Web viewHis departure and death, however, left Absalom without any reliable guide, ... It is just...

DT Commentary: April 22 – 26, 2013

2 Samuel 16-242 Samuel 16

(i) Mephibosheth was conspicuous by his absence. In the light of later information (see 19:24–30), it is doubtful if Ziba was telling the truth, but that is not particularly relevant at this point in time; as far as David knew, Mephibosheth had deserted him, in the hope of getting something for himself out of the political crisis. It is difficult to see how events could have conspired to make Mephibosheth king, unless both David and Absalom had been killed in the civil war. Even then, some other son of David would probably have seized the vacant throne. Be that as it may, one class of opponent which David had to take into account was the ambitious man. There are always politicians or army officers or the like whose only real loyalty is to themselves, and who do not mind who gets hurt so long as their own ambitions are furthered. In a crisis, the good leader must always be wary of people of this type and guard against them if possible.

(ii) Shimei was of a different character entirely. One must at least give him credit for his honesty and his courage; he hated David and he was not afraid to say so, even though he might easily have been killed by David’s men. He represented what would today be called “sectional interest”; it would be even more accurate to accuse him of “tribalism” or indeed racism. In other words, his hostility to David was quite fanatical, and was based on the wrongs he believed that David had inflicted on his tribe (Benjamin). At the very least we must say that the so-called wrongs were exaggerated, blown up out of all proportion to the facts. The welfare of the nation as a whole did not concern Shimei in the slightest; all that mattered to him was revenge. We can still observe fanaticism and hatred of this sort in various countries today. Good leaders must be realistic enough to recognize that sweet reasonableness will never convince such men; but wisely David refrained from adding bloodshed to bloodshed, which might well have alienated the whole tribe of Benjamin permanently. Toleration and understanding are vital in dealing with such opponents.

(iii) Ahithophel represents the unexpected, the unpredictable enemy. We are never given the slightest idea what caused him to side with Absalom. It cannot have been ambition, since he had held as high a position in David’s court as he now held in Absalom’s. He was a Judaean, and cannot have shared Shimei’s Benjaminite sentiments. No leader can expect one hundred per cent loyalty from all his apparent supporters, and there will always be some who surprise everyone in a crisis by the stance they adopt. Of the three men, Ahithophel was obviously much the most dangerous. His advice to Absalom in verse 21 was shrewd and practical. By such a public act Absalom would be able to demonstrate to all that there was a total and irrevocable breach between his father and himself, otherwise his support might have been half-hearted in some quarters. After all, if David and Absalom had been able to patch up their differences in some fashion, Absalom’s leading supporters would have found themselves in a very awkward position, and possibly even used as scapegoats. So Ahithophel’s advice strengthened Absalom’s position considerably. To take over a king’s concubines was a very public claim to his throne, cp. 3:6f.

But there were two hopeful signs in all this for David. Ziba is an interesting character; he was just as ambitious for himself as he claimed that Mephibosheth was, but evidently he took the gamble that David would win the civil war. There were then people who were not necessarily devoted to David’s cause but who were convinced that his shrewdness and experience would eventually prove stronger than Absalom’s youthful vigour. The other sign of hope was the fact that Hushai succeeded in worming his way into Absalom’s favour, and so found himself in a position to aid David’s cause. In this we should see the hand of God, once more. The public humiliation of David’s concubines had been foreseen (cp. 12:11), as a punishment upon David, but the fall of David was not in God’s plans. Ahithophel’s advice might be as sound as that of God himself (verse 23), but he was not God and he had no control over events whatever. It is all too easy to be pessimistic when we assess the size, the skill and the power of some human adversary; but as the old saying puts it, “Man proposes, but God disposes.”1

2 Samuel 17

Ahithophel’s plan was for speedy and single-minded action, with the sole aim of capturing David. If David were killed, all opposition to Absalom would evaporate; nobody fights for a dead king. […] The only weakness in Ahithophel’s argument was that he offered to lead the night attack himself; no doubt he thought this a noble and

1 Payne, D. F. (2001). I & II Samuel. The Daily Study Bible Series (2 Sa 16:1). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.


helpful gesture, but it opened the door for the criticism that it implied some disrespect for Absalom’s ability as a soldier. At that time, the first essential in a king of Israel was his military ability.2

Hushai advised caution, reminding Absalom of David’s great experience in warfare. He recommended that the biggest possible army should be mustered before any action was taken. Then, he said, David could be located and his few troops crushed; if necessary, any city in which David took refuge could be besieged and sacked. There were two hidden snags in this plan: one was the sheer exaggeration of it, for it was by no means certain that Absalom’s full army would be that much bigger than the forces David would be able to muster. The more serious disadvantage in it was the loss of time involved; it would be no quick and easy task to assemble and organize a huge army. Of course, that was Hushai’s real objective; he knew that the longer Absalom delayed, the better David’s chances would be, and that even a short delay would enable David to organize the troops available to him and to devise some military tactics.

Hushai’s tactics in argument were exaggeration, vivid images, and also flattery: the vast army was to be led by Absalom in person! The writer tells us that it was God’s design that Hushai’s plan would be the one adopted, rather than Ahithophel’s (verse 14), but Absalom and his followers accepted the inferior strategy of their own free will. They had the choice and they made the wrong one. Thus we are given another insight into Absalom’s character and his quality of leadership: he was too readily moved by flattery and he did not have sufficient intelligence to size up the options correctly. All leaders sometimes make mistakes, but this was a vital decision—his whole future hung upon it. It was particularly foolish to be influenced by flattery, which is something every leader must expect to some extent, and nowhere more so than in an oriental court. Good leadership demands a cool, objective evaluation, not least of one’s own abilities.3

The military arrangements. As the two armies began to prepare for battle, two things seemed to favour David. The first was that he had a secure headquarters, in the city of Mahanaim, while Absalom and his men were out in the open. By leading his army in person, Absalom was putting himself in danger, whether or not he realized it. The other factor is introduced casually but is not really insignificant: although the Israelite army as a whole seems to have supported Absalom, it was not led by its very capable and experienced commander-in-chief, Joab. (Joab was in fact loyal to David and in Transjordan with him, as we first learn in 18:2.) Absalom’s chief general, Amasa, may have had little experience; at any rate, the little we know about him suggests that he was not very competent. Absalom was putting his trust in the wrong people.4

Ahithophel’s suicide. Ahithophel’s action was symbolic. It was a sign of his wisdom that he knew already that Absalom’s cause was doomed; he did not wait for Absalom’s defeat and for the disgrace and punishment which were certain to be inflicted upon himself. His departure and death, however, left Absalom without any reliable guide, and that fact in itself was fatal to the rebel cause. Absalom lost friends as David gained them (see paragraph iv).5

