INTRODUCTION
See the introduction to 1 Samuel.
EXPOSITION
I. Consolidation of Monarchy in Israel (1:1–20:26)
The overriding theme of the books of Samuel is the beginning of Israel’s monarchy in the eleventh century B.C. Having discussed its prelude (1Sa 1:1–7:17), advent (1Sa 8:1–15:35), and establishment (1Sa 16:1–31:13), the author next turns to its consolidation under David, Israel’s greatest king.
A. David’s Accession to Kingship Over Judah (1:1–3:5)
The story of David’s rise to the kingship begins with an account of the decimation of Saul’s line (1:1–16) and ends with a summary of David’s fecundity (3:2–5). Nestled in the center of this literary unit is the narrative of David’s anointing as king over Judah (2:1–7), signaling the replacement of Saul and his house in southern Canaan.
1. The death of Saul and Jonathan (1:1–16)
Second Samuel begins as 1 Samuel ends—with an account of the death of King Saul and his son Jonathan, the heir apparent. But while 1Sa 31 describes the events as they occurred, 2Sa 1:1–16 consists of a report of the events filtered through the not disinterested words of an Amalekite.
1–5 Saul’s defeat and death at the hands of the Philistines and David’s victory over the Amalekites occurred at approximately the same time. The distance from Mount Gilboa to Ziklag is more than eighty miles, a three-day trip for the Amalekite fugitive. Torn clothes (cf. v.11) and dust on one’s head are signs of anguish and distress, appropriate and understandable behavior in a man who has so recently witnessed a battlefield scene of suffering and death. The man demonstrates his submission to David by prostrating himself.
David’s desire to know where the man has come from is doubtless prompted by the man’s appearance. His response—that he has escaped from the Israelite camp—makes David all the more curious; so he demands that the man tell him what has happened. His report reveals that the Israelites “fled” (GK 5674) from the battle against the Philistines and that many of them died. What is more, continues the man—who obviously thinks that he is bringing David good news (4:10)—“Saul and his son Jonathan are dead.” David of course wants to know how the messenger can be so sure of this latter assertion; so the man tells his story.
6–10 The Amalekite’s account deviates in several important respects from that in 1Sa 31. Most of the proposed solutions to the problem only serve to further complicate it. On Mount Gilboa (the scene of Saul’s last battle, 1Sa 31:1), the Amalekite encountered the wounded Saul, who was supporting himself by “leaning on his spear.” Seeing the Amalekite nearby, Saul called out to him. The man replied with the response commonly used by servants: “What can I do?” Perhaps to be sure that the man was not a Philistine, who might abuse the Israelite king if he had the chance (cf. 1Sa 31:4), Saul asked the man to identify himself.
Satisfied as to the general identity of the young man, Saul uttered words reminiscent of the earlier description of David’s dispatching of Goliath: “Stand over me and kill me” (cf. 1Sa 17:51). Although in mortal agony and wanting to die, Saul seemed unable to take his own life. Apparently happy to oblige, the Amalekite claims to have fulfilled Saul’s wish to the letter. He “knew” that the fallen king could not survive, and—since he himself had killed him—he could also “know” for certain that Saul was dead. After killing the king, the Amalekite took Saul’s “crown,” the primary symbol of his royal authority (cf. 2Ki 11:12), as well as a band that he was wearing on his arm.
11–12 Having once been a valued member of Saul’s court, David undoubtedly recognizes the crown and armlet. But the messenger could scarcely have been prepared for the response of David and his men, who tear their clothes with heartfelt expressions of grief over Saul and Jonathan and mourn and weep. They also fast, but only “till evening,” which was apparently David’s usual practice in such situations (cf. 3:35). Their sorrow extends to the people as a whole, since all Israel has suffered tragic and irreparable loss in the death of their king.
13–14 Apparently after the period of mourning is over, David questions the messenger again. David wants to know something of the man’s background. The man affirms that, in addition to being an Amalekite, he is the son of an “alien.” David has now learned all that he needs to know concerning the man. Since his father was a resident alien, living in Saul’s realm, the young man can be expected to have at least minimal knowledge about Israel’s basic traditions, including the inviolability of “the LORD’s anointed.” By the Amalekite’s own testimony, he had destroyed the Lord’s anointed king, something David had never done (see 1Sa 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11).
15–16 Far from receiving the reward that he thinks David will surely give him because of the “good news” he thought he was bringing (cf. 4:10), the Amalekite’s callous bravado has sealed his own doom. David has the young man executed with the words, “Your blood be on your own head” (cf. 1Ki 2:31–33). In the light of 1Sa 31, it is clear that the young man’s claim to have killed Saul was false, however much the rest of his story may appear to have the ring of truth.
2. David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (1:17–27)
17–18 That David was the author of this remarkable poem about 1000 B.C. is universally recognized. The poem is strikingly secular, never once mentioning God’s name or elements of Israel’s faith. Like Joshua’s poetic address to the sun and moon (Jos 10:12–13), this lament was eventually written down in the “Book of Jashar” (a poetic collection no longer extant).
19 “Mighty” is probably best understood as being parallel to “glory,” and thus “slain” is parallel to “fallen.” “Heights” here refers to Gilboa, located in “Israel,” which was Saul’s main realm and to whose people David’s lament is addressed. Not yet king over all Israel, David orders that the lament be taught only to the men of “Judah” (v.18), where he has already gained considerable influence.
20 The verb translated “proclaim” (GK 1413) almost always implies good news—in this case, of course, only from the standpoint of the Philistines. “Gath,” on the eastern edge of Philistine territory, and “Ashkelon,” by the sea, represent all of Philistine territory. The “daughters of the Philistines/uncircumcised” will rejoice at this news, in contrast to the “daughters of Israel,” who must “weep for Saul” (v.24).
21 This verse consists of a curse on the “mountains of Gilboa,” the site of the Israelite defeat (cf. Ps 106:38; Hos 4:2–3). In Hebrew thought, “dew” was often a symbol of resurrection or the renewing of life (cf. Ps 110:3; Isa 26:19). Regarding Saul’s shield being “defiled” (GK 1718), the text is unclear as to whether the Philistines treated Saul’s shield as they wished or whether it was “rejected (with loathing)” in the sense that the shield is pictured as lying on the mountains, worthless and neglected, no longer oiled and ready for action.
22–23 Each verse refers to both Saul and Jonathan by name, the only verses in the lament to do so. They summarize the bravery, the determination, the comradeship, and the ability of the two men. Jonathan’s “bow” did not turn back from “blood,” and Saul’s “sword” did not return (to its sheath) “unsatisfied” from “flesh” (cf. Dt 32:42; Isa 34:5–6).
The Hebrew word order of v.23 suggests that the king and his son, inseparable in life as in death, would continue to be honored in death as in life.
24 Verse 24 mirrors v.20 (see comment). Here David calls on the “daughters of Israel” to “weep” (GK 1134) for Saul, as he and all his men had done (v.12). Weeping for/over a person was a universal custom in ancient Israel (3:34; Job 30:25; et al.). The “daughters” are probably wealthy women of the land since Saul has lavished fine clothes and expensive jewelry on them.
25–26 “How the mighty have fallen” is a verbatim echo of v.19 and at first gives the impression that the lament concludes at this point. The addition of “in battle,” however, signals that v.25 is a false ending. The two lines of v.25 reverse the elements of v.19, its mirror image.
David’s grief is for Jonathan, his “brother” (GK 278)—not in the sense of “brother-in-law” (a true enough description; cf. 1Sa 18:27) but of “treaty/covenant brother.” David’s further statement that Jonathan’s “love” (GK 173) for him was “more wonderful than that of women” should be understood to have covenantal connotations (i.e., covenantal/political loyalty; translated “friendship” in Ps 109:4–5).
27 The song ends as it began, with the central theme of “How the mighty have fallen!” David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan is characterized by both passion and restraint. While giving full vent to his feelings on hearing the report of their death, David displays no bitterness toward his mortal enemy Saul. Since in v.18 David orders that the men of Judah be “taught” his lament, apparently the epic hymns of Israel’s history were intended to be taught and applied from generation to generation. David’s lament may well have been a favorite.
3. David anointed king over Judah (2:1–7)
1–4a Now that King Saul is dead and buried, the time has come for the private anointing of David (1Sa 16:13) to be reprised in public. David decides to leave Ziklag (1:1)—but not without seeking divine guidance. Unlike Saul, David “inquired of the LORD,” doubtless by asking his friend Abiathar the priest to consult the Urim and Thummim stored in the ephod that he had brought with him from Nob (1Sa 22:20; 23:6; cf. 23:1–4, 9–12; 30:7–8).
David wants to know whether he should “go up” to one of the towns in the hill country of Judah. By means of the sacred lots, the Lord responds affirmatively. When David then asks for a more precise destination, the lots pinpoint Hebron as the place. Located twenty-seven miles northeast of Ziklag, Hebron was the most important city David sent plunder to after defeating the Amalekites (1Sa 30:31) and looms large in chs. 2–5. Obedient to the divine command, David severs his ties with Philistine Ziklag and, with his two wives Ahinoam and Abigail (27:3; 30:5), moves to Judahite Hebron. He also takes with him the army of men who have rallied to his leadership, and they together with their families settle in Hebron and its nearby villages. David is publicly anointed by the “men of Judah” as king over Judah. David’s elevation to kingship, however, is fundamentally due to divine anointing (1Sa 16).
4b–7 Word eventually reaches David that the men of Jabesh Gilead had given Saul a decent burial. Since Jabesh is an Israelite (not Judahite) town and therefore presumably still loyal to Saul’s house, David realizes that he must try to win them over to his side. He therefore sends messengers to them with overtures of peace and friendship, an approach that stands in sharp contrast to the tactics used by David’s men in the rest of the chapter.
The Jabeshites are commended for “showing kindness” (in the sense of demonstrating loyalty) to Saul. “Kindness” (GK 2876) of this sort ultimately derives from God, as David himself recognizes (cf. 9:1, 3, 7). Indeed, he invokes the Lord’s “kindness and faithfulness [GK 622]” on the Jabeshites. Both of these are part of all genuine covenant relationships, and David stresses his eagerness to transfer the Jabeshites’ covenant loyalty from Saul to himself. He offers to show them the same favor that Saul had shown them. He reminds them that Saul their master is now dead and that the house of Judah has anointed him as king. He concludes his offer by encouraging them to “be strong and brave.” But there is more than one fly in the ointment, as the rest of the chapter clearly suggests.
4. War between Saul’s house and David’s house (2:8–3:1)
2:8–11 Abner, Saul’s cousin and the commander of Saul’s army (cf. 1Sa 14:50; 17:55; 26:5), had either avoided or escaped from the battle on Mount Gilboa that had resulted in the death of Saul and his three sons (1Sa 31:8). Still ostensibly loyal to the dead king, he had taken a fourth son, Ish-Bosheth, and brought him to Mahanaim, far away from the continuing Philistine threat. Located just north of the Jabbok River in the tribal territory of Gad (Jos 13:26, 30; 21:38), it would later serve as a place of refuge for David during the rebellion of Absalom (17:24, 27; 19:32; 1Ki 2:8).
Ish-Bosheth (“Man of shame”), mentioned only in chs. 2–4, is perhaps to be identified with Ishvi in 1Sa 14:49. Not killed in Saul’s last battle (cf. 1Sa 31:2), he may have been something of a coward. Scribal tradition often substituted the word bosheth (“shame”; cf. GK 1017) for the hated name of the Canaanite god Baal (cf. Jer 3:24). Thus Ish-Bosheth’s real name was E/Ish-Baal, “Man of Baal” (cf. 1Ch 8:33), Mephibosheth’s (4:4) was Merib-Baal (1Ch 8:34), and Jerub-Besheth’s was Jerub-Baal (11:21; cf. Jdg 6:32). Since baal is also a common noun meaning “lord” or “master” and could therefore be used occasionally in reference to the one true God (cf. Hos 2:16), Saul presumably did not intend to honor the Canaanite god Baal when he named his son Ish-Baal (which would mean “The man of the Lord”)—especially since the name of his firstborn son Jonathan means “The LORD has given.”
Although David became king over “the house of Judah” by popular anointing (v.4), Abner single-handedly makes Ish-Bosheth king over “all Israel,” thus demonstrating that he is the real power behind the throne of Israel now that Saul is dead. Gilead was located thirteen miles north of Mahanaim, indicating something of the difficulty David faced in attempting to win the Jabeshites over to his side. The territories of Ephraim and Benjamin are probably selected to represent those areas within Israel that could be reasonably considered to have been under Saul’s control (“all Israel” is an obvious hyperbole for the northern tribes). Ephraim was the largest tribal territory in the north, and Benjamin was the homeland of Saul (1Sa 9:1–2). It is this realm that Ish-Bosheth now inherits—with the ambitious Abner son of Ner pulling the strings.
While Ish-Bosheth was reigning over Israel, the tribe of Judah “followed David.” Since David is the man after God’s own heart, following David implies following the Lord.
David became king of all Israel shortly after Ish-Bosheth’s death (4:12–5:3). Because David’s reign in Hebron was more than five years longer than Ish-Bosheth’s in Mahanaim (2:10–11; cf. 5:5), it must have been several years after Saul’s death before Ish-Bosheth had gained enough support to become king over the northern tribes. Thus Ish-Bosheth’s two-year reign would have coincided with the last two years of David’s seven-and-one-half-year reign over Judah.
12–17 David and Ish-Bosheth each attempted to seize the other’s kingdom. Full-scale warfare was not the only way to accomplish such a goal, however. It could be done between teams of champions. Saul’s cousin Abner, together with Ish-Bosheth’s men, meet David’s nephew Joab, together with David’s men, at the “pool of Gibeon.” Once again the hand of God can be seen working on David’s behalf.
Ish-Bosheth’s men and David’s men sit down on opposite sides of the pool of Gibeon, probably facing each other. Abner makes a proposal, which Joab accepts, that some of the young men in one group “fight hand to hand” with some in the other. Twelve from each group are “counted off.” The number twelve here doubtless stands for the twelve tribes of “all Israel,” whose fate hangs in the balance. The initial skirmish ends quickly. Each man “grabbed” his opponent by the head, thrusting a dagger into his side. Just as all the men had met at the pool “together,” so also all the men now fall down “together.” Following that was a fierce battle, ending in the defeat of Abner’s men.
18–23 Asahel, one of the three “sons of Zeruiah,” is compared to a gazelle, though his speed as a runner would eventually prove to be his undoing (cf. v.23). The initial combat between Ish-Bosheth’s men and David’s men broadens and becomes more dangerous. Abner, not spoiling for a fight and eager to get out of harm’s way, flees the scene of the massacre. Asahel, however, is determined to overtake and kill Abner, nothing deterring him. After identifying his pursuer to his own satisfaction, Abner tells Asahel to give up the chase; he advises him to appease his desire for vengeance by killing one of the young men fleeing from Gibeon. The single-minded Asahel, however, is adamant.
Abner then issues a final warning: Unless he stops chasing Abner, Asahel will be the one who dies. Why would he want Abner to strike him “down”? And if Abner kills Asahel, how could he “look” Asahel’s brother Joab “in the face”? Abner’s fear of Joab proves to be not unfounded (cf. 3:27, 30). Asahel, however, refuses to listen. Continuing to run full speed ahead, he closes the gap between himself and Abner, and the latter suddenly turns to face his pursuer. Asahel’s momentum hurls him onto the butt of the spear of Abner, who thrusts it through Asahel’s “stomach” (cf. 3:27; 4:6; 20:10), killing him on the spot. As David’s men began passing by that place, they stood transfixed in horror at the death of a fallen comrade.
Asahel, though dead because of his headlong pursuit of Abner, would be long remembered in Israel. He is listed first among the Thirty, David’s military elite (23:24). It would only be a matter of time, however, before Asahel’s brother Joab would avenge his great loss (3:30).
24–28 Although others came to a halt at the sight of their dead comrade, Joab and Abishai (Asahel’s brothers) continue their pursuit of Abner. At sunset they come face to face with the Israelites (“the men of Benjamin,” since they probably formed the largest number as the tribe of Saul), who take their stand “on top of a hill”—an ideal vantage point from which to direct or engage in battle if necessary (cf. Ex 17:9–10). Just as Abner had earlier proposed that hostilities begin (v.14), so he now proposes that they cease with the words: “Must the sword devour forever? . . . How long before you order your men to stop pursuing their brothers?”
"How long” commonly introduces questions implying a rebuke. Abner cleverly baits Joab by referring to the two groups of antagonists as “brothers”—and Joab bites by accepting the identification. When brothers fight brothers, the result can only be “bitterness” and shame (Ob 10). Joab thus calls off the chase, and Abner’s timely plea thus leads to results remarkably similar to those described in 1Sa 25:34.
29 It was customary for armies to travel at night, probably to be as inconspicuous as possible. Marching eastward across the Jordan, Abner and his men continue until they arrive at Mahanaim.
30–32 Including Asahel, a total of twenty of David’s men are “missing” in action, presumably all dead. The body count of Ish-Bosheth’s men, however, is “three hundred and sixty.” The eighteen-to-one ratio in favor of David demonstrates how terrible was the cost of Abner’s arrogance (v.14) and how thoroughly “Abner and the men of Israel were defeated by David’s men” (v.17).
Joab’s men took Asahel’s body to Bethlehem, the hometown of David and his clan, where Asahel would be given a proper burial in “his father’s tomb.” During much of ancient Israelite history, multiple burials in family tombs cut into the underlying rock of the slopes of hills were commonplace. Having left the body of their fallen comrade in Bethlehem, Joab and his men continue on to Hebron, more than twenty miles southwest.
3:1 The “house of Saul” and the “house of David” figure prominently in the next several chapters (cf. esp. ch. 7). War—almost inevitable when rivals aspire to the same throne—continues between them “a long time” (at least for the two years of Ish-Bosheth’s reign over Israel). But Ish-Bosheth’s weakness is no match for David’s strength, and the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
5. Sons born to David in Hebron (3:2–5)
2–5 Anointed king over Judah in Hebron, David settled down with his two wives Ahinoam and Abigail and began to build a substantial family during his seven-and-a-half-year rule there. His firstborn son Amnon (“Faithful”), the son of Ahinoam, would ultimately be killed by the men of Absalom (13:28–29), David’s third son. His second son, Kileab, whose mother was Abigail, is mentioned only here and apparently died before he was able to enter the fray to determine who would be David’s successor as king of Israel.
Absalom (“[Divine] Father of peace”) was the son of Maacah, a Geshurite princess whom David may have married as part of a diplomatic agreement with Talmai, the Geshurite king. See chs. 13–18 for the story of Absalom.
Adonijah (“My Lord is the LORD”) the son of Haggith would figure prominently in the struggle for David’s throne (cf. 1Ki 1–2), eventually to be assassinated in favor of Solomon. David’s polygamy, begun with Ahinoam and Abigail (1Sa 25:43), continues unabated—indeed, it increases—in Hebron.
B. David’s Accession to Kingship Over Israel (3:6–5:16)
1. Abner’s defection to David (3:6–21)
The devastating defeat of Ish-Bosheth’s men by David’s men (2:30–31) has made its impact on Saul’s cousin Abner. Ruthless and ambitious, Abner is a canny politician who sees the handwriting on the wall. He therefore sets about to transfer Ish-Bosheth’s kingdom over to David—and Ish-Bosheth can only sit by helplessly and watch the inevitable unfold (vv.9–11). Doubtless hoping for a prominent place in David’s kingdom, Abner wants to be the divinely chosen agent in delivering Israel to David’s rule.
6 Abner is not only well positioned to wrest Israel’s kingdom from the hapless Ish-Bosheth but also to do with it whatever he pleases—including delivering it to David. While Abner was “strengthening his own position,” it was characteristic of David that he “found strength” in the Lord his God (1Sa 30:6).
7–11 Ish-Bosheth’s surprise question to Abner—“Why did you sleep with my father’s concubine?” (i.e., Rizpah)—arrives like a bolt from the blue. This act by Abner is probably intended to assert his claim to Saul’s throne (cf. vv.8–10; 16:20–22; 1Ki 1:1–4; 2:13–22). Abner responds indignantly to Ish-Bosheth: “Am I a dog’s head—on Judah’s side?” That is, how can Ish-Bosheth possibly think that Abner would defect to Judah? He protests that although he is loyal to Saul’s house, Ish-Bosheth is accusing him “now.” He has not, after all, handed Ish-Bosheth over to David. He therefore pretends not to be able to understand how Ish-Bosheth can “accuse” him of cohabiting with Rizpah.
Far from denying Ish-Bosheth’s accusation, however, Abner takes a strong oath of self-imprecation, vowing that he will become God’s instrument in bringing about what the Lord had promised to David—namely, transferring the entire kingdom of Israel to David. Cowardly and powerless, Ish-Bosheth can do nothing to stem the tide of Abner’s ambitions.
12–16 The preliminary meeting between Abner and David takes place through messengers rather than face to face. Abner’s rhetorical question, “Whose land is it?” is perhaps intentionally ambiguous. To Abner it means, “The land of Israel is mine to give” (and therefore David should make an agreement “with me”)—though it could also mean, “The land of Israel is yours because of God’s promise.” In any case, the Lord is working behind the scenes to deliver the northern tribes into David’s hands.
For his part, David is willing to accept Abner’s proposal only on one condition: that he bring Michal, Saul’s younger daughter, with him when he comes to Hebron. David is adamant, warning Abner not to come without bringing Michal.
David chooses his words carefully. When speaking to Abner he refers to Michal as “daughter of Saul,” thus reminding Abner that if he agrees to bring her with him he has turned his back on Ish-Bosheth for good and has assented to David’s succession to Saul’s throne. When speaking to Ish-Bosheth, however, David calls Michal “my wife,” thus reminding Ish-Bosheth that she is David’s wife (cf. 1Sa 18:25–27) and that the responsibility for her being now with Paltiel is Ish-Bosheth’s, since he is the son and heir of Saul, who wrongfully gave her to Paltiel in the first place (1Sa 25:44). Now that Saul’s death has given him a free hand, David wants to strengthen his claim to Saul’s throne by retrieving Michal.
The guardian and brother of Michal, Ish-Bosheth, powerless as ever, readily consents to David’s demand and takes Michal away from her husband Paltiel. When Abner and Michal depart for Hebron, the heartsick and weeping Paltiel tags along as far as Bahurim, where Abner orders him to go back home. And so it is that Michal is added to David’s roster of wives.
17–21 The time when Abner “conferred” with Israel’s elders was probably before the events of vv.15–16. Abner’s counsel to the elders is straightforward: There is no reason to delay any longer in making David king over all Israel. God had promised David that he would be divinely endowed to “rescue my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines,” a word originally spoken concerning Saul (see 1Sa 9:16). In any event, God himself is the true Deliverer of his people (cf. esp. 1Sa 7:8) and thus sovereignly chooses whom and when he will.
On his way to Hebron, Abner pays special attention to the Benjamites, Ish-Bosheth’s kinsmen, and tells them of his plans. He then went on and told David what Israel and Benjamin wanted to do. Though counted among the northern tribes and an indispensable part of the kingdom of Israel, the “house of Benjamin” would eventually become inextricably linked to the house of Judah (cf. 1Ki 12:21–23).
Arriving in Hebron with Michal, Abner and his twenty men sit down to a feast prepared for them by David. With his offer to bring “all Israel” into a covenant relationship with David, Abner’s defection to the house of Judah is complete. The agreement between the two men in vv.12–13 was personal and is not to be confused with the national “compact” now being made between north and south. Abner assures David that the end result of the compact would be that “you may/will rule over all that your heart desires” (1Ki 11:37). Abner’s mission now complete, David sends him away and he goes “in peace” (GK 8934).
2. The murder of Abner (3:22–39)
22–27 In the middle of this otherwise tranquil scene the narrator states that David’s men and Joab return from a raid. Arriving in Hebron and learning that Abner has come and gone, Joab goes to David and demands to know why he released Abner—the only genuine obstacle to David’s sitting on Israel’s throne—when he had him firmly in his grasp. After all, Abner is a cousin of Saul, who must therefore be an opponent of David. Indeed, to Joab, Abner has doubtless come to Hebron for the sole purpose of learning everything that might well prove useful in the future. Joab’s accusation that David allowed Abner to “deceive” him is ironic in light of his own subsequent treachery (cf. Pr 24:28–29).
