1. In the case of Professor Weinberg, the details have been preserved in his own gripping narrative: Werner Weinberg, Self-Portrait of a Holocaust Survivor (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1985).
1. Matitiahu Tsevat, “Israelite History and the Historical Books of the Old Testament,” in The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies: Essays on the Literature and Religion of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Ktav, 1980), 177.
2. See John Goldingay, Models for Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 1–86.
3. M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms (5th ed.; New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1988), 23. See also Goldingay’s use of the four Gospels to illustrate the varieties among the Bible’s historical books (Models, 73–76).
4. For some of what follows, see the popular-level book on hermeneutics by Fee and Stuart, where they discuss these as top, middle, and bottom levels (Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 73–78).
5. As Fee and Stuart explain, when Jesus spoke of the Old Testament as bearing witness to him (John 5:37–39), he referred to the universal level of interpretation. He represents the central act of that macrostory of redemption, and the subjection of creation to him represents the climax of its plot. He was thus not referring to every individual narrative of the Old Testament (How to Read the Bible, 75).
6. Goldingay, Models, 32.
7. As was once popular in biblical studies, to write history wie es eigentlich geschehen ist (“as it actually happened”). The quote is most often associated with Leopold von Ranke, the nineteenth-century rationalist historian, who believed the past could be reconstructed with great confidence based on original sources and objective strategies. See Gerald T. Sheppard, “Biblical Interpretation in the 18th and 19th Centuries,” in Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. D. K. McKim (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 257–80, esp. 269–72.
8. Richard D. Nelson, The Historical Books (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 21–24.
9. In a similar vein, ancient Near Eastern historiography in general rooted the causal line also in the divine realm, as did Israel. The difference between Israel and Mesopotamia is, among other things, their different views of divinity, which resulted further in different forms and types of historiography. See Bill T. Arnold, “The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 129–48.
10. Eugene H. Merrill, “The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” JANESCU 19 (1989): 101–12; see the commentary on 2 Sam. below, passim.
11. Elmer A. Martens, “The Oscillating Fortunes of ‘History’ within Old Testament Theology,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 313–40, esp. 335–40.
12. Hans Walter Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, ed. W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 83–100; Nelson, Historical Books, 29.
13. For more on this, see Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 318–38.
14. Thomas Elton Artmann, “Doctrinal Preaching in an Emerging Postmodern Age” (D. Min. diss.; Lexington, Ky.: Asbury Theological Seminary, 1998), 41.
15. In fact, it is strictly speaking impossible to refer to an “author” for these books, because there were many hands involved in the writing, compiling, arranging, and editing process, all anonymously. This commentary deals with the received text of Jewish and Christian tradition, concerning itself only with the “final form” of 1-2 Samuel. Thus, we make no attempt to comment on the meaning of various stages of the traditions (e.g., about Saul or David) at different points in Israel’s history.
16. So Samuel wrote 1 Samuel 1–24, and the rest was written by Nathan and Gad (b. B. Bat. 14b and 15a). The tradition is likely based on 1 Chron. 29:29: “As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer.”
17. That is, the “Former Prophets” of the Hebrew canon, which excludes Ruth, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther from the historical books per se. In contrast to our Protestant canon, these later historical books are included in the “Writings,” or the third and final portion of the Hebrew canon.
18. The theory was first proposed by Martin Noth in 1943 and has been the subject of intense study for decades (Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 15; 2d ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991]). Though the idea of a Deuteronomistic History has gone through significant modification, it stands today as the best explanation of origins of these historical books. For more information, see A. Graeme Auld, “The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings,” in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues, ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 53–68; Steven L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD, 2:160–68; Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham, eds., The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); Mark A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989).
19. The parameters for each of the sources listed here are often debated by scholars. On the source problems of Samuel, see Baruch Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 149–74. On the ark narrative in particular, see Patrick D. Miller Jr. and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1977), and P. Kyle McCarter Jr., I Samuel (AB 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980), 23–26.
20. Mettinger believes the original source was more extensive, comprising 1 Sam. 15–2 Sam. 7. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1976), 33–47.
21. Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, trans. M. D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn (Sheffield: Almond, 1982); trans. of Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3.6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926); P. Kyle McCarter Jr., “Plots, True or False: The Succession Narrative as Court Apologetic,” Int 35 (1981): 355–67; T. Ishida, “‘Solomon Who Is Greater Than David’: Solomon’s Succession in 1 Kings I–II in the Light of the Inscription of Kilamuwa, King of YʾDY-Śamʾal,” in Congress Volume: Salamanca, 1983, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 36; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 145–53. See also Robert P. Gordon, “In Search of David: The David Tradition in Recent Study,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 285–98.
22. For summary, see Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W. W. North, 1999), x–xii.
23. See Gary N. Knoppers, “The Historical Study of the Monarchy: Developments and Detours,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 212–15.
24. For overview of these developments, see David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold, eds., The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).
25. Gary N. Knoppers, “The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel,” JBL 116 (1997): 19–44; idem, “Historical Study of the Monarchy: Developments, 215–21; see the fascinating volume edited by Lowell K. Handy, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (SHANE 11; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
26. Knoppers, “The Vanishing Solomon,” 19–20.
27. For the dates and archaeological survey of the period, see Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E. (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 368–402. On the impossibility of fixed dates for this early period, see Hayim Tadmor, “The Chronology of the First Temple Period: A Presentation and Evaluation of the Sources,” in J. Alberto Soggin, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah (rev. ed.; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity International, 1993), 394–417, esp. 408–9; and Mordecai Cogan, “Chronology: Hebrew Bible,” ABD, 1:1002–11, esp. 1009.
28. See V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 120–68; Bill T. Arnold, “The Quest for the Historical Israel Continued,” ATJ 24 (1992): 92–103.
29. Ian Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Tübingen: Mohr, 1993), passim.
30. See the conclusions of Knoppers, “The Vanishing Solomon,” 33–43. One archaeologist stated recently that the sudden transformation of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer from burnt-out ruin heaps into “roughly comparable complex fortified governmental centers” would have forced him to invent David and Solomon had the Bible not already supplied their names. The archaeological evidence demands a conqueror and an administrator to have effected such a transformation. John S. Holladay Jr., “The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron IIA-B (ca. 1000–750 B.C.E.),” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. Thomas E. Levy (London: Leicester Univ. Press, 1995), 368–98 (quote is from 371).
31. On the kingship of God, see Philip J. Nel, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:956–65, esp. 960–63.
32. John H. Hayes and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 257–60; Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 77–103.
33. The concept of the person and presence of God may serve as an organizing tenet for the whole, though it is so broad as to be of little value theologically. See Samuel L. Terrien, The Elusive Presence (New York: Harper, 1978).
34. See George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955), 32–34.
35. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (rev. ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981).
36. For discussion and introduction to the extensive bibliography on this topic, see John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 95–109.
37. Israel’s request in 1 Sam. 8:7 amounted to a rejection of Yahweh as king. See G. E. Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 148.
38. For helpful review, see Charles E. Carter, “Opening Windows onto Biblical Worlds: Applying the Social Sciences to Hebrew Scripture,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies, 421–33.
39. James W. Flanagan, David’s Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel’s Early Iron Age (JSOTSup 73 and SWBA 7; Sheffield: Almond, 1988), 304–18; Robert Donald Miller II, “A Social History of Highland Israel in the 12th and 11th Centuries B.C.E.” (Ph.D. diss., Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1998).
40. Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 3:1050–51.
41. When I refer to early Israel’s monarchy as an “institution,” I do not intend to conjure up the debate over the definition of “state,” in which Max Weber’s use of “institution” (Anstalt) was so important. See Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Sociological and Biblical Views of the Early State,” in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, ed. V. Fritz and P. R. Davies (JSOTSup 228; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 85–88.
42. For references, see J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 99. One of the central functions of all Mesopotamian kings was to serve as the primary human link with the gods. All rulers from Hammurabi to Nabonidus claimed they were called by a great god, who had chosen them for the office and who maintained an intimate link with the human king (cf. Ps. 2:7). See H. W. F. Saggs, Babylonians (Peoples of the Past 1; Norman, Okla.: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 135–37.
43. See comments on 1 Sam. 9:1–10:8; also Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 220–21.
44. Christoph Barth, God with Us: A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 188–89.
45. Nelson, Historical Books, 25–27.
46. P. R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), 8; and J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 39–51, esp. 42–43.
47. The words are those of Philip E. Satterthwaite (“David in the Books of Samuel: A Messianic Hope?” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess, and G. J. Wenham [Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995], 64–65). See also Rolf P. Knierim, “The Messianic Concept in the First Book of Samuel,” in Jesus and the Historian: Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell, ed. F. T. Trotter (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 20–51, esp. 42.
48. For representative examples, see Isa. 11:1–2; Jer. 23:5; Amos 9:11–15.
49. Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 65.
50. For particular references, see Jer. 18:1–12; Hos. 14:1–2; Joel 2:12–13. This theme may be another indication of the role of the prophets in the compilation of 1-2 Samuel.
51. Note esp. the summarizing evaluations of the narrator: “The Philistines were subdued” (1 Sam. 7:13), and “there was peace between Israel and the Amorites” (7:14).
52. The causal connector (ki) is obscured in the NIV. Compare NRSV and esp. NJPS, where the logical connector becomes disjunctive: “I did wrong … but I was afraid of the troops and I yielded to them.”
1. Robert P. Gordon has found impressive evidence for the authenticity of these early Samuel narratives (“Who Made the Kingmaker? Reflections on Samuel and the Institution of the Monarchy,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard et al. [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994], 255–69, esp. 262).
2. John T. Willis, “An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary,” JBL 90 (1971): 288–308; idem, “Cultic Elements in the Story of Samuel’s Birth and Dedication,” Studies in Theology 26 (1972): 33–61; idem, “Samuel Versus Eli: I Sam. 1–7,” TZ 35 (1979): 201–12.
3. In fact, the presence of more than one wife may be further indication of Elkanah’s exalted financial status. Polygamy was never God’s ideal plan for marriage. The Bible clearly sanctions marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:18, 24). At the same time, Elkanah and Peninnah may be compared to Abraham and Hagar, whose relationship was culturally arranged because of Sarah’s barrenness (and Hannah’s), and such a relationship may not strictly be considered polygamy (Gen. 16:4–16).
4. As with Sarah, Rachel, and Leah before her (Gen. 16:2; 30:3, 9).
5. Ralph Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), 6.
6. Prior to David’s capture and expansion of Jerusalem, Shiloh was the site of the tabernacle of Yahweh, which housed the ark of the covenant. First Samuel 1–3 assumes a more permanent building that served as the sanctuary of the Lord during part of the judges period, as is implied by terms such as “temple” (hekal, 1:9), “doorpost” (mezuzah, 1:9), and “doors” (delet, 3:15). Some have suggested that a permanent structure was erected to replace the tabernacle at Shiloh (Joyce Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988], 65–68), but the use of “Tent of Meeting” in 2:22 is difficult to explain (see also 2 Sam. 7:6). Perhaps a semipermanent porch with doors and doorposts had been built at the entrance to the tabernacle in Shiloh (C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, trans. J. Martin [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956], 23, 50–51).
7. Jackie A. Naudé, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:73–74.
8. To “remember” in the Old Testament is so closely associated with action that it is sometimes synonymous for action (Leslie C. Allen, “
,” NIDOTTE, 1:1102–3).
9. On this and the discussion to follow, see McCarter, I Samuel, 62–63.
10. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 26.
11. Gordon, “Who Made the Kingmaker?” 263–69.
12. Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1990), 12.
13. Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
14. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 181.
1. Martin Noth saw such speeches as one of the main instruments used by the historian for expressing theology, along with narrative summaries and prayers (The Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981), 4–11.
2. See my Original Meaning introduction to 2 Sam. 21–24, below.
3. For the verbal and thematic parallels linking Hannah’s and David’s poems, see Nelson, Historical Books, 115, and Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 272–75.
4. Philip E. Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 43–44.
5. McCarter, I Samuel, 71–72; Michael L. Brown, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:990–92.
6. Alternatively, one’s horn can be cut off, representing humiliation and defeat (Jer. 48:25).
7. Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 48, and J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” 39–51.
8. Klein, 1 Samuel, 9.
9. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 36.
10. Eli’s blessing (2:20–21a) stands at the center of a chiastic structure for ch. 2, indicating its importance to the narrative. See Michael Fishbane, “I Samuel 3: Historical Narrative and Narrative Poetics,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. R. R. Gros Louis and J. S. Ackerman; 2 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974, 1982), 2:194–96.
11. John Wesley, Wesley’s Notes on the Bible, ed. G. Roger Schoenhals (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 181.
12. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 22–23.
13. Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. H. C. White (repr. of 1967 ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 142–63; Bill T. Arnold, “Forms of Prophetic Speech in the Old Testament: A Summary of Claus Westermann’s Contributions,” ATJ 27 (1995): 30–40.
14. McCarter, I Samuel, 76.
15. Compare also Zechariah’s song in Luke 1:68–79.
16. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 62; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 23.
17. A passing comment in Dr. King’s last sermon, delivered in Memphis on the eve of his assassination, April 3, 1968. See “I See the Promised Land,” in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. James Melvin Washington (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 279–86 (quote is from 282).
18. Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1962), 1–2.
1. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 572. It is unnecessary to posit two separate traditions, one that thought there was a tent-shrine, “house of Yahweh,” and the other a permanent temple, “temple of Yahweh,” at Shiloh (McCarter, I Samuel, 60).
2. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 49–51; against H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), 26, and most other commentators.
3. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 25. Just as Eli’s blessing of Samuel’s family was the chiastic center of ch. 2, so here the divine oracle against Eli forms the literary center of ch. 3 (Fishbane, “I Samuel 3,” 2:193).
4. Allan M. Harman, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:129.
5. Daniel E. Fleming, “Nabû and Munabbiatu: Two New Syrian Religious Personnel,” JAOS 113.2 (1993): 175–83; idem, “The Etymological Origins of the Hebrew nabîʾ: The One Who Invokes God,” CBQ 55 (1993): 217–24.
6. Klein’s translation (1 Samuel, 30).
7. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 65.
8. Michael Fishbane, “I Samuel 3,” 2:193–96.
9. Another possible “bridging contexts” issue arising from this text is the specific means of revelation for today’s Christian believer compared to the prophetically transmitted “word” of Yahweh in this text. For more on this, however, see the Bridging Contexts section for 1 Sam. 23:1–29.
10. For what follows, see J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 98–105.
11. Ibid., 99.
12. For what follows, see his book Journey into Light (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 12–18.
13. Ibid., 12–13.
14. Ibid., 14.
15. Ibid., 16.
16. Ibid., 18.
17. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Vol. 1: Sermons I, 1–33, ed. Albert C. Outler (Bicentennial ed.; ed. F. Baker; Nashville: Abingdon, 1984), 104–5.
1. In all likelihood, the Greek is the original reading because the shorter Hebrew reading can be explained as an unintentional error based on homoioteleuton (or “similar endings”). For full discussion, see Klein, 1 Samuel, 37; McCarter, I Samuel, 102–3; Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 45.
2. For summary, see David M. Howard Jr., “Philistines,” in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. J. Hoerth, G. L. Mattingly, and E. M. Yamauchi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 231–50; Trude Dothan, “Early Philistines,” OEANE, 4:310–11.
3. The term (seren) appears to be the only truly Philistine word preserved in the Bible.
4. Klein, 1 Samuel, 41; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 609.
5. McCarter, I Samuel, 149; Jeffries M. Hamilton and John F. Kutsko, “Ebenezer,” ABD, 2:259–60.
6. Apparently the full name of the ark was “the ark of the covenant of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” (4:4). The title “LORD Almighty” (lit., “Yahweh of hosts”) became prominent in the Jerusalem cult (see, e.g., Ps. 24), as did the concept that Yahweh was enthroned on the cherubim (Isa. 37:14–16; cf. also Ps. 99:1–3).
7. That is, the invisible Yahweh is perceived as a seated monarch with sphinxes on either side (Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973], 69; McCarter, I Samuel, 105–6). Recent scholarship has refined our understanding of the religious symbolism of the ark. Early Israel was not simply iconoclastic (rejecting images of God), as certain later biblical passages seem to imply. Rather, Israel appears to have shared a common ancient Near Eastern “aniconism,” in which the divine is visually represented, albeit without pictorial images, whether human or animal. The use of a standing stone or a stone pillar to represent a god is “material aniconism,” whereas “empty-space aniconism” uses a throne or pedestal to indicate the presence of the divinity. Israel’s ark of the covenant is a close example of the latter, the cherubim serving as a throne for the invisible Yahweh (Ex. 25:22). Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (ConBOT 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), esp. 18–20; Theodore J. Lewis, “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” JAOS 118 (1998): 36–53.
8. The ark “was conceived of as the battle station from which Yahweh, the divine warrior, the creator of the divine armies, fought for Israel.” The march of the ark before the armies of Israel “occupied a place of importance both in the ritual of holy war and in the conceptualization underlying it.” Patrick D. Miller Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), 158.
9. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 595.
10. J. B. Segal, “Numerals in the Old Testament,” JSS 10 (1965): 12; John W. Wenham, “Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” TynBul 18 (1967): 19–53, esp. 30–32.
11. David M. Fouts, “A Defense of the Hyperbolic Interpretation of Large Numbers in the Old Testament,” JETS 40 (1997): 387.
12. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 32.
13. As argued long ago by the scholar who first isolated the ark narrative; cf. Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield: Almond, 1982), 6–34; trans. of Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1926); see Patrick D. Miller Jr. and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1977).
14. Robert P. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984), 32.
15. The number of components in this literary framework may be analyzed in different ways. See K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges and Ruth (NIVAC; Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 2002), 35.
16. Ibid., 34–43.
17. Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (SOTBT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 32–47; Patrick D. Miller Jr., The Divine Warrior; Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, trans. Marva J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 41–51.
18. Von Rad, Holy War, 48.
19. Roland Jacquard, “The Guidebook of Jihad,” Time 158, no. 19 (Oct. 29, 2001): 58; Jeffery L. Sheler, “Alive in the Presence of their Lord,” U.S. News & World Report 131, no. 13 (Oct. 1, 2001): 38.
20. Ann Scott Tyson, “Weighing War in Afghanistan on a Moral Scale,” Christian Science Monitor 93, no. 228 (Oct. 19, 2001): 3.
21. For what follows here, see Joseph L. Allen, War: A Primer for Christians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991). For more detail on these issues, see Joseph L. Allen, Love and Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984); Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (New York: Abingdon, 1960); Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility (New York: Scribners, 1968); Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 1977).
22. Not only the Muslims suffered. Thousands of Jews in Europe were slaughtered by Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land. See Chaim Potok, Wanderings: Chaim Potok’s History of the Jews (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1978), 400–407.
23. Lt. General George S. Patton was noted for making shocking statements in his campaign against the Nazis during World War II. For example, on Christmas Day, 1944, he wrote in his diary as follows: “A clear, cold Christmas, lovely weather for killing Germans, which seems a bit queer, seeing Whose birthday it is” (Gerald Astor, A Blood-Dimmed Tide: The Battle of the Bulge by the Men Who Fought It [New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1992], 325).
24. Allen, War, 20–23.
25. See the criticisms of Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Scribners, 1932), 231–56, and others of Niebuhr’s writings; see summary in Allen, War, 25.
26. Allen, War, 21–23; for the best presentation of witnessing pacifism, see John H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 115–34, 233–50.
27. Some pacifists appear to use both pragmatic and witnessing arguments. This was apparently Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s approach in his campaign for racial justice in the 1950s and 1960s; see his Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 101–7, 213–24.
28. Allen, War, 31.
29. Ibid., 32–33.
30. Ibid., 36.
31. After World War II, my father brought home a belt buckle from a German uniform. It bears the chilling inscription, Gott mit uns, “God is with us.”
1. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (NAC 7; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996) 93.
2. McCarter, I Samuel, 115–16.
3. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 50.
4. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 23, 50–51.
5. Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), 228–32; idem, “Excavations at Shiloh 1981–1984, Preliminary Report,” TA 12 (1985): 123–80.
6. John T. Willis, “An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition,” 307.
7. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 32–33.
8. See, e.g., 1 Kings 13:2–3 and 2 Kings 23:16–18. For discussion and more examples, see Richard D. Nelson, Historical Books, 71–72.
9. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 195, quoted in Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 2.
10. Walls, Hell, 7–8.
11. Ibid., 157.
12. Ibid., 158–59.
13. Ibid., 120.
14. Ibid., 113–38.
1. Moshe Dothan, “Ashdod,” ABD, 1:477–82.
2. John F. Healey, “Dagon,” DDD2, 216–19; Karel van der Toorn, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” CANE, 3:2047; J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 18–19; Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, trans. J. Sturdy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 133, 135.
3. Antony F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (1 Sam. 4–6; 2 Sam. 6): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 86.
4. Dennis Pardee, “The Baʿlu Myth,” COS, 1.86:241–74, esp. 250 (ii 5–16); Neal H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 163–66; Miller and Roberts, The Hand of the Lord, 46.
5. A. R. Millard, “Story, History, and Theology,” in Faith, Tradition, and History, 40–41; for a slightly different approach, see Richard S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 110–11.
6. Miller and Roberts, The Hand of the Lord, 48.
7. Traditionally identified as bubonic plague, though other explanations are possible. See McCarter, I Samuel, 123.
8. McCarter, I Samuel, 129, 133.
9. Lit., “to give honor” (a noun in 6:5, kabod) and “why do you harden your hearts” (Piel of kbd in 6:6).
10. Stratum III (Iron Age I) produced a significant amount of Philistine pottery, as might be expected, given the city’s location near the Philistine plain. William G. Dever, “Beth-shemesh,” OEANE 1:311–12; Fredric Brandfon, “Beth-shemesh,” ABD, 1:696–98.
11. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 604–5.
12. Mary J. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel (NIBCOT; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 2000), 34.
13. As narrated in 4:1–22.
14. Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Kiriath-Jearim,” ABD, 4:84–85.
15. Barth, God with Us, 240–41.
16. For more on what follows, see Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis: A Survey of Its Content and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 49–51.
17. Malcolm J. A. Horsnell, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:945–51; McCarter, I Samuel, 132.
18. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 42, Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 177.
19. James Hoffmeier, “The Arm of God Versus the Arm of Pharaoh in the Exodus Narratives,” Bib 67 (1986): 378–87; Brent A. Strawn, “The Strong Hand and Outstretched Arm of God in the Light of Amarna Iconography” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Orlando, Fla., Nov. 21, 1998).
20. For what follows, see George G. Hunter III, “God at a Distance,” The Wall Street Journal (April 24, 1998), w13.
21. A classic comparison, which appears to date back to the late fourteenth century. See Michael H. Macdonald, “Deism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 304.
22. So, the article explains, Sufism is to Islam what Zen is to Buddhism or Kabbalah is to Judaism. Lisa Fernandez, “Mystical Branch of Islam Growing,” Lexington Herald-Leader (March 24, 2001), C9.
23. The point of these metaphors is not deliverance from danger. Rather, the point is “that sparrows can be bought and sold and that humans can suffer persecution, but not apart from God’s attentiveness, not outside of God’s care, not in a way that circumvents the redemptive plan of God” (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 483).
1. The precise relationship of ch. 7 to the ark narrative is uncertain (Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 593–94, 607), though the essential unity of chs. 1–7 is widely accepted (see Willis, “An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition”).
2. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 106. But the NIV of 7:2 smoothes over a difficult textual problem, and the word for “mourn” here is nonetheless different (and much more rare) than that of 6:19.
3. McCarter, I Samuel, 142–43; Hans Walter Wolff, “The Kerygma,” 83–100.
4. William L. Holladay, The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament, with Particular Reference to Its Usage in Covenantal Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 128–39, 152–54, 156–57.
5. Wolff, “The Kerygma,” 90–100.
6. Esp. when used in this repentance idiom with šwb. The “heart” is the locus of a variety of emotions, as well as of thought (DCH, 4:497–509). Additionally, the term often translated “soul” or “living being” (nepeš) may serve as the seat of emotions (BDB 660, number 6), and the plural “kidneys” and other words for innards may serve as the seat of emotion and affection (kelayot, BDB 480, number 2; DCH, 4:424–25). The Old Testament identifies emotions physiologically as follows: anger was located in the head (esp. the nose and mouth), a range of emotions in the heart, and distress in the innards or liver. See Mark S. Smith, “The Heart and Innards in Israelite Emotional Expressions: Notes from Anthropology and Psychobiology,” JBL 117 (1998): 427–36, esp. 434.
7. The Heb. spelling of her name (Ashtoreth for Astarte) appears to be a deliberate scribal distortion, reflecting the vowels of the word “shame” (bošet) (John Day, “Ashtoreth [deity],” ABD, 1:491–94). The motivation for the spelling is in dispute, however, since it may have intended to elicit a suggestive parallel to the revocalizing of the name for Israel’s God, yhwh becoming ʾ adonay (see Nicholas Wyatt, “Astarte,” DDD2, 109–14, esp. 112–13).
8. Eugene Carpenter, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:304–9.
9. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), 13–20; J. Andrew Dearman, Religion and Culture in Ancient Israel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 142–44.
10. J. M. Lunde, “Repentance,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000), 726–27.
11. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 45–60. The quotes are from pages 45–47.
12. The Works of John Wesley, 14 vols., ed. Thomas Jackson (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 8:472; Kenneth J. Collins, The Scripture Way of Salvation: The Heart of John Wesley’s Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 55.
13. Thus, Wesley speaks of an “evangelical repentance,” which occurs after one has been justified and involves a change of heart related to inbred sin (Collins, Scripture Way, 155–56).
1. Patrick M. Arnold, “Mizpah,” ABD, 4:879–81; Jeffrey R. Zorn, “Naṣbeh, Tell en-,” OEANE, 4:101–3.
2. As if to emphasize this point one final time, the narrator returns to this portrait of David, who repeats the important confession formula again at the conclusion of the books of Samuel (2 Sam. 24:10, 17).
3. Some scholars have recognized an early “Yahweh war” tradition behind this account, which may support the historicity of the event. See Peter Weimar, “Die Jahwekriegserzählungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4 und 1 Samuel 7,” Bib 57 (1976): 38–73, esp. 63–69.
4. Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Beth-Car,” ABD, 1:683.
5. Or perhaps “the stone (called) Help,” DCH, 1:113.
6. A growing number of scholars believe early Israel shared with other peoples of Syria-Palestine the practice of “material aniconism” (see comments on 4:4).
7. Marguerite Yon, “Stelae,” OEANE, 5:79–82.
8. Because the “Ebenezer” references serve as a literary envelope for chs. 4–7, some scholars feel the parameters of the ark narrative should include ch. 7 (i.e., 4:1b–7:17).
9. Robert L. Hubbard Jr., “‘What Do These Stones Mean?’: Biblical Theology and a Motif in Joshua,” BBR 11 (2001): 1–26, esp. 3–12.
10. “Come, Thou Font of Ev’ry Blessing,” The Methodist Hymnal: Official Hymnal of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Methodist Episcopal Church (Nashville: Publishing House of the M. E. Church, South, 1905), 23.
1. Dennis J. McCarthy, “The Inauguration of Monarchy in Israel: A Form-Critical Study of 1 Samuel 8–12,” Int 27 (1973), 401–12; J. Robert Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal (Cherry Hill, N.J.: Mack, 1978), 197–239; Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 277–78.
2. D. Edelman, “Saul’s Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead (1 Sam. 11:1–11): Sorting Story from History,” ZAW 96 (1984): 195–209, esp. 198; see also Baruch Halpern, “The Uneasy Compromise: Israel between League and Monarchy,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 59–96; V. Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 183–90.
3. See Tsevat’s distinction between “generalizing history” (i.e., information on the social, economic, cultural, and religious background) and “individualizing history” (i.e., particular circumstances, special events, and specific individuals). Matitiahu Tsevat, “Israelite History,” 177–87, esp. 185–87. In this case, the generalizing history must be reconstructed from other sources. Tsevat maintains that the study of individualizing history is a secondary task of biblical interpretation, but is worthwhile because it contributes to a better understanding of the historical books.
4. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 65.
5. These elders are presumably the same body who decided to use the ark of the covenant as a good-luck charm in the war with the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:3).
6. McCarter, I Samuel, 160. The term judge now takes on predominantly the concept of leadership in war; “the juridical element is totally absent.” Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Biblical Account of the Foundation of the Monarchy in Israel,” in The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies, 85.
7. Klein, 1 Samuel, 75–76.
8. Tsevat, “Foundation of the Monarchy,” 91.
9. Ronald E. Clements, “The Deuteronomistic Interpretation of the Founding of the Monarchy in I Sam. VIII,” VT 24 (1974): 398–410, esp. 406–7.
10. Despite the demurring of modern historians, Samuel’s depiction of kingship probably fits better in the context of early Israel’s history than the periods of exile or later. See I. Mendelsohn, “Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the Akkadian Documents from Ugarit,” BASOR 143 (1956): 17–22, esp. 18; Anson F. Rainey, “Institutions: Family, Civil, and Military,” in Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, Vol. 2, ed. Loren R. Fisher (AnOr 50; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975), 69–107, esp. 93–98. It is even possible to suggest that David’s kingship had specifically Jebusite influences; see John Day, “The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 72–90.
11. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 614; interesting also is Solomon’s forced labor (1 Kings 4:6; 5:13–14; 9:15, 21).
12. Richard Schultz, “Servant, Slave,” NIDOTTE, 4:1187.
13. Such terminology is used elsewhere to describe Yahweh’s role as defender of Israel, illustrating again that Israel’s request is tantamount to a rejection of Yahweh. See Gerbrandt, Kingship, 148.
14. For some of these parallels with Gen. 2–3, see McCarter, I Samuel, 160–61.
15. On the structuring of Genesis with the early ancestry of the Davidic dynasty in view, see T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 6–18.
16. Note, however, that this is one of the most hotly debated verses of the Bible.
17. See also the law of kingship in Deut. 17:14–20, though, of course, this was a warning against precisely the kind of kingship Israel is now demanding.
18. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 78–79.
19. Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Many scholars believe these verses constitute an early Christian hymn, adapted by Paul for his own special use. But for many reasons, this consensus is no longer tenable, and it is more likely that Paul composed the entire passage himself. See Frank Thielman, Philippians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 110–15.
20. Thielman, Philippians, 120–21.
21. John Stott, The Contemporary Christian: An Urgent Plea for Double Listening (Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 86–98 (esp. 90–91).
22. However, other courageous Christians, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his supporters, understood early on that Nazism was a brutal attempt to supplant God’s rule on earth. These suffered, and some died in the resistance.
23. Helmut Thielicke, Modern Faith and Thought, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 5–7; trans. of Glauben und Denken in der Neuzeit (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1983).
24. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 40.
25. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 85.
1. Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal, esp. 198–225, where Vannoy surveys the history of criticism on 1 Sam. 8–12.
2. Similar to the title given this unit by Klein, “Asses Sought, a Kingdom Found” (1 Samuel, 80).
3. G. Coleman Luck, “The First Glimpse of the First King of Israel,” BibSac 123 (1966): 60–66, esp. 61.
4. BDB, 617–18; Kenneth T. Aitken, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:20–21; McCarter, I Samuel, 178–79. See also Roland de Vaux, “The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, trans. D. McHugh (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971), 153.
5. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 82.
6. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 220.
7. Ibid., 221.
8. Shemaryahu Talmon and Weston W. Fields, “The Collocation 
and Its Meaning,” ZAW 101 (1989): 85–112, esp. 104–5.
9. John N. Oswalt, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:1124–25.
10. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 137–50; see de Vaux, “The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh,” 162–66.
11. On the likelihood of the great antiquity of traditions concerning priestly anointing, see Daniel Fleming, “The Biblical Tradition of Anointing Priests,” JBL 117 (1998): 401–14.
12. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 84; Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 95.
13. Gibeah is Saul’s home and plays a significant role in his reign (see 10:26; 22:6). The identification of the site as Tell el-Ful has been widely accepted since the days of Albright. But an older identification of Gibeah as Geba (modern Jeba) has been suggested, which is gaining support in the scholarly community. See Patrick M. Arnold, Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City (JSOTSup 79; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990).
14. For discussion, see McCarter, I Samuel, 183; Klein, 1 Samuel, 85.
15. It is also possible that 10:7–8 together comprise a two-part commission, which attempts to circumscribe the new kingship to a military leadership subordinate to Yahweh and his prophet. See Long, Reign and Rejection, 58–66.
16. Either to an author who originally wrote both or to an editor who put them side by side.
17. Long, Reign and Rejection, 239.
18. Tsevat, “The Biblical Account of the Foundation of the Monarchy in Israel,” 91.
19. It seems probable that 9:1–10:16 is a self-contained literary unit that may have originated in the lifetime of Saul. See Tomoo Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology (BZAW 142; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 43.
20. See McCarter, I Samuel, 183–84; Smith, Samuel, 70–71, for the possibilities.
21. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 627.
22. Some have even speculated this theme as the background to the messianic secret of the Gospel of Mark (see McCarter, I Samuel, 188).
23. Though even here there are hopeful signs. See Bruce C. Birch, “The Choosing of Saul at Mizpah,” CBQ 37 (1975): 447–57.
24. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, 90–163; Long, Reign and Rejection, 240.
25. On the widespread use of lots in the Bible, see Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 93; McCarter, I Samuel, 195–96.
26. Long, Reign and Rejection, 218.
27. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 74; see also comments in the introduction to this commentary.
28. For some of what follows, see Barth, God with Us, 190–91.
29. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 86; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 77.
30. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 130.
31. I owe this analogy to John N. Oswalt, “John Wesley and the Old Testament Concept of the Holy Spirit,” Religion in Life 48 (1979): 283–92, esp. 285; for the Spirit in the Old Testament, see M. V. Van Pelt, Walter C. Kaiser, and Daniel I. Block, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:1075–78.
32. Barth, God with Us, 194.
33. For more on the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, see comments on 16:1–13.
34. Paul Deutschman, “It Happened on the Brooklyn Subway,” Reader’s Digest (May 1949), 45–48.
1. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 82–83.
2. For translation and discussion, see McCarter, I Samuel, 198–99; Frank Moore Cross, “The Ammonite Oppression of the Tribes of Gad and Reuben: Missing Verses from 1 Samuel 11 Found in 4QSamuela,” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), 148–58; Eugene C. Ulrich Jr., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 166–70.
3. For more cautious voices, see Alexander Rofé, “The Acts of Nahash According to 4QSama,” IEJ 32 (1982): 129–33; Robert P. Gordon, I and II Samuel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 63–64.
4. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 96. For other explanations, see Cross, “Ammonite Oppression,” 148–58, esp. 156–57.
5. Randall W. Younker, “Rabbah,” ABD, 5:598–600. Biblical tradition associates the Ammonites with the descendants of Lot’s son Ben-Ammi (Gen. 19:36–38).
6. The NRSV for the Heb. mwšyʿ, though most of the word is reconstructed to fill in a break in the Qumran text.
7. Edelman, “Saul’s Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead,” 195–209.
8. For more on what follows, see Robert Polzin, “On Taking Renewal Seriously: 1 Sam. 11:1–15,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 500–501.
9. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 637–38; Klein, 1 Samuel, 107.
10. Long, Reign and Rejection, 183–89; also pp. 51–55.
11. Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 20–51, esp. 33–34.
12. Ibid., 34. One can argue that “the entire history of Saul … is designed out of a messianic theology” (28).
13. R. E. O. White, “Salvation,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 967–69, esp. 969.
14. Edelman, “Saul’s Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead.”
15. This is not to assume a strict chronological flow in Isa. 1–6 but to acknowledge that this chapter serves as the solution to the problems posed in chs. 1–5. The general literary relationship of Isa. 1–12 is, of course, complicated. See John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 171–76.
16. R. G. Tuttle Jr., “Wesley, John,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1164.
17. A. Skevington Wood, The Burning Heart: John Wesley, Evangelist (Exeter: Paternoster, 1976), 114.
18. Kenneth J. Collins, A Real Christian: The Life of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 158; Wood, Burning Heart, 114.
19. One scholar has mentioned esp. a lack of fervor in the pulpit, a distinct distrust of theology, a tepid morality unassociated with the evangelical truths of Christianity, and a lack of impact on the congregations (Wood, Burning Heart, 13–14).
20. Howard A. Snyder, The Radical Wesley and Patterns for Church Renewal (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 158.
21. Martin Schmidt, John Wesley: A Theological Biography, Vol 1. From 17th June 1703 until 24th May 1738, trans. Norman P. Goldhawk (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 9. Theologically this is true, e.g., of Wesley’s doctrine of salvation, which has recently been shown to be a truly “conjunctive” theology belonging to the church universal. On this point esp. see Kenneth J. Collins, The Scripture Way of Salvation: The Heart of John Wesley’s Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 205–7.
22. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Vol. 25. Letters I, 1721–1739, ed. Frank Baker (Oxford ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), 439.
23. Collins, A Real Christian, 43; Wood, Burning Heart, 56.
24. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Vol. 18. Journal and Diaries I (1735–1738), ed. W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater (Bicentennial ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 211.
25. Ibid., 246.
26. Ibid., 250.
27. Wood, Burning Heart, 68.
1. McCarter, I Samuel, 218.
2. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 99.
3. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 643.
4. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 120; Klein, 1 Samuel, 118.
5. McCarter, I Samuel, 219.
6. For more on what follows, see Noth, The Deuteronomistic History; Dennis J. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History,” JBL 84 (1965): 131–38; Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal.
7. Many today distinguish between pre-Deuteronomistic portions and genuine Deuteronomistic material in these chapters. See Bruce C. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth and Development of 1 Samuel 7–15 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976).
8. Though many since Noth (and including Noth himself) do not include 2 Samuel 7 in this list of summarizing and organizing speeches, the so-called “double redaction” school of thought on the Deuteronomistic Historian has returned it to the list (McCarthy, “II Samuel,” 131–38).
9. For more, see McCarter, I Samuel, 220–21.
10. Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 59–72.
1. See the introduction on the unity of these three chapters.
2. McCarter, I Samuel, 222–23.
3. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 53.
4. For geographical details, see McCarter, I Samuel, 227, 237, and map at 231.
5. The chronology of these events and the relationship between this episode and 10:8 is in doubt. See Long, Reign and Rejection, 190–94; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 149, for survey of the pertinent issues.
6. Many scholars assume the account of Saul’s battles with the Philistines originally lacked any reference to Samuel’s rejection at Gilgal, which is alleged to have been a later prophetic redaction (esp. vv. 7b–15a). But recent investigations of literary method in biblical narrative have concluded that such assumptions are based on insubstantial evidence. See Long, Reign and Rejection, 43–66.
7. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 656.
8. McCarter, I Samuel, 228–29.
9. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 129.
10. There is an interesting parallel in the Babylonian Chronicles in which Nebuchadnezzar installs “a king of his own choice” (lit., “a king of his heart”), referring to his appointment of Zedekiah over Jerusalem as a vassal ruler in 597 B.C. See A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augustin, 1975), 102, chronicle 5, reverse 11–13; Alan Millard, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” COS, 1.137:468. For discussion see Long, Reign and Rejection, 92–93; McCarter, I Samuel, 229.
11. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 134.
12. Long, Reign and Rejection, 93.
13. Though the numbers of the chapter are probably hyperbolic, they indicate a ten-to-one ratio of Philistine charioteers to Israelite foot soldiers (vv. 5, 15).
14. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 154.
15. James D. Muhly, “How Iron Technology Changed the Ancient World,” BAR 8/6 (1982): 40–54.
16. D. M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup. 14; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981), 115.
17. Ibid., 123, 129.
18. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 99–102.
19. David Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Michael Glazier, 1998), 79–88, esp. 85.
20. Long, Reign and Rejection, 87–93.
21. Wesley, Wesley’s Notes on the Bible, 186.
1. Many scholars assume chs. 13–14 rely on genuinely ancient materials that portrayed Saul originally in a positive light. These have been selected for inclusion because they could easily be used to contrast Saul with Jonathan and prepare for Saul’s final rejection in ch. 15. See McCarter, I Samuel, 251. For a different approach, see Long, Reign and Rejection, 101–32.
2. David Jobling, “Saul’s Fall and Jonathan’s Rise: Tradition and Redaction in 1 Sam. 14:1–46,” JBL 95 (1976): 367–76, esp. 368.
3. Long, Reign and Rejection, 40–41; Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 57.
4. Long, Reign and Rejection, 131.
5. Indeed his unbounded enthusiasm for Yahweh’s causes and his courage in the face of insurmountable odds anticipate another character in 1 Samuel (David before Goliath), who will in fact become Saul’s successor (1 Sam. 17).
6. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 155.
7. Jobling, “Saul’s Fall,” 368.
8. Jobling, 1 Samuel, 95.
9. The LXX has “ephod” here instead of the difficult Hebrew reference to the “ark of God,” as in the NIV and most modern translations (see NIV text note). But see Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 140–41.
10. McCarter, I Samuel, 240.
11. Long, Reign and Rejection, 114–17; McCarter, I Samuel, 245.
12. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 665.
13. The phrase used here for seeking God’s guidance will become an important theme later in 1 Samuel (see comments on 23:1–6).
14. For this observation, see Long, Reign and Rejection, 130–31.
15. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 106.
16. For example, R. K. Harrison has considered Saul’s manic-depression and even suggested paranoid schizophrenia (Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], 715–16).
17. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 155.
18. As narrated in Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990), 47–48.
1. It is possible a northern group of Amalekites inhabited the hills of western Samaria. See Diane Edelman, “Saul’s Battle Against Amalek,” JSOT 35 (1986): 71–84.
2. Gerald L. Mattingly, “Amalek,” ABD, 1:169–71; Debra Reid, “Amalek,” NIDOTTE, 4:371–72.
3. Deut. 20 provides the regulation for such wars. For more on what follows, see Longman and Reid, God Is a Warrior; Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel; Tremper Longman III, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:785–89.
4. See comments on Israel’s futile attempt to force the issue in 4:1b–11.
5. Jackie A. Naudé, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:276.
6. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 153; Long, Reign and Rejection, 140.
7. Our verb implies the formal repudiation of a relationship and is the legal opposite of “choose” (bḥr). Only Yahweh can reject Saul as king because he alone has “chosen” him (10:24). See McCarter, I Samuel, 268.
8. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1987), 365–440; Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 72–80; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 88–113.
9. Long, Reign and Rejection, 37–38, 164.
10. Except for the ethereal encounter in ch. 28.
11. The verb used for Samuel’s emotion (hitʾabbel in 15:35) is often used to express grief over death, as if Saul were already dead.
12. The matter of Saul’s rejection has been described convincingly as a failure to accept the authority structure for human kingship (see Long, Reign and Rejection, 133–69 [esp. 167], 235–42).
13. Interestingly, Samuel compares Saul’s sin to rebellion and arrogance tantamount to divination and idolatry (15:23).
14. See my summaries of Gunn and Brueggemann in the comments to ch. 13.
15. A point made by Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, 77–79.
16. These options can be conveniently summarized along the lines of “hard determinism,” “libertarian freedom,” and “soft determinism.” See Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 66–69.
17. Ps. 40:6–8; 51:16–17; Prov. 21:3; Isa. 1:11–17; Jer. 7:21–23; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8; Matt. 12:7; Mark 12:33; Heb. 10:8–9.