Two reasons can be suggested for the willingness of these men in Transjordan to assist David. One of the men, Machir, was a close friend of Mephibosheth (cp. 9:4f.), and he may well have been impressed by David’s earlier generosity to Mephibosheth. The second probable reason is that Transjordan was especially vulnerable to invasion by the Aramaeans from the north, and the rich farmers of this region no doubt owed a great deal to David’s strong military action against the Aramaeans. For all David’s faults and mistakes, he had over many years given most of his citizens ample reason to trust him, and this fact now paid off. Good leadership is for the good of all, and it creates close bonds of trust and affection.6

2 Samuel 18

The story of the battle is told briefly, and then, in more detail, we read how Absalom was killed and how the news was brought to David. At the outset David was quite prepared to march into battle and risk his own life, but he was







extremely anxious to save Absalom’s life. His men, and especially Joab, took exactly the opposite point of view: they insisted that David must take no personal risks, but they were quietly determined (or at least Joab was) that Absalom must die. Undoubtedly Joab read the situation rightly. If David were to be killed by a stray arrow, Absalom would have won after all, and all the efforts of David’s supporters would have been in vain. On the other hand, if Absalom lost the battle but escaped unharmed, David’s throne would never be safe. Joab saw clearly that there was no room for two kings in Israel; politically it was too late for a reconciliation between father and son.

The truth was that David acted as a father but not as a king—as if he and Absalom had had some minor domestic quarrel which could be put right by an apology and a handshake. He failed to see Absalom as a traitor and a rebel, whose actions had caused a great deal of harm to the stability and welfare of the kingdom, to say nothing of the great loss of life in the civil war (verse 7). Yet every parent will feel a good deal of sympathy with David’s viewpoint.

The narrator provides us with another of his very effective character studies in this chapter. On one side we have David, in his wretched dilemma between fatherhood and kingship; on the other side there is Joab, apparently cold, unforgiving and relentless, and yet presumably motivated by utter loyalty to David. In between the two extremes there are the ordinary troops, and especially Ahima-az, who evidently all felt a real sympathy for the king. The problem can be neatly posed in a single question—was the death of Absalom good news or bad news? It was good news for David’s army and for the nation, and indeed it was good news for David the king; but it was desperately bad news for David the father, and that is the poignant note on which the chapter ends. The contrast between two heartfelt statements could not be more dramatic and effective: “May the enemies of...the king...be like that young man”, said the Cushite; “Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!” exclaimed the bereaved father.

The Bible does not play down the deep reality of human emotions. Nobody, king or commoner, is expected to behave like a robot; indeed, it was the very depth and reality of David’s feelings that made these events a punishment to him. The loss of yet another well-loved son was a matter of intense sorrow for him. But, as a result, he was in danger of forgetting a king’s responsibilities.7

2 Samuel 19

The trouble was that David’s time of grief over Absalom’s death was longer than a moment, and much too long altogether. While it was true that Absalom’s revolt died a natural death along with its instigator, it was not the case that the country was automatically restored to David’s control. David had to show proper gratitude to his supporters and soldiers, to retrieve those who had remained neutral, and above all to reassure and win over those who for whatever reason had sided with Absalom; at the same time he dared not offend one group while trying to placate another. It was a very tricky situation, calling for thought and diplomatic skill of a high order, but to begin with David made not the slightest effort to do anything at all. Joab’s bold speech to the king was brutal but necessary. He even went so far as to threaten to lead another revolt against David.8

Judah, like the other tribes, had been divided in its loyalties; many of them must have supported Absalom. David must have seen a danger that he, a Judaean himself, would find himself king of the northern tribes while his own tribe became estranged from him and found another leader. Perhaps Amasa, Absalom’s commander-in-chief, could have become king of Judah—many a general in history has been able to seize royal power. David’s decision was a clever one; it may have been partly due to his anger with Joab for killing Absalom, but no doubt his chief purpose in giving Amasa Joab’s post was to demonstrate that he was planning no revenge on anybody who had supported Absalom. Judah responded warmly and positively to David’s appeal. Forgiveness is an important Christian virtue, cp. Matt. 6:12–15, and a very wise and shrewd aspect of leadership. David’s deep understanding of human nature was vital to his success at this critical point in his reign, and largely made up for his failings of recent years.9

In dealing with Shimei in particular, David had to suppress his own feelings. He never forgave him, as we know from 1 Kings 2:8f., but he gave no hint of his anger publicly. The narrator tells us only what David said and did, not what he felt and thought. In many ancient countries Shimei would have been executed; David spared his life.

Much the same may apply to Mephibosheth. It is clear that the biblical writer believed his story, but it is not so





clear that David did. He could perhaps have pursued the matter further and tried to find witnesses, but instead he allowed Mephibosheth to retain half his property. Even if Ziba had told lies about his master, his loyalty to David in a crisis had merited some reward, and David had after all promised him the whole of Mephibosheth’s estates (cp. 16:4). David wanted no reprisals against anyone—that was his governing principle, and a very wise one in the circumstances.

As for Barzillai, his generous support had made all the difference to David, and the king naturally wanted to repay him in kind, and also to show his family public honour. In this case policy and personal feelings pointed in the same direction; but the moral of most of this section is that the good leader and the wise king must be able to suppress, even to disguise, his own feelings. David was able to do this effectively, and succeeded in reuniting the nation under his rule.10

The Tribe of Benjamin. The important thing about Shimei, Ziba and Mephibosheth is that all three belonged to the tribe of Benjamin; and it is noteworthy that Shimei brought with him to welcome David’s return to power no fewer than a thousand Benjaminites (verse 17). Though only a small tribe, Benjamin was at that time very important in Israel, since it had been the royal tribe (under Saul and Ish-bosheth). If David had alienated Benjamin now, as he could so easily have done by harsh treatment of Shimei or Mephibosheth, the tribe of Benjamin could well have started a fresh revolt and a successful one, leaving David with only Judah as his realm. As it was, a Benjaminite did lead a revolt, though it was small and quickly crushed (see chapter 20). It was very wise indeed to attempt by all means to win Benjamin over; and it seems that David largely succeeded. History was to show that a generation later, when the kingdom split into two, Benjamin remained firmly attached to Judah.