David is realistic enough to recognize that he is still too weak to risk a showdown with the sons of Zeruiah (v.39). The brash Joab thus feels free to leave David without so much as waiting for a response to his rebuke; nor is David told that Joab’s men pursue Abner and bring him back.
Pretending that he wants to discuss a private matter with him, Joab takes Abner into a relatively secluded area. Then, “to avenge” (GK 928) the blood of his brother Asahel, Joab kills Abner. The method used is the same used in Abner’s killing of Asahel and thus illustrates the principle of retaliation in kind.
28 Upon hearing of Abner’s murder, David declares himself and his kingdom “innocent” (GK 5929) of all personal responsibility for Abner’s death. The motif of innocence is first recorded in the assessment of his friend Jonathan (1Sa 19:5; cf. also Pss 19:13; 26:6; 64:4). Needless to say, that opinion is not shared by disaffected Israelites, who hold David accountable for the massacre of the Saulides and continue to think of him as a “man of blood” (cf. 16:7–8).
29 David places the blame for Abner’s death squarely where it belongs by cursing the “head of Joab” and devoutly hoping that Abner’s blood will “fall” upon it—i.e., that Joab’s bloodguilt will eventually bring about his own destruction through divine vengeance (cf. v.39). Just as David had absolved himself and his “kingdom” of all guilt in the matter (v.28), so also now he includes Joab’s “father’s house” in Joab’s condemnation. In pronouncing this curse, David uses colorful language. He pleads that Joab’s house will never be without people who would suffer in five categories: (1) has a “running sore”; (2) has “leprosy”; (3) “leans on a crutch”; (4) falls by the sword; and (5) lacks food. The first three curses relate to physical ailments, the fourth to war, and the fifth to famine.
30 Since the blood of a kinsman was to be avenged by the death of the one who had shed it, Joab and Abishai invoked the hoary custom of the blood feud as a rationale for murdering Abner. It is, however, questionable whether the blood vengeance of Joab and Abishai was justified, seeing that Abner had killed Asahel in battle. Indeed, David later excoriates Joab for having shed the blood of Abner “in peacetime as if in battle” (1Ki 2:5). Joab, of course, may have had an ulterior motive in wanting Abner out of the way, for Abner could supersede him as commander of David’s army (8:16; 20:23; 1Ki 1:19; 11:15, 21).
31–35 David issues commands concerning Abner’s funeral: The murderer Joab is required to attend, as are all his men. David’s weeping and mourning over a slain family member, comrade, or friend is not only a concession to custom but also—and far more significantly—an indication of his tender heart (cf. 1:12; 13:36–37; 18:33; 19:1–4). Joab and his men walk in front of the funeral procession; David brings up the rear. Expressing his grief, the king “wept aloud” at Abner’s tomb.
The rhetorical question that begins the lament requires a negative answer. With his hands not bound and his feet not fettered, Abner was surely not “lawless.” Just as with Saul and Jonathan and their comrades in arms, David fasts till evening (see 1:12). Try as they might, Joab’s men are unable to induce David to eat the customary funeral meal (cf. Jer 16:5, 7). Although David could not have been completely unhappy about the death of his most powerful rival for control, his grief is genuine.
36–37 David’s magnanimity impresses Joab’s men and is sure to draw them ever closer to his inner circle of advisors. Indeed, in their eyes he can do no wrong. David was not an accessory to Abner’s death. His protestation of innocence, believable then to his own cohorts, is ratified now by the northern tribes.
38–39 The chapter concludes with David’s final brief encomium for Abner and final imprecation against Joab and Abishai, both of which are directed to his own men. Just as it was important for all Israel to know that David was innocent of the death of Abner (v.37), so also David wants his men to “realize” that in Abner a great man has been lost to Israel.
David realizes that although he is “the anointed king,” he is nevertheless “weak.” By contrast Joab and Abishai are “strong”; and David, exercising commendable caution, realizes that he is not presently able to rebuke them with any semblance of authority. In the hearing of his own men, however, he repeats the curse against Joab (cf. v.29), perhaps this time including Abishai.
3. The murder of Ish-Bosheth (4:1–12)
The only viable threat left to the throne is Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth and Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth. Chapter 4 removes them from the scene, one explicitly and the other implicitly.
1–3 When Ish-Bosheth heard that Abner had died, “he lost courage”—a typical and expected reaction. Abner’s death left a power vacuum in the north, and it is therefore not surprising that all Israel became “alarmed.”
Among the opportunists eager to take charge are two of Ish-Bosheth’s men, Baanah and Recab, who are “leaders of raiding bands.” Such groups functioned under David’s authorization as well (3:22; 1Ch 12:18) and were not uncommon elsewhere during the early days of Israel’s monarchy (cf. 1Sa 30:1, 8, 15). These two men were members of the tribe of Benjamin and thus loyal to Saul (and Ish-Bosheth).
4 Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth is introduced parenthetically to demonstrate that his youth and physical handicap disqualify him for rule in the north. When the nurse of Jonathan’s son learned that the boy’s father had been killed (1Sa 31), she decided to flee with the boy to a safer location. In her headlong flight the boy fell from her grasp and became permanently crippled. Five years old when his father died, Mephibosheth was now twelve (cf. 2:11).
5–7 Baanah and Recab go to where Ish-Bosheth was staying (doubtless in Mahanaim) and arrive there at the time of siesta, knowing full well that Ish-Bosheth would be sleeping. They gain access to his sanctum through subterfuge and stab him “in the stomach”—a technique rapidly becoming the preferred method of killing.
Ish-Bosheth is assassinated while lying on “the bed in his bedroom,” luxuries available only to the wealthy or to royalty in those days (Ex 8:3; 2Ki 6:12; Ecc 10:20). Recab and Baanah “cut off” (GK 6073) Ish-Bosheth’s head and bring it to David as a trophy of their vile deed. To avoid easy detection they travel through the night a distance of almost thirty miles.
8 Presenting the head of Ish-Bosheth to David, Recab and Baanah remind him that Ish-Bosheth’s father, Saul, had been David’s “enemy.” Indeed, Saul had “tried to take” David’s “life” on many occasions. But now, say the assassins, the Lord himself—to whom belongs all vengeance (cf. Heb 10:30)—has “avenged” (GK 5935) David not only against Saul but also against Saul’s “offspring.”
9–11 David now takes an oath in the name of the Lord. To the assassins’ reminder that Saul had tried to take David’s “life,” the king responds that the Lord delivers his “life” out of “all trouble” (including the difficulties he had faced when he was a fugitive from Saul’s wrath). Like the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul (1:10), Recab and Baanah can hardly have expected David’s blistering response to their murder of Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth. The man who had “told” David that Saul was dead was of course the Amalekite (see comment on 1:4). Although he thought he was bringing “good news,” he brought about only his own death at David’s headquarters in Ziklag (cf. 1:1). Expecting a “reward” for his news (cf. 18:22), he received death instead.
If David condemned the Amalekite for delivering the finishing blow to the mortally wounded Saul on the battlefield, then a similar fate is self-evident in this context: (1) Recab and Baanah, “wicked men,” have killed Ish-Bosheth, an “innocent” (lit., “righteous”; GK 7404) man. (2) Although Saul was killed in a context of danger and violence in battle, Ish-Bosheth was murdered in what should have been the secure and peaceful serenity of his own home and bed. David’s outrage (whether real or pretended) over the circumstances of Recab and Baanah’s assassination of Ish-Bosheth causes him to hold them accountable.
12 Death begets death: The Amalekite claimed to have killed Saul, and in retaliation David “put him to death” (v.10); Recab and Baanah have killed Ish-Bosheth (v.11), so David gives the order that they in turn be killed. David’s men mutilate the dead bodies of Recab and Baanah by cutting off their hands and feet. Following the ancient custom to expose to public view the entire corpse of the victim whenever possible (cf. 21:9–10; 1Sa 31:9–10; Dt 21:22–23; Jos 10:26–27), the bodies of Recab and Baanah are “hung” in Hebron. It is ironic indeed that the prolonged struggle between Ish-Bosheth’s men and David’s men begins and ends by the placid waters of a pool (see 2:13).
The contrast between the treatment of the remains of the assassins and of Ish-Bosheth could hardly be more striking. While the dead bodies of Recab and Baanah are impaled in a public setting to disgrace them and deter others, Ish-Bosheth’s head is given an honorable burial in Abner’s tomb at Hebron—the headquarters of David, their political rival.
With the death of Ish-Bosheth, no other viable candidate for king remains for the elders of the northern tribes. Meanwhile David sits in regal isolation, above the fray as always, innocent of the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, Abner, and now Ish-Bosheth. The way is open for his march to the throne of Israel.
4. David anointed king over Israel (5:1–5)
1–3 That the kingdom about to be established under King David is intended as a truly united monarchy is underscored by the use of the word “all” three times (vv.1, 3, 5). The “elders” of Israel, representing the “tribes,” come to David at Hebron with the express purpose of submitting to his rule. Preliminary consultations with them had been initiated by Abner (3:17), but his death had postponed further discussion.
The elders give three reasons for their submission to David. (1) Their reference to themselves as “your own flesh and blood” signifies their sense of kinship with him. David is a “brother Israelite” (Dt 17:15). (2) During Saul’s reign David was Israel’s best army officer. (3) They understand that the Lord has chosen David (cf. 3:18) as Israel’s new king. They sense that the Lord has invested David with the titles of “shepherd” (GK 8286) and “ruler” (GK 5592) as well as “king” (GK 4889). Apart from God himself (Ge 48:15; 49:24), David is the first example of a specific person being called a “shepherd” (cf. Nu 27:17). Moreover, the motif of David as shepherd was prefigured at his earliest anointing (see 1Sa 16:11).
In the ancient Near East, the figure of the shepherd was associated with gentleness, watchfulness, and concern. Since it is the shepherd’s task to lead, feed, and heed his flock, the shepherd metaphor was a happy choice for benevolent rulers and grateful people alike. David thus becomes the paradigm of the shepherd-king (cf. Ps 78:70–72; Eze 34:23; 37:24), and it is not surprising that “great David’s greater son,” Jesus Christ, is introduced frequently as the “good shepherd” (Jn 10:11, 14), the “great Shepherd” (Heb 13:20), and the “Chief Shepherd” (1Pe 5:4).
David is also called a “ruler,” a title that provided a convenient transition between judgeship on the one hand and kingship on the other. David’s sovereignty is underscored by the threefold reference to him as “king” in v.3. He does not go to Israel’s elders in Mahanaim; they come to him in Hebron. Their need for him is greater than his for them—although the stakes are enormous on both sides.
Abner had suggested earlier that Israel “make a compact” with David (3:21). But now that the moment for such an agreement has arrived, the king initiates “the compact” with his (future) subjects. At the same time, however, the covenant should not be understood as bestowing on David the role of all-powerful suzerain and dooming the Israelites to become his craven vassals. The covenant-making formalities take place “before the LORD,” acknowledging that the proceedings are under his guidance and enjoy his blessing (v.12).
As David had earlier been anointed king over Judah (2:4), so now he is anointed king over Israel, “as the LORD had promised through Samuel” (1Ch 11:3). The news of the anointing would soon become well enough known to cause concern in the hearts of the Philistines (v.17).
4–5 David became king in Hebron when he was thirty years old. His overall reign of forty years matches that of Saul (cf. Ac 13:21) as well as that of his son and successor Solomon (1Ki 11:42). His reign consisted of seven and a half years in Hebron over Judah alone (2:11) and thirty-three years in Jerusalem over all Israel and Judah. Although Jerusalem had not been unknown to David before the elders of Israel anointed him (see 1Sa 17:54), he is now determined to make it his capital.
5. David’s conquest of Jerusalem (5:6–12)
6–8 Far and away the most important city in the Bible, Jerusalem is mentioned there more often than any other. Geographically and theologically it is located “in the center of the nations” (Eze 5:5). Known also by its abbreviated name “Salem” (Ps 76:2), it makes only one appearance in the OT before the time of Joshua (Ge 14:18).
Soon after being anointed king over all Israel and Judah (v.5), David deploys his men for a march on Jerusalem “to attack the Jebusites, who lived in the land.” Some of the Jebusites lived outside the fortress at Jerusalem (cf. 24:16), where the temple of Solomon would eventually be built (2Ch 3:1).
The interchange about the “blind” and the “lame” is an example of pre-battle verbal taunting. Thus in v.6 the Jebusites smugly claim that even disabled people can withstand any attack on their fortress, while in v.8 David retaliates in kind by characterizing his enemies as “lame and blind.” The overconfident Jebusites, however, do not count on the skill and determination of David, who captures the fortress of Zion and renames it the “City of David.” For more on the capture of Jerusalem, see 1Ch 11.
Up to this time Jerusalem had been on the border between Judah in the south (Jos 15:1, 5, 8) and Benjamin in the north (Jos 18:11, 16). Tied to no tribe, the City of David could champion its neutrality, central location, and virtual impregnability as qualities that made it and its environs the ideal capital for David’s newly established, united kingdom.
9–10 David thus “took up residence” in Jerusalem where the Jebusites lived (v.6). He then set about to repair the surrounding areas “from the supporting terraces inward.” Joab (David’s commander-in-chief) “restored the rest of the city” (parts of which were doubtless damaged or destroyed as a result of Joab’s attack to capture it; see 1Ch 11:8).
The assertion that David “became more and more powerful” is reminiscent of 3:1. Now as earlier, however, David himself is not the source of his strength; “the LORD God Almighty” (a title for God that is more royal than military), the true King of Israel, grants his power and, as always, is “with him.”
11–12 The events described here occurred a long time after those recorded in vv.6–10. Hiram did not become king of Tyre (a well-fortified island in the Mediterranean Sea) until about 980 B.C., more than twenty years after David was anointed king over Israel and conquered Jerusalem. Hiram continued his friendly relations with Israel’s royal house well into the reign of David’s son Solomon (1Ki 5:1–12; 9:10–14). Hiram traded building materials (which Israel lacked) for agricultural products (which Phoenicia lacked). Thus Hiram sends to David logs of “cedar,” carpenters, and stonemasons. All this activity would eventuate in a “palace for David”—a palace that would fill him with a certain unease (7:1–2).
Witnessing God’s evident blessing on his life, David once again acknowledges the Lord’s role in establishing “him as king over Israel” (v.12). Indeed, David’s throne and dynasty would be established forever (7:11b–16; 22:51; 1Sa 25:28), culminating in the eternal reign of great David’s greater Son (Lk 1:30–33). As Israel’s ideal ruler, David has the privilege of seeing his kingdom “exalted” (GK 5951) by the Lord himself. All this is not for his own sake alone but also, and primarily, for the sake of “his” (i.e., God’s) people.
6. Children born to David in Jerusalem (5:13–16)
13–16 In violation of the divine decree to Israel’s future kings not to “take many wives” (Dt 17:17), David adds “more” concubines and wives to the wives he already has (see 3:5). This is the first time that concubines are mentioned in connection with David.
David fathered many children in Jerusalem. Although vv.14–16 list only sons born to him by his wives, the name of at least one of David’s daughters has survived (Tamar, the sister of Absalom; cf. 13:1; 1Ch 3:9).
The first four names are of sons born to David by Bathsheba (1Ch 3:5), two of whom appear elsewhere in the biblical narratives. The two main claimants to David’s throne in his later years were Absalom (his third-born, 3:3) and Solomon (his tenth-born). Solomon would eventually outlast his rivals for the throne and rule over the united kingdom (cf. 1Ki 1:28–39).
C. David’s Powerful Reign (5:17–8:18)
1. The Philistines defeated (5:17–25)
17–21 As soon as the Philistines learn “that David had been anointed,” they become concerned and go to “search” for him, an unnecessary task if David had already occupied the formidable fortress of Zion. So apparently this incident occurred after David’s anointing and before the conquest of Jerusalem. The “stronghold” to which David retreats is therefore not the fortress of Zion. Also, David “went down” to the stronghold (a person went up to Jerusalem). Possibly the cave of Adullam is the place intended.
The locale of the two battles of vv.20–25 is the “Valley of Rephaim,” on the border between Judah and Benjamin. A relatively flat area, its fertile land produced grain that not only provided food for Jerusalem but also attracted raiding parties.
To meet the Philistine threat David, as always, “inquired of the LORD” by consulting the Urim and Thummim through a priest: Should he attack the Philistines, and would the Lord hand them over to him? The divine answer is emphatically affirmative to both questions. In obedience to God’s command, David goes to engage the Philistines in battle at Baal Perazim, where he defeats them and carries off their idols, which they had probably brought onto the battlefield as protective talismans. The purpose of carrying the Philistine idols away from the battlefield was so that, at David’s command and in accordance with Mosaic prescription (Dt 7:5, 25), they could be burned up (1Ch 14:12).
22–25 On a subsequent occasion, the Philistines again came to attack David, again in the Valley of Rephaim. As before (v.19), David inquires of the Lord. Unlike earlier, however, this time David is told not to go straight up. Apparently the first confrontation was with a smaller contingent of Philistines, whereas now a flanking movement is strategically preferable. The Lord instructs David to “move quickly” as soon as he hears the sound of “marching” in the treetops, promising to go out in front of them. David, acting at God’s command, defeats the Philistines and pursues them “all the way from” Gibeon to Gezer.
2. The ark brought to Jerusalem (6:1–23)
Apart from brief mention in 1Sa 14:18, the ark of the covenant has not been mentioned since 1Sa 7:2. David now adds to political centralization in Jerusalem a distinctly religious focus by bringing to the city the most venerated object of his people’s past: the Lord’s ark—repository of the covenant, locus of atonement, throne of Israel’s invisible Lord.
1–5 For the third time (cf. 5:17–21, 22–25) David assembles his troops, here to serve as a military escort for the ark of the covenant. David’s “chosen men” are reminiscent of Saul’s elite corps of soldiers (see 1Sa 24:2). For at least half a century the ark of the covenant had been sequestered in Kiriath Jearim, in the house of Abinadab—either inaccessible to the Israelites because of Philistine control of the region, or languishing in neglect (perhaps partially because King Saul had shown no interest in it; cf. 1Ch 13:3).
The solemnity of the scene that unfolds is enhanced by the grandiose description of the ark and the repeated references to it. It is depicted as the seat of authority of “the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” (see 1Sa 4:4). It is also referred to as the “ark of God” and the “ark of the LORD.” The ark “is called by the name/Name,” an idiom denoting ownership and thus here emphasizing that the ark is the Lord’s property. The term “Name” (GK 9005) not only refers to the Lord’s name but also stands for his presence.
David’s intention to “bring up” the ark to the City of David is of course not only commendable but also entirely appropriate. At the same time, however, his first attempt to do so follows Philistine rather than Levitical procedure. David and his men transport it on a “new cart” (see 1Sa 6:7–8). Abinadab’s sons (or perhaps grandsons), Uzzah and Ahio, were given the task of guiding the cart, Ahio walking in front and Uzzah presumably bringing up the rear.
With David taking the lead, the Israelites begin “celebrating.” In this context “before the LORD” means “before the ark.” “Songs” and “harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals” were staple elements on such joyful occasions.
6–11 At the threshing floor of Nacon (possibly a place of sanctity), Uzzah (whose name, ironically, means “Strength”) sensed that the oxen pulling the cart were stumbling and that the ark might fall to the ground. Thus he “reached out” to steady the ark and “took hold of” it. Despite whatever good intentions he may have had, his doom was sealed.
The wrath of divine judgment fell on Uzzah for several reasons. (1) Most obvious was “his irreverent act” of putting his hand on the ark (cf. 1Ch 13:10). (2) Uzzah was transporting the ark in a cart rather than carrying it on his shoulders as prescribed in the law. (3) There is no evidence that he was a Kohathite Levite (cf. Nu 4:15). Just as God had “struck down” (GK 5782) and put to death some of the men of Beth Shemesh for looking into the ark (1Sa 6:19; cf. Nu 4:20), so also God “struck [Uzzah] down” for touching the ark. Ironically, he died “beside” the ark, which he had been attempting to rescue from real or imagined harm.
The Lord’s anger causes David to react first with anger of his own and then with fear. He is understandably indignant that the divine “wrath” (GK 7288) has broken out against Uzzah and resulted in his death, a seemingly harsh penalty for so small an infraction. It is not surprising that David’s anger against God should be mingled with fear of him; he questions whether the ark can “ever” come to him.
David decides that a cooling-off period is in order before he is willing to give further consideration to taking the ark to be “with him” in the “City of David.” Instead, he gives the ark a temporary home in the house of Obed-Edom, a Levite (1Ch 15:17–18, 21, 24–25; 16:4–5, 38)—possibly a Kohathite Levite (cf. Jos 21:20, 24–26; 1Ch 6:66, 69). There the ark remained for three months, during which time the Lord blessed the house of Obed-Edom with numerous descendants (cf. 1Ch 26:8). This fact led to the confidence of David that the Lord would bless the house of David forever (7:29).
12–19 When David is told of the Lord’s blessing on the house of Obed-Edom “because of the ark,” he proceeds to bring the ark up to the fortress, accompanied by “the elders of Israel and the commanders of units of a thousand” (1Ch 15:25). If in the case of the first attempt there was celebration and singing (v.5), now there is “rejoicing.”
“Those who were carrying the ark” were, of course, (Kohathite) Levites (1Ch 15:26). It seems likely that every six steps a bull and a fattened calf were sacrificed, after which the procession continued. Given the proximity of the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David, such a procedure would not have been needlessly cumbersome or time-consuming.
Prefiguring the priestly functions of King David, the prophet Samuel had earlier worn a “linen ephod” (see 1Sa 2:18) and most likely the linen robe normally worn under the ephod (cf. 1Ch 15:27; also Ex 28:31). During the time of the Israelite monarchy, kings occasionally officiated as priests (cf. 24:25; 1Ki 8:64; 9:25).
“With all his might” David “danced before the LORD”—i.e., before the ark, the symbol of the Divine Presence. He and the entire nation now “brought up” the ark from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem. The scene is punctuated with shouts of excitement and triumph and with the sound of ram’s-horn trumpets.
“Michal daughter of Saul” (so described because she is depicted here as being critical of David and is therefore acting like a true daughter of Saul) watched the proceedings from a window. Perhaps still smarting from her separation from her former husband Paltiel (cf. 3:13–16), Michal looks at David leaping and dancing with something less than the love she at one time had for him (see 1Sa 18:20), and she reacts with disgust. Once she had helped David escape through a window (1Sa 19:12); now, peering at him through a window, she despises him “in her heart.”
The ark is brought in and set in its predetermined place “inside the tent David had pitched for it.” Apparently at a somewhat later date, another tabernacle was constructed and installed at the high place in Gibeon (1Ki 3:4; 1Ch 16:39; 21:29; 2Ch 1:3, 5, 13), about six miles northwest of Jerusalem. Thus there were in effect two tabernacles: The one in Jerusalem served as the repository for the ark (1Ch 16:37), while the one in Gibeon housed the other tabernacle furnishings (1Ch 16:39–40).
During the time that the Mosaic tabernacle was not in use (for whatever reason), various offerings continued to be sacrificed without necessary benefit of the bronze altar of burnt offering. Now David sacrifices “burnt offerings and fellowship offerings” as an act of gratitude and consecration “before the LORD” (i.e., honoring the Divine Presence symbolized by the ark). In particular, the fellowship offering signified the desire of the worshipers to rededicate themselves to God in covenant allegiance and to reaffirm their king as God’s covenanted temporal ruler.
After bringing an unspecified number of offerings, David blesses the people “in the name of the LORD Almighty,” once again performing the role of a priest. David adds to his blessing the distribution of food.
20–23 Having blessed the Israelites who witnessed the procession of the ark (v.18), David returns home to “bless” (GK 1385) his own household. When a warrior returned victorious from battle, the women of his hometown would come out to meet him and would celebrate with music and dancing. David might have expected his wife Michal to celebrate his similar triumph in much the same way. If so, he is quickly disappointed.