18. Compare the introduction’s comments on the trajectory of these three passages of 1-2 Samuel and the example of repentance and confession in each (pages 38–40, above).
19. Not unlike God’s condemning question of Adam and Eve: “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9).
1. McCarter, I Samuel, 270.
2. Isa. 11:1, 10; Mic. 5:2; Matt. 1:5–6; 2:4–6; Rom. 15:12.
3. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 682–83.
4. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 121.
5. Robert Alter has shown that “see” is a dominant thematic key word in 16:1–13, used to set up a “didactic ritual of true choice after false, true sight after false,” which emphasizes the “vertical” perspective of the narrative (The Art of Biblical Narrative, 148–49).
6. 1 Kings 3:9; 8:39; Luke 16:15; John 7:24; 2 Cor. 5:16.
7. Philip P. Jenson, “
” NIDOTTE, 4:34–35.
8. Hittite kings were anointed upon their ascent to the throne, and certain Egyptian officials were also anointed. See Mettinger, King and Messiah, 208–32; see also de Vaux, “The King of Israel,” 162–66.
9. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 137–50.
10. Alex Luc, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:804–5.
11. Barth, God with Us, 193–94; on the role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, see Bridging Contexts section for 9:1–10:27, above.
12. For what follows, see Bill T. Arnold, “
,” NIDOTTE, 1:658–59. In the Old Testament, God tends to favor the late-born over the firstborn, just as Israel derives its royal and priestly lines from late-born sons rather than firstborn. See Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1993), 69–81.
13. Knierim, “The Messianic Concept,” 31–32.
14. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 140.
15. On the relationship between the Testaments, see David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991); Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 277; Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 475–76; G. Goldsworthy, “Relationship of OT and NT,” NDBT, 81–89.
16. Daniel I. Block, “The Prophet of the Spirit: The Use of rwḥ in the Book of Ezekiel,” JETS 32 (1989): 40–41; see also M. V. Van Pelt, Walter C. Kaiser, and Daniel I. Block, “
” NIDOTTE, 3:1076–78.
17. Originally published as Thomas Wingfold, Curate (London: Hurst & Blackett, 1876). The novel has been retold for today’s reader and edited by Michael R. Phillips (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985).
18. A curate in MacDonald’s time was usually a very young clergyman appointed to smaller parishes, which were unable to maintain a full-time vicar. Curates performed the duties and services of the priest but did not hold the office themselves.
19. MacDonald, Awakening, 52.
20. Ibid., 49.
21. Ibid., 176.
1. McCarter, I Samuel, 282.
2. Klein, 1 Samuel, 159.
3. Stanley D. Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 569–73.
4. A point emphasized by Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 170.
5. So, e.g., R. K. Harrison suggested Saul suffered from paranoid schizophrenia (Introduction to the Old Testament, 715–16).
6. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 124.
7. Smith, Samuel, 147.
8. On this last descriptor, Youngblood comments, “The same Hebrew word is preceded by a negative particle in its description of great David’s greater Son as one who had ‘no beauty’ (Isa 53:2)” (“1, 2 Samuel,” 689).
9. The assurance of God’s presence becomes an important part of the ancestral promises and the Joseph narrative in the book of Genesis, and therefore in the rest of the Bible (for references and discussion, cf. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis, 200–205).
10. This intercalation is what Fokkelman terms “the crossing fates” (Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses, 4 vols. [Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981, 1986, 1990, 1993], 2:17–21 and passim).
11. McCarter, I Samuel, 282–83.
12. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 682.
13. David M. Howard Jr., “The Transfer of Power from Saul to David in 1 Sam. 16:13–14,” JETS 32 (1989): 473–83, esp. 477.
14. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 125.
15. Note too the “lying spirit” sent by God to entice Ahab to attack the Syrians (1 Kings 22:19–22).
16. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis, 37.
17. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 123.
18. Remember that such creative speculation is for instructional purposes and is only loosely based on the interpretation of the text itself, for which see my Original Meaning and Bridging Contexts sections, above.
1. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Van Gorcum, 1992), 334–36; for helpful survey of the issue, see Klein, 1 Samuel, 173–74.
2. It is possible that ch. 16 originated and circulated in Bethlehem, while ch. 17 was preserved among later military records of Jerusalem, recording encounters with the Philistines. See Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 124.
3. See the influential explanations of McCarter, I Samuel, 284–309, esp. 306–9, and Gordon, I and II Samuel, 64–66.
4. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 187–88. See the various articles in Dominique Barthélemy, David W. Gooding, Johan Lust, and Emanuel Tov, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism (OBO 73; Fribourg/Göttingen: Editions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), esp. D. W. Gooding, “An Approach to the Literary and Textual Problems in the David-Goliath Story” (55–86); see also T. A. Boogaart, “History and Drama in the Story of David and Goliath,” Reformed Review 38 (1985): 204–14.
5. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 231; Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 147–53.
6. On the history of Israelite-Philistine conflict, see Howard, “Philistines,” 239–41.
7. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 694–95; Joe D. Seger, “Azekah,” OEANE, 1:243.
8. Harry A. Hoffner Jr., “A Hittite Analogue to the David and Goliath Contest of Champions?” CBQ 30 (1968): 220–25.
9. Roland de Vaux, “Single Combat in the Old Testament,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, trans. D. McHugh (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971), 124–35. De Vaux collects other possible examples from the Bible as well as numerous ones from classical Greek sources. See also Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study, trans. M. Pearlman; 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), 2:265–66.
10. Rare biblical expressions often find a different or more precise meaning in texts from the Judean Desert, and this is particularly true of military terms in the War Scroll. Jean Duhaime translates the plural (“the men-in-between”) as “skirmishers” (see his “War Scroll” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, ed. J. H. Charlesworth et al. [Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr/Westminster John Knox, 1995], 80–141, especially 1QM 1.14 and 3.1 on pp. 96–97 and 100–101, respectively). Another recent suggestion is “foot-soldiers” (Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English [New York: Penguin, 1997], 164–65).
11. De Vaux, “Single Combat,” 124–25.
12. Ibid., 127.
13. McCarter, I Samuel, 286, 291 for discussion. It can be argued that the LXX preserves an original text and the Hebrew MT represents an exaggeration of the facts, or that the Greek text is a pious emendation intended to lend credibility to the tradition. The narrator’s great interest in Goliath’s armor supports the abnormal height recorded in the Hebrew tradition, and it is possible Goliath suffered from gigantism. Kellermann has argued that David took advantage of Goliath’s affliction, which is often associated with visual problems (D. Kellermann, “Die Geschichte von David und Goliath im Lichte der Endokrinologie,” ZAW 102 [1990]: 344–57).
14. Ephrathah (abbreviated “Ephrath”) was the Judahite area surrounding Bethlehem. As the Davidic dynasty rose in importance, Ephrathah came to be identified with its royal village, Bethlehem. See Lamontte M. Luker, “Ephrathah,” ABD, 2:557–58.
15. Boogaart, “Story of David and Goliath,” 208–9.
16. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 130.
17. The simple sling was common as an instrument of warfare. As a shepherd, David apparently became proficient, like certain Benjamite soldiers who could sling a stone at a hair without missing (Judg. 20:16). After the bow and arrow, the slingshot was the weapon of choice for long-range combat in ancient Egypt (Alan R. Schulman, “Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt,” CANE, 1:289–301, esp. 291).
18. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 699–700.
19. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 127.
20. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 2:379.
21. The NIV’s translation of verse 51 stretches to harmonize with this detail: “After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword” (cf. NRSV).
22. Howard, “Philistines,” 243; Trude Dothan and Seymour Gitin, “Miqne, Tel,” OEANE, 4:30–35; Eliezer D. Oren, “Haror, Tel,” OEANE, 2:474–76.
23. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 697.
24. Ibid., 693.
25. Klein, 1 Samuel, 183.
26. Or other body parts and armor, as will happen with Saul’s defeat (31:10).
27. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, though it would not be necessary to assume that the mention of Jerusalem belies a kind of “idealization” of David that arose much later in the literature (McCarter, I Samuel, 296–97). See also John T. Willis, “The Function of Comprehensive Anticipatory Redactional Joints in I Samuel 16–18,” ZAW 85 (1973): 294–314, esp. 302–5; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 158.
28. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 158–59.
29. For this possibility, see Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 690, though such a proposal is not without its own difficulties.
30. As, e.g., Michelangelo’s famous sculpture of David showing the young man moments before his encounter with Goliath.
31. David becomes king first of Judah and then over all Israel (2 Sam. 2 and 5 respectively). The fall of Saul and rise of David culminate in the important theological chapter of 2 Sam. 7, where Yahweh promises David that he is the first king of a royal dynasty, which will endure forever (7:16). There will always be a son of David on the throne of Israel.
32. An index of his fall is his visit with the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28) and his ignoble death at Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31). In 2 Samuel his descendants gradually disappear until the only remaining trace is the pitiable Mephibosheth, who is graciously sustained at David’s table (2 Sam. 9:13).
33. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 152.
34. Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, eds. Readings from The Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), text #6 (pp. 31–50).
35. A more complete understanding of holy war (or Yahweh war) as a distinctively Old Testament way of expressing God’s salvation for Israel is important for contemporary interpreters. Such victory is always accomplished by Yahweh on behalf of his people and becomes an act of worship and a reason for praise. Conversely, the nation Israel itself can become the victims of Yahweh’s warfare when they rebel against him later in Old Testament history. For introduction to this topic, see Longman and Reid, God Is a Warrior, 31–60.
36. Or in Fee and Stuart’s terminology, top, middle, and bottom levels. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 73–78.
37. For what follows here, see Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 42–47.
38. Subsequent victories over Israel’s other enemies will develop this concept further (1 Sam. 27:8–12; 2 Sam. 5; 8; and 10). See Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 46.
39. Knierim, “Messianic Concept,” 35–36.
40. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 153.
41. The NIV’s noun and verb (“disgrace” and “defy”) in v. 26 are from the same Hebrew root, which is a way of taunting or mocking one’s weaker enemy. See John E. Hartley, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:280–81.
42. A good model for such reflection is the well-known study entitled Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951). In what has become a classic study of Christian interaction with culture, Niebuhr offered a schematization of the different ways in which believers have interacted with their world: “Christ against culture,” “the Christ of culture,” “Christ above culture,” “Christ and culture in paradox,” and “Christ the transformer of culture.”
43. David van Biema, “A Surge of Teen Spirit,” Time 153, no. 21 (May 31, 1999): 58–59.
44. Niebuhr’s fifth pattern is “Christ the transformer of culture.”
45. After his victory has been translated from its military garb, of course (see discussion above).
46. Rosa Parks, Quiet Strength: The Faith, the Hope, and the Heart of a Woman Who Changed a Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 17–18.
47. Wesley, Wesley’s Notes on the Bible, 189.
1. Tom Horner, Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 20, 26–28, 31–39. Interpreters predisposed to such a reading frequently turn to 1 Sam. 20:17; 2 Sam. 1:26 (see comments).
2. Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 151; Jobling, 1 Samuel, 161–65. But we have little or no evidence for such a preexisting story.
3. See comments on Gilgamesh and Enkidu at 2 Sam. 1:26.
4. Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998), 9.
5. J. A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel,” VT 24 (1974): 334–38 (quote on p. 336); see also William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87.
6. Thompson, “Significance of the Verb Love,” 335.
7. Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Verb Love—ʾāhab in the David-Jonathan Narratives—A Footnote,” VT 25 (1975): 213–14.
8. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, 80.
9. For introduction to what follows here, see Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 114–30. Alter believes that David is “the most complex and elaborately presented of biblical characters” (115).
10. Alter (ibid., 125–30) believes that Israel’s unique way of characterizing leading figures in the Bible is ultimately related to the monotheistic revolution. Unlike the specific narration of Greek historiography, Israelite narratives are more conscious of singular divine direction and esp. the free moral agency of human nature.
11. As we noted earlier, some have speculated about the possibility of paranoid schizophrenia (Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 715–16).
12. The Heb. also contains an interesting wordplay that makes this point forcefully. The last word of verse 12 is in Heb. the same as the first verb in verse 13: Yahweh has turned aside (the verb swr in the Qal) from Saul [NIV “had left Saul”], and therefore, Saul drives David away (swr in the Hiphil [NIV “so he sent David away from him”).
13. For what follows, see McCarter, I Samuel, 315–18.
14. Ibid., 318.
15. Cf. NLT, “a tormenting spirit from God.”
16. For other examples of God’s presence “with” someone for comfort and strength, see Moses (Ex. 3:12) and Joshua (Josh. 1:5, 17); for this theme in Genesis, see Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis, 200–202.
17. “Immanuel” is the Hebrew name meaning “God with us.” It becomes Isaiah’s preferred name for the ultimate Son of David (Isa. 7:14; see Matt. 1:23).
18. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 136.
19. There may well be a formal relationship between 1 Sam. 18 and Gen. 39. See Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 117.
20. According to the Gospels, Jesus foresaw his suffering and death and gave his crucifixion a “suffering Messiah” interpretation. This made it possible for Jesus and his earliest followers to hold together his elevated status as Messiah with his shameful death; it further made possible the acceptance of the efficacy of his death in redemption. See Joel B. Green, “The Death of Jesus and the Ways of God: Jesus and the Gospels on Messianic Status and Shameful Suffering,” Int 52.1 (1998): 24–37.
21. For what follows, see John Perkins, With Justice for All (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1982), 97–99.
22. Ibid., 98.
23. Ibid., 99. He states further (p. 102): “At Brandon God showed me how racism had psychologically damaged whites just as much as it had blacks. Through those sick men, God showed me the need to take a gospel of love to whites filled with hate.”
24. J. Christiaan Beker, Suffering and Hope: The Biblical Vision and the Human Predicament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 85–91; Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame, Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1983).
1. On the literary sources, see Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 163–64; for the historical sequence, see Klein, 1 Samuel, 194–95.
2. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 163.
3. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 132.
4. Their use in Gen. 31:19, 34–35 may also reveal a narrator’s contempt for the objects. See Judith M. Hadley, “
,” NIDOTTE, 4:339; McCarter, I Samuel, 326.
5. Klein, 1 Samuel, 198; see the brief comment in Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 196: “This prevarication she seems to have considered perfectly justifiable.”
6. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 144.
7. On the various ethical issues involved in the ninth commandment, see Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 222–34.
8. Luther agreed and conveniently categorized these as the humorous, the helpful, and the harmful. However, in this position, Aquinas and Luther demurred from Augustine, who rejected the idea of the so-called “lie of necessity.” For this discussion, see Michael G. Moriarty, The Perfect Ten: The Blessings of Following God’s Commandments in a Post-Modern World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 191–92.
9. Ibid., 192–93. It has been recently argued that the truly healthy individual can change identities. As the mythical Proteus could quickly change shapes, so the postmodern individual is not restricted by a single set of beliefs, relationships, or character traits. Rather, the possibility always exists to “reinvent” oneself. The truly dysfunctional individual is inflexible and dogmatic about a particular belief system, implying that submission to a particular belief system is tantamount to mental illness. See Robert Jay Lifton, The Protean Self: Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation (New York: Basic Books, 1993).
10. Josef Joffe, “The First Postmodern President,” Time International Magazine 148, no. 15 (October 7, 1996), n.p. Online: http://www.time.com/time/international/1996/961007/essay.html. Most appear to be relying on Lifton (Protean Self), who long before the scandals of 1998 had praised President Clinton as a man unencumbered by ideology and as one to reinvent himself. On the ease with which many today accept chameleon-like shifts—and in some cases even seek them—see Kenneth J. Gergen, “The Self in the Age of Information,” The Washington Quarterly 23 (2000): 201–14, esp. 207–8.
11. He was later to do the same thing in his deposition regarding the word “is.”
12. Corrie Ten Boom, The Hiding Place, with John and Elizabeth Sherrill (Washington Depot, Conn.: Chosen Books, 1971), 88. Corrie’s sister believed that God would not allow the young Jewish woman to suffer because she had obeyed God by being truthful. When the young woman escaped along with thirty-nine other Jews while still in Amsterdam, Corrie wondered if perhaps her sister was right after all (see pp. 105–6).
13. Ibid., 105. Corrie felt it was “dreadfully easy” to lie to the Nazis (p. 66).
14. Ibid., 108–9.
1. It is not necessary to take this passage as a later adaptation of the same event, as in Smith, Samuel, 181.
2. On the terminology used here connecting this unit with chs. 20–21, see comments on 20:1–23.
3. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 133.
4. For details, see HALOT, 2:679, and Gerald H. Wilson, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:54–56.
5. Klein, 1 Samuel, 198.
6. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 197–98.
7. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 717.
8. McCarter, I Samuel, 329.
9. W. McKane, I and II Samuel (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1963), 122.
10. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 145.
1. For discussion, see Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 171–72; McCarter, I Samuel, 343; Klein, 1 Samuel, 204–5.
2. The mention of “Naioth at Ramah” in v. 1 may imply the chapter is chronological after all; see Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 719.
3. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 214–15.
4. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 135–36.
5. Assumed to be so by most commentaries. But see Gordon, I and II Samuel, 168.
6. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 175. Hertzberg is correct in stating that the reproach of Jonathan’s mother is not actually against her but Jonathan himself, as in one such familiar reproach in English.
7. McCarter, I Samuel, 345.
8. The LXX supports a different vowel reading for the Hebrew, which implies that Saul raises his spear against Jonathan without actually going so far as hurling at him (as in NIV). See McCarter, I Samuel, 339; Smith, Samuel, 194; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 168. This interpretation is also possible for 18:11.
9. Jobling, 1 Samuel, 93–98 (quote is from 96).
10. Ibid., 98.
11. The last phrase of the NIV (“Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town”) is 21:1 in the Heb. text, leaving a one-verse difference between English translations and Hebrew throughout ch. 21.
12. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 169.
13. BDB, 338–39; DCH, 3:277–81. There have been several important monographs written on the term, notably Gordon R. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); Nelson Glueck, Ḥesed in the Bible, trans. Alfred Gottschalk (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1961); Katharine D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978). For general survey of the issues and more bibliography, see David A. Baer and Robert P. Gordon, “
” NIDOTTE, 2:211–18. Also see Katharine D. Sakenfeld, Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
14. Sakenfeld has defined it as “a responsible keeping of faith with another with whom one is in a relationship” (Meaning of Ḥesed, 233).
15. BDB, 338, I.1; DCH, 3:278–79.
16. See esp. Clark, The Word Ḥesed, 267.
17. BDB, 338, I.1; DCH, 3:279; Baer and Gordon, “
,” 2:212.
18. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 722.
19. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 174.
20. Humberto Belli and Ronald Nash, Beyond Liberation Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
21. Ibid., 97–114.
22. John Perkins, With Justice for All (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1982), selections from 168–70.
1. The grammar of the Hebrew would support a translation such as “David rose and departed, but Jonathan went back into the city.” This phrase is actually the first verse of ch. 21 in the Heb. text, leaving a one-verse difference between English translations and Hebrew throughout the chapter.
2. On the extensive scholarly debate surrounding the identification of this city and its relationship to Geba of Benjamin, see Patrick M. Arnold, Gibeah, 39–54.
3. On the terminology tying these “flight” stories together, see comments on 20:1–23. For a helpful map of these locations, see McCarter, I Samuel, 352–53.
4. The town must have been in close proximity to Jerusalem, though the exact location is unknown (Isa. 10:32). See Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Nob,” ABD, 4:1133.
5. Whether David shrewdly avoids exposing his plight or intentionally deceives the priest is a matter of interpretation (Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 727–28). In any event, David later accepts full responsibility for the death of the priests (22:22).
6. Having only a sling and stones, David had used Goliath’s own sword to cut off the warrior’s head in the Valley of Elah, and he had kept the sword briefly in his home (17:51, 54). It is possible he subsequently offered the sword as a gift to the tabernacle in honor of Yahweh (see Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 184–85).
7. McCarter, I Samuel, 356–57.
8. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 183.
9. Klein, 1 Samuel, 217.
10. Gibeah was Saul’s home and played a significant role in his reign (see 10:5, 26; 22:6). On its identification as Geba (modern Jeba), see Arnold, Gibeah.
11. Klein, 1 Samuel, 222.
12. For details, see J. J. M. Roberts, “The Legal Basis for Saul’s Slaughter of the Priests of Nob (1 Samuel 21–22),” JNSL 25 (1999): 21–29.
13. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 737.
14. Between them are miscellaneous episodes concerning David’s flight from Saul, which further prepare the reader for the rest of 1 Samuel.
15. The curse was confirmed through the boy Samuel in 3:11–14.
16. Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 80–83.
17. This is true for most of the Old Testament historical books generally, leading many to assume these books have their origins in the prophets (as per Jewish tradition, Talmud, b. B. Bat. 14b).
18. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism.
19. Walls, Hell, 157–59. Walls argues in general that heaven is for sinners who want to spend eternity with God, while hell is for sinners who want to spend eternity apart from God.
20. C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: Macmillan, 1946), 72–73.
1. LaMoine F. DeVries, “Keilah,” ABD, 4:13–14.
2. Usually this is “Yahweh,” but “God” occurs in the expression in 14:37; 22:13, 15; also 2 Sam. 16:23.
3. John A. Beck, “
,” NIDOTTE 4:7–10.
4. The words “urim” and “thummim” have been taken to mean “accursed” and “acquitted,” or else words to symbolize the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Their appearance has been guessed as small pebbles, dice, or more likely, sticks. They apparently ceased to be used after the time of David. See Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), 353; J. Lindblom, “Lot-Casting in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962): 164–78. For a different opinion on the nature of the Urim and Thummim, see Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997); for an Assyrian parallel using black and white stones, see Victor Hurowitz, “A Psephomancy Ritual from Assur,” COS, 1.127:444–45.
5. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 2:430.