David’s abilities in leadership are emphasized by this passage. By shrewd handling of individuals, with a careful eye to wider and to future dimensions, he gave his realm new stability after the near-disaster of Absalom’s revolt. It is impossible to put the clock back in life; but with care and effort, and above all with God’s help, mistakes are not beyond all remedy. It is always right to take a positive attitude and to try to make a fresh start, even if the new will never be so splendid as the old.11

The question that comes to mind is this: why did David succeed in holding the country together when his successors failed? Theologically, the answer is that it was God’s will; at the human level, we could reply that David had talents for leadership which his successors lacked. It did not then take superhuman or supernatural qualities to hold the country together; it took wisdom and political skill, exercised in obedience to God. The message for later times was that the disunity of the nation was not beyond repair; given the right man as king, and given God’s blessing, David’s kingdom could be restored. The vital ingredient in David’s policy was the care he took to avoid showing any favouritism to Judah (19:42). The true leader must be scrupulously fair to all his citizens; a privileged tribe, caste or class will unbalance any state, sooner or later.12

David’s appointment of Amasa as general was part of his plans to pacify Judah after its involvement in Absalom’s revolt. This particular scheme failed, apparently because of some inefficiency on Amasa’s part, and more particularly because of Joab’s violent determination to retrieve his lost position. It is possible, of course, that Joab doubted Amasa’s loyalty to David; whatever Joab’s sins, it is at least true that his loyalty to David never wavered over many years. David could not do without Joab. There is a reminder in this that the greatest leaders are to a considerable extent dependent on the men who are available to support them. God brought prosperity to Israel as much through Joab as through David.13

2 Samuel 20

The emphasis in this little episode is on “wisdom”. The woman who seized the initiative was renowned for her wisdom, and evidently the town of Abel itself had a reputation for wisdom (verse 18). Abel was a frontier-town of no very great importance, and it is probably true to say that if it had been severely damaged or even destroyed there would have been little effect on the country as a whole; Sheba’s revolt would still have been crushed with relatively little bloodshed or bitterness. However, the writer wishes to impress on us that a city noted for its wisdom ought not



12 Payne, D. F. (2001). I & II Samuel. The Daily Study Bible Series. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.



to come to a bad end—especially when no other city suffered in any way.So the passage gives us a picture of wisdom in action. First of all the woman saw the problem realistically; the

danger must have been clear enough to everyone in Abel, but there may have been some false hopes of rescue or intervention. Secondly, she did something about it—she did not wait for somebody else to act but took the initiative herself. Then she argued her case, challenging the rightness of Joab’s actions; and he was forced to agree with what she said. So a compromise was reached; and finally she took steps to fulfil the terms agreed. In other words, wisdom was a combination of intelligent insight and bold action. The Old Testament rarely separates the intellectual from the pragmatic: wisdom is not simply knowing but also doing. The Bible has no time for armchair philosophers.

The moral of the tale then is the value and importance of wisdom. One must credit Joab with the same sort of wisdom. He was a violent man, as the chapter has already demonstrated, but he wisely took no pleasure in destroying a peaceable city. Israel benefited as much from his actions as the unnamed woman’s.

One very important aspect of wisdom in the Old Testament is underlined in Prov. 1:7: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge”. The devoutness of the woman is briefly indicated in her reference to Israel as the heritage of the Lord (verse 19). Wisdom will often be thwarted if it is not based on a correct relationship with God; and it is bound to be thwarted in the long run if it is positively hostile to God and his plans. By contrast, when intellectual powers are blended with a sensitivity to God’s ways and purposes, there is nothing that cannot be achieved, by individuals, churches, and nations.14

2 Samuel 21

21:1–3 No indication is given here about when during David’s reign this famine occurred. It probably was after Mephibosheth had come under David’s protection in Jerusalem (cf. 9:1–13) and before Absalom’s rebellion (cf. 16:7–8). Because of Palestine’s almost total dependence on rainfall and dew for crop moisture, poor harvests were not uncommon and were not automatically considered a sign of divine displeasure. However, when crops failed for three successive years, David rightly concluded that Israel had offended the Lord and was experiencing a judgmental Torah curse (cf. Lev 26:20; Deut 28:18).

Accordingly, “David sought the face of the LORD,” perhaps with the assistance of Ira the Jairite (cf. 20:26) or a priest who wore the revelatory ephod (cf. 1 Sam 23:9; 30:7). The Lord revealed to the king that “Saul and his blood-stained house” were responsible for this disaster that had come upon Israel.

The specific crime that Saul had committed was heinous: the slaughter of the Gibeonites, thus violating a centuries-old nonaggression treaty established before the Lord between Israel and these non-Israelite “survivors of the Amorites” (v. 2; cf. Josh 9:15–18; Ps 15:4). On the one hand, Saul’s reason for doing so was commendable—he had “zeal for Israel and Judah,” apparently to give them total control of the Promised Land. On the other hand, it was despicable because it put nationalism ahead of zeal for the Lord, the kingdom of Israel ahead of the kingdom of God.

Now that the Lord had revealed the cause of the curse, David met with the Gibeonites to determine a means of turning it aside. Though they were Israel’s virtual slaves (cf. Josh 9:27), David placed himself at the Gibeonites’ mercy by asking what he could do “to atone [from kāpar; NIV, “make amends”] so that they [NIV, “you”] will bless the LORD’S inheritance” (v. 3). David’s request subtly referenced the Abrahamic blessing (cf. Gen 12:3): the king could not bring a blessing to the Gibeonites; but as the Gibeonites’ attitude toward Israel changed to one of blessing, the Lord himself would bless the Gibeonites.15

21:19 Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? This dramatic account of David’s killing of Goliath seems to be contradicted by 2 Sm 21:19, where Elhanan is said to have performed the deed. The issue is complicated by the fact that 1 Ch 20:5 mentions that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath—not Goliath himself.

Attempting to resolve these discrepancies, some scholars suggest that a pre-Christian-era copyist introduced an error into 2 Sm 21:19 that created the mistaken impression that Elhanan killed Goliath; the correct reading of the original, in this case, would be preserved in 1 Ch 20:5. Another approach suggests that the contradiction between 1 Sm 17:50 and 2 Sm 21:19 is only apparent. Ancient rabbis suggested that Elhanan is another name for David (which in Hb means “beloved one” and could be a nickname). “Goliath” could be a title and not a name, so there may have been two fighters from Gath named Goliath.16


15 Bergen, R. D. (1996). Vol. 7: 1, 2 Samuel. The New American Commentary (444). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.


2 Samuel 22

This poem is a psalm of thanksgiving to God. Most of it is couched in general terms; only in the last verse (51) is David himself explicitly mentioned. Also, like most psalms of this type, its language is very pictorial, so that it could be applied to a whole variety of situations in which God’s help was recognized and acknowledged. In the given context of verse 1, it acknowledges God as David’s rescuer from his enemies, both inside and outside Israel, and gives due thanks to God for the preservation of life and limb.