Michal’s words drip with the “How” of sarcasm: David, the “king of Israel” (an office once occupied by her father Saul), has “distinguished himself.” To what extent David’s state of undress was scandalous is impossible to say (see comment on v.14). Far from the kind of “vulgar fellow” who would be an exhibitionist, David makes it clear that he is most concerned about how the Lord evaluates his actions, insisting that he is celebrating “before the LORD,” not before the “slave girls.” In his rebuke of Michal, he clearly dissociates himself from Saul (“your father”) and the Saulides by asserting that God had chosen him rather than them.
The chapter ends on a somber note: “Michal daughter of Saul” remains childless to her dying day. In ancient times childlessness, whether natural or enforced, was the ultimate tragedy for a woman.
3. The Lord’s covenant with David (7:1–17)
1–3 Settled in his royal house and victor over his enemies, David’s regal status is now beyond question. He can thus now be referred to as “the king.”
David decides that the time has finally come for him to do what any self-respecting king worthy of the name should do: build a house for his God. The contrast between his own house and that of the Lord is stark: The human king is “living” in a sumptuous “palace” while the “ark of God remains” in a mere “tent.” Constructed of the finest materials and with the best available workmanship (see 5:11), David’s palace overwhelms in size and splendor the relatively simple tent. To David’s credit he recognizes that the imbalance needs to be rectified.
Safe within his well-fortified palace and behind secure frontiers, the king doubtless had plenty of time for a major construction project. The Lord has “given him rest from all his enemies around him,” fulfilling during David’s reign a promise he had made to Israel centuries earlier (cf. Dt 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; Jos 1:13, 15) and had already fulfilled during the lifetime of Joshua (Jos 21:44; 22:4; 23:1).
Just as Saul had been advised by Samuel the prophet (1Sa 3:20), so also David would be counseled by various prophets, the most important being Nathan. Agreeing that the king should fulfill his desire to build a house for God, Nathan understands that David will ultimately follow the path of obedient servanthood because “the LORD is with” him.
4–7 The messenger formula (“This is what the LORD says”) pinpoints Nathan as the mediator of the divine oracle. David is now referred to by the Lord as “my servant David,” a description that he willingly and humbly accepts (v.26).
The Lord’s first question in v.5 expects a negative answer (cf. 1Ch 17:4). In the broader context, at least two reasons are given why David himself did not build the temple: (1) He was too busy waging war with his enemies (1Ki 5:3); (2) he was a warrior who had shed much blood (1Ch 22:8; 28:3). Neither reason dims David’s vision, however, and before his death he makes extensive preparations for the temple (cf. 1Ch 22:2–5; 28:2).
The tabernacle will still suffice as the Lord’s dwelling. He reminds Nathan that he has never “dwelt” in a permanent house, not from the day of the Exodus. He has been content with “moving from place to place,” demonstrating his continuing desire to walk among his people. The irony in v.6 must not be missed: Although God condescends to accompany his people on their journey with a tent as his dwelling, a tent carried by them, all along they have in fact been carried by him.
The second question (v.7) also expects a negative answer. It implies that the Lord never required the Israelites nor any of their rulers to build him a “house of cedar.” The word “people” (GK 6639) used with reference to Israel is an important theme in the chapter, employed four times in each half. “I will be your God, and you will be my people” or the equivalent is doubtless the most characteristic covenant expression in the entire OT (cf. v.24; Ex 6:7; Lev 26:12; Dt 26:17–18; et al.).
8–1 la The repetition of the messenger formula (cf. v.4) marks the start of a new section of Nathan’s oracle. Here, however, the word “LORD” has been augmented by “Almighty” (GK 7372), a regal title that stresses the Lord’s function as covenant Suzerain of David, his “servant” vassal.
The divine grant to David is divided into two parts: promises he will realize (vv.8–11a) and those to be fulfilled after his death (vv.11b–16). In vv.7b–8a the Lord reviews his earlier blessings on his servant David. He begins by reminding David of where he found him. Once a mere shepherd boy, David has been given a much weightier responsibility: to be “ruler” (GK 5592) over the Lord’s people Israel.
As the Lord had been “moving from place to place” (v.6) with his people, so he has been with David wherever he has gone. He had promised to “cut off” (GK 4162) David’s enemies from before him. Now the Lord promises three things.
(1) He will make David’s “name great,” a promise that is a clear echo of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Ge 12:2). It is fulfilled in 8:13.
(2) The Lord will “provide a place” for Israel. This had been predicted long ago (Dt 11:24; cf. Jos 1:3–4). And far from being temporary, the “place” that God would provide would be the land where he would “plant” (GK 5749) them (cf. Ex 15:17; Pss 44:2; 80:8). Having a home of their own, David and his countrymen will be free from “wicked people” and their oppression. Although oppression had been virtually endemic in Israel during the entire period of the judges, such would no longer be the case.
(3) The Lord will give David “rest” (GK 5663) from all his enemies. The method he will use will be to “subdue” them (1Ch 17:10). As always, the ultimate Giver of the rest is God himself.
11b–16 “The LORD declares to you” introduces God’s promises to David’s descendants: a “house” (GK 1074; i.e., a dynasty); a throne and kingdom that will last forever; a “house” (GK 1074; i.e., a temple); and a Father-son relationship, including covenant love that will never be taken away. “House” is obviously used with two different meanings in these verses. All the promises will be fulfilled after David’s death (i.e., his being laid to “rest” with his “fathers”; see comment on 2:30–32).
It is David’s “offspring” who will build the Lord’s temple. The emphasis that his offspring will “come from your own body” forges yet another striking link to the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Ge 15:4). The possibility of understanding “offspring” (lit., “seed”; GK 2446) as either singular or plural is exploited by Paul in Gal 3:16 (see comments on that verse). The Lord goes on to promise that he will “establish” (GK 3922) the “kingdom” and “throne” of Solomon.
In v.13a, “house” means temple. David’s offspring has been designated to build a temple for the Lord’s “Name.” As for v.13b, the Lord promises that the Davidic dynasty, throne, and kingdom will endure “forever” (a fact mentioned seven times in ch. 7).
The Lord’s words in v.14a are doubtless the best known as well as the most solemn in the entire chapter: “I [emphatic] will be his father, and he [emphatic] will be my son.” In its original setting the son is Solomon. The statement is therefore a formula of adoption. Because of its typological use in 2Co 6:18 and Heb 1:5, v.14a has long been considered messianic in a Christological sense.
A further aspect of the father-son metaphor is its covenant setting. The use of “father” for God and “son” for Solomon is thus entirely appropriate in what has justifiably come to be known as the Davidic covenant. Although the Davidic king was to enjoy the unique relationship of being the Lord’s “son,” the Lord would use “men” as agents of divine judgment on Solomon (and his dynastic successors) “when he does wrong.” It is not an idle promise: “The rod” of divine wrath fell on Jerusalem and her citizens because of the sins of David’s descendants (cf. La 3:1).
Finally, the Lord promises that although he “took away” (GK 6073) his love from Saul, the divine “love” (GK 2876) will never “be taken away” (GK 6073) from David’s son Solomon and his descendants, through whom David’s throne “will be established.” That David’s “house” will “endure” echoes Abigail’s insight in 1Sa 25:28. That the throne of David will remain “forever” refers ultimately to Christ, because David’s kingdom came to an end.
Taken together, vv.14b–15 have often been understood to mean that the Davidic covenant is unconditional: No matter what David’s descendants do, the Lord’s love will “never be taken away” from them. But that the Lord will punish the king for disobeying the law at least qualifies the promise if not making it conditional. Kings are not to use the Davidic promise as a justification for wicked behavior.
17 It was incumbent on a prophet to report “all the words" that the Lord commissioned him to proclaim, and Nathan keeps nothing back.
4. David’s prayer to the Lord (7:18–29)
18–21 In response to the Lord’s promises as mediated through Nathan, David “went in” (probably into the tent he had pitched for the ark) and sat “before the LORD.” Beginning his prayer with appropriate humility and deference, David addresses God with a title found in the books of Samuel only here—“Sovereign LORD”—which he employs seven times in vv.18–29. And if God is sovereign to David, he recognizes his own status as vassal by referring to himself ten times as the Lord’s “servant” in vv.19–29.
The central theme of the prayer is David’s “house/dynasty,” a word that occurs seven times (vv.18 ["family”], 19, 25, 26, 27, 29 [twice]). Though his household is insignificant at present, David is confident that it will become great in the future because of the proven reliability of God and his promises. That the Lord has brought him to this point in his experience would be sufficient for David, but he gratefully recognizes that in God’s eyes it is “not enough.” The Lord has even better things in store for him in the future.
The Lord has honored his servant beyond measure, and David asserts that there is scarcely anything more that he can say. He affirms that the Lord “know[s]” (GK 3359) his servant, which perhaps includes the fact that he has “chosen” him (cf. Ge 18:19; 2Sa 6:21).
If David earlier knew that the Lord had blessed him “for the sake of” his people Israel (5:12), he now confesses that the Lord has done a “great thing” (GK 1525) simply for the sake of his “word” (GK 1821) and according to his “will” (GK 4213). The greatness of God overwhelms David, for the Sovereign Lord is “great” (GK 1540), he has done “great” (GK 1525) wonders (v.23), and his name is “great” (GK 1540; v.26).
22–24 Verse 22 is only one among many OT texts describing God as unique. That there is “no one like” the Lord is a major theme in the Song of Hannah (1Sa 2:2; see also 10:24). Three times in v.23 Israel is referred to as God’s “people,” the one elect “nation” (GK 1580) out of all the “nations.” Israel’s powerful “God” is contrasted with the nations’ impotent and ineffective “gods.”
Israel’s matchless Lord has gone out to do three things for his grateful people: “redeem” GK 7009) them, “make a name” for himself, and “perform great and awesome wonders” by driving out the enemy. The ancient establishment of Israel as God’s own people “forever” is now to be channeled through David and his dynasty, which will continue “forever” (vv.25, 29). The OT manifestation of the kingdom of God is now to be mediated through the Davidic monarchy.
25–29 David is much concerned about the permanence of the promise the Lord has made concerning the Davidic dynasty. The covenanted establishment of David’s house would be a visible sign of the greatness of God’s name. Indeed, “LORD Almighty” would become widely known as the appropriate royal title of the Great King, the God of Israel.
David is grateful that God has “revealed” to him his plans and purposes: “I will build a house for you.” He acknowledges that the Sovereign Lord alone is God and that his words are “trustworthy” (GK 622). Although 2Sa 7 never uses the term “covenant” (GK 1382) of God’s promises to David, “good things” (GK 3208) is a technical term synonymous with “covenant” in contexts like this (cf. 2Ch 21:7; Ps 89:3; Isa 55:3).
David concludes his prayer with a request to the Lord to “be pleased” to bless the Davidic dynasty. Since it is the Sovereign Lord himself who has promised, David speaks with the calm assurance of a man who knows that his house will continue forever “in your sight.” The prayer of David thus ends on a note of confident contentment.
5. David’s enemies defeated (8:1–14)
1 It is impossible to know for certain whether the divine promises of ch. 7 preceded or followed the divine victories of ch. 8. In any event, the account of the Philistine defeat resumes the story told in 5:17–25. Exactly what David “took” from the Philistines cannot be determined with certainty. The importance of the conquest of Philistia by David can scarcely be overestimated.
2 As David defeated the Philistines, so also he defeated the Moabites. Why he fought against Moab is unknown, especially since the Moabitess Ruth was his ancestress (cf. Ru 4:10, 13, 16–17) and Moab had at one time sheltered his parents (see 1Sa 22:3–4). His method of executing a specified number of prisoners of war is not attested elsewhere. Only a third of its inhabitants are “allowed to live” (cf. 1Sa 27:9, 11).
The Moabites “became subject to” David, which included bringing “tribute” (GK 4966). This word often means “gift(s)/offering(s)” presented as sacrifices, which are thus understood as tribute brought into the throne room of the Great King. After David’s death, nations conquered by him would continue to bring tribute to his son Solomon (1Ki 4:21) and his successors.
3–12 Despite the limited information available about Aram during David’s reign, the space given to its conquest in this chapter testifies to its overall significance in the scheme of things. David “fought” and “defeated” the Arameans. His main adversary is “Hadadezer son of Rehob.” Hadadezer (“[The God] Hadad is [my] help”) is the Hebrew form of an Aramean dynastic royal title.
The pronoun “he” (v.3) most likely refers to Hadadezer, for David could not have extended his power to the Euphrates before the defeat of Hadadezer. Marking the eastern reaches of David’s realm, the Euphrates was one of the fixed boundaries of the land promised to Abraham (Ge 15:18).
In driving back the forces of Hadadezer to the Euphrates, David obtained substantial numbers of chariots, charioteers, and foot soldiers. Most of the horses that pulled the chariots he “hamstrung” (i.e., severed the large tendon above and behind their hocks to disable them). Reinforcements from Damascus came to “help” Hadadezer, but David defeated them, and the Arameans became tributary to him.
Part of the tribute that David took from Hadadezer was his officers’ “gold shields,” ceremonial or decorative shields not used in battle (cf. SS 4:4; Eze 27:11). They were brought to Jerusalem and eventually placed in Solomon’s temple, where they remained for well over a century (see 2Ki 11:10). Three towns that belonged to Hadadezer yielded a “great quantity of bronze” to King David. Solomon used the bronze in his construction of the articles of the temple (1Ch 18:8).
The news of David’s defeat of the entire army of Hadadezer eventually reaches the ears of Tou king of Hamath, who had been at war with Aram. Tou wants to make peace with David, so he sends his son Joram to “congratulate” him on his victory over Hadadezer and to bring a voluntary gift of “articles of silver and gold and bronze” in order to gain David’s goodwill.
In grateful acknowledgment of divine blessing, David dedicates all the articles—whether received as gifts, as tribute, or as plunder—to the Lord. After recording the defeat of Aram in the north, the narrator includes a summary of David’s conquest of neighboring nations in every direction: south (Edom), east (Moab and Ammon), west (Philistia), and southwest (Amalek).
13–14 David’s “striking down” the Edomites was accomplished through Abishai son of Zeruiah (see 1Ch 18:12), but David gets the credit because he is the supreme commander. At the same time, Abishai’s brother Joab strikes down 12,000 Edomites (cf. the title of Ps 60). David then “put garrisons throughout Edom.” In all his successes, however, the Lord was the One who “gave victory.”
The regions added to David’s realm through the defeat of all the nations more than doubled the territory of Israel, thus initiating the golden age of Israelite history. David’s new boundaries correspond to those outlined in the divine promise to Abraham (Ge 15:18; cf. also Dt 11:24; Jos 1:4).
6. David’s officials (8:15–18)
15 A mighty warrior, King David now reigns over “all” Israel and administers justice and equity to “all” his people. “Doing what was just and right” was the hallmark of a strong king in the ancient Near East and included such reforms as the elimination of oppression and exploitation (cf. esp. Ps 72).
16–18 As expected, the commander of David’s army is Joab son of Zeruiah. Jehoshaphat is recorder and remains so into the reign of Solomon (1Ki 4:3). The function of the recorder was apparently either to have oversight of state records and documents or to serve as a royal herald. Though appearing here by name for the first time, Zadok was probably one of the preliminary fulfillments of the oracle of the man of God in 1Sa 2:35. It is striking, and perhaps intentional, that Jehoshaphat (meaning “The LORD judges”) and Zadok (“Righteous”) are listed in sequence so soon after David is described as doing what is “just and right” (v.15).
© 1986 The Zondervan Corporation
Zadok shared priestly duties with Ahimelech during at least part of the reign of David. Possibly Zadok was appointed to offer sacrifices at the tabernacle in Gibeon (cf. 1Ch 16:39–40) and Ahimelech to minister before the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem.
The function of Seraiah as “secretary” was as much that of secretary of state as it was that of royal scribe. Benaiah was in charge of David’s bodyguard (23:22–23), became a royal executioner (cf. 1Ki 2:25, 34, 46), and eventually rose to the position of commander-in-chief of Israel’s army (1Ki 4:4). The Kerethites and Pelethites constituted a corps of foreign mercenaries employed as David’s bodyguard (for details see ZPEB, 1:787).
The list of David’s officials concludes by reporting that his sons (how many and who they were is not stated) were “royal advisers” (GK 3913), the same word translated “priests” in v.17. Apparently in early Israel there were priests who were (1) connected with the royal house, (2) not of the Levitical order, and (3) serving a function that is still largely unknown to us.
D. David’s Court History (9:1–20:26)
1. Kindness to Mephibosheth (9:1–13)
1 Now that he is the undisputed king, David can afford to be magnanimous. He thus actively seeks out anyone “still left of the house of Saul” so that he might show “kindness” (GK 2876) to him “for Jonathan’s sake.” David’s desire to show kindness derives from his long-standing covenant relationship with the deceased Jonathan (1Sa 18:3; 20:12–15).
2–5 David makes contact with the house(hold) of Saul through Ziba. David asks him whether Saul’s house “still” has a survivor to whom David would be able to show kindness. Ziba responds that there “still” remains one of Jonathan’s sons, a man who is “crippled in both feet.” He tells David where the man is living—in Lo Debar, a town on the other side of the Jordan. David sends for Mephibosheth.
6–8 David meets “Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul” (his ancestry is fundamental to the narrative). Mephibosheth approaches David with “your servant” and bows down to him. Doubtless knowing what had happened to his uncle Ish-Bosheth (cf. 4:5–8), he is understandably apprehensive. To put him at ease David tells him not to be afraid. True to his earlier promise (vv.1, 3), David declares emphatically that he will show Mephibosheth kindness for Jonathan’s sake. David’s specific expressions of covenant loyalty to Saul’s grandson consist of (1) restoring to him all the land that had belonged to Saul (though certainly not his father’s kingdom; cf. 16:3), and (2) welcoming him as a perennial guest at his table. “Eating (food) at the (king’s) table” can be understood as a metaphor referring to house arrest (cf. 2Ki 25:29), though that is not necessarily David’s intention.
Again Mephibosheth “bowed down” and, speaking to the king, referred to himself as “your servant” (cf. v.6). He was grateful that David should “notice” him. Becoming more craven still in his submission to David, Mephibosheth referred to himself as a “dead dog.”
9–11a Ziba is “summoned” into David’s presence, and David announces that he has turned over to Mephibosheth the property belonging to Saul and his “family.” David then gives Ziba (together with his sons) the responsibility to “farm” the land for Mephibosheth, since the latter is a cripple (v.13). Ziba is also to “bring in the crops” so that Saul’s grandson may “be provided for”—a phrase that seems to cast a cloud over David’s generous pledge that Mephibosheth would always “eat [food] at [the king’s] table,” in that it appears that Mephibosheth would be supplying some if not most of his own provisions.
11b–13 David’s intention to show kindness to Saul’s survivors (v.1) is now implemented. Some time has passed since the earlier mention of Mephibosheth in 4:4, when he was no more than twelve years of age. He is now old enough to have a “young son” named Mica. Mephibosheth moves from Lo Debar to Jerusalem.
2. The Ammonites defeated (10:1–19)
1–5 The deceased king of the Ammonites was Nahash (1Sa 11:1–2). When political power is based on dynastic rule, a king about to die can reasonably expect his son to succeed him as king (cf. 2Ki 13:24). Thus Hanun becomes king of Ammon. Assuming that Nahash is the same Ammonite king defeated by Saul (1Sa 11:1–11), the kindness he showed to David may have been expressed during David’s days as a fugitive from the Israelite royal court. David now wants to reciprocate by showing “kindness” (GK 2876) to Nahash’s son, thereby cementing the alliance already existing between the two nations. Just as the events of ch. 9 promoted domestic harmony inside Israel, so this event helped maintain the viability of one of David’s international agreements and strengthen his position outside Israel.
The means chosen by David to show kindness is sending a delegation to “express his sympathy” on the death of Nahash. The Ammonite “nobles,” convinced that David’s delegation are spies, share their suspicions with Hanun. Accepting the assessment of his men, Hanun decides to refuse David’s cordial overtures and to humiliate David’s messengers. He begins shaving off “half of each man’s beard,” no doubt vertically rather than horizontally to make them look as foolish as possible. He then cuts off their garments “in the middle at the buttocks” and sends them on their way. Forced exposure of the buttocks was a shameful practice inflicted on prisoners of war (cf. Isa 20:4).
Hanun’s treatment of David’s men was clearly a violation of the courtesies normally extended to the envoys of other states in ancient times. Indeed, the indignities heaped on them are a grotesque parody of the normal symbolic actions that accompanied mourning. When David was told about their humiliation, he sent messengers to tell them to stay at Jericho until their beards had grown back; only then could they return to Jerusalem. The regrowth of the beards of David’s men would portend disaster for the Ammonites.
6–14 The Ammonites’ perception of themselves is accurate: They have become a “stench” in David’s nostrils, affirming that David would almost surely be expected to declare war against Ammon. In anticipation of that likelihood the Ammonites, at enormous cost, hire a large army of Arameans to supplement their own troops.
Upon learning that the Ammonite-Aramean coalition has been formed, David takes no chances. He sends out the entire army, under the leadership of his commander Joab, to engage them. While the Ammonites prepare to defend their city by amassing at its most vulnerable point, the “entrance to their city gate,” the troops from the various Aramean districts are deployed in “the open country.”
Before the battle is joined, Joab decides on a strategy and encourages his brother Abishai. He perceives enemy battle lines in front of him and behind him, thus recognizing that he must divide his army if he is to prevail. Sensing that the Arameans are the stronger of the two forces in the enemy coalition, he chooses some of the best troops and leads them personally to fight against the Arameans. The rest of the men he puts under the command of Abishai, who leads them against the Ammonites.
Failing to size up one’s opponent adequately, for whatever reason, can prove disastrous. Joab therefore stresses vital communication between the two commanders so that either can come to the other’s “rescue” if necessary—an outcome that the Ammonites and Arameans would be unable to accomplish with respect to each other.
Joab’s “Be strong” is clearly reminiscent not only of the ringing words of encouragement of Moses and the Lord to Joshua and to all Israel (Dt 31:6–7, 23; Jos 1:6–7, 9) but also of those of the Transjordanian tribal leaders to Joshua (Jos 1:18). Joab senses that he is responsible not only for the people of Israel but also for “the cities of our God.” Like Eli before him (see 1Sa 3:18), Joab resigns himself to divine sovereignty: “The LORD will do what is good in his sight.”
Leading Israel’s finest troops and convinced of the Lord’s guidance, Joab marches into battle against the Arameans, who turn tail and flee. As soon as the Ammonites learn of Aram’s headlong retreat, they scurry to the protection of the walls of Rabbah. Apparently unable to pursue his advantage against the Ammonites by besieging the city—for now, at least—Joab returns to Jerusalem.
15–19 Undeterred by what they consider a minor setback, the Arameans regroup their forces. Hadadezer sends for Aramean reinforcements from beyond the eastern side of the Euphrates River, and his army commander Shobach leads them to Helam. When David’s intelligence network informs him of the exact location of the Aramean forces, he musters his entire army and crosses the Jordan River eastward to engage the Arameans in battle (see also comment on 11:1). The Israelites prove to be more than a match for them; David and his men press their advantage and inflict huge numbers of casualties on the enemy. The defeat of the Arameans leaves them no option; they sue for peace and become subject to the Israelites (cf. 8:6). The defeat of the Ammonites is reported in 12:26–31.
3. David’s sin against Bathsheba (11:1–5)
1 The story, continuing the account begun in ch. 10, is set “in the spring, at the time when kings go off to war.” Springtime, which marks the end of the rainy season in the Middle East, assures that roads will be in good condition (or at least passable), that there will be plenty of fodder for war horses and pack animals, and that an army on the march will be able to raid the fields for food.
David sends his commander Joab and his army to continue the battle against Ammon. The result is the mass slaughter of the Ammonites and the siege of Rabbah, their capital city, the reduction and capture of which is yet to come (cf. 12:26–29). Every able-bodied man in Israel goes to war—except the king himself. The contrast between David and his men could hardly be expressed in starker terms. Staying home in such situations was not his usual practice, of course (cf. 5:2; 8:1–14; 10:17). Indeed, leading one’s troops into battle was expected to be the major external activity of an ancient Near Eastern ruler (see 1Sa 8:5–6, 20). Although therefore reprehensible in itself, David’s conduct on this occasion opens the way for royal behavior that is more despicable still.
