Q_X>^l.-t-t>-^ . 'i-i. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Mr. Daniel J. Theron 3 1924 052 268 087 7 OL!N LIBRARY ~ ClRCdLrtTiON DATE DUE ■ nf»T jau Ula^ V JU*^ K»„- ■ 1 tiru ^'^mm-" '" ii''"|ti«#i ^ppp Ajjjw-' 4''*|9??^^ CAVLORO PRINT EO INO.S A. The original of tliis bool< is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924052268087 CLARK'S FOREIGN '1^ THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY rODETH SEEIES. YOL. IX. Ui'T anil Btlit\ Vers. 19—28. SamueVs birth, and clediMSj^^to the Lord. — Vers. 19, 20. The next Tnorning ElkanaJB^murned home to Ramah (see at ver. 1) with his two wi-s^ having first of all worshipped before the Lord ; after which he knew his wife Hannah, and Jehovah remembered her, i.e. heard her prayer. " In the revolution of the days" i.e. of the period of her concep- tion and pregnancy, Hannah conceived and bare a son, whom she called Samuel; "for (she said) Ihave ashed him of the Lord." The name bvxo^ (SafiovrjX, LXX.) is not formed from ^W=W and ^X, name of God (Ges. Thes. p. 1434), but from ^K Vyot, heard of God, a Deo exauditus, with an elision of the j; (see Ewald, § 275, a. Not. 3) ; and the words " because I have asked him of the Lord " are not an etymological explanation of the name, but an exposition founded upon the facts. Because Hannah had asked him of Jehovah, she gave him the name, " the God-he d," as a memorial of the hearing of her prayer. — Vers. 21, 22. When Elkanah went up again with his family to Shiloh, to present his yearly sacrifice and his vow to the Lord, Hannah said to her husband that she would not go up till she had weaned the boy, and could present him to the Lord, that he might remain there for ever. Ci^p'ri nnt, the sacrifice of the days, i.e. which he was accustomed to offer on the days when he went up to the sanctuary ; really, therefore, the annual sacrifice. It follows from the expression " and his vow," that Elkanah 26 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. had also vowed a vow to the Lord, in case the beloved Hannali should have a son. The vow referred to the presentation of a sacrifice. And this explains the combination of i"'"|r'^? '^i''' n'nv} Weaning took place very late among the Israelites. According to 2 Mace. vii. 28, the Hebrew mothers were in the habit of suckling their children for three years. When the weaning had taken place, Hannah would bring her son up to the sanctuary, to appear before the face of the Lord, and re- main there for ever, i.e. his whole life long. The Levites gene- rally were only required to perform service at the sanctuaiy from their twenty-fifth to their fiftieth year (Num. viii. 24, 25), but Samuel was to be presented to the Lord immediately after his weaning had taken place, and to remain at the sanctuary for ever, i.e. to belong entirely to the Lord. To this end he was to receive his training at the sanctuary, that at the very earliest waking up of his spiritual susceptibilities he might receive the impressions of the sacred presence of God. There is no neces- sity, therefore, to understand the word 7Vi (wean) as including what followed the weaning, namely, the training of the child up to ^ The LXX. add to rag ivxdg ccvrov the clause x«< vaca,; TKf Sexkt*? T'^f yvii ai/Tou (" and all the tithes of his land"). This addition is just as arbitrary as the alteration of the singular imj into the plural raj iv^xc, aurov. The translator overlooked the special reference of the word imj to the child desired by Elkanah, and imagined — probably with Deut. xii. 26, 27 in his mind, where vows are ordered to be paid at the sanctuary in connection with slain offerings and sacrificial meals — that when Elkanah made his annual journey to the tabernacle he would discharge all his obligations to God, and consequently would pay his tithes. The genuineness of this addi- tional clause cannot be sustained by an appeal to Josephus (Ant. v. 10, 3), who also has iix.ii.Tcci rs 'icpe^ou, for Josephus wrote his work upon the basis of the Alexandrian version. This statement of Josephus is only worthy of notice, inasmuch as it proves the incorrectness of the conjecture of Thenius, that the allusion to the tithes was intentionally dropped out of the Hebrew text by copyists, who regarded Samuel's Levitical descent as clearly estab- lished by 1 Chron. vi. 7-13 and 19-21. For Josephus {I. c. § 2) expressly describes Elkanah as a Levite, and takes no offence at the offering of tithes attributed to him in the Septuagint, simply because he was well acquainted with the law, and knew that the Levites had to pay to the priests a tenth of the tithes that they received from the other tribes, as a heave-offering of Jehovah (Num. xviii. 26 sqq. ; cf. Neh. x. 38). Consequently the pre- sentation of tithe on the part of Elkanah, if it were really well founded in the biblica. text, would not furnish any argument against his Levitica' descent. CHAP. 1. 