6. As implied by the word order of v. 9; see Klein, 1 Samuel, 230.
7. The identification of the site is in some dispute. See H. Darrell Lance, “Ziph,” ABD, 6:1104.
8. LaMoine F. DeVries, “Horesh,” ABD, 3:288.
9. LaMoine F. DeVries, “Maon,” ABD, 4:512–13.
10. On the importance of the repetition of “hand” in chs. 23–24, see Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 738.
11. For details, see Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis, 72–73, 200–202.
12. Israel’s psalms and wisdom literature also speak about divine guidance (see, e.g., Ps. 25:8–9, 12; 32:8; Prov. 3:6).
13. The authors of the New Testament made 295 explicit references to the Old Testament, comprising some 352 verses of the New. See Roger Nicole, “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament,” in Hermeneutics, ed. Bernard L. Ramm (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), 41–42.
14. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 209.
15. John Stott, The Contemporary Christian: An Urgent Plea for Double Listening (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 105.
16. Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace? 248. See throughout Yancey’s book for painful admissions of the failure of the evangelical church to serve as dispensers of God’s grace.
17. For part of this discussion, see Stott, Contemporary Christian, 129–40; Packer, Knowing God, 212–15.
18. For comical extremes of Christians listening for the inward voice of the Spirit to direct one’s every action, see Packer, Knowing God, 213–14. For a thorough discussion of the issues involved in following God’s will, see Jerry Sittser, Discovering God’s Will (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).
19. Packer, Knowing God, 215.
1. Contrast the approaches of Gordon, I and II Samuel, 178, 187, with Klein, 1 Samuel, 236–38, and McCarter, I Samuel, 385–87.
2. Jeffries M. Hamilton, “En-gedi,” ABD, 2:502–3.
3. HALOT, 2:754, BDB, 697; cf. Judg. 3:24.
4. The last phrase of ch. 23 (NIV “And David went up from there and lived in the strongholds of En Gedi”) is 24:1 in the Heb. text, leaving a one-verse difference between English translations and the Heb. throughout ch. 24.
5. The NIV’s footnote offers an alternative interpretation: “Today the LORD is saying …” In this way, the men are assuming God is accomplishing his purposes through this unexpected turn of events.
6. Michael A. Grisanti, “
” NIDOTTE, 3:205–11, esp. 210.
7. Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events As Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (ConBOT 1; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1967), 38–39.
8. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 738, 745.
9. Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1986), 139.
10. The problem of how David could have surreptitiously cut the hem of Saul’s garment is easily solved by the suggestion that Saul has removed it and placed it to one side while he is indisposed. See Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 235.
11. HALOT, 2:612. As early as the Middle Bronze Age, kings of Old Syrian city-states are depicted in the iconography wearing a garment with thick fringes, which probably distinguished the ruler from other citizens. See Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 39–48.
12. Though not the same Hebrew term in every case.
13. Victor H. Matthews, Manners and Customs in the Bible (rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 119; see Robert P. Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” TynBul 31 (1980): 37–64.
14. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 179.
15. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 196.
16. For more on “contrastive dialogue,” see Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 72–73.
17. We may assume at a safe distance, as in 26:13.
18. The Heb. infinitive absolute makes this emphatic: “You will certainly be king.”
19. Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part 2: 1 Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 210.
20. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 174.
21. Over the past two hundred years, scholars have become increasingly more skeptical about the trustworthiness of psalm titles. Recent interpreters have tended to recognize them as important information “within the framework of a history of the transmission and collection of the Psalms” (Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary, trans. H. C. Oswald [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988], 31–32; see also 65–68, where Kraus theorizes about the development of the titles during the Second Temple period by priests at the temple of Jerusalem). At the very least, the titles furnish the earliest commentary on the psalms.
22. For description and critique of these developments, see Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism.
23. Benton Johnson, Dean R. Hoge, and Donald A. Luidens, “Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline,” First Things 31 (March 1993): 13–18, esp. 15.
24. C. S. Lewis, “God in the Dock,” in God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 240–44, the quote is from 244.
1. At least until Saul unadvisedly revives Samuel one last time in ch. 28.
2. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, 96–103; see also Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” 37–64.
3. Some early commentaries concluded that it in fact has no connection with the surrounding texts (see Smith, Samuel, 220). The death notice is repeated in 28:3, but the NIV’s pluperfect there is probably correct.
4. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 238.
5. See comments on 23:19–29. Maon is the LXX reading of 25:1, presumably because the Hebrew tradition of “Paran” (as in the NIV note) seems too far south (for its location see Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Paran,” ABD, 5:162). However, “the historical improbability of David’s going so far into the wilderness is not a sufficient reason for changing the text” (Smith, Samuel, 220).
6. Jon D. Levenson, “I Samuel 25 As Literature and As History,” CBQ 40 (1978): 11–28, esp. 13–14.
7. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 147.
8. Levenson, “I Samuel 25 As Literature,” 19.
9. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 148.
10. The NIV’s “and David put on his” obscures the third occurrence of “sword.” Some of the Greek traditions have omitted the third occurrence, but this is probably a result of textual error. See McCarter, I Samuel, 393.
11. In contrast to Bathsheba, whose acquiescence leads to the death of her husband. Levenson (“I Samuel 25 As Literature,” 23–24).
12. Abigail’s comment that Yahweh will hurl away the lives of David’s enemies as from “the pocket of a sling” is probably a veiled reference to the David and Goliath episode, which would remind David of the way in which Yahweh wins battles. Contra McCarter, I Samuel, 399.
13. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 204.
14. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 238.
15. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 754.
16. See Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” JBL 99 (1980): 507–18, esp. 511–12.
17. Hebron of course is well-known in Judah, but the identity and location of Jezreel is uncertain though probably somewhere southwest of Hebron. See Melvin Hunt, “Jezreel,” ABD, 3:850.
18. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 64.
19. The New Testament word “disciple” (Gk. mathetes) signifies such personal commitment and attachment that English words such as “pupil” or “learner” are inadequate.
1. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 178, 187; see also Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 247–49.
2. Cf. also 14:2; 1 Kings 22:10; and the Ugaritic parallel in the Danel Epic (CTU 1.17 v 4–8 and CTU 1.19 i 19–25). For translation and commentary of the Ugaritic parallel, see Dennis Pardee, “The ʾAqhatu Legend,” COS, 1.103:343–56, especially 346 (v 4–8) and 351 (i 19–25). The significance of the water jug is not clear.
3. William C. Williams, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:1057.
4. An attitude David no doubt hopes to instill in the people around him once he becomes king.
5. The NIV assumes the first clause is the general statement and the last two are particular ways in which the Lord may “strike” Saul, through natural causes or military defeat. But the text may actually intend three possibilities: premature death by disease, natural death, or death in battle. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 769, for discussion of the translation possibilities.
6. Certain LXX traditions support the reading, “the king of Israel has come out to seek my life.” Contrast the RSV with the NRSV.
7. McCarter, I Samuel, 408–10.
8. Returning the spear may indicate that Yahweh himself is the only one who can legitimately take Saul’s kingdom away.
9. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 187.
10. Our ethical formulations, however, must allow for exceptions upon rare occasions. For example, on the possibility of justifiable deception, see comments on 19:1–17 and 27:1–12.
11. Robert N. Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1985), 142–63.
12. His (April, 1982), 33.
1. The historian is also careful to make sure we understand David is not committing treason. He has no intention of becoming disloyal to Judah, but he has no choice because of Saul’s activities. As we will see, this sets up a suspenseful scenario, which is only resolved gradually in the narrative.
2. For background and historical details, see Duane L. Christensen, “Achish,” ABD, 1:55–56.
3. Howard, “Philistines,” 243–44.
4. Its precise location is still debated. The best options include Tel ʿErani and Tel Haror (see Baruch Brandl, “ʿErani, Tel,” OEANE, 2:256–58; Eliezer D. Oren, “Haror, Tel,” OEANE, 2:474–76). See also Joe D. Seger, “Gath,” ABD, 2:908–9; Anson F. Rainey, “A Problem in Source Analysis for Historical Geography,” ErIsr 12 (1975): 63–76.
5. McCarter, I Samuel, 414.
6. Josh. 13:2 says the Geshurites were unsubdued by the conquering Israelites. Diana Edelman, “Tel Masos, Geshur, and David,” JNES 47 (1988): 254–55. See also Gerald J. Petter, “Geshurites,” ABD, 2:996–97.
7. Edelman, “Tel Masos, Geshur, and David,” 254.
8. Negev is the Heb. word for “south country,” or area south of another place. Usually in the Old Testament it refers to the desert south of the Judean hills.
9. Jack R. Lundbom, “Jerahmeel,” ABD, 3:683.
10. Baruch Halpern, “Kenites,” ABD, 4:17–19.
11. We may assume that Abiathar the priest is still at his disposal, though he is not mentioned here (23:7–14).
12. See also 22:10, 13, 15; 30:7–8; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:23. By contrast, Yahweh stopped responding to Saul’s inquiries (1 Sam. 14:36–37; 28:6).
13. As is done by Gordon, I and II Samuel, 191. Others comment laconically that the Bible reports such episodes without condoning them.
14. Chapel at Ashland Theological Seminary, January 23, 1995.
15. Wesley’s source for the service was Richard Alleine’s Vindiciae Pietatis (see Marion A. Jackson, “An Analysis of the Source of John Wesley’s Directions for Renewing Our Covenant with God,” Methodist History 30 [1992]: 176–84). A copy with some modest updating of the English can be found in The United Methodist Book of Worship (Nashville: United Methodist Publishing, 1992), 291–94.
16. Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (London: Penguin, 1995), number 185.
17. Pascal’s observation has many other implications—e.g., on the relationship between faith and science. But I think one implication of his insight relates to making decisions without discernible guidance from God.
1. In fact, scholars through the centuries have tried a great variety of interpretations for the event. See K. A. D. Smelik, “The Witch of Endor: I Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis till 800 A.D.,” Vigiliae christianae 33 (1979): 160–79.
2. “There is no indication that anyone [among the biblical tradents] regarded the apparition of Samuel as a fraudulent fiction perpetrated by the woman. Both the earlier account and the Deuteronomistic compiler are convinced that Samuel was really present” (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 220–21).
3. These verses assume the events of ch. 27 (see comments; also see comments at 21:10–15 for the identity of Achish).
4. Achish’s statement in v. 2, “I will make you my bodyguard” (lit., “watcher of my head”) may be an ironic wordplay on Goliath’s head (see Miscall, 1 Samuel, 167).
5. The NIV’s pluperfects in verse 3 are appropriate in comparison to the simple past verbs in verses 4–6.
6. The statement in v. 3a is nearly verbatim from 25:1, which I argued is also strategic in its location there.
7. Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 112.
8. The terms used here (ʾob and yiddeʿoni) have to do with communicating with the spirits of the dead and either refer to types of necromancers (male and female?) or simply form a hendiadys to necromancy in general (see ibid., 113–14). Note that Saul’s obedience of Pentateuchal law was only partial since such people were to be put to death.
9. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 158; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 194.
10. Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 64. Mount Gilboa is always associated with Saul’s death.
11. McCarter, I Samuel, 420; see our commentary at 23:1–6 on Urim and Thummim.
12. Diana V. Edelman, “En-dor,” ABD, 2:499–501.
13. This is the locus classicus for any examination of necromancy in the Old Testament, though there are others. For details and for more on the understanding of the text presented here, see esp. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 104–17.
14. For overview of this topic, see Bill T. Arnold, “Religion in Ancient Israel,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 414–15. For a contrary approach, see Philip Johnston, “The Underworld and the Dead in the Old Testament,” TynBul 45 (1994): 415–19.
15. Necromancy is a form of divination, which calls upon the dead for communication of knowledge. Verse 8b demonstrates that some people (Saul included) believed the dead had knowledge not available to the living.
16. Others have argued that interest in the dead developed first in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and entered Israel only in the late eighth and seventh centuries B.C. because of Assyrian influence. See Brian B. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994). However, in order to explain the evidence of ch. 28, Schmidt is forced to argue for its late or post-Deuteronomistic origins (201–20).
17. Job 10:21–22; see Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 114.
18. Malcolm J. A. Horsnell, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:945–51.
19. Eugene H. Merrill, “
,” NIDOTTE, 4:6–7; see Philip S. Johnston, “‘Left in Hell?’ Psalm 16, Sheol and the Holy One,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess, and G. J. Wenham (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 213–22 (esp. 216–21).
20. “It is ironic that a woman who can see into the underworld has not been able to this point to see through Saul’s disguise” (Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 115).
21. David F. Payne, I and II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1982), 145.
22. For the history of interpretation of the many perplexing facets of this text, see Smelik, “The Witch of Endor,” 160–79.
23. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 263.
24. I.e., they are beyond or different from that which is natural, as opposed to the “supernatural,” which is above what is natural (Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 49–50, 115–16).
25. HALOT, 1:91; Ahw, 245. Hence the “land of the living” is often contrasted with the underworld (Isa. 38:11; 53:8, etc.; see Magnus Ottosson, “
” TDOT, 1:390–404, esp. 399–400). On the underworld receiving the dead, see F. M. Cross Jr. and F. N. Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14 (1955): 237–50, esp. 247–48; William L. Holladay, “ʾereṣ—‘Underworld’: Two More Suggestions,” VT 19 (1969): 123–24.
26. Miscall, 1 Samuel, 169.
27. Ibid., 170.
28. Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 114.
29. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 196.
30. For full discussion of these and several other texts, see Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 99–170.
31. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 7–121; Mark W. Chavalas, “Magic,” EDBT, 502.
32. Helmut Thielicke, Modern Faith and Thought, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 5–7.
33. See Bridging Contexts section above; also comments on ch. 21.
34. Stephen E. Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers: The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, June 7, 1944–May 7, 1945 (New York: Touchstone, 1997), 236.
1. As we will see, after David becomes king over Judah, he has difficulty winning over the northern tribes, who are fiercely loyal to the idea of a Saulide dynasty (2 Sam. 3:1). Had David been associated with the death of Saul and Jonathan at Mount Gilboa, the history of Israel may have been very different.
2. S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 213–14 (repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Alpha Publications, 1983); see also Jeffries M. Hamilton, “Gilboa, Mount,” ABD, 2:1019.
3. Rafael Frankel, “Aphek,” ABD, 1:276.
4. Verse 11 makes it esp. clear that David is turned back from joining the Philistines before they arrive in Jezreel, thus confirming that ch. 28 is out of chronological sequence.
5. However, some of the older commentators mistakenly assumed the existence of another Aphek in the Jezreel Valley near Shunem, thereby alleviating the need to assume these chapters are out of chronological sequence. See, e.g., Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 270; Smith, Samuel, 243.
6. We will also see chronological materials in 2 Samuel rearranged literarily to make a theological point.
7. The “rulers” of v. 2 are distinct from the “commanders” of v. 3, who are the military generals.
8. McCarter, I Samuel, 427.
9. See comments above at 15:1–9 and 27:8–12.
10. BDB, 305; DCH, 3:190; HALOT, 1:304. The Hithpael of 
should be taken here as a reflexive-factitive, echoing the reflexive/reciprocal nature of the verbal stem in which the verb describes the production of a state (in this case, the state of being strong). See Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 429–32; Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (2d ed.; Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1992), 29. As such the verb connotes the human dimension of David’s faith. David brings about within himself the condition of strength, which is the factitive use of the verb.
11. See comments on 23:1–6.
12. For opinions on the nature of the Urim and Thummim, see Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim, 9–103.
13. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 169.
14. On the identification and location of these sites, see Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 795–96. Though the timing is in question, an attempt to unite these towns and villages may have been a fledgling step in establishing a state that rivaled Saul’s in the north. The biblical historian, however, makes it clear that David is made king only after Saul’s death. See Edelman, “Tel Masos, Geshur, and David,” 253–58, esp. 255.
15. Miscall, 1 Samuel, 181.
16. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 276.
17. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 202.
18. Emile Cailliet, Journey into Light (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 34.
19. Ibid., 34–35.
20. Gilbert K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane, 1909), 14–15.
21. Ibid., 18.
22. Ibid., 291.
1. McCarter, I Samuel, 3. We would add: Ahab and Jehoshaphat (1 Kings), and David (1 Chronicles).
2. See our comments on geography and chronology in the Original Meaning section for 29:1–11. On the nature of the circumstantial clause of 31:1 as resuming the account from 28:4, see Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 278. The resumption may also be implied by the pluperfect anterior construction of 28:2–3 (Ziony Zevit, The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew [SBLMS 50; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 27).
3. The details of Saul’s death narrated here differ significantly from the Amalekite’s report in 2 Sam. 1:7–10 (see comments).
4. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 170.
5. Patrick E. McGovern, “Beth-shan,” ABD, 1:693–96; Amihai Mazar, “Beth-Shean,” OEANE, 1:305–9.
6. “Ashtoreths” can also refer in general to any foreign goddess, being equivalent to “other gods” or “foreign gods.” See Judith M. Hadley, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:562–63; see further the Original Meaning section for 7:2–4.
7. This action also anticipates the revenge of the Gibeonites (see 2 Sam. 21:12–14).
8. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 282.
9. Proposed by G. R. Driver, “A Hebrew Burial Custom,” ZAW 66 (1954): 314–15, and followed by P. R. Ackroyd, First Book of Samuel (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971), 229; J. Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel (NCB; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971), 193; and Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 233. Interestingly, the parallel account in Chronicles omits the reference to cremation (1 Chron. 10:12).
10. For these and other possible interpretations, see Robin Wakely, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:1285–86.
11. See our introduction; also Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 73–78.
12. A vivid reversal of Gen. 15:6, where Abram accepted God’s word as true and God accepted Abram as righteous.
13. Ultimately we have the New Testament to explain that the Messiah was like David in many ways—and certainly not like Saul.
14. A point made by Klein, 1 Samuel, 290.
15. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 282.
16. This is esp. pertinent in the Old Testament’s emphasis on “retribution theology,” which had such an important role in the theological framework of the historical books. See Hans Walter Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, ed. W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 83–100.
17. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 209–10.
18. Ravi Zacharias, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990), 94.
19. Saul was mortally wounded and therefore chose to die rather than face the certain abuse that would come at the hands of his captors, not unlike the suicide of Abimelech (Judg. 9:54). The armor-bearer, however, committed suicide purely out of horror and devotion to Saul. Other cases to compare are Ahithophel (2 Sam. 17:23), Zimri (1 Kings 16:18), and Samson (Judg. 16:29–30).
20. W. Lee Humphreys, “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9–31,” JSOT 6 (1978): 18–27, esp. 25.
21. Quoted in Zacharias, Shattered Visage, 94.
22. C. S. Lewis, “Dogma and The Universe,” in God in the Dock, 38–47, the quote is from 47.
23. William C. Williams, “
,” NIDOTTE, 4:102.
1. For the history in general, John Bright, A History of Israel (4th ed., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 195–98; J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 168–74. For anthropological and sociopolitical background, see Carol Meyers, “Kinship and Kingship: The Early Monarchy,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M. D. Coogan (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998), 165–205.
2. Nelson, The Historical Books, 116.
3. For such approaches and my critique, see Bill T. Arnold, “The Amalekite’s Report of Saul’s Death: Political Intrigue or Incompatible Sources?” JETS 32 (1989): 289–98.
4. Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, 197.
5. Harry Hagan, “Deception As Motif and Theme in 2 Sam. 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2,” Bib 60 (1979): 301–26; Arnold, “The Amalekite’s Report,” 297–98.
6. The Heb. of 1:1 makes David’s return from the defeat of the Amalekites a circumstantial clause, and we could translate with the pluperfect: “Now David had returned from defeating the Amalekites and had stayed in Ziklag two days.” See Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 285.
7. See comments at 1 Sam. 15:1–9; 27:8–12; 30:1–6.
8. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 288.
9. Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 24; esp. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel (AB 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 78–79.
10. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 210. It is also possible to see this poem as the conclusion of the trajectory in the books dealing with Saul’s career and life and the end of David’s exile. Conceivably whoever in the Middle Ages divided the Heb. book of Samuel into two books could have ended 1 Samuel with this dirge instead of the narrative account in 1 Sam. 31 (Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 2:17).
11. The repetition of the phrase in vv. 19 and 27 creates an inclusio, a sort of literary frame for the poem. Many also assume a more complete chiastic structure in the poem, though there is little agreement about details. For two approaches, see William H. Shea, “Chiasmus and the Structure of David’s Lament,” JBL 105 (1986): 13–25; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 810.
12. For an early example of this interpretation, see Tom Horner, Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 20, 26–28, 31–39. See also David M. Gunn, The Story of King Saul (Sheffield: Univ. of Sheffield Press, 1980), 93; Fewell and Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise, 148–51.
13. Jobling, 1 Samuel, 161–65.
14. Cross, From Epic to Canon, 9; Thompson, “Significance of the Verb Love,” 334–38; Ackroyd, “The Verb Love,” 213–14.
15. For introduction, see William Moran, “The Gilgamesh Epic: A Masterpiece from Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE, 4:2327–36. For translations, see Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), 39–153; Danny P. Jackson, The Epic of Gilgamesh (Wauconda, Ill.: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1992).
16. Nissinen concedes that “homoeroticism is certainly not a central theme in the Epic of Gilgameš” (Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 20–24, esp. 23).
17. Nissinen speaks of David and Jonathan as an example of ancient oriental homosociability, “which permits even intimate feelings to be expressed” between same-sex friends without sexual implications. Ancient literature has other examples of male relationships of intimate affection and companionship, which are often strong in societies in which men’s and women’s worlds are segregated. He mentions especially Achilles and Patroclus in Homer’s Iliad and Gilgamesh and Enkidu. See Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 53–56. See also Martti Nissinen, “Die Liebe von David und Jonatan als Frage der modernen Exegese,” Bib 80 (1999): 250–63.