2–5 Perhaps because of the oppressive heat of a spring sirocco, David lengthens his afternoon siesta into the cooler part of the day. Getting up from his bed and taking a stroll, “from” the roof of his palace he sees a “very beautiful” woman bathing. The heat of the unusually warm spring day has forced the woman to bathe outside to escape the suffocatingly hot atmosphere of her house. Failing to heed the warning of texts such as Nu 15:39, David lusts after her and sends someone to find out who she is.
The woman is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Eliam was the son of Ahithophel (23:34), who was in turn David’s counselor (see 15:12). Since Eliam was one of David’s warriors and thus perhaps a foreign mercenary, and since Bathsheba is listed along with the pagan ancestresses of Jesus (Mt 1:3–6), she possibly was of non-Israelite origin. She was married to Uriah the Hittite, another of David’s mercenary warriors (cf. 23:39). He was apparently a worshiper of the Lord (his name probably means “The LORD is my light”). Like Ahimelech the Hittite before him (see 1Sa 26:6), Uriah depends on his master David for sustenance and support. In return he gives total loyalty to the king.
It is thus the wife of a trusted servant that David is about to violate, and v.4 mercifully tells the story in the briefest possible compass. Master of all he surveys, David has everything—and yet does not have enough. David sends messengers to get her. She came to him, and David “slept with her.” The scene is blatantly adulterous.
The parenthetic sentence—“She had purified herself from her uncleanness” (i.e., her ceremonial uncleanness from her menstrual period; cf. Lev 15:25–26, 30)—informs the reader that Bathsheba was clearly not pregnant when she came to David. Shortly thereafter she found out that she was, leaving no doubt that the child is David’s. Of all the fateful conceptions recorded in the OT (cf. Ge 16:4–5; 19:36; 25:21; 38:18; Ex 2:2), Bathsheba’s ranks near the top of the list in terms of future repercussions.
4. The murder of Uriah (11:6–27)
6–17 David hatches a three-phase scheme to cover up the serious problem of Bathsheba’s pregnancy, each phase more ruthless than the preceding: a clean one (vv.6–11), a dirty one (vv.12–13), and a criminal one (vv.14–17).
As Bathsheba had sent word to David informing him of the problem, David now sends word to Joab to begin the process of seeking a solution. At David’s command Joab sends him “Uriah the Hittite,” the full description underscoring Uriah’s mercenary status and therefore presumably also his loyalty to David. Uriah “came to him,” just as Bathsheba had come under similar circumstances (v.4).
David begins his conversation with Uriah in an apparently cordial way by asking about the welfare of Joab, the soldiers, and the war. Ostensibly satisfied concerning how things are going on the battlefield, David tells Uriah to go down to his house and “wash” his “feet.” Although usually an expression describing an act affording refreshment and relaxation in a land where dusty roads are the rule (see 1Sa 25:41), the phrase may well be intended here as a double entendre, given the euphemistic use of “feet” in the sense of “genitals” (cf. Ex 4:25; Dt 28:57). Thus Bathsheba’s washing and Uriah’s washing would both involve or eventuate in sexual cohabitation. So Uriah “left” the palace, and a royal gift “was sent” after him.
“But Uriah slept”—not with Bathsheba, as David had hoped, but “at the entrance to the palace” with all of David’s servants. The next day, when David learns that Uriah did not sleep with his wife, he obviously wants to know why. Just as David and his men had always “kept themselves from women” whenever they set out to do battle (1Sa 21:4–5), so now Uriah refuses to sleep with his wife. How could Uriah in good conscience “eat” and “drink” and “lie” with his wife, while the rest of the army was on the battlefield? That he calls Bathsheba “my wife” could hardly have failed to rebuke David, who had callously violated the relationship between Uriah and the person most precious to him.
Uriah concludes his statement to David by emphatically rejecting the king’s offer. Taking a solemn oath, which translates literally as “By your life, and by the life of your soul,” Uriah swears that he will not so much as think of doing the unthinkable.
Failing in his first attempt to cover up his sin, David tries again: “‘Stay here one more day.’ . . . So Uriah remained in Jerusalem” for two more days. Although he will not go to his own house to eat and drink, he has no such scruples in the king’s house. When David gets him drunk, he assumes that Uriah’s inhibitions will be overcome and that he will automatically go home, sleep with Bathsheba, and thus absolve David of any charge of her child’s paternity. At first it appears that David’s plan will succeed: Indeed, “in the evening he went out to sleep on his mat.” But on his bed at home? With his wife? No, on the bed where he had slept earlier: “among his master’s servants. He did not go home.”
His second attempt at covering up his affair with Bathsheba having failed, David senses that he has exhausted his options and so decides to have Uriah killed. David takes no chances: In the morning he “wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah.” Doubtless unknown to him, Uriah carries to Joab his own death warrant.
David orders Joab to put Uriah in the front line of battle against the Ammonites where “the fighting is fiercest.” Uriah is then to be abandoned to his fate: He will be “struck down and die.” “Cursed is the man who kills his neighbor secretly,” intones Dt 27:24. David “struck down” (GK 5782) Uriah and took his wife (12:9), and these things were done “in secret” (12:12). The implication is obvious: David’s heinous actions are punishable under the divine curse.
At this point in the account, however, Uriah is still alive. When Joab receives David’s letter, he recognizes that to isolate Uriah as the only fatality in the attack would cast suspicion on David’s motives. Joab thus besieges Rabbah, the Ammonite capital, and puts Uriah at a “place” where its best troops are defending it. But he also sends other “men” in David’s “army” to accompany Uriah into the heat of battle. And so it is that “some” of the mercenaries are sacrificed so that one, relatively unnoticed, might die. David’s criminal purpose is finally accomplished: “Uriah the Hittite died.”
18–27a Sending a complete “account of the battle” to David through a messenger, Joab warns the latter that the king’s anger may “flare up”—presumably when he learns of the high casualty count. Indeed, says Joab, David may ask a series of questions designed to reveal the stupidity (in his opinion) of Joab’s battle plans against Rabbah. To get too near a city wall in ancient times was to flirt with mortal danger, since arrows and other missiles rained down from protected positions. Joab thus senses that when David hears about the casualties he will want to know why his men needlessly risked their lives.
Arriving in Jerusalem, Joab’s messenger tells David “everything” his master has sent him to communicate. He apparently elaborates somewhat on the words of Joab, however, by giving (or concocting) a few additional details. The powerful Ammonites, says the messenger, “came out” from Rabbah to engage the Israelites in “the open,” but David’s men were able to drive them back to “the entrance to the city gate.”
As the messenger completes the fulfillment of his mission to David, his words remind us that the tragedy has come full circle: The archers’ death volley has been fired “from” the wall. And it is not the guilty king, safe in his fortress palace in Jerusalem, who suffers; the enemy’s arrows find their mark in his innocent “men,” who are sacrificed so that David can inconspicuously dispose of his ultimate target, Uriah.
Temporarily oblivious to the divine displeasure, David resorts to a platitude: “The sword devours one as well as another.” From his own selfish perspective the king is basically saying that what is done is done, that it cannot be helped, and that innocent people will often get caught in the crossfire when vital goals are pursued. What is more, David further masks his true concerns by telling the messenger to authorize Joab to “press” the attack against Rabbah as part of the royal message that will “encourage” him.
When the news of Uriah’s death reaches Bathsheba, she mourns for him. David, however, apparently sheds no tears for Uriah (cf. 1:12). With the husband of Bathsheba now dead and the period of her mourning now over, the way is open for David to bring her to his house. The phrase emphasizes the abuse of royal power that David exercises. Bathsheba becomes David’s wife, and in due course a son is born of their earlier adulterous act. Although short-lived and unnamed, the child would not be unloved during the days of his fatal illness (cf. 12:16–24).
27b This is the only reference to “the LORD” in the entire chapter. David would later confess that his sin with Bathsheba is known to God and is therefore deserving of divine judgment (Ps 51:4).
5. Nathan’s rebuke (12:1–25)
1–10 In his prophetic role Nathan is sent by the Lord to proclaim his convicting word to the king. That Nathan’s rebuke begins with a parable makes it none the less effective. Now a rich man, David should have remembered what it was like to be “poor” because by his own admission he himself had once been a “poor man” (see 1Sa 18:23).
The parable is clear enough. David is the rich man, and Uriah is the poor man with only one “ewe lamb” (= Bathsheba). The verbs used of the ewe lamb indicate that it is prized as a genuine member of the poor man’s family (cf. especially the references to eating, drinking, and sleeping, precisely the things Uriah refused to do with his wife in 11:11). “Food” is literally “piece (of bread),” meager fare at best. That the ewe lamb stands for Uriah’s wife becomes clear at the end of v.3, where the status of the lamb is raised to that of a human being.
The word for “traveler” (lit., “walker”; GK 2144) reminds the reader that David’s trouble began because he had earlier “walked around” on the roof of his palace (see 11:2). Bound by culture and tradition to provide hospitality for his guest, the rich man set about to prepare a meal for him. Instead of slaughtering one of his own animals, however, he took the poor man’s one ewe lamb instead—just as David had sent messengers to get Bathsheba. That the rich man “refrained” from taking one of his own animals is a key element in understanding the main point of Nathan’s parable.
Understandably, David’s moral indignation against the rich man in Nathan’s parable takes the form of burning anger that will not be assuaged until justice is done. David, using the Lord’s name in a solemn oath, declares that the one who did this “deserves to die”—David of course being oblivious to the fact that he himself is “the man” (v.7a). David’s actual sentence reflects Ex 22:1, where the penalty for a stolen lamb is “four times over.” Nathan then delivers his terse incriminating word to David: “You are the man.”
Nathan goes on, using an amplified variation of the messenger formula, to remind David that it was the Lord who had anointed him king and delivered him from Saul’s clutches. Just as Saul, the Lord’s anointed, had fallen from grace, so also would David—though not in the same way or to the same degree. Furthermore, the Lord “gave” Saul’s “house” and wives (presumably including at least Ahinoam [1Sa 25:43] and perhaps his concubine Rizpah [cf. 3:7]) to David. That they are given into David’s “arms” is an ironic allusion to Nathan’s parable. And the God whose generosity knows no bounds would have “given” even more to David if he had considered it appropriate. But David’s unbridled desire and willful murder have foreclosed that option.
If Saul lost the kingdom through having “rejected [GK 4415] the word of the LORD” (1Sa 15:23), David is judged because he has decided to “despise [GK 1022] the word of the LORD.” To despise the Lord’s word is to break his commands and thus to incur guilt and punishment (cf. Nu 15:31), and that without remedy (cf. 2Ch 36:16). It is to do what is evil in his eyes (cf. Ps 51:4). It is tantamount to despising the Lord himself. David thus finds himself in unsavory company (cf. 1Sa 2:29–30).
11–12 The second section of the Lord’s oracle (vv.11–12) is relentless in the immediacy with which it threatens retaliation against the king. As David has done what is evil, so the Lord will bring “calamity” (GK 8288) upon him, “before your very eyes”—events such as Amnon’s rape of Tamar (13:1–14), Absalom’s murder of Amnon (13:28–29), Absalom’s rebellion against David (15:1–12). David’s punishment for his crimes against Bathsheba and Uriah is a clear example of a conditional element in the Davidic covenant (see comment on 7:15–16).
As David “took” Uriah’s wife, so the Lord will “take” David’s wives. As the Lord “gave” Saul’s property and wives and Israel’s kingdom to David, so he will now “give” David’s wives to someone else, to “one who is close to you”—ironically, an expression earlier used of David himself in similar circumstances (see 1Sa 15:28; 28:17). The “one who is close” to David turns out to be his own son Absalom.
13–14 To his credit, David confesses to the prophet Nathan that he has broken God’s law. Though he could have vacillated or indignantly denied Nathan’s accusation or ridded himself of Nathan in one way or another, David accepts full responsibility for his actions. And, as might be expected, the prophet does not leave the king comfortless. Nathan comes to David with words of divine grace. In judging the rich man for his cruelty (v.5), David had unwittingly chosen his own death penalty (cf. Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22). But the Lord, through his prophet, announces the forgiveness of David’s sin and preserves his life. That God does not hesitate to strike people down for what might be considered lesser infractions (see 6:7) makes his forbearance here all the more noteworthy.
At the same time, however, the Lord is not through with David, for David shows “utter contempt [GK 5540] for the LORD” (cf. 1Sa 2:17). While David will not “die,” the son born to him will.
15–23 Having fulfilled his prophetic mission, Nathan leaves the palace and goes home. The Lord then strikes Bathsheba’s newborn son with what proves to be a fatal illness. The phrase “the child that Uriah’s wife has borne to David” underscores the fact that David’s adultery and murder will claim yet another innocent victim.
Despite the prophet’s pronouncement that the child’s fate is sealed, David is not yet willing to resign himself to the death of his son. He therefore intercedes for the child’s life. Ostensibly as a symbol of mourning, he “fasted.” David’s servants stand “beside” him, concerned about him and urging him to get up and take care of his personal needs. He refuses, however, and will not so much as eat any food with them.
The death of the child takes place on “the seventh day.” David’s servants are reluctant to tell him of the child’s death for fear that their master may do something “desperate.” Aware of the whispering of his servants and thus realizing that the child is dead, David gives verbal expression to his own worst nightmare. The servants finally affirm to him that the child is indeed dead. Having admitted to himself the inevitable, David gets up from the ground, washes, puts on lotions, and changes his clothes, no doubt exchanging mourning garb for normal clothing.
After entering the “house of the LORD” (the tabernacle; see comment on 1Sa 1:7) to worship him, David then goes to “his own house.” There he breaks his fast (cf. v.16) and eats ordinary food. Understandably, David’s servants are confused. While the child was alive, David—acting like a mourner—had “fasted and wept.” Now that his son is dead, however, the king puts on garments befitting royalty and enjoys a good meal.
David readily admits that his conduct might appear peculiar, but he was counting on the open door of the divine “perhaps”: “Who knows?” But why should he fast now? Since the netherworld is the “Land of No Return,” the child “will not return” to David, and nothing that David can do will “bring him back again.” Indeed, David’s only option for a reunion with his son is to “go to him.”
24–25 At the beginning of the narrative, Bathsheba had been “the wife of Uriah the Hittite” (11:3), but as an outcome of the sin of King David she has become “his wife.” David “comforted” Bathsheba (who doubtless mourned her son’s death) when he “went to her and lay with her.” In due course she gave birth to yet another son, named Solomon, which apparently means “(God is) his peace.”
On the basis of his love for Solomon, the Lord “sent word through” the prophet Nathan, who was thereby instructed to call David’s newborn son Jedidiah (“Loved by the LORD”), a name similar to that of David himself (see 1Sa 16:13). Why the boy was given two names is not known.
If at the beginning of ch. 12 Nathan rebuked the king (vv.7–14), at its end he comforts him. But Nathan’s ministry with respect to David and Solomon is not yet finished. During David’s last days Nathan plays a key role in the succession of Solomon as king (cf. 1Ki 1:11–14, 24–27).
6. The Ammonites defeated (12:26–31)
26–28 Intensifying the siege of Rabbah (the Ammonite capital city) begun in 11:1, Joab captures its “royal citadel,” probably the major fortification either within the city or guarding the approaches to it. The city now rendered defenseless, Joab sends word to David that he has fought against Rabbah and taken its “water supply.” Joab advises David to muster the “rest of the troops” and lead them in the final attack against the city. He warns the king that if he refuses to become personally involved, Joab himself will capture Rabbah, and it will be named after Joab rather than after David. Since it was vital that Rabbah become a part of David’s domain, he must be credited with seizing it.
29–31 Thus David finishes what Joab has begun. Having “mustered” the necessary troops, he captures the city. Of the many trophies seized by David, one of the most spectacular was a gold crown that had rested on the Ammonite king’s head and was now transferred to David’s. Set with “precious stones,” the crown was of such enormous weight and value that it was probably used only on ceremonial occasions. The plunder was in “great quantity.” Upon the people David heaped a number of atrocities (cf. 8:2), apparently forcing them to work on various building projects.
Only after David had extended the forced labor requirement to the other defeated Ammonite towns did he and his troops return to Jerusalem. The Israelite victory was thus both thoroughgoing and complete.
7. Amnon’s sin against Tamar (13:1–22)
1–2 The events in this chapter occur some time later. A sister of Absalom, Tamar, is “beautiful” indeed (as were a number of the members of the family of David: cf. 1Sa 16:12; 17:42; 2Sa 14:25, 2). As a “virgin,” Tamar is protected property, inaccessible to males, including her brother. Amnon is therefore “frustrated” to the extent that he becomes lovesick, because “it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her.”
3–5 As the son of David’s brother Shimeah, Jonadab is Amnon’s cousin, and thus all the people mentioned by name in vv.1–22 are members of the same family circle. Jonadab is also Amnon’s “friend.” He wants to know why Amnon looks so “haggard” all the time. On hearing the reason, Jonadab advises Amnon to go to bed and “pretend to be ill.” When David hears of his son Amnon’s “illness,” he will come to see him. At that point Amnon should tell his father that he wants Tamar to come and give him something to eat, preparing it in his room. As she does so, Amnon will “watch her”—but in what sense? Amnon’s desire to “watch” reminds us of his father’s earlier voyeurism.
6–9 Amnon readily accepts the advice of Jonadab, whom he perceives as acting in his best interests. But although on David’s arrival Amnon at first quotes Jonadab’s words verbatim, he chooses his own terminology in describing what he wants her to do after she actually comes: “make some special bread.” The cakes/dumplings will strengthen his heart, but they will also reflect his amorous intentions.
Without hesitation Tamar obeys David’s command to go to the house of her “brother Amnon.” As might be expected, Amnon is “lying down,” a posture devastating for Tamar. Amnon’s response to Tamar’s six acts of solicitude on his behalf leads to a climactic seventh act of the capricious sort so characteristic of spoiled royalty: He “refused” to eat. He asks everyone to leave the room so that he can be alone and ravish his sister unhindered.
10–14a Once they are alone, Amnon tells Tamar to bring the “food” to him so that he might “eat” from her hand. The language Amnon uses is designed to perpetuate the charade of his pretended illness (cf. vv.5–6). Unsuspecting, Tamar brings the “bread” to Amnon, her “brother,” in the “bedroom”—a locale usually reserved for rest and bliss but where betrayal and violence all too often hold sway (cf. 4:7). As soon as the gullible Tamar was within arm’s reach, Amnon “grabbed” her. His lustful demand is both ominous and insensitive: “Come to bed with me, my sister.”
Tamar’s immediate response to Amnon is indignant as well as frantic, in effect saying “No.” She matches his “my sister” with “my brother,” but in the sibling rather than in the amorous sense. One by one, her short sentences bespeak her terror: “Don’t force me.” She calls Amnon’s intended act of rape a “wicked thing” (GK 5576).
As far as Tamar herself is concerned, she wants to know where she could possibly get rid of her “disgrace” (GK 3075). And as far as Amnon is concerned, Tamar warns him that if he gives vent to his lustful desires, he will be like one of Israel’s “wicked fools.”
Having asked and answered her own rhetorical questions, Tamar voices her final plea. She implores Amnon to speak to the king (referring to him not as their father but by his title, since she anticipates his acting in an official capacity rather than as a family member). She is sure that David will not keep her from “being married to” Amnon. After all, had not her ancestor Abraham married his half sister Sarah (cf. Ge 20:12)?
Tamar does not appear to be inherently opposed to the idea of marrying Amnon. What she is adamantly against is sexual intercourse with him outside the marriage relationship. Her most eloquent pleading, however, is to no avail. Amnon “refused to listen to her.”
14b–15a Amnon had “grabbed” his half sister earlier (v.11), and he has apparently not released her throughout the entire dreary episode. He is, after all, “stronger” than she. So he “raped her.” The immediate denouement of the rape is poignantly anticlimactic. A rapist’s emotional response following the crime is unpredictable; Amnon “hated” Tamar (cf. the opposite reaction in Ge 34:2–3).
15b–16 Scarcely has Tamar had a chance to catch her breath after being ravished by Amnon before he tells her, “Get up and get out!” Before, consumed by lust, he had begun by begging Tamar to “come [in]”; now, repulsed by disgust, he concludes by banishing her.
Although Tamar’s response here is much briefer than her earlier pleas (vv.12–13), she is no more ready to obey Amnon’s commands now than she was earlier. She begins in the same way as she had before: “No!” (see v.12). Amnon’s sending Tamar away would only add insult to injury by involving him in a greater “wrong” than the rape itself. For the third time, however, Amnon “refused” (vv.9, 14, 16).
17 In v.9b he wanted everyone else out of his bedroom so that, without the presence of witnesses, he could have his own way with Tamar; here he wants Tamar out of his bedroom so that, in her absence, he will not be reminded unduly of the awful sin he has committed. “This woman” here is best rendered simply “this thing,” reflecting the contempt in which Amnon now holds Tamar.
Amnon’s second command to his servant is to bolt the door. The purpose of securing doors is all too often to prevent or conceal an evil deed (see Ge 19:6; Jdg 3:21–24). Needless to say, a door keeps people not only in but also out.
18–19 Although Tamar’s arrival into Amnon’s presence was carefully orchestrated (vv.6–9a), her forced departure is abrupt indeed, being locked out by the servant. Once the man has satisfied his lastful desires, he discards the woman (cf. similarly Jdg 19:25) as though she were so much refuse.
But Tamar is one of “the virgin daughters of the king,” a status that should have made her doubly untouchable. By no means trash, she wears a “richly ornamented robe” that befits her regal position. Now no longer a virgin, she tears her robe as a symbol of her ravished state. The act of tearing her garment also gives expression to her mourning over her irreparable loss (cf. v.31; 15:32), as do her putting ashes on her head and her weeping (cf. 19:4).
20 The advice of Absalom is both matter-of-fact and calculating. Choosing his words carefully, he asks Tamar whether Amnon has “been with” her—an expression that, though not sexually explicit, is at least suggestive of potential involvement (cf. Ge 39:10). He counsels her to be quiet about the matter for the time being; he, her brother, will solve the problem within the parameters of the family. Therefore Tamar should not pay undue attention to it or worry about it. For the foreseeable future Tamar lives in Absalom’s house. There she remains “desolate” (GK 9037), which includes the meanings “unmarried” and “childless” (see Isa 54:1). For an Israelite woman it was a living death (cf. 2Sa 20:3).
21–22 When David hears about Amnon’s rape of Tamar and its sequel, he is understandably “furious” (cf. 12:5). But even though he is king, he feels powerless to act because he himself is guilty of a similar sin: his adultery with Bathsheba. His guilt paralyzes him.
Meanwhile Absalom bides his time, saying nothing “either good or bad” to Amnon. Absalom’s remarkable forbearance, which would last two years, along with his earlier immediate recognition of Tamar’s situation (v.20), suggests the possibility that Absalom has been behind this event, advising Jonadab what to say to Amnon, in order that Absalom would have just cause to kill Amnon and remove him as David’s oldest son from likely succession to the throne (see also comment on vv.32–33). Amnon’s acquired hatred for his half sister Tamar (v.15) is reprised in Absalom’s acquired hatred for his half brother Amnon.
8. The murder of Amnon (13:23–39)
23–24 Two full years having passed, Absalom determines that the time is ripe to avenge the rape of his sister Tamar. He chooses the season of sheepshearing as a suitable if macabre backdrop for the murder of his brother Amnon. As the sheep of Absalom would lose their wool, so David’s firstborn, the potential shepherd of Israel, would lose his life.
Absalom invites the king, together with all his sons and officials, to join in celebrating their mutual prosperity at Baal Hazor. Absalom’s words to his father are well chosen in terms of both politeness and protocol. In his invitation he refers to himself as “your servant.”
25 David declines the invitation, knowing that if his entire retinue would accompany Absalom it would be “a burden to” him. Absalom’s urging to the contrary notwithstanding, David refuses to go and gives him his “blessing” (or “farewell”; GK 1385).
26a After asking for the impossible, Absalom cannily requests that Amnon alone be allowed to come. He probably realizes that David, knowing that Absalom may intend to harm Amnon because of what he did to Tamar, will not accede to his latter request any more than he did to the former. On the other hand, perhaps Absalom hopes that the two years that have elapsed since the rape have dimmed the event in his father’s mind. In addition, Absalom refers to Amnon as “my brother,” apparently to assuage whatever lingering fears David may have.
