2 SAMUEL

Winfred O. Neely

See the Introduction to 1 and 2 Samuel at the beginning of 1 Samuel on p. 375.

1:1. In the Hebrew Bible there is no break between 1 and 2 Samuel. The opening words of 2 Samuel, however, indicate the beginning of a new era in David’s life: Now it came about after the death of Saul. From now on, the narrative would include events relating to David himself. Second Samuel 1 is a transitional chapter that fills in the details of Saul’s demise and David’s rise to the throne. As Peterson points out, the reader should be prepared to cheer for the death of Saul and the rise of David. But the story will not permit it, because even though David’s archenemy was dead, he did not rejoice (Peterson, First and Second Samuel, 39–41). The king of Israel was dead, and David was wracked with grief.

1:2–3. After David slaughtered the Amalekites, David had returned to Ziklag (see the comments on 1Sm 27:5–6 for its location). Three days later he received a visitor from Mount Gilboa, Saul’s camp. This visitor traveled about 85 miles southwest to Ziklag. With all the trapping of grief, he attempted to get David’s approval by falling down to the ground and paying homage to David. David was unaware of the outcome of the battle between Israel and the Philistines.

1:4–10. The young man explained to David how he knew of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (v. 4). An Amalekite (and thus a member of Israel’s enemy, v. 8), the young man came across Saul on the battlefield and saw that Saul’s attempted suicide did not work. Therefore at Saul’s behest, the Amalekite assisted Saul with his last wishes. As evidence of his claim the Amalekite showed David Saul’s crown and bracelet (v. 10).

However, the Amalekite’s account contradicted the narrative account in 1Sm 31. The text is indicating that the Amalekite was lying. True, he took Saul’s crown and waistband to prove his story. But he lied about having killed Saul in an attempt to win David’s favor. Other commentators believe the Amalekite was telling the truth because of the believability of his conversation with Saul, his eyewitness account, and that he had Saul’s personal items (see Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 287, for a cogent discussion of this view). In Bergen’s view, "Saul had been ordered to kill the Amalekites [cf. 1Sm 15:3]—now he ordered an Amalekite to kill him" (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 287). Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the omniscient narrator was mistaken in recording the details of Saul’s death (1Sm 31). More likely, this Amalekite, in his attempt to curry favor with David, did not anticipate David’s gracious heart toward Saul and was unaware of David’s commitment that no one was ever to raise a hand against the Lord’s anointed. Hence, the Amalekite lied and would pay for it with his life.

1:11–12. David and his men did not rejoice when they learned of Saul’s death. Instead, they tore their clothes, a sign of grief and pain, and mourned and wept and fasted. David’s grief was an expression of his godly character.

1:13–16. When David asked the Amalekite, Where are you from? he said he was the son of an alien, that is, he was the son of a foreigner living in Israel. Thus he should have had an appreciation for Saul, although Brueggemann says the man was ignorant of Saul’s "religious legitimacy" (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 212). But in David’s mind, no excuse justified the Amalekite’s actions. He should have known better than to kill the Lord’s anointed, as David had steadfastly refused to do. Despite the untruthfulness of his account, his own lips condemned him, and so David had him executed (vv. 15–16).

1:17–18. David responded to the deaths of Saul and Jonathan by chanting a lament (lit., "lamenting this lament"). A lament was a bereavement poem, a poetic and structured expression of sorrow using thoughtfully chosen words composed for mourning at a person’s funeral, or because of tragic events (cf. Lm 1–5), or at the anniversary of a person’s death (cf. 2Ch 35:25–26). David instructed his men to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow. Perhaps he gave the lament this title because an archer had gravely wounded Saul on Mount Gilboa. The book of Jashar was a book/scroll that contained the record of events in the life of Israel (cf. Jos 10:13). The book of Jashur is not extant, but it was in existence at the time of the writing of 1 and 2 Samuel and may have been one of the sources the narrator used under the superintending of the Holy Spirit. David’s lament is the second poem in Samuel. The first one was Hannah’s song, composed in joy (cf. 1Sm 2:1–10); the second is David’s lament, composed in sorrow.

1:19. Verses 19–27 are the lyrics of the lament itself. The theme is how have the mighty fallen! This refrain occurs twice, at the beginning and ending of the lament (vv. 19, 27). David used the word mighty five times and the verb form of mighty once (stronger, v. 23). The refrain is enlarged in v. 25 to the words How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! in relation to Jonathan. David mentioned both Saul and Jonathan four times in the poem (Saul in vv. 21d, 22c, 23a, 24a; and Jonathan in 22b, 23a, 25b, 26a). Verse 19 is the introduction and v. 27 is the conclusion. The body of the poem has five stanzas: stanza 1 (v. 20); stanza 2 (v. 21); stanza 3 (vv. 22–23); stanza 4 (v. 24); and stanza 5 (vv. 25–26). David opened the lament by referring to Saul and Jonathan as the beauty of Israel.

1:20. Gath and Ashkelon were Philistine cities, representing the whole land of the Philistines. No one in Israel should utter a word in Gath or Ashkelon about the deaths of Saul and Jonathan.

1:21. In stanza 2, David addressed Mount Gilboa. Since Saul and Jonathan’s blood was spilled on her, David called down a poetic curse on the mountain: Let not dew or rain be on you.

1:22–23. Stanza 3 is the poem’s central stanza. Here David eulogized the courage of Saul and Jonathan in battle and their commitment to each other in life and in death.

1:24. In the fourth stanza David addressed the daughters of Israel, charging them to weep for Saul. Weeping over loss was appropriate.

1:25–26. In v. 26 of the fifth stanza, David addressed Jonathan himself. He felt deeply the loss of his friend. Some people today misconstrue the following words of David about Jonathan: Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women. David’s words do not imply a homosexual relationship between himself and Jonathan. Homosexual practice was condemned in the strongest terms in the OT. Since David was a man after the Lord’s own heart, homosexual practice between two godly men like David and Jonathan is inconceivable, and cannot be justified biblically. The love that David mentioned was the love of covenant friendship. In the ancient world a man’s closest confidants were other men, but this does not indicate any kind of sexual relationship.

1:27. In a powerful metaphor David spoke of Saul and Jonathan as weapons of war. In spite of Saul’s many attempts to kill David, David did not mention any of that in his lament. David’s lament shows the need not to be vindictive in the loss of an enemy but to be reflective and thoughtful about grief when one of God’s anointed, even a failed one, dies.

2:1–2. David sought the Lord Himself about his next steps. God told David to go to Judah, but He did not specify where in Judah, so David asked God for specifics. David is an example of a believer being specific in his prayer life. The Lord directed David to leave Ziklag and go northeast to Hebron. Hebron was a city in Judah’s hill country 20 miles south of Jerusalem, about three thousand feet in elevation, a city of great historical significance in Israel (cf. Gn 23:19; 25:9–10; 49:29–33; 49:31–33; Nm 35:6; Jos 21:7–9; Jdg 1:20). According to Baldwin, "Hebron, with its importance in the Abraham narratives and its associations as the burial-place of the patriarchs, was the most distinguished of Judah’s cities" (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 183), a fitting place for David’s second anointing as king of Israel. The name Hebron signifies "community, fellowship."

2:3–4a. David’s men and their households (i.e., their wives and children) may have numbered well over a thousand. They settled in the villages surrounding Hebron, which became the seat of David’s government over Judah. David was a theocratic king, ruling as the Lord’s representative.

2:4b–5. David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh-gilead (for its location, see 1Sm 11:1–4), commending them for the kindness they had shown to Saul. When they risked their own lives to retrieve Saul’s body, treated his corpse with respect, and provided him with a decent burial, they showed covenant fidelity and commitment as well as gratitude for Saul’s previous deliverance of their city.

2:6–7. Truth in v. 6 means "faithfulness," "reliability," "trustworthy behavior" in the context of covenant obligations. The Lord is trustworthy and faithful, and so David wanted the Lord to show lovingkindness and truth to the men of Jabesh-gilead for having buried Saul. Lovingkindness (chesed) and truth (emet) are the twin virtues of the OT (cf. Pss 40:11; 57:3; 61:7), much like grace and truth in the NT. David challenged the men of Jabesh to be strong and valiant (lit., be "sons of valor") for two reasons: Saul, their master, was dead and Judah had anointed David king over Judah. Strength was required to deal with the loss of Saul, and to adjust to the new divinely selected royal administration in Judah in the hands of David.

2:8–9. Abner was first introduced in the narrative as the captain, or commander, of Saul’s army (1Sm 14:50), and his status is repeated in v. 8. Merrill says that with the death of Saul, Abner was the true "power behind the throne" and David’s real rival in the north (Merrill, "2 Samuel," 458). Abner was in charge of what remained of Saul’s regime. Apparently Ish-bosheth, one of Saul’s sons, did not participate in the battle of Gilboa. Since he did not lose his life in that battle, Abner made him king. There was no prayer here; no inquiring after the Lord. The name "Ish-bosheth" means "man of shame." Abner took this "man of shame" and made him king. Sinful and rebellious decisions are not only morally wrong; they are stupid. Abner’s quest was an attempt to hold on to power God did not intend him to have, and it was an act of rebellion against the Lord.

2:10–11. The two years of Ish-bosheth’s reign may have coincided with the last two years of David’s reign in Hebron over Judah, which lasted for seven-and-a-half years. For reasons that the text does not state, the Lord did not grant David the entire kingdom of Israel immediately. It is evident that there was still some loyalty to Saul in the north, and perhaps this delay in receiving the entire kingdom was another preparation of David for his later reign as king over all of Israel.

2:12–15. Civil war soon began between David’s men and Saul’s men. The pool of Gibeon (v. 13) was a well known pool in the region. Abner suggested that young men engage in a contest, with 12 from each side (v. 15). The purpose of limiting the battle to 12 men was in the interest of reducing bloodshed in a battle that determined who would rule over Israel and Judah. Joab, however, did not have the authority to make such a decision, but he accepted Abner’s challenge.

2:16–17. The outcome of the contest was inconclusive, which made a full battle inevitable. The place was given a name for what happened there, Helkath-hazzurim, meaning "the field of sword edges." Instead of reducing casualties, the twenty-four-man contest became a fierce full-scale battle, which Abner and his men lost.

2:18. David’s sister Zeruiah (cf. 1Ch 2:16) had three sons, Joab and Abishai and Asahel. Asahel was as swift-footed as one of the gazelles which is in the field. Gazelles were known for their incredible speed, especially when fleeing predators. Asahel had a sprinter’s speed combined with a distance runner’s endurance.

2:19–22. Abner, Saul’s army commander, retreated, running for safety after his defeat by Joab and the army of David (v. 19). Asahel, however, pursued Abner, hoping that by executing him he could end the conflict between David and the house of Saul, and David would become king over all Israel. Asahel was a sprinter, but he was no match for the experienced Abner in close combat. Knowing he could defeat Asahel, Abner used four imperatives to convince Asahel to pursue someone he could handle in a fight: turn … take hold of one of the young men … take for yourself, and turn aside (vv. 20–21). Abner did not want to have Asahel’s shed blood to be between him and Joab.

2:23. But Asahel did not listen. Abner’s use of his spear’s butt suggests that he was running away from Asahel. When Abner suddenly stopped, Asahel did not have time to slow down so he ran right into the spear. The use of Asahel’s own speed, combined with Abner’s skillful thrust, resulted in the spear piercing Asahel and coming out through his back.

2:24. Even though they did not have the speed of their slain brother, Joab and Abishai pursued Abner. As the sun was going down, they reached the hill of Ammah, near Gibeon, about five miles northeast of Jerusalem.

2:25–26. In a show of support, the sons of Benjamin gathered together behind Abner. From his position of superior strength, Abner asked Joab three questions designed to get him to call off the pursuit.

2:27–29. Joab basically said to Abner, "You started this fight. Had you not given us a challenge at the pool of Gibeon, none of today’s events would have occurred." Then Joab blew his trumpet, signaling that it was time to end the fighting. The words nor did they continue to fight anymore (v. 28) do not mean hostilities between David and Saul’s family ended. War continued for some time between them (cf. 3:1), but they did not fight any more on this occasion. Abner and his men crossed over to the east side of the Jordan River. In great physical condition, they marched all … night and all morning of the next day (v. 29). It was safer to march at night under the cloak of darkness.

2:30–32. Nineteen of David’s men had died, but 360 of Abner’s men died in this conflict. Asahel was buried … in Bethlehem, his ancestral home.

3:1. The two years of Ish-bosheth’s reign do not seem to fit the description of the war as long. The war in all likelihood was going on before Abner made Ish-bosheth king over Israel. Still, David was becoming stronger and Saul’s house became weaker.

3:2–5. David’s first six sons were born in Hebron. They are listed by name and birth order along with their mothers’ identification. This record may be included here to show David’s involvement in marriage alliances with foreign powers (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 90). In addition, the birth of so many sons was a way of demonstrating the statement that the house of David … grew steadily stronger (v. 1). David’s second son Chileab is only mentioned here. He may have died fairly young because he is not mentioned at all during the tumultuous times in David’s family in chaps. 13–19. One of David’s wives, Absalom’s mother, was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. Since she was a Gentile, this marriage was probably political. Her relationship to the Lord is not mentioned, but it is unlikely that David married an idolater.

3:6. David’s growth resulted from the Lord’s blessing, but Abner’s growth was because of his own efforts. Abner was the most powerful man in Israel outside of Judah. Hence, the next few verses explain what he did.

3:7–8. Rizpah was Saul’s concubine. A concubine did not have the same status as a wife, but she did have some rights. The relationship was legally binding. (Rizpah is mentioned again in 21:8–11.) Ish-bosheth accused Abner of having sexual relations with Saul’s concubine, an accusation that the text does not deny or affirm (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 307). It was a serious charge, because to have a sexual relationship with a king’s concubine was a back-door claim to the throne. When Ish-bosheth accused Abner of treason, the accusation angered Abner. He questioned Ish-bosheth, employing a biting metaphor, Am I a dog’s head that belongs to Judah? Laney renders the question as, "Am I a contemptible traitor?" (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 91), which is plausible given the heated rivalry between Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Dogs were despised in Israel and considered unclean. To refer to a person as a dog’s head was a stinging insult. In accusing Abner, Ish-bosheth was making the unfounded charge that Abner was a treacherous dog from Judah.

3:9–11. Motivated by his anger toward Ish-bosheth, Abner, the most powerful man in Saul’s house, said he would take steps to establish David’s throne over all Israel, from the northern extremity, Dan, to the southern extremity, Beersheba.

3:12–13. Abner sent word to David to make a covenant with him. David agreed to do so, provided Abner brought with him David’s wife, Michal. This gesture restored David’s lawful wife to him and signified Abner’s sincerity of effort to transfer the kingdom of all Israel to David.

3:14. David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, demanding his wife’s return, reminding Ish-bosheth of the dowry he gave to his father Saul for her. Saul had asked for one hundred Philistine foreskins, but David gave him two hundred (cf. 1Sm 18:25–27).

3:15–16. Michal had remarried, but her union with Paltiel came to a tragic end. Paltiel did not have the power to resist Abner, and Michal had no say in the matter. Her husband Paltiel accompanied her part of the way, weeping. This painful situation was the result of another of Saul’s bad decisions.

3:17–19. Wisely, Abner consulted Israel’s elders before he went to meet David in Hebron with Michal. Abner indicated that at some time in the past, at least a faction in Israel wanted David to be their king. Anderson suggests this may have been after Saul’s death, and David was wanted because of his military exploits (A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989], 59–60). Abner presented his counsel as the plan of God, not just a good political move (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 59–60).

3:20–21. In ancient Israel a feast in connection with a covenant was prepared for honored guests. Preparing the feast and participating in the meal were expressions of covenant commitments and goodwill on the part of the participants. Under the circumstances of peaceful reconciliation, David sent Abner away.

