Joab, is named first, is typical of ancient Near Eastern governments, in which the military leader ranked second only to the king himself. recorder. An office mentioned here for the first time in the OT. The title has led some to assume that this official’s primary responsibilities must have included keeping the state records, but the Hebrew word might better (if inelegantly) be rendered “remembrancer,” or “herald.” The “recorder,” like the Egyptian “herald,” probably had two chief functions: (1) the task of handling the communications between the king and the country, and (2) the care of the ceremonial tasks at the royal audiences. Thus, Jehoshaphat as “recorder” might be compared to both a modern press secretary and a chief of protocol. Jehoshaphat continued his service in this capacity during the administration of Solomon (1 Kin. 4:3). priests. David’s court also included two priests: Zadok, mentioned here for the first time in the OT, and Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20). While Zadok and Abiathar both functioned as priests during David’s reign, the latter was removed from office by Solomon (1 Kin. 1:7–8), thus fulfilling the judgment pronounced on the house of Eli in 1 Sam. 2:31. scribe. Would have been among the highest-ranking civil servants (cf. 2 Kin. 12:10; 25:19). His duties likely including presiding over the secretariat, where official documents were written and where the state records were kept. The name of David’s “scribe,” Seraiah, is spelled in several different ways elsewhere in the OT (2 Sam. 20:25; 1 Chr. 18:16; possibly 1 Kin. 4:3), which may suggest a non-Israelite origin—perhaps Egypt, where the scribal and administrative traditions were well established.

8:18 Benaiah. A man of outstanding military credentials (23:20–22). Cherethites and Pelethites. Professional troops who served apparently as David’s personal army (see note on 1 Sam. 27:2). Using foreign mercenaries for a personal army such as this provided trained military personnel who would not be inclined to take sides politically or to get involved in court intrigue. See note on 1 Kin. 1:38. David’s sons were chief ministers. The word “ministers” here usually means “priests.” Given the multiplicity of priestly roles attested both in the Bible and in the ancient Near East (where royal and familial priests were not uncommon), the notion that David’s sons served a (royal) priestly role is less problematic than is sometimes supposed. It is true that in Israel the care of the temple was given into the hands of those from the tribe of Levi. Some of these were priests serving in the temple precinct, while other Levites served across the towns of Israel. Given the possibility of multiple distinct priestly roles, it is not clear that David’s sons are assigned a status that should have been reserved for Levites. No other Biblical examples feature priests from any other tribe, but having some from the royal family would not be surprising.

9:1–13 Given the harsh treatment often meted out to former or potential rivals, David’s actions were gracious. An extreme example is the cruel treatment that the much later Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (669–633 BC) gave to those who “had plotted against me” ... “I fed their corpses, cut into small pieces, to dogs, pigs, vultures, the birds of the sky and (also) to the fish of the ocean.” The Bible itself describes instances of rather rough executions of justice (e.g., Judg. 1:6–7) and even the massacre of rival royal families (e.g., 1 Kin. 15:29). In view of such practices, David’s sparing of Mephibosheth was indeed gracious. On the other hand, bringing Mephibosheth into the royal court and to the king’s table may also have served David’s own interests, as it would have placed Mephibosheth under immediate surveillance. From his own experience, he must have recognized the potential dangers of allowing a rival into the royal court (note Ziba’s actions in 16:1–4). Granted, Mephibosheth’s crippled condition would have made him an unlikely candidate for the throne, but he did have a young son named Mika (v. 12).

9:3 lame in his feet. See note on 4:4.

9:7 eat bread at my table. In the ancient Near East, political prisoners were not kept in cells, but in the palace, where they could be closely observed. Ration lists from Babylon and Assyria show clothing, food and oil allotted to “guests” of the king. In Persia, political detainees were kept in the king’s presence. Within the court, Mephibosheth may be free, but he is still essentially a prisoner. Still, for Jonathan’s sake he is kept alive and cared for. It would be reckless to just give him his freedom. That had been the general nature of Jonathan’s request from David.

9:8 dead dog. See notes on 3:8; 1 Sam. 17:43; 24:14.

10:2 show kindness. Suggests that a treaty or covenant relationship had existed between David and Hanun’s father, Nahash, even though it had been the latter’s aggression toward Israel that had in part contributed to Saul’s rise to power (1 Sam. 11:1–11; 12:12). David’s fugitive period, when he was on the run from Saul, would have been a logical time for him to enter into some kind of agreement with Nahash, and it probably would have been something akin to a “parity treaty” (between more or less equal partners), as distinguished from a “suzerain-vassal treaty” (between a greater and a lesser power). Both kinds of treaties are well attested in the ancient Near East. In a parity treaty between the Hittite king Hattushili III and the Egyptian pharaoh Rameses II, the two kings agree to mutual nonaggression, mutual defense, extradition of fugitives, and even assistance in cases of contested royal accession. It was designed to “establish good peace (and) good brotherhood be[tween us] forever.” That Hanun should dishonor David’s emissaries (v. 4) was, in essence, to renounce the treaty of peace that had existed between his father and David and was wittingly or unwittingly to invite retaliation by David.

10:4 servants. In the ancient world, heads of state generally did not travel to other countries on diplomatic missions. Messengers were used who, like ambassadors, were understood as fully representing the person and authority of the king. They spoke as the king and they were to be treated as if they were the king. shaved off half of their beards, cut off their garments ... at their buttocks. The records from the ancient Near East reveal no direct parallels to the treatment given to David’s representatives, so it is difficult to unpack the specific symbolism. But Hanun’s treatment of the envoys clearly constituted a calculated, direct affront to David and, not surprisingly, started a war between the two states. David’s beard was in effect shaved half off, and his garments were cut off at the buttocks.