26b–27 To Absalom’s chagrin, David does not agree immediately. His “Why?” smacks more of the suspicious than of the incredulous. This time, however, Absalom’s urging is successful—and perhaps beyond his wildest expectations: The indecisive king not only allows his son Amnon to go but also sends the rest of his sons along with him.
28–29 Emboldened by his increasing success, Absalom is now in command. To be “in high spirits from drinking wine” is often to invite mischief (cf. Est 1:10–11) or disaster (see 1Sa 25:36)—or, in this case, mayhem (“Kill him”). Absalom both encourages and reassures his men. At the designated time, the “men did to Amnon what Absalom had ordered.” Panic-stricken, the rest of the king’s sons decide against waiting to find out whether Absalom’s execution order will extend to them. They flee for their lives.
Thus David’s adultery with Bathsheba is mirrored in his son Amnon’s rape of Tamar, and David’s murder of Uriah is reprised in Absalom’s execution of Amnon. Applicable to the present situation, a principle enunciated by Paul says it best: “A man reaps what he sows” (Gal 6:7).
30–31 Before the princes arrive in Jerusalem, a false “report” comes to David, claiming that Absalom has killed “all the king’s sons.” It would seem that David’s usually reliable intelligence network (see 10:5) has failed him this time. Like far too many rumors, the one that reaches David is a gross exaggeration.
David’s immediate reaction to the news is both predictable and understandable: He “stood up” in alarm, just as his sons had done (v.29). Echoing the behavior of his disgraced daughter Tamar, who tore her robe to bewail the loss of her virginity, David tears his clothes as a sign of mourning, and his servants dutifully follow suit. As a further symbol of his grief, the king lies “on the ground” (cf. 12:16).
32–33 The false “report” is quickly challenged by Jonadab. The fact that he knows that “only Amnon is dead” and that his murder has been Absalom’s expressed “intention” for the past two years lends further credence to the theory that Absalom and Jonadab had long ago hatched a plot to do away with Amnon, David’s heir apparent and thus an obstacle to Absalom’s pretensions. Jonadab’s confident assertion being the true state of affairs, David should not “be concerned about the [false] report.”
34–35 Whereas the king’s sons had “fled” to avoid Amnon’s fate (v.29), Absalom has meanwhile also “fled,” in this case to escape royal retribution. Although the other princes escape to the refuge of Jerusalem, Absalom flees across the Jordan, far from Jerusalem—a flight mentioned three times (vv.34, 37, 38). One of the watchmen atop the walls of Jerusalem sees a number of men (the king’s other sons) on the road leading to the city from the west. As Jonadab had earlier assured the king that of all his sons only Amnon was dead (see vv.32–33), so he now advises David to see with his own eyes that “the king’s sons are here.” He then adds a statement that is doubtless intended to ingratiate himself to David: “It has happened just as your servant said.”
36–39 David’s servants and sons join him in weeping and wailing “loudly” and “bitterly” at the tragic loss of David’s firstborn son.
For his part Absalom, David’s third son, flees for his life to Geshur in Aram (cf. 15:8) to find protection in the household of Talmai, his grandfather on his mother’s side (see 3:3). David continues to mourn for “his son”—doubtless Amnon, although the fact that the narrator does not name him leaves open the slight possibility that Absalom is intended (cf. 18:33–19:4). The depth of David’s grief over Amnon’s death is underscored in the statement that he mourned for his son “every day.”
The narrator ends the section by briefly exploring David’s attitude toward Absalom after the period of mourning for Amnon is over. The king has no desire to march out against Absalom. Instead, he is ready to be prodded toward a reconciliation.
9. The wise woman of Tekoa (14:1–20)
1 The full name “Joab son of Zeruiah” (1Sa 26:6) signals a new beginning in the narrative (Joab has not been mentioned since 12:27). Joab chooses a time when he knows that David is thinking about Absalom.
2–3 Determined to enlist an expert to help his cause, Joab sends for a “wise” (GK 2682) woman to be brought to Jerusalem. His choice of a woman rather than a man is perhaps related to the nature of his mission, and his decision to engage a stranger rather than an intimate (such as Jonadab) may be calculated to catch David off guard and therefore help him ultimately to view his relationship to Absalom more objectively.
Upon the woman’s arrival, Joab tells her to pretend that she is in mourning and to act as if she is grieving for the dead. She is thus asked to play a fictitious role. By telling her to pretend that she has “spent many days grieving for the dead,” Joab is intentionally comparing her with David (see 13:37). Indeed, the woman from Tekoa and the king of Israel are twice bereaved: She has lost her husband and a son, and he has lost an illegitimate son born through Bathsheba as well as Amnon his firstborn.
Joab next orders the woman to go to the king and speak to him the specific words that he tells her (cf. v.19b). Joab is to be commended for choosing a messenger who is “wise” enough to use the words in the most persuasive way before the king.
4–5a Arriving at the royal court in Jerusalem, the woman of Tekoa gains an audience with David, as Joab had commissioned her to do. She pays due respect to the king by falling before him. In his role as judge and paramount, David in genuine concern asks the woman, “What is troubling you?” (cf. Jos 15:18; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 6:28).
5b–8 The woman begins her first appeal to David by identifying herself as a widow. As the sequel indicates, she is a consummate actress and spins a tale that is eminently believable.
Using the usual submissive language (referring to herself as David’s “servant”), she states that her two sons got into a fight. The goal of one of the sons was apparently mayhem, and thus the battleground of choice was at some distance from their village—in a field with no witnesses and/or rescuers. There, says the Tekoite, one of the brothers killed the other.
The woman then states that, after the slaying of her son, clan loyalty took over and demanded retribution against the murderer. The Tekoite comes to David, not to dispute the general custom of blood vengeance, but to question its strict application to her only surviving son. Fabrication though it is, her story is persuasive enough to convince David that she is telling the truth. She claims that she has been ordered to hand over her other son to the clan. She concludes by hinting at the likelihood that their ulterior motive in putting her only surviving son to death was to get rid of the “heir” and thereby gain possession of the family property (cf. also v.16). She thus raises the issue of a conflict of interest.
In a final personal plea (v.7), the wise woman adds a note of pathos to her request. She accuses the clan members of wanting to extinguish the only “burning coal” remaining to her. He is all she has left, and when he is gone, her deceased husband will be without “descendant,” and her husband’s “name” (GK 9005) will be blotted out and thus forgotten.
The wise woman from Tekoa has spun an admirable tale. Plausible enough for David to believe it, the situation it describes differs enough from his own to keep him from becoming suspicious of her true purposes. Her story prepares the groundwork for what Joab wants her to accomplish.
Although David surely has the power and authority to reverse the decision of the woman’s clan, he at first treads cautiously so as not to alienate a group that forms part of his own power base. Unlike his earlier forceful and decisive response to Abigail (1Sa 25:35), his statement to the Tekoite is uncharacteristically vague: “Go home, and I will issue an order in your behalf.”
9–10 Undeterred, the woman is not to be dismissed quite so easily. Like Abigail before her, she makes a confession of guilt in the hope that doing so will force David to take action. Impressed by the woman’s persistence, the king commits himself personally to make sure that no one who chose to interfere with the royal decision concerning her would ever “bother” her again.
11 Pleading that the king will pray to the Lord on her behalf, the Tekoite asks for divine help in preventing the “avenger of blood” from killing her only surviving son (cf. Nu 35:6–28; Dt 19:1–13; Jos 20).
Again using the Lord’s name in a solemn oath (see 12:5; 1Sa 14:39), David promises her that not one hair of her son will “fall to the ground.” David’s reference to the “hair” of the woman’s son is both ironic and poignant. The hair of his own son Absalom was not only an index of his handsome appearance (cf. vv.25–26) but would also contribute to his undoing (cf. 18:9–15).
12–17 Having received the assurance she needs, the woman is now ready to make her second appeal. When David gives her permission to say whatever she wishes, she addresses him in an open and forthright way. In the light of his firm determination to intervene on behalf of the murderous sibling for whose life she has just pleaded, why has the king “devised” (GK 3108) a thing like this? Unlike her own situation, which involves only a small clan, by allowing (or forcing) Absalom to remain in exile David has jeopardized the future welfare of all God’s people.
To make sure that David understands the ramifications of what she is saying, the woman points out that his willingness to help her son convicts the king himself because he has not “brought back” Absalom, his own banished son. The woman of Tekoa demonstrates her expertise and wisdom by using a proverb about water spilled on the ground. Although its exact application is debatable (e.g., whether it means that life once lost cannot be recovered, or that death is inevitable, or that punishment for sin is irrevocable), the image of wasted water is suggestive and therefore appropriate in any event.
It is best to translate v.14b as a rhetorical question: “But will not God dedicate himself, and will he not devise [GK 3108] ways to make sure that a banished person does not remain estranged from him?” The Tekoite implies that God will effect Absalom’s return from Aram to Israel. Although David has “devised” one thing, God “devises” another.
Having made her point, the woman concludes her second appeal by intermingling elements of it with those of her first appeal. She indicates that she had nothing to lose by seeking an audience with the king. She hopes that the king will “deliver” her from her avenger. She is afraid that her clan members will “cut off” her and her son from God’s “inheritance” (either the land and people of Israel or an individual family’s landed property in the Lord’s land).
The Tekoite wants David’s decision to bring her relief from a bad situation (v.17). Like Achish before her (see 1Sa 29:9) and Mephibosheth after her (cf. 19:27), she compares David to an “angel of God.” David is capable of “discerning good and evil.” The woman’s stated desire that the Lord might be “with” the king not only expresses her hope that God will help him make the right decision(s) but also echoes a recurring theme with respect to David in the books of Samuel (see 1Sa 16:18).
18–19a Balancing the woman’s request (cf. vv.4–5a), David makes a request of her—that she not keep the truth from him. He senses that she is not acting entirely on her own initiative and wants to know whether Joab’s “hand” has been influencing her in what he now recognizes is her (= Joab’s) effort to return Absalom to Jerusalem.
19b The woman takes a solemn oath that translates literally, “By the life of your soul.” She implies that the king’s words hit the mark precisely: Joab had engineered her deceptive gambit.
20 Ultimately, of course, David is not fooled by the fictitious story. Like an angel of God, he discerns good and evil (v.19) and knows “everything that happens in the land.” If Joab has been able to “change” the present situation, his ploy is transparent to David. The woman may be “wise” (v.2), but the “wisdom” (GK 2682) of the king is like that of a divine messenger and, by implication, of God himself. At the same time, however, the Tekoite’s compliment is not without its backlash. In its wider context, the narrative depicts the kind of royal power that Absalom will either try to undermine or seek to usurp.
10. Absalom’s return to Jerusalem (14:21–33)
21 The name “Absalom” appears prominently in the section, but the key player is clearly Joab, who mediates between the king and his son and is eventually the catalyst that brings about their reconciliation. The king, impressed by the urgency and logic of the woman’s arguments in her desire to save the life of her son, applies them to his own situation. He tells Joab that he will bring Absalom back from exile.
22–24 Like the Tekoite before him (cf. v.4) and Absalom after him (cf. v.33), Joab falls “face to the ground” before the king. The statement that Joab “blessed” (GK 1385) David surely implies a prayer directed to God that David would receive a divine blessing. Continuing in an attitude of humility mingled with courtesy, Joab expresses his gratitude that he has “found favor in [the king’s] eyes.”
Through the good offices and personal mission of Joab, Absalom’s three-year exile in Aram comes to an end as he returns to Jerusalem. Not yet welcome in David’s quarters or the royal court, however, Absalom must “go to his own house” within the palace precincts. Thus Joab’s ultimate goal remains unfulfilled. David is still not ready to allow Absalom to have an audience with him.
25 Since he has a “handsome” father (1Sa 16:12; 17:42) and a “beautiful” sister (see 13:1), it is not surprising that Absalom himself should be “handsome.” Like the most ideal of priests (cf. Lev 21:17–18, 21, 23) or the most desirable of women (cf. SS 4:7), Absalom is totally without “blemish” (GK 4583). Such uncommon good looks often attract fawning praise (cf. Ge 12:14–15), and so handsome is Absalom that in Israel he is the most “highly praised” of all.
26 Refraining from cutting one’s hair was an emblem of the Nazirite (cf. Nu 6:5). For Absalom, however, it is a sign of vanity. Its weight is remarkable. What Absalom proudly considers his finest attribute will prove to be his downfall (cf. 18:9–15).
27 The narrator notes that three sons were born to Absalom, though they must have died in infancy (see 18:18). The name of his daughter has been preserved: Tamar, the same as that of her aunt, Absalom’s sister, whose beauty his daughter reflects.
28–32 For two whole years, Absalom is not allowed to have an audience with the king. He finally decides to take drastic measures to get Joab’s attention again and perhaps also to get even. He instructs his servants to torch a nearby field belonging to Joab. The loss of an entire crop of barley was a tragedy in ancient times (cf. Ex 9:28–31; Joel 1:11). On the basis of the Mosaic law (cf. Ex 22:6), Joab would have every right to demand adequate compensation.
If Joab’s indignant reaction is understandable, Absalom has a ready answer. Joab has been unresponsive to Absalom’s repeated pleas for his mediation, leaving Absalom with few alternatives. Unless the king grants him an audience soon, he might as well never have left Geshur in the first place. Absalom declares himself ready to be “put . . . to death” (cf. the penalty for the Tekoite’s son because of his alleged fratricide in v.7).
33 The three chief players in the chapter (the king, Joab, Absalom) come face-to-face at its end. Joab, suitably chastened by Absalom’s rebuke, submits to his request and relays his desires to David. Summoned to the court, Absalom humbles himself by falling with his “face to the ground.” But perhaps Absalom also gets the last laugh, at least for a while: Although he has “bowed down” to King David and then has been “kissed” by the king (who acts according to royal protocol and not as Absalom’s father; cf. 19:39), David’s subjects would soon “bow down” before Absalom himself, who would then “kiss” them (15:5–6).
11. Absalom’s conspiracy (15:1–12)
1–6 Absalom’s providing himself with a “chariot and horses” and “men to run ahead of him” symbolizes his ambition to acquire the trappings of royalty (see 1Sa 8:11). His plan to ingratiate himself to the people of Israel is as simple as it is subtle. Early each morning he takes up a position alongside the main road leading to Jerusalem’s city gate, the place where disaffected citizens would be expected to bring their complaints for royal adjudication. He then asks such a person what town he is from. If the plaintiff responds that he is from one of the tribes of Israel, Absalom then assures him—apparently without further ado or investigation—that his claims are valid and “proper.” He proceeds to commiserate with the person by deploring the fact that the king has no representative on hand to hear the case.
Needless to say, a solution for the plaintiff’s dilemma is ready at hand: Absalom suggests that he should be appointed judge. Everyone could come to him, and he would personally see to it that justice was served. Continuing his royal posturing, Absalom proceeds to “take hold of” and “kiss” anyone who approaches him to “bow down” to him. In everything he does Absalom implies that he himself, and not King David, is best suited to provide the people with the “justice” they deserve. Thus Absalom “stole the hearts” of the men of Israel. Something must have gone seriously awry with David’s rule to explain the readiness with which the people were willing to abandon him and follow his son.
7–12 After he has lived in Jerusalem for four years, Absalom decides that the time has finally come for him to seize the kingdom. As a way of masking his true intentions, he asks David for permission to go to Hebron (the same place where David was first anointed king; cf. 5:3), where he intends to fulfill a vow that he had made to the Lord. David, apparently unsuspecting, tells his son to “go in peace.”
Meanwhile Absalom sends “secret messengers” throughout Israel. Their mission is to alert the various tribal territories that a prearranged signal (“the sound of the trumpets”) is their mandate to declare Absalom king of Israel. A large contingent of men from Jerusalem, unsuspecting of Absalom’s true intentions, has accompanied him to Hebron.
Realizing that if his designs on Israel’s throne are to have any chance of success he will need all the expert advice he can get, he sends for David’s own counselor, Ahithophel, whose son Eliam (cf. 23:34) is doubtless Bathsheba’s father (11:3). It is therefore understandable that as Bathsheba’s grandfather Ahithophel was an enemy of David.
Years before, David had experienced the exhilaration of growing stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker (3:1). Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. The evil alliance of Absalom’s ambition and Ahithophel’s advice causes Absalom’s following to increase.
12. David’s flight (15:13–37)
13–18 A messenger comes to David with bad news: The hearts of Israel are now “with” Absalom, and they are following him. David sees no way out but to “flee,” an activity that is not new to him (cf. 1Sa 19:12, 18; 22:17)—and a cruelly ironic twist on Absalom’s earlier flight to escape his father (see 13:34, 37–38). To his officials David counsels the utmost speed since Absalom can be expected to move quickly. If Absalom succeeds in overtaking David and his men, they will be brought to ruin and Jerusalem will be “put . . . to the sword,” a terrifying fate at best.
The king’s loyal officials are ready to abide by whatever decision he “chooses.” In addition to his numerous wives, David also had many concubines, ten of whom he leaves behind to take care of the palace (see 16:21–22). All the rest flee with the king. David pauses temporarily as all his officials, together with his crack mercenary corps (the Kerethites, Pelethites, and Gittites), march before the king. By any reckoning David has a sizable and dependable military force to protect him from whatever contingency might arise from Absalom’s delusions of grandeur.
19–23 The first high official in David’s retinue to whom the king speaks is Ittai, the leader of the Gittite mercenaries, who is apparently considered trustworthy enough to share command of Israelite troops as well (see 18:2). David wants to know why he, of all people, would wish to accompany him in his flight, and he suggests that Ittai return to Jerusalem and stay with “King Absalom.” It would seem that David considers Absalom’s coup d’etat an accomplished fact. Ittai has nothing to gain and everything to lose by remaining with David. Because of Ittai’s recent arrival on the scene, David is reluctant to make him “wander about” on a journey of uncertain destination.
Not to be dissuaded, however, Ittai takes the most solemn of oaths as he swears undying loyalty to David: He will never leave the king, whether in “life or death.” David—however reluctantly—honors Ittai’s determination and agrees to let him march on.
Whatever problems certain citizens of Jerusalem and other towns may have with David, people living in the countryside see him in a different light. He is their king, and they weep “aloud” in fear of an uncertain future as the entourage passes by. David crosses the Kidron Valley east of Jerusalem. Large numbers of his followers continue on toward the northern part of the Desert of Judah.
24–31 Sharing priestly duties during the reign of David, Zadok and Abiathar decide to accompany him on his flight from Jerusalem. Not wanting to leave the ark of the covenant in the city and perhaps trusting in its supposed powers as a military palladium if war should break out (cf. 1Sa 4:3–4), Levites carry it across the Kidron. As during another procession of the ark (see 6:13), they halt long enough for sacrifices to be offered.
Sensing no need for the ark to accompany him, David directs Zadok to take it back to the city. Hoping to “find favor in the LORD’s eyes,” he is prepared to resign himself to the will of God. David is confident that if the Lord so chooses, he will bring him back to Jerusalem to see again not only the ark in its proper setting but also the Lord’s “dwelling place” (probably the city; cf. Isa 33:20). Even if the Lord is not “pleased” with David, he will accept “whatever seems good” to the Lord.
Zadok and Abiathar will be of more help to David back in Jerusalem than if they flee with him, so David tells them to return to the city with Ahimaaz and Jonathan. As for David himself, he will continue on his way and wait at the “fords in the desert” on the west bank of the Jordan. David expects the two priests to be involved together in gathering data about Absalom’s plans. Following David’s instructions (v.29), the two men took the ark back to Jerusalem with their sons and stayed there.
David and the people now ascend the Mount of Olives. As they do so, they express their sorrow and love by “weeping” and their despair and sense of foreboding by covering their heads. David walks barefoot to symbolize the shameful exile on which he is now embarking.
A harried king feels surrounded by conspirators, and David’s intelligence network informs him that Ahithophel (his name means “My brother is foolishness”) is among them. The news alarms David, and he turns to God for help: “O LORD, turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness [GK 6118].”
32–37 The summit of the Mount of Olives was a place “where people used to worship God.” Upon arriving there David finds Hushai the Arkite waiting to “meet” him, his robe “torn” and dust on his head. As in the case of Zadok and Abiathar (cf. vv.24–29), David is convinced that Hushai will be of more value to him back in Jerusalem than as a fellow refugee. David therefore tells Hushai to return to the city and promise Absalom the same kind of faithful service that he had already given to David himself. By becoming a member of Absalom’s inner council, Hushai would be able to assist David by “frustrating” (GK 7296) Ahithophel’s advice, in answer to David’s prayer (v.31).
Zadok and Abiathar are to be David’s eyes and ears in the palace while the king is fleeing, and he wants Hushai to collaborate with them by telling them anything he hears there. The three men will then send the priests’ two sons to David with whatever helpful information they have been able to gather. And so it is that Absalom, the king’s treasonous son, and Hushai, the king’s loyal “friend,” arrive at Jerusalem simultaneously.
13. Kindness to Ziba (16:1–4)
1 Proceeding beyond the summit of the Mount of Olives, David is met by Ziba (see 9:2), the steward of Saul’s grandson Mephibosheth. Ziba’s entourage includes donkeys loaded with all kinds of provisions, items especially suited for men on the march. Apparently Ziba wants to demonstrate his loyalty to David.
2–4 Suspicious either of Ziba’s motives or of the origin of the supplies, David inquires why he brought them. Ziba deftly dodges the question of whether he has a right to bring them and concentrates instead on their purposes, all of which are good and proper: The donkeys are for the king’s household to ride on, and the foodstuffs are for nourishment and refreshment. People on an arduous journey quickly become “exhausted” and need special attention. Ziba, whatever his ulterior motives may be, declares his willingness to help.
Still skeptical, David wants to know where Mephibosheth is, perhaps to speak directly to him to find out whether Ziba is telling the truth. Ziba’s response—later indignantly denied by Mephibosheth (cf. 19:26–28)—is that the latter has decided to stay in Jerusalem in the belief that the house of Israel will return the kingdom to the house of Saul and therefore to Mephibosheth himself. Apparently Ziba either did not know or did not care that the kingdom of Israel had long ago been torn from Saul by divine decree and given to David (see 1Sa 15:27–28).
For the moment at least, David chooses to believe Ziba. Without hearing the other side of the story, he punishes Mephibosheth in absentia by giving Ziba everything that formerly belonged to his master. Not unexpectedly, Ziba’s response is servile: “I humbly bow.” Mephibosheth has taught him well (cf. 9:6, 8).
14. Shimei’s curse (16:5–14)
5–6 On the line of march of David and his party is Bahurim, the hometown of Shimei, a member of one of the Saulide clans. Shimei is in an ugly mood and curses David. Shimei’s headstrong actions will not ultimately go unpunished (1Ki 2:8–9) in spite of his repenting of them (cf. 19:18–20). Not content with hurling curses at the king, Shimei pelts David and his officials with stones. Fortunately for David, his armed escort is protecting him on all sides.
7–8 Shimei continues his curse by demanding that David get out of Benjamite territory. He refers to David not only as a “man of blood” but also as a “man of Belial” (NIV, “scoundrel”). He tells David that because of all the blood he has shed in Saul’s family, his ruin is inevitable (cf. 3:28 for the truth of this accusation). In any event, Shimei and doubtless many of his compatriots are apparently ready to acknowledge David’s son Absalom as their new king.
9 Abishai cannot understand why a “dead dog” (a term of reproach and insult) should be allowed to curse David with impunity. To get rid of a minor annoyance like Shimei, Abishai wants to kill him.
10–12 Knowing that the “sons of Zeruiah” usually work in concert with one another, David’s rebuke to Abishai apparently includes his brother Joab. “Sons of Zeruiah” is probably used in a disparaging or contemptuous sense here. David’s long experience with God’s intimate presence has taught him that if the Lord has prompted Shimei’s curse, no one should question Shimei’s motivation, however vindictive or otherwise unworthy it might be.
Widening his audience, David now addresses not only Abishai but also all his officials. He acknowledges that Absalom, like Saul earlier, is trying to take his life. It is not surprising, then, that the Saulide Shimei—“this Benjamite” (cf. 1Sa 9:21; 1Ki 2:8)—should be bent on David’s ruin. David’s mandate concerning Shimei is clear and forthright: “Leave him alone.” David hopes that the Lord will turn this curse to his own benefit. After all, it is not an “undesired curse” (Pr 26:2). Thus David, while still pleading for divine mercy, reckons with the punishment that God is inflicting on him.
