Friday, July 8
2 Samuel 1: This chapter has two stories: The first (verses 1-16) describes David’s meeting with the Amalekite who comes to him from the battlefield at Mount Gilboa. The second (verses 17-27) chronicles David’s lament on learning of the death of Saul and Jonathan.
In the chapter’s first scene the messenger bearing the news of Saul’s death is an improbable Amalekite straggler, who presents David Saul’s crown and arm-band, boasting that he had given the dying Saul the coup de grace on Mount Gilboa. The messenger evidently expected David to welcome the news and receive him with gratitude.
The reader at this point, already familiar with the circumstances of Saul’s death, knows the Amalekite is lying. David, too, has his suspicions; if this Amalekite had time and opportunity to abscond with Saul’s crown and bracelet, why did he not remove the king’s body from the battlefield and save it from desecration?
Instead, according to the man’s own account, he presumed to lay a violent hand on the Lord’s anointed, a thing—the reader knows (1 Samuel 24:1-7; 26:4-11)—David has twice refrained from doing. Indeed, a man who would murder Saul would likely feel free to kill any king, including David himself. As far as David is concerned, then, such a one has forfeited his own life.
The reader should appreciate the deeper significance of this scene, which represents the first trial of Israel’s new king.
This story continues, in fact, a sustained thematic contrast between David and Saul, inasmuch as it stands in opposition to a parallel story in 1 Samuel 16. In that earlier account Saul was commanded to slay the Amalekites, specifically their king, Agag. It was partly for his failure to obey that order that the Lord rejected Saul and sought out a new king for His People. Now this new king is subjected to a similar trial, also involving an Amalekite.
The problem with this Amalekite is his serious misunderstanding of David’s character. Expecting the new king’s response to be positive—even enthusiastic—he lies through his teeth, in graphic detail, to brag how he put the tragic Saul to death.
In this respect the reader recognizes a further contrast, this time between David and the Amalekite himself. The latter’s is a darkened mind. He is the carnal man, the self-serving moral imbecile, who unwittingly involves himself in matters beyond his grasp.
David has met this kind of individual before. Perhaps he was reminded of Doeg the Edomite, the treacherous friend of Saul; the scoundrel who slew the priests of Nob.
This Amalekite, comprehending nothing of David or David’s God, fancies that all men are guided by the same mendacity and self-service that govern his own life. Hence, he expects David to jump at the chance to exploit the death of Saul, just as he exploited the death of Saul.
He represents, therefore, the proverbial “fool,” chronically unable to comprehend the path of righteousness and wisdom. He and David live in very different moral worlds. In laying a violent hand on Saul, this Amalekite committed the very offense David found morally repugnant.
In the eyes of the biblical author, therefore, the new king does the world a favor; he rises to the moral challenge of removing this man’s shadow from the face of the earth—redeeming, thereby, Saul’s earlier failure to punish the fool.
The contrast of David and the Amalekite can be read—following the Wisdom tradition—to form an illustration of Psalm 1. In this account, accordingly, David is the blessed man who strays not in the counsel of the ungodly nor sits in the seat of the scornful.
The Amalekite, in contrast, is not so. No, he is not so. He is as the chaff dispersed by the wind, and, at the end of this story, the way of the ungodly will perish.
David, refusing to advance his own ambition by killing Saul, patiently waits for the Lord to give him the kingdom He had promised. Convinced that “the Lord knows the way of the righteous,” he believes, with the Psalmist, that the tree planted by the living water “will bring forth its fruit in due season.” David does nothing to hasten the hour. His leaf, then, does not wither, and he prospers in whatever he does. His delight, day and night, is the Law of the Lord.
The second scene in chapter 1 contains a separable text the author inserts into his narrative; it contains David’s lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, an elegy entitled “The Song of the Bow,” so named, it seems from its mention Jonathan’s bow.
Saturday, July 9
2 Samuel 2: This chapter breaks into three parts: David’s accession to authority over the tribe of Judah in the south (verses 1-7), Ishbosheth’s succession to the throne of Saul in the north (verses 8-11), and the rivalry between these two thrones during the period after the Battle of Mount Gilboa (2:12—3:1).