3:22–25. Returning from a raid, Joab voiced his disapproval of Abner’s visit to David, fearing that Abner was using the occasion to spy on David. David did not answer Joab’s accusation of spying by Abner, but Joab took matters into his own hands.

3:26–27. The well of Sirah was near Hebron. Unknown to David, Joab called Abner back, so Abner returned to Hebron. Since reconciliation and peace had been established between Abner and David, Abner was not expecting violence. In the gate complex Joab stabbed Abner in the belly, similar to how Abner killed Joab’s brother, Asahel (cf. 2:23). Joab did this on account of the blood of Asahel his brother. In violation of God’s Word, Joab murdered Abner in Hebron, which had been designated as a city of refuge in Joshua’s day (cf. Jos 21:13). A city of refuge was a place where a person in Israel who killed someone without malicious intent was able to flee and be safe from revenge by the dead person’s family. Joab ignored this law by killing Abner to avenge the death of his brother Asahel. Asahel was killed in battle, and should not have been avenged in the first place.

3:28. Hearing of Joab’s murder of Abner, David declared that he and his kingdom were innocent before the Lord of Abner’s blood. The words the blood of Abner signify that Abner’s life was violently taken. Without David’s knowledge, much less his approval, Joab murdered Abner.

3:29. Then David called down a curse of retribution on the head of Joab and his descendants. David was speaking as the agent of God’s righteous judgment on Joab for his guilt, not in personal anger of petty vengeance. Brueggemann believes the narrator was "at great pains" with this matter because "bloodguilt" had now come close to David (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 229). The curse included affliction with infectious skin diseases, needing crutches because of severe weakness, death in battle for many of Joab’s house, and intense poverty (lacks bread).

3:30. Joab’s brother, Abishai, is mentioned in this verse because he was involved with Joab in Abner’s murder, although Joab bore the main responsibility.

3:31–39. David commanded Joab and his men to mourn for Abner: to tear their clothes, to wear sackcloth, and to lament. David walked behind the bier (v. 31), a hand-carried cart for transporting a dead body to a burial site. In ancient Israel when a person died, he was buried almost immediately, usually the same day. Natural openings in rocks served as graves. The king took the lead role in Abner’s funeral; he walked behind the bier in the procession to the gravesite, he wept at Abner’s grave (v. 32), he composed a lament for the occasion (v. 33), and called down a curse on himself if he ate anything before sundown (v. 35). The people observed David’s grief and correctly concluded that David was not involved in Abner’s murder (vv. 36–37).

4:1–3. The news of Abner’s death reached Ish-bosheth and he lost courage (lit., "his hands fell" or "dropped"). This physical gesture showed his loss of courage. Without a leader, all Israel was alarmed. Ish-bosheth knew he could not maintain his position without Abner, the narrator showed how quickly any remaining opposition to David’s reign faded away (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 192). At some point in their history, the Beerothites fled to Gittaim (v. 3). The flight may have occurred earlier, or it may have resulted from as a result of David’s determination to avenge the murder of Ish-bosheth (vv. 9–12). This parenthetical note may have been included to underscore the treachery of the assassins, who were from Saul’s tribe of Benjamin and would be expected to be loyal to his house (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 337).

4:4. A nurse was someone who provided care for young children when their parents were deceased or unavailable. Sometimes the service was rendered for the parents. Since the nurse was a woman, it is likely that she also breast-fed him. Hearing of Saul’s death, his nurse picked the boy up to run, and in her haste she dropped him and he became crippled in both feet so that he could never walk again. The boy’s name was Mephibosheth, which means "exterminator, dispeller of shame." By inserting this parenthetical detail, the author provided information on Mephibosheth that would be needed later (Peterson, First and Second Samuel, 154).

4:5–6. Rechab and Baanah entered Ish-bosheth’s house, pretending to get wheat. They went there in the heat of the day, that is, when the sun was at its zenith, the hottest part of the day (v. 5) when they apparently knew Ish-bosheth would be taking his midday rest (v. 5). This statement also had cultural implications, for unless it was an emergency it was inappropriate to disturb someone during these hours—especially someone purported to be king. They murdered Ish-bosheth, stabbing him in the belly (v. 6; Asahel and Abner died of the same wound), a blow which, combined with decapitation (v. 7), was designed to bring about a quick and certain death (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 316).

4:7. More details were given on how the assassination was accomplished; Ish-bosheth was on his bed, completely unsuspecting and off-guard. The assassins then carried his head to David, hoping—like the Amalekite in chap. 1—to receive a handsome reward.

4:8–12. The assassins showed David Ish-bosheth’s head and voiced words that must have angered David greatly: thus the Lord has given my lord the king vengeance this day on Saul and his descendants (v. 8). But they were unprepared for what he said and did next. These two brothers misunderstood David’s heart for God. In addition, David had made a covenant with Saul that he would not cut off his descendants when he came to power. David prefaced what he said with the oath formula, As the Lord lives (v. 9).

David’s ordering the death of these men was not personal vengeance, but capital punishment for two opportunistic, cold-blooded murderers. After their execution David’s men cut off the murderers’ hands and feet (v. 12), the body parts employed in carrying out the murder. Cutting off a dead person’s hands and feet and then hanging them up for all to see was the height of disgrace in death, serving as a stern warning to anyone who contemplated a similar act. David, however, treated Ish-bosheth’s head with respect, burying it in Abner’s grave.

5:1–2. The people wanted David to be their king for three reasons: (1) David was one of their own, an Israelite; (2) David was an able leader; and (3) the Lord called David to lead and shepherd His people.

5:3–4. David made a covenant with Israel’s elders in the Lord’s presence at Hebron. The covenant stipulated that David was king over Israel. For the third time David was anointed, now as the widely-recognized king over all Israel. What a day of rejoicing and relief this must have been for David and his family and for all Israel! David reigned for forty years, that is, until he was 70 years old.

5:5. Beginning with David’s enlarged reign, Jerusalem loomed large in the rest of OT history. He had reigned in Hebron over Judah for seven years and six months, so now as he began his reign over all Israel and Judah he was 37 years old.

5:6. David’s first action as king of all Israel was his march against Jerusalem, where the Jebusites were living. The Jebusites were one of the Canaanite people groups in the land (cf. Gn 10:16; Nm 13:29; Jos 11:1–3; 15:63). In the conquest under Joshua, Benjamin’s sons could not drive the Jebusites from Jerusalem (cf. Jdg 1:21); so at the beginning of David’s reign over all Israel, they were fortified in Jerusalem. They lived there for centuries in a fortified stronghold on Mt. Zion’s southern hill. Humanly speaking, the stronghold was invincible. So, the Jebusites mockingly told David that he was no match for even their blind and lame. They were so confident because they thought, David cannot enter here.

5:7–8. In an amazing military feat David captured Zion’s stronghold. Water flowed from the spring of Gihon outside the city walls through a tunnel (an open vertical shaft in the rock) into the city. Some archaeologists have maintained that "Warren’s Shaft," discovered in the city of David by explorer Charles Warren, is the same tunnel through which David and his men conquered the city. Other archaeologists vehemently oppose this view. The evidence is inconclusive; therefore, it is best to accept the biblical account without identifying precisely which tunnel was used. Going through any subterranean water shaft would be challenging, but once through it, capturing the city was not difficult. Using their own words to mock them, David referred to all the Jebusites in the stronghold as the lame and the blind. A proverb developed in Israel from this event: The blind or the lame shall not come into the house (v. 8). The proverb was a mocking jab at pagans who try to conquer the Lord’s people.

5:9–10. David renamed the stronghold and called it the city of David (v. 9), referring to the city where David reigned, not to be confused with Bethlehem, which was called "the city of David" as the city of his birth (Lk 2:4, 11). The word Millo, a fortified area, is a transliteration of the Hebrew word. David filled in areas and enlarged the city of Jerusalem, making it suitable as the nation’s capital and the seat of his government.

5:11–12. Hiram king of Tyre sent cedar trees and workmen to build a house for David. David perceived in Hiram’s gesture that the Lord had established him as king, not for his sake, but for the good and blessing of His people Israel.

5:13–16. Settled in Jerusalem, David took more concubines and wives, who bore him 11 sons, including Solomon. But by taking on more wives David was disobeying the law (cf. Dt 17:17). Youngblood notes that by listing David’s concubines first, "the narrator is perhaps deploring David’s proclivity for the trappings of a typical Near Eastern monarch, including a harem" (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 355). God did not rebuke David for this, although, as Merrill points out, David’s actions here brought him great sorrow later on (Merrill, "2 Samuel," 461).

5:17–19. The Philistines considered King David a threat and pursued him. In response, David went to the stronghold (v. 17), but not the stronghold of Zion. It was one of the strongholds where David and his men lived when they were fugitives from Saul, indicating that these events took place prior to the capture of Jebus.

The Philistines … spread … out in the valley of Rephaim, "the valley of the giants" (v. 18). Probably the place name reminded David of the victory the Lord granted him over the giant Goliath years earlier. The valley was not far from Bethlehem (cf. 2Sm 23:13–15).

As usual, David asked the Lord for guidance, and He assured David of victory. Victory was because of God’s power, not David’s military skill.

5:20–21. David used a simile in describing the Lord’s victory in the battle: The Lord has broken through my enemies before me like the breakthrough of waters. David then named the site of their victory Baal-perazim, meaning "the master of the breakthrough." The Lord was the master of the breakthrough. The Philistines recognized that their idols were powerless, so they abandoned them (cf. Is 2:20–21).

5:22–25. The Philistines amassed again for battle against Israel in the same place. Again David asked the Lord for guidance, and this time He gave David a new battle plan. He was to attack them from the rear instead of using a direct frontal attack (vv. 23–24). The sound of the marching in the tops of the balsam trees was a divine sign that David was to go out to battle because God Himself would have gone out before David to strike the army of the Philistines. David obeyed God and struck down the Philistines from Geba as far as Gezer. The distance between these two locations is substantial, about 25 miles, underscoring the extent of David’s victory.

6:1. As Laney points out, David was always "intensely interested in the worship of Yahweh," in contrast to Saul (First and Second Samuel, 95). David now demonstrated again that he was "a man after [God’s] own heart" (1Sm 13:14) by bringing the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. It had been neglected during the reign of Saul, another evidence of Saul’s spiritual indifference (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 95).

Chosen men were men trained and skilled as warriors. These valiant men were usually used in major military offensives. But David called on these men to bring the ark of God from Baale-judah (a Gibeonite town [cf. Jos 9:17] that was assigned first to Judah (cf. Jos 15:60), then to Benjamin (cf. Jos 18:28) (Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 743), to Jerusalem. This town was also known as Kiriath-jearim, and was located about nine miles northeast of Jerusalem. In case the Philistines attempted to attack Israel during this procession, David had thirty thousand men on hand ready for battle.

6:2. The ark had been at Baale-judah since the days of Samuel, before the birth of the monarchy (cf. 1Sm 7:1), for approximately 70 years. The ark symbolized God’s presence; it was like His earthly throne. David wanted to show by moving the ark that the presence and worship of the Lord were central to Israel and to his reign.

6:3. As the Philistines had placed the ark on a new cart (cf. 1Sm 6:7), so now God’s people placed the ark of God on a new cart. Actually, the ark was never to be placed on any cart. The Levites were to carry it in order to insure that it was treated with reverence (cf. Nm 4:15; Dt 10:8).

6:4–5. The procession was a joyful one, with music being played on several kinds of musical instruments: instruments made of fir wood, and lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets and cymbals.

6:6–7. When the oxen leading the ark stumbled and nearly upset it, Uzzah reached out to steady the ark. But God in anger struck him down. The reason given was for his [lit., "the"] irreverence. Touching the ark was not a helpful gesture; it was the essence of a monumentally irreverent act resulting from the disobedience of placing the ark on a cart rather than carrying it with poles.

6:8–9. David became angry perhaps because he felt the Lord overreacted in light of the sincerity of what they were trying to do. The words the Lord’s outburst literally means "the Lord broke through a breakthrough." There was a breakthrough earlier against the Philistines, but now the Lord broke through in discipline. The Philistine approach to handling holy items, which the Israelites emulated here, was disastrous for God’s people. David accordingly named the place Perez-uzzah, which means "the breakthrough of Uzzah."

David’s emotions moved from anger to fear. He was afraid of God in the sense of being awestruck at how holy and dreadful the Lord is.

6:10–11. This experience sobered David; he now had a deeper reverence for the Lord. He also did not want to take any further risks in trying to transport the ark (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 104). So instead of taking the ark to Jerusalem, David took it to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.

6:12. That the Lord visibly blessed the house of Obed-edom because of the ark encouraged David to bring the ark to Jerusalem, which he did with gladness (v. 12).

6:13. This time the Levites carried the ark as directed in the Mosaic law, rather than having oxen pull it on a cart. After they took only six paces or steps, David sacrificed an ox and a fatling, that is, a fatted calf. Saying that David sacrificed does not mean that David acted as a priest, but rather that he gave the animals which were then offered through the mediation of a Levitical priest.

6:14. David danced with all his might before the Lord, that is, he invested all of his physical strength in the dance, demonstrating the full engagement of his whole being in this act of worship. And he did so before the Lord, that is, in His presence. Wearing a linen ephod, part of the priestly garment, David was not usurping priestly authority. He was expressing heartfelt worship of the Lord.

6:15. The celebration was loud! The people brought the ark with shouting and blowing of the trumpet. David may have composed Ps 24 for this occasion. The presence of the Lord, the King of glory, accompanied the ark into the city of David, Jerusalem, the very place that had been an unconquerable Jebusite stronghold for centuries.

6:16. When the ark entered the city of David, Michal observed the scene from a window. This is the first time Michal is mentioned since chap. 3. The ark’s coming to David’s city was a stupendous event in Israel’s history, but this did not impress her. Instead she noticed her husband, King David, leaping (another physical expression of David’s joy) and dancing. In her mind David’s expressive worship was beneath the king’s dignity. So she despised him, that is, she held him in contempt and scorn, just as the giant Goliath had despised and ridiculed young David (cf. 1Sm 17:42). But her sentiments were not in harmony with the wonder of the moment.

6:17. David pitched a tent in Jerusalem for the ark and in worship he offered burnt offerings (symbolizing full devotion and commitment to the Lord) and peace offerings (symbolizing peace and fellowship with the Lord and with one another). About David as priest, see comments at 6:13.

6:18–19. In a pastoral manner (cf. Nm 6:22–27), David spoke words of blessing to the people in the Lord’s name. And he gave each person a cake of bread, a cake of dates, and a cake of raisins. No doubt the people returned home with joy in their hearts, tangible tokens of God’s blessing in their hands, with God’s blessing pronounced over them, and rejoicing that the ark of God was now present in David’s city.

6:20–22. After blessing the people, David returned home to bless his household. But before one word of blessing fell from his lips, Michal met him and insulted him, calling him foolish (v. 20). David replied that his actions were before the Lord (see vv. 5, 14, 16, 17). He reminded Michal that the Lord … chose him instead of her father and his house and made him leader over Israel (v. 21). Even if he was humble in his own eyes, the slave girls whom Michal disparaged would honor David, which Michal should have done. In this chapter Michal is called the daughter of Saul (vv. 16, 20, 23), not David’s wife.

6:23. In the ancient world infertility was a major calamity for a married woman. Michal experienced the tragedy of infertility as an expression of God’s judgment on her because of her scornful attitude toward David, the Lord’s anointed.

7:1–3. After many years of suffering and struggle, life settled down for King David. David lived in his house, and he had rest on every side from all his enemies. "House" is a key word in chap. 7 (vv. 1, 2, 5, 6–7, 13, 16, 18, 19, 25–26, 29). The Lord took the image of a house, and David’s desire to build the Lord a house/temple, to instruct him in other matters. The prophet Nathan (v. 3), mentioned here for the first time in 1 and 2 Samuel, played a strategic role in David’s life. David mused about his living conditions being better than the ark of God. Nathan discerned in David’s words his intentions to build a house/temple for the Lord and he encouraged him to do so (v. 3).