13 Shimei’s pelting David with stones and cursing him do not stop. His persistence in such dangerous activity bears eloquent witness to the depth of his anger and frustration. As David and his party continue slowly on their way, Shimei keeps pace along a hillside that parallels the road. In addition to his stone-throwing, Shimei begins throwing dirt.
14 The king arrives in Bahurim (v.5a) with his entire entourage. The physical and psychological stresses of the journey leave him and his company exhausted, and he thus takes the time to “refresh” himself.
15. Ahithophel’s advice (16:15–17:29)
15–19 Resuming the narrative that ends in 15:37, v.15 describes Absalom’s arrival in Jerusalem with the main Israelite army, together with Ahithophel, who had formerly been “David’s counselor” but has now defected to Absalom—doubtless because he feels that the future lies with the son rather than with the father.
Enter Hushai, who will turn out to be the fly in Ahithophel’s ointment, an integral member of David’s fifth column in Absalom’s fledgling court. He is again described as David’s “friend” (see 15:37). A Davidic loyalist, Hushai speaks to Absalom in words that are an exercise in studied ambiguity. If Absalom understands Hushai’s “Long live the king!” as a reference to himself, it is virtually certain that in his own mind Hushai is thinking of David.
Although the first part of Absalom’s response to Hushai may be intended as a question, it is also possible to read it as a caustic comment: “So this is the love you show your friend!” He questions Hushai’s “love” (GK 2876), his covenant fidelity, to David. He also wonders aloud why the supposedly faithful Hushai did not “go with” David.
Hushai counters by ostensibly declaring his loyalty to Absalom. Beginning with the emphatic “No,” he affirms that he will remain with the one whom the Lord has “chosen” (GK 1047). By appearing to refer to the pretender Absalom, Hushai is engaging in flattery since nowhere is Absalom stated to be the Lord’s choice. On the other hand, the OT fairly teems with references to David as the one whom God has chosen—and thus Hushai once again secretly has David in mind.
As Hushai concludes his assurances to Absalom, he becomes less ambiguous, although even here he avoids mentioning Absalom’s name directly. David had earlier asked Hushai to offer the same service to Absalom that he had formerly performed for David (cf. 15:34), and Hushai now fulfills that request.
20–22 Having listened to Hushai’s pledge of fealty, Absalom turns his attention to a counselor whom he feels confident he can trust. Ahithophel first suggests that Absalom preempt his father’s harem and that he have sexual relations with the ten concubines whom David had left behind in Jerusalem to take care of the palace. David had illicitly slept with a woman who was not his wife (cf. 11:4), and now his son is counseled to follow in his father’s footsteps. Doing so, Absalom would make himself a “stench” in David’s nostrils—a fact not necessarily to be deplored, although not without its inherent dangers. In this case, however, Ahithophel clearly believes that the “hands” of Absalom’s supporters would be “strengthened” by such a bold move on his part.
Having the utmost confidence in Ahithophel’s advice, Absalom agrees to it. A tent is pitched on the roof of the palace (cf. 11:2). The “tent” may have been intended to symbolize the “pavilion” occupied by the bridegroom and bride on their wedding night (Ps 19:4–5; cf. Joel 2:16).
Thus with the full knowledge of the people of Israel, Absalom sleeps with his father’s concubines—little remembering that to do so may well jeopardize his inheritance rights (cf. Ge 35:22; 49:3–4) and compel him to forfeit them to another (see 20:3 for the final stage of this episode).
23 In theory, of course, Ahithophel’s advice concerning David’s concubines was entirely appropriate, since a king’s harem was expected to be passed on to his successor (cf. 12:8). It is therefore understandable that both David and Absalom should respect the “advice” of Ahithophel and regard it as equal to that of one who “inquires of God.” The value of Ahithophel’s advice was like that of a priestly oracle divinely sent.
17:1–4 Sensing that he has successfully shored up Absalom’s claims to kingship over Israel, at least in the eyes of the citizens of Jerusalem, Ahithophel now suggests to Absalom a bold military expedition that he is convinced will result in David’s death. The “twelve thousand” suggests one unit from each of the twelve tribes to demonstrate the involvement of all Israel in Absalom’s rebellion. Ahithophel also advises an attack on David while he is “weary” and “weak.” His strategy involves a lightninglike surgical strike that would result in David’s company fleeing in terror and the death of only “the king.” All the other people would then be brought back to Jerusalem unharmed.
Absalom seems just as impressed by Ahithophel’s advice on this occasion as he was earlier (cf. 16:20–22), an opinion shared by the “elders of Israel”—upon whom, after all, the ultimate responsibility for entering into covenant with a new king devolves. Nevertheless Absalom, realizing that whatever plan he adopts must be as nearly foolproof as possible, decides to get a second opinion.
5–13 Absalom therefore summons Hushai, whom he knows to be a trusted confidant of David but who—like Ahithophel (cf. 15:12)—has offered his services. In his response, Hushai first of all denigrates Ahithophel’s second piece of advice by asserting that it is “not good”—a judgment that reflects the Lord’s determination to frustrate Ahithophel’s counsel.
Hushai makes capital of David’s longstanding reputation as a “fighter.” Indeed, David and his men are as “fierce,” and therefore as dangerous, as a “wild bear robbed of her cubs.” Due caution must be exercised in trying to outsmart or overpower David, whose fame as an “experienced fighter” (GK 408 & 4878) is widely known. David is a past master at knowing how and where to hide from pursuers (see 1Sa 23:22–23).
Warning Absalom that David on the offensive would have the strategic advantage and would therefore draw first blood, Hushai points out that the exaggerated news of the initial defeat would cause uncontrollable panic among Absalom’s troops. Absalom’s “bravest soldier” is no match for David’s “brave” men, who in this regard emulate their leader (see 1Sa 18:17). Though their hearts be like that of a lion, Absalom’s troops will “melt” with fear. David, after all, is a “fighter” (GK 1475) who has not flinched in the presence of lions (cf. v.10) or bears (cf. v.8), among the most dangerous of animals (see 1Sa 17:34–37).
After eloquently belittling Ahithophel’s counsel, Hushai gives some advice of his own. If followed, his plan is so elaborate that it will consume enough time for Hushai to send instructions to David concerning what to do in the light of Absalom’s troop movements. Hushai suggests that Absalom needs a much larger force than the mere “twelve thousand” men proposed by Ahithophel. He must enlist every able-bodied Israelite, “from Dan to Beersheba”—an enormous army. The ultimate flattery: Absalom will personally lead them into battle. Neither David nor any of his men will be able to survive an onslaught of such magnitude. David cannot possibly escape—not even if he “withdraws” into the presumed safety of a city. Using a vivid hyperbole, Hushai envisions the entire Israelite army attaching ropes to that city in order to “drag” it down into the valley. David’s supposed haven will be so thoroughly demolished that not a “piece” of it will be found.
14 Hushai’s rhetoric wins the day, thus giving David and his troops time to escape across the Jordan and regroup. Absalom makes his fateful choice, and Hushai becomes the point man in the Lord’s decision to “frustrate” Ahithophel’s counsel. The admittedly “good advice of Ahithophel,” described so glowingly in 16:23, and the forthcoming “disaster on Absalom,” implied in and hastened by Ahithophel’s suicide (v.23), thus flank the erroneous judgment of Absalom and his men.
15–16 Having given Absalom advice that, if implemented, would turn out well for David (vv.5–13), Hushai now gives similar advice to the priests Zadok and Abiathar, who are in a position to carry out Hushai’s instructions through their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan (see 15:35–36). He quickly rehearses the substance of Ahithophel’s advice and then contrasts it with his own obviously superior counsel.
Since there is no time to lose, Hushai’s advice and its execution (vv.17–22) are suffused with an atmosphere of urgency. His message for David is that it would be too dangerous to spend even one more night in the desert. The king’s only option is to cross the Jordan immediately. If he refuses to do so, he and his entire party will be “swallowed up.”
17–22 The messengers designated to bring word to David (cf. v.16) are Jonathan and Ahimaaz, sons of Abiathar and Zadok respectively (see 15:27–28, 36). So as not to be accused of attempting to subvert Absalom’s plans originating in Jerusalem while at the same time wanting to be near enough to keep in touch with developments there, Jonathan and Ahimaaz are staying at En Rogel, a spring in the Kidron Valley on the border between Benjamin and Judah close to Jerusalem.
A servant girl from Jerusalem relays the necessary information to the two men, who cannot risk “being seen” entering the city. But in spite of their caution a young man sees them and reports their whereabouts to Absalom. Knowing that they must act quickly, the two men leave En Rogel and go to Bahurim (cf. 16:5). There they climb down into a well in a residential courtyard, and the wife of the house’s owner keeps their presence secret by spreading a covering over the mouth of the well. She then scatters “grain” over the covering, ostensibly to dry it out. The ruse works, and the men’s hiding place is kept secret.
When Absalom’s men arrive in Bahurim and ask the woman where Ahimaaz and Jonathan are, she says that they have already left. Apparently not believing her, they search the area, returning to Jerusalem only after failing to find the two fugitives. As soon as Absalom’s men are gone, the two climb out of the well and go to deliver Hushai’s instructions (cf. vv.15–16) to David, who is presumably still at the unspecified “destination” mentioned in 16:14. They advise him to cross the Jordan River and to do so “at once” in the light of Ahithophel’s advice to Absalom to strike quickly and decisively. Sensing that there is no time to lose, David and his entire party cross over to the eastern side of the Jordan River under cover of darkness.
23 If 16:23 describes Ahithophel in glowing terms as being at the height of his power and influence because of the extraordinary brilliance and dependability of his “advice,” 17:23 depicts him as realizing that his good “advice” has not been followed this time. Knowing that the implementation of Hushai’s advice will not result in the death of David, who will thus return to Jerusalem seeking revenge on his enemies, Ahithophel therefore decides that the only course of action open to him is suicide. He returns to his hometown, puts “his house in order,” and strangles himself. David’s prayer of 15:31 is now answered.
24–26 The account of the crossing of the Jordan by Absalom parallels the similar narrative concerning David (vv.17–22), who stays one step ahead of his pursuers by continuing on to Mahanaim, the earlier headquarters of his rival Ish-Bosheth (see 2:8). Since Joab had apparently accompanied David on his flight from Jerusalem, Absalom had appointed Amasa to replace him as head of the army; he was most likely a relative not only of David but also of Joab. Although the exact location of Absalom’s camp is not specified, the “land of Gilead” presumably encompassed Gad, and therefore Mahanaim, at this time—an ominous prospect for David and his men.
27–29 David is befriended upon his arrival in Mahanaim. Three staunch allies come to his aid: the Ammonite Shobi son of Nahash from Rabbah, Mephibosheth’s patron Makir from Lo Debar, and the Gileadite Barzillai from Rogelim. They bring essential foodstuffs to supply his needs and those of the people with him. Knowing full well that the rigors of the desert flight have caused David and his party to become “tired” and that they are “hungry and thirsty,” the allies give them the rest and provisions they need. Refreshed, David and his troops will engage Absalom and his army. The battle will be joined in Transjordan, and the outcome there will determine which of the two men will rule over all Israel.
16. Absalom’s death (18:1–18)
1–5 David has formidable military strength at his disposal. He divides them into three divisions and sends them out under the command of Joab (the overall commander of David’s army), his brother Abishai, and Ittai. Though a Philistine, Ittai the Gittite (see 15:19) is considered loyal enough to share command of David’s regulars with Joab and Abishai.
David announces his intention to march out with them as well. The men point out that if they are forced to flee, or even if half of them are killed in battle, Absalom’s soldiers “won’t care about us.” But “you,” on the other hand, are “ten thousand” times as important as the troops (i.e., David is equal to all of them together). They are convinced that he will be of more help to them if he remains behind in Mahanaim.
Acquiescing to their wishes, David stands “beside the gate” of the city, a prominent and visible location from which to review the troops as they march off to battle. His final order to his three commanders is that they be “gentle” (GK 351; i.e., that they not deal too hastily) with Absalom. David’s reference to his son as “the young man” indicates something of his paternal affection in spite of Absalom’s destructive ambition, arrogance, and treachery.
6–8 The locale of the initial confrontation is “the field,” which provides ample room for large-scale troop movements. In spite of the fact that the “forested hill country” of Ephraim and Manasseh was west of the Jordan River, the location of the armies of David and Absalom in Transjordan demands an eastern site for the specific “forest of Ephraim” mentioned here.
If in v.6 “army” refers to David’s troops, in v.7 it signifies Absalom’s men. “Defeated” and “casualties” highlight not only the devastation that has befallen Absalom’s troops but also the key role played by the Lord in their overthrow. That “the forest claimed more lives . . . than the sword” reminds us that natural phenomena are often more deadly than human enemies (cf. Jos 10:11). This is best explained by the superiority of David’s more skilled, private army being at home in the uneven and dangerous terrain and thus having a decided advantage over the larger conscript army of Absalom.
9–18 These verses provide a macabre example of how a forest can claim victims. Riding his “mule,” a suitably regal animal, Absalom gets his “head” (most likely through his thick hair, cf. 14:26) caught in a tangle of “thick branches growing out from a large oak” tree as the mule passes under them and leaves its owner behind.
One of David’s men is the first to see Absalom hanging in the tree. In reporting to Joab what he has seen, the man is characterized as a messenger who ordinarily brings bad news. To Joab, however, the news is bad only in the sense that Absalom is still alive.
Joab’s call for violence and vengeance is totally in character: “What! You saw him?” Joab cannot understand why the man did not kill Absalom on the spot. Had he done so, it would have been incumbent on Joab to give the man ten shekels of silver as well as a warrior’s belt (cf. 1Ki 2:5).
Not nearly so insensitive and unscrupulous as Joab, the man affirms that even a hundred times as much silver could not induce him to “lift [his] hand against” Absalom, who is after all the “king’s son.” He had been among the troops who had heard David order his three commanders to be gentle with Absalom, and he now reminds Joab of that fact. If he had killed Absalom, Joab would not have defended him, since ultimately “nothing is hidden from” David, who, like an angel of God—indeed, like God himself—“knows everything that happens in the land” (14:20). The king would surely execute the murderer of his son (cf. 1:15; 4:5–12).
Petulant and impatient, Joab declared his unwillingness to wait for his man to kill Absalom and decided to take matters into his own hands. He “plunged” three sharp-pointed weapons into Absalom, which pierced his heart. Mortally wounded, Absalom was then surrounded by ten of Joab’s men, who finished the grisly task of striking and killing Absalom. In so doing they performed one of the functions of “armor-bearers” (cf. 23:37), who were expected to be ready to fight and kill when the occasion arose (cf. 1Sa 14:13–14; 31:4). Absalom’s death brings to three the number of sons that David has lost as a result of his sins against Bathsheba and her husband Uriah.
Israel’s erstwhile leader now dead, Joab “sounded” the trumpet to recall his troops. Absalom’s corpse is thrown into a large pit in the forest, and an enormous heap of rocks is then piled up over him. The survivors among Absalom’s troops have meanwhile fled to their homes.
The account of Absalom’s demise concludes with a brief flashback summary of his own self-serving attempt to perpetuate his name. There are thus two monuments commemorating Absalom (the “heap of rocks” and the “pillar”), each in its own way as pitiable as the other.
17. David’s mourning for Absalom (18:19–19:8)
19–23 Jubilant over the fact that Absalom’s army has been defeated by David’s troops, Ahimaaz asks Joab for permission to report to the king. His desire to “take the news” is doubtless prompted by his feeling that David will be as happy about the outcome of the battle as he himself is. What could be better news for David than that the Lord has delivered him from the rebellious Israelite troops?
Joab, however, at first refuses to send Ahimaaz, perhaps because he does not want to endanger the life of a messenger who will in fact be bringing bad news to the king. Another more likely messenger comes to Joab’s attention: “a Cushite” (a person born either in the upper Nile region or in central and southern Mesopotamia). In their relationships with the people of Israel, Cushites were alternately friendly (cf. Jer 38:7–13; 39:15–18) or hostile (cf. 2Ch 14:9–15). Thus Joab sends him on his way, instructing him simply to tell David what he has seen.
Undeterred and unafraid, Ahimaaz again requests permission to take the news to David. As before, however, Joab tries to deter him and attempts to convince Ahimaaz that none of the news can be expected to “bring . . . a reward.” Persistent to the end, Ahimaaz pleads a third time—and Joab finally relents. So intent is Ahimaaz on performing his mission well that, even though the Cushite has a head start, Ahimaaz outruns him, following a route that is less direct and longer than that of the Cushite, but over smoother territory.
24–27 The scene shifts to Mahanaim, the temporary headquarters of David. There the king, waiting for news of the outcome of the battle, sits between “the inner and outer” gates of the city, perhaps in one of the guardrooms. A watchman, standing on the roof of the gateway complex that forms part of the city wall, looks out toward the horizon and catches sight of a lone runner approaching the city. When the watchman calls to the king below and reports what he has seen, the king assumes that if the runner is by himself “he must have good news.” The watchman then sees another man running, and this time he calls the information down to the city gatekeeper, whose duties included the dissemination of news to interested parties. The king is thus duly notified, and his response is the same as before.
Ahimaaz’s reputation as a superb athlete has preceded him, and the watchman recognizes his running style even before he has gotten close enough for his face to be visible. For the third time David responds favorably, characterizing Ahimaaz as a “good” man and the news he brings as “good.” However, the news turns out to be anything but good.
28–33 Arriving in Mahanaim, Ahimaaz first reassures the king with the common greeting. Ahimaaz bows down before King David “with his face to the ground.” Beginning with an outburst of praise, Ahimaaz informs David that the Lord has “delivered up” the king’s enemies. Again referring to Absalom as “the young man,” David insists on knowing whether he is “safe.” For his part Ahimaaz, who perhaps does not know that Absalom is dead, responds simply that he saw great “confusion,” and he does not “know what it was.” His question unanswered, David tells Ahimaaz to step aside and wait for the next messenger.
The Cushite then arrives with essentially the same report as Ahimaaz. When the king asks him the same question about Absalom, the Cushite responds that Absalom is dead. In the light of his obvious concern about his son, David’s reaction to this death is totally predictable: He is shaken. Seeking privacy to weep alone, he goes up to the room over the city gateway and laments. David’s mournful cry is filled with the pathos of a father’s grieving heart: “If only I had died instead of you.”
19:1–4 Doubtless a beneficiary of David’s intelligence network, Joab is eventually told of David’s “weeping” and “mourning” for his son Absalom. It is not long before Joab’s entire army hears of it as well, with the result that what should have been for them a great “victory” (brought about by the Lord) becomes a cause for “mourning.” Far from capitalizing on their triumph as an occasion for celebration, the men slink into Mahanaim like those who sneak in because cowardice has forced them to flee the battlefield. Meanwhile David, with face “covered,” continues to cry aloud in mourning for his dead son.
5–8 David’s army commander begins by upbraiding him for humiliating the very men who are responsible for having saved the king’s life as well as the lives of all who are near and dear to him, including his “wives and concubines.” But the heart of Joab’s complaint is that David loves those who hate him and hates those who love him. Whatever else it may involve, at the very least “love” (GK 170) in this context surely implies covenant loyalty.
Joab has received the clear impression that the “commanders” and their men mean nothing at all to the king. Indeed, in his present frame of mind David would trade Absalom’s life for those of everyone else. He swears on oath to David that if the king does not immediately go out and “encourage” his men by nightfall, no one will remain loyal to him. The troops of Judah thus having deserted David, no greater calamity for him throughout his entire life could possibly be imagined.
However reluctantly, the king is prodded into action by Joab’s harsh words. If David formerly sat in the gateway of Mahanaim awaiting news of the battle’s outcome, he now takes his seat there in his official capacity as king and head of the army.
18. David’s return to Jerusalem (19:9–43)
9–15a Animated discussion is the order of the day as some Israelites remind their countrymen that David, despite whatever flaws he may have, had in fact been their conquering hero in the past, who had rescued them from their perennial enemies, the Philistines. But now he was still outside the country. Absalom, however, is dead, so the Israelites insist on knowing why their fellow Israelites “say nothing” about returning David to his rightful place on the throne in Jerusalem.
Sending word to his friends Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, David tells them to ask the elders of Judah (whom he had counted as his friends many years before) why they should be the “last” to bring the king back to the city (the desire to do so was by no means unanimous throughout Israel). In the meantime David is privy to the substance of the ongoing discussions, the news of which has reached him at his “quarters” in Mahanaim. At least partly because of his ancestry David senses a special tie between himself and the Judahite elders; so he repeats his incredulous question: “Why should you be the last to bring back the king?”
In addition Zadok and Abiathar are to say to Amasa, Absalom’s army commander and also a blood relative of David (see 17:25): “Are you not my own flesh and blood?” Although Joab was also related to David (see 1Sa 26:6), he was Absalom’s chief executioner as well (cf. 18:14–15), and thus his position as David’s army commander is in jeopardy. By means of a strong oath (cf. 3:35), David replaces Joab with Amasa as the commander of his army.
Although it is impossible to know for certain whether it was David who “won over the hearts of all the men of Judah” (some texts make Amasa the subject), the end result is that they send word to the king to return to Jerusalem with all his men. Happy to comply with their request, David leaves Mahanaim and arrives at the Jordan River. The question concerning whether Israel or Judah would “bring the king back” is resolved—at least temporarily—in favor of Judah.
15b–23 Various other significant constituencies, however, also vie for David’s approval. Shimei the Benjamite, Mephibosheth the Saulide, and Barzillai the Gileadite are the three key figures that represent them. The men of Judah intend to bring the king across the Jordan, from which he will lead his followers to ultimate triumph over the land.
Accompanying the men of Judah is Shimei, the Benjamite from Bahurim. He who had earlier been quick to curse David and pelt him with stones (16:5–14) now hastens to beg for mercy. With him are not only a thousand of his countrymen but also “Ziba, the steward of Saul’s household, and his fifteen sons and twenty servants” (cf. 9:10). Shimei and his companions have come to take the king and his household westward across the ford of the Jordan and are eager to “do whatever he wished.”
The story of Shimei continues in v.18b. He meets David on the eastern side of the Jordan, fully admits that earlier he did wrong, and begs the king not to hold him guilty and punish him. A short time ago he had called David a “man of blood” and a “scoundrel” (16:7–8); now he addresses him respectfully as “my lord the king.” Recognizing how inappropriate his earlier conduct was, he readily confesses his sin. His misdeeds are part of a past that he would just as soon forget.
But Abishai, one of David’s army commanders, will hear none of it. He wants to put Shimei to death for his cursing of “the LORD’s anointed,” not only because such rashness is entirely in character for Abishai, but perhaps also because to curse the king was considered a capital offense.
David’s reply to Abishai echoes verbatim his response to him in an identical context earlier (see 16:10). David is in full control of the situation and he alone will determine Shimei’s fate. David’s response is addressed to both Joab and Abishai, though primarily to the latter. They have become his “adversaries” (GK 8477), meaning here his “legal accusers.” Wanting to know why Abishai thinks he has to stand up for the king’s rights, David rhetorically asks whether anyone should be executed. Turning to Shimei, he promises him on oath that his life will be spared.
24–30 The second—and central—of the three key men who come to meet David is Mephibosheth, Saul’s grandson. David’s exile from Jerusalem has encompassed many days if not weeks, and during that entire time Mephibosheth has not cared for his feet, mustache, or clothes in a way befitting a guest of royalty (cf. 9:7, 10–12). His refusal to wash his clothes demonstrates his desire to remain ceremonially unclean during the king’s absence (cf. Ex 19:10, 14). David wants to know why Mephibosheth decided not to go with him when he was forced to flee from Absalom (cf. 1Sa 30:22). Mephibosheth counters that he had indeed wanted to go along but that since he is lame (see 5:8; 9:13) he needed to have his donkey saddled. Probably the string of donkeys Ziba had earlier saddled and brought to David (16:1–2) included Mephibosheth’s own private mount. He also accuses Ziba of having slandered him in David’s presence.