In the first section, David abandons Philistine service and leaves Ziklag. Then, he and his band settle in and around the southern city of Hebron.
What is most notable about this move—from a theological perspective, at least—is that David did take it until he received oracular counsel (presumably through the ministry of Abiathar, the priest who has accompanied him since First Samuel 22). David’s attention to divine guidance follows closely on the story of Saul’s consultation with a witch and continues the sustained contrast between Israel’s first and second kings.
In addition to its injunction from the Lord, there was a certain ‘logic’ in David’s journey to Hebron. Unlike Bethlehem, David’s native town, Hebron was a large city in the territory of Judah, to which tribe David belonged. It was also situated further south than Bethlehem, not so close to territory controlled by the Philistines.
Inasmuch as Hebron was also the burial place of the Patriarchs, David’s settling there evoked an ancient memory in Israel. It is arguable that the new king had in mind to establish his monarchy with a visible link to Israel’s well-known historical heritage.
In the second section (verses 8-11), we learn that Abner did not perish at the Battle of Mount Gilboa. Now, loyal to the memory and legacy of Saul, he establishes the latter’s remaining son on the northern throne. The author of the Book of Samuel calls him “Ishbosheth,” literally “man of shame,” which seems to be the derisive nickname by which he is known in the south. His real name, according to Chronicles, is “Ishbaal,” “man of the Lord.” Because of the continuing Philistine menace, his capital is set east of the Jordan, at Mahanaim. As events will show, this northern throne depends absolutely on the support of Abner.
In the third section (2:12—3:1), the author uses a memorable episode to illustrate his theme: “there was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David” (3:1).
Ishbosheth, in the north, slowly expands his realm, which means that he must have had some unrecorded victories against the Philistines.
Sunday, July 10
2 Samuel 3: There are four components to the present chapter: first, a list of David’s sons born through the years 1000-992; second, an account of Abner’s change of allegiance to David; third, the story of Joab’s murder of Abner; and fourth, the narrative of David’s lament over Abner.
The list of the sons born to David during his sojourn in Hebron (verses 2-5) comes by way of commentary on the first verse of this chapter: “David grew stronger and stronger.”
This list also pertains to the author’s effort to draw lines of comparison between the king and Adam, the father of the human race. Young David’s paternity of so many children represents his fulfillment of command directed to Adam, “Increase and multiply.” This impressive progeny also prompts a comparison of David with those patriarchs to whom the Lord promised—and gave—a large posterity: Abraham and Jacob.
The second story in this chapter, the account of Abner’s defection to the throne of David (verses 6-21) describes how the northern and southern kingdoms become united.
Following the Battle of Mount Gilboa, the Israelites are divided between north and south, a division rendering it easy for the Philistines effectively to control most of the northern area west of the Jordan. This hapless situation, threatening to become permanent, poses for Abner a true moral dilemma.
Abner himself claimed that his decision was based on theological truth, not mere political expediency (2 Samuel 3:18). David, after all, had been anointed by Samuel and was recognized by the high priest Abiathar. Ishbosheth, in contrast, had nothing to recommend him beyond his descent from Saul, whose house the Lord had clearly repudiated.
The story of Abner’s murder by the hand of Joab (verses 22-30) is tied directly to the previous chapter, where Joab’s brother, Asahel, perished at the hand of Abner. The contrast between Joab and Abner could not be starker. Joab is a simple and savage character, whose actions often gain no credit for the throne of David. Here he murders Abner in cold blood, insouciant to the reputation of David, who offered Abner political refuge. Later, he will murder the defenseless Absalom.
In the final account in this chapter (verses 31-39), we find the exasperated David lamenting the murder of Abner but politically unable to execute justice on the murderer. He does, however, go to some length to separate himself from the deed.