10:9 battle line ... before and behind. How Joab found himself caught between the Aramean and the Ammonite forces is a matter of conjecture. Perhaps he made a tactical mistake by marching directly to Rabbah (the probable Ammonite city of v. 8; modern Amman) via Jericho or Heshbon, rather than crossing the Jordan at Adam and intercepting the Aramean forces in the region of Helam (a considerable distance north of Rabbah), as David apparently did in v. 17. Whether Joab arrived in his initial predicament by strategic error or simply because it could not be avoided, his decision to divide his troops and fight on two fronts was, though risky, ultimately successful, at least to the point of a draw. No enemy casualties are mentioned in the text however, only the enemy’s flight, with the Ammonites escaping to the safety of their city, after which Joab returned to Jerusalem. It remained for David, in a second encounter, to soundly defeat the Arameans (vv. 15–19).

11:1 In the spring ...when kings go out to battle. As straightforward as this notice seems in the English translation, it is not without complications in the Hebrew text, which reads lit. “at the return of the year, at the time of the messengers’ going forth.” This has led to the suggestion that the campaign described in ch. 11 was launched on the one-year anniversary of David’s first sending of a delegation to Hanun, the new king of the Ammonites (10:2). The first delegation had been treated shamefully by Hanun (see note on 10:4), and the timing of the present delegation would leave no doubt of its retaliatory purpose. The more traditional reading (reflected in the NKJV) is not without defense however; e.g., the Hebrew words “king” and “messenger” sound and are spelled much alike (differing only by one “silent” consonant), making confusion in transmission a possibility. Further, the Hebrew verb meaning “go forth” is often used for “going forth (to battle/war).” In any case, the spring of the year would have been a typical time for military campaigning in the ancient Near East; the winter rains would have stopped and the labor-intensive harvest time would not yet have arrived, thus leaving able-bodied men available for military exploits. Assyrian and Babylonian annals, which often mention the month in which a military campaign was launched, typically name the first month of the year (Nisanu) or the second (Aiaru), the new year beginning in the springtime. Other events occurring in various months are, of course, mentioned, but the beginnings of military operations are typically linked to the spring months. David remained at Jerusalem. The reason why David elected to remain behind when the army went out is not given. Although it was customary for kings to accompany armies, they did not always do so. Affairs of state, physical condition, or domestic issues might hinder him from going. In a parallel situation when Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem in 589 BC, he was not there in person for the duration of the siege. Nor was he there when the city itself fell in 586; he was at Riblah in Lebanon. The capture of Jerusalem was overseen by Nebuzaradan (Nabû-zemr-iddina), the “captain of the guard” (2 Kin. 25:11). Similarly, when Babylon fell to Cyrus in 539 BC, Cyrus remained at Sippar until he could enter Babylon in a well-orchestrated victory parade. Perhaps because it was a siege situation, David may have felt he did not have to involve himself personally until the very end. See note on 12:28.

11:2 he saw a woman bathing. As v. 4 indicates, Bathsheba’s bathing was likely the purification rite prescribed in Lev. 15:19–24 that was to follow menstruation. It is generally assumed that Bathsheba was in full view of the king and therefore some wonder about her intention or discretion. However, such an assumption is unwarranted. Even if Bathsheba was being appropriately discrete and the king’s actual view was limited, he knows what is taking place—he saw that she was bathing—and his imagination would be able to do the rest. a woman. Though most translations make it sound as if David did not know the identity of the woman, the city of Jerusalem was very small (10 acres or 4 hectares) at this point and most of the people living in it were likely part of the administration. Since Bathsheba’s husband and father have long been part of David’s group of select warriors, it is highly unlikely that David does not know her. It is also unimaginable that he does not know whose house he is looking at. Consequently, we should understand “David sent someone to find out about her” (v. 3) as a requisition (not just to discover who she was).

11:3 inquired about the woman. See previous note. Eliam. Given the typically economic style of Biblical narratives, the explicit naming of Bathsheba’s father invites explanation. If he is the same Eliam as is mentioned in 23:34 (“Eliam son of Ahithophel”), then the fact that Ahithophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather may help to explain Ahithophel’s later betrayal of David in favor of Absalom’s conspiracy (15:12; 16:15). Absalom was aggrieved over David’s failure to execute justice (15:4,6), and Ahithophel would certainly have nursed a similar grievance. Uriah the Hittite. He is listed as the last of David’s “mighty warriors” (23:8,39). Hittite. As with other people groups living amongst the Israelites, the Hittites may have served as mercenaries for David, or as part of his personal troops, as did the Cherethites and Pelethites (see notes on 8:18; 1 Sam. 27:2).

11:4 she was cleansed from her impurity. This notice indicates that Bathsheba has just finished menstruating, eliminating any possibility that Bathsheba could have been pregnant by her husband, thus complicating David’s attempt to cover up his misdeed.

11:8 Go down to your house and wash your feet. Whether or not “wash your feet” was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, Uriah certainly understood what David was implying (v. 11). If sexual abstinence was a requirement for soldiers on active duty, as may be inferred from 1 Sam. 21:5 (cf. Deut. 23:10), David may have been seeking to entrap Uriah in a ritual infraction and thereby find legal grounds for eliminating him. In any case, David’s hope was that Uriah would sleep with Bathsheba and thus cloud the paternity issue. Uriah’s refusal to indulge himself while the armies of Israel were in the field must have been a stinging rebuke to David, whether Uriah intended it to be so or not (we are left in the dark about what Uriah did or did not know of David’s affair).