19-28. 27 his tliirteenth year (Seb. Schmidt), on the ground that a child of three years old could only have been a burden to Eli : for the word never has this meaning, not even in 1 Kings xi. 20 ; and, as O. v. Gerlach has observed, his earliest training might have been superintended by one of the women who worshipped at the door of the tabernacle (eh. ii. 22). — Ver. 23. Elkanah expressed his approval of Hannah's decision, and added, " only the Lord estahlish His word" i.e. fulfil it. By " His word " we are not to understand some direct revelation from God respect- ing the birth and destination of Samuel, as the Rabbins suppose, but in all probability the word of Eli the high priest to Hannah, " The God of Israel grant thy petition " (ver. 17), which might be regarded by the parents of Samuel after his birth as a pro- mise from Jehovah himself, and therefore might naturally excite the wish and suggest the prayer that the Lord would graciously fulfil the further hopes, which the parents cherished in relation to the son whom they had dedicated to the Lord by a vow. The paraphrase of 113^ in the rendering given by the LXX., TO i^ekOov eK tov aro/j.aTO'i crov, is the subjective view of the translator himself, and does not warrant an emendation of the original text. — Vers. 24, 25. As soon as the boy was weaned, Hannah brought him, although still a tV^, i.e. a tender boy, to Shiloh, with a sacrifice of three oxen, an ephah of meal, and a pitcher of wine, and gave him up to Eli when the ox (bullock) had been slain, i.e. offered in sacrifice as a burnt-offering. The striking circumstance that, according to ver. 24, Samuel's parents brought three oxen with them to Shiloh, and yet in ver. 25 the ox (p^^) alone is spoken of as being slain (or sacri- ficed), may be explained very simply on the supposition that in ver. 25 that particular sacrifice is referred to, which was asso- ciated with the presentation of the boy, that is to say, the burnt- offering by virtue of which the boy was consecrated to the Lord as a spiritual sacrifice for a lifelong service at His sanctuary, whereas the other two oxen served as the yearly festal offering, i.e. the burnt-offerings and thank-offerings which Elkanah pre sented year by year, and the presentation of which the writer did not think it needful to mention, simply because it followed partly from ver. 3 and partly from the Mosaic law.' — Vers ' The interpretation of riE'^E^ D''"lQ3 by s" /^^"XV rQie-rl^jun (lXA.), upon which Thenius would found an alteration of the text, is proved to be 28 THE FIRST BOOK 01' SAMUEL. 26-28. When the boy was presented, his mother made herself known to the high priest as the woman who had previously prayed to the Lord at that place (see vers. 11 sqq.), and said, " For this child I •prayed; and the Lord hath granted me my re- quest which I asked of Him : therefore I also make him one asked of the Lord all the days that he liveth ; he is asked of the Lord'." •"^JN DJ1 : I also ; et ego vicissim (Cler.). ^'''^t?'''?, to let a person ask, to grant his request, to give him what he asks (Ex. xii. 36), signifies here to make a person " asked " (^INK*). The meaning to lend, which the lexicons give to the word both here and Ex. . xii. 36, has no other support than the false rendering of thi; LXX.,and is altogether unsuitable both in the one and the other Jehovah had not lent the son to Hannah, but had given him (see ver. 11); still less could a man lend his son to the Lord. The last clause of ver. 28, " and he zuorshipped the Lord there," refers to Elkanah, qui m votum HanncB cotisenserat, and not to Samuel. On a superficial glance, the plural linnti'^, which is found in some Codd., and in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic, appears the more suitable ; but when we look more closely at the con- nection in which the clause stands, we see at once that it does not wind up the foregoing account, but simply introduces the closing act of the transference of Samuel. Consequently the singular is perfectly appropriate ; and notwithstanding the fact that the subject is not mentioned, the allusion to Samuel is placed beyond all doubt. When Hannah had given up her son to the high priest, his father Elkanah first of all worshipped before the Lord in the sanctuary, and then Hannah worshipped in the song of praise, which follows in ch. ii. 1-10. both arbitrary and wrong by the fact that the translators themselves after- wards mention the ^„cU, which Elkanah brought year by year, and the f^6, to separate aab' i'KIDE'1 from 'ii ij^Tia, and thus to guard against the conclusion, which might be drawn from this view of byn, that Samuel slept in the holy place. 