Monday, July qq
2 Samuel 4: These two military leaders in the north, observing David’s positive response to Abner’s arrival, apparently sense that it’s all over for the house of Saul. Aware—with everybody else, it would seem—that David’s future rule over all Israel is inevitable, they determine to make their move against Ishbosheth and, thus, to secure the good favor of David. Ishbosheth is murdered in his sleep.
They are thoroughly surprised at David’s response. David is disgusted with all the blood recently poured out by actions of Israelite-on-Israelite. First came the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, and two other of Saul’s sons. Then, Asahel picked a fight with Abner and was killed, in spite of Abner’s sincere wish against it. In the chapter immediately preceding this one, Joab treacherously took the life of Abner. Now, here come these two nobodies from the north, proud of themselves for murdering Ishbosheth in his sleep. It is too much for David. The author of the Psalms finds it all revolting.
On two occasions, as we have seen, David refrained from taking the life of Saul, and, on the second of these occasions, Saul himself was asleep (1 Samuel 24 & 6). In the mind of honorable David, the murder of a sleeping man is dishonorable beyond contemplation. In the present chapter, then, we are not surprised at his reaction to the murder of Ishbosheth (verses 9-12). Such an atrocity is repugnant to the classical chivalric spirit of the warrior David.
David’s reaction here is of a piece with his response to the murder of Abner in the previous chapter. David, throughout the difficult days during which he was a fugitive in the Judean desert, had placed his trust in the justice of God and had refrained from taking matters into his own hands. The present act of treachery, the murder of Ishbosheth, was exactly what could be expected, David believed, if men placed political and military expediency above moral principle.
Prior to telling this story of the death of Ishbosheth, however, the author pauses to insert a single verse on Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. This quiet insertion, without comment, prepares for the lengthier treatment of this important character in chapter 9. With the death of Ishbosheth, this poor cripple becomes the last heir of Saul’s house. This insertion, then, introduces a point of great historical irony.
Tuesday, July 12
2 Samuel 5: From his capital at Hebron, David has reigned over Judah since the Battle of Gilboah in 1000 B.C. This chapter brings us to about 992, some seven and a half years later, when David assumes complete authority over Israel and moves his capital to Jerusalem, a recently captured city. This significant place—because it belongs to no particular tribe of Israelites—is less likely to be subject to tribal rule and tribal rivalries. David’s reign at Jerusalem is to last until 961 (verse 5).
Now that David has become the king of all the Israelites, it seemed to him that the city of Hebron, notwithstanding its important historical significance—all the way back to Abraham—was located too far south to be the capital of the whole nation. Although Hebron had adequately served as the capital of Judah, David wanted another city, more centrally located, to serve as the capital of all the tribes.
In addition to this geographical consideration, the king’s choice of Jerusalem addressed several concerns:
First, inasmuch as this city did not belong to any of the twelve tribes, none of them would enjoy undue influence in the capital. This transfer of the royal court to Jerusalem effectively removed the city from the control of any local tribal leadership. This effect strengthened the role of the king.
Second, the topography of Jerusalem conferred a “relative impregnability” on the city, making it an ideal political capital. Even though the Israelites, under Joshua, had conquered the Promised Land centuries earlier, Jerusalem had remained in Jebusite hands until it fell to the forces of David. This fact augured well for Jerusalem’s future tactical value. Indeed, the city was notoriously difficult to conquer. Even the legions of Rome, we recall, were held outside the walls for two years.
Third, Jerusalem was also significant in the memory of the Chosen People. Its founder, according to Josephus, was Melchizedek, described in Genesis as a king and priest. He it was that had blessed Abraham centuries before. By capturing Jerusalem and making it his capital, David could be regarded as a successor to the royal line of Melchizedek, the king so closely associated with the patriarch Abraham, the ancient father of the nation.
Wednesday, July 13
2 Samuel 6: This chapter can be divided into three scenes: first, David’s initial attempt to transfer the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (verses 1-9); second, the successful transfer of the Ark; and third, Michal’s mockery of David (verses 20-23).
When the first scene (verses 10-19) opens, David is full of plans that involve the consolidation of his reign. His resolve to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem seems rather sudden, but perhaps one is justified in thinking this plan had been in the king’s mind for some time.