7:4–5. That night, the Lord said to Nathan, Go and say to My servant David. For the first time in Scripture the Lord referred directly to David as His servant, placing him in the company of Moses (cf. Nm 12:2; Dt 34:4), Joshua (cf. Jos 24:19), and Job (cf. Jb 1:8; 2:3; 42:7–8). David’s intentions were good, but King Solomon, David’s successor, would build the temple, not David. The reason is given in 1Ch 22:8—David had shed too much blood. But more than that, the Lord was saying to David, in the expressive words of Peterson, "You want to build me a house? Forget it. I’m building you a house. The kingdom that I’m shaping here is not what you do for me but what I do for you" (First and Second Samuel, 167).

7:6–7. Up to the present point in Israel’s history, the Lord manifested Himself in portable tents. He never asked anyone to build Him a house of cedar like the one that David was living in.

7:8–9. God continued to speak to Nathan by beginning with the words thus you shall say to My servant David. The Lord plucked David out of obscurity to make him king over Israel. God promised David a great name (v. 9), similar to His promise to Abraham. David was great in his day, but the greatness here was because of David’s name enduring forever.

7:10–11. The Lord will make a house [dynasty] for you (v. 11) is the central covenant promise to David. The narrator did not use the word "covenant" in chap. 7 to describe the Lord’s words to David, but the term is used in other places to define the nature of God’s message to David (cf. 2Sm 23:5; 2Ch 13:5; Ps 89:3). Here is the origin of the promise of the Davidic dynasty, which is one of the great mountain peaks of biblical revelation, and a significant advance in the progress of biblical revelation about the majestic seed of David, the Messiah. The Messiah is the seed of the woman (cf. Gn 3:15), the seed of Abraham (cf. Gn 12:3), and the seed of David (cf. Rm 1:3; lit., "born from the seed of David").

God’s covenant begins by promising David that God would provide a secure place for the people of Israel. God will plant them in the land of Israel and they will be given rest from all [their] enemies (v. 11). This is not referring to peace in the days of David or Solomon, but peace under the future Son of David, the Messiah.

7:12–17. Besides promising David a secure place for his people, the Lord also promised David a special Seed, translated descendant here (v. 12). There are four aspects to the covenantal promise of the Seed of David. First, God will grant the Seed a secure kingdom (I will establish His kingdom, v. 12). The Seed’s kingdom is secure in that it is eternal. Second, the Lord promised that David’s descendant/Seed would build a house for God (v. 13). This is a reference to David’s special offspring who will build a temple for the Lord. Third, the descendant will have a Father/Son relationship with God (v. 14). Fourth, this promise is unconditional—God’s lovingkindness shall not depart from him (v. 15) no matter what—the descendant will never lose the promise (v. 15).

Finally, the Lord summarizes the essence of this eternal and unconditional covenant with David. The Lord has granted David an eternal house (dynasty), kingdom (nation), and throne (sovereignty). All of these shall be established forever (v. 16).

Obviously the question that must be answered is, "Who is the Seed of David in the covenant?" On a surface level, it appears that perhaps Solomon is in view. He certainly built the temple for the Lord. Also, within the narrative, none of David’s other sons survived the conflicts, intrigues, and tensions of David’s royal house. Moreover, Solomon seems to believe that the Davidic covenant was fulfilled in him (cf. 1Kg 8:20).

However, Solomon’s viewpoint is not necessarily the perspective of the author of the book of 2 Samuel. The story of David continues, from this book into the books of the Kings, detailing what became of David’s descendants. There, the author, using dramatic literary artistry, seems to build up Solomon as the potential fulfillment of the covenant, only to prove that Solomon was unfaithful, marrying foreign women and following foreign gods (cf. 1Kg 11:1–2). Therefore, the covenant was not fulfilled in him (cf. 1Kg 11:9–12). Nevertheless, the author is careful to include that Solomon’s failure did not negate the promise to David, saying that God would still give one tribe to the Davidic house "for the sake of My servant David" (1Kg 11:13). Thereafter in the narrative in the books of Kings, each Davidic king is viewed as a possible fulfillment to the covenant, yet each one ends in failure. Hence the book of 2 Kings ends with Israel going to captivity and the promise unfulfilled. Therefore, the point of the narrative is to have the reader keep looking for a future Seed of David, the Messiah, who will have an eternal house, kingdom, and throne.

It is not only the writer of the Kings who reads the Davidic covenant as messianic. In v. 19, in David’s response to the Lord’s statement of the Davidic covenant, David marvels that this covenant is concerning the distant future (v. 19), demonstrating that the author of Samuel did not view it as fulfilled in Solomon but in the end of days. Later OT writers and prophets always interpreted the covenant as finding its fulfillment in the messianic King, the eschatological Son of David (cf. Ps 89:51; 132:17–18; Is 9:6–7; 11:1, 10; 16:5; 42:1, 6; 55:3–4; Jr 23:5; 30:9; 33:15–17; Ezk 34:23–24; 37:24–28; Hs 3:4–5; Am 9:11–15). Much as the Hebrew Bible read the Davidic covenant as messianic, so does the NT (cf. Lk 1:31–33; Ac 2:30–36; Rm 1:3; 2Tm 2:8).

Two possible objections to the messianic interpretation of 2Sm 7 are (1) the seeming expectation that the Seed of David would commit iniquity (when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men, v. 14) and (2) Solomon did indeed build the temple as the covenant stipulated he would.

As to the first objection, it would be better to translate the Hebrew word for when (asher) as "if," as in "if he commits iniquity." The same word is translated this way in other passages (cf. Dt 11:27; Jos 4:21). In fact, the second-century BC Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint, also translates 2Sm 7:14 with the word "if" (ean). Thus, the prediction of being the Seed is potentially true of each of the descendants of David. Each one is potentially the fulfillment of the covenant but if he commits iniquity, he is disqualified. Nevertheless, the covenant is secure, and will be fulfilled in a later descendant, namely, the Messiah, the Son of David.

With regard to the second objection, although Solomon did build the first temple, he certainly did not have an eternal kingdom (He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever, v. 13). Nor did Zerubbabel, who built the second temple, ever become king, let alone have an eternal kingdom. For this reason, the prophets always foretold that when the Messiah, the Son of David comes, He would build a temple for the Lord (cf. Zch 6:11–15; Ezk 40–48). Neither Solomon’s temple nor the second temple ever fulfilled the promise here (v. 13). But when the Messiah comes to establish His eternal kingdom, then He will build the messianic temple of the Lord, in fulfillment of this passage. Thus, when Jesus the Messiah takes His seat on the throne of His father David (Is 9:7), David’s dynasty will exist forever (v. 16); it will never end.

7:18. David the king went in and sat before the Lord. The sitting posture was one of humility. Even though he was a king, David humbled himself before the Lord. The idea of being before the Lord expressed in 6:14, 16, 21, now appears in chap. 7. David humbly prayed and praised the Lord, expressing to the Lord a healthy sense of inadequacy about himself and his house in light of His mercy and grace toward him.

7:19–20. The Lord’s work in David’s life was small in comparison to the Lord’s promises that would reach beyond his own lifetime and beyond the next generation. In fact, David recognized that the fulfillment of God’s promises would be in the distant future (v. 19). David was overwhelmed that God would make of his house an eternal dynasty! Then he added, And this is the custom of man, O Lord God (v. 19). This is a problematic passage, specifically because the word translated custom (torah) is generally translated "law" or "instruction."

This is resolved in the HCSB, which has David saying of God’s statement of the Davidic covenant, "this is a [or your] revelation for mankind" (emphasis added), a far more appropriate translation of the word torah. Therefore, David is exclaiming that the fulfillment of God’s revelation of the Davidic covenant will be in the distant future and that its benefits have been revealed not just for his own life and family but for all of humanity too.

7:21–22. People’s recorded prayers are one of Scripture’s outstanding features. Here David extolled God’s greatness and uniqueness (there is none like You). The Lord is unparalleled in His person and glory. In this prayer, David calls God by the exceptional name Lord God (Adonai Yahweh) six times (vv. 18, 19, 20, 22, 28, 29), using the very name that God used when granting the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gn 15:2, 8). This is no accident but a deliberate attempt to link the Davidic covenant to the Abrahamic.

7:23–29. The Lord’s people Israel were unique as well. Besides David’s dynasty enduring forever, Israel will be the Lord’s own people forever (v. 24). In a posture of worship, David called on the Lord to confirm His pledged word not for the benefit of his family alone, but also so that the name of the Lord would be magnified forever (v. 26). Nine times in his prayer David described himself as the Lord’s servant (vv. 19, 20, 25, 26, 27 [twice], 28, 29 [twice]). While the word "servant" underscores David’s humility, David considered it a high honor to identify himself in this way. Describing God’s words as truth, David called the divine promise of a dynasty a good thing (v. 28). The Lord’s blessing on David’s house was the sole guarantee of its eternal duration.

8:1–14. By the Lord’s grace David’s life was on an upward trajectory. Chapter 8 records one of the summits in David’s reign. The Lord had just made tremendous promises to David, and the writer was showing that these promises would be fulfilled (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 346). The Lord now granted David victory in every geographical direction: over the Philistines in the west (v. 1), Moab in the east (v. 2), Hadadezer and the Arameans of Damascus on the north (vv. 3–8), and Edom in the south (v. 14). The Lord’s promise to Abraham was being realized (cf. Gn 13:14). These victories were a continuation of the conquest begun centuries earlier under the leadership of Joshua (cf. Jos 1:7, 9). And the major factor in David’s exploits was that The Lord helped [him] wherever he went (v. 14, cf. v. 6).

8:15–18. This section of 2 Samuel closes with a summary of the quality of David’s reign, and the names of the administrators who occupied key posts in his government. Merrill says the inclusion of this list shows that the expansion of David’s kingdom required a "bureaucracy" to administer it ("2 Samuel," 465). David also served in a judicial capacity, administering justice and righteousness for all the people (v. 15). He was neither partial in administering justice, nor did he tolerate the oppression and exploitation of people in his kingdom. In spite of David’s work in administering justice, Absalom would later exploit an apparent weakness in it for his own political advantage (cf. 15:1–6). Jehoshaphat was the royal recorder (v. 16); his role is not clear, but perhaps he was responsible for preserving the memory of significant events in the nation’s life. He would be responsible for overseeing the writing of the documents in which those memorable events are recorded. He may also have been responsible to remind the king of important affairs of state that needed to be addressed. The recorder is mentioned second in the list of David officials, suggesting that his role was important in David’s administration.

Seraiah was the royal secretary (v. 17), whose function involved writing down important decrees and other documents on scrolls. But there were other administrative and diplomatic responsibilities that carried with them great authority (cf. 2Kg 12:10–16; Is 22:15–23; 36:1–3). Benaiah … was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites (v. 18). These were a group of elite warriors who served as David’s royal bodyguard (cf. 2Sm 15:18; 20:23; 1Kg 1:38, 44). Although Philistine in background (cf. Ezk 25:16; Zph 2:4–5), this group of elite soldiers, being under David, were probably committed to the Lord.

9:1. Chapters 9 and 10 highlight David’s kindness. The growth of royal power did not conflict with the commitment David made to Jonathan and Saul’s house years earlier, and he intended to carry out that promise. What else would one expect of a king who administered justice and righteousness for all his people (8:15)? The narrator opened the story with David asking a question: Is there yet anyone left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake? The word "kindness" (chesed) is love, commitment, and loyalty pledged in the context of covenant agreements. David honored his covenant commitments.

9:2–4. Ziba was a man of high social standing, having 15 sons and 20 servants (cf. v. 10). He was responsible to care for Saul’s estate. David asked him basically the same question he voiced in v. 1: Is there not yet anyone of the house of Saul to whom I may show the kindness of God? (v. 3). Ziba informed the king that there was one, Jonathan’s son. He was lame in both feet. He was living with Machir, who evidently supported the house of Saul and who may have provided for Mephibosheth and his family. He must have been wealthy (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 141). Later Machir was a great help to David also (17:27–29).

9:5. Learning of Jonathan’s son, David sent for Mephibosheth and had him brought from Lo-debar (about 25 miles northwest of Jerusalem) to Jerusalem. Without doubt, the disabled man thought David would execute him. Even though Mephibosheth was disabled, he was a male descendent of Saul, and one of Saul’s sons could become a claimant to David’s throne. Brueggemann says the mention of Mephibosheth’s disability may have been added to show that he was not a military or political threat to David (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 267).

9:6. Mephibosheth was not mentioned by name until here in v. 6. Years had gone by since the tragic events of 4:4. Mephibosheth was now an adult. He was married, and he had a son, who could have become a potential rival to David’s throne.

Mephibosheth fell on his face before David, terrified. Humanly speaking, he had every reason to be afraid, especially since the events of 2Sm 21:1–14, the execution of seven of Saul’s male descendants by the Gibeonites, may have transpired at this time.

9:7. David eased his fears, promising Mephibosheth all of Saul’s land. Saul’s possessions became the royal possession of David (cf. 12:8). To return Saul’s land to Mephibosheth was a risky move on David’s part. But David did not stop there. He granted Mephibosheth a privilege reserved for his sons and other key officials in his administration. And you shall eat [lit., "eat bread"] at my table regularly. The expression "to sit at the king’s table" (mentioned three times in this chapter in various ways: vv. 7, 10, 13) is an idiom for participating in the royal bounty, being sustained with the lavish royal sustenance of the king’s table, and being the privileged to have a place at the king’s table.

9:8. Overwhelmed at the king’s kindness, Mephibosheth prostrated himself again, using the derogatory metaphor dead dog in reference to himself.

9:9–11. David instructed Ziba, Saul’s servant, to cultivate the land and bring the produce to Mephibosheth. Mephibosheth’s eating at David’s table meant he was as one of the king’s sons.

9:12–13. Mephibosheth had a young son named Mica. Mica himself later had five sons (cf. 1Ch 8:34–35). Even though the dynasty belonged to David’s house, by the Lord’s mercy Saul’s line continued through Mica, his great-grandson. David’s treatment of Mephibosheth was one of the great expressions of OT lovingkindness.

10:1–2. When the king of the Ammonites died, his son Hanun became king in his place. Since Ammon was grieving, David desired to show lovingkindness to Hanun. David’s gesture was surprising since Nahash was Hanun’s father. Nahash was the king who threatened the men of Jabesh-gilead (cf. 1Sm 11:1–11). This Nahash showed lovingkindness to David. The narrator did not say when Nahash did so, but it probably took place when David was a fugitive. David and Nahash had peaceful relations. Even though Ammon at this time was subject to David (cf. 2Sm 8:12), David wanted to honor his commitments and diplomatic loyalty with them. The Ammonites lived on the east side of the Jordan River, occupying some of the same land of present-day Jordan.

10:3–4. Listening to the poisonous perceptions of his counselors, Hanun insulted David and his men, thinking they came as spies. The voluntary shaving of the beard was a sign of grief and mourning (cf. Jr 41:4–8), but to shave off half a man’s beard by force was a biting insult. And to cut one’s clothes in a way that exposed the buttocks, forcing him to go for miles in that condition, was a major affront (cf. Is 20:4). Hanun’s mistreatment of David’s servants shamed David and Israel as a whole; it was also a declaration of war.

10:5. David’s envoys were greatly humiliated. David protected their dignity by allowing them to stay in Jericho until their beards grew back.

10:6. Ammon became odious (lit., "a stench"), like the smell of excrement in David’s nostrils. Being a weaker nation, Ammon hired several thousand mercenary soldiers.

10:7–8. Instead of going to battle, David sent Joab and his army. The enemy armies split up. Some were in battle formation in front of the city of Rabbah, the Ammonite royal city (cf. 12:26–29), present-day Amman, the capital of Jordan.