The real enemy, as the Psalmist saw the matter, had been death, pictured as a violent ocean in verse 5 and as a hunter in verse 6; the broad place of verse 20 provides the contrast, a combination of dry land underfoot and of the open range, far away from the hunter’s traps. David towards the end of his career could look back serenely on the dangers of earlier days, confident that all was now well; but he did not boast of his own prowess or skill. Rather, he remembered in humility that he had long ago turned to God for help (verse 7) and received it in full measure. The longest paragraph in this section is verses 8–16, which gives a vivid but symbolic portrait of God as he responded to David’s cry for help. This picture is based on the concept of Yahweh as the God of thunder and storm—a very familiar concept in the ancient world, except that outside Israel such a deity was only one of a number of gods and goddesses. Israel’s God was no less strong than other storm-gods; he could wield the most frightening powers of nature just as effectively as, say, Baal in Canaanite religious belief. But he was far more than just a storm-god; he manipulated not just thunderbolts and the like but men, nations and history, for the benefit of both David and Israel as a whole. Such reminders of God’s visible power were necessary to Israelites when the nation felt humiliated by powerful enemies like Assyria and Babylon. We still need to remember the power of a loving God, in days when we are tempted to worship, or at least tremble before, the gods of nuclear power, overpopulation, economic realities and powerful nations.

David’s claim that God delighted in him (verse 20) was no arrogant boast but a matter of experience and so a source of joy and wonder. It is just like a lover’s assertion that his partner loves him; his partner’s care and affection are too real and tangible to be denied.17

The psalm thanks God above all for his faithfulness, to nation and to king alike; but in his meditation on all that God had achieved David was conscious of several other aspects of God’s character, some of which were very much in contrast with the attributes of the gods worshipped by Israel’s neighbours.

(a) He never acts without a purpose.(b) His actions are fully just, and appropriate.(c) His promises can be relied on.(d) He gives light and help to his servants as they need them.(e) He is the living God (verse 47). Some gods were believed by Israel’s neighbours to be capable of dying, e.g.

the god of vegetation in the long, dry summer. By contrast, Israel’s God was always active and dynamic, caring for his people, responsive to their needs and prayers, “the same yesterday and today and for ever”.

With such a God, David could end the psalm with a confident glance into the future. Israel might not always have victories (indeed, it soon became weak once more), but it would always have a God who would show steadfast love—better translated as “loyal love”—to the nation’s leaders as the years went by. The world changes, and political circumstances ebb and flow, but God remains the same.18

23:13-17 The water retrieved by the three unnamed soldiers illustrates not only their love and loyalty to David but his own devout instincts, which, of course, made his men love him all the more (23:13–17). David longs for water not simply to quench his physical thirst. He longs specifically for water “from the well near the gate of Bethlehem,” his hometown (v. 15). “He longingly remembers the draughts that quenched the harvest-time thirsts of his childhood.”

After his men risked their lives to bring him the very water to satisfy his nostalgia, his reaction may seem ungrateful to modern readers. But the particular verb for “poured it out” refers to the pouring out of libations, and when poured out “before the LORD,” this is terminology specifically reminiscent of offerings to Yahweh as an act of devotion. Instead of selfishly consuming water bought at such a great risk, David honors his men even more by offering it to Yahweh as a sacrifice. As Israelites were not allowed to drink the blood of a sacrificial animal, so

16 Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (434). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.




David refuses to drink this water, turning it into sacred blood worthy of sacrifice to Yahweh (Lev. 17:10–13).19

23:18-39 The names of the soldiers appear to have no particular order in the list of 23:24–39. Surprisingly Joab is not mentioned, though his armor bearer is powerful enough to make the list (23:37). Perhaps Joab is so powerful it is not necessary to include him. His influence and power stand at the top of this list, just as his presence is felt throughout the narratives related to David.

If so much subtlety is involved in the list, then certainly the last item is intended to convey irony: “and Uriah the Hittite.” The historian could have said much more about Uriah and his role in David’s history. But “the mere mention of Uriah’s name is enough to evoke the full memory.” As impressive as these war heroes were, it was enough to recall that even the greatest warrior of them all was flawed.20

2 Samuel 24

At first glance, our historian appears to have chosen a peculiar way in which to conclude 1-2 Samuel. David conducts a census against Joab’s advice, and the nation suffers a bitter plague as a result. Under the direction of Gad the prophet, David acquires a new piece of land in Jerusalem, builds an altar, and offers a sacrifice to Yahweh. The books of Samuel conclude with a brief statement that Yahweh answers David’s prayer and stops the plague. Technically, the story of David continues into the first two chapters of 1 Kings, making this chapter especially odd as a conclusion to 1-2 Samuel.

Upon further reflection, this narrative plays a role in the overall contribution of chapters 21–24 generally to the message of 1-2 Samuel. As the poetic sections (22:1–51; 23:1–7) confirm and strengthen the messianic themes of previous narratives (see above), so chapter 24 returns to one of the central characterizing features of David as the ideal king of Israel. David here is the repentant king, who puts the needs of his people before his own personal ambition. In short, this narrative reinforces the ideal portrait of David as someone willing to place aside his royal power in deference to Yahweh’s will and authority. He becomes the willful and prayerful servant of God, who is the one really in control. Yahweh is king, David is only viceroy. Thus, one of the central questions of these books is addressed again: Who may serve suitably as king of Israel? David may, and only someone like him.

The opening verse of this text presents modern readers with a number of perplexing questions. Why is the Lord angry? Why does the Lord incite David to do something sinful? Why is taking a census sinful? We as readers must learn to be content with incomplete answers, or sometimes no answers at all. Here we are simply not told why Yahweh is angry with David, and to read emotions or motivations into the text is to be guilty of “psychologizing” the character of God.

On the question of census-taking in Israel generally, we have the aid of other references in the Old Testament that assume a natural link between census-taking and plagues (Ex. 30:12). Moreover, this text assumes through the words of Joab that the census reflects a shift in David’s object of faith—a shift from reliance on Yahweh to win battles to a reliance on access to military might (2 Sam. 24:3). It is sinful because David is acting like a typical ancient Near Eastern king instead of an Israelite king.

The question on why the Lord would incite David to sin in the first place is more complicated. In the closely parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1, the source of the problem has been redefined: “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpreters have harmonized these two statements by asserting that God’s permissive action is expressed in 2 Samuel 24:1 and Satan’s instrumentality is the emphasis of the Chronicles parallel. This sometimes gives the impression of exegetical sleight of hand and is often less than satisfying.

Without attempting to address this question thoroughly here, I suggest simply that we need to give more credence to ancient Israelite formulations of theology and the way that theology evolved over time during the Old Testament period. As we have seen elsewhere in this commentary, ancient Israelites were not initially concerned with secondary causes. Their emphasis on Yahweh as the creator and supreme God of the universe often found expression in the Bible in their crediting him with disaster or calamity (usually the Heb. word raʿ, “evil”). We modern readers are usually more interested in defending God’s goodness than ancient Israelite authors, who were first and foremost interested in his power. Subsequently and late in their history, they saw a role for “Satan” in the power structures of world administration.

Ultimately, however, it must be admitted once again that we may need to learn to live without neat and tidy answers to questions raised by this text. As elsewhere in the biblical story of redemption (Job 1:12; 2:7, 10; 2 Cor.