11:26 she mourned for her husband. The Biblical text offers no indication of Bathsheba’s feelings for Uriah, except to observe that she mourned for him.

11:27 mourning was over. Probably seven days, which seems to have been the customary period (Gen. 50:10; 1 Sam. 31:13). National leaders were sometimes mourned for longer periods; Aaron and Moses were each mourned for 30 days (Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8) and the Egyptians mourned for Jacob a full 70 days (Gen. 50:3). A chronicle from the reign of the Neo-Babylonian king Nabonidus (556–539 BC) states that when the wife of the king died, she was mourned “from the 27th day of Arahshamnu till the 3rd day of Nisanu”—over four months.

12:1–4 While Nathan’s parable did not speak of adultery and murder per se, Nathan’s rich man did resemble David in two specific respects: first, he ignored the many sheep that he had and took the one precious lamb of the poor man (a lamb that was like a “daughter” to him (v. 3); the Hebrew word bat [“daughter”] is the first syllable of the name Bathsheba); second, he followed his first offense with an act of audacious hypocrisy (i.e., his apparent show of hospitality in v. 4). Fundamentally, the rich man’s crime involved an abuse of power, just as did David’s.

12:6 restore fourfold for the lamb. While David’s emotional response was that the offender should die (v. 5), he restrained himself to remain within the law. Fourfold restitution for sheep theft is mandated in Ex. 22:1. The Code of Hammurapi required thirtyfold restitution for theft of livestock from the temple or the state and tenfold restitution for theft from a private citizen; should the offender be unable to make restitution, he was to die.

12:8 I gave ... your master’s wives into your keeping. In the ancient Near East, the royal harem of the former monarch would become the responsibility of the new king, if only in order to honor diplomatic relationships often established through royal marriages. After all, the harem was not considered family, but state property supporting state alliances.

12:11 he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. See note on 16:21.

12:16 He fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. David is engaged in mourning rituals even though the child has not yet died (though David may well consider him virtually dead due to either the prophecy or the child’s tenuous condition or both). Mourning rituals are generally designed to associate the mourner with the dead. David hopes that Yahweh may yet show compassion and spare the child, but there is nothing in his behavior that suggests he is trying to appease God or leverage the situation. When the Ninevites used similar ritual tactics, they were demonstrating their repentance in the only ways they knew (cf. Jon. 3). There is no evidence in this description that David’s actions are penitential in nature, though Ps. 51 shows that David was indeed repentant.

12:24–25 called his name Solomon ... Jedidiah. In the ancient Near East, naming meant more than assigning a label for purposes of identification. Rather, a name was to capture something of the essence of an individual. Thus, names were not usually decided in advance of birth, but were usually triggered by something that happened or was said in connection with the birth (cf. the naming of Samuel [1 Sam. 1:20] and of Ichabod [1 Sam. 4:21]). The name Solomon sounds something like the Hebrew word for “peace” (1 Chr. 22:9) and also like the Hebrew word “replacement” (i.e., for the first child of Bathsheba, which died). The name Jedidiah sounds like “beloved of Yah(weh)” and must have signaled hope for the future of the Davidic house, a hope in keeping with the remarkable promises made in 7:14–15.

12:26–27 royal citadel ... water supply. Joab’s notice that both the royal citadel and the water supply have been taken is sufficient to indicate that Rabbah cannot withstand Israelite pressure much longer. In the ancient Near East, particularly in the semiarid regions east and west of the Jordan, cities could not hold out under siege once their water supply was cut off. Conversely, elaborate water works were often constructed to secure access to springs and other water supplies.

12:28 Ancient Near Eastern kings did not always accompany their armies on campaigns and did not often lead from the front when they did, but it would still be customary for the king to lead the march into the conquered city. The king’s absence from this final phase might indicate to his subjects or detractors that he is unworthy of his position. David himself has experienced how his own victories drew loyalty away from Saul and ultimately led to his ascension. Joab is reminding David what will happen if David does not return to the field and another is given credit as the conqueror.

12:30 crown. This crown was quite different from Saul’s lightweight crown, or diadem, that was handed over to David in 1:10. Not only is this crown described with a different Hebrew word, but its weight of almost 75 pounds (34 kilograms) would have made it difficult to wear for any length of time, much less to wear into battle. from [their king’s] head. The NKJV retains the traditional reading, but it is far more likely that the crown sat atop a statue representing the Ammonites’ god Milkom. Ammonite statues showing individuals (gods or kings) wearing large crowns have survived to the present day.

13:12 do not force me. Incestuous relationships are clearly prohibited in Lev. 18; 21, and were also considered taboo in many ancient Near Eastern cultures.

13:19 put ashes on her head. Putting dust or ashes on the head was a gesture of mourning and distress throughout the ancient Near East (see note on 1 Sam. 4:12). tore her robe of many colors that was on her. Tamar’s ornate robe marked her as a virgin daughter of the king (v. 18). Her tearing of the robe not only demonstrated her anguish, it also dramatically underscored her changed status.

13:23 Absalom had sheepshearers in Baal Hazor. Shearing time would have been an occasion of celebration, abundance and generosity (see note on 1 Sam. 25:4). Thus, an invitation to join the shearing party would normally have been most welcome. The 14-mile (22-kilometer) distance between Jerusalem and Absalom’s sheepshearers was short enough to make an invitation to David and his sons plausible, but long enough to mask Absalom’s true intent.