10:9–12. Joab selected some choice soldiers to face the Arameans, and he put other soldiers under Abishai, his brother, against the Ammonites (v. 10). Joab, being a strange mixture of treachery (cf. 2Sm 5) and faith (v. 12), somewhat unexpectedly committed the battle’s outcome to the Lord. But perhaps David’s life had a godly influence on Joab, who was his nephew.

10:13–14. The defeat of the fortified royal city required siege warfare. Joab returned from fighting against the defeated sons of Ammon. Then Joab completed this mission the following spring, when conditions were conducive to battle (cf. 11:1).

10:15–16. Hadadezer brought Arameans from beyond the River, that is, from the east of the Euphrates River, drawing them from the lands of present-day eastern Iraq and western Iran.

10:17–18. The battle was so important that David himself went with his troops. They engaged Hadadezer’s army in Helam, whose location is not clear. The text suggests that Helam was somewhere between the Jordan and the Euphrates Rivers. David defeated the Arameans, and struck down their commander Shobach as well. The death of an army’s commander was a huge psychological blow.

10:19. Defeated by Israel, Hadadezer’s vassals became vassals to David, fearing to come to Ammon’s military aid again.

Chapters 11 and 12 record the dark incidents in David’s life, the consequences of which he would bear the rest of his life. These sordid events may have been included for several reasons: (1) to show that even a godly person is not exempt from sin and to warn others to stand guard (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 106); (2) to show what happens when a ruler’s power goes to his head (Chisholm, 1 & 2 Samuel, 232); (3) to report a series of events necessary to understand the remainder of David’s reign; and (4) perhaps to express shock that a man who had been presented to this point as the ideal servant of the Lord could become, for a brief time, a rebel against God’s law (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 361).

11:1. The setting was spring, perhaps March or April. The warm weather facilitated siege warfare. David sent Joab and the army back out against the Ammonites, but David stayed at Jerusalem. This by itself signals a shortcoming on David’s part, since spring was the time when kings go out to battle. It was his responsibility to lead his army (see also 1Sm 8:20 and the comments there). David’s irresponsibility here put him in the wrong place at the wrong time, resulting in the greatest failure of his life.

11:2. At night David took a stroll on his roof. Since his royal residence was built on one of Jerusalem’s highest elevations, and the hill that sloped away from the palace was steep, he had a terrific view of the city. From his vantage point he could look down upon many of the homes and buildings in the city. One night, he noticed a woman taking a bath. She was very beautiful in appearance, and David had a lustful attraction to her physical beauty.

11:3. So David sent someone to identify the woman. Sent is one of the keys words in chap. 11 (vv. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 [twice], 14, 22, 27), and in 12:1. The narrator shows that while David gave all the orders and sent his servants and army wherever he wanted them to go, and everyone did his bidding, he was not the one in command of the situation. God was, later sending Nathan to rebuke David (cf. 12:1). The woman was a daughter of Eliam, one of David’s mighty men, and she was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, one of David’s most trusted advisors (cf. 23:34). And she was the wife of Uriah, one of David’s chief warriors (cf. 23:8, 39). Though a Hittite, he had embraced faith in the Lord; in fact, his name "Uriah" means "Yahweh is light." Bathsheba was forbidden to David, and this information should have stopped David in his tracks.

11:4. But David sent messengers and took her. David abused his power, taking her as if she were spoils in a battle with a defeated foe. David committed more than adultery. Although there is no explicit statement in the text regarding Bathsheba’s motives, it seems likely that David’s actions could be construed as sexual abuse. In a world dominated by men, it was difficult for Bathsheba to refuse the most powerful man in the kingdom, or even the Middle East. In the context of sexual abuse and adultery, it is ironic to note that the text notes the law’s ceremonial aspects. After the sexual relations in marriage, ritual bathing was required if there was a seminal emission (cf. Lv 15:18). Apparently that happened and that biological fact explains what follows.

11:5. Weeks passed. Bathsheba realized the unthinkable; she was pregnant. In the entire episode she voiced only two words in Hebrew (three in English): I am pregnant. Her few words overflow with scandal and disgrace.

11:6–7. As a pretense, David called Uriah back to Jerusalem from the war zone and asked him for an update on the war.

11:8–9. David then sent Uriah home, telling him, Go down to your house, and wash your feet. These words were a polite way of saying, "Go have sexual relations with your wife." David was hoping that Uriah would have sex with his wife, and that Uriah would think the baby was his. But instead of sleeping at home with his wife, Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house.

11:10–11. So David tried again. David’s two questions (Have you not come from a journey? Why did you no go down to your house?) were designed to insult Uriah’s manhood. Uriah’s noble response (with the army in the field, how could he lie with [his] wife?) is filled with irony. What he refused to do out of principle is precisely what David had done.

11:12–13. David then sent for Uriah again, this time to have dinner with the king and become intoxicated. David hoped that in this condition, he would go home, have relations with his wife, and the problem of her pregnancy could be concealed. But the plan failed once again; Uriah did not go down to his house.

11:14–15. Realizing that his plan for Uriah was not going to work, David wrote a letter to general Joab, Uriah’s commander. Later that morning, giving the letter to Uriah like a trusted advisor, David charged Uriah to take the letter to Joab. Uriah dutifully obeyed, not knowing that he was carrying his own death warrant.

11:16–17. Joab did what David commanded, but not exactly as he prescribed. Joab was a shrewd general. To make Uriah’s death appear to be a result of battle, Joab placed some of his men with Uriah in a dangerous spot. The Ammonites killed Uriah and also some of David’s other men.

11:18–21. In ancient warfare soldiers were not placed near the wall of a city being attacked because they would be vulnerable to the arrows of skilled archers. Joab knew that David would likely become angry at such a poor military move (v. 20). But Joab also knew that the news of Uriah’s death would calm David’s anger (v. 21).

11:22–25. The messenger sent by Joab reported on the battle and delivered the word that Joab knew David wanted to hear (vv. 22–24). If David was initially upset, he quickly and coldly expressed his concern that Joab not feel bad about what David ordered him to do. So David sent this word back to Joab: Do not let this thing displease you (v. 25). "Displease you" is literally, "be evil in your eyes." David tried to minimize in Joab’s mind what happened by suggesting that the sword devours one as well as another.

11:26–27. After Bathsheba’s period of mourning the loss of her husband Uriah, David married her. Of course, to people unaware of David’s adultery, his marital gesture looked like another expression of kindness. About nine months later, probably in December of that year, Bathsheba gave birth to a son. David’s cover-up had worked—except for this ominous note: But the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord (v. 27). A cover-up on earth is an open scandal in heaven!

As Chisholm points out, David’s actions created a "theological tension" in the story line. He violated the seventh and tenth commandments concerning adultery and coveting, and deserved death. Yet, "the Lord has made an irrevocable promise to [David], albeit with a stern warning regarding infractions (cf. 2 Sam. 7:11–16). So the reader wonders how the tension will be resolved" (Chisholm, 1 & 2 Samuel, 236). The resolution will come in chap. 12. David’s sins were heinous, hardly fitting his earlier description as a man after God’s own heart. But his subsequent confession would reveal a heart that was still sensitive to God.

12:1a. In chap. 11 David did virtually all the sending for people, but in chap. 12 the Lord sent Nathan to David with a divinely directed message (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 369), although the exact time or nature of the revelation was not recorded. Nathan wisely told David a story that penetrated his mind and heart before his defenses went up.

12:1b–3. Nathan told David a story about two men, one of whom was rich and one of whom was poor. The poor man had only one little ewe lamb (v. 3) that he had purchased. The lamb was like a member of the poor man’s family. Nathan depicted the poor man’s family life as the perfect image of countrified tranquility. The lamb was like a daughter to him. The image appealed to David’s pastoral imagination.

12:4–5. Nathan introduced another character in the story, a traveler who was visiting the rich man. The traveler needed to eat, but the rich man refused to take from his flock or cattle. Instead he took the poor man’s ewe lamb and prepared it for the man. Angered by this story, David said this man deserves to die (v. 5).

12:6. To make restitution for the lamb fourfold, as David demanded, meant that the rich man must pay four times the lamb’s original cost. When someone stole a lamb, the thief had to pay four sheep for the one stolen lamb (cf. Ex 22:1).

12:7–8. Nathan then applied the story directly to David: You are the man! Nathan continued to speak to David, using the prophetic formula, Thus says the Lord. Nathan reminded David of the specific ways in which He had blessed him, and He would have done even more of the same for David (v. 8).

12:9–10. In light of what the Lord had done for David, Nathan asked David a searching question: Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? To "despise the Lord" suggests holding His Word in contempt and disrespect. David’s contemptible actions with Bathsheba and Uriah were senseless. Although Joab carried out David’s order to set Uriah up to be killed, the Lord said David struck him down because David gave the order. Although Ammonites killed Uriah in battle, the Lord said David killed him with an Ammonite sword (v. 9). David took Uriah’s wife to be his wife (v. 10). David had taken; he had stolen; he had abused his power. Interestingly, the Lord referred twice to Bathsheba as Uriah’s wife (vv. 9, 10; cf. Mt 1:6).

Since David killed Uriah with the sword, the sword would never depart from David’s house. As a consequence of his sin, three of David’s oldest sons would die violent deaths: Amnon (cf. 13:28–32), Absalom (cf. 18:6–15), and Adonijah (cf. 1Kg 2:19–25). It is possible that the death of David’s unnamed son by his adulterous act with Bathsheba is the fourth part of the "fourfold" restitution (v. 6) David had unknowingly pronounced against himself (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 445; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 372).

12:11–12. The Lord would raise up evil (calamity) in David’s own house. As David abused power and took Uriah’s wife to be his own, the Lord would take David’s wives … and give them to his companion, his rival for the throne. David’s own son, Absalom, would claim the throne by having relations with David’s concubines (cf. 16:20–22) in broad daylight … before all Israel, a fitting consequence of David’s secret sexual sin and murder.

12:13–15a. The Lord does not diminish in the slightest way His sovereign hand in bringing about consequences for sin. In vv. 1–12, David had listened to his indictment and judgment, speaking only before he knew he was the guilty party. Now he responded to God’s searching judgment with the words, I have sinned against the Lord (v. 13). After almost a year, David confessed his sin. Then Nathan uttered some of the most gracious words in the OT: The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. Under the OT theocracy, the penalty for adultery and murder was death (cf. Ex 21:12, 14; Lv 20:10). David may have expected to be put to death. But God had already put away David’s sin and forgiven him. David acknowledged in Ps 51:16 that the law provided no sacrifice for murder and adultery, which were capital offenses. All David could offer were the sacrifices of a "broken spirit" and a "broken and a contrite heart" (Ps 51:17).

However, forgiveness does not eliminate consequences. David’s sins caused the Lord’s enemies … to blaspheme (v. 14). News of David’s secret leaked out to pagans, causing them, the Lord’s enemies, to speak ill of the Lord. So because of the Lord’s honor and glory, David’s recently born son would die. The text leaves no doubt about the severity and certainty of the consequence.

12:15b–19. The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow [lit., "wife"] bore to David (v. 15). The author emphasized that Bathsheba did not belong to David; she was Uriah’s wife.

Although David had sinned grievously, he knew the Lord. And so he prayed and fasted for a week for his son’s life. However, on the seventh day of David’s fasting, the baby died (vv. 16–19).

12:20. When David learned of the child’s death, he did not do anything desperate. David rose, washed his face, put on lotion, changed his clothes, and went into the Lord’s house, that is, the tent area that David had set up for the ark, to worship.

12:21–23. David’s behavior was an enigma to his servants. While the boy was alive, David fasted and prayed, thinking perhaps that God would be gracious and spare the child’s life. Since the boy died, he no longer had reason to fast. David’s words, I will go to him (v. 23), indicate that perhaps David had some understanding of life after death. The extent of David’s understanding is much debated. Some have maintained that David was simply stating the inevitability and irreversibility of death (Merrill, "2 Samuel," 468). However, the personalization of David’s expectation (saying I will go to him as opposed to stating that he would go to death, emphasis added) indicates that David had some expectation of a reunion after death. David would eventually die and join his son, but the son could not return to him this side of death.

12:24–25. David comforted his wife Bathsheba because of her pain and grief. In about one year Bathsheba’s husband was killed and her baby died. For the first time in this chapter the writer referred to Bathsheba as David’s wife. Then she conceived and gave birth to a son, whom David named … Solomon, whose name means "he has made peace," and is from the same Hebrew root as the word shalom (peace, wholeness). Peace and wholeness from the Lord is what David and Bathsheba needed. The author added that the Lord loved the baby boy, meaning that this child would have a special relationship with the Lord.

The birth of this child is part of the narrative strategy to trace the "Seed" of David (see comments about the Davidic covenant at 7:12–17). In fact, Solomon became David’s successor and heir to David’s throne. After learning about the special implications of God’s love for Solomon, David (or perhaps the prophet Nathan) gave Solomon an additional name, Jedidiah ("beloved of the Lord").

12:26–29. While David was involved in a scandal in Jerusalem, Joab was fighting against the Ammonites. Given David’s awful sins, it might be expected that God would not grant victory to David in the Ammonite war. But Joab captured the royal city, the fortified city of Rabbah, and the city of waters (a fortified water source near the city; v. 27). Joab’s control of the water source gave him a huge military advantage.

In the ancient world when a general conquered a city, he gave the city his name. Not willing to give the city his own name, Joab sent for David, asking him to bring the rest of the troops, capture the city, and take it so the city could be named in his honor (v. 28). So David brought the remaining troops from Jerusalem and conquered Rabbah (v. 29). Joab was loyal to David and sought glory not for himself, but for David.

12:30. David arrived and he took the crown of their king, a symbolic act indicating utter defeat and the transfer of power to the conquering king. Thus the domain of Ammon passed to David. The crown’s weight indicated its great value. Its weight was a talent of gold, about 70 or 75 pounds.

12:31. David made the city’s inhabitants become forced laborers. In their menial service they used saws, sharp iron instruments, and iron axes, and [David] made them pass through the brickkiln, meaning that they made bricks. David did this to all the Ammonite cities. Then David returned to Jerusalem. Including the stories of the birth of Solomon and the conquest of Ammon are narrative strategies to show that the Lord had indeed forgiven David and that He would continue to honor the covenant He had made with him.

13:1–2. Absalom and Tamar had the same mother. In polygamous families the children of the same mother were especially close, even though all the children had the same father. It is noteworthy that the narrator introduced Tamar as Absalom’s sister instead of David’s daughter, setting the stage for what was about to happen (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 173). Chapters 13 and 14 record the beginning of the fulfillment of the disciplinary consequences foretold by Nathan ("the sword," 12:10) on David and his house for his sins of adultery and murder (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 110).

Amnon, David’s firstborn son, the crown prince of Israel, loved Tamar, his half-sister, in a way a brother ought not to love his sister—although his emotions were actually lust, rather than true love. Amnon was frustrated (v. 2) because Tamar, a marriageable virgin daughter of the king, may have had a bodyguard so that Amnon had no access to her. Also he wanted to have relations with her, but the law of Moses strictly forbade sex between half-brothers and half-sisters (cf. Lv 18:11).

13:3. Jonadab was David’s nephew and Amnon’s first cousin and friend. Jonadab was a shrewd ("wise" in a negative sense), a cunning manipulator. When Amnon explained his problem to Jonadab, Jonadab gave him a plan that would enable him to fulfill his unlawful sexual desires with Tamar.

13:4–7. Jonadab suggested Amnon pretend to be sick and then ask David to have Tamar prepare him some food (v. 5). So when David went to see Amnon, Amnon made this request. So the king sent for Tamar, saying, Go now to your brother Amnon’s house, and prepare food for him (v. 7). Being an adult, prince Amnon had his own house.

13:8–9. Amnon knew that he must be alone with Tamar to carry out his lustful design. So when he said, Have everyone go out from me, everyone left.