50 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. other times" (see Num. xxiv. 1 ; Judg. xvi. 20, etc.) When Samuel replied in accordance with Eli's instructions, the Lord announced to him that He would carry out the judgment that had been threatened against the house of Eli (vers. 11-14). " Behold, I do a thiiig in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle," so. with horror (see 2 Kings xxi. 12; Jer. xix. 3; Hab. i. 5). — Yer. 12. " On that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house (see ch. ii. 30 sqq.), beginning and finishing it," i.e. completely. ^3'^ "lE^NTiX 0''p[}, to set up the word spoken, i.e. to carry it out, or accomplish it. In ver. 13 this word is communicated to Samuel, so far as its essential contents are concerned. God would judge " the house of Eli for ever because of the iniquity, that he inew his sons were preparing a curse for themselves and did not pre- vent them." To judge on account of a crime, is the same as to punish it. DjiynjJ, i.e. without the punishment being ever stopped or removed, onb Dv?P'?, cursing themselves, i.e. bring- ing a curse upon themselves. " Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that the iniquity of the house of Eli shall not (DX, a particle used in an oath, equivalent to assuredly not) be e.rpi ated by slain-offerings and mea.t-ojferings (through any kind of sacrifice) for ever." The oath makes the sentence irrevocable. (On the facts themselves, see the commentary on ch. ii. 27-36.) ■ — Ver. 15. Samuel then slept till the morning; and when he opened the doors of the house of Jehovah, he was afraid to tell Eli of the revelation which he had received. Opening the doors of the house of God appears to have been part of Samuel's duty. "We have not to think of doors opening into the holy place, however, but of doors leading into the court. Originally, when the tabernacle was simply a tent, travelling with the people from place to place, it had only curtains at the entrance to the holy place and court. But when Israel had become possessed of fixed houses in the land of Canaan, and the dwelling-place of God was permanently erected at Shiloh, instead of the tents that were pitched for the priests and Levites, who encamped round about duri..ig the journey through the desert, there were erected fixed houses, which were built against or inside the court, and not only served as dwelling- places for the priests and Levites who were officiating, but were also used for the reception and custody of the gifts that CHAP. III. 19-21. 51 were brought as offerings to the sanctuary. These buildings in all probability supplanted entirely the original tent-like enclosure around the court ; so that instead of the curtains at the entrance, there were folding doors, wliich were shut in the evening and opened again in the morning. It is true that nothing is said about the erection of these buildings in our historical books, but the fact itself is not to be denied on that account. In the case of Solomon's temple, notwithstanding the elaborate description that has been given of it, there is nothing said about the arrangement or erection of the buildings in the court ; and yet here and there, principally in Jeremiah, the existence of such buildings is evidently assumed. '"'^"I^, viaio, a sight or vision. This expression is applied to the word of God which came to Samuel, because it was revealed to him tlirough the medium of an inward sight or intuition. — Vers. 16-18. When Samuel was called by Eli and asked concerning the divine revelation that he had received, he told him all the words, without concealing anything ; whereupon Eli bowed in quiet resignation to the purpose of God : "It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good." Samuel's communication, however, simply confirmed to the aged Eli what God had already made known to him through a prophet. But his reply proves that, with all his weakness and criminal indulgence towards his wicked sons, Eli was thoroughly devoted to the Lord in his heart. And Samuel, on the other hand, through his unreserved and candid communication of the terribly solemn word of God with regard to the man, whom he certainly vene- rated with filial affection, not only as high priest, but also as his own parental guardian, proved himself to be a man possess- in" the courage and the power to proclaim the word of the Lord without fear to the people of Israel. Vers. 19-21. Thus Samuel grew, and Jehovah was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground, i.e. left no word unfulfilled which He spoke through Samuel. (On ?'3n, see Josh. xxi. 45, xxiii. 