19 Arnold, B. T. (2003). 1 & 2 Samuel. The NIV Application Commentary (640). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

20 Arnold, B. T. (2003). 1 & 2 Samuel. The NIV Application Commentary (640). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.


12:7), our text is faced with “a complementarity of roles which is unresolvable” because it is “grappling with the mystery of evil.”

After nearly ten months of arduous work, Joab is able to give David a report of the census (24:8–9). But then David has a change of heart. Interestingly, 24:10 gives no hint of prophetic intervention or condemnatory oracle. The narrator simply states that the king is “stricken to the heart” because of what he has done ( NRSV; NIV has “conscience-stricken”). The real point of the narrative seems to be David’s important words, “I have sinned greatly.” The confession is strategically placed to remind us of another time David used almost the identical words to admit his guilt before Nathan and Yahweh (12:13), only this time there is no prophetic “You are the man” to expose David’s hypocrisy and call for repentance.

Gad the prophet comes to David the next day, after David has confessed and pleaded for forgiveness (24:11–13). This final narrative of 1-2 Samuel portrays David as a king who has learned how to confess and seek forgiveness and restoration. This time he does not need a prophetic intermediary to threaten him or parabolic sermons to persuade him of his guilt (12:1–12). David sees his own guilt, and he quickly and genuinely repents and seeks to reverse what he has done.

The narrator’s invitation to read David’s confession in light of 12:13 drives us further back into 1 Samuel as well. David’s confession before Nathan was itself linked to another royal confession, Saul’s before Samuel (see Original Meaning section for 2 Sam. 12:13–25 as well as 1 Sam. 15:24, 30). Saul’s blustering and verbose confession became for our historian a prototype of the disingenuous and insincere ruler who repents only when caught in the act. Even then, Saul’s repentance is exploitive, trying to recuperate his losses by using Samuel. Israel’s first king confesses, but he does not repent (see Bridging Contexts section for 2 Sam. 10–12).

By contrast, David becomes a prototype of the sincere Israelite king who repents immediately and genuinely. He suffers the consequences of his sin, but he receives forgiveness and enjoys restored fellowship with Yahweh. Now, the final episode narrated in 2 Samuel further reinforces the picture of David, the repentant king. But it also takes the reader one step further and one step deeper in appreciating David’s repentance: Here he repents without prophetic prodding. As he spoke prophetically in his last words (23:1–7), David now lives prophetically.

Yahweh makes David “pick his poison.” Required to choose between famine, military defeat, or plague (24:13), David surprises us again. He concludes that the judgment of mortals is unpredictable, whereas God’s judgment is consistently moderated by his mercy (24:14): “Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great.” His repentance in verse 10 is genuine because he has become first and foremost a man of faith. He trusts God enough to fling himself on God’s mercy rather than calculate the costs of suffering at the hands of mortals. In this again, David has become this narrative’s portrait of the ideal king of Israel.

In the closing paragraphs of 2 Samuel, we encounter another rather bizarre episode. The tender-hearted King David is tortured by the realization that his people (his flock of “sheep,” 24:17) suffer because of his actions. He intervenes on their behalf, pleading that the Lord lay his vengeful wrath on him and his own family rather than on the people of Jerusalem, which the angel of death is about to strike with the plague (24:16). At Gad’s instruction, David acquires “the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite,” builds an altar to Yahweh on it, and offers burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. The Lord responds, and the plague ends (24:18–25). At the end of the day, it is David’s relationship with Yahweh that saves Jerusalem. All is well.

But why the details about Araunah the Jebusite? And who is he? His name has a variety of forms in different manuscript traditions and has been explained as having either Hurrian or Hittite origins. Araunah is likely a title rather than a personal name, and many assume he was the last Jebusite king of Jerusalem. Still, this hardly explains why our historian includes these details as the final episode of 1-2 Samuel. The text clearly places great significance in the fact that the pestilence ceases in Araunah’s threshing floor, which is then transferred to David’s possessions.

Threshing floors were normally on a hill where the grain was collected for threshing and winnowing. They were also traditional sites for theophanies and receiving divine messages. The context of this final paragraph implies that the threshing floor in question is north of David’s city.92 The Chronicler provides the missing detail that, in fact, this threshing floor becomes the site chosen for Solomon’s temple, having been duly purchased with David’s money and made sacred by his offerings (1 Chron. 22:1; 2 Chron. 3:1). The final paragraph, therefore, establishes the sanctity of the future site of the temple.94

Moreover, the cost of Araunah’s threshing floor is significant. David insists on paying a fair price, and his assertion about the nature of sacrifice in 24:24 has profound significance: “I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” David understands the need to sacrifice a portion of his personal wealth to honor Yahweh. Otherwise, his worship will be cheap and his service meaningless.

The final verse of the books of Samuel therefore produces an interesting reminder (24:25): “David built an altar to the LORD there” instead of “David built the temple of the LORD there.” David is the ideal anointed one—but not because he is invincible and accomplishes everything he wants. He is ideal because he is repentant and forgiven. He


is ideal because while David is king, he is only viceroy of Israel; Yahweh is the true king. He is ideal because he banks on the mercy of God rather than trusting the fickle judgement of mortals (24:14) and because he pays the cost of true worship (24:24). David is someone well suited for kingship in Israel.

All others in Israel’s future will be measured by David as the standard of Israelite kingship. But few measure up. Each royal failure only serves to drive the hope, the longing, for an ideal Son of David further into the future. So Jesus becomes the fulfillment of this longing for another David—not because David is perfect, but because he is submissive to God’s rulership and is used by God to establish the kingdom. Jesus fulfills David’s promise in an unexpected way and in a way no one else could (Matt. 4:17).21

1 Kings 1-151:5–6 Adonijah was the fourth of David’s sons born in Hebron (2 Sam. 3:2–5), and the eldest surviving. The first, Amnon, and third, Absalom, have died by this point in the story (2 Samuel 13–18), and the second, Chileab, is presumably also dead (unmentioned after 2 Samuel 3). exalted himself. This implies that Adonijah is usurping David’s (and God’s) right to designate a successor (cf. the same term in Num. 16:3); this contrasts with David, who waited patiently for God to raise him to office, even refusing to take Saul’s life (1 Samuel 16–31). Here, however, the authors recall Absalom in their reference to chariots and horsemen (or horses) and men (cf. 2 Sam. 15:1); and by their reference to the fact that Adonijah was a very handsome man (cf. 2 Sam. 14:25–26), they already hint that he too is heading for disaster. His father had never asked, “Why have you done thus and so?” Adonijah, like Absalom, was in part the product of parental negligence and indulgence; David never held him accountable for his actions (cf. notes on 2 Sam. 13:21; 14:24; 15:4).22