13:10–11. Continuing his ruse, Amnon asked his unsuspecting sister to come into the bedroom so he could eat from her hand. Tamar innocently complied with her big brother’s wish. While she was standing next to the bed, he grabbed her and said basically the same words as Potiphar’s wife said to Joseph (cf. Gn 39:7), Come, lie with me, but added my sister (v. 11).

13:12–14. Tamar refused for several reasons: (1) sexual relations between a brother and a sister were not to take place in Israel (v. 12a); (2) such action would be disgraceful (v. 12b); (3) she could not get rid of her reproach of being violated by her own brother (v. 13a); and (4) Amnon would be like one of the fools in Israel (v. 13b), like Nabal of 1Sm 25, who was also called a fool. She said she was willing to marry Amnon so they could legitimately engage in a sexual relationship. However, she seems to have forgotten that the law prohibited brothers and sisters from marrying each other. But Amnon refused to listen, and he overpowered and raped his own sister. Amnon was responsible for his own actions; yet his act was a consequence of David’s own disobedience.

13:15–16. After raping Tamar, Amnon immediately experienced a dramatic emotional reversal. His violent act of rape left the taste of hate in his soul, drowning his love for Tamar. Still lying in the bed, no doubt traumatized by the violence, Amnon voiced four words to his sister: Get up, go away! (v. 15). Amazingly, Tamar refused to leave. Sending her away, she said, would be worse than the rape. Given the circumstances, Amnon should marry her (cf. Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28–29), but Amnon refused to listen.

13:17. So Amnon called one of his servants and told him to get rid of her and lock the door behind her. No longer did he refer to Tamar as his sister; he called her this woman.

13:18–19. Tamar had on a long-sleeved garment (lit., "a varicolored tunic"), similar to the one Joseph wore. The king’s virgin daughters dressed themselves in this manner. Tamar’s clothing symbolized her royal virginity. Then one of Amnon’s servants put the king’s daughter on the street, outside Amnon’s home. Putting ashes on her head and tearing her … garment symbolized her grief and mourning over her personal tragedy.

13:20. Absalom suspected that Amnon had done something to hurt Tamar. He questioned her delicately. Then Absalom allowed Tamar to stay in his house.

13:21–22. When King David heard what Amnon had done, he was furious. He should have forced Amnon to marry Tamar. While the law forbade the union, it also insisted that if a man raped a woman, he must marry her (cf. Ex 22:16). Marriage was the better option. But inexplicably, David did nothing. He should have taken responsibility for Tamar, but she languished in the home of Absalom, the only person who seemed to care. Youngblood notes that the narrator’s use of David’s title in v. 21 is ironic, because he had the power to exercise justice for this crime ("1, 2 Samuel," 467). But David felt powerless, perhaps because of his own moral failure. Absalom refused even to talk with Amnon, but in his heart he hated him because he raped his sister.

13:23–27. Absalom waited two full years (v. 23) to take his revenge on Amnon. But Absalom had to wait for the right time (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 288–89). At sheep-shearing time (April and May), Absalom invited the king and his officials to his house for festivities (vv. 23–24). The king declined, feeling that providing a feast for the king and all his officials was a burden for Absalom (v. 25). Whether Absalom’s invitation was part of his strategy to strike Amnon, or the opportunity simply presented itself when the king declined to attend, Absalom then asked for the next best request, the presence of Amnon (v. 26). David had misgivings about Absalom inviting Amnon. Against his better judgment, David permitted Amnon and all the king’s sons to go with Absalom. But Absalom had an agenda, having waited two years to execute it, when guards were lowered, with little suspicion of malicious intent on his part.

13:28–29. As the king’s son, Absalom had loyal servants. So when he told them to kill Amnon when he was merry with wine, they carried out Absalom’s order and murdered Amnon. And then the king’s sons all rode off on their mules.

13:30–31. The news about Amnon’s murder reached Jerusalem before the king’s sons did, but the initial report (that Absalom had killed all of David’s sons) was inaccurate. Hearing that Absalom had struck down all his sons, David was grief-stricken.

13:32–33. However, the shrewd Jonadab, David’s nephew, perceived immediately what happened. So he told David, only Amnon is dead (v. 33).

13:34–36. Jonadab’s assessment was correct. A watchman saw David’s surviving sons returning to Jerusalem in great anguish.

13:37–39. Absalom’s mother was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai … the king of Geshur. Absalom was a fugitive in Geshur, where his maternal grandfather ruled, for three years (v. 38). David mourned for this son too.

14:1–3. Although Anderson says the narrator left his readers to draw their own conclusions regarding Joab’s reason(s) for trying to reconcile David and Absalom (2 Samuel, 187), the text states that that Joab, David’s commander, perceived that David’s heart was now lenient toward Absalom. Laney offers two other reasons for this event: Joab was concerned for the kingdom, since Absalom seemed to have the best chance to succeed David, and the friction between David and Absalom was having a demoralizing effect on the people of Israel (First and Second Samuel, 112). Joab therefore brought a wise (shrewd) woman from Tekoa (about 10 miles south of Jerusalem) to Jerusalem. Joab told the woman what to do and say. It was not uncommon for a person to go before the king to have a judicial matter settled. Under such circumstances the woman could have an audience with the king.

14:4–7. When the woman entered the king’s presence, she prostrated before David and said, Help, O king (v. 4). When David asked what was troubling her, she proceeded to tell him her fabricated story. The story’s plot was simple, but full of pathos. She said she was a destitute widow. Modern-day economic safety nets were nonexistent for widows in the ancient world. Women depended on their husbands or their adult sons for financial security. Without those supports they became destitute. This woman from Tekoa said she had two sons (v. 6). They were fighting and one son murdered the other. The family members wanted to execute the guilty brother, but he was the woman’s only heir. She said, They will extinguish my coal which is left (v. 7). "To extinguish her burning coal" was an idiom that meant her dead husband would have no name on the face of the earth, thereby dooming her to poverty.

14:8–11. David promised protection to the woman. I will give orders concerning you meant that he would protect her son from the avenger of blood (v. 8). But was this within David’s authority if the son was truly guilty of murder? He also said, Not one hair of your son shall fall to the ground (v. 11).

14:12–14. The woman had thus emotionally manipulated David to be receptive to what she said next. In light of David’s commitment to protect her son from the avengers, she told David that in not bringing back Absalom, he was acting like the avengers who wanted to kill her son. The woman’s words about water being spilled on the ground suggested that David should restore Absalom before it was too late. Her observation that God does not take away life (v. 14) is not correct. She highlighted God’s grace at the expense of His justice. Sometimes the Lord does take a life in His holy judgment.

14:15–17. The woman then returned to her fabricated story line. She flattered David, calling him the angel of God in being able to discern between good and evil (v. 17).

14:18–20. David discerned that Joab orchestrated his meeting with the woman. And when he asked her about Joab, she admitted that he had put all these words in her mouth (v. 19).

14:21–24. Joab’s plan worked. Absalom returned to Jerusalem, but David did not restore him to his court. Perhaps still angry, David did not want to see him.

14:25–27. Like Saul, Absalom was the most handsome man in Israel. Absalom had no physical defects. He cut his thick head of hair once a year. The cut hair weighed 200 shekels, that is, almost four pounds (v. 26). By the king’s weight means that David had established his own measuring and weighing system. Absalom was married, for he had three sons and one daughter (v. 27). His beautiful daughter’s name was Tamar, no doubt named in honor of his sister Tamar. His wife or wives are not named. All of Absalom’s sons preceded him in death, judging by his own statement in 2Sm 18:18.

14:28–29. After two full years Absalom still had not seen his father. Absalom sent for Joab, thinking that he could facilitate his being restored to court, but Joab did not respond.

14:30–33. To get Joab’s attention Absalom commanded his servants to set Joab’s barley field on fire. There was a common field outside Jerusalem, in which landowners owned different portions of the field. Joab’s portion was next to Absalom’s. Then Joab went to Absalom’s house, asking why his servants set his field on fire (v. 31). Absalom explained the action of his servants, saying that he wanted to see the king, adding, if there is iniquity in me, let him put me to death (v. 32). Absalom thought he had committed no sin in murdering his brother Amnon for raping his sister. Absalom had not seen his father for five years—the three years he was in Geshur (13:38) and the two years he was in Jerusalem.

Finally the king agreed to see his son. When they were reunited, the king kissed Absalom as an expression of reconciliation between father and son (v. 33). Since Amnon was dead, and assuming that David’s second son, Chileab, died early in life (Chileab is mentioned only at his birth [2Sm 3:3] and never again), Absalom, David’s third son, was the heir apparent to David’s throne.

Two movements are highlighted in this section: the flight of David from Jerusalem during Absalom’s revolt (15:13–37), and the return of David to Jerusalem (19:9–43). The episode’s turning point was Absalom’s decision to refuse Ahithophel’s good counsel (17:14). If Absalom would have followed his counsel, he would have succeeded, humanly speaking, in dethroning his own father David. This section has two narrative purposes: First, to demonstrate that the consequences of David’s sin in chap. 11 continued. And second, it shows David’s continued faith in the Lord and trust in Him to accomplish His promises for him (cf. 7:12–17).

15:1. Absalom began to present himself as king. He acquired a chariot and horses with fifty men running before it, riding through the streets of Jerusalem with the pomp and pageantry of royalty.

15:2–3. Absalom stood by the road not far from the gate to the king’s house. One of David’s role as king was similar to that of Moses, judging civil disputes. Evidently David had a chamber where he adjudicated such disputes. Solomon continued this practice with great distinction (cf. 1Kg 3:16–28). The narrator already stated that "David administered justice and righteousness for all his people" (2Sm 8:15). But Absalom misrepresented David and, when people came to David to adjudicate their cases, Absalom alleged that the king was corrupt and unjust: No man listens to you on the part of the king.

15:4–5. Absalom said in carefully chosen words, Oh that one would appoint me judge in the land. He did not say "king" because that would have been too inflammatory. Like a skillful politician, Absalom said just enough to get people on his side.

15:6. Absalom’s public relations strategy at the city gate worked so well that he stole away the hearts of the men of Israel. Besides being a murderer, Absalom was also a thief. His stealing the hearts of the people is a classic example of political manipulation. Wanting his father’s throne, he patiently waited to bring his evil plans to fruition.

15:7–8. Four years elapsed between 15:6 and 15:7. Most scholars agree that the verse should read "four years," not forty years, the discrepancy likely a result of a copyist’s error. Absalom fabricated a reason to leave Jerusalem and go to Hebron, about 20 miles south of Jerusalem. Hebron was the royal city of David when he reigned in Judah, and at the time was still the most distinguished city in Judah. Absalom said he had to pay a vow he had made while he was in Geshur, namely, if the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord (v. 8). Absalom used pious language to hide his malicious intentions.

15:9–10. Absalom obviously had been quietly building his power base, and now he had spies in his service. He placed them strategically throughout all the tribes of Israel, with the following instructions: As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then you shall say, Absalom is king in Hebron (v. 10). Although Absalom was the crown prince in birth order, the choice of David’s successor was the Lord’s decision, not Absalom’s.

15:11–12. Two hundred invited men from Jerusalem joined Absalom in Hebron, but they went innocently, and they did not know anything (v. 11). Absalom sent for Ahithophel, David’s wisest and most trusted advisor, and also the grandfather of Bathsheba. Perhaps Ahithophel revolted against David out of anger over what David had done to his granddaughter. Absalom’s support was growing, indicated by the growing number of people joining him.

15:13–15. In God’s providence an unnamed person alerted David to the brewing conspiracy. David understood right away the significance of the messenger’s words: The hearts of the men of Israel are with Absalom (v. 13). David did not underestimate Absalom—he knew his position in Jerusalem was vulnerable. Unless David and his servants fled right away, Absalom would overtake them. If David and his servants remained in Jerusalem, Absalom would strike the city with the edge of the sword (v. 14), resulting in the loss of many lives in Jerusalem.

15:16–18. David and his servants fled, but he left ten of his concubines to keep the house (v. 16). This may have included housekeeping duties, but Bergen suggests that David left these women in charge as a signal to his foes that he did not want any fighting to take place in Jerusalem (1, 2 Samuel, 403). Brueggemann sees this act as necessary to fulfill the judgment pronounced against David by Nathan in 2Sm 12:11 (First and Second Samuel, 302). Whatever the reason, the move had a negative result (cf. 16:21–22). David obviously expected to return sometime. As he stopped at the last house (v. 17), probably the house at the farthest eastern edge of Jerusalem (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 497), the king no doubt felt great emotion. The reality of what was transpiring sank in a new way: the king was fleeing from Jerusalem, under the threat of being killed by his own son. His servants and six hundred men … from Gath (David’s old haunts; cf. 1Sm 27) fled with David.

15:19–23. David spoke to Ittai, the leader of the Gittites. The Gittites were Philistines, people from Gath who had recently arrived in Jerusalem. David tested their loyalty by encouraging them to remain with the king, that is, Absalom (v. 19). Ittai rejected David’s suggestion, making an oath of loyalty to David in the Lord’s name (v. 21). So they stayed with David. The 600 Gittites had their children with them and by implication, their wives as well (v. 22). Probably over a thousand people were in this Philistine contingent. The entourage passed over the brook Kidron, on the east side of Jerusalem at the base of the Mount of Olives. They went toward the way of the wilderness (v. 23), a barren area leading to the desert near Jericho.

15:24–26. Abiathar the priest stood with David until all of the people were out of the city. The dejected people must have been encouraged to see God’s priest standing with David. David then told Zadok, Return the ark of God to the city (v. 25). David understood that God was sovereign, and if He wanted David back in Jerusalem, He would bring that about.

15:27–29. David balanced his sense of God’s sovereignty with responsibility. He sent Zadok and his two sons back to the city to act as spies (v. 28). The fords were shallow parts of the Jordan River that could be crossed by wading.

15:30. For King David to walk outside with his head covered and without sandals were symbols of grief and pain. The whole group with David also went up the Mount of Olives in grief, weeping as they covered their heads.

15:31. In God’s providence another unnamed person gave David the most important and troubling piece of information in the whole affair: Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom. David then prayed about the most important concern in his troubling affair: O Lord, I pray, make the counsel of Ahithophel foolishness. If Ahithophel offered wise counsel, David knew it meant the undoing of his reign.

15:32–34. Hushai showed up, with the symbols of grief (coat torn and dirt on his head) about him as well (v. 32). David told Hushai, his friend, that he would serve David better if he returned and pretended to be loyal to Absalom. David even told Hushai what to say to Absalom. In Absalom’s court, Hushai would be able to thwart the counsel of Ahithophel (v. 34). David had just asked the Lord in prayer to turn Ahithophel’s counsel to foolishness. But David also had enough theological sense to know that God often works through people in exercising His sovereign will. Hushai was a part of the answer to David’s prayer.

15:35–37. David told Hushai that if necessary, he could get any reports to David by relaying them to the priests, Zadok and Abiathar (v. 35). Going into the city at great risk to his own life in order to be a part of David’s spy ring was evidence of Hushai’s friendship with the king, an expression of covenant loyalty.

This chapter is a further fulfillment of God’s judgment against David for his sin (cf. 2Sm 12:10–11), specifically, that the evil against David would come from his own household). David acknowledged his plight as God’s work (cf. 16:10–11), and was willing to trust his future into God’s hands (cf. 15:25–26; 16:12; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 207).

16:1–2. Ziba, Mephibosheth’s servant arrived, but his presence was unexpected. Therefore, David questioned him about the many provisions he brought.

16:3–4. When David expected to see Mephibosheth, Ziba, who had been Saul’s servant, explained that Mephibosheth was staying in Jerusalem hoping that his father Saul’s kingdom would be restored to him (v. 3). When Ziba accused Mephibosheth of treason, David believed him and reversed the decision he made earlier concerning Mephibosheth (cf. 9:9). Thus, David gave Ziba all that belonged to Mephibosheth, causing Ziba to respond with the appropriate posture and words (v. 4).