13:37 Talmai son of Ammihud, king of Geshur. Talmai was, according to 3:3, Absalom’s maternal grandfather. The Geshur in view here lay in Transjordan, in the southern part of the Golan Heights. Absalom’s flight took him more than 50 miles (80 kilometers) farther north and across the Jordan River, where he remained in exile for three years.

14:2 wise woman. While the designation has not yet been discovered outside the Bible, women in the ancient Near East did sometimes fulfill priestly, prophetic, or other religious or civic functions. The OT also cites women as fulfilling prophetic (though not priestly) and other roles. In the books of Samuel, “wise woman” is specifically used of two women—the one here and another at 20:16, where a “wise woman” intervenes decisively to save the city of Abel Beth Maachah. Abigail should probably be included as well, though she is not explicitly called a wise woman (in 1 Sam. 25:3,33 she is said to be “intelligent” and to have “good judgment”). The wisdom in view seems to connote skill in speech capable of persuading someone to follow a certain course of action (cf. the “wisdom” of Jonadab in 13:3, where the NKJV translates the same Hebrew word for “wise” as “crafty”). That such wisdom was highly prized in the ancient Near East is illustrated, e.g., in the so-called Protests of the Eloquent Peasant, in which the wronged peasant is retained at court simply to regale the courtiers with his eloquent and persuasive speeches.

14:3 Joab put the words in her mouth. By prompting the wise woman of Tekoa to raise issues of blood revenge (v. 11) and the survival of her family line on its ancestral property, Joab covertly forces David to render a verdict on the very issues he is facing, namely, his duty to avenge the blood of Amnon and his desire that Absalom not be cut off. The dynamic of the present episode recalls an earlier occasion in which David was drawn by a fictional story into indicting himself (12:1–10). An analogue to the present scenario of disguise, deception and self-indictment is found in the Egyptian myth of Horus and Seth, in which Isis, the mother of Horus, disguises herself as a maiden and tricks Seth into pronouncing a verdict against himself and in favor of Horus.

14:7 destroy the heir ... extinguish the ember that is left. The paralleling of “heir” and “burning coal” is in keeping with the virtually universal use of the hearth-fire to symbolize family life. Not only in the Bible does light/lamp symbolize life and hope (e.g., 21:17; Job 18:5–6) but in the ancient Near East it does as well. Mesopotamian texts speak of family misfortune metaphorically as the oven or hearth-fire being extinguished. In Sumerian, the word used for “heir” may connote “one who keeps the oil (lamp) burning.”

15:4 Oh, that I were made judge. Absalom did not directly challenge his father’s right to be king, but by questioning the administration of justice under David he effectively planted the seeds of discontent. First and foremost among the responsibilities of the ancient Near Eastern king was the administration of justice.

15:25 Carry the ark of God back into the city. Although the ark is a powerful talisman, David recognizes that if he is out of favor with Yahweh, it will do him no good to bring it along. Sending the ark back to Jerusalem also provides cover for his spies Zadok and Abiathar.

15:28 I will wait in the plains of the wilderness. The Hebrew word translated “plains” here can also be translated “fords.” As 17:16 indicates, the fords in question would have been at the Jordan River, almost 20 miles (32 kilometers) east of Jerusalem. David and his followers would undoubtedly be exhausted after covering that distance, and overnighting on the west side of the Jordan would serve the symbolic purpose of not abandoning the land entirely.

15:30 head covered ... barefoot. Both were signs of sorrow and distress (cf. Esth. 6:12; Is. 20:2–4; Jer. 14:3–4; Mic. 1:8).

15:32 top of the mountain, where he worshipped God. The identity and location of this place of worship has not been determined. One suggestion is the priestly town of Nob, which lay within a couple of miles/kilometers of Jerusalem and whose priests were massacred by Saul (see 1 Sam. 22:19 and note),

16:5 when King David came to Bahurim ... Shimei the son of Gera ... cursing. Shimei, as a kinsman of Saul, may have held David responsible for the deaths of Abner and Ishbosheth, and he may have resented David’s permitting the execution of seven of Saul’s descendants by the Gibeonites (see 21:1–14). Furthermore, as a resident of Bahurim, Shimei may have witnessed David’s treatment of Michal, Saul’s daughter, as it had been at Bahurim that Paltiel, Michal’s second husband, was ordered to cease following after his wife as she was being forcibly returned to David (3:16). The underlying grievance, of course, was that the kingdom once held by Saul, the Benjamite, had been forfeited to David.

16:16 Hushai the Archite, David’s friend. The Hebrew word rendered “friend” here is not the normal Hebrew word for “confidant” or “friend,” though it looks much like it, and it may actually represent a borrowing from the Egyptian honorific “acquaintance of the king.” In other words, “Confidant / Friend of David” may have been an official court title held by Hushai in David’s government, a sort of “privy counselor.” In this light, Absalom’s questions to Hushai in v. 17, twice using the normal Hebrew word for “friend” or “confidant,” must be seen as involving an ironic wordplay, something like: “Is this how you show friendship to the one you serve as Friend?”