18. An ironic point made by Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 85.
19. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC 11; Dallas: Word, 1989), 10.
20. Paul Tillich, Love, Power, and Justice: Ontological Analyses and Ethical Applications (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1954), 72–106; see Niebuhr’s distinction between the moral and social behavior of individuals and that of social groups (national, racial, and economic), necessitating “political policies which a purely individualistic ethic must always find embarrassing” (Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society, xi, 1–22).
1. Randall Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10–12 (JSOTSup 75; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 56–57; C. Conroy, Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam. 13–20 (AnBib 81; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 41–42.
2. On the nature of the Urim and Thummim and general discussion of the phrase “inquire” of Yahweh, see comments at 1 Sam. 23:1–6 above.
3. In fact, it has been argued that these marriages were politically motivated from the start, deliberate steps to prepare for David’s move to take the throne (see Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 507–18). It is even possible that Ahinoam was first the wife of Saul, so that David’s marriage to her was tantamount to a claim to the throne (Levenson, “I Samuel 25 As Literature,” 27).
4. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 175. Frank Moore Cross considers this pledge of loyalty a “covenant of kingship,” though the term covenant is not used. In the south, royal ideology involved an eternal decree as distinct from the northern tribes, which assumed the conditional and covenantal character of kingship. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epi, 219–73. Note that “covenant” is used when David becomes king of the north (2 Sam. 5:3–5).
5. Jabesh Gilead was strategically located on the east bank of the Jordan (see comments on 1 Sam. 11:1–3).
6. BDB, 338 (sec. I. 1); DCH, 3:278–79; see also Bridging Contexts discussion of 1 Sam. 20.
7. Clark, The Word Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible, 267.
8. McCarter, II Samuel, 89–90.
9. Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 30; Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 507–18.
10. Review my Bridging Contexts sections for 1 Sam. 23:1–29 and 29:1–30:31.
11. The fact that Jacob needs special forms of divine encounter may itself be an indictment of his character.
12. It is even possible to see emphasis in the Hebrew word order on the little word “there,” placing stress on David’s obedience.
13. Just as the conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua was a fulfillment of Gen. 15:18–21. On the ancestral connections, see Barth, God with Us, 191.
14. The prominence of the city of Hebron in this paragraph as well as Mahanaim in the next may also have ancestral overtones. See Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 183–84.
15. Quoted in Robert H. Waterman Jr., The Renewal Factor: How the Best Get and Keep the Competitive Edge (New York: Bantam Books, 1987), 24.
16. Robert Bretall, ed., A Kierkegaard Anthology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1951), 433.
1. There is much scholarly discussion about this unit’s relationship to the surrounding narratives. I take it as part of the history of David’s rise, though David Gunn has argued that the bulk of 2 Sam. 2:8 (or 2:12) to 5:3 should be considered the true beginning of the court history of David (2 Sam. 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2). See David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup 6; Sheffield: JSOT, 1978), 65–84.
2. Most scholars assume the word bošet (“shame”) was substituted by scribes to defame the pagan deity. This assumption has been seriously challenged by Tsevat, who believes certain Akkadian parallels support the idea that the name originally had much more positive overtones. See Matitiahu Tsevat, “Ishbosheth and Congeners: The Names and Their Study,” HUCA 46 (1975): 71–87. His interpretation is disputed by McCarter, II Samuel, 85–86.
3. His name appears in its presumed authentic form (Esh-Baal) in Saul’s genealogy in 1 Chron. 8:33 and 9:39. The element “Baal” (or “lord”) may have been an accepted epithet for Yahweh during the judges period, but in the early monarchy it came to be used only for the Canaanite storm god.
4. Hiphil of the denominative verb mlk (“to be king”; see HALOT, 2:590–91; BDB, 574).
5. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 221.
6. Diana V. Edelman, “Mahanaim,” ABD, 4:473.
7. The chronological references in 2:10–11 are difficult to resolve. Either David reigned in Judah five and a half years while Ish-Bosheth and Abner were gaining support in the north (Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 824 and Alter, David Story, 204), or David established his state five and a half years before Saul’s death, which would imply Judah existed as a rival state to Israel while Saul was still king (David N. Freedman, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry,” in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975], 16; repr. in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980], 131–66, esp. 155–56; Edelman, “Tel Masos, Geshur, and David,” 255).
8. Not unlike David’s battle with Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4–11, where see our discussion of representative combat in general). Here see particularly F. Charles Fensham, “The Battle Between the Men of Joab and Abner As a Possible Ordeal by Battle?” VT 20 (1970): 356–57.
9. It is also possible that the inhabitants of Gibeon are sympathetic to David rather than Saul’s son. See McCarter, II Samuel, 95.
10. The idea that the list is intended to portray David as obedient to the Pentateuch’s mandate to “be fruitful and multiply” is a case of forcing a larger schematic framework onto an unsuspecting pericope (though the framework itself is fruitful; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 305).
11. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 830.
12. Matitiahu Tsevat, “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel,” JSS 3 (1958): 237–43; Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 508. See also 2 Sam. 16:20–22 and 1 Kings 2:13–25.
13. The expression “lost courage” literally states that Ish-Bosheth’s “hands grew weak.” Hands symbolize strength and courage in Heb.; Robert Alter compares this idiom to our colloquial “lost his grip” (David Story, 217).
14. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 222.
15. On his name, see comments on 2 Sam. 9.
16. For a similar assumption, see Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 309. On the nature of his debilitating condition, see John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 326.
17. See the introduction. To use Fee and Stuart’s terminology, top, middle, and bottom levels (Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 73–78). See also John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Bible Study (rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), and Odil Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
18. Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 42–47.
19. Salvation in the Old Testament is intimately tied to Yahweh as warrior, who fights for and saves his people. See Miller, The Divine Warrior, 173.
20. Further, review the Contemporary Significance section on holy war at 1 Sam. 4:1b–11, as well as the comments on 15:1–9.
21. Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 507–18.
22. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 1:410–11. See next note for some of the details related here.
23. Chaim Potok, Wanderings: Chaim Potok’s History of the Jews (New York: Fawcett, 1978), 400–401.
24. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 780.
1. The unit on the history of David’s rise is thought to have included at least 1 Sam. 16:14–2 Sam. 5:10 (see introduction).
2. David is called “King David” only once before in the narrative, at 2 Sam. 3:31. The parallel use of “elder” and “tribe” probably implies the twelve tribes of Israel are present symbolically in the persons of their representatives, not in any literal sense. On the power of the “elders” in this period, see Hayim Tadmor, “Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions in the Time of David and Solomon,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 239–57.
3. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 237. Thus, the expression is not unlike our “in sickness and in health,” or “through thick and thin.”
4. Recall that it was Abner’s political savvy and acumen behind Ish-Bosheth’s ill-fated reign (2:8–9).
5. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 313–14.
6. Hammurabi boasts of his role as “shepherd” in the prologue to his famous Law Code. See Martha T. Roth, “The Laws of Hammurabi,” COS, 2.131:335–53, esp. 336 (i.50–53).
7. “Sheep, Shepherd,” DBI, 782–85.
8. This illustrates the conditional and covenantal nature of kingship in northern ideology as compared to Judah, which thought in terms of an eternal decree. David’s dual monarchy was a tenuous arrangement. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 230.
9. Review the Original Meaning sections for 1 Sam. 9:1–10:8; 16:6–13; 2 Sam. 2:1–4a.
10. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 175.
11. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 159.
12. Of course the reverberations are stronger in 1 Kings 11 with regard to Solomon. It is possible the Deuteronomic stipulation that the king be near in kinship resulted from Abimelech’s attempt to rule (Judg. 8), since he was in fact, half-Canaanite. See Gordon, I and II Samuel, 355, note 4.
13. Such a strategy drives “policy execution” and, as defined by political scientists, involves military, political, economic, and psychological factors. For more on what follows here, see Abraham Malamat, “A Political Look at the Kingdom of David and Solomon and Its Relations with Egypt,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 189–204; Carol Meyers, “David As Temple Builder,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 357–76, esp. 360–61.
14. Malamat, “Political Look,” 194. A socioanthropological approach identifies chiefdom, early state, and mature state as three stages of state formation. In this schema, the biblical evidence portrays Saul’s reign as an early chiefdom, David’s as transitional, and Solomon’s as an early state. See Elman Service, Origins of the State and Civilization (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), for introduction and a useful summary; William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17 (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999), 22–24. See also J. W. Flanagan, “Chiefs in Israel,” JSOT 20 (1981): 47–73; for critique, see Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Sociological and Biblical Views,” 88–89.
15. First the Mitanni and later the Hittites. The central hills of southern Syria-Palestine had long been dominated by this “bipolar” power structure. Malamat, “Political Look,” 191.
16. McCarter believes an archaic account, which became obscure to a later audience, has been enlarged here in verses 6–10 (II Samuel, 137).
17. McCarter refers to it as “a city located between two states but belonging to neither” (II Samuel, 141).
18. A fitting conclusion to what is believed by many to be the last verse in the history of David’s rise (see introduction).
19. Philip J. King, “Jerusalem,” ABD, 3:747–66; Terry L. Brensinger, “Jerusalem,” NIDOTTE, 4:772–76; Dan Bahat, “Jerusalem,” OEANE, 3:224–38.
20. Jon D. Levenson, “Zion Traditions,” ABD, 6:1098–1102.
22. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 318–19; McCarter, II Samuel, 145. Our historian has most likely used the literary device of association to coalesce David’s goals and achievements as king and to group them together near the beginning of his reign. Such a practice was common for Assyrian scribes, who attributed to their kings’ accession year all the achievements and accomplishments of their reigns. Most of the events narrated in chs. 5–8 probably occur late in David’s declining years. See Eugene H. Merrill, “The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” JANESCU 19 (1989): 101–12.
23. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 322; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 859.
24. McCarter, II Samuel, 158.
25. These battles probably occurred in the interval of time between David’s anointing (vv. 1–5) and his conquest of Jerusalem (vv. 6–10). See Merrill, “The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” 101–12, esp. 108; Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 323. But note the reservations of Robert P. Gordon (I and II Samuel, 229).
26. They warrant a summary statement in 8:1 and are retrospective references in 2 Samuel 21 and 23.
27. Gershon Edelstein, “Rephaim, Valley of,” ABD 5:676.
28. To use the terminology of modern political science. See Malamat, “Political Look,” 194–95.
29. McCarter, II Samuel, 157.
30. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 203.
31. Miller and Roberts, The Hand of the Lord, 9–16.
32. Miller, The Divine Warrior, 132.
33. For summary, see Campbell, The Ark Narrative, 28–54. See also the introduction and comments on 1 Sam. 4:1b–11.
34. Miller and Roberts, The Hand of the Lord, 9–16, 22–26.
35. McCarter, II Samuel, 182–84; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 22–24. For another opinion, see Campbell, The Ark Narrative; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 99–100.
36. The “twenty years” of 1 Sam. 7:2 probably refers to the interval between the capture of the ark by the Philistines and the battle reported in 7:7–13. In light of Saul’s forty-year reign, it seems likely the ark languished in exile more than sixty years. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 867.
37. Carl S. Ehrlich, “Baalah,” ABD, 1:555.
38. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 69–70. Rather than a simple ban on all iconic representations of God, early Israel was probably “aniconic.” That is, God could be visually represented but without pictorial images, whether human or animal. Thus, for example, standing stones or stone pillars could represent God as “material aniconism,” or the use of a throne or pedestal could represent God’s presence (as with the ark of the covenant), which is an example of “empty-space aniconism.” See Mettinger, No Graven Image, esp. 18–20; Lewis, “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” 36–53.
39. Meyers, “David As Temple Builder,” 362.
40. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 212.
41. A point made by Gordon, I and II Samuel, 231.
42. David speaks also of transporting the ark “in the prescribed way,” which according to Gordon seems to have in view the pertinent Pentateuchal stipulations (Ex. 25:12–15; Num. 4:15; 7:9; Deut. 10:8; see Gordon, I & II Samuel, 231).
43. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 249.
44. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 336; Alter, David Story, 228.
45. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 164.
46. For what follows, see Roberts, “Zion,” 93–108, esp. 94–104.
47. Ugaritic mythological texts, e.g., portray Baal, the Canaanite storm god, as inhabiting the mountain Zaphon, located near the mouth of the Orontes River in northern Syria.
48. Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972).
49. Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985), 111–37.
50. Ibid., 135.
51. Other features of Zion theology are developed in Psalms and prophetic literature, particularly the idea of a life-giving stream or river flowing from the presence of God on the mountain and the security that God’s presence in the city provides through his defeat of hostile enemies. See Roberts, “Zion,” 100–104.
52. For what follows, see Bill T. Arnold, “City, Citizenship,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Leicester, England/Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 414–16.
53. See, e.g., Barth, God with Us, 234–303.
55. Janus in Roman mythology was the patron god of beginnings and endings. In iconography, his statue has two faces—one looking forward, the other back.
56. 1 Sam. 23:1–14; 30:7–25; 2 Sam. 2:1–4a; and here, 5:19, 23.
57. F. F. Bruce, “Eschatology,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W. A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 362–65, quote from 362. See also Ben Witherington III, Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 15–48.
58. Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, trans. F. V. Filson (London: SCM, 1951), 84.
1. Robert Alter has referred to this chapter as a major cesura in the David story, marked by ideological reflections on the future (David Story, 231). Although Martin Noth himself did not include this chapter among the other important discoursive blocks used in the composition of the Deuteronomistic History, subsequent scholarship often has, following the suggestion of D. J. McCarthy (“II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History,” JBL 84 [1965]: 131–38). See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 241–58; John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1983), 271–77.
2. Review our introduction. The exact parameters of these sources continue to vex scholars, but the references suggested here are still the consensus.
3. James Flanagan’s analysis of the order of these materials between the primary sources is forced, though I think on the right path. See James W. Flanagan, “Social Transformation and Ritual in 2 Samuel 6,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 361–72. For scholarship on the literary history of ch. 7 per se, see McCarter, II Samuel, 210–31.
4. The scholarly secondary literature on this chapter is immense. See Lyle Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David, esp. 30–33.
5. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise, 3. Schniedewind’s book vividly shows the impact of 2 Sam. 7 on subsequent Israel. For the role it plays in the Deuteronomistic History, see Halpern, Constitution of the Monarchy, 19–20.
6. Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:207; see 207–54 for sensitive exposition of the literary features of the entire chapter.
7. For the convincing semantic links between this paragraph and Deut. 12:10–11, see Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 53.
8. God’s choice of a place for his name to dwell (Deut. 12:11; 2 Sam. 7:13) refers simply to God’s reputation, not to some mystical hypostasis of God’s presence, as is often assumed in Old Testament scholarship since the nineteenth century. See Sandra L. Richter, “The Deuteronomistic History and the Place of the Name” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2001).
9. The chapter is not a condemnation of David’s desire to build a temple. He is simply doing what any good ancient Near Eastern monarch would do after succeeding at war. See Avigdor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 171–223; on the connections between temple projects and dynastic promises in the ancient Near East in general, see Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel, 86–92.
10. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 254.
11. Scholars are perplexed by seeming inconsistencies here. Most assume an older oracle that was opposed to building the temple (7:1–7) and another oracle that was pro-temple (7:11b–16). It is assumed the middle section was a Deuteronomistic linkage (7:8–11a). See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 241–57. For overview of other approaches, see McCarter, II Samuel, 209–31.
12. Cf. how God promised to make Abraham’s “name great” (Gen. 12:2).
13. McCarter, II Samuel, 204, 217–20.
14. The phrase “I will provide a place for my people Israel” (7:10) may be a rare idiom for Yahweh’s sacred mount or temple precinct, which casts a protective shade over the people who dwell beneath it. See David Vanderhooft, “Dwelling Beneath the Sacred Place: A Proposal for Reading 2 Samuel 7:10,” JBL 118 (1999): 625–33.
15. It is possible to argue that David was well on his way to constructing the temple himself before a severe plague created unfavorable economic conditions. See Meyers, “David As Temple Builder,” 357–76. However, there are other plausible historical explanations (see Meyers’s note 47; Schniedewind, Society and the Promise, 49–50).
16. It is physical building (palace or temple) in vv. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 13. But the chapter uses it in wordplay to denote David’s tribal family (in the past) or his royal dynasty (in the future) in vv. 11, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, and 29 (2×). The term is common in Aramaic and Akkadian to designate the name of a tribe of descendants of the same person. Thus we have Bit-Adini (“House of Adini”) or Bit-Yakin (“House of Yakin”) as names of Aramaic tribes. Likewise, Assyrian royal inscriptions refer to the northern kingdom of Israel as “the house of Omri,” and the Bible itself refers to the “house of Isaac” (Amos 7:16) and the “house of Eli” (1 Sam. 3:14).
17. This phrase in v. 14a is seen by some as a Canaanite formula of divine sonship of the king, which here stands in the place of the covenant formula. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 257–58, and Bridging Contexts section below.
18. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 350; Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Steadfast House: What Was David Promised in 2 Samuel 7?” in The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies: Essays on the Literature and Religion of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Ktav, 1980), 110.
19. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 259.
20. The NIV’s “family” is our theme word bayit (“house”), which stands here for David’s tribal family (cf. NRSV).
21. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 169.
22. This emphasis on “name” (šem, 7:9, 13, 26) is another wordplay in the chapter, linked to the wordplay on “house.” Yahweh will make David’s name great, but it is through both Solomon’s house (temple) and David’s house (dynasty) that the names of both Yahweh and David will be built up. See Richter, “Place of the Name,” 72–79.
23. Brevard S. Childs, Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 596.
24. For introduction to the nature of our self-revealing God and his revelation in the Bible, see William Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 25–38.
25. The Mosaic (or Sinaitic) covenant in its various permutations reflects a specific outline known from Hittite treaties as early as the mid-second millennium B.C. See Arnold and Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament, 148–51. On the inadequacy of the English “covenant” for the Hebrew berit, which connotes both “promise and commandment,” see Roland de Vaux, “The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, trans. D. McHugh (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971), 157, 160. The breadth of this Hebrew term may explain why other biblical authors so easily applied “covenant” to the promises of 2 Sam. 7.
26. See Bridging Contexts for 1 Sam. 20:1–42.
27. Sakenfeld, Meaning of Ḥesed, 144. Elsewhere she states that it is Yahweh’s “provision” for continuing his relationship with David (145).
28. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 892.
29. See further vv. 19–37 of this psalm, as well as Ps. 132:11–18 and 1 Chron. 17. For careful exegesis of the pertinent passages on the Davidic covenant, see Gary N. Knoppers, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content and Conditions of the Davidic Promises,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 91–118, esp. 111–14 for Ps. 89. To these texts we should add 2 Sam. 23:1–7; 1 Chron. 22:9–10; Ps. 2; Isa. 42:1, 6; 55:3; perhaps Jer. 31:31–34.
30. Psalm 89 appears to be an interpretation of a genuinely early form of 2 Sam. 7:1–17 dated from or close to the united monarchy, contra those who argue that this psalm is an earlier tradition behind a late 2 Sam. 7. See Nahum Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1963), 29–46; Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel, 82.
31. See further David’s own affirmation of Yahweh’s “everlasting covenant” in 2 Sam. 23:5.
32. Though it must be admitted that the term “forever” may mean simply a limited time span, the endurance of something within its natural limits (see Tsevat, “Steadfast House,” 106–7).
33. For more on these distinctions, see Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 66–69.
34. It is also helpful to define covenant simply as “a formal agreement involving two or more parties,” while at the same time acknowledging they are always bilateral, either symmetrical or asymmetrical. So certain covenants emphasize the obligation of one party more than the other. Some stress the promises of the more powerful party, while others the responsibilities and commitments of the weaker party. The Davidic covenant is asymmetrical, meaning it highlights the promises of the stronger party. Conversely, the Mosaic covenant highlights the commitments of the weaker party. But both contain an implicit mutuality, as all such covenants do. See Gary N. Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116 (1996): 670–97, esp. 696.
35. Note that God’s eternal promise (“forever”) to Eli’s priestly family was also conditioned on their character. The Lord withdraws his favor with the pregnant phrase (1 Sam. 2:30): “Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.”
36. On the essentially revelatory nature of the covenants, see John H. Walton, Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 24–46 and throughout.
37. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 99, and generally 187–217.
38. So-called “covenant theologians” assume an organically unified character of the biblical covenants (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980], 28). By contrast, classic dispensationalism assumes a number of distinct dispensations (often seven), each governed by its own covenant (Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993], 24–27). John H. Walton has taken something of a mediating position in his provocative book, Covenant, 47–62, 179–80. Also for some of what follows, consult Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 113–26; Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 77–102.
39. It is often asserted that God entered into a covenant with Adam and Eve, variously called a covenant of creation or the Edenic covenant. Though the term “covenant” does not occur in the opening chapters of Genesis, these scholars argue the elements of a covenant (as we come to know them later in the Bible) are present, primarily referring to the promise of eternal life and marked by the blessing, “Be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:28). But this is a theological construction imposed on the biblical text, often in order to support a preconceived notion of “dispensations.” Ironically, the same mistake was made by Julius Wellhausen for very different reasons (Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1983], 338–39; repr. of Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Enzies [Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885]; trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels [2d ed.: Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883]). See the critique of Frank Moore Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 295–96).
40. This first covenant also establishes the specific idioms and linguistic formulae characteristic of the other covenants in the Pentateuch. Frank Moore Cross posits a convincing pattern in which the Pentateuch has been intentionally organized by such rubrics, including most importantly a system of 3 covenants (those of Noah, Abraham, and Moses) standing as transition markers between four ages (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 293–300).