However, Mephibosheth later would give David a completely different version of the story (cf. 19:24–30), accusing Ziba of slandering him to David (Peterson, First and Second Samuel, 211). David seemed to believe Mephibosheth’s account, letting him live (cf. 21:7). The implication is that Ziba’s story about Mephibosheth’s disloyalty was false and slanderous, revealing Ziba as a greedy opportunist who was exploiting the political crisis for his own gain.

16:5–6. Bahurim was east of the Mount of Olives, on the road leading to the desert of Jericho. Shimei, a relative of Saul, attacked David verbally and physically. He did this despite David’s mighty men being on his right and his left.

16:7–8. Shimei cursed David, saying, Get out, get out, that is, "Get out of Jerusalem, and go into exile." Shimei called David a murderer (you man of bloodshed, v. 7; cf. also v 8). And Shimei insulted David’s character, calling him a worthless fellow! Shimei then explained that David’s political crisis was because of the blood of Saul’s family he had shed. Shimei’s charges were wholly untrue. Nevertheless, some commentators affirm the truth of Shimei’s charge. According to Brueggemann, there was "[a]n important body of opinion in Israel [which] maintained that David had complicity in the deaths of Saul, Ish-bosheth, and Abner" (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 307). Brueggemann also argues that although the "pro-David" narrator was careful to exonerate David of any blame in these deaths, the mention of such charges may indicate the "vitality" of the accusation. He concludes, "We do not know" (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 307).

However, the author of 2 Samuel was not a polemicist for David but an author of Scripture. His words are true. It is certain that David did not kill Saul when he had the opportunity (cf. 1Sm 24, 26) nor did he have any complicity in the deaths of Ish-bosheth and Abner (see also Merrill, "2 Samuel," 472, where he says David had been gracious to Saul when he had the chance to kill him). In the end, Shimei’s charges are derived from his own bitterness and not the facts.

16:9–12. Abishai, one of David’s mighty men, wanted to go and cut off (lit., "take off") Shimei’s head for cursing the king. David, however, restrained Abishai with reasoned arguments (see in the introduction to this chapter). David had learned in his encounter with Nabal (cf. 1Sm 25) to allow the Lord to fight for him while he himself fought for the Lord.

16:13–14. On a hill parallel with them at a higher elevation, Shimei followed David and his people, cursing, and throwing stones and dust. Then David arrived at the ford of the wilderness, the desert of Jericho.

16:15–19. The scene shifts from David at the fords to Absalom and the men of Israel entering Jerusalem. Hushai, David’s counselor and friend, convinced Absalom that as he was loyal to his father, he would be loyal to him (vv. 16–19).

16:20–22. Ahithophel counseled Absalom, Go in to your father’s concubines, that is, have sexual relations with them (v. 21). To have relations with the king’s concubines was to claim the king’s throne. The act had serious political implications, not just moral ones. By Absalom doing this, everyone would know that he and David were beyond reconciliation, thus strengthening the resolve of those with Absalom. It was bad enough to claim the throne by Absalom’s sexual relations with the king’s concubines, but that these women were his father’s concubines made Absalom’s actions all the more despicable.

A tent was set up for Absalom on the roof, that is, the roof of David’s house. The roof setting was where the problem all started with David and Bathsheba (cf. 11:2). Without shame, Absalom had forced sexual relations with all ten of his father’s concubines on the roof of the royal residence in the sight of all Israel. It is sobering to reflect that although Absalom was responsible for his sinful actions, this tragic experience for the concubines was the result of chastisement from God for David’s sin (cf. 12:11).

16:23. Though Ahithophel had advised Absalom to have relations with David’s ten concubines, many people viewed his counsel as guidance from the Lord Himself.

17:1–4. Ahithophel gave even more counsel to Absalom. He suggested 12,000 men—a massive force—pursue weak and exhausted David that very night. Wanting to exploit that weakness, Ahithophel felt that a show of military force would terrify David and that the people with David would flee in fear, making David an easy target (v. 2). By killing David, the kingdom and the people with him would belong to Absalom (v. 3).

17:5–13. For some reason Absalom asked Hushai the Archite, David’s friend and spy, for his advice (v. 5). In all likelihood Ahithophel was not present during Hushai’s audience with Absalom. In the presence of his officials, Absalom related Ahithophel’s counsel to Hushai (v. 6). Hushai’s response was in two parts. First, he explained why he thought the counsel of Ahithophel was not good. David and his mighty men were fierce fighters who might well spring a surprise attack and achieve victory (vv. 7–10). Second, Hushai suggested his own plan, suggesting that Absalom himself lead the battle against David (v. 11), assuring Absalom of total victory (vv. 12–13).

17:14. Absalom and the men of Israel agreed that Hushai’s counsel was better than Ahithophel’s. The narrator explained why Absalom and his advisors embraced the counsel of Hushai: For the Lord had ordained to thwart the good counsel of Ahithophel, in order that the Lord might bring calamity on Absalom. The Lord answered David’s prayer (cf. 15:31), thwarting Ahithophel’s counsel through Hushai. The Lord would bring calamity on Absalom for his attempt to overthrow David.

17:15–17. Hushai told the priests Zadok and Abiathar, who continued to be loyal to David, what Ahithophel counseled Absalom to do and what he, Hushai, counseled. Hushai told the priests to get a message to David not to spend the night at the fords of the wilderness, but by all means cross over [to the east side of the Jordan where David could be more secure], or else the king and all the people who are with him will be destroyed (lit., "swallowed up," v. 16). The priests got word to an unnamed and unsuspected maidservant, who was part of David’s spy ring. She in turn took the information to Jonathan and Ahimaaz, the sons of Zadok and Abiathar (cf. 15:27), who were staying at En-rogel (on the southeastern corner of Jerusalem). Jonathan and Ahimaaz, like a relay team, stayed outside of Jerusalem to receive news passed to them from Hushai by means of the maidservant, and they carried the news out to David. The two men could not risk entering Jerusalem because by now it was known that they were on David’s side (v. 17).

17:18–20. An unnamed boy saw Jonathan and Ahimaaz in En-rogel, and he informed Absalom that they were there. So they fled and arrived at a house in Bahurim (on the way to the wilderness outside of Jericho; v. 18). Providentially, there was a well in the courtyard. The well’s mouth did not have a wall around it, so an unnamed woman spread a covering over the well and scattered grain on it to hide that the men were hiding in the well. Her plan worked (vv. 19–20).

17:21–22. After Absalom’s servants left the area, Jonathan and Ahimaaz climbed out of the well, found David, and told him to cross the Jordan River quickly, for Ahithophel has counseled against you. Hushai was unaware that Absalom had chosen to follow his counsel.) Through the night David and the people crossed over to the east side of the Jordan.

17:23. Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed and that Absalom and his men embraced the advice of Hushai. Therefore, Ahithophel must have known that letting David escape across the Jordan, instead of attacking the king as he had advised, meant Absalom had lost the advantage (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 267). If this were the case, Ahithophel would have sensed that Absalom’s coup d’état was doomed to failure and that he himself would be executed for treason. Therefore he set his house in order, that is, he made arrangements about inheritance matters and other important issues. Then he took his own life by strangling.

17:24–26. Following Hushai’s counsel, Absalom and his men crossed the Jordan (v. 24), preparing for a military confrontation with David and his men. Joab, the great military leader, was with David, and so Absalom placed Amasa over the army. Amasa was Absalom’s cousin and one of David’s nephews.

17:27–29. Three unexpected visitors arrived in Mahanaim (about 30 miles northeast of the Dead Sea and east of the Jordan River) and brought David and those with him supplies and food. The most unexpected person was Shobi, son of Nahash, from the capital city of Ammon. Given everything that Israel and Ammon had gone through in war (cf. 10:1; 11:1; 12:26–31), the appearance of one of King Nahash’s sons was amazing. The reason for Shobi’s kindness to David is not given, but there may be a hint in 2Sm 10:1–4. Shobi was the brother of Hanun, the Ammonite king who had replaced his father Nahash. David had attempted to show kindness to Hanun, but was rebuffed. Perhaps Shobi remembered that incident, and even disagreed with his brother’s actions. Whatever the case, through these visitors’ generosity, the Lord met David and his people’s physical needs.

The battle between the forces of David and Absalom was one of the most dramatic moments of David’s life. God had promised David a perpetual kingship with an eventual heir who would fulfill Israel’s messianic expectations. Yet now David was on the run, with his life at stake, just as he was years earlier while being pursued by Saul. The narrator had to answer the questions of how David’s kingship would survive, and how God would deliver His anointed. Chapter 18 provides those answers.

18:1–5. David placed Joab … Abishai … and Ittai over the soldiers, and assembled the men for battle. David’s men convinced him not to go into battle because he was the main target. If he died in this battle, all would be lost (vv. 2–4).

David gave his three generals the following charge: Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom. The charge was loud enough for the people to hear (vv. 5, 12). David’s fatherly sentiments were understandable. In these fives verses, David was referred to repeatedly as the king, leaving no doubt as to who was the legitimate ruler of Israel (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 522).

18:6. The battle between David’s men and Absalom’s men took place in the forest of Ephraim, a thickly wooded and treacherous forest on the east side of the Jordan River.

18:7–8. More of Absalom’s soldiers lost their lives (20,000 in all, v. 7) because of mishaps and accidents in the forest’s dangerous terrain than from fatal wounds from David’s soldiers’ swords.

18:9. Absalom happened to meet David’s servants in the forest. While riding, Absalom’s thick head of hair (cf. 14:26) was caught in the branches of an oak tree. Consequently, his mule, the mount of royalty, trotted on without him, leaving him dangling in midair.

18:10–11. An unnamed person saw Absalom hanging in the tree. Joab was outraged because the man did not strike Absalom down and kill him. He would have rewarded him with ten pieces of silver and a belt, a substantial reward.

18:12–14. The unnamed man was a person of principle, unwilling to disobey the king by killing Absalom, but he was not naive. He sensed that if he had taken Absalom’s life as Joab desired, Joab would have distanced himself from him. Wasting no time, Joab … took three spears in his hand and thrust them into Absalom’s heart (v. 14).

18:15. Joab’s thrusts did not kill Absalom. So, ten of Joab’s armor bearers finished the job.

18:16–17. Absalom was not honored in burial. They took his corpse and threw it into a deep pit in the forest. It was dishonorable for a heap of stones to be placed over the spot where a person was buried (cf. Jos 7:25–26; 8:28–29).

18:18. Absalom … had … set up … a pillar … in the King’s Valley (cf. Gn 14:17). Its location is uncertain, but it may have been near Jerusalem. Absalom had three sons, but all of them preceded him in death (see comments on 2Sm 14:25–27). Since he did not have an heir, he set up a monument for himself, calling it Absalom’s Monument in order to keep his memory alive.

18:19–20. In the ancient world runners carried breaking news. Ahimaaz the son of Zadok the priest, wanted to run to David with the news that Absalom was dead. But Joab displayed unusual insight. Joab did not permit him, though the reason is not made clear. It may be that because of Ahimaaz’s close relationship with David and the help that he had given him recently, Ahimaaz was in no position emotionally to bring to David all of the news about the day’s events, including the news of Absalom’s death.

18:21–23. Joab refused Ahimaaz’s offer to deliver the bad news to David (vv. 19–20). Instead, Joab sent a Cushite (v. 21), a foreigner who may have been Joab’s slave (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 423) to go tell David the news. The reason for Joab’s decision was not given. Perhaps he feared that David would react violently, as he did with the runner who brought him news of Saul’s death (cf. 1:15). If that proved to be the case, Joab did not want Ahimaaz, a loyal and valued servant of David, to be lost. However, Ahimaaz was determined to be the news bearer, so he took a shorter route, outrunning the Cushite (v. 23).

18:24–27. The scene switched back to Mahanaim (cf. 17:27). Gates in ancient Israel were complex structures, sometimes wide enough to have a roof. When the watchman went up to the roof, he saw a man running by himself (v. 24). This usually meant that he was bringing good news. Several runners together meant bad news. Since the runner was by himself, David believed he was bringing good news (cf. vv. 25–27, 31).

Then the watchman saw another runner. And since he was by himself, David interpreted this too as a sign of good news (v. 26). Observing the first runner’s stride, the watchman concluded that it was like that of Ahimaaz, Zadok’s son. Again David thought this was good news (v. 27). Perhaps this is why Joab did not want Ahimaaz to run in the first place, for he felt that when David saw Ahimaaz, David’s hopes for Absalom’s survival would be high.

18:28–30. Ahimaaz reached the king first, prostrated himself before David, and announced God’s deliverance. But David wanted to know about Absalom’s welfare. Ahimaaz knew that Absalom was dead, because Joab told him so (cf. v. 20). But sensing he could not tell the king the truth, he claimed ignorance about the details (v. 29).

18:31–33. When the Cushite arrived, he gave David the same basic message that Ahimaaz had given. David asked him the same question he asked Ahimaaz about Absalom. The Cushite responded in an indirect way. Instead of saying "Absalom, your son is dead," he said, Let the enemies of my lord the king, and all who rise up against you for evil, be as that young man! (v. 32). But this indirect approach did not ease David’s pain. The chamber over the gate may have been David’s temporary quarters. He went there and shed tears of grief. As he walked to the chamber he wailed, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son! (v. 33). No doubt David realized that Absalom’s tragic death was a consequence of his own sin. Once again, the sword of God’s judgment (cf. 12:10–11) that pierced David’s family had struck, this time piercing his heart. Peterson says, "David’s words of mourning rank among the saddest, most heart-rending words ever spoken" (First and Second Samuel, 226).

In chaps. 19–20, in order to demonstrate God’s faithfulness to His covenant despite David’s sin, the narrator showed how the kingdom of David was reunited and he was reinstalled as king in Jerusalem. But there was one more threat to David’s throne, albeit a short-lived one: revolt of a Benjamite named Sheba (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 118).

19:1–2. David’s grief was legitimate, but now was not the time to mourn. The victory’s joy was turned to mourning.

19:3–4. Instead of celebrating joyously, the people sneaked back into the city like defeated soldiers. Brueggemann suggests that they wanted to give David plenty of space to grieve, and that his people’s deep connection with the king made his loss their loss (First and Second Samuel, 323).

19:5–8. But Joab rebuked the king for placing his grief for his deceased rebellious son above his concern for those who had just contended successfully for his life. If David did not encourage his people now, his political situation would be worse than anything that had come on him since he was a youth (v. 7). So David took his place as king in the gate. Word got out, and all the people came before the king (v. 8).

19:9–10. The people were glad David had, early in his reign, defeated their enemies, but they were concerned that David had fled, in a show of dismal weakness, from his own son. But now that Absalom was dead, the fickle people wanted to bring King David back.

19:11–15. Israel wanted to bring the king back, but David received no word from Judah’s elders. Since they were close relatives, they should not have been the last to bring David back to his throne (vv. 11–12). David took an oath, promising to make Amasa the commander of his army in the place of Joab (v. 13). This gesture strengthened David’s alliance with Judah and penalized Joab for killing Absalom. David’s decision won over Judah’s elders (v. 15).

19:16–23. The same Shimei who cursed David and those with him now hurried and came down with the men of Judah to meet King David (v. 16). Shimei also had a thousand men of Benjamin with him, along with Ziba the servant of Saul’s house. They rushed to the Jordan before the king, and Shimei fell at David’s feet (vv. 17–18). Shimei begged for forgiveness. He pointed out to David that he was the first of all the house of Joseph to go down to meet my lord the king (v. 20). He did not, however, point out that he was the first of all the house of Saul to curse David (cf. 16:5–8). Abishai, not known for mercy, wanted to put Shimei … to death, but he was more diplomatic about it this time (v. 21).