16:21 Go in to your father’s concubines. In the ancient Near East a king’s wives and concubines were regarded as indicative of his power and position (see note on 3:7). Their acquisition often involved diplomacy or conquest. For an outsider to sleep with a member of the royal harem, therefore, was a direct affront to the monarch and tantamount to usurpation. The Assyrian king Sennacherib boasts of divesting King Hezekiah of his “daughters, concubines,” and much more besides; he did much the same to Marduk-Baladan of Babylon, entering his palace, taking charge of “the property and goods (laid up) therein,” including “his wife, his harem,” etc. Ahithophel knew whereof he spoke, when he counseled Absalom that lying with his father’s concubines would make him “obnoxious” to his father.

17:13 all Israel shall bring ropes to that city, and we will pull it into the river. See the article “Siege Warfare.”

17:18 came to a man’s house in Bahurim. Bahurim was the site of Shimei’s cursing (see note on 16:5). That Jonathan and Ahimaaz are able to find an ally there indicates that David was not without supporters even in this Saulide village.

17:19 took and spread a covering over the well’s mouth. Because of the semiarid climate of the land of Palestine, wells were both numerous and important. Wells were constructed by digging a vertical shaft down to the water table. The top opening of wells was typically 5 to 6.5 feet (1.5 to 2 meters) in diameter, and the depth varied depending on the water table, some being quite deep—one of several wells discovered at Lachish was about 140 feet (42.5 meters) deep. To prevent collapse, the shafts of wells were often lined with field stones, and to prevent contamination of the water or danger to unwary people or animals, the opening was covered in some way (e.g., with a stone slab). Flat covers could be disguised so as to prevent discovery of the well, as appears to have been done here.

17:23 He ... hanged himself. Wise enough to recognize that Absalom’s failure to follow his advice would lead to a victory and a return to power for David, Ahithophel must have understood that his life was forfeit because of his treason. In taking his own life, Ahithophel may have felt that he was only hastening the inevitable on his own terms (after having “put his household in order”). The Hebrew Bible does not contain any explicit evaluation of suicide, but of the six reported incidents, Abimelech and Saul are hardly to be read as heroic in their actions (see note on 1 Sam. 31:4), Saul’s armorbearer is a lesser character who was simply demonstrating loyalty to his deceased master (1 Sam. 31:4), Samson gave his life not so much as an act of suicide but in order to rain down a crushing defeat on the Philistines (Judg. 16:28–31), and the erstwhile Israelite king Zimri (like Ahithophel) understood that his failed power play left him with little hope of survival in any case (1 Kin. 16:18). In ancient Mesopotamian thought, suicide was a means of retrieving honor, but in ancient Egypt, it was generally frowned on, although allowed as an option for officials facing capital crimes.

18:8 the woods devoured more people that day than the sword. Forests are recognized as places of danger par excellence in ancient Near Eastern texts, as is evident when Gilgamesh and Enkidu go hunting for Huwawa in the Gilgamesh Epic. Whether through temptation to desertion (which would have been facilitated by the thick cover) or through the advantages that savvy fighters can exploit in terrain where troop movements are impeded, the forest contributed to the success of David’s cause. Outnumbered but well-trained troops often fair best in difficult terrain.

18:9 his head caught in the terebinth. Absalom’s vanity regarding his hair (14:25–26) tempts the reader to see a fine irony in his hair getting caught in a tree. It is possible that Absalom was suddenly caught up and suspended in midair when the disturbance of his passage released branches previously pinned in a flexed position by other branches. Whatever the case, this points toward an allusion that to be hung on a tree signified, according to Deut. 21:23, God’s curse, though Deut. 21:23 had a different action in mind.

18:11 ten shekels of silver. About four ounces (113 grams); it represents approximately one year’s wages. belt. The Hebrew word used here never designates a piece of military gear, but may indicate a ceremonial belt or sash worn on special occasions.

18:14–15 The standard translations of these two verses have raised questions; e.g., if three spears were driven into Absalom’s heart (v. 14), how could it possibly be necessary that Joab’s men subsequently strike and kill him (v. 15)? A better understanding of the Hebrew text might be that Joab took three stout sticks in his hands and hit Absalom in the chest in order to dislodge him from the tree, after which Joab’s men swarmed and killed him. The result would be that no one person, least of all Joab, could be held directly responsible for Absalom’s death.

18:16 trumpet. Used as a signaling device (see note on Josh. 6:4).

18:17 laid a very large heap of stones over him. This was a form of burial often reserved for criminals or defeated enemies (e.g., Josh. 7:26; 8:29).

18:23 Ahimaaz ... outran the Cushite. Messengers were among the chief means of communication in the ancient Near East, including in battle situations (see notes on 10:4; 1 Sam. 11:4). In all likelihood, as texts from Mari indicate, messengers would have been of various sorts and served for delivering various kinds of messages. Mari, e.g., attests regular messengers, letter carriers, fast couriers, express messengers, mounted messengers, etc. Of particular interest are the messengers whose task, it seems, was to deliver the good news of a military victory. In the present context, v. 27 suggests a correlation between the messenger chosen and the content of the message—whether good, bad or mixed. Thus, Joab’s disinclination to send Ahimaaz may have been prompted not simply by concern for Ahimaaz’s safety, given David’s likely reaction to the news, but also by a desire not to appear as himself taking too much pleasure in Absalom’s demise (v. 22). In the end, Joab allows Ahimaaz to run, but only after releasing an earlier messenger. Ahimaaz, however, took a faster route by way of the plain—as distinct from a perhaps shorter but more treacherous route through the forest—and arrived first.