14, 1 Kings viii. 56.) By this all Israel from Dan to Beersheba (see at Judg. xx. 1) perceived that Samuel was found trustworthy, or approved (see Num xii. 7) as a prophet of Jehovah. And the Lord continued to appear at Shiloh ; for He revealed himself there to Samuel " in the word of Jehovah,'' i.e. through a prophetic announcement of 52 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. His word. These three verses form the transition from the call of Samuel to the following account of his prophetic labours in Israel. At the close of ver. 21, the LXX. have appended a general remark concerning Eli and his sons, which, regarded as a deduction from the context, answers no doubt to the para- phrastic treatment of our book in that version, but in a critical aspect is utterly worthless. WAR WITH THE PHILISTINES. LOSS OE THE AEK. DEATH OE ELI AND HIS SONS. — CHAP. IV. At Samuel's word, the Israelites attacked the Philistines, and were beaten (vers. 1, 2). They then fetched the ark of the covenant into the camp according to the advice of the elders, that they might thereby make sure of the help of the ulmighty covenant God ; but in the engagement which fol- /owed they suffered a still greater defeat, in which Eli's sons fell and the ark was taken by the Philistines (vers. 3-11). The aged Eli, terrified at such a loss, fell from his seat and broke his neck (vers. 12-18) ; and his daughter-in-law was taken in labour, and died after giving birth to a son (vers. 19-22). With these occuri-ences the judgment began to burst upon the house of Eli. But the disastrous result of the war was also to be a source of deep humiliation to all the Israelites. Not only were the people to learn that the Lord had departed from thera, but Samuel also was to make the discovery that the deliverance of Israel from the oppression and dominion of its foes was absolutely impossible without its inward conversion to its God. Vers. 1, 2. The two clauses, " The ivord of Samuel came to all Israel" and " Israel went out," etc., are to be logically con- nected together in the following sense: "At the word or instiga- tion of Samuel, Israel went out against the Philistines to battle." The Philistines were ruling over Israel at that time. This is evident, apart from our previous remarks concerning the con- nection between the commencement of this book and the close of the book of Judges (see vol. iv. pp. 280 sqq.), from the simple fact that the land of Israel was the scene of the war, and that nothing is said about an invasion on the part of the Philistines. The Israelites encamped at Ebenezer, and the Philistines were encamped at Aphek. The name Ehenezer CHAP. IV. 3-11. 53 (" the stone of help") was not given to the place so designated till a later period, when Samuel set up a memorial stone there to commemorate a victory that was gained over the Philistines upon the same chosen battle-field after the lapse of twenty years (ch. vii. 12). According to this passage, the stone was set up between Mizpeh and Shen. The former was not the Mizpeh in the lowlands of Judah (Josh. xv. 38), but the Mizpeh of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 26), i.e., according to Eobinson, the present Neby Samwil, two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, and half an hour to the south of Gibeon (see at Josh, xviii. 26). The situation of Aphek has not been discovered. It cannot have been far from Mizpeh and Ebenezer, however, and was probably the same place as the Canaanitish capital mentioned in Josh, xii, 18, and is certainly different from the Aphehah upon the mountains of Judah (Josh. xv. 53) ; for this was oi\. the south or south-west of Jerusalem, since, according to the book of Joshua, it belonged to the towns that were situated in the district of Gibeon. — Ver. 2. When the battle was fought, the Israelites were defeated by the Philistines, and in battle- array four thousand men were smitten upon the field. '^"•J', sc. nnripD, as in Judg. xx. 20, 22, etc. n3"ij>l33, in battle-array, i.e. upon the field of battle, not in flight. " In the field" i.e. the open field where the battle was fought. Vers. 3-11. On the return of the people to the camp, the elders held a council of war as to the cause of the defeat they had suffered. " Why hath Jehovah smitten us to-day before the Philistines?" As they had entered upon the war by the word and advice of Samuel, they were convinced that Jehovah had smitten them. The question presupposes at the same time that the Israelites felt strong enough to enter upon the war with their enemies, and that the reason for their defeat could only be that the Lord, their covenant God, had withdrawn His help. This was no doubt a correct conclusion ; but the means which they adopted to secure the help of their God in continuing the war were altogether wrong. Instead of feeling remorse and seeking the help of the Lord their God by a sincere repentance and confession of their apostasy from Him, they resolved to fetch the ark of the covenant out of the tabernacle at Shiloh into the camp, with the delusive idea that God had so insepai ably