41. Bill T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis, 91–98.
42. The promissory element connects the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, as emphasized esp. by Robert P. Gordon (I and II Samuel, 235–42). Moshe Weinfeld identified the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as “promissory” covenants based on ancient Near Eastern royal grants, as opposed to the “obligatory” Mosaic covenant based on political treaties. The former obligated the master to the servant, while the latter was an obligation of the servant (vassal) to the master. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. It is better to view all the biblical covenants as asymmetrical and to take the Abrahamic and Davidic as covenants stressing the promises of the powerful party (God), while the Mosaic stresses the responsibilities of the weaker party (Israel). See Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants” 696.
43. Abram, “father is exalted” became Abraham, “father of a multitude,” though we may also be dealing here with a dialectical variant of an older name.
44. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 296.
45. The use of a secular international treaty form to express the covenant only heightens the conditionality of the covenant, since the laws were placed where the treaties have requirements for the vassal nation.
46. Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 121.
47. Bright believed the Davidic covenant pushed the Mosaic covenant into the background, setting up a tension between the two for much of the rest of the Old Testament. Bright, History of Israel, 227.
48. Jobling, 1 Samuel, 78–79.
49. Jeremiah fought against a Zion theology that elevated David over Moses, or Zion over Sinai. See Walter Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 1–25 (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 5–7. For a more nuanced explanation of the problems Jeremiah addressed, see Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 165–69.
50. The quote is from Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 207; see de Vaux, “King of Israel,” 159.
51. Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 209. In general I find Levenson’s treatment extremely helpful (see especially “The Manifold Relationships Between Sinai and Zion,” 185–217), though his assertion that the Davidic covenant displaced the Sinaitic in the New Testament is overstated due largely to a misreading of Paul’s statements concerning the law (216).
52. Whatever vestigial links this concept may have had in Canaanite divine kingship, it functions here as the language of adoption. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 257–58; McCarter, II Samuel, 207; Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 76.
53. In the third Gospel, the connection is made by Gabriel even before Jesus is born (Luke 1:30–35). Joel B. Green, Beginning with Jesus: Christ in Scripture, the Church, and Discipleship (Nashville: Cokesbury and Bristol House, 2000), 23–24.
54. See, e.g., Ps. 89; Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:21–23; Hag. 2:21–22; Zech. 3:8–10; 12:10–13:1.
55. 4 Ezra 12:31–32; Psalms of Solomon 17–18; 1QM 11:1–18; 4QFlor 1:11–14; 4QTest 9–13. For more on the eschatological interpretation of 4QFlorilegium, see Schniedewind, Society and Promise, 158–60.
56. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 235.
57. Ibid., 236. For the importance of 2 Sam. 7 in establishing the book’s tension between promises and unfulfilled reality, thereby creating a messianic expectation, see Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 52–56, 64–65. On this chapter’s messianic thrust in light of the structure of the books of Samuel, see Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 276–77.
58. Or, as Brueggemann says, this “utterance is the root of evangelical faith in the Bible: that is, faith that relies on the free promise of the gospel” (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 257). Though I find Brueggemann’s bifurcation of Davidic and Mosaic promises problematic, his discussion on this point is, as always, stimulating.
59. The Chronicler’s primary version (1 Chron. 17) of the Davidic covenant is more unconditionally stated than it is in 2 Sam. 7. But elsewhere, the Chronicler incorporates expressions of the covenant that are clearly conditioned on obedience (1 Chron. 22:12–13; 28:7–10; 2 Chron. 6:16–17; 7:17–18). See Knoppers, “David’s Relation to Moses,” 101–6, 115–18. This may be explained partly by his overarching purpose of comforting the exiles with assurances of Yahweh’s continued blessing and enduring relationship with them.
60. For a helpful summary of the pitfalls of assuming a unified “Jewish expectation of a Messiah” in the first century, see Green, Beginning with Jesus, 20–26; Craig A. Evans, “Messianism,” Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 698–707.
61. N. T. Wright, The Way of the Lord: Christian Pilgrimage Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 53.
62. Ibid., 53–54.
1. McCarter, II Samuel, 251–52. On the achronological, thematic details, see Baruch Halpern, “The Construction of the Davidic State: An Exercise in Historiography,” in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, ed. V. Fritz and P. R. Davies (JSOTSup 228; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 54–55.
2. See the introduction and the critical commentaries in the bibliography for details.
3. For what follows, see Halpern, “Construction of the Davidic State,” 44–75.
4. Halpern even speculates that the specific display inscription this chapter is based on was referred to in the chapter itself (Halpern, “Construction of the Davidic State,” 70). This interpretation assumes a translation of v. 3 very different from the NIV: “David also struck down King Hadadezer son of Rehob of Zobah, as he went to restore his monument at the river Euphrates” (NRSV; cf. NEB, NJPS, and McCarter, II Samuel, 247–48). This aspect of Halpern’s theory remains speculative, but the overall connection with display inscriptions is impressive and supports his conclusion that much of the biblical material relating to the united monarchy comes from roughly contemporary sources.
5. Halpern, “Construction of the Davidic State,” 71.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 54.
8. Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:257.
9. See 1 Sam. 16:18; 18:12, 14, 28; 2 Sam. 3:1; 5:10; cf. 2 Sam. 7:3, 9.
10. Our text is marked by recurring verbs denoting military action. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 901–2.
11. Howard, “Philistines,” 231–50.
12. The NIV “Metheg Ammah” in 8:1 is controversial, since this expression is not known elsewhere as a place name. Several commentators assume it is an idiom indicating truce or possibly surrender (Yoshitaka Kobayashi, “Methegh-Ammah,” ABD, 4:800). Others assume it indicates that David exercises supremacy over the Philistines (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 131; Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:257).
13. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 347; Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 172. Similarly, David’s motivation for hamstringing the enemy’s horses is contested but may have had military roots. See Anderson, 2 Samuel, 132–33.
14. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:257.
15. Ibid., 255.
16. Malamat, “Political Look,” 191–97. For a slightly more nuanced approach based on a wide array of sociological factors, see Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Sociological and Biblical Views,” 78–105, esp. 90–105.
17. Malamat, “Political Look,” 195.
18. Ibid., 196.
19. Abraham Malamat, “Organs of Statecraft in the Israelite Monarchy,” BA 28 (1965): 34–65. Differences in this list compared to the one in 2 Sam. 20:23–26 may insinuate a continued role for kinship-based organization for local administration outside the capital early in David’s reign. But this changed after the north’s attempt to secede from David’s political union (ch. 20). See Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Sociological and Biblical Views,” 102–3.
20. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 293.
21. Halpern, “Construction of the Davidic State,” 54.
22. On a Christian response to war in general, see the Contemporary Significance section of 1 Sam. 4:1b–11.
23. Robert L. Hubbard Jr., “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:556–62, esp. 556.
24. On this chapter as an “editorial catalogue” placed immediately after the Davidic covenant chapter in order to conclude David’s rise and bring to fulfillment the promised “rest” of Deut. 12:9–10, see McCarter, II Samuel, 219, 251.
25. Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land, 39–40.
26. A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God, Their Meaning in the Christian Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 86–87.
1. Sometimes also known as the “Succession Narrative” or “Court Narrative”; see the introduction.
2. For a summary of the issues, see Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Succession Narrative (So-called),” Int 35 (1981): 383–96; Gunn, The Story of King David, 65–84. Gunn argues on the basis of plot (narrative thread) and style that 2 Sam. 2–4 may be connected to the narrative as its beginning. On the precarious nature of the consensus generally, see Harold O. Forshey, “Court Narrative (2 Samuel 9–1 Kings 2),” ABD, 1:1172–79.
3. R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964). More specifically than I have proposed here, Carlson argues for a Deuteronomic redaction that sees 2 Sam. 2–5 and 9–24 as the units illustrating first blessing and then curse. Though not convinced by the details of his argument, I believe there is considerable value in analyzing the materials in this book in contrasting parts revolving around the Bathsheba incident, as we will see.
4. On the extirpation of royal lines as attainder in the Old Testament (i.e., confiscation of property and elimination of direct descendants), see Baruch Halpern, “Sybil, or the Two Nations? Archaism, Kinship, Alienation, and the Elite Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the 8th–7th Centuries B.C.E.,” in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 293–95.
5. Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, IVP Bible Background Commentary, 336.
6. Alter, David Story, 240.
7. BDB, 338–39; HALOT, 1:336–37; DCH, 3:277–81. The concept has been defined generally as “a responsible keeping of faith with another with whom one is in a relationship” (Sakenfeld, Meaning of Ḥesed, 233). On the use of the term in the Old Testament in general, see the Bridging Contexts section for 1 Sam. 20:1–42.
8. Clark, The Word Ḥesed, 267.
9. It may also denote an oath to covenant kindness with Yahweh or God as witness. See BDB, 338, I.1; DCH, 3:279.
10. On the potential “calculated” motives of David, see Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, 241; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 143.
11. Impressive physical features confirmed the right of a new king to rule (1 Sam. 9:2; 10:23; 16:12). Thus, Mephibosheth’s debilitating condition make it unlikely he can mount a serious claim to the throne during a time of political instability and uncertainty.
12. The statement that “David can afford to be magnanimous” now that he is firmly established as the undisputed king misses the point (Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 916). The location of this text immediately after ch. 8 makes it clear that Jonathan’s words have come true only now that God has provided victory over all David’s enemies; this is therefore the time to show kindness.
13. See comments in the Original Meaning section of 2 Sam. 2:8–11.
14. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 848; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 69–70; esp. McCarter, II Samuel, 124–25, 128.
15. Werner Weinberg, “Language Consciousness in the OT,” ZAW 92 (1980): 201.
16. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 916–17; for a slightly different chiastic structure, see Kiyoshi K. Sacon, “A Study of the Literary Structure of ‘The Succession Narrative,’” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. Tomoo Ishida (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 48–49.
17. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 227. She notes that to restore the property of the previous regime to a member of its family was risky and held potential for future problems (see 2 Sam. 16:3).
18. Though this also made it possible for a reigning monarch to “keep an eye” on political prisoners. Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, IVP Bible Background Commentary, 336.
19. As we have seen, the events of David’s reign are not presented chronologically in the books of Samuel. I assume here that the events of 2 Sam. 21:7–8 occurred prior to this episode, which is the only way to make sense of David’s inquiry here in 9:1. For overview of the issues, see Gordon, I & II Samuel, 248.
20. His physical impairment may also have disqualified him (see comments at 4:4).
21. In fact, as we have seen, it was a risk to grant access to the royal palace and financial freedom to a grandson of Saul. It aroused the hopes that even Mephibosheth, crippled though he was, might someday take the throne from David for the sake of his grandfather (a possibility that comes into play later in the narrative, 2 Samuel 16:3).
22. Joe Seremane, “You Asked for My Hands,” in Celebrating One World: A Worship Resource on Social Justice, ed. Linda Jones, A. Shilson-Thomas, and B. Farrell ([London]: HarperCollins, [1998]), 136. Used by permission.
1. For example, some scholars theorize that the Bathsheba episode recorded here took place prior to Absalom’s revolt (chs. 15–19) or even that this war with the Ammonites occurred after David brought the ark into Jerusalem (6:1–19). J. W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2,” JBL 91 (1972): 172–81. For a different sequence, see Merrill, “The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” 107–12.
2. Alter muses that the narrator has “pulled out all the stops of his remarkable narrative art in order to achieve a brilliant realization of this crucially pivotal episode.” He especially notes the orchestration of a variety of literary features, including thematic key words, shifting play of dialogue, and the intricate relation between instructions and their execution. The narrative has cultivated ambiguities of motive “with a richness that scarcely has an equal in ancient narrative” (Alter, David Story, 249).
3. For similar assessment though different in several details, see Carlson, David, the Chosen King. Carlson views 2 Sam. 2–5 as “David under the Blessing” and 2 Sam. 9–24 as “David under the Curse.”
4. McCarter theorizes that Absalom’s revolt in chs. 15–20 may have actually occurred prior to the Bathsheba episode, in which case chs. 10–12 have been affixed to chs. 13–20 as “a kind of theological preface,” making the turmoil in the royal court recorded in 13–20 a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba (McCarter, II Samuel, 276).
5. It may have the function of marking a sequence of events internal to a particular individual’s reign. See Bailey, David in Love and War, 56–57; Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 41–42.
6. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 920 for full treatment of why chs. 10–12 should be taken together as a single unit.
7. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 178.
8. McCarter, II Samuel, 270, 273–74.
9. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 146–47.
10. The verb occurs 844 times in the Old Testament (BDB, 1018; for breakdown by derived stems, see HALOT, 4:1512–16). The references in these three chapters are 10:2, 3 (2×), 4, 5, 6, 7, 16; 11:1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (3×), 12, 14, 18, 22, 27; 12:1, 25, 27. Three of these occurrences are not observable in the NIV: In 10:6 of the NIV, the Ammonites “hired twenty thousand Aramean foot soldiers” whereas the Heb. says they “sent and hired” them; in 10:16, Hadadezer “sent and brought forth” Arameans (NIV, “Hadadezer had Arameans brought”); in 11:27, David “sent and brought” Bathsheba to his house (NIV, “David had her brought”).
11. Alter, David Story; 257, Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 279; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 920, 922, 941.
12. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 303.
13. For the locations of Beth Rehob, Maacah, and Tob, see Anderson, 2 Samuel, 147; McCarter, II Samuel, 271–72, and esp. McCarter’s map 6 on page 526.
14. Wayne T. Pitard, “Zobah,” ABD, 6:1108; see Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, Macmillan Bible Atlas, 67.
15. Abraham Malamat, “Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon,” JNES 22 (1963): 1–6; Wayne T. Pitard, Ancient Damascus (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 89–95.
16. Henry O. Thompson, “Helam,” ABD, 3:116–17.
17. David’s march to the Euphrates in 8:3 must have been part of this victory, making the final victories over the Arameans recorded in 8:3–8 the decisive battle. See McCarter, II Samuel, 274–75.
18. Contrast NJPS: “At the turn of the year, the season when kings go out [to battle] …”
19. “The month of March, named after Mars the Roman god of war, affords a parallel nearer home” (Gordon, I and II Samuel, 252).
20. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 190, 251; see also Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1985), 194.
21. McCarter, II Samuel, 284–85; Sternberg, Poetics, 194; note Sternberg’s two-part analysis of this verse instead of my three parts, 193–96. A fascinating alternative is to take seriously a textual variant ignored by most translations, which reads “the messengers” (or envoys) for “the kings,” referring to David’s original delegation sent to Hanun (10:1–2). If this is correct, David’s deployment of Joab against the Ammonites described in 11:1 comes approximately one year later, aptly timed as revenge for the envoys’ humiliation. See Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:50–51.
22. The Hebrew waw-consecutive with prefix verbs most often associates actions sequentially in time or consequentially in logic (Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, forthcoming], par. 3.5.2 a and b; Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 547–51; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. T. Muraoka; 2 vols. [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991–1993], 389–92). The verb “destroyed” is consequential in this verse; “besieged” is sequential. Hence: “David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel, and so they destroyed the Ammonites, and then they besieged Rabbah.”
23. Sternberg, Poetics, 195.
24. The literal meaning of the verb “remained” (yšb).
25. Word order also signals contrast here (Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 650–51). For the most sensitive translation, taking into account these specific features of 11:1, see Alter, David Story, 249–50.
26. For this quote and more on what follows here, see Sternberg, Poetics, 195. By means of this “thematic bridge of irony,” Sternberg says the narrator devises “an oblique and subtle exposure.”
27. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 231.
28. For this line, see Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 363–64. For the possibility that detail about David’s staying at home is part of an original source that is not incriminating but is seen by the compiler/editor of the court history to have ironic potential and is used to introduce the subsequent narrative, see McCarter, II Samuel, 285.
29. Sternberg, Poetics, 186.
30. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 76.
31. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 273.
32. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 152.
33. Occasionally someone suggests that Bathsheba is not entirely innocent for bathing publicly within plain view of the royal palace, and that she must bear a portion of the guilt. A. Schulz, Das zweite Buch Samuel (EHAT 8/2; Münster: Aschendorff, 1920), 114; Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 309. But such an approach raises a historical question of an intensely literary presentation, in which the blame is carefully and deliberately placed only on David. The narrator is uninterested in the possibility and simply defers the question, making it impossible for us to speculate about her motives. Even Hertzberg admits that our narrator “lays the blame squarely on the king’s shoulders” (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 310), which should make dubious all such speculation about Bathsheba’s motives. Rather, the narrative gives us “no real reason to assume that Bathsheba actually intended to be seen by the king” (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 153). If we insist on looking for historical explanations for Bathsheba’s actions, it is better to assume the heat of an unusually warm spring day in the late afternoon (the meaning of “evening” in v. 2) forces the woman to escape “the suffocatingly hot atmosphere of her house” (Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 929).
34. A phrase reserved in the Old Testament for people of striking physical appearance (Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 929).
35. Assuming the Eliam in 2 Sam. 23:34 is the same as Bathsheba’s father mentioned here, he was also one of David’s mighty warriors and the son of Ahithophel, one of David’s key advisers (16:23). It seems likely that Eliam had been with David since the dark days of his exile, or at least since the beginning of David’s Hebron kingship (R. C. Bailey, “Eliam,” ABD, 2:459–60). This is another example of David marrying into a politically influential family, and at the same time another example of taking a wife who had been married previously (Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 507–18). Uriah’s gentilic “the Hittite” does not necessarily imply he was either a foreigner or a mercenary, especially in light of his apparently Israelite name (ending as it does in the theophoric “-iah,” that is “-yah” for Yahweh). It seems more likely that his ancestors had migrated to Israel from one of the predominantly Aramean Neo-Hittite states of northern Syria, and perhaps converted to Israelite Yahwism (see McCarter, II Samuel, 285–86).
36. The irony is that David is the king who was content to be given the kingdom (2 Sam. 2–4), whereas now he seizes a wife by force. See David M. Gunn, “David and the Gift of the Kingdom,” Semeia 3 (1975): 14–45; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 273. See also the Original Meaning section for 1 Sam. 8:10–18.
37. For more on what follows in this paragraph, see McCarter, II Samuel, 286.
38. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 384; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 154.
39. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 188; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 154.
40. Some have speculated that Uriah has heard rumors among the court officials and is suspicious of David’s kindness (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 310). His refusal to see Bathsheba would be his only means of protection against a king who has wronged him. However, as with speculation about Bathsheba’s ulterior motives, the text has no interest in explaining Uriah’s actions as anything other than innocent loyalty. Uriah is a trusting servant of the king and is loyal to Yahweh’s causes, which throws David’s guilt into greater relief by contrast.
41. “Uriah the Hittite” occurs in 11:3, 6, 17, 21, 24; 12:9, 10 (and see also 23:39).
42. Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 102.
43. The phrase may have been a familiar soldier’s cliché, on the order of “every bullet has its billet” (Alter, David Story, 255).
44. The phrase appears also to be intentionally juxtaposed with 11:25, where the literal translation of David’s message to Joab is “let not this deed be evil in your eyes” (NIV, “Don’t let this upset you”). Verses 25 and 27 together show that “royal perceptions of reality are not congruent with Yahweh’s perception” (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 279).
45. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 927, and for a slightly more complex chiastic structure, see Sacon, “Literary Structure,” 42–44.
46. Others are 12:24 and 17:14. See Gerhard von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 198–201; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 256; McCarter, II Samuel, 298.
47. When Samuel began his ministry, the “word of the LORD” and prophetic visions had been rare (1 Sam. 3:1). But God established Samuel as a prophet and revealed himself to Samuel through his word at Shiloh (3:20–21).
48. This led early Jewish scholars to attribute these books to prophets, much of it to Samuel himself (b. B. Bat. 14b).
49. On the use of this word in our text, see comments on 10:1–5.
50. Remember that one of the roles of the king was to adjudicate legal cases and ensure justice in the land (2 Sam. 8:15; 1 Kings 3:16–28).
51. In the Old Testament, divine punishment normally mirrors precisely the sin being punished. So, for example, here David is guilty of committing “evil” (raʿ, v. 9) and God responds by raising “evil” (raʿah, v. 11) from David’s own house (NIV “calamity”). Similarly notice the words “evil” and “disaster” in 1 Kings 21:20–21 and Jer. 18:7–12 (all the same root in Heb.). So judgment and punishment in the Old Testament follow a sort of “poetic justice,” meaning the penalty inflicted on the sinner matches repayment in kind for the harm done in the offense. Like the lex talionis principle in the ancient Near East (“eye for eye,” “tooth for tooth”), the Old Testament uses a commensurate form of poetic justice through such wordplays. See Patrick D. Miller Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis (SBLMS 27; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982).
52. Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 57–59.
53. Many Hebrew manuscripts have a space in the text after the words, “I have sinned,” which some have suggested was intended to invite a cross reference to Ps. 51, considering it a commentary on this passage. Such correlating of poetry and narrative provides an early commentary on both. See Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 111; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 163.
54. Brueggemann has observed the way the entire narrative may be summarized in three phrases spoken by the leading characters, each phrase of only two words in Heb.: “I am pregnant” (11:5), “You are the man” (12:7), and “I have sinned against the LORD” (12:13) (First and Second Samuel, 282–83).
55. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 185. Compare also David’s “I have sinned greatly” in 24:10.
56. As we have seen throughout this commentary, historical narratives such as we have in the books of Samuel often illustrate implicitly truths taught explicitly elsewhere in Scripture. See the Bridging Contexts section.
57. The most common verb to express forgiveness in the Old Testament is slḥ (“forgive, pardon”) (HALOT, 2:757; BDB, 699). But biblical Hebrew also uses several powerful metaphors to connote various aspects of forgiveness, such as healing of disease (2 Chron. 7:14; Ps. 103:3), God’s not remembering (Jer. 31:34), God’s treading sin underfoot and casting sins into the depths of the sea (Mic. 7:19), cleansing from impurity (Jer. 33:8), and God’s wiping away or erasing sin (Ps. 51:2; Isa. 43:25). In Nathan’s phrase, he uses the Hiphil of a verb meaning (lit.) “to make pass by/over” (heʿ ebir), so that David’s sin has been put away, removed at a distance. Some scholars have thought the verb also implies David’s sin has been removed by being transferred to the newborn. But the metaphor may be spatial without requiring this interpretation.
58. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 373.
59. McCarter, II Samuel, 301. Compare NEB, “The LORD has laid on another the consequences of your sin.” But this is tempered somewhat by Ackroyd (Second Book of Samuel, 111).
60. As hinted by Anderson, 2 Samuel, 163.
61. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 190.
62. So NRSV. The NIV’s “he punishes” the children for the collocation paqad paqad ʿal, “visit [iniquities] upon [someone],” may miss the gracious aspect of this visitation. The expression presupposes the children are treated in accord with their own participation in the crimes of the parents. For an attempt to understand this credal expression in light of contradictory statements in Deut. 24:16 and Ezek. 18:4, see Peter Enns, Exodus (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 415–17.
63. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 259; on the difficulties some interpreters see here, see McCarter, II Samuel, 301–2. Theodore J. Lewis suggests this text contains a vestige of ancient death-cult practices. It is possible that David’s vigil in 12:15–24 intentionally imitated a person mourning the dead, and the narrator has used specific terminology reminiscent of “ritual descents” known elsewhere in Scripture and in Ugaritic literature. Thus David “was ritually acting out a descent into the underworld to try to bring his son back from the clutches of death” (Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 43–44).
64. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 948. Joyce Baldwin says this shows David is not fatalistic; rather, he responded as “a child hears the statement of a parent, who sometimes changes his mind about a punishment if the child behaves acceptably” (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 240).
65. McCarter, II Samuel, 302; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 162.
66. Thus, David is unsatisfied with his new royal palace, while “the ark of God remains in a tent” (7:2).
67. Not uncommon in the Old Testament, especially for kings, who occasionally have a personal name and a throne name (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 165). The name “Solomon” probably means “his replacement,” which means his parents see him as a replacement for his lost sibling. Symbolically, this comes to have powerful significance, since Solomon is also to become David’s replacement. See G. Gerleman, “Die Wurzel šlm,” ZAW 85 (1973): 1–14; J. J. Stamm, “Der Name des Königs Salomo,” TZ 16 (1960): 285–97.
68. Since the beginning of the siege (11:1), Bathsheba has given birth, conceived again, and given birth to Solomon (who, as we have seen, is actually the fourth son born to David and Bathsheba, 1 Chron. 3:5). It is unlikely that the siege of Rabbah lasted so long, which illustrates again the nonchronological nature of these narratives. The narrator has concluded the personal drama prior to recording the national victory over Rabbah, revealing the organizing principle of using the war materials as a framing device. “The tale’s principle of montage sacrifices chronology to structural-thematic considerations, and the narrator so manipulates the sequence as to introduce the victory only after bringing the personal story to an end” (Sternberg, Poetics, 196); see also Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:94–96.
69. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Crooked Man,” in The Works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (London: Longmeadow, 1981), 279–90.
70. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 272.
71. Ex. 20:17, 14, and 13 respectively. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 928.
72. Other passages helpful to correlate with our text are the entire unit Gen. 3–11 as well as Ps. 32 and 51 (the first commentaries on 2 Sam. 11–12); Hos. 2:2–13; and Rom. 1:18–3:20.
73. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 399–414, esp. 406. Thus the Day of Atonement, on which blood was sprinkled in the Most Holy Place and on the outer shrine (or “Tent of Meeting”) and was rubbed on the altar of burnt offering, was a “day of purgation” (Lev. 16). The blood purged the cultic space and furniture and reconsecrated the altar, so that in effect, the entire sanctuary was purged of accumulated pollution (Lev. 16:16, 17b, 19b). After the day of purgation, the tabernacle was clean of all pollution, making it possible for the people to continue in the land. See Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 392; idem, “The Graduated ḤAṬṬAʾṬ of Leviticus 5:1–13,” JAOS 103 (1983): 250–51; John H. Hayes, “Atonement in the Book of Leviticus,” Int 52 (1998): 5–15; Gary A. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” ABD, 5:870–86, esp. 879–80; Robin C. Cover, “Sin, Sinners (OT),” ABD, 6:34–36.
74. That is, the words taken alone might indicate only an acknowledgement that he has committed sin, without displaying repentance fully. Repentance involves confession, but also a turning away from sin and a returning unto God.
75. See comments on 1 Sam. 7:2–4 for details. The importance of the terminology is clear from its widespread use elsewhere in Old Testament prophetic literature (Hos. 14:1–2; Joel 2:12–13, frequently in Jer.).
76. This very fact is what upset the irascible Jonah, who got it all wrong (Jonah 4:1–3).
77. John S. Kselman, “Forgiveness (OT),” ABD, 2:831–33; J. P. J. Olivier, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:259–64. One is reminded of the New Testament’s rich variety of atonement images, suggesting that modern theologians do violence to the significance of Jesus’ death by limiting it to one interpretation. See Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 35–86.
78. For further illustration of the destructive consequences of our sin, see the illustration at the conclusion of the Contemporary Significance section for 2 Sam. 13–14.
79. Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1973).
80. Ibid., 13.
81. Ibid., 50, 74–93.
82. John Shelby Spong, Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 177–87.
83. For what follows, see John Leo, “A No-Fault Holocaust,” U. S. News & World Report (July 21, 1997), 14.
84. Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History, 99.
85. Stephen E. Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers: The U. S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, June 7, 1944–May 7, 1945 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 345.
86. As quoted in ibid., 346.
87. Ibid., 346–50.
88. “Idee zu einer allgemeinen Gesichte in weltburgerlicher Absicht” (1784), quoted in Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in The History of Ideas, ed. H. Hardy (London: J. Murray, 1990; repr., Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1997), v.
89. Augustine, Confessions 8.7 (Warner translation). Quoted in Merold Westphal, “Taking Suspicion Seriously: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism,” Faith and Philosophy 4 (1987): 33.
90. Simon Wiesenthal, The Sunflower (New York: Schocken, 1976). For the summary that follows, see Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 109–13.
91. Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace?, 110–11.
92. Ibid., 115.
93. John Bunyan, Pilgrim’s Progress (Chicago: Moody, [n.d.]), 28.
1. The extended narrative of chs. 13–20 flows from the initial judgment of David at 12:10, and the events described there represent threats to, or even reversals of, the vision of ch. 7. See Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 57–59.
2. McCarter, II Samuel, 350.
3. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 252.
4. It does not mark a completely new beginning but a new episode sharing something with the preceding. See Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 41; Bailey, David in Love and War, 56–57.
5. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 955, for other indications of the literary isolation of chapters 13–14.
6. For the meaning of the names, including Absalom’s, see Anderson, 2 Samuel, 173.
7. Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 41–42. The translation here is from Alter, David Story, 265. Cf. also Cotterell and Turner, who use 13:1–22 in order to illustrate the salient elements of discourse analysis (Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989], 248–53).
8. Except for the temporal phrase (“In the course of time”), the first and last word of chs. 13–14 is leʾabšalom (lit., “to Absalom”). Such a literary inclusio is another reason to read these two chapters together.
9. Or as Fokkelman has it, Amnon and Absalom prove to be “chips off the old block” (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:99).
10. Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 38.
11. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 250.
12. However, it is also possible her virgin status simply means she was carefully guarded and Amnon had no opportune moment to abuse her. See Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 121.
13. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 957.
14. Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 27.
15. As we will see, Amnon is heir to the throne, which means the politically ambitious Absalom has much to gain by killing him. It is possible that Jonadab is a coconspirator with Absalom, who is willing to sacrifice his sister Tamar in order to remove Amnon. See Andrew E. Hill, “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” JETS 30 (1987): 389.
16. Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 29; McCarter, II Samuel, 321–22. Each word in Amnon’s speech in v. 4 begins with an ʾalep followed by -o and -a sounds.
17. See Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 251–53; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 959–63.
18. Hebrew normally describes sexual relations that are approved by the community by other expressions (“know,” “go into,” etc.). See Williams, “
,” NIDOTTE, 4:101–2.
19. Trible, Texts of Terror, 37–63. Tamar’s panicked list of reasons for refusal appears to be a “structural allusion to Joseph and Potiphar’s wife,” which further characterizes Tamar as a woman of the highest moral rectitude. Alter, David Story, 268; idem, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 73.
20. The Piel of ʿnh is widely used in the Old Testament for rape or forced intercourse. See HALOT, 2:853; BDB, 776; Paul Wegner, “
” NIDOTTE, 3:450.
21. It is not at all clear whether in fact marriage would have been possible, or whether Tamar was desperately “grasping at straws” in an attempt to thwart Amnon’s advances. On the difficulties of her concluding statement, see McCarter, II Samuel, 323–24; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 175.
22. Alter, David Story, xxii–xxiii.
23. The translation is that of Alter, David Story, 269. The NIV coalesces three verbs into two and misses the pulsating intensity of the verbal succession, in which the object (Tamar!) is represented all three times as a pronominal suffix, first with a preposition, then directly on the verb, and finally with the direct object marker.
24. For more on the three verbs used to describe the rape, see Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:107.
25. The NIV’s “Come to bed with me” is lit., “Come, lie with me” (v. 11).
26. Or perhaps, more lit., “laid her.” See Trible, Texts of Terror, 46. This verb is used in the same way in Shechem’s rape of Dinah (Gen. 34:2). On that passage and the comparisons to ours, see Sternberg, Poetics, 446, 536–37.
27. “The nadir is thus characterized by an immense acceleration, suggesting how Amnon is conditioned merely to reach orgasm” (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:107).
28. Specifically, vv. 14b–15a. See Fokkelman, ibid., 1:99–102; Shimon Bar-Efrat, “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 (1980): 154–73, esp. 162–63. Fokkelman comments further that there are three links where the narrator explicitly mentions emotions: vv. 1–2, 14b–15a, and 21–22, connecting the key words, love and hatred (1:101–2).
29. McCarter, II Samuel, 324; Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 324.
30. McCarter, II Samuel, 324; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 382.
31. Perhaps this is also a literary echo of the use of this verb (šlḥ) in chs. 10–12, see Original Meaning section of that section.
32. Though McCarter offers an impressive argument that the phrase ketonet passim denotes “a long-sleeved gown” (McCarter, II Samuel, 325–26).
33. Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 34. There may have been more involved, though Baldwin assumes that tearing the robe after the bolting of the door to Amnon’s bedroom means “the door to marriage was bolted against her for life” (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 249).
34. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 401; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 264.
35. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 955.
36. Raymond Westbrook, “Punishments and Crimes,” ABD, 5:546–56, esp. 552.
37. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 327.
38. King Talmai’s daughter Maacah gave birth to Absalom during David’s rule in Hebron (2 Sam. 3:3; 1 Chron. 3:2). Amnon was firstborn, and Chileab (Kileab in NIV) plays no further role in the succession question. It is often assumed that Chileab died young. Geshur was a small kingdom left unconquered west of the half-tribe of Manasseh and north of Gilead (Josh. 12:5, 13:11; see Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, 61).
39. A difficult verse, but one that has been clarified by evidence from Qumran (see McCarter, II Samuel, 338, 344).
40. Gösta W. Ahlström, “Administration of the State in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” CANE, 1:598.
41. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 266.
42. Lars Axelsson, “Tekoa,” ABD, 6:343–44; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 187.
43. The origins for Israelite wisdom have been sought in a court “school” in Jerusalem, but also in the family and tribe. See Roland E. Murphy, “Wisdom in the OT,” ABD, 6:920–31, esp. 921; Gerald H. Wilson, “Wisdom,” NIDOTTE, 4:1276–85; idem, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:130–34. McCarter makes the interesting observation that there are three wise women in the books of Samuel, all of whom make eloquent speeches to achieve certain desired results: Abigail (1 Sam. 25:24–31), the wise woman of Abel Beth Maacah (2 Sam. 20:16–19), and the Tekoite woman here. See McCarter, II Samuel, 345. Mary Evans comments further: “There seems to have been no problem, theologically or otherwise, with accepting advice or teaching from a woman (cf. 2 Kgs. 22:14–20)” (1 and 2 Samuel, 200).
44. McCarter, II Samuel, 350.
45. When she twice refers to David as “an angel of God” (14:17, 20), she is probably using flattery to soften the blow of her other words (see 1 Sam. 29:9; 2 Sam. 19:27; Sternberg, Poetics, 90).
46. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 253.
47. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 335.
48. Cf. Isa. 53:9; 60:18; Ezek. 7:23; 45:9; Amos 3:10; Mic. 2:2; 6:12; Hab. 1:3; 2:8.
49. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 282.
50. Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace? 75–93; see esp. p. 83 for some of what follows.
51. See most notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993), 7–18.
52. Kenneth Ross, quoted in Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 15.
53. Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace? 79.
54. Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? 20.
55. Chris T. Zwingelberg, quoted in Illustrations for Preaching and Teaching from Leadership Journal, ed. C. B. Larson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 146.
1. Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 119.
2. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 987; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 202.
3. McCarter, II Samuel, 327.
4. Most prominent among them is that of Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 89. For variations of this chiastic structure for chs. 15–20, see Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:338–41; Sacon, “Literary Structure,” 31–38.
5. Again, following mostly Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 89.
6. Randall Bailey, David in Love and War, 56–57; Conroy, Absalom Absalom! 41–42.
7. In this literature, the name “Israel” may refer to the whole people or to the northern tribes. Many have speculated whether Absalom was aiming in these actions to raise support for his subversive actions particularly among the northern tribes and whether Judah was involved in the rebellion at all (Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 137). Most today believe Judah was involved from the beginning, making this a rebellion of national proportions. For the issues, see McCarter, II Samuel, 357–58.
8. In Gen. 31:20, Jacob “stole the heart” of Laban, which is translated by many modern translations as “deceived.” See NIV, NRSV, and NASB. The NJPS has “Jacob kept Laban the Aramean in the dark.”
9. “Heart” (lebab and leb) is the locus of a variety of emotions as well as of thought (HALOT, 2:513–16, esp. 514; DCH, 4:497–509, esp. 498; BDB, 523–25, esp. 524, # 9). The term often translated “soul” or “living being” (nepeš) can also serve as the seat of emotions (HALOT, 2:711–13, esp. 713, # 8; BDB, 660, # 6). The plural form “kidneys” and other words for innards may also serve as the seat of emotion and affection (kelayot, see HALOT, 2:479; DCH, 4:424–25; BDB, 480, # 2). Generally speaking, the Israelites associated emotions physiologically as follows: Anger was located in the head (esp. the nose and mouth), a range of emotions in the heart, and distress in the innards or liver. See Mark S. Smith, “The Heart and Innards in Israelite Emotional Expressions: Notes from Anthropology and Psychobiology,” JBL 117 (1998): 427–36, esp. 434.
10. Smith, Samuel, 340.
11. There are undoubtedly complex reasons that Absalom’s rebellion is so effective initially. One of the possible historical causes is the suggestion that David simply mismanages domestic affairs, and Absalom capitalizes on the king’s weaknesses (Gordon, I & II Samuel, 270; see further McCarter, II Samuel, 358–59).
12. McCarter, II Samuel, 356; see 1 Sam. 8:11; 1 Kings 1:5.
13. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 258. Ugaritic literature yields a remarkable parallel in Prince Yassib’s challenge to King Kirta. See Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1991), 205; for more bibliography, see Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, eds., Readings from the Ancient Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), text #2 (esp. pp. 94–95).
14. Does he naively envisage a bloodless revolution? Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 202.
15. We may assume that Ahithophel is Bathsheba’s grandfather and therefore needs no further motivation for joining the conspiracy. This association, however, must remain tentative since it assumes the identification of Eliam in 11:3 and the Eliam in 23:34 (Gordon, I and II Samuel, 272). On the name “Ahithophel,” see Anderson, 2 Samuel, 196; McCarter, II Samuel, 357.
16. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 995; see the J. A. Wharton quote on page 993 (from “A Plausible Tale: Story and Theology in II Samuel 9–20, I Kings 1–2,” Int 35 [1981]: 353).
17. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 203; McCarter, II Samuel, 360. Alter speculates that it was the “last house in the settled area beyond the walls of the city” (Alter, David Story, 286).
18. See 1 Sam. 30:14; 2 Sam. 8:18; 20:7, 23; 1 Kings 1:38, 44. They were likely of Aegean origin and settled in the southwest coasts of Palestine about the same time as the Philistines, though their precise relationship with the Philistines is unclear. See Carl S. Ehrlich, “Cherethites,” ABD, 1:898–99; idem, “Pelethites,” ABD, 5:219; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 219–22; McCarter, II Samuel, 256.
19. Note that Joab was commander of the army, while Benaiah was the commanding officer of the Kerethites and Pelethites (8:16, 18; 20:23).
20. Or, as Robert Gordon has eloquently put it, the portrait of David here is a “combination of the pious and the prudential,” which Gordon says further is typified in Neh. 4:9: “We prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night” (see Gordon, I and II Samuel, 274).
21. The “fords in the desert” are most likely well-known places along the west bank for crossing the Jordan Valley, and they serve here as specific locales for the exchange of information (see Anderson, 2 Samuel, 201).
22. In v. 37, Hushai is the “friend” of the king, which probably indicates he is a high-ranking royal official, perhaps a private counselor. See Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 122–23; McCarter, II Samuel, 372; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 205.
23. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 276.
24. That is, within the tribe of Benjamin, Shimei is from the same clan section or “family” as Saul’s house. On average, there appear to have been four or five such “families” per tribe during this period. See Halpern, “Sybil, or the Two Nations?” 295–96.
25. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 277.
26. The expression describing Ahithophel’s advice (“like that of one who inquires of God”) denotes the practice of priests who used the Urim and Thummim to discern Yahweh’s will. See comments at 1 Sam. 23:1–14; 30:7–25; 2 Sam. 2:1–4a; 5:17–25. David has consistently been the one in 1-2 Samuel to seek God’s will through proper channels. His enemies typically make up their minds prior to seeking God’s counsel or neglect to ask altogether. Absalom seems genuinely undecided and therefore particularly vulnerable to conflicting advice. Moreover, his need is related to military strategies, which implies his mind is set on rebellion against his father.
27. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 131–37.
28. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 213; McCarter, II Samuel, 384.
29. See the Bridging Contexts section for 1 Sam. 20:1–42; also comments at 2 Sam. 9:1–5.
30. Matitiahu Tsevat, “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel,” JSS 3 (1958): 237–43; Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 508. See also 1 Kings 2:13–25.
31. This first bit of advice also illustrates Ahithophel’s ruthless nature, since it advocates the breaking of the taboo against intercourse provided in the Torah (Lev. 18:7–8). Ancient Near Eastern custom has taken precedence over Torah stipulations (see Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 264).
32. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 276.
33. For Gerhard von Rad, this is one of three theologically explicit passages illuminating the succession narrative (G. von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 199–200). Youngblood has offered a fascinating theory on the use of the Heb. root “counsel, advise” in 16:23; 17:14; and 17:23 to show how the fortunes of Ahithophel rise to their zenith in 16:23 and then sink to their nadir in 17:23, with 17:14 as the turning point (“1, 2 Samuel,” 1011).
34. Lit., Yahweh “commanded” Ahithophel’s advice to become ineffectual. Compare NJPS, “The LORD had decreed that Ahithophel’s sound advice be nullified” (see also NRSV).
35. W. Harold Mare, “En-Rogel,” ABD, 2:503–4; see Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, 74, map #114.
36. D. G. Schley, “Bahurim,” ABD, 1:568; see map number 3 in McCarter, II Samuel, 523.
37. McCarter, II Samuel, 389.
38. Partly because Jabesh Gilead had been the location of Saul’s one shining victory (1 Sam. 11) and remained loyal to Saul ever since (1 Sam. 31:11–13).
39. McCarter, II Samuel, 395.
40. Our knowledge of ancient combat tactics is limited, but it appears that when a mobile force was needed, the strategy was to use three assault corps. See Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 252.
41. Henry O. Thompson, “Ephraim, Forest of,” ABD, 2:557; McCarter, II Samuel, 405; see McCarter’s map #7 on page 527.
42. The term “forest” in this context probably refers to “rough country with trees and scrub and uneven ground, dangerous terrain for both battle and flight” (Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 167). See also I. Cornelius, “
,” NIDOTTE, 2:492.
43. McCarter, II Samuel, 405.
44. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 318.
45. Alter, David Story, 265; or, as Conroy aptly says, “losing his mule Absalom has lost his kingdom” (Absalom Absalom! 60).
46. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:242.
47. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 319.
48. Josephus, Antiquities 7.239. See McCarter, II Samuel, 406, for further references and discussion.
49. There are other explanations, however, less graphic. See G. R. Driver, “Plurima Mortis Imago,” in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, eds. M. Ben-Horin, B. D. Weinryb, and S. Zeitlin (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 128–43, esp. 131.
50. For details of what follows, see McCarter, II Samuel, 410–11.
51. It is also possible that Joab simply wants someone he can rely on to report the outcome of the battle and the death of Absalom both as good news. Ahimaaz is too intimate with the details to be objective and would not report the death of Absalom as good news, as Joab wants. See McCarter, II Samuel, 408, for this possibility.
52. Second Sam. 18:33 is actually 19:1 in the Heb. text, leaving a one-verse difference between English translations and the Heb. throughout the chapter.
53. McCarter, II Samuel, 408, though it is possible that Ahimaaz suddenly loses his nerve when standing before David and chooses to let the Cushite break the news (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 322).
54. See Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 323.
55. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 283.
56. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 216.
57. The fact that Sheba’s rebellion held such potential is not missed by David (see 20:6) (see McCarter, II Samuel, 423).