2:2–3 Be strong, and show yourself a man. David’s parting words to Solomon echo God’s words to Joshua upon his “succession” to the leadership of Israel after Moses’ death (Josh. 1:6–9). This injunction begins by using the language of warriorship before moving on immediately to define the framework within which this strength must be exercised (obedience to God, in accordance with the Law of Moses). Particularly in view here (as in Joshua) is the law code of Deuteronomy, as the language of 1 Kings 2:3–4 indicates (cf. Deut. 4:29; 6:2; 8:6; 9:5; 11:1; 29:9). “Show yourself a man” seems to be an idiom that refers primarily to conducting oneself bravely (cf. 1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Cor. 16:13), as defined specifically here within the framework of faithful adherence to the Mosaic law; it will take bravery for Solomon to lead the people faithfully.23

2:5 what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me. Joab is to be killed so as to clear David’s house of “the guilt for the blood” that he “shed without cause” (v. 31). It is curious, however, that David himself had apparently not been sufficiently concerned about this bloodguilt to take action against someone who had been so useful to him (e.g., 2 Sam. 11:15; 14:1–33; 19:1–8). Perhaps beneath David’s words is more of a political than a religious concern. Joab is too dangerous to be allowed to live in Solomon’s united kingdom once David is gone because he is too much a man of the Judean past (as Shimei is too much a man of the Israelite past, 1 Kings 2:8–9). Between these disruptive elements from Judah and Israel, elements that are hostile to harmony, stands Barzillai (v. 7; cf. 2 Sam. 17:27–29; 19:31–39) from Gilead in Transjordan. He is a model of dutiful service to his king, which is rewarded in peaceful fellowship for his sons around the king’s table.24

2:6 Solomon’s wisdom is tested in dealing with unfinished business from the reign of David. Solomon’s wisdom prefigures the wisdom of Christ (Matt. 12:42; Col. 2:3). The combination of mercy and justice characterizes David and Solomon in anticipation of Christ.25

3:1 marriage alliance with Pharaoh. This is another dubious act to add to those in ch. 2. Deuteronomy warns

21 Arnold, B. T. (2003). 1 & 2 Samuel. The NIV Application Commentary (641–647). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

22 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (591). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

23 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (593–594). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.




against a “return to Egypt” (Deut. 17:16) in terms of too-close relations with that nation. The Hebrew verb ( khatan), translated “made a marriage alliance” in 1 Kings 3:1, is translated “intermarry” in Deut. 7:3, where the command not to marry foreigners is explicitly tied to a warning that such marriages will lead the people to serve other gods (Deut. 7:4). This becomes all too real for Solomon (1 Kings 11:3–4). Even though Solomon “loved the LORD” (3:3), he is a king with a divided heart, failing to keep the Law of Moses wholeheartedly as David had instructed (2:1–4).26

3:2 the high places. This is the standard translation of the Hebrew bamot, but it is not clear that height (whether natural or artificial) was an intrinsic feature of these worship sites. The idea is simply that of publicly accessible structures (including unenclosed altars and temples with altars) within which or on which offerings were made to God or the gods. The continuation and proliferation of these local places of worship (as opposed to the one place of worship described in Deuteronomy 12) is one of the main concerns of the authors of 1–2 Kings (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35). Solomon begins by tolerating worship of the Lord at these places and ends up being drawn into full-blown apostasy (1 Kings 11:7–8), as also later do Israel and Judah (e.g., 12:28–31; 2 Kings 21:3–9). See also note on 2 Kings 16:1–4.27

Solomon’s Tainted Glory in 1 Kings28

Positives Negatives

David’s chosen heir (ch. 1) Gained power in bloody coup (ch. 2)

Nathan’s early support (ch. 1) Prophetic voice disappears

Prayer for wisdom to rule righteously (chs. 3–4) Rules with forced labor; accumulates wealth unjustly (9:15–22; 10:26–29)

Completion and dedication of temple (chs. 5–8) Foreign wives lead him to idolatry (11:1–8)

The Lord supports Solomon (9:1–9) The Lord rejects Solomon (11:9–12)

3:11–14 Since Solomon did not ask for long life or riches or the life of his enemies, God gave him what he did not ask for, both riches and honor, and promised to lengthen his days. Significantly, there is no mention of enemies, confirming that Solomon’s “wisdom” in ch. 2 was of an unenlightened, self-serving kind, which must now be replaced with something higher if he is to rule justly and well over his subjects. It is the fear of the Lord that is the true beginning of wisdom (Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 15:33). I give you a wise and discerning mind. This wisdom is a supernatural gift from God. It is not innate (as it is implicitly in 1 Kings 2:6–9); and it is not acquired by patient hard work, utilizing careful observation and self-discipline (as it is explicitly in much of Proverbs and in 1 Kings 4:29–34). In the possession of such wisdom Solomon was unparalleled in Israelite history (none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you), as Hezekiah was unparalleled in trust (2 Kings 18:5) and Josiah in obedience to the Law of Moses (2 Kings 23:25).29

4:21–24 Solomon exerted a dominating influence over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt, an area further defined as extending from Tiphsah (an important city on the Euphrates, about 75 miles [121 km] south of Carchemish on the main trade route connecting Mesopotamia with Syria) to Gaza (on the western coast of Palestine, in the far south of Philistia). It is a large area, corresponding to the ideal extent of Israel’s dominion as promised to Abraham in Gen. 15:18.30

The Extent of Solomon’s Kingdomc. 970–930 B.C.







Solomon’s reign marked the zenith of Israel’s power and wealth in biblical times. His father, David, had bestowed upon him a kingdom that included Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria, and Zobah. Solomon would later bring the kingdom of Hamath under his dominion as well, and his marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter sealed an alliance with Egypt. His expansive kingdom controlled important trade routes between several major world powers, including Egypt, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia (Asia Minor).31

5:3–4 could not build a house. Solomon’s response to Hiram’s greeting takes Hiram back to that important moment in David’s life (2 Sam. 7:1–17) when David was addressed by God, not only about the succession (which has just happened) but also about the temple (which has not yet been built). God has given Solomon the rest on every side that he had promised to David (2 Sam. 7:11), so much so that there is neither adversary nor misfortune. This picture reflects God’s intended result when the people of Israel have a wise ruler and they walk in obedience to God’s commandments. Given this situation, the time is right for the temple-building project, divinely ordained as the task for David’s successor (2 Sam. 7:12–13).32


32 Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (601–602). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.