bound up His gracious presence in the midst of His people 54 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. with tliis holy ark, which He had selected as tlie throne of Hia gracious appearance, that He would of necessity come with it into the camp and smite the foe. In ver. 4, the ark is called " the ark of the covenant of Jehovah of hosts, who is enthroned above the cherubim" partly to show the reason why the people had the ark fetched, and partly to indicate the hope which they founded upon the presence of this sacred object. (See the commentary on Ex. XXV. 20-22.) The remark introduced here, " and the two sons of Eli loere there with the ark of the covenant of God" is not merely intended to show who the guardians of the ark were, viz. priests who had hitherto disgraced the sanctuary, but also to point forward at the very outset to the result of the measures adopted. — Ver. 5. On the arrival of the ark in the camp, the people raised so great a shout of joy that the earth rang again. This was probably the first time since the settle- ment of Israel in Canaan, that the ark had been brought into the camp, and therefore the people no doubt anticipated from its presence a renewal of the marvellous victories gained by Israel under Moses and Joshua, and for that reason raised such a shout when it arrived. — Vers. 6-8. When the Philistines heard the noise, and learned on inquiry that the ark of Jehovah had come into the camp, they were thrown into alarm, for " they thought (lit. said), God (^Elohim) is come into the camp, 2nd said, " Woe unto us ! For such a thing has not happened yesterday and the day before (i.e. never till now). Woe to us! Who will deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods ? These are the very gods that smote Egypt luith all kinds of plagues in the wilderness.'' The Philistines spoke of the God of Israel in the plural, CTI^v" '^''r'%'7) as heathen who only knew of gods, and not of one Almighty God. Just as all the heathen feared the might of the gods of other nations in a certain degree, so the Philistines also were alarmed at the might of the God of the Israelites, and that all the more because tiie report of His deeds in the olden time had reached their ears (see Ex. xv. 14, 15). The expression " in the wilderness " does not compel us to refer the words " smote with all the plagues " exclusively to the de- struction of Pharaoh and his army in the Eed Sea (Ex. xiv. 23 sqq.). " All the plagues" include the rest of the plagues which God inflicted upon Egypt, without there being any necessity to supply the copula 1 before "lais?, as in the LXX. and Syriac. OHAr. IV. 12-22. 55 By this addition an antithesis is introduced into the word.s, which, if it really were intended, would require to be indicated by a previous P.^JS or DS"i!<3. According to the notions of the Philistines, all the wonders of God for the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt took place in the desert, because even when Israel was in Goshen they dwelt on the border of the desert, and w-ere conducted thence to Canaan. — Ver. 9. But instead of despairing, they encouraged one another, saying, " Show your' selves strong, and he men, Philistines, that we may not be obliged to serve the Hebrews, as they have served you ; be men, and fight !"■ — Vers. 10, 11. Stimulated in this way, they fought and smote Israel, so that every one fled home (" to his tent," see at Josh. xxii. 8), and 30,000 men of Israel fell. The ark also was taken, and the two sons of Eli died, i.e. were slain when the ark was taken, — a practical proof to the degenerate nation, that Jehovah, who was enthroned above the cherubim, had departed from them, i.e. had withdrawn His gracious pre- sence.^ Vers. 12-22. The tidings of this calamity were brought by a Benjaminite, who came as a messenger of evil tidings, with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head — a sign of the deepest mourning (see Josh. vii. 6) — to Shiloh, where the aged Eli was sitting upon a seat by the side (1' is a copyist's error for 1^) of the way watching ; for his heart trembled for the ark of God, which had been taken from the sanctuary into the camp with- out the command of God. At these tidings the whole city cried out with terror, so that Eli heard the sound of thd cry, and asked the reason of this loud noise (or tumult), whilst the mes- senger was hurrying towards him with the news. — Ver. 15. Eli was ninety-eight years old, and " his eyes stood," i.e. were 1 " It is just the same now, when we take merely a historical Christ outside us for our Redeemer. He must prove His help chiefly internally by His Holy Spirit, to redeem us out of the hand of the Philistines ; thougli externally He must not be thrown into the shade, as accomplishing our justification. If we had not Christ, we could never stand. For there is no help in heaven and on earth beside Him. But if we have Him in no other way than merely without us and under us, if we only preach about Him, teach, hear, read, talk, discuss, and dispute about Him, take His name mto our mouth, but will not let Him work and show His power in us, He will no more help us than the ark helped the Israelites."