But not wanting to put anyone to death in Israel that day, David swore to Shimei, You shall not die (v. 23)—at least not now (but see 1Kg 2:8–9, 36–46, and the comments there). Anderson believes that the "inherent danger" of Shimei’s curse still hung over David’s house, and later Solomon would remove both the effect of the curse and a potential enemy when he had Shimei killed at David’s order (2 Samuel, 237–38). David never trusted Shimei (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 276), and when Shimei violated the terms of his "probation," knowing the penalty, Solomon had the reason he needed to execute Shimei.

19:24–30. Mephibosheth met the king at the Jordan. A significant amount of time had elapsed in chaps. 15–19 since Absalom’s conspiracy. David had one question for him: Why did you not go with me, Mephibosheth? (v. 25). Mephibosheth explained that his servant Ziba deceived him and slandered him (vv. 26–28, cf. 16:1–4). David seemed unsure about whom to believe, so he decided to split Saul’s land and holdings between Ziba and Mephibosheth (v. 29).

19:31–32. Among the people who met David at the Jordan to welcome him home was 80-year-old Barzillai. He had provided food for David while he was in Mahanaim. Barzillai’s food provision was substantial, given the number of people with David at Mahanaim.

19:33–39. David wanted Barzillai to cross over with him to Jerusalem and live there, but Barzillai said he was too old and would be a burden to David (vv. 33–35). And he added that his thinking was no longer clear, he had lost his capacity to enjoy food, and his hearing was bad. The old man just wanted to return home and die in his own city near his father and mother’s grave (v. 37). The noble old man returned home. David never forgot the kindness Barzillai showed him in his hour of great need and distress (cf. 1Kg 2:7).

19:40–43. Contention erupted between the men of Judah and the men of Israel. The men of Judah escorted the king back, but the men of Israel felt they should have been involved in the process (vv. 41–43). Harsh words ensued over a triviality.

20:1–2. On the occasion of the tribal feuding between Judah and the ten tribes of Israel, Sheba, a worthless fellow (lit., "a man of Belial," meaning base, useless, wicked) was present (v. 1; cf. 19:41–43). The narrator related Sheba’s rebellion not only to show that David’s kingdom was in jeopardy again, but perhaps also to set the stage for the eventual breakup of the nation after Solomon’s death. But here the time for the northern tribes to secede had not yet come (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 550), even though all the men of Israel withdrew from following David and followed Sheba (v. 2).

Significantly, the narrator mentioned Sheba eight times (vv. 1–2, 6–7, 10, 13, 21–22), signaling that, despite his worthless character, he must have been a person of influence (Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1171). Surprisingly, nothing else is known about him apart from this chapter. Sheba spoke divisive poetic words that caused a rift in the nation, with Israel following him but the men of Judah remaining faithful to David.

20:3. This parenthetical verse related how David took the ten … concubines whom Absalom had violated and placed them under guard to be sure they would never be taken advantage of again. The narrator added, but he did not go in to them, saying in a gentle way that David did not have sexual relations with these women. They lived as widows, as if David were dead. The treatment of these women may seem extreme for 21st-century sensibilities, but these women were in a legal relationship with David and he provided for them.

20:4–8. The assembling of troops required three days. David ordered general Amasa to be present, but Amasa delayed for reasons unknown (v. 5). But David could not afford to wait on Amasa. So he sent Abishai in place of Amasa to pursue Sheba (v. 6). The large stone in Gibeon was a geographical landmark (v. 8).

20:9–13. Joab was ruthless, murdering Amasa probably out of envy for being replaced as the military leader by Amasa. Then Joab and Abishai pursued Sheba as if nothing happened.

One of Joab’s young men sensed that Amasa’s murder might cause division in David’s ranks. So to prevent that he said, whoever favors Joab and whoever is for David, let him follow Joab. Joab’s cruelty in leaving Amasa to wallow in his blood (v. 12) is stunning, even given what is known about Joab’s character. Amasa’s corpse, abandoned in the highway, was a distraction. So one of Joab’s young men removed Amasa from the highway and covered him in the field with a garment.

20:14–15. The narrator did not identify the he in v. 14, but the context indicates that this was Joab since Joab and his actions were the focus of the narrative at this point. He and his men reached Abel Beth-maacah (about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee), the fortified city where Sheba was holed up. They besieged the city, and all the people who were with Joab were wreaking destruction in order to topple the wall (v. 15).

20:16–22. At Abel Beth-maacah we meet the second woman in 2 Samuel referred to as a wise woman (cf. 14:21). She cited a proverb to Joab, they will surely ask advice at Abel (v. 18). The proverb implied that the town of Abel had a long history of wise men and women. She personified her city as a mother in Israel (v. 19). Using the woman’s imagery, Joab said he would not destroy her city. He only wanted the city to hand over guilty Sheba. So the woman convinced the people of the city to seize Sheba, cut off his head, and throw the head to Joab. This wise woman saved her city, and eliminated David’s enemy.

20:23–26. The narrator named eight key administrators in David’s restored kingdom. Mentioning David’s bureaucracy was perhaps a way of signaling that the rebellion was over and the king was safe and his control once again firmly established (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 332). Thus ends a major section of the book dealing with the consequences of David’s sin.

Chapters 21–24 are not in historical sequence. They are drawn from different periods in David’s reign, serving as an epilogue to the book. This section opens and closes with a narrative, with two poetic sections in between. Chapter 21 deals with how atonement resolved a sin problem that Saul caused. Chapter 24 deals with how atonement resolved a sin problem that David caused. The two poems in chaps. 22 and 23 are at the heart of this section, revealing that the Lord was the heart of David’s life. Bergen describes these chapters as "a carefully arranged set of six accounts and lists that are chronologically detached from the previous narratives … [demonstrating that] David’s career began with, was centered in, and ended with his relationship with the Lord" (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 441–42).

21:1–2. There was a famine in the days of David for three years. In agricultural societies a famine was a serious matter. And in Israel’s theocratic society, famines also raised questions about causes. David prayed, asking the Lord about the cause of the three-year famine. The Lord answered, It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death. David therefore summoned the Gibeonites. These people were not Israelites, but a Canaanite people group who lived in the land at the time of Joshua’s conquest. Centuries earlier, Joshua had made a covenant with the Gibeonites (cf. Jos 9:3–27). But Saul had put some of the Gibeonites to death in his zeal for the sons of Israel and Judah (v. 2), an event not recorded in Scripture, thus dishonoring the covenant Joshua had made.

21:3. David asked the Gibeonites, How can I make atonement that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord? Atonement was a central reality in the OT sacrificial system. The verb "make atonement" means to satisfy the Lord’s holy demands for a sin that has been committed (cf. Lv 1:4; 4:20; 6:7; 16:3–6). Sin offends the Lord, and so in order to receive His forgiveness of sin, atonement must be made. The blood of a spotless sacrificial animal had to be shed so that the guilty person could then be forgiven. Ultimately, the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross ultimately, fully, eternally, and completely satisfied the Lord’s holy justice against sin, making forgiveness and salvation possible for all who trust in Him (cf. Rm 3:25; Heb 10:1–14).

21:4–6. The Gibeonites did not want financial reparations, nor did they want to execute anyone in Israel. The man who committed the crime (in this case Saul) must pay for it. But Saul was dead. Therefore, the Gibeonites suggested that seven of Saul’s sons (possibly including his grandsons) must take his place in death. The Gibeonites said they would hang them [lit., "expose them"] before the Lord in Gibeah (about four miles north of Jerusalem; v. 6). Exposing Saul’s sons meant a public execution, maybe involving the dismembering of the corpses. Instead of being buried, they would be left out in the open for everyone to see.

21:7–9. The events recorded in this chapter probably transpired around the time when David spared Mephibosheth (cf. chap. 9).

Another concubine suffered in this grim event. This time it was Rizpah, Saul’s concubine and mother of two of the executed men. Ironically, one of her executed sons was named Mephibosheth! Another daughter of Saul also suffered. Merab, Saul’s oldest daughter, who should have been given to David in marriage, was given to Adriel, and she had five sons by this union (see comments on 1Sm 18:17–19). All five of her sons were put to death at once. The KJV translation substitutes Michal for Merab (v. 8) based on the reading of various Hebrew manuscripts. If this were the correct reading, it would contradict 2Sm 6:23 which states that Michal died childless. The NASB reading Merab follows various Hebrew manuscripts and the second-century BC Greek translation, the Septuagint, and is the correct reading.

On the surface it seems unfair to execute Saul’s grandsons, when a spotless animal sacrifice was all that was required. But the only way to atone for murder and the consequent pollution of the land was for the person who committed the crime to be put to death (cf. Nm 35:30–34). Since Saul and his sons were dead, his grandsons had to replace them. To see God’s displeasure turned away from Israel, justice could only be established through the shed blood of those who carried out the crime.

21:10. Neither birds nor beasts could keep Rizpah from making sure the bones of her sons and relatives were protected. She stayed at the rock for months until the day it rained (v. 10). Feeling the raindrops on her face, she knew that the Lord’s wrath was turned away and that the famine was over.

21:11–14. Her actions moved David. So to honor the dead, he took Saul’s and Jonathan’s bones (he had to exhume them because the men of Jabesh-gilead had buried them; cf. 1Sm 31:11–13), and gathered the bones of those who had been hanged, and he buried them in Benjamin in the grave of Kish, Saul’s father. The narrator added a significant statement: after that God was moved by prayer for the land (v. 14), indicating that God would now answer prayer in Israel. Similar words are recorded at the end of the book: "Thus the Lord was moved by prayer for the land" (24:25).

As great as David was, he still needed help. So the Lord surrounded him with men of faith and courage. Four of them are noted here. This section detailing David’s deliverance from four giant foes prepared the reader for David’s psalm of deliverance that followed in chap. 22 (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 125).

21:15–17. Fighting again against the Philistines, David became weary. A formidable Philistine named Ishbi-benob, who was a giant and one of Goliath’s descendants was on the battlefield. Ishbi-benob had a new sword—normally his father Goliath would have passed his sword down to him, but David had taken Goliath’s sword in battle (cf. 1Sm 17:54). Ishbi-benob intended to kill David, and in view of David’s fatigue, he may have succeeded (v. 16).

But Abishai … helped him, and struck down the Philistine (v. 17). At this point David’s men insisted that he no longer go out to battle with them. His death in battle would mean the extinguishing of the lamp in Israel. This metaphor indicates the moral and spiritual guidance that David, under God, provided for the nation.

21:18. The location of Gob, which means "pit," is uncertain. Sibbecai the Hushathite, one of David’s men, stuck down the Philistine Saph, who was among the descendants of the giant. He also killed Sippai (1Ch 20:4).

21:19. War broke out again at Gob. This time Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. At first glance this account seems to contradict the account in 1Sm 17, which states that David killed Goliath. However, it was not uncommon for two different people to have the same name. And since the enemy soldiers in these verses were "descendants of the giant" (v. 16), it was also possible for David and Elhanan to have killed two different warriors each named Goliath, both having a spear like a weaver’s beam.

21:20–22. Another battle occurred in Gath in Philistia. This time there was a giant who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot (v. 20). He defied Israel the way Goliath did, and Jonathan the son of Shimei [not the Shimei who cursed David in chap. 16], David’s brother, struck him down (v. 21). David and his men thus defeated four of Goliath’s descendants in battle (v. 22).

22:1. It is well known that this chapter is virtually identical to Ps 18. The day that David composed this song to the Lord was not specified, but it was definitely much earlier in his life, perhaps after the battle of Gilboa when Saul was killed (cf. 1Sm 31:1–13, Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 287). Thus the chapter is far out of chronological order; the narrator placed it here perhaps as a fitting counterpart to the song of Hannah (cf. 1Sm 2:1–10) with which his account began (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 339). The song’s placement also serves to show the reader that the history of both David and Israel were not just about power and conflict, but about God’s sovereignty and deliverance (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 339).

In this chapter, and in 23:1–7, the narrator moved from prose to poetry. This psalm, used in Israel’s worship, is recorded here with some slight changes in Ps 18 (see comments above).

22:2–4. David used imagery to describe the Lord’s central role in his life: rock … fortress … refuge … shield … horn, and stronghold. David drew these images from the physical setting where he spent his fugitive years. The song’s theme is, I call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from my enemies (v. 4).

22:5–7. David described his fugitive years and near-death experiences as waves of death and torrents of destruction. The word destruction (Hb. belial), means "worthless in character," thus underscoring the character of the people who tried to destroy David.

The word Sheol is usually, as here, a term for the grave. Sheol’s coils wrapped themselves around David like a snake in the sense that he was about to die. David was in mortal danger, unable to deliver himself.

In distress, that is, in a cramped place because of his trials, David called on the Lord. His cry came to God’s ears. Of course God is spirit, and does not have physical ears. The expression is an anthropomorphism, a description of God using terms of human anatomy to communicate a function like that of the human anatomy in question.

22:8–16. David framed the Lord’s intervention on his behalf in language that was used to describe the exodus and other memorable events in Israel’s history. This section is the psalm’s central section. David is not mentioned here. The Lord’s anger on David’s behalf shook the entire universe.

Smoke from His nostrils, fire from His mouth, and kindled coals depict God’s aroused righteous wrath (vv. 8–9). He bowed the heavens, that is, He split or parted the heavens (v. 10). And He rode on a cherub and flew (v. 11). Cherubim were ministers of God’s throne, bearers of God’s throne-chariot, which the Lord mounted and rode in rescue and in judgment (cf. Ps. 18:10; Ezk 1:4–28). The arrows (v. 15) were His bolts of lightning.

22:17–20. Much as Pharaoh’s daughter lifted Moses out of the water (cf. Ex 2:10), so the Lord lifted David out of his waters of trials. David declared, He also brought me forth into a broad place (v. 20), a place no longer cramped by the constraints of distress.

22:21–25. The Lord rewarded David with deliverance because of his integrity and the consistency of his walk with God. David penned these words years before his moral failure recorded in chap. 11. The overall tenor of David’s life at that time, and following the sin with Bathsheba, was devotion to the Lord.

22:26–30. David wanted the readers of his songs to know that God’s dealings with people were always just, in keeping with His righteous character (vv. 26–28). As one who had experienced God’s righteous blessings, David could testify of the truths he had just stated. Using another metaphor for the Lord, David said God was his lamp, illuminating his darkness and helping him to walk in the light of life (v. 29). Also by Him, David could be agile in battle.

22:31–33. David put God’s word to the test and found it be true. He is a shield (another metaphor) for all those who take refuge in Him, and a rock and a fortress, that is, the One in whom one can find protection. The questions in v. 32 underscored the Lord’s uniqueness. Also, God’s way is blameless, that is, whole, having integrity. Those who walk with Him reflect this character trait (v. 33; cf. vv. 24, 26). When David wrote that the Lord sets the blameless in His way (v. 33), he meant that God sets them free.

22:34–37. David praised God for strength, using a wonderful simile. He makes my feet like hinds’ feet, and sets me on my high places. Like a hind (female deer) with strong legs and swift feet that go to high places on the mountains, so was David strengthened by God’s enabling grace. God had trained him for battle so that his arms can bend a bow of bronze (v. 35). Bending a bronze bow is an overstatement, emphasizing that the Lord enabled David to achieve what he could not do in his own strength. God enlarged David’s steps; because of the providential room for his feet, David had not slipped (v. 37).

22:38–43. David pursued and conquered his enemies because of God’s work in him (girding him with strength, v. 40) and for him.

22:44–46. The Lord also made David a head of the nations (v. 44). The king recognized that all the supposed obedience from foreign leaders and peoples might not be sincere. Human fortresses (v. 46) were no match for the eternal God who is a fortress to those who trust Him.

22:47–50. David continued to use the rock metaphor (cf. vv. 1–2, 32) to express the Lord’s person and work. And David recognized that God gave him victory over his enemies (vv. 48–49). David did not want to limit God’s praise to Israel; he wanted to celebrate the Lord among the nations.

22:51. A tower of deliverance, that is, a tower of victories, is another metaphor for the Lord. David praised the Lord for the eternal scope and breadth of His lovingkindness. Eternity will not exhaust the display of the Lord’s lovingkindness to David and his descendants, for the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, the son of David, will reign over the house of Jacob forever (cf. Lk 1:31–33).