5:14 at home. The Hebrew bebeto, “in his house,” likely refers to Solomon’s house or palace, the construction of which will be described in ch. 7. Even at this stage, the authors hint, Solomon is spending twice as much time on his palace (“house”) as on the temple (cf. 6:38–7:1), while appearing to press quickly ahead with the temple.33

6:2 The temple is like the tabernacle of Moses (Exodus 25–27; see note on Ex. 25:8), but it is larger and more magnificent, symbolizing an expansion and a further stage in God’s purpose to dwell with his people. Still further development takes place with Ezekiel’s vision of a new temple (Ezekiel 40–43), with the church (Eph. 2:19–22), and with the new Jerusalem in the consummation (Rev. 21:3, 10–22:5).34

6:12–13 Concerning this house that you are building. The temple is placed firmly in its proper theological context. God will certainly dwell among his people once the temple is built (v. 13), but this “dwelling” will be on the same basis as before: the people’s obedience to the law (cf. Lev. 26:11–12). The temple itself, for all its splendor, does not change anything about the nature of the divine-human relationship. This was something that the Israelites were apt to forget after the temple had been built and had become a centrally important aspect of national life (cf. Jer. 7:1–34). God is not as impressed with structures as he is with obedience, a point made later by Stephen in his speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7; and the beauty of temples is never any guarantee that God will not leave them or bring judgment on them (cf. Luke 21:5–6).35

Jerusalem at the Time of Solomonc. 950 B.C.Through various building projects Solomon began to transform the small military stronghold of the city of David into a full-scale city that would be the geographical center of Israelite religion. He built the temple of the Lord and the royal palace complex on the hill to the north of the stronghold and encircled it with a wall. Ironically, Solomon also allowed his many foreign wives to establish pagan shrines on the hill to the east of the city, which would later be called the Mount of Corruption.36

6:38–7:1 the house was finished. The Hebrew is “he completed [kalah] the temple [bayit],” and it is followed by: “he spent seven years building it [banah]. But his own house [bayit] Solomon spent thirteen years building [banah]; and he completed [kalah] the whole of his house [kol + bayit].” Two “houses” are in view here, and an emphatic contrast is being made between them. Solomon spent much more time building his own house or palace complex than he did building God’s house, another indication of his divided heart. The likely emphasis of 7:1 is in fact as follows: “But his own house Solomon spent thirteen years building; and he completed the whole of his house.” The temple is not really “complete” until all the work on its interior is complete and it is being worshiped in; and this is not the case until 7:51.37

7:2–5 The House of the Forest of Lebanon, just the first of the several buildings of the palace complex, was much bigger than the temple (cf. 6:2). The temple had quite a bit of cedar of Lebanon in it (6:9–10, 15–16, 18, 20, 36); this building, however, had so much cedar (7:2–3, 7, 11, 12) that it could be named after the forest from which the cedar came—even though it was apparently designed only as a treasury or armory (cf. 10:17, 21; Isa. 22:8). This confirms that the king was much more concerned about his palace than about the Lord’s temple.38

7:23–47 Cf. note on 2 Chron. 4:2–6. The sea of cast metal was a large metal basin designed to contain water, representing the forces of chaos subdued and brought to order by the Lord,39

8:2 the feast in … the seventh month is the Feast of Booths (cf. vv. 65–66; Lev. 23:33–43), during which the Israelites had been instructed to live in temporary shelters as a reminder of the exodus. It was observed in









September/October.40

8:17 the name of the LORD. In Solomon’s speech (vv. 16–20) and also in the prayer that follows (vv. 22–53), the word “name” is used to avoid saying that God himself actually dwells in the temple (cf. also 3:2; 5:3, 5). God’s presence in the temple was real (for God’s “name” represents all that he is; see note on Acts 10:48), and the people would get his attention by calling his name, but he was not to be thought of as “living” in the temple (as was imagined of the false gods of other nations) in any sense that would detract from the reality of his transcendence.41

8:22–53 Solomon’s Prayer. The ark of the covenant has arrived in the temple (vv. 1–13), and Solomon has addressed the people about the meaning of the event (vv. 14–21). He now turns to address God, reflecting on the nature of God’s “dwelling” in the temple and offering a sevenfold petitionary prayer (each section involving a plea that God should “hear from heaven”; vv. 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49) for those who will approach him in the temple. The prayer is important for understanding the books of Kings as a whole, for it places both the temple and the law in wider perspective. The temple is an important building, but God is not confined by a building and is certainly not dependent on it. He will survive even its destruction, and will hear his people’s prayers when they go into exile. Likewise, obedience to the law is very important, but Solomon holds out hope for restoration, even when the people fail to obey.42

8:54–61 rest to his people Israel. Solomon once again celebrates the fulfillment of God’s promises, though this time more broadly than in vv. 15–21. He refers here to the promises given through Moses, alluding in the word “rest” to the establishment of Israel within the land of Canaan. The ultimate purpose of Israel’s walking in God’s ways is that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other (cf. Deut. 4:35). This idea of Israel’s role in the world (cf. 1 Kings 8:41–43) goes all the way back to Gen. 12:1–3 and is found also in passages such as Ex. 19:6, where Israel is to be a “kingdom of priests,” mediating from God to his world. Israel’s calling is to be a light for the Gentiles (Isa. 49:6), bringing God’s salvation to the ends of the earth.43

9:6 if you turn aside from following me, you or your children. Although the place of the temple as a focal point for prayer has been assured by God, as Solomon had asked (v. 3; cf. 8:27–53), and there was also a favorable response to his request about the future of the dynasty (9:4–5; cf. 8:25–26), the future of the temple and the dynasty depends on the obedience of Solomon and of future generations of Israelites. The particular focus here is on the issue of idolatry: the people must not go and serve other gods and worship them.44

9:7–8 Disobedience will lead to loss of the Promised Land, and the magnificent temple will become a heap of ruins to be scoffed at by those passing by (cf. Deut. 29:22–28; Lam. 1:12; 2:15). Israel will be in fact transformed from a nation proverbial for its wisdom (1 Kings 4:21–34) into a nation that is itself a proverb and a byword. This word pair comes directly from the list of covenant curses in Deuteronomy 28 (v. 37), a chapter that lies behind so much of the prayer of 1 Kings 8:22–53. This prayer has assumed the inevitability of sin (esp. 8:46), making it clear that the “if” in 9:6 cannot be anything other than a “when” in reality (8:46); obedience will inevitably give way to apostasy. A dark cloud now looms over the Solomonic empire.45

9:14 The references to gold in this Hiram story are only the first of many mentions of this metal in the current section of 1 Kings (cf. v. 28; 10:2, 10–11, 14, 16–18, 21–22, 25). Solomon accumulates gold in extraordinarily large and increasing amounts (120 talents in 9:14; 420 in 9:28; 666 in 10:14; 10:10 is the exception). The gold is indeed collected from more and more exotic places (9:28; 10:22). This emphasis on gold throughout 9:10–10:29 is striking when this section of Kings is compared with the description of Solomon’s glory in chs. 4–5. There prosperity is described in terms of food rather than precious metals, and the emphasis lies not on luxury at the royal court but on the way that prosperity was shared with the king’s subjects. It is also striking that 9:6–9 has just warned about “turning away from God,” and biblical texts associate the accumulation of wealth with apostasy (e.g., Deut. 17:17;