We are not told, however, that this plan was inspired by divine guidance, and it is certain that divine guidance was not consulted in the actual transfer. Nothing in the Sacred Text indicates that David reflected adequately on the moral ambiguity involved in this endeavor—this attempt to make something extremely sacred serve a partly political purpose—and disaster strikes rather early in the account.
Perhaps recalling the thirty thousand Israelites who perished when the Ark was earlier captured by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:10), David chooses the same number of warriors to accompany him when he goes to fetch the Ark from Kiriath-Jearim. They begin what was to be a very impressive liturgical procession to Jerusalem.
As the second scene (verses 10-19) opens, David learns that the presence of the Ark has brought notable blessings on the house of Obed-Edom, where it had been kept for three months. The king decides it may be time to make a second attempt at its transferal to the new capital. During that interval those responsible for the transfer have apparently taken care to consult the proper rubrics governing such a rite. The procession to Jerusalem is also interrupted, perhaps several times, for the offering of sacrifice, which was the outward sign of a new-found humility on David’s part.
The “ephod” worn by David appears to be a priestly vestment (Cf. Exodus 28:15, 35; 29:5; Leviticus 8:6-7; 1 Samuel 22:18). The author provides no explanation why the king is dressed as a priest, nor does he say what the king himself thought about this. It is worth mentioning, nonetheless, that David’s assumption of the throne at Jerusalem places him in a royal succession that is traced back hundreds of years to the priest/king Melchizedek (Cf. Genesis 14:18; Psalms 110 (109):2-4). In assuming a priestly garment for the transferal of the Ark, King David enacts a foreshadowing of the Messiah, pictured in early Christian literature as both king and priest.
The strong foreshadowing in this scene, however, is not the man who dances before the Ark; it is the Ark itself, which bears the Divine Presence. When the Mother of God enters the home of her cousin, Elizabeth, she bears the Divine Presence in a far more comprehensive and final way than did the Ark of old. The Virgin Mary carries within her flesh the One in whom “bodily dwells all the fullness of the divinity” (Colossians 2:9). The one who immediately recognizes this Divine Presence is the child Elizabeth carries. His tiny ears hear the greeting of Mary at the same time as his mother, and she herself testifies to response of the infant yet unborn: “For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the baby leaped (eskritesen . . . to brephos) in my womb for joy” (Luke 1:44).
This scene near the beginning of Luke’s Gospel rather exactly corresponds to the picture presented in 2 Samuel 6: the pre-born John the Baptist, assuming the role of Israel’s dancing king, begins to leap with happiness. The “gladness” (verse 12) of David and of David’s city in this meeting with God foreshadows the exhilaration of Elizabeth’s baby on this, his first meeting with Christ.
In the third scene of this chapter (verses 20-23) we have the last recorded conversation between David and Michal, Saul’s younger daughter and David’s first (and probably his most unhappy) wife. Many years earlier, shortly after young David slew the giant Goliath, Michal’s fascination with the new hero (1 Samuel 18:20), himself already popular among the local women (18:6–7), probably shielded her girlish heart from knowing, at first, that she was only a pawn in the deeper plans of Saul (18:21). Soon, nonetheless, her devotion to her husband obliged the young lady to take sides against her father and then lie about it (19:11–17).
Thursday, July 14
2 Samuel 7: This chapter makes a clear break in the narrative sequence. We are told that the things in the present chapter “came to pass when the king was dwelling in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies all around,” but those enemies are not subdued until the following chapter. The present account of David’s desire to build a temple follows thematically on the material about the Ark of the Covenant in chapter 6; this general theme—not a consideration of chronology—is the reason the material appears here where it does.
As the account opens in the first scene, David’s palace, the construction of which he commissioned to Phoenician architects and builders, has been completed. David’s mind turns to the Ark, which was brought to Jerusalem in the previous chapter. David observes the irony—and the impropriety—that his own house has been built, whereas the Ark is still sheltered in a wooden and fabric structure, the “tabernacle” constructed for that purpose (and, one suspects, modeled on the Mosaic tabernacle of ancient times).