18:24 sitting between the two gates. Because city gates served a dual function in the ancient Near East—military and civic—their design reflected a compromise between these two competing aims. For civic and commercial purposes, the gate needed to be open and accessible, but for military purposes, the gate needed to be narrow, difficult to navigate by chariots or large numbers of troops, and defensible. Several different types of gates are attested, some flanked by guard towers, some in which the towers became virtual small forts into which city leaders could retreat in times of danger from without or within the city, many with several chambers or rooms as part of the gate complex, and many with both inner and outer gates. Often a sharp turn was required when moving from the outer to the inner gates, the purpose again being to prevent easy passage of attacking chariots or troops. Important city gates in the time of David would have involved some combination of the above features—multiple chambers (four being perhaps the most common number in Canaan before the time of Solomon), guard towers, inner and outer gates, etc. All of these features, along with a generally stepped approach to the gate (which would hinder chariots), made gateways more defensible while leaving them wide enough to accommodate commercial traffic and civic activity. Excavations at the ancient site of Tell Dan have uncovered structures that illustrate the outer and inner gates, with a (presumably canopied) seat/throne for the city ruler between them. It may have been on such a throne that “David was sitting between the two gates.”

19:6 You love your enemies and hate your friends. “Love” language is used in the ancient Near East and in the Bible to connote political loyalty (see notes on 1:26; 7:15). This is clear, e.g., from the Amarna letters. In one, Akizzi (mayor of Qatna) writes: “My lord, just as I love the king, my lord, so too the king of ...; all of these kings are my lord’s servants.” An even closer parallel to Joab’s words is found in the following complaint by ‘Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem: “Why do you love the ‘Apiru but hate the mayors?”

19:8 the king arose and sat in the gate. This action visibly signaled David’s resumption of his kingly duties, as gateways were frequently the place where official duties were performed. The Ugaritic Aqhat Legend, e.g., describes the ruler Danel taking a seat at the city gate, in the company of the leaders, and judging cases of widows and orphans. The nature of David’s duties in the present circumstances would have included the encouragement of his victorious troops (v. 7) and perhaps the beginning of the process of reconciliation with those who had sided with Absalom (vv. 9–14).

19:22 Should any man be put to death today in Israel? In the ancient Near East, victors could and sometimes did inflict terrible punishments upon the vanquished (see note on 9:1–13), but in many instances, especially when the political situation remained delicate, they showed clemency toward those who had sought to harm them. The Hittite kings Telipinu (seventeenth century BC) and Hattushili III (thirteenth century BC), e.g., left behind records of such clemency: “They did me harm, yet I will not do them harm”; “Why should they die? Let them rather hide their faces.” Preference for imprisonment of rivals, rather than execution, appears to have been motivated by the political need to win over as many of the former supporters of the rival as possible. Even where the accession was not challenged, a new king might, at the time of his accession and periodically thereafter, choose to proclaim a general amnesty, particularly relating to debts owed.

19:29 you and Ziba divide the land. A Hittite text recounts a case in which an individual guilty of unprovoked attacks on Hattushili is required by the crown to relinquish half of his estate for damages. Having earlier awarded all of Mephibosheth’s property to his servant Ziba, David here adjusts this to a fifty-fifty split. This compromise arrangement suggests that David either is uncertain of the veracity of Mephibosheth’s version of events or is simply unwilling to call Ziba to account, lest he jeopardize support from that quarter.

19:42 Have we eaten at the king’s expense? In the ancient Near East, those who were afforded the privilege of eating at the king’s table were expected to respond with loyalty to their royal benefactor. In Mari, e.g., many tablets recording daily provisions for the king’s table have been recovered. The Judahites’ protest to the northern tribes is that their loyalty to David has not been bought by privileges extended and enjoyed, but by kinship: “the king is a close relative of ours.”

20:1 Sheba the son of Bichri. If “Bichri” is linked to “Bechorath” of the genealogy of Saul (1 Sam. 9:1), then Sheba may have been not only a Benjamite but a relative of Saul, and this may have contributed to his apparent eagerness to precipitate a general withdrawal of support from David.

20:3 he took the ten women, his concubines ... supported them. The reference is to the concubines left in Jerusalem in 15:16 to care for the palace during David’s flight from Absalom; they were violated by Absalom in 16:22 (on the offense, see note on 16:21). Unable or unwilling to reinstate the concubines in his harem, David provides for them as if they were widows in his household. In ancient Near Eastern legal codes, provisions were often made for the care of unmarried kinswomen or widows. The Code of Hammurapi states that a wife who becomes unfit to perform her wifely duty may be replaced, but her husband “shall continue to support her as long as she lives.”

20:8 fell out. The normal understanding is that Joab was able to tip the dagger out of the sheath so he could pick it up and be holding it nonthreateningly as he approached Amasa.

20:9 Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. In the ancient Near East, a kiss might connote many things: obeisance, reconciliation, friendship, affection, etc. In the books of Samuel, Saul’s anointing is accompanied by a kiss of honor by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1; cf. 2 Sam. 19:39); Jonathan and David kissed one another in affection and sorrow (see note on 1 Sam. 20:41); and David used a kiss to effect a (partial?) reconciliation with Absalom (2 Sam. 14:33), only to have Absalom subsequently steal the people’s affection and loyalty with a kiss (15:5–6). Here, Joab’s kiss feigns honor or reconciliation, but facilitates treachery. The purpose of the unusually detailed description of his grasping the beard with his right hand is to enable to the reader to visualize how Amasa could have been caught off guard.

20:15 siege mound ... battered the wall. See the article “Siege Warfare.”

20:16 wise woman. See note on 14:2.