Verses 1–7 are the last psalm spoken and written by David, apparently composed shortly before his death. The Lord preserved these words for posterity, in a sense to provide an author’s guide for understanding the Psalms. Verse 1 does not mean these were the last words David ever spoke. The narrator framed them this way as a "fitting conclusion to the effective reign of David since 1Kg 1–2 depicts only a ‘shadow’ of the former king" (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 268).

23:1. The ESV translates the Hebrew more accurately than the NASB here: "The oracle of David, the son of Jesse, the oracle of the man who was raised on high." The term "oracle" was usually used to describe a prophetic communication. David’s last words were prophetic. He spoke as God’s mouthpiece. It is commonly understood that David identified himself as the subject of his last words. (1) David was the son of Jesse. Saul had used these words in a pejorative way (see 1Sm 20:27–31; 22:7–13), but David may have used them here to indicate his humble beginnings and, by implication, God’s work to exalt him from a mere shepherd boy. (2) He was the man who was raised on high, that is, the Lord had exalted David. (3) David was the anointed of the God of Jacob. God had anointed David, setting him apart and consecrating him to be king. (4) David was also the sweet psalmist of Israel. This is quite a free rendering of the Hebrew. A more literal approach would translate this as saying that David was "the delightful one of the songs of Israel," indicating that he himself was the favorite subject of the psalms he wrote. His psalms have influenced Israel’s and the Church’s worship for thousands of years, and have been a source of hope and strength for myriads of people. The Spirit of God spoke by him and put His Word on David’s tongue. The Lord Himself was the source of David’s psalms.

Despite the common interpretation of David’s last words, as found above, there is a significant alternative interpretation that sees David’s subject as not himself but the future Messiah. The difference centers on the Hebrew word ‘al (translated on high, v. 1). The Septuagint translates this with the Greek word epi ("concerning"), reading it with the same Hebrew consonants but with a slight vowel change in the Hebrew text (the vowels were not part of the original Hebrew manuscripts and were added in the early Middle Ages). This slight vowel difference results in a noteworthy difference in translation: "The oracle of David, son of Jesse and the oracle of the man raised up concerning the Messiah [Anointed One] of the God of Jacob, and the Delightful One of the songs of Israel." The significance is that while in the Masoretic Text, David appears to be talking about himself as the anointed of the God of Jacob, in the older Septuagint reading he is saying that his oracles are about "the Messiah (Anointed One) of the God of Jacob."

The internal evidence supports the Septuagint reading about the Messiah and is contrary to the view that David is writing about himself. In 2Sm 23:3–4, David proceeds to describe the righteous reign of the king. In 23:5, David makes a declarative statement (lit.): "For not so is my house with God." Most translations recognize the internal contradiction. In v. 1 David appears to be saying it is all about him, and then in v. 5, he plainly says it is not. Therefore, to harmonize this difficulty, most (but not all) English versions then translate v. 5 as a question: Truly is not my house so with God? The difficulty with doing so is that there is no Hebrew grammatical support for translating this verse as a question (it lacks the interrogative particle, the prefixed h).

Thus, it appears that the slightly different understanding of the vowel substantially changes the meaning of the text. It appears that David is saying that (1) the future Messiah was his favorite subject in his psalms (v. 1), (2) David could write of the Messiah because the Spirit of God spoke to him (v. 2), (3) the Messiah would be a righteous king with a righteous reign (vv. 3–4), (4) David was not that righteous ruler (v. 5), and (5) David was assured that the righteous King Messiah would indeed come because of the Davidic covenant (v. 5; For a thorough discussion of this, see Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010], 39–41, 168).

23:2–5. These verses are the words the Lord said to David; they are the heart of the poetic oracle. The Lord used a simile to describe the righteous and reverent rule of the king over people. The imagery of v. 4 speaks of the wonder of a refreshing and invigorating morning without clouds. A righteous rule is breathtaking, refreshing, and invigorating, and will be experienced under the reign and rule of the Messiah Jesus, the promised son of David.

Although the NASB translation has David asking a question in v. 5—Truly is not my house so with God?—this translation should not be understood as a question. It does not have the normal Hebrew grammatical indication of an interrogative, so it should be read as a statement: "For not so is my house with God" (lit., the NKJV has a similar declarative translation). David was not claiming that he was the righteous king described in v. 4. Rather, David was stating that although he had sinned, he was assured that God would fulfill His promise to him (He has made an everlasting covenant with me, ordered in all things, and secure, v. 5). The final phrase of v. 5 should not be translated as a question either (Will He not indeed make it grow?), but as a statement: "He has not yet made it sprout." In other words, despite his failure, David was assured, by the Davidic covenant, of the coming of the future Messiah for all [his] salvation and all [his] desire (v. 5), even though He had not yet "sprouted" (the verbal form of the messianic title "Branch," cf. Jr 23:5; 33:15; Zch 6:12). David’s sins had not caused the Lord to abandon David or His promises to him. The Lord would indeed be faithful to his eternal covenant with David and one day, send the Son of David, the Messiah.

23:6–7. The wicked are like thorns being cast aside. The thorns are so sharp and jagged that those who remove them must be armed with iron and the shaft of a spear (v. 7). Thorns are to be burned with fire in a place designed for this purpose. This is the image of the fate of the wicked (cf. Mt 13:41).

23:8. After the last poetic oracle of David, the narrator discussed those who helped him. They were mighty (Hb. gibbor) men. The word gibbor means "mighty, valiant soldier." John N. Oswalt writes, "The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior" (John N. Oswalt, "mighty," in TWOT, 148). These men were mighty warriors because of the Lord, who is also described as gibbor (cf. "mighty [gibbor] God," Is 10:21; the "strong [gibbor] arm" of God, Ps 89:13). The writer included these powerful warriors as one of the indications that God Himself was with David as a valiant, victorious soldier. Their names were given, along with some of their faith-based heroic exploits.

Heading the list is Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains (lit., "of the three"). Among David’s 37 mighty men, three stand out. They had more authority and leadership among the mighty men. Josheb was the leader or head of the three. He was called Adino the Eznite because he slew eight hundred people in one battle. The odds were against him, but he fought in the Lord’s name. The Lord granted him victory.

23:9–10. After Josheb was Eleazar. The men of Israel left him alone to fight the Philistines. Two of the other mighty men were also present, but the narrator did not identify them. The narrator focused on Eleazar, who struck the Philistines until his hand was weary. Exhausted, he clung to his sword until his hand froze to it. The Lord used him to bring about a great victory (v. 10).

23:11–12. The pride of third place went to Shammah. Lentils were a vegetable cultivated throughout the Middle East. The people were afraid to protect the lentil plot where a troop of the Philistines were gathered, and so they fled, leaving Shammah to face the Philistines alone. Shammah, however, defended it. Using Shammah, the Lord brought about a great victory. Though alone, Shammah held his ground.

23:13–17. As noted earlier, 37 mighty men are listed in this chapter, but among the 37 were 30 chief men, that is, those who had men under their leadership.

Three of the 30 went down to join David in a battle against the Philistines (v. 13). The time of the battle is unknown, but it may have occurred while David was at the cave of Adullam (cf. 1Sm 22). There was no water source near the cave, so David merely expressed a desire that someone would give him some water from Bethlehem’s well (v. 15). He was not expecting anyone to do it; it was dangerous for anyone to attempt to do so, given the Philistine garrison at Bethlehem. But the three mighty men broke through the Philistine line, went to the well, drew water out of it, and took it to David (v. 16). Since these men risked their lives, David considered the water to be his men’s lifeblood. The blood belongs to the Lord (cf. Lv 17:8–13). David therefore poured the water out as a sacrifice to God (v. 16–17).

23:18–19. Abishai, Joab’s brother … was chief of the thirty. Joab is not listed as one of David’s mighty men, but he is mentioned three times in connection with others (vv. 18, 24, 37). The narrator vividly described Abishai’s exploit in battle, killing three hundred with his spear. He had justly merited a reputation like those of the first three named in this chapter. He was the leader of the 30, but he was not ranked among the first three in the list.

23:20–23. Another mighty man in the list was Benaiah. Benaiah’s father carried out great exploits, mighty deeds. Like his father, Benaiah accomplished some mighty deeds. For example he went down and killed a lion in the middle of a pit on a snowy day (v. 20). Snowfall made the conditions slippery and dangerous to fight. But like David, who killed a lion (cf. 1Sm 17:34–35), Benaiah killed one in trying conditions. Also he killed an Egyptian who was impressive because of his physical stature and skill in warfare (v. 21). The Egyptian had the advantage. He had a spear in his hand, which he could use against Benaiah at a distance. All Benaiah had was a club, a clumsy weapon useful only in close battle. Using skill and speed, Benaiah snatched the Egyptian’s own spear from him and killed him with it (v. 21), much like David who killed Goliath with the giant’s own sword. Benaiah was honored among the 30, but did not attain to the stature of the first three on the list. Recognizing the faith and courage of Benaiah, David promoted him, placing him over his personal bodyguard.

23:24–39. Asahel, another brother of Joab, was among David’s 30 mighty men (cf. 2Sm 2:18–23). Beginning in v. 24b and extending to the end of the chapter, the narrator named the men who were a part of David’s mighty men. Several names are interesting. Ittai (v. 29) had some association with Saul, but was one of David’s mighty men. Eliam, Ahithophel’s son, was one of David’s mighty men. Eliam was Bathsheba’s father (v. 34; cf. 11:3). Uriah the Hittite, the last person on the list, was one of David’s mighty men. His name was reminiscent of the dark period in David’s life, but the Lord did not forget about Uriah’s character and mighty deeds (v. 39).

24:1. When this census was taken is not known. The Lord’s anger again burned against Israel, though the reasons for His anger were not stated. The phrase it [apparently referring to the Lord’s anger] incited David NASB; HCSB) is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew phrase, and should be rendered "He" (referring to the Lord) incited David (see the NIV; NET; ESV; KJV; and RSV). The Lord’s anger cannot be properly understood as some impersonal force acting apart from the Lord. The writer understood God’s governance and sovereignty even over David’s sin in this instance. While God ordained the action, He was not blamed for the guilt of David’s sin (cf. 24:10, where David blamed himself for the sin, not God). God is often presented as sovereignly governing people’s sins, but, in possibly the most unfathomable mystery in all of Scripture, it is the people, not God, who are held morally responsible and thus guilty for the sins they commit. See the comments on Jb 1:21–22, where Job ascribed to God His providential role as the ultimate cause of what happened to him ("The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord," Jb 1:21) without ascribing to God the moral guilt of those who attacked Job’s holdings and family ("Job [did not] … blame God," Jb 1:22).

Some of this was complicated by Satan’s role in this episode, according to 1Ch 21:1. Since the original readers of 2 Samuel would not have had a copy of 1 Chronicles on hand (1 Chronicles was written later), it is essential to interpret 2Sm 24 on its own, and in 2 Samuel Satan does not appear. For an explanation of the relationship of God in His sovereignty to Satan’s actions and David’s sinful choice in this episode, see the comments that introduce 1Ch 21:1–22:1.

David’s numbering of Israel and Judah in these circumstances was an act of unbelieving pride, placing his faith in numbers.

24:2–9. The census counted every man 20 years old and upward who was able to go to war (cf. Nm 1:3; 1Ch 27:23). Women and children were not counted. Joab and the army commanders disagreed with the king’s decision to count the people, but David’s word prevailed. They crossed over to the other side of the Jordan River and camped in Aroer (v. 5). Aroer’s location facilitated the counting of the people as groups of counters went from there to different parts of the country. It took Joab and his men almost 10 months to do the census because the counting covered such a wide area with vast differences in topography and terrain. They had a head count of 800,000 valiant men in Israel who drew the sword and 500,000 men in Judah (v. 9).

24:10. David’s heart troubled him, that is, struck him with guilt before the Lord. Under a sense of guilt and conviction, David knew his act of counting was sin, so he confessed it to the Lord. But confession and forgiveness do not set aside consequences.

24:11–14. Gad was a prophet and a seer (v. 11). The word "seer" emphasized the way a prophet received his message from God; it was something he saw, a vision. Gad was David’s prophetic advisor. The Lord told David through Gad to choose one of three consequences for his sin. David chose the option of falling into the Lord’s hands because of His great mercies. David used the plural of "mercies" because of the infinite abundance of God’s mercy. Given his depravity, man was the worse option. David’s decision was wise and theologically informed.

24:15–17. The pestilence was not specified, but seventy thousand men died. Moving through the land with fierce wrath against the Lord’s people, eventually the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, but the Lord relented from the calamity (v. 16). The Lord stopped the angel from further destruction. The narrator then noted that the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, indicating where the angel was when he ceased his destruction. Since this angel did not bring a revelation of God, it is likely that this was not a theophany or a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah.

24:18–25. Wrath was momentarily held back, but sin had to be dealt with through atonement. Gad therefore instructed David to erect an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, because this is where the angel had been when he withheld further judgment (cf. v. 16).

With royal officials David went to Araunah’s threshing floor. This was a significant location. Later the purchased threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite became the site of Solomon’s temple (cf. 1Ch 21:18).

Araunah met David and his men and fell down before the king (v. 20). Still on the ground, Araunah asked the king why he had come. When David explained his presence, Araunah said he was willing to give the threshing floor free of charge and everything required to make the sacrifice (vv. 22–23).

But David refused to dishonor his Lord by offering Him a sacrifice that cost him nothing (cf. Is 61:6; Mal 1:13–14). David was emphatic in his insistence on buying the threshing floor. I will surely buy it from you for a price (v. 24). On Araunah’s threshing floor David built … an altar … and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. Atonement was made. So the Lord answered the prayer of His people for the land, and the plague was withdrawn.

Thus ends the two books of Samuel, with the story continuing immediately in the following books of Kings. Although named for Samuel, these books are essentially about David, the son of Jesse, the king of Israel. Samuel’s role was to be the anointer of kings; Saul’s role, as one who was not after God’s heart, was a contrast to David; David, the central character, was depicted as the ideal king, the chosen one who was wholly devoted to the Lord.

Essential to the entire narrative of 1 and 2 Samuel was the covenant that God made with David, to give him a descendant who would have an eternal house, kingdom and throne (cf. 2Sm 7:12–17). In the following books of Kings, each Davidic king is compared to David but has a reign that ultimately fails. Therefore, up to that point, at the close of the books of the kings, no Davidic king fulfilled the promise to David. Even so, the covenant promise remained intact, looking to the day when the ultimate Son of David, the Messiah would come. It is only Jesus the Messiah, who was the Son of David (2Tm 2:8) and will one day return to sit on the Davidic throne (Is 9:7), who will totally fulfill God’s eternal promise to David.

Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989.

Archer, G. L. "Ephod." In The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975.

Baldwin, Joyce G. 1 and 2 Samuel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988.

Bergen, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.

Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990.

Davis, Dale Ralph. 1 Samuel. Focus on the Bible. Ross-Shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2000.

________________. 2 Samuel. Focus on the Bible. Ross-Shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2007.

Feinberg, C. L. "Belial." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Vol. 1. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Howard, David M., Jr. An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books. Chicago: Moody, 1993.

Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983.

Lower, J. M. "Vision." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975.

Merrill, Eugene H. "1 Samuel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament. pp. 431–455. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987.

________________. "2 Samuel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament. pp. 457–482. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987.

Peterson, Eugene H. First and Second Samuel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Porter, Laurence E. "1 and 2 Samuel." New International Bible Commentary. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979.

Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Unger, Merrill F. The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Edited by R. K. Harrison. Chicago: Moody, 1988.

Woodhouse, John. 1 Samuel. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.

Youngblood, Ronald F. "1, 2 Samuel." The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 3, edited by Tremper Longman, III and David E. Garland, 13–614. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.