Conceiving a plan to construct a proper “house” for the Ark, David seeks prophetic counsel on the matter. He calls the court prophet, Nathan, who now appears in Holy Scripture for the first time. Nathan, prior to consulting God in prayer, rashly encourages the king in his plan. That night the Lord takes the initiative, giving Nathan an opposite message for David.
The crucial word in the message is “house,” a term understood in more than one way. David’s house, as the story begins, is the royal palace. David wants to construct for the Lord an equivalent house; that is to say, a temple.
“No,” says the Lord, “you will not build Me a house. I will build you a house.” Here the word refers, not to a building, but to the royal dynasty, “the house of David,” the succession of his sons on the throne recently established in Jerusalem. That is to say, David’s true house is not the palace. It is the Davidic throne, to which the Lord promises permanence through the special covenant He establishes with the king.
In short, David is instructed that he can do nothing for God. On the contrary, God will do something for David. As for the temple, God—not David—will determine the time, the setting, and the conditions of its construction. It must happen at God’s initiative, not man’s. Once again, David is taught a lesson about presumption.
Once the Lord has established David’s house, however, through his son’s accession to the throne, then this son—not David—will build a house for God.
The Lord reveals to Nathan, and through Nathan to David, that the heirs and beneficiaries of this new covenant will not always be faithful and loyal. Indeed, often enough, scoundrels and sinners will occupy the throne. When this happens, the Lord will punish those unfaithful men, but in no way will He permit their sins and infidelities to bring ruin on the dynasty itself. Here Nathan introduces the messianic promise that will become, over the centuries, the subject of much theological speculation, as the line of David is subjected to a series of disasters.
In the latter part of this chapter (verses 18-29), David retires to the Tabernacle, where the Ark of the Covenant is sheltered, to pray and to ponder Nathan’s promise and prophecy.
Friday, July 15
2 Samuel 8: This chapter, which is chiefly a summary of David’s military exploits as king, includes material earlier than the things narrated in chapter 7.
As one reads the present chapter, some attention to a map demonstrates the practical outcome of David’s victories; namely, he has created a small empire, of which Jerusalem is the geo-political center. (David was able to do this, because of the relative weakness of the two powers on the ends of the Fertile Crescent, Egypt and Babylon/Assyria.)
To the west and southwest of Israel, the conquest of the Philistines is complete; from now on, they will cease to bother Israel. Indeed, David hires their best warriors—the Cerethites (Cretans) and Pelethites—for his own bodyguards (verse 18). (This is the reversal of the earlier situation, when David and his men served as the bodyguards of a Philistine king.)
To the south, David defeats the Amalekites and the Edomites, incorporating both groups into a satellite status within his small empire. To guarantee that they faithfully pay their annual tribute, and to discourage any impulse they may feel toward rebellion, David places garrisons of armed Israelites throughout their territories.
The conquest of the Edomites is particularly significant, inasmuch as Israel acquires a southern port on the Gulf of Aqaba. Later, Solomon will exploit the advantage of that acquisition, which provides maritime access to Arabia, the west coast of Africa, and other places as far away as India.
To Israel’s east, on the other side of the Jordan, David subdues the Ammonites and Moabites, whose annual tribute will finance David’s government, building projects, and other ventures.
To the northeast, David’s forces continue their conquest, adding Syria and Zobah to his little empire.
Directly to the north lies the maritime power of Phoenicia, which is happy to be on David’s good side. During their whole history the Phoenicians are never a threat to Israel; they look only for commercial partners, not enemies to subdue. It is arguable that no other political alliance of David is as significant as his treaty with Phoenicia.
Moreover, the rise of David has been extremely beneficial to Phoenicia, because David subdued the Philistines. Among the activities of the Philistines was piracy in the eastern Mediterranean (In Egyptian literature, they are known as “the sea peoples’), a piracy that severely hampered Phoenician trade routes. David’s defeat on the Philistines put an end to that piracy, much to the benefit of Phoenician mercantile ventures.