Mephibosheth, however, consoles himself that David will not be deceived by Ziba’s actions. After all, King David is “like an angel of God” and therefore not only “knows everything that happens in the land” (14:20) but also exercises divine wisdom “in discerning good and evil” (14:17). He readily admits that Saul’s descendants—including himself—deserved death from David, whose life Saul had persistently and mercilessly tried to take from him. By contrast, Mephibosheth is grateful that David has given him the privilege of being among those who eat at his table (see 9:7).
David responds to Mephibosheth by ordering him and Ziba to divide the land that he had originally restored to Mephibosheth (9:7) but had later turned over to Ziba (cf. 16:4). David demands this division to discern whether Mephibosheth or Ziba is the liar (cf. 1Ki 3:16–28). Mephibosheth offers the entire estate to Ziba; presumably, therefore, he received the fields back.
31–39 The third and last of the three representatives to meet David at the Jordan is Barzillai the Gileadite. In some respects the presence of Barzillai at the Jordan is more significant than that of either Shimei or Mephibosheth. It is not only that he symbolizes the vast Transjordanian regions, the control of which was crucial to any Israelite king, but also that with respect to David he has the prestige (he is eighty years old; cf. Ps 90:10) and sufficient means to send him back to Jerusalem. He it was, after all, who along with others “had provided for the king” during the royal exile in Mahanaim (see 17:27–29). David makes it clear, however, that he wants to repay Barzillai’s kindness by inducing his friend to take up residence with him in Jerusalem so that the king can “provide” (GK 3920) for him as he had earlier “provided” for the king.
But Barzillai protests that the number of years left in his life is limited at best and that therefore it would make no sense for him to move to Jerusalem. Like Hushai (15:13–37), Barzillai does not want to be a burden to David, perhaps in the sense that he would require constant care and attention. He wants only to accompany the king across the Jordan for a short distance; he will then return to Rogelim, where he will die and be interred in the family burial site. If the king agrees, Kimham (probably one of Barzillai’s sons) will be Barzillai’s surrogate at the royal court. David agrees to this proposition, adding that he is prepared to do for Barzillai anything his friend desires.
Formalities concluded, the crossing of the Jordan by the king and his party takes place opposite Gilgal. Before Barzillai returns to his home, David kisses him and gives him his “blessing” (GK 1385).
40–43 David’s escort had consisted of all the troops of Judah and half those of Israel. The acrimony between the two groups increases when the men of Israel complain to the king that the men of Judah might as well have kidnapped him and his men to keep as many as possible of them from sharing the privilege of accompanying the king to Jerusalem.
The men of Judah have a ready answer, of course. David is from their tribe; thus there is no need for the men of Israel to be angry over what seems to the men of Judah to be perfectly natural. Nor have the latter taken advantage of their relationship to the king. Indeed, they strongly deny that they have taken any of the king’s provisions.
But the men of Israel reject all such explanations. Judah is only one tribe, while Israel has ten “shares” in the king—i.e., ten tribes in the overall kingdom. They conclude that it logically follows that they have a greater claim on David than Judah has. They want to know why the men of Judah treat them with such contempt, and they conclude their part of the debate by reminding the Judahites that they were the first to speak of returning David to his rightful place in Jerusalem (v.20).
The words of the men of Israel, however, cause the men of Judah to respond more “harshly” still, which not only echoes the earlier fears of David as he anticipated King Saul’s wrath (cf. 1Sa 20:10) but also foreshadows the foolish attitude of Rehoboam as he—king of Judah and potentially king of all Israel—irrevocably alienates the northern tribes (cf. 1Ki 12:13).
19. Sheba’s rebellion (20:1–22)
1–2 Sheba is introduced as a “troublemaker.” Reference to him as a Benjamite marks him as a northerner and perhaps a Saulide partisan as well (cf. 1Sa 9:1). The way in which his story is introduced suggests that Sheba picks up the baton dropped by Absalom.
Sounding a ram’s-horn trumpet, Sheba delivers a brief but powerful statement that would become a rallying cry for future secessionists (cf. 1Ki 12:16). He declares that he and his compatriots have “no share” in David’s realm and no “part” in “Jesse’s son.” Having lost patience with David, he orders “every man to his tent.” Despite the fact that David had been divinely anointed king over Israel, Sheba apparently suspects that David’s loyalties basically lie in the south and therefore urges the representatives of the northern tribes to recommend secession. Although the men of Judah remained with their king, escorting him all the way to Jerusalem, the “men of Israel”—following Sheba’s lead—deserted David. The time to secede is not yet ripe, however.
3–7 Before his flight from Jerusalem in the wake of Absalom’s conspiracy, David had left ten concubines to take care of the palace. Upon his return he takes the concubines and puts them in a house under guard, virtually incarcerating them. He no longer sleeps with them, as Absalom had done (see 16:21–22). They are forced to remain as widows for the rest of their lives.
David’s second step is to order Amasa, his new army commander, to summon the men of Judah (for military action) to come to Jerusalem within three days; Amasa is to be there personally as well. Amasa, however, takes longer than the time allotted. Apparently losing patience with him (and perhaps also fearing that he may have defected), David gives a command to Abishai, another of his generals. After describing the danger if Sheba is left to do as he wishes, David insists that Abishai muster David’s men and pursue Sheba before he goes into a fortified city and so escapes from him.
That David ignores Joab in his planning is noteworthy (see 19:13). “Joab’s men” now march out “under the command of Abishai,” who is also over the Kerethites and Pelethites (David’s mercenary troops) and all the “mighty warriors” (perhaps also mercenaries). The immediate task of Abishai’s substantial army is to pursue Sheba.
8–13 The story of Amasa’s death is eerily reminiscent of several other violent episodes recorded in chs. 2–4. Amasa belatedly joins Abishai’s army at Gibeon. Joab is there, and he wears a “military tunic,” which included a type of belt often used to hold a sheathed dagger. Not concealed, the dagger was fastened on over the tunic and was therefore in plain view.
Joab steps forward and contrives to allow his dagger to fall out of its sheath. With a natural movement in such circumstances, he picks it up with his left hand and continues to greet Amasa, referring to him as his brother. Joab then takes Amasa “by the beard” with his right hand, ostensibly to “kiss” him, but in reality to kill him. Amasa is not on his guard against the “accidentally” dropped dagger. Before he realizes what is happening, Joab has “plunged” the dagger into his “belly” (see 2:23; 3:27; 4:6), and Amasa dies. Joab and Abishai then continue the pursuit of Sheba.
One of Joab’s men attempts to rally his comrades to the chase by linking loyalty to the discredited Joab with loyalty to David. The corpse of Amasa lies wallowing in its blood in the middle of the road, and it is an unacceptable distraction that slows their progress. Seeing this, the man drags the body into a field and covers it with a garment. All the men finally join Joab in pursuit of Sheba.
14–22 The account of Sheba’s defeat, which parallels the attempt of David to foil him (vv.3–7), is divided into two unequal sections. The first episode (vv.14–15) describes the violent siege of Abel Beth Maacah by the ruthless Joab. The second episode (vv.16–22a) relates the story of the subtler and more nuanced approach of the wise woman of Abel and illustrates the truism that less is more.
Trying to drum up support for his secessionist cause, Sheba stays one step ahead of his pursuers as he passes throughout Israel, eventually arriving at Abel Beth Maacah. Since the city was at the northernmost end of the land, Sheba had to travel through all Israel to reach it. Apparently, however, he was able to enlist only the “Berites.” Compared to those who were ready to follow Joab (v.11), the number of men following Sheba is pitiable indeed.
Lacking neither confidence nor desire when it comes to besieging cities (cf. 11:1), Joab leads his troops against Sheba in Abel Beth Maacah. He builds a “siege ramp” at Abel, which serves as a means of access for attackers to pull down the city wall itself.
At this point a “wise woman” (unnamed) makes her appearance. Calling out from the city (perhaps from the top of the wall), she pleads for patience and asks to speak to Joab. Having confirmed his identity and gained his attention, she submissively refers to herself as his “servant.” He in turn indicates he is listening.
The wise woman establishes the credentials of her city, her fellow citizens, and herself—not only as purveyors of wisdom, but also as peacemakers. The woman therefore rebukes Joab for besieging the city and accuses him of trying to destroy a city that is a “mother in Israel” (cf. Jdg 5:7). She wishes to know why Joab would want to swallow up “the LORD’s inheritance,” a phrase referring either to the land and people of Israel or to the share of Abel Beth Maacah in that land.
Impressed by the logic of the woman’s arguments as well as by her sincerity, Joab relents. He categorically denies that it is his intention to destroy the city. He assures her that he is interested only in apprehending Sheba, whom he characterizes as being from the “hill country of Ephraim” and who has rebelled against King David.
Joab tells the wise woman that if the citizens of Abel will release Sheba to him, he and his men will pull back. Promising Joab that Sheba’s head will be thrown to him from the wall, the woman relays her proposal to the people of the city. Impressed by her wise advice, they proceed to cut off Sheba’s head and toss it out to Joab. Thus the rebellion of Sheba comes to an inglorious end—all because of the calming advice of the wise woman of Abel. Joab calls off the siege of Abel and returns to Jerusalem. With this, the so-called Court History of David (9:1–20:26) reaches its conclusion for all practical purposes.
20. David’s officials (20:23–26)
23–26 Since the roster of officials does not begin with the statement that David “reigned over all Israel” (cf. 8:15–18; 1Ki 4:2–6), this may reflect David’s weakened position in the wake of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba. All rivals for power now eliminated, Joab is commander of “Israel’s entire army,” while Benaiah (not Abishai, v.7) retains formal control over the Kerethite and Pelethite mercenaries.
A new and ominous figure, Adoniram, makes his appearance in the royal cabinet; he is in charge of the institution that put prisoners of war into “forced labor” on public works projects (cf. Dt 20:10–11).
Jehoshaphat is still David’s recorder (see 8:16), but Sheva has replaced Seraiah as secretary. Ira the Jairite is probably “priest” in the sense of “royal adviser” (see comment on 8:18).
II. Epilogue (21:1–24:25)
The basic theme of 1 and 2 Samuel is the beginnings of Israel’s monarchy in the eleventh century B.C. (its prelude, advent, establishment, and consolidation). The last four chapters of 2 Samuel, which conclude the magisterial history of the judgeship of Samuel, the reign of Saul, and the reign of David, function as an epilogue to the two books of Samuel as a whole.
A. The Lord’s Wrath Against Israel (21:1–14)
1–4 Lengthy famines were common in the ancient world, and it is therefore not surprising that at least one famine of unusual severity should occur at some point during the forty-year reign of David. Since it is often only “in their misery” that God’s people pray to him (Hos 5:15), perhaps David has not “sought the face of the LORD” (v.1) until the catastrophe is fully upon Israel. David thus makes his way to the divine throne room, perhaps entering the tabernacle itself, in order to receive mercy and help for his people.
The Lord’s answer is not long in coming: Saul was to blame because of his bloody rule (cf. Nu 35:33; cf. Dt 19:10). He had killed the Gibeonites and thus violated the age-old treaty made with them by Joshua (Jos 9:16), one of the provisions of which was that the Israelites would “let them live” (Jos 9:15, 20–21). David is determined to right this wrong of Saul, so he summons them to discuss the matter with them.
Wanting to rectify the situation, David asks the Gibeonites whether there is anything he can do to “make amends.” The Gibeonites begin by indicating to David that they are not asking either for money from the clan of Saul or for the execution of Israelites in general. Only when David expands his initial question to “What do you want me to do for you?” do the Gibeonites become more specific in their demand.
5–6 The Gibeonites’ desire for vengeance concerns one “man” and, since he is now dead, focuses on his descendants. They therefore request that seven of Saul’s male descendants be turned over to them—seven suggesting full retribution (see 1Sa 2:5). Saul’s “bloodstained house” would now be completely avenged (cf. Nu 35:33). They are to be killed and exposed “before the LORD,” perhaps so that his blessing might be sought. Ironically, the act is to take place at “Gibeah of Saul,” the hometown of the one who had “put the Gibeonites to death” (v.1) in the first place. David acquiesces to their request.
7–9 Because of the “oath before the LORD” sworn long ago between David and Saul’s son Jonathan (see 1Sa 20:42), the king spares Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth, whose future is presumably now secure. Although he is never again mentioned in the OT, his namesake—a son of “Aiah’s daughter Rizpah,” Saul’s concubine (see 3:7)—has the misfortune of being one of the seven descendants of Saul to be handed over to the Gibeonites. The other six are Rizpah’s son Armoni and the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab (1Sa 14:49; 18:19).
Once he had become king over all Israel (2Sa 5:1–5), David:
1. Conquered the Jebusite citadel of Zion/Jerusalem and made it his royal city (2Sa 5:6–10);
2. Received the recognition of and assurance of friendship from Hiram of Tyre, king of the Phoenicians (2Sa 5:11–12);
3. Decisively defeated the Philistines so that their hold on Israelite territory was broken and their threat to Israel eliminated (2Sa 5:17–25; 8:1);
4. Defeated the Moabites and imposed his authority over them (2Sa 8:2);
5. Crushed the Aramean kingdoms of Hadadezer (king of Zobah), Damascus and Maacah and put them under tribute (2Sa 8:3–8; 10:6–19). Talmai, the Aramean king of Geshur, apparently had made peace with David while he was still reigning in Hebron and sealed the alliance by giving his daughter in marriage to David (2Sa 3:3; see 1Ch 2:23);
6. Subdued Edom and incorporated it into his empire (2Sa 8:13–14);
7. Defeated the Ammonites and brought them into subjection (2Sa 12:19–31);
8. Subjugated the remaining Canaanite cities that had previously maintained their independence from and hostility toward Israel, such as Beth Shan, Megiddo, Taanach and Dor.
Since David had earlier crushed the Amalekites (1Sa 30:17), his wars thus completed the conquest begun by Joshua and secured all the borders of Israel. His empire (united Israel plus the subjugated kingdoms) reached from Ezion Geber on the eastern arm of the Red Sea to the Euphrates River.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
After being delivered over to the Gibeonites by David, the seven are “killed and exposed . . . before the LORD” on a hill where they could be easily seen. The time of year is carefully specified as the beginning of the barley harvest (i.e., late April).
10 Rizpah, bereft of two sons (cf. v.8), spreads “sackcloth” (a sign of mourning; cf. 3:31) on a rock, where she will stay day and night for the foreseeable future. She intends to remain there at least until the “rain” comes down—probably meaning an unseasonable late-spring or early-summer shower. She refuses to leave the exposed bodies of her sons and the other five victims until the drought ends as a sign that Saul’s crime has been expiated. Furthermore, to allow the “birds of the air” and the “wild animals” to feast on the carcasses would be to subject them to the most ignominious treatment possible.
11–14 Upon being told of Rizpah’s vigil—and perhaps also of her implied desire to make sure that the remains of Saul’s seven descendants be given a proper burial—David is conscience-stricken to follow her example. He makes the long journey to Jabesh Gilead to retrieve the bones of Saul and Jonathan from its citizens, who had buried them there (see 2:4b) after having taken them secretly from Beth Shan’s “public square” (see 1Sa 31:8–13). Reinterment of bones was not uncommon in ancient times (cf. Ge 50:25–26; Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32), and David now intends to give those of Saul and Jonathan an honorable burial. The bones of the seven male descendants of Saul who had been “killed and exposed” are also gathered up, perhaps to be interred near (or even with) the bones of Saul and Jonathan. And so Saul and his son Jonathan arrive at their final resting place, the tomb of “Saul’s father Kish.”
The three-year “famine” (v.1) caused by drought came to an end when God sent rain on the land. The execution of the seven had atoned for Saul’s sin and propitiated the divine wrath.
B. David’s Heroes (21:15–22)
15–17 Battles between Israel and the Philistines, Israel’s agelong enemy, were not uncommon during the early years of the united monarchy period. It was often necessary for David and his troops to go “down” from the heights of his capital city to the Philistine foothills and plains. On this occasion the long march and the rigors of battle leave him “exhausted.”
Ishbi-Benob decides to take advantage of David’s situation and kill him. The weight of his bronze spearhead marks him as a man of unusual size and strength. Despite this, Ishbi-Benob faces a formidable opponent in “Abishai son of Zeruiah,” who, totally in character, comes to David’s “rescue” by killing the Philistine. Sensing that the king has just experienced a close shave, his men swear to him that he will never again accompany them when they go out to battle. They want to make sure that David, the “lamp” (GK 5944) of Israel—he who, with God’s help, has brought the light of continued prosperity and well-being to the whole land—will not be “extinguished” (see 14:7). The lamp imagery is probably derived from the seven-branched lampstand in the tabernacle.
18 Another battle takes place at “Gob” (perhaps “Nob,” the “town of the priests” whose citizens Saul had massacred; see 1Sa 21:1; 22:18–19). The Rephaite Saph is killed by David’s hero Sibbecai the Hushathite (cf. 2Sa 23:27).
19 A third battle against the Philistines also takes place at Gezer/Gob. This time the Israelite hero is “Elhanan son of Jair” (cf. 1Ch 20:5). In the light of the well-known fact that David son of Jesse killed Goliath (cf. 1Sa 17:51, 57; 18:6; 19:5; 21:9), it seems most likely the original text referred to the fact that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath (see 1Ch 20:5). As the text was copied through the centuries, errors somehow crept in. The main weapon of Goliath’s brother, “a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod,” matched that of Goliath himself (see 1Sa 17:7).
20–21 A fourth battle against the Philistines takes place at Gath, the hometown of Goliath, located about twelve miles from Gezer. A nameless Rephaite, a “huge” man (cf. Nu 13:32; 1Ch 11:23; Isa 45:14) with an extra digit on each hand and foot, taunts Israel (see 1Sa 17:10). He is soon dispatched, however, by David’s nephew Jonathan.
22 Thus “four” Rephaite giants are killed by David’s men. If there is no indication in the text that David personally did battle with them, he nevertheless shares the credit for their death because he is king and his men act under his command.
C. David’s Song of Praise (22:1–51)
1 Ps 18 agrees with ch. 22 that the psalm recorded in both books originates with David. The Lord is the eminently worthy recipient of David’s song.
If God’s people tend to believe that the ark of the covenant (cf. 1Sa 4:3) or the king of Israel saves them from the hand of their enemies, David knows full well that the Lord is the one who has “delivered him” (GK 5911). Exactly when the psalm was first recited is uncertain, although it must have been after the prophet Nathan had announced God’s covenant with him.
2–4 In his introductory words of praise, David affirms that the Lord is everything to him, that he is all he needs. Nine epithets underlining God’s protecting presence are divided into three sets of three each: “my rock,” “my fortress,” “my deliverer”; “my rock,” “my shield,” “the horn of my salvation”; “my stronghold,” “my refuge,” “my savior.”
The Lord as “shield” (GK 4482) not only protects David from his enemies but also ensures the safety of all who are godly (cf. v.31). “Stronghold” (GK 5369), a secure, lofty retreat that the enemy finds inaccessible, is a frequent metaphor for God in the Psalms (cf. e.g., Pss 9:9; 59:9, 16, 17). As such he is the “refuge” (GK 4960) of his chosen one. That the Lord is therefore eminently able to save him from “violent men” is a theme to which David returns at the end of the poem (v.49), and that God delights to “give victory to” his people, to “save” (GK 3828) them from all their enemies and from every calamity, is a prominent thread running throughout the books of Samuel.
Having described at length the God who is strong to save, David states for the record what has become his habitual exercise: “I call to the LORD”—a practice he shares with saints of all times and places. Such a God, supremely “worthy of praise,” specializes in assuring his people that they will ultimately be saved from their enemies (cf. Nu 10:9).
5–7 Among the reasons David gives for praising the Lord is the fact that God has already delivered him from his enemies. Whether in images watery or terrestrial, “death” threatened to swallow David. The metaphor of “waves” as an instrument of divine judgment occurs elsewhere in psalmic literature as well (cf. Pss 42:7; 88:7). “Swirled about” and “coiled around”can be equally used with reference to the sea (Jnh 2:5) and the land (Pss 40:12; 116:3; cf. Pss 22:12, 16; 49:5; 118:10–12). “Overwhelmed” is used of divine visitants again and again in Job (cf. 3:5; 9:34; 13:11, 21; et al.); and just as the snares of death “confronted” David, so did days of suffering confront Job (cf. 30:27).
In v.6, death is pictured as a hunter setting traps for his victims. Just as calling to the Lord should be our lifelong response to an all-sufficient God (vv.2–3), so also calling to the Lord should be our immediate reaction when we are threatened by nameless dread or mortal danger. When in “distress” (GK 7639), David knew to whom to turn (cf. Pss 66:14; 102:2). From his “temple,” his heavenly dwelling, God heard the plea of David, whose cry for help reached the ears of the Lord.
8–16 Situated at the center of David’s paean of praise to God for having delivered him from his enemies is a magnificent theophany. The “foundations of the earth” answer to the “foundations of the heavens,” reminding us of God’s greatness through the vast reaches of his creation. If the opening section concentrates on God’s majestic being, the theophany focuses on his mighty omnipotence.
The poetic description of the divine self-manifestation is cast in terms of natural phenomena related to earthquake and storm. An earth set to quaking and trembling by the power of God is a common motif. Serving as an appropriate counterpoise to the quaking earth is the shaking of the “foundations of the heavens.” Earth and heaven alike tremble when the Lord is “angry” (cf. Isa 13:13) at the enemies of his people (cf. 1Sa 14:15). Unlike the altar smoke and fire in the Isaianic theophany (cf. Isa 6:4, 6), the present context seems to define the “smoke” as storm clouds and the “fire” and “burning coals” as flashes of lightning. “Smoke” in the Lord’s “nostrils” depicts the judgment of divine wrath against his enemies (cf. Isa 65:5), and “burning coals” can metaphorically represent instruments of divine punishment (cf. Eze 10:2).
In theophanic splendor the Lord “parted the heavens and came down” (cf. Ps 144:5). When God descends from heaven, his appearance is awesome indeed (cf. Ex 19:11, 18, 20; Ne 9:13). Although on occasion he comes down to rescue, usually his descent is for the purpose of judgment (cf. Ge 11:5; 18:21; Isa 31:4; 64:1, 3; Mic 1:3). At such time his “feet” are planted on “dark clouds,” which signal the ominous approach and destructive power of a violent thunderstorm (cf. Dt 4:11; Ps 97:2–4).
One or more “cherubim” are the means of transportation that the Lord “mounted.” If above the ark of the covenant the cherubim (winged sphinxes) support the throne from which God reigns over his people (see 6:2; 1Sa 4:4), in storm theophanies the cherubim support (or pull) a chariot, pictured in the form of swift clouds that scud across the heavens (cf. Ps 68:4, 33).
Darkness shrouds the middle verse (v.12) of the theophany. The God of wind and rain is pictured as if dwelling in storm clouds, which form his “canopy” and from which he thunders. Interfacing with the darkness is the “brightness” of the Lord’s presence, a “brilliant light” (Eze 1:4, 27) that surrounds him. Thunder, lightning, and their effects round out the theophany, the final three verses of which provide its only explicit references to the name of “the LORD.”
“Arrows” as a figure of speech for “bolts of lightning” appear also in Hab 3:9 (cf. 3:11) and Zec 9:14. Together with thunder, lightning is a common accompaniment of theophanies (cf. Ex 19:16; Ps 77:18; Eze 1:13–14). And as thunder “routed” the Philistines in the days of Samuel (1Sa 7:10), so lightning has “routed” David’s enemies.
With its emphasis on cosmic phenomena, the closing verse of the theophany (v.16) reprises its opening (v.8). If the heavens respond to the earth in v.8, the “earth” answers the “sea” in v.16. However firm and stable the foundation of the heavens and the earth may be in the normal course of events, the Lord of the universe can shake them and lay them bare in accordance with his sovereign will (cf. Ps 82:5). Severe dislocation and exposure take place “at the blast of breath” from his nostrils, a display of divine wrath (cf. Ex 15:7–8; Job 4:9). The rebuke of the Lord as an index of his anger brings the theophany full circle.
17–20 David concludes his overall description of deliverance from his enemies (vv.5–20) by asserting that the self-revealing, all-powerful Sovereign of the universe reached down from heaven and saved him on earth. The Lord “drew” David out of “deep waters,” a cosmic metaphor that symbolizes a threatening peril (cf. Pss 32:6; 144:7).