— ^er/e- burger Bible. 56 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUET.. stiff, SO that he could no more see (vid. 1 Kings xiv. 4). This is a description of the so-called black cataract (amaurosis), which crenerally occurs at a very great age from paralysis of the optic nerves. — Vers. 16 sqq. When the messenger informed him of the defeat of the Israelites, the death of his sons, and the capture of the ark, at the last news Eli fell back from his seat by the side of the gate, and broke his neck, and died. The loss of the ark was to him the most dreadful of all— more dreadful than the death of his two sons. Eli had judged Israel forty years. The reading twenty in the Septuagint does not deserve the slightest notice, if only because it is perfectly incredibli that Eli should have been appointed judge of the nation in his seventy-eighth year. — Vers. 19-22. The judgment which fell upon Eli through this stroke extended still further. His flaughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was with child (near) to be delivered. Tub, contracted from TnT? (from 1?^ : see Ges. § 69, 3, note l;'Ewald, § 238, c). When she heard the tidings of the capture (ni^?n"7t<, " with regard to the being taken away") of the ark of God, and the death of her father-in-law and husband, she fell upon her knees and was delivered, for her pains had fallen upon her (lit. had turned against her), and died in consequence. Her death, however, was but a subordi- nate matter to the historian. He simply refers to it casually in the words, " and about the time of her death" for the purpose of giving her last words, in which she gave utterance to her grief at the loss of the ark, as a matter of greater importance in relation to his object. As she lay dying, the women who stood round sought to comfort her, by telling her that she had brought forth a son ; but " she did not answer, and took no notice (3P VP.^ — 37 hW, animum advertere ; cf. Ps. Ixii. 11), but called to the boy (i.e. named him), Ichabod ("li^D ''S, no glory), saying, The glory of Israel is departed," referring to the capture of the ark of God, and also to her father-in-law and husband. She then said again, " Gone (n^3, wandered away, carried off) is the glory of Israel, for the ark of God is taken." The repeti- tion of these words shows how deeply the wife of the godless Phinehas had taken to heart the carrying off of the ark, and how in her estimation the glory of Israel had departed with it. Israel could not be brought lower. With the surrender of the earthly throne of liis glory, the Lord appeared to have abolished CHAP. V. 1-6. 57 IIis covenant of grace with Israel ; for the ark, with the tables of the law and the capporeth, was the visible pledge of the covenant of grace which Jehovah had made with Israel. HUMILIATION OF THE PHILISTINES BY MEANS OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT. — CHAP. V.-VII. 1. Whilst the Israelites were mourning over the loss of the ark of God, the Philistines were also to derive no pleasure from their booty, but rather to learn that the God of Israel, who had given up to them His greatest sanctuary to humble His own degenerate nation, was the only true God, beside Whom there were no other gods. Not only was the principal deity of the Philistines thrown down into the dust and dashed to pieces by the glory of Jehovah ; but the Philistines themselves were so smitten, that their princes were compelled to send back the nrk into the land of Israel, together with a trespass-offering, to appease the wrath of God, which pressed so heavily upon them. Chap. V. The Aek in the Land of the Philistines.^ Vers. 1—6. The Philistines carried the ark from Ebenezer, where they had captured it, into their capital, Ashdod {Esdud ; see at Josh. xiii. 3), and placed it there in the temple of Dagon, by the side of the idol Dagon, evidently as a dedicatory offering to this god of theirs, by whose help they imagined that they had obtained the victory over both the Israelites and their God. With regard to the image of Dagon, compounded of man and fish, i.e. of a human body, with head and hands, and a fish's tail, see, in addition to Judg. xvi. 23, Stark's Gaza, pp. 248 S(}q., 308 sqq., and Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, pp. 46(i-7, where there is a bas-relief from Khorsabad, in which " a figure is seen swimming in the sea, with the upper part of the body resembling a bearded man, wearing the ordinary conical tiara of