Prov. 30:8). God may well have given Solomon riches, but will they lead him astray?46

9:15–25 the account of the forced labor. This is another section that refers the reader back to 5:1–18. Here it is clarified that Solomon did not use his task force of 30,000 only for the temple but also for his other building operations, and that it did not include his Israelite subjects (who had other jobs to do), but only Canaanite laborers. The significance of this delayed clarification becomes clear in the authors’ associating these Canaanites with Pharaoh’s daughter (9:24). She was first introduced (waiting for her palace) in 3:1, using language reminiscent of the Deuteronomic warnings about intermarriage with foreigners (Deut. 7:1–6; precisely those Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites mentioned in 1 Kings 9:20) because of the danger of apostasy. Their appearance here along with Pharaoh’s daughter serves to prepare the reader for Solomon’s apostasy. He will be seduced by the other gods (11:2), even though he is for the moment an orthodox worshiper in the temple (9:25).47

10:26–29 chariots and horsemen … silver. The accumulation of silver and horses, as well as gold, is forbidden by Deut. 17:16–17 (see note on 1 Kings 4:28). The significant addition to the theme here is the detail that Solomon’s import of horses was from Egypt (10:28). All but one of the instructions about kingship in Deut. 17:16–17 have thus far been violated by Solomon. That remaining one (he must not take many wives) will be taken up in 1 Kings 11.48

Psalm 80-84Psalm 80

This is a community lament geared to a situation in which the people (or at least a part of them) have received hard treatment from the Gentiles; it poignantly asks God to “restore us, let your face shine that we may be saved!” The specific tribes mentioned are Joseph (with his sons Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin (vv. 1–2), namely, the two sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel. Some have taken this to indicate that the psalm came from the northern kingdom, but Benjamin remained with Judah at the breakup of the kingdom (1 Kings 12:21). Further, when Ps. 80:1 speaks of the Lord as “enthroned upon the cherubim,” it is describing his place at the ark, in the Jerusalem temple. Thus it is more likely that these tribes are mentioned as a part of the whole people, and the whole congregation owns the distress of the part (Rom. 12:15 exercised on a corporate level). A notable feature of the psalm is its refrain, “Restore us, O [LORD] God [of hosts]; let your face shine, that we may be saved!” (Ps. 80:3; cf. vv. 7, 19). As the ESV footnote explains, “restore us” could be rendered “turn us again,” and this shows how “turn again, O God of hosts” (v. 14) is a variation of these words. In this light, vv. 14–15 form a long version of the refrain, explaining more fully what it would mean for God to restore his people and let his face shine.49

Psalm 81

81:8–10 God Calls His People to Worship Only Him. This section follows closely on the previous one, especially evoking the covenant-making at Sinai. I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt (v. 10) is very close to the preface to the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2), and the basic admonition, there shall be no strange god among you; you shall not bow down to a foreign god (Ps. 81:9), is an effective summary of the first two commandments (Ex. 20:3–6). The Lord wants his people to listen to him (Ps. 81:8): to receive the covenant as an expression of his grace, believe in him, and live as he directs. (Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it is an indication of God’s boundless generosity toward those he has rescued.) The expression if you would (v. 8) indicates that it is God’s desire; the song moves to “they did not listen” (v. 11), and back again to, “Oh, that my people would listen” (v. 13).

81:11–16 If Only His People Would Listen to Him. The final section starts from the sad fact that God’s people did not listen to his voice (v. 11), which led to sad consequences (v. 12). But God has not given up, and he addresses his people afresh with the opportunity to listen, to embrace the covenant and thus to walk in God’s good ways (v.






13). The consequences of this genuine covenant participation would be victory over their enemies (v. 14), while those who hate the LORD (the same Gentile enemies) would cringe toward God in submission (which would be to their benefit, cf. 2:10–12). The land of Israel would also then enjoy fruitfulness, yielding the finest of the wheat (Deut. 32:14) and honey from the rock (apparently an image of abundant wild honey, Deut. 32:13).50

Psalm 82

Some call this a community lament since it addresses God directly with a request on behalf of the whole people (v. 8). Others call it a prophetical hymn (like Psalm 81), interpreting its address to the “gods” (82:6) as directed to unjust human rulers, whom God will judge. Both of these classifications have merit, which shows that one must use the psalm categories only as a rule of thumb, because the Psalms do not always fit neatly in only one category. Singing this psalm should enable the faithful, many of whom were socially weak and lowly in Israel (as often was the case with the early Christians as well; cf. 1 Cor. 1:26–28), to take courage in the face of unjust rule, so that they do not yield to the ever-present temptation to cooperate with the injustices of their wicked rulers. Even the most powerful rulers must die and face God’s final judgment. The song should also help those who hold social and political power to use that power in service to others, especially to protect those who are easiest to exploit. The people of God are called to aspire to be an ideal society, with their justice visible to all peoples, that all nations might come to know the true God (Deut. 4:5–8); Christians are called to the same aspiration for their own present society. They must also testify about God’s justice to their wider culture, since, as Prov. 31:1–9 shows (see note there), this kind of justice is applicable to all mankind; this is what properly functioning human nature looks like everywhere.51

Psalm 83

This is a community lament, geared to a situation in which God’s people are threatened by Gentile enemies (vv. 6–8) who aim to destroy them. The psalm prays that God will make such enemies fail miserably, being put to shame and perishing—so that they might come to know the Lord. It is possible (see note on vv. 9–18) that the psalm assumes that Israel must defend themselves, and the prayer is for military victory. Christians would use this psalm not against “national enemies” (Christians transcend national boundaries) but in cases where their persecutors would destroy them and all traces of their faith. They use this prayer rightly when they ask God to thwart these plans in such a way that even the persecutors might come to seek God’s name.52

Psalm 84

This is a psalm celebrating pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to worship at the temple. It is very much like the hymns in praise of Zion as God’s special place (e.g., Psalm 122), although this one especially focuses on the delight of going to worship there. The purpose of singing this psalm is to cultivate that delight, to open the eyes and hearts of God’s people to the staggering privilege of being a welcome guest in God’s own house, and to write deep into their souls the conviction that wickedness offers no reward that can even remotely compare to the joy and pleasure of God’s house. The psalm most likely comes from a time when the sanctuary was located in Zion (84:7), and when a king ruled and protected the pilgrims (v. 9): he is called the anointed, and is probably from David’s line (though even Saul was called “the LORD’s anointed,” 1 Sam. 24:6; however, Saul was a poor protector of the sanctuary and its personnel, 1 Sam. 22:6–19). The psalm has three parts, in each of which people are pronounced “blessed” (Ps. 84:4, 5, 12).53





Web viewHis departure and death, however, left Absalom without any reliable guide, ... It is just...

Documents

Transcript of Web viewHis departure and death, however, left Absalom without any reliable guide, ... It is just...