20:19 a city and a mother in Israel. This curious expression suggests several possible interpretations: (1) The “wise woman” (v. 16) is referring not only to her city but also to herself, a mother in Israel (cf. Deborah’s self-description as “a mother in Israel” in Judg. 5:7). (2) Taking the phrase as a hendiadys (a single concept expressed with two coordinated terms) and reading it in the light of the general Hebrew perception of cities and regions as, figuratively speaking, the mothers of their inhabitants, it means “a mother city,” i.e., a major city (cf. the Hebrew phrase “a city and its daughters” [i.e., towns or villages]). (3) Perhaps the most likely interpretation is to relate the Hebrew term “mother” to cognates from Old Babylonian (Mari), Ugaritic, Phoenician, etc. that mean something like “mother unit” or “clan.” The wise women’s charge in the present passage, then, would be “You are trying to destroy a city and family (or, rather, clan) in Israel.”

20:23–26 Despite David’s attempt to diminish Joab’s power (19:13), Joab has managed to murder (20:8) his way back to the position of commander over “Israel’s entire army” (v. 23). Thus, Joab again heads the list of David’s chief officials, as he did in the somewhat shorter register of officers in 8:16–18 (see the notes there for descriptions of the various offices). Additions to the present list include Adoniram who was in charge of “forced labor,” Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and Ira the Jairite as “chief minister” (perhaps replacing his sons; see note on 8:18). The narrative placement of David’s list of court officials at the end of ch. 20 is logical: First, just as the section recounting the full establishment of David’s kingdom ended with a summary of his officers (8:16–18), so the section recounting his reestablishment of control after the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba ends with such a summary; second, the official summary draws the narrative to a fitting close before the epilogue (chs. 21–24) that follows.

20:24 revenue. lit. “forced labor.” Probably comprised of war captives and non-Israelite Canaanite survivors (cf. Josh. 16:10; Judg. 1:28), suggestive of David’s growing power and desire to develop the infrastructure of the kingdom: roads, fortresses, civic administrative buildings, etc. The title of officer “over the forced labor” is used in the Bible only in the administrations of David, Solomon and Rehoboam, but outside the Bible it is attested also in a seventh-century BC Hebrew seal.

21:1 there was a famine in the days of David for three years. In the ancient Near East generally, the king was regarded as representing the people, and his behavior could bring blessing or curse on all those under his rule. The three-year famine is placed very generally “in the days of David,” and it seems almost certain that it occurred earlier rather than later in his reign. Shimei’s outraged reference to “all the blood of the house of Saul” (16:8) may allude to the actions David takes in the present chapter to end the famine. Famines were common occurrences in Canaan and the ancient Near East more broadly, and were typically viewed as manifestations of divine displeasure. As has often been noted, the plague prayers of the fourteenth-century BC Hittite king Mursili II offer a number of comparisons to the present episode. In both episodes, the cause of divine displeasure lies not with the current king but with a predecessor: “It is on because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house” (here) / “the offense ... was committed in the days of my father.” In both, the specific offense had to do with a breach of covenant: Saul putting Gibeonites to death in breach of the covenant Israel made with them in Josh. 9, and Mursili II’s predecessor having broken an “oath of the gods” sworn with respect to the Egyptians. And in both, the treaty violation led to national catastrophe. The ancient Near East is replete with other instances of sacral desecration bringing national catastrophe and requiring sacral remedy.

21:2 Saul had sought to kill them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah. Political pragmatism, not religious zeal, appears to have motivated Saul’s decimation of the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites’ strategic position within the centrally located tribe of Benjamin also posed a serious danger to the political unity of north and south, especially were the Gibeonites to form an alliance with the Philistines to their west.

21:6 seven men of his descendants. The number seven signifies completeness, suggesting full restitution—not, e.g., the number of Gibeonites slain by Saul, which would likely have been much higher. hang them. Some uncertainty surrounds the correct understanding of the term rendered “hang,” but regardless, the bodies of the seven executed sons of Saul were exposed to the elements (vv. 9–10). The withholding of proper burial and the exposure of the bodies of the slain is a practice attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East in contexts of treaty violations (see next note).

21:10 she did not allow the birds of the air to rest on them. As in the ancient Near East generally, in Israel also it was considered a disgrace when the bodies of the slain were allowed to become carrion for birds and beasts, with no one to frighten them away (e.g., Deut. 28:26; 1 Sam. 17:44,46). Threatened exposure of corpses to the elements was a frequent feature of curse formulations, as the following excerpt from a vassal treaty of Esarhaddon illustrates: “May Ninurta, leader of the gods, fell you with his fierce arrow, and fill the plain with your corpses, give your flesh to eagles and vultures to feed upon.” It was precisely to drive away the birds that Rizpah set a vigil by the bodies of her sons “from the beginning of the harvest till the rain poured down.” The harvest in question was the barley harvest (v. 9), which began in April. Thus, the “rain” should presumably be understood as an unseasonal downpour that ended the famine, rather than the beginning of “winter rains,” which would not commence until late October.

21:16 sons of the giant. Lit. “descendants of Rapha.” This epithet has occasioned considerable discussion. While certainty is unobtainable at present, Rapha is probably best understood not as the name of a deity in Gath, as some have suggested, but as a collective noun to be associated with the Rephaim—pre-Israelite inhabitants of the land of Canaan (NKJV “giants”; Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deut. 2:20; Josh. 17:15). The Rephaim were noted for their gigantic proportions (see note on 1 Sam. 17:4). Among the Rephaim were sometimes counted such peoples as the Emites, Zamzummites and Anakites (Deut. 2:10–11,20–21), all peoples distinguished for their strength and stature. According to Josh. 11:21–22, the Anakites were driven from the hill country of Israel and Judah by Joshua but were able to survive in the cities of Gaza, Gath and Ashdod—thus in the general area in view in the present context.