Although powerful, David’s enemies were no match for God, who rescued him. In speaking of the “day of my disaster,” David uses a common expression that elsewhere refers to an experience of divinely sent judgment, punishment, or vengeance (cf. Dt 32:35; Job 21:30). The background is perhaps the widespread practice of the “river ordeal,” a form of legal trial in which a suspected criminal was thrown into a river and his success or failure in attempting to swim to shore was interpreted as a divinely sent index of his guilt or innocence. In the present context the case for such a relationship is strengthened by the proximity of “day of my disaster” to the “deep waters” that threatened David. Through every trial, the Lord himself was David’s “support.”
That the Lord safely brought David out of the ordeals through which he had gone (cf. Ps 66:12) implies that he is the God who “sets [his chosen ones] free” from the worst their enemies can do to them (v.49).
21–25 That the Lord “delighted” (GK 2911) in David (v.20) leads to his description of the two bases of God’s saving deliverance: the righteousness of those who are rescued by God (vv.21–25) and the justice of God himself (vv.26–30). Is David saying that his “righteousness” (GK 7407) has earned God’s favor? Hardly. Far from taking matters into his own hands, David had “kept the ways of the LORD” and had waited for divine vindication against his enemies.
“Cleanness” of hands, while intended here in a moral and spiritual sense (cf. Ps 24:4), is an idiom that derives ultimately from the practice of washing one’s hands with “soda” (cf. Job 9:30). That the Lord was a God who “rewarded” people according to their righteousness was a principle David had embraced long before he became king (cf. 1Sa 26:23).
David is determined to keep God’s laws before him so that he may not be tempted to turn away from the divine “decrees” (v.23; cf. 1Ki 11:11). His testimony that he has been “blameless” before the Lord is echoed later not only in the statement that God shows himself “blameless” to those who are “blameless” (v.26) but also in David’s realization that the God whose way is “perfect” (v.31) makes “perfect” the way of his chosen one (v.33).
26–30 The second main factor that served as a basis of God’s deliverance is the Lord’s justice, which is evident in his actions. To the “faithful” (GK 2883), those who have appropriated the (covenant) love demonstrated to them by the Lord, God shows himself faithful. To the “blameless” (GK 9459), the one who has been made perfect in God’s eyes, the Lord shows himself blameless. To the “pure” (GK 1405), God shows himself “pure.” But to the “crooked” (GK 6826), the one whose words are “perverse” and whose paths are littered with traps for the unwary, the Lord shows himself “shrewd.” At the hinge of the poem, David acknowledges himself (and his God) to be “faithful,” “blameless,” and “pure,” whereas his enemies are “crooked.”
The contrast established between the godly and the godless is summarized in v.28. Continuing to address God in the second person, David asserts that the Lord saves the “humble” but that his eyes bring low the “haughty.” David as the “lamp” of Israel (see 21:17) merely reflects the blinding light of the glory of God, who is the “lamp” of David himself (cf. Ps 18:28).
With God on his side, David feels invincible. Since “scale a wall” is clearly the meaning of the second line of v.30 (cf. SS 2:8; Isa 35:6), the alternative NIV translation (“run through a barricade”) provides a more suitable parallel in the first line than “advance against a troop.”
31–37 The psalm’s third major section (vv.31–46), which expounds the outworking of God’s saving deliverance, begins by describing the Lord as the enabler of his servant David. God’s name is placed front and center. The Lord, whose works and ways are “perfect” (GK 9459), makes David’s way perfect by providing him with everything he needs to ensure victory over his enemies. The Lord, whose word is “flawless” in the sense that like precious metals in a refiner’s furnace it has been “tested” to the point of proving its purity (Ps 119:140), is a “shield” (GK 4482) who protects all who “take refuge” in him.
The Lord’s irresistible and omnipotent ability is linked to his absolute incomparability. David’s two rhetorical questions demand the uncompromisingly negative answer “no one.” There is no god “besides the LORD”; there is no “Rock” apart from our God. Uniquely beyond compare, the Lord brooks no rivals.
Next David glorifies the God who readies him for battle. The Lord “arms [him] with strength,” making him physically, mentally, and spiritually powerful.
David is grateful to the Lord for giving him the surefootedness of a deer, enabling him even to stand on the perilous “heights” without fear of falling (cf. Dt 32:13; Isa 58:14; Hab 3:19). The Lord also “trains [David’s] hands for battle” and strengthens his arms so that they are powerful enough to bend a bow of “bronze” (a hyperbole).
The last two verses of David’s description of God as enabler address the Lord directly. He gives David a shield that guarantees victory, and he condescends to stoop down in order to make David great. He broadens the path beneath David’s feet, so that his ankles do not turn.
38–43 Adequately strengthened and properly equipped by the Lord (vv.31–37), David was able to gain victory over his enemies with God’s help. As he describes the thoroughness of his triumph, he virtually exhausts the lexicon of Hebrew verbs that have to do with annihilation.
God has “armed” David “with strength” and “made” his enemies “bow” before him in craven submission (cf. Ps 17:13). David’s “adversaries” will “rise” no more. If the Lord has broadened David’s path “beneath” him (v.37), and if his enemies have fallen “beneath” his feet (v.39), David joyfully confesses that the Lord has caused them to bow at his feet. The Lord has made David’s enemies turn their backs in flight, and David has thus “destroyed” his “foes.”
Although the enemy tried to find relief from David’s onslaught, there was “no one to save them.” Giving his enemies no quarter, David beat them as fine as the dust of the earth. He “trampled” them with his feet (cf. Eze 6:11; 25:6) as though they were “mud in the streets.” Thus David’s enemies are portrayed as objects of humiliation and contempt.
44–46 Again, David gives credit to God for enabling him to gain the victory over his enemies. He acknowledges that God has “delivered” (GK 7117) him from “attacks of my people” (better translated, “of the people,” i.e., his enemies).
David’s conquests resulted in large numbers of people he “did not know” becoming “subject to” him. Since the enemies of God can be expected to “cringe” before him, there is no reason why foreigners under David’s control should not “come cringing” to the Lord’s anointed. Indeed, “as soon as they hear” they obey him. David’s power and reputation strike terror in subject and foreigner alike, and they all “lose heart.” Their only recourse is to “come trembling” from their “strongholds.” Utterly dejected, the peoples in and around David’s realm cower before him and his God.
47–51 “The LORD lives!” echoes David’s description of the Lord as “the living God” decades earlier (see 1Sa 17:26). From this fact springs the rest of his words of exultation. He begins with a common outburst of praise to which he is no stranger (see 1Sa 25:32), directing it to the omnipotent Lord who is his “Rock” (GK 7446). The God who is himself “exalted” (GK 8123) has “exalted” his servant David. “Rock” and the reference to God as “Savior” (GK 3829) remind his people that his mighty power works hand in hand with his redemptive grace. When the Lord “avenges” (GK 5935) his chosen king, he puts the nations under him and sets him free from his enemies. Indeed, David is exalted above his “foes” (cf. Ps 140:1, 4, 11).
Because of all that God has done for him, none of which he can possibly repay, David speaks to the Lord directly and announces he will “praise” him “among the nations”; he will praise the “name” of him who alone is worthy of praise (cf. Ps 8:1, 9). That the nations of the world would share in David’s praise to the Lord was a firm belief of the apostle Paul, who in Ro 15:9 quotes 2Sa 22:50.
David ends with parallel references to the Lord’s “king” and the Lord’s “anointed.” To his king the Lord gives great victories, and to his anointed—to David and his descendants—he shows “kindness” (GK 2876). God’s covenant with David guarantees that the “kindness” here affirmed would continue to bring untold blessing to the Davidic line for all future generations (see 7:15). The “messenger of the covenant” (Mal 3:1), the Lord’s representative and Messiah, would confirm and establish the Davidic covenant; the Lord’s messianic servant, himself a “covenant for the people” (Isa 42:6; 49:8), would fulfill the Davidic covenant as king through unending days (cf. Isa 9:7; Luke 1:31–33). It is thus significant and satisfying that the Song of David, a psalm of impressive scope and exquisite beauty, should begin with “The LORD” (v.2), the Eternal One, and end with “forever” (v.51).
D. David’s Last Words (23:1–7)
1 The phrase “last words” need not be understood in the sense of the last words David spoke during his lifetime but is doubtless used in a way analogous to “last will and testament” or the like. Verses 1b–7 summarize his final literary legacy to Israel.
David begins by identifying his poem as an “oracle” (GK 5536) and by providing us with a laudatory self-description. After calling himself the “son of Jesse,” he awards himself three titles that appear grandiose, two of which give the Lord the glory for his success. David considers himself a man exalted by the Most High, anointed by the God of Jacob (cf. Pss 20:1; 24:6), and designated as “Israel’s singer of songs.”
2–4 David next ascribes divine origin to the revelation that comes to him. “The Spirit of the LORD spoke through” him and delivered to him the message that God wanted him to receive. David is conscious of the fact that the “word” of the Lord was on his “tongue” (cf. Ps 139:4) and that the mighty “Rock of Israel” had spoken to him.
“Qualities of an Ideal King” could well be the caption of the Lord’s portrait of royalty mediated through David. “Fear [GK 3711] of God,” the generic term for “religion, piety” in ancient Israel, was a common wisdom motif (see 1Sa 12:14). Thus he who rules in the fear of God rules “in righteousness” (GK 7407; lit., “as a righteous one,” an epithet that has clear messianic connotations; cf. Jer 23:5; Zec 9:9).
The first half of v.4 compares the rule of the righteous king to the benefits of sunlight, the second half to the fertilizing effects of rain. It is remarkably similar to Ps 72, where the ideal ruler, characterized by “righteousness” (72.1–2), will endure as long as the “sun” (v.5) and will be like “rain” that waters the earth (v.6). The righteous king is like the first light of morning, just after dawn (cf. 17:22; 1Sa 14:36).
The image of “brightness” is continued into the latter half of v.4—now related to the lightning that accompanies thunderstorms. As the fructifying influence of rain helps the grass to grow (cf. Dt 32:2), so also the benevolent rule of a righteous king causes his people to flourish (cf. Ps 72:6–7). If the presence of the ideal king produces health and prosperity, the absence of royal rule guarantees famine and drought.
5 Encouraged by the possibilities for righteous leadership implied in the Lord’s words, David speaks positively of his “house” (i.e., his family and dynasty), of the everlasting covenant that God had made with him, of the fruition of his salvation, and of the fulfillment of all his desires. He had been convinced that his “house” would be “established” in God’s presence (7:26), and he is now sure that his “house” is “right with God.”
6–7 David now describes the fate of “evil men.” All of them are to be cast aside like “thorns” (GK 7764), whose sharp-pointed branches make them too dangerous to pick up with unprotected hands. Anyone touching them is well-advised to use a tool of “iron” or the “shaft of a spear”—both offensive weapons that can be used to kill an enemy. A parallel way of destroying thorns (or enemies) is to burn them up “where they lie.” If evil men are “cast aside,” the anointed of the Lord, God’s Messiah, is “exalted” (v.1).
And thus David’s “last words” (v.1) come to an end. Along with all his other poems, they represent a legacy and variety of hymns that are unparalleled elsewhere in Scripture. Israel’s ideal king was indeed Israel’s beloved singer.
E. David’s Mighty Men (23:8–39)
8–12 The parallel in 1Ch 11:10–41 is introduced with the statement that David’s mighty men and/or their chiefs “gave his kingship strong support to extend it over the whole land.” Since the context is the anointing of David as king over Israel after his seven-year reign in Hebron (1Ch 11:1–3) followed by the conquest of Jerusalem (1Ch 11:4–9), vv.8–39 doubtless represent the organization of David’s military command at a time relatively early in his reign over all Israel. “Mighty men” is a general term for unusually strong and courageous soldiers (cf. 1Sa2:4).
First to be mentioned is Jashobeam (1Ch 11:11). Among others during David’s long reign, he was “chief of the Three.” In terms of David’s military administration, the regular regiment of four hundred to six hundred men was divided into three units: Two fighting units and one unit to guard the weapons (see 1Sa 25:13; 30:9–10). Like Abishai (cf. v.18), the courageous Jashobeam “raised his spear against” a large number of men, whom he succeeded in killing in a single encounter.
Next to Jashobeam was Eleazar, the second of the “three mighty men.” He was from a Benjamite clan. Unlike other Israelite troops, who retreated from a second epic battle against the Philistines near “Pas Dammim,” Eleazar “stood his ground” and joined David as, tit for tat, they “taunted” the enemy. Eleazar struck down the Philistines with such fierceness that his hand “froze to the sword.” But there was victory nonetheless—a “great victory” that was brought about by the Lord.
Third and last of the “three mighty men” was “Shammah son of Agee.” As fear of the Philistines had struck panic in the hearts of Israel’s troops on other occasions, so also the Israelites fled when the Philistines “banded” together (cf. v.13) in a field full of “lentils.” Depending on divine help for victory, however, Shammah took his stand in the middle of the field and defeated the enemy.
13–17 The story of David and the three mighty men at the cave of Adullam is one of the most familiar and best loved in the entire corpus. An act of loyalty and unselfish bravery is matched by an act of gratitude and self-effacing chivalry, and the result is an account that highlights the most admirable qualities in all four men.
The “thirty chief men” are doubtless to be equated with the “Thirty” (vv.23–24) who were already a part of David’s growing military force when he was at Ziklag (cf. 1Sa 27:6–12; 29:1–30:26). Early on, the Thirty had apparently formed a kind of supreme command under David. Three of them had now come to him at the “cave of Adullam” (1Sa 22:1), while a detachment of Philistines was camped in the “Valley of Rephaim” (see 5:18).
At David’s hometown of Bethlehem in Judah (see 1Sa 16:1; 17:12), the Philistines had established a “garrison.” His throat parched, David expressed aloud his wistful longing for a drink of water from the well near Bethlehem’s gate, where as a boy he had doubtless slaked his thirst on many occasions. So loyal were David’s three mighty men that his wish became their command: Heedless to the danger facing them, they marched the twelve miles from Adullam to Bethlehem, “broke through” the Philistine lines, drew water from the well, and carried it back to David.
Instead of drinking the water, David “poured it out” before the Lord as a libation offering (cf. Ge 35:14; Nu 28:7). Instead of quenching his thirst, he solemnly and emphatically denied that he would even think of doing such a thing as he declared that the water symbolized the very blood of his men, who had served him at the risk of their lives. The exploits of the courageous warriors would be remembered for all future generations.
18–23 “Abishai the brother of Joab son of Zeruiah” is well known as a brave if impetuous fighting man (see 1Sa 26:6; 2Sa 2:18; 3:30; 16:9; 18:2; 19:21; 21:17). Like Jashobeam (see v.8), Abishai was more likely chief of the “Three” than of the “Thirty.” Also like Jashobeam, Abishai “killed” a large number of men. His prodigious feat of courage made him as “famous” as the Three themselves and doubtless contributed to his being “held in greater honor” than the Three. Indeed, although he was not included among them, he became their commander.
“Benaiah son of Jehoiada” was a “valiant” fighter who performed a number of exploits. He struck down “Moab’s two best men” and, in the midst of adverse circumstances, killed a lion (see 1Sa 17:34–37). The most formidable of Benaiah’s accomplishments was apparently his encounter with a huge Egyptian. Armed with only a club, Benaiah snatched the Egyptian’s spear from him and killed him with it.
Since Benaiah was for a while “over the Thirty” (1Ch 27:6), it is not surprising that he should be held in greater honor than the Thirty were (v.13). King David rewarded Benaiah by putting him in charge of his “bodyguard,” a position similar to that once occupied by David himself in the days of Saul (see 1Sa 22:14).
24–39 A roster of notable warriors is the second of the two main segments comprising the literary section that preserves the names and the exploits of David’s mighty men. If the first segment (vv.8–23) focuses on the Three, the second concentrates on the Thirty.
The parallel list in 1Ch 11:26–41 often varies from that in Samuel, especially in the last few verses. Many of the differences consist of minor spelling or transcription errors.
Some of the names in vv.24–39 are very familiar, some are less so, and some are otherwise unknown. Joab’s brother Asahel was killed by Abner (cf. 2:23), Saul’s cousin (cf. 1Sa 14:50–51). Elhanan son of Dodo is not to be confused with the Elhanan who killed Goliath’s brother (see 21:19). Likewise Shammah the Harodite is not to be confused with other leaders named Shammah (see v.11).
Especially interesting is the listing of “Eliam son of Ahithophel the Gilonite” (v.34). Father of Bathsheba (see 11:3), Eliam was also the son of Ahithophel, David’s counselor who defected to Absalom (see 15:12)—perhaps inclined to do so because of David’s sin against Ahithophel’s granddaughter.
If Asahel the brother of Joab (v.24) came to an untimely end at the hands of Abner (cf. 2:23), Uriah the Hittite (v.39) met his tragic death because an adulterous king could find no other way to cover his sinful tracks (see 11:14–17). None would doubt that in virtually every other respect David, who often genuinely sought to do God’s will, was an ideal king—“except in the case of Uriah the Hittite” (1Ki 15:5).
F. The Lord’s Wrath Against Israel (24:1–25)
The books of Samuel close with the account of a plague sent by God against Israel because of David’s sin in ordering a census of his troops, providing a fitting conclusion to the story of David by calling attention, once more and finally, not only to his ambition and pride, but also to his humility and remorse.
1–9 The anger of the Lord “burned against” Israel because of an unspecified sin. If the subject of “incited” (GK 6077) in v.1 is surely the Lord, it is just as surely Satan in the parallel text of 1Ch 21:1. Thus the Lord through Satan “incited” David against Israel by commanding him to “take a census” of Israel and Judah. Since census-taking was not sinful in and of itself (cf. Ex 30:11–12; Nu 1:1–2), what was the nature of David’s transgression? Apparently by taking a census David was impugning the faithfulness of God in the keeping of his promises—a kind of walking by sight instead of by faith.
David tells Joab and the army commanders with him to go throughout the entire land of Israel and count the “fighting men.” He is also to “enroll” them, an act with purposes more military than statistical.
Joab, sensing David’s hidden agenda, immediately expresses his reservations. His hope that the Lord will “multiply” the troops a hundred times over and that David’s eyes will see it is doubtless voiced with reluctance since he wonders how the king could possibly “want” to do such a thing. Joab is positive that David’s precipitous action will “bring guilt on Israel” (1Ch 21:3). But the king is adamant. “Overruled” by David’s word, Joab proceeds to carry out his orders.
Territories conquered by David are not included in the census. As leader of his team, Joab transmits to David the results of their efforts. He reports the number of “able-bodied men” who can “handle a sword.” The tally of fighting men recorded in Joab’s report differs from that in 1Ch 21. According to v.9, the figures in Israel and Judah are 800,000 and 500,000 respectively, while in 1Ch 21:5 they are 1,100,000 and 470,000. Apparently v.9 refers simply to “Israel” whereas 1Ch 21:5 covers “all Israel” and therefore Chronicles’ first sum is greater because the regular army of 288,000 (1Ch 27:1–15) is included. As for the difference between the 500,000 men of Judah in v.9, it is likely that the figure in Samuel is rounded off while that in Chronicles is more precise.
A second problem relates to the hugeness of the numbers themselves. For a discussion of this problem, see the introduction to the book of Numbers.
10–17 Eventually coming to the realization that his command to take a census of Israel’s fighting men had been not only “repulsive” to Joab (1Ch 21:6) but also “evil in the sight of God” (1Ch 21:7), David is “conscience-stricken.” He now confesses to the Lord: “I have sinned greatly” (see 12:13), having become sensitive to the enormity of willful rebellion against God (cf. Ps 19:13). Not waiting for a prophetic word of absolution this time, David begs the Lord to take away his guilt, realizing he has done a “very foolish thing.”
Although David may not have needed a prophet to mediate the assurance of divine forgiveness to him, he apparently does need a prophet to outline for him his future options. As the “word of the LORD” had come to the prophets Samuel and Nathan in critical situations, so also it comes to the prophet Gad, who is David’s “seer.”
The Lord’s “three options” turn out to be “three punishments”: “three years of famine,” “three months of fleeing,” “three days of plague.” As the suggested periods decrease in length, the specific punishment linked with each period increases in severity. The choice is David’s to make, however. Before Gad can bring back to the Lord an answer from the king, David must “think it over and decide.”
Since David is forced to choose among these three evils, he is in “deep distress” no matter what he does. But because the people of God have always confessed that his “mercy is great” (cf. Ne 9:19, 27, 31; Ps 119:156), David expresses his desire to fall into the hands of the Lord rather than of other people. David chooses the three-day plague.
Divine judgment in the form of a plague was not long in coming. Indeed, it began “that morning.” In all, “seventy thousand . . . died.” If David, bent on conquest, had planned the census as a military muster (see v.2), the Lord’s response is not unexpected.
Who, precisely, are the hapless victims of the plague? The NIV considers them to have been ordinary Israelite “people” (GK 6639). But based on contextual reasons, the word should be translated “fighting men” (cf. v.9).
The “angel of the LORD” is the instrument of the divinely sent plague. Since the Hebrew word for “angel” (GK 4485) also means “messenger,” most likely the angel of the Lord here is a special messenger from the court of heaven who bears all the credentials of the King of heaven and can therefore speak and act on his behalf. Thus when the angel of the Lord appears, the Lord himself is symbolically present. In any event, surely the angel and the Lord are not simply to be equated, for in v.16 they are clearly distinguished from each other.
Having already killed a large number of men throughout the rest of the country, the angel now stretches out his hand to destroy the capital city itself. At this juncture, however, the Lord is “grieved” because of the severity of the punishment, and thus he says, “Enough!”
Visible to David’s eyes, the angel and his destructive actions in striking down the men repulse the king. He again confesses his sin and wrongdoing. The men who are being killed are merely “sheep,” he says, who are not guilty and for whom David feels responsible. David’s loving concern for and care of “sheep,” whether literal or metaphorical, has characterized him from his first appearance in the books of Samuel to his last. Rather than witness the further destruction of his men, he calls the wrath of God down on himself and his own family.
Significantly, the angel of the Lord is at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Threshing floors in ancient times were often places of sanctity.
18–25 In response to David’s urgent prayer, the angel of the Lord (see 1Ch 21:18) orders the prophet Gad to tell David to “go up” to Araunah’s threshing floor. There David is to build an altar to the Lord. Prompted by the divine command, David obeys.
Araunah leaves the threshing floor and pays homage to David, his acknowledged superior, by bowing down before him with his “face to the ground” and calling himself David’s “servant.”
To Araunah’s query concerning the purpose of David’s visit the king says that he wants to buy the threshing floor from him as a suitable place where he can “build” an altar to the Lord. “Burnt offerings and fellowship offerings” will propitiate the divine wrath and bring the plague to an end (cf. Nu 25:7–8; Ps 106:30).
Although they usually toiled as draft animals (cf. 6:6), “oxen” were also commonly sacrificed as burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Although oxen, threshing sledges, and ox yokes constitute the material of his livelihood, Araunah is prepared to give them to David for a higher purpose and expresses his hope that the Lord will “accept” David.
To Araunah’s gracious (though perhaps not totally disinterested) offer David replies in characteristic fashion, pointedly referring to the Lord as “my” God: “I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” His emphatic “No” resonates with the sound of authority as he insists on paying for the threshing floor. The transaction is finalized as David agrees to pay Araunah “fifty shekels of silver” for the threshing floor and the oxen, an amount that balloons in the Chronicler’s parallel to “six hundred shekels of gold”—a price, however, that doubtless includes the entire “site.”
And so David king of Israel and Judah buys a threshing floor and builds an altar on it. He then sacrifices his offerings as a means of seeking divine favor. The Lord “answered prayer in behalf of the land.” The angel of death having “put his sword back into its sheath” (1Ch 21:27), divine judgment is “stopped.”
Although David appears content simply to build an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, his son Solomon would eventually build the temple there (cf. 1Ch 22:1) on the hill called Moriah (cf. 2Ch 3:1; also Ge 22:2).
The Old Testament in the New
| OT Text | NT Text | Subject |
| 2Sa 7:14 | 2Co 6:18; Heb 1:5; Rev 21:7 | Father and son |
| 2Sa 22:50 | Ro 15:9 | Praise among the nations |