58. The sequence of Shimei, Mephibosheth, and Barzillai roughly reverses the sequence of Zadok, Hushai, Ziba, and Shimei in 15:24–16:14. The pattern is symmetrical if Ziba stands for Mephibosheth and the supporter Barzillai stands for two supporters, Zadok and Hushai. For a different analysis, see Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1032; cf. Alter, David Story, 315.
59. We may speculate further about the prudence of forgiveness in this case. David is in need of the support of a local tribe such as Benjamin, and amnesty in that unstable situation will help him build more confidence and political leverage than punitive actions (see Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 220).
60. The evidence that this meeting most likely takes place subsequent to David’s return to Jerusalem (McCarter, II Samuel, 421; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 291) only highlights this narrator’s practice of arranging materials thematically instead of chronologically.
61. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 238.
62. Following some of the Greek manuscripts and Josephus’s interpretation. See Stephen G. Dempster, “Chimham,” ABD, 1:909. A dying David instructed Solomon to continue the favor he has shown to the sons of Barzillai at the palace (1 Kings 2:7).
63. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 287.
64. The connections between Absalom’s conspiracy and Sheba’s revolt may be more literary than historical. The extended narrative clearly associates the two thematically, though in time they may have been more separated from each other than the text indicates. See Gordon, I and II Samuel, 293; Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 223.
65. John Bright, A History of Israel, 205; Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 168–88; Meyers, “Kinship and Kingship,” 192–203.
66. The expression “happened to be there” emphasizes the opportunistic nature of Sheba’s actions. Alter creatively translates “And there chanced to be there …” (David Story, 321).
67. So NRSV and NJPS have “scoundrel.”
68. Frank Moore Cross and David N. Freedman, “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: 2 Samuel 22 = Psalm 18,” JBL 72 (1953): 22 note 6. Others believe it means “swallower,” based on an entirely different root, see D. Winton Thomas, “Beliyaʿal in the Old Testament,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J. N. Birdsall and R. W. Thomson (Freiburg/New York: Herder, 1963), 11–19. For other biblical references and summary, see Paul D. Wegner, “
,” NIDOTTE, 1:661–62.
69. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 330.
70. Ibid.
71. Tsevat, “Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy,” 237–43; Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 508. See 2 Sam. 3:6–7; 16:21–22; 1 Kings 2:13–25.
72. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 223.
73. He killed Abner (2 Sam. 3) and contributed to the deaths of Uriah and Absalom (2 Sam. 11; 18). His murder of Amasa here seems motivated by unmitigated selfish opportunism (Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 226).
74. McCarter, II Samuel, 431.
75. Amasa appears to have been David’s nephew and Joab’s cousin (see 2 Sam. 17:25; 1 Chron. 2:10–17); for discussion, see Richard D. Nelson, “Amasa,” ABD, 1:182.
76. McCarter, II Samuel, 431–32.
77. The site was just west of the city of Dan and was probably known simply as Abel, the rest of the name being descriptive. See Volkmar Fritz, “Abel-Beth-Maacah,” ABD, 1:10. See map in McCarter, II Samuel, map 8 on p. 528.
78. A subplot in the books of Samuel is the role played by women in David’s career. Mary J. Evans observes that this is consistent with the rest of the Old Testament. “Few women had leadership roles within Israel, but those who did (e.g., Deborah, Judg. 4–5; and Huldah, 2 Kgs. 22:14) were accepted without question. This woman had no problem in speaking on behalf of the town or in persuading the townspeople to act on her advice” (1 and 2 Samuel, 226).
79. McCarter, II Samuel, 345, 350–51.
80. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 331–33 (quote on p. 333).
81. McCarter, II Samuel, 435; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 297. Differences in this list compared to the one in 8:16–18 seem to suggest that a controlling authority was introduced after Absalom’s failed secession (note esp. the new position of minister of “forced labor”). The new authority is probably independent of the earlier kinship system. See Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Sociological and Biblical Views,” 102–3.
82. William Faulkner wrote a novel entitled Absalom, Absalom! (New York: Random House, 1936), and Lord Byron produced “Hebrew Melodies” in 1815.
83. For this confession see Ex. 34:6–7 and the several related texts: Num. 14:18–19; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2. As we have seen, “punishes” is an unfortunate translation in the NIV, for the idea is more that God “visits” the iniquity upon the children. They suffer consequences, which is not the same as suffering punishment.
84. Henri A. G. Blocher, “Sin,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 781–88, esp. 782; Robin C. Cover, “Sin, Sinners (OT),” ABD, 6:32.
85. Eugene Carpenter and Michael A. Grisanti, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:1000–1003.
86. Compare the NJPS translation of Gen. 31:20 for a similar idiom, “to keep [someone] in the dark.”
87. Suicide by hanging, betrayal of the Son of David, and the ascent of the Mount of Olives (see discussion of Matt. 27:5 at 2 Sam. 17:23). Possibly, the Gospel writers were intentional about these parallels, as suggested by Wharton, “A Plausible Tale,” 353.
88. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 272.
89. For more on this deliberate “antinomy” in 1-2 Samuel, see Philip Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 41–65.
90. Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849).
91. Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? 19.
92. De Trinitate 12.14, as quoted in Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? 19.
93. Tom Wright, The Way of the Lord: Christian Pilgrimage Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 39.
94. Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 58–59.
95. Ibid., 59.
96. Ibid., 60.
1. See our introduction; for summary of the issues, see Nelson, Historical Books, 67–70, and esp. note 2 on p. 179.
2. Note also the reference to God’s answering of prayer on behalf of the land as another inclusio for the unit (21:14 and 24:25). On this “double inclusio” see Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1051.
3. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1051. Or more succinctly, the outline of Richard Nelson: (A) famine story, (B) warriors, (C) psalm, (C′) poem, (B′) warriors, (A′) plague story (Historical Books, 58). See also Gordon, I and II Samuel, 45.
4. I use the terms “ring composition,” “chiasm,” and “concentric” synonymously, though to be precise, these are all separate patterns of structure characterized by symmetry but having slightly different connotations. See Shimon Bar-Efrat, “Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,” VT 30 (1980): 154–73. For 2 Sam. 21–24, Fokkelman further observes the “quantitative alternation,” by which he means that each genre is represented in a short and a long form: short story, short list, long poem followed by short poem, long list, and long story. See Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:12–13. On the symmetric structure in general, see further Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 193; Alter, David Story, 329; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 248; Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 282–83; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 442; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 335; David Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 237; Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 415–16; McCarter, II Samuel, 18–19; and Sternberg, Poetics, 40.
5. Smith, Samuel, 373.
6. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 45.
7. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 275.
8. In Fokkelman’s terminology, they establish a beginning, middle, and end of the books of Samuel (Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:11). See also Childs, Introduction, 272–73; J. W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup 139; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 19–40, 99–117; Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 31–36.
9. Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 43–47.
10. Review 1 Sam. 20; 2 Sam. 9:1–13.
11. For what follows, see Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 336–38.
12. Ibid., 337.
13. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 300–301.
14. For the text of the Hittite prayer, see the second prayer in Arnold and Beyer, Readings from The Ancient Near East, text #77; Gary Beckman, “Plague Prayers of Muršili II,” COS, 1.60:157–59. The significance of the parallel was first recognized by Abraham Malamat (“Doctrines of Causality in Hittite and Biblical Historiography: A Parallel,” VT 5 [1955]: 1–12), who also suggested the Hittites introduced historiography as a literary genre into the ancient Near East, which was brought to artistic perfection by the Israelites.
15. Malamat, “Doctrines of Causality,” 12.
16. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 299; see also McCarter, II Samuel, 444–45.
17. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1055.
18. Ronald F. Youngblood, “Giants, Heroes, Mighty Men,” NIDOTTE, 4:676–78; on the possibility of pituitary abnormalities as a cause of the Old Testament’s giantism and acromegaly, see Max Sussman, “Sickness and Disease,” ABD, 6:6–15, esp. 13.
20. But see our comments in the Original Meaning section for 11:1.
21. As supported by the parallel in 1 Chron. 20:5, without, however, “the weaver.” The second element of the patronymic (“Oregim”) is probably dittography, repeating a word from the end of the verse denoting “weaver.” For details on these problems, see McCarter, II Samuel, 449, who also takes “Jair” as “Jearite,” assuming it refers to Kiriath-jearim, which was closely associated with Bethlehem. See also Smith, Samuel, 378.
22. For details on this complicated issue, the reader should consult the technical commentaries.
23. For the most persuasive version of this argument, see McCarter, I Samuel, 291; II Samuel, 450; and Alter, David Story, 334. This interpretation has been taken up in a rather fascinating recent biography of David (Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography [Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000], 76).
24. The personal name occurs in 1 Sam. 17:4, 23. The NIV’s inclusion of the name “Goliath” in 17:8 is interpretive and not reflected in the Hebrew.
25. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 387.
26. Verses 4 and 23, though both are obscured by NIV (note NRSV’s “by name” in 17:23; see also NJPS at 17:4, 23).
27. In modern scholarship, this has become popular since the article of A. M. Honeyman, who argued that “David” was a throne name for an individual whose personal name was “Elhanan” (“The Evidence for Regnal Names Among the Hebrews,” JBL 67 [1948]: 13–25, esp. 23–24). See also Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 286; Gordon, I and II Samuel, 303.
28. The geography may also be problematic, since the conflict occurred near Socoh and Azekah, in the Valley of Elah, in 1 Sam. 17 and at Gob here, though the location of Gob is unknown.
29. The summary verse’s “they fell at the hands of David and his men” (21:22b) does not remove the awkwardness of the proposal.
30. “The Chronicler’s solution to the contradiction, therefore, was to invent a brother for Goliath. He then made up a name for him out of the word ‘Bethlehemite’ from 2 Sam. 21:19” (McKenzie, King David, 76).
31. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 466; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1060–61; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 449.
32. S. P. Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1997); J. W. Watts, Psalm and Story.
33. Nelson, Historical Books, 127.
34. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 393; Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 275.
35. McCarter, II Samuel, 473; see also Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 391–93.
36. Cross and Freedman, “A Royal Song,” 15.
37. Probably from the tenth century itself. See Cross and Freedman, “A Royal Song,” 20, 23; William F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 25. Most agree that Davidic authorship is not improbable (with few exceptions, e.g., Anderson, 2 Samuel, 261).
38. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 469.
39. For introduction, see David M. Howard Jr., “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 329–68, esp. 360–65.
40. A thanksgiving psalm may be called a todah (Heb. for “thanksgiving”), and these psalms frequently use the related verb (ydh), which may more accurately be translated “praise” than “give thanks.” See Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. K. R. Crim and R. N. Soulen (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 25–30. See comments below on verse 50.
41. Robert Alter, Art of Biblical Poetry, 32; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1065. On the impressive verbal and thematic links between this poem and Hannah’s prayer (1 Sam. 2:1–10), see J. W. Watts, Psalm and Story, 23–24.
42. Though Israel used the name without polytheistic ramifications. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods, 188–89; David Noel Freedman, “Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry,” in Magnalia Dei, The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller Jr. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976), 55–107; repr. in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 131–66, esp. 155–56.
43. Our word ṣur is also used in 23:3. The NIV’s “rock” in 22:2 translates a Hebrew synonym, selaʿ (“crag, cliff”). Interestingly, the use of “rock” (ṣur) is one of a handful of features used also in Hannah’s song, tying these two poetic sections together (1 Sam. 2:2): “There is no Rock like our God.”
44. See, e.g., Ex. 15:1; Num. 21:17; Deut. 31:30; Judg. 5:1, etc. See Peter Enns, Exodus (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 307–8.
45. One of the most noticeable differences between 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18 is the insertion of an additional sentence before this introduction in Ps. 18: “I love you, O LORD, my strength.”
46. See Original Meaning section for 1 Sam. 2:1–11.
47. Miller, The Divine Warrior, 74. See esp. Ex. 15; Deut. 33:2–5, 26–29; Josh. 10:12–13; Judg. 5; Ps. 68; Hab. 3:3–15, which like our psalm are early Israelite theophanies containing imagery and religious phenomena reflecting the early conceptions of Israelite faith, esp. the warrior character of Yahweh.
48. Ibid., 121–23.
49. A feature in the theory of holy war, which is also indicated by his riding upon the ark of the covenant as a war chariot in verse 11 (ibid., 122).
50. Ibid., 122, and for more on Yahweh in holy war generally, see Longman and Reid, God Is a Warrior, 31–47.
51. The language and imagery is reminiscent of the song of Moses after Yahweh’s deliverance at the Red Sea in Ex. 15 (see Gordon, I and II Samuel, 305; Enns, Exodus, 309).
52. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 288.
53. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 306–7.
54. Ibid., 307. Some have argued, in fact, that such monotheism was not present in Israel until the seventh century B.C., and therefore this is a later insertion into the psalm (see McCarter, II Samuel, 469). But such a conclusion is not necessary, since a “theology of exaltation” developed during the second millennium in the ancient Near East and moved in the direction of monotheism in certain contexts (see K. van der Toorn, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” CANE, 3:2056–57).
55. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 289.
56. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 344.
57. See discussion above on thanksgiving psalms. Westermann prefers to call this category of psalm-type a “narrative praise of the individual” (Westermann, Praise and Lament, 25–30).
58. The NIV translates yišʿi as “my Savior” in v. 47, but “my salvation” is better, leaving a translation “the rock of my salvation” (see NRSV, NKJV, ASV, NASB).
59. The other being Abishai’s speech in 2 Sam. 19:21.
60. The specific terminology of the last verse is that used of Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam. 7 and is probably an intentional intertextual reference (see McCarter, II Samuel, 472–73).
61. The term “descendants” is a singular collective noun (zarʿo) and is perhaps better translated “offspring” (NJPS) or “seed” (KJV, ASV).
62. Keil and Delitzsch, Samuel, 484.
63. Ibid., 458.
64. McCarter, II Samuel, 484–86; Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 400; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 234–37.
65. This last phrase is uncertain Hebrew. Compare the NRSV’s “the favorite of the Strong One of Israel,” which follows Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 236.
66. And consequently with the concluding verse of Hannah’s prayer (1 Sam. 2:10).
67. The now familiar “Rock” metaphor returns, again linking these two poems with Hannah’s prayer (1 Sam. 2:2).
68. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203.
69. See the Bridging Contexts section on 2 Sam. 7:1–29 for a description of the covenants generally. For the Noah covenant, see Gen. 9:16; for the Abraham covenant, see Gen. 17:7, 13, 19. In the case of the Mosaic covenant, at least the Sabbath is called an eternal covenant (Ex. 31:16; Lev. 24:8). Other occurrences of berit ʿolam are 1 Chron. 16:17; Ps. 105:10; Isa. 24:5; 55:3; 61:8; Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:26. Slight variations of the phrase occur as an everlasting covenant of salt (Num. 18:19) and an everlasting priesthood covenant (Num. 25:13). Such an “eternal” or “perpetual” covenant is not necessarily unconditional (see Matitiahu Tsevat, “Studies in the Book of Samuel, III,” HUCA 34 [1963]: 71–82, esp. 76–77; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 236).
70. For discussion of Ps. 89, see Bridging Contexts section on 2 Sam. 7:1–29.
71. For what follows, see Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 41–65, esp. 43–47.
72. Satterthwaite (ibid., 45–46) has carefully demonstrated how each of these themes from the poetic sections also runs throughout the main narratives of 1-2 Samuel.
73. Ibid., 47.
74. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 219–20.
75. They were likely of Aegean origin and settled in the southwest coasts of Palestine about the same time as the Philistines, though their precise relationship with the Philistines is unclear. See Carl S. Ehrlich, “Cherethites,” ABD, 1:898–99, idem, “Pelethites,” ABD, 5:219.
76. How the historian arrived at the number thirty-seven remains a mystery (see McCarter, II Samuel, 499).
77. For what follows, see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 230.
78. Ibid., 230; B. Mazar, “The Military Élite of King David,” VT 13 (1963): 310–20.
79. More extensive versions of these lists can be found in 1 Chron. 11 and 12. It seems logical to assume this list in 2 Samuel was current at the time of Uriah’s death, and the Chronicles version updates the list during the whole reign of David (see Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 241).
80. And possibly because they were well known within the main narratives of the books of Samuel.
81. McCarter, II Samuel, 496.
82. The Hiphil of nsk, as used in Gen. 35:14; Num. 28:7; and elsewhere. See Richard E. Averbeck, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:113–17, esp. 114.
83. The soldiers may have originally been listed in order of rank or geographical origins. But details are obscure to us in the present text (see McCarter, II Samuel, 500–501).
84. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 350.
85. It is possible to answer the question by reasoning that David’s census and a plague have occurred in sequence, and that David (and the author) simply assume a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. But such a historical explanation is not the same as interpreting a biblical text. The fact is that the narrative simply creates a gap it has no intention of filling (Nelson, Historical Books, 49; see 45–63 generally, where Nelson uses 2 Sam. 24 as a test case to introduce various critical methodologies).
86. Censuses were used for purposes of taxation and military conscription. This text seems concerned with military conscription, which is contrary to ancient Israel’s reliance on voluntary militia (see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 227).
87. Thus, “the Lord through Satan ‘incited’ David” (Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1096). John H. Sailhamer’s attempt to explain the Chronicles passage as midrashic commentary on the Samuel text is fascinating and instructive (“1 Chronicles 21:1—A Study in Inter-Biblical Interpretation,” in Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 298–311; repr. from TrinJ 10 [1989]: 33–48). For critique, see Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1095–96.
88. Gordon, I and II Samuel, 317.
89. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 352.
90. Note the Chronicler routinely uses “Ornan” for Araunah (see KJV, ASV, NAS, NRSV and NJPS, though obscured in NIV). For more on the name, see Richard D. Nelson, “Araunah,” ABD, 1:353.
91. This suggests that Araunah’s threshing floor already had sacred traditions associated with it. See Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 354; Mark D. Futato, “
,” NIDOTTE, 1:893–94; McCarter, II Samuel, 511–12.
92. The NRSV’s “when Araunah looked down …” in v. 20 seems implied by the Hebrew. See Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 297.
93. It seems likely that the narrator in 2 Samuel assumes knowledge of this connection to Solomon’s temple (Gordon, I and II Samuel, 317).
94. It seems likely that David had selected the temple site, amassed significant material and human resources, and was well on his way to building the temple (as in the parallel Chronicles accounts). This census may have been preparatory to taxing the population in order to complete the project. But the plague coincided with the census and was naturally interpreted as God’s punishment, thus forcing David to leave the last of his goals to Solomon. See Meyers, “David As Temple Builder,” 357–76, esp. 370–72.
95. Coinage was invented three centuries after these events, in the seventh century B.C. However, for the purposes of trade and commerce, it is probable that there were fixed weights of silver and/or gold much earlier. This price of fifty silver shekels is modest compared to the Chronicler’s version of the account, where David paid six hundred shekels of gold for “the site,” referring perhaps to a much larger area (1 Chron. 21:25). Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 1103; Marvin A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” OEANE, 5:339–42.
96. Nelson, Historical Books, 63.
97. The occurrence of “God/the LORD answered prayer in behalf of the land” in 21:14 and 24:25 is a clear editorial link between the two narratives, as is apparently the “again” in 24:1.
98. There is, however, no agreement about the precise relationship between chs. 21–24 and the rest of Samuel. Brueggemann proposes a “suspicious reading” that sees chs. 21–24 as “deliberately intended as a protest against the preceding ‘official’ portrayal of David.” These chapters, in his view, counter the royal ideology established elsewhere in the book and criticize especially David’s abuses of power (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 336–339; idem, “2 Samuel 21–24: An Appendix of Deconstruction?” CBQ 50 [1988], 383–97). By contrast, see J. W. Watts, Psalm and Story, 116–17, and the approach taken here.
99. See again the Original Meaning section for 23:1–7, where I summarize the four points of Philip Satterthwaite. These four chapters, and indeed all of 1-2 Samuel, express this messianic ideal with a certain tension between the promised ideal and the unsatisfactory present (David’s shortcomings), which is everywhere acknowledged in the books of Samuel. This leads Satterthwaite to speak of a “deliberately emphasised antinomy” in the books (Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 65). David’s history is less than ideal, but the promise of a dynasty remains in force.
100. Review the Bridging Contexts section for 2 Sam. 5–6 and the bibliography there.
101. See the Bridging Contexts section for 2 Sam. 7.
102. For the promises of the Davidic covenant, see Original Meaning section for 2 Sam. 7:4–17.
103. The imagery of “marking contours” comes from Satterthwaite, who asserts that the books of Samuel mark out the contours of a tension between the ideal King David and the flawed King David (his “deliberately emphasised antinomy”). See Satterthwaite, “David in the Books of Samuel,” 64–65.
104. See Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 349–68.
105. Following Isa. 9:7 and Dan. 7:14, Luke foresees a single ruler in an everlasting kingship rather than an enduring dynasty as promised in 2 Sam. 7. This is the result of an eschatological convergence of David’s reign with the definitive, everlasting dominion of Yahweh. See Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology (JSNTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 88–89.
106. See also Acts 7:46; 13:22–23.
107. Elsewhere in the New Testament, see also John 7:41–44; Rev. 5:5–6; 22:16. For more details, see Mark L. Strauss, “David,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 441–43.
108. See, e.g., Ps. 2; 18:50; 45:6, 16–17; 72; 89; 132:10–12, 17; Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:21–23; Hag. 2:21–22; Zech. 3:8–10; 12:10–13:1; 4 Ezra 12:31–32; Psalms of Solomon 17–18; 1QM 11:1–18; 4QFlor 1:11–14; 4QTest 9–13.
109. Nicol Macnicol, as quoted by Lesslie Newbigin, The Finality of Christ (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1969), 65.
110. Newbigin, Finality of Christ, 65.
111. For this discussion of Augustine and Aristotle, see Emile Cailliet, Journey into Light (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 34–35.
112. Newbigin, Finality of Christ, 115.