21:17 lamp. On its metaphoric use, see note on 14:7. Kings in the ancient Near East were often associated with light, in the sense of that which brings hope, justice and well-being. A Babylonian idiom speaks of a family with no descendants as a brazier that has gone out.

21:20 six fingers ... six toes. Polydactylism (extra digits on hands or feet) was, like other physical abnormalities, a subject of considerable interest in antiquity. In Mesopotamia, priests and diviners would be consulted regarding the significance of physical abnormalities. A seventh-century BC Assyrian text runs through various possible cases of polydactylism and interprets them: “If a woman gives birth, and [the child] has six fingers on the right hand—poverty will seize the house of the man. If ... on the left hand—[the mother] is endowed with prosperity; [the man’s] adversary will die.” The list continues, describing all the possible configurations, and concludes: “If a woman gives birth, and [the child] has six fingers [and toes] on each of its right and left hands and right and left feet—the land will live undisturbed.” The prevalence of this genetic abnormality, particularly common in inbred societies, is masked in the modern Western world by cosmetic surgical intervention at birth.

22:3 shield ... horn. Both are metaphors for refuge and strength. horn. See note on 1 Sam. 2:1.

22:5 waves of death ... floods of ungodliness. In the ancient Near Eastern mindset, the power of water was such that only God or the gods could control it. Uncontrolled, it brought death and destruction. In the present context, David’s being overwhelmed by “waves” and “floods” led to a cry for help (v. 7), which God, who alone was capable of rescue, answered with an awesome display of power (vv. 8–20).

22:7 distress. In Hebrew, the concept of distress is expressed in terms of being in a narrow or tightly confined space, and it was from just such a “tight spot” that Yahweh brought David into “a broad place” (v. 20).

22:8–10 The earth shook and trembled ... He bowed the heavens also, and came down. A Ugaritic passage describing a triumphant campaign by Baal, the storm-god, employs similar imagery: he “opened a rift in the clouds. Baal sounded his holy voice, Baal repeated it from his lips; he uttered his holy voice and the earth quaked.”

23:4 light of the morning when the sun rises. In the ancient Near East, kings were often described as lamps, lights or even the sun, giving light to the land. The fourteenth-century BC Hittite king Suppiluliuma, e.g., introduces himself in a treaty document this way: “I, the Sun Suppiluliuma, the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant, the favorite of the Storm-god, went to war.” In an early second millennium BC Egyptian hymn to the god Amon-Re, the “goodly ruler” is described as “The lord of rays, who makes brilliance, To whom the gods give thanksgiving, Who extends his arms to him whom he loves, (But) his enemy is consumed by a flame.”

23:20 killed a lion. The lion hunt is a regular motif in royal reliefs, the ferocity of the “king of beasts” serving to prove the mettle of the one able to conquer him. In a legend extolling his hunting prowess, the fifteenth-century BC pharaoh Thutmose III is credited with killing “seven lions by shooting in the completion of a moment.” In the present account, the added detail that it was “on a snowy day,” with the slippery footing that this suggests, further dramatizes Benaiah’s valorous feat. The “pit” presumably would have been designed to trap the lion.

24:1 number Israel and Judah. Census-taking was a regular practice in the ancient Near East. Evidence exists from as early as the third millennium BC in Mesopotamia and on into the first millennium BC. Unlike modern censuses designed to study long-term trends and demographics, ancient censuses were directed to specific, contemporary needs, such as assessing taxes, allocating land, determining the strength of the national militia, etc. In the OT, taking a census does not seem to have been regarded as wrong per se (cf. Num. 1:1–2; 4:1–2; 26:1–4), although Ex. 30:11–12 does raise the possibility of plague accompanying it. Here, God’s anger for undisclosed offenses is what prompts David to take the census; despite the NKJV capitalization, the antecedent of “He” is not “the LORD,” but rather “the anger.” One way to assuage the anger of deity is to buy favor with gifts to the sanctuary, which could be collected as taxes, hence the census. Yahweh does not wish to be appeased in this way, so the judgment is both punishment for the original offense, and for theological impropriety.

24:8 nine months and twenty days. Given that the distances involved in the itinerary described could have been covered in a matter of weeks, the vast majority of the time must have been spent taking the census itself.

24:9 eight hundred thousand. On large numbers and population estimates, see the article “Numbers in Numbers.”

24:16 the angel who was destroying the people. This is the same terminology used of the destroyer angel in Ex. 12. The Mesopotamian epic “Erra and Ishum” depicts the plague-god Nergal embarking on a campaign of destruction until he is pacified by his subordinate Ishum.

24:18 the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. In the agrarian societies of the ancient Near East, large flat outcroppings of bedrock, frequently elevated to catch the breeze needed for winnowing, were often used as threshing floors (see note on Ruth 3:2). Their prominence and spaciousness lent to their use also as public gathering places. The harvest activity conducted at threshing floors would often have been accompanied by religious celebration, with the result that they were sometimes vested with religious significance. In this light, it is plausible that the threshing floor of Araunah may have had some religious associations prior to its purchase by David. It would be at this very site that the temple of Yahweh would one day be built (2 Chr. 3:1). At this time in history, the city did not yet extend this far north.