royalty, adorned with elephants' tusks, and the lower part resembling the body of a fish. It has the hand lifted up, as if in astonishment or fear, and is surrounded by fishes, crabs, and other marine animals" (Stark, p. 308). As this bas-relief represents, according to Layard, the war of an Assyrian king with the inhabitants of the coast of Syria, most probably of Sargon, who had to carry on a long conflict with 58 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. the Philistian towns, more especially with Ashdod, there can iiardly be any doubt that we have a representation of the Philistian Dagon here. This deity was a personification of the generative and vivifying principle of nature, for which the fish with its innumerable multiplication was specially adapted, and set forth the idea of the giver of all earthly good. — Ver. 3. The next morning the Ashdodites found Dagon lying on his face upon the ground before the ark of Jehovah, and restored him to his place again, evidently supposing that the idol had fallen or been thrown down by some accident. — Ver. 4. But they were obliged to give up this notion when they found the god lying on his face upon the ground again the next morning in front of the ark of Jehovah, and in fact broken to pieces, so that Dagon's head and the two hollow hands of his arms lay severed upon the threshold, and nothing was left but the trunk of the fish (P^'^). The word Dagon, in this last clause, is used in an appellative sense, viz. the fishy part, or fish's shape, from T\, a fish. Ii^Bisn is no doubt the threshold of the door of tha recess in which the image was set up. We cannot infer from this, however, as Thenius has done, that with the small dimen- sions of the recesses in the ancient temples, if the image fell forward, the pieces named might easily fall upon the threshold. This naturalistic interpretation of the miracle is not only proved to be untenable by the word riinna, since nna means cut off, and not broken off, but is also precluded by the improbability, not to say impossibility, of the thing itself. For if the image of Dagon, which was standing by the side of the ark, was thrown down towards the ark, so as to lie upon its face in front of it, the pieces that were broken off, viz. the head and hands, could not have fallen sideways, so as to lie upon the threshold. Even the first fall of the image of Dagon was a miracle. From the fact that their god Dagon lay upon its face before the ark of Jehovah, i.e. lay prostrate upon the earth, as though worship- ping before the God of Israel, the Philistines were to learn, that even their supreme deity had been obliged to fall down before the majesty of Jehovah, the God of the Israelites. But as they did not discern the meaning of this miraculous sign, the second miracle was to show them the annihilation of their idol through the God of Israel, in such a way as to preclude every thought of accident. The disgrace attendins the annihilation of their CHAP. V, 1-6. 59 idol was probably to be heightened by the fact, tliat the pieces of Dagon that were smitten off were lying upon the threshold, inasmuch as what lay upon the threshold was easily trodden upon by any one who entered the house. This is intimated in the custom referred to in ver. 5, that in consequence of this occurrence, the priests of Dagon, and all who entered the temple of Dagon at Ashdod, down to the time of the historian himself, would not step upon the threshold of Dagon, i.e. the threshold where Dagon s head and hands had lain, but stepped over the threshold (not " leaped over," as many commentators assume on the ground of Zeph. i. 5, which has nothing to do with the matter), that they might not touch with their feet, and so defile, the place where the pieces of their god had lain. — Ver. 6. The visitation of God was not restricted to the demolition of the statue of Dagon, but affected the people of Ashdod as well. " The Jiand of Jehovah was heavy upon the Ashdodites, and laid them waste." Dtyn, from DDK', when applied to men, as in Micah vi. 13, signifies to make desolate not only by diseases, but also by the withdrawal or diminution of the means of subsistence, the devastation of the fields, and such like. That the latter is included here, is evident from the dedicatory offerings with which the Philistines sovight to mitigate the wrath of the God of the Israelites (ch. vi. 4, 5, 11, 18), although the verse before us simply mentions the diseases with which God visited them.^ " And He smote then with DvDJJ, i.e. boils :" according to the Rabbins, swellings on the anus, mariscce (see at Deut. xxviii. 27). For D'li'Qy the Masoretes have invariably substituted Dnhtp, ' At the close of vers. 3 and 6 the Septuagint contains some compre- hensive additions ; viz. at the close of ver. 3 : Keel Ifiapvu^vi x^'f Kvpi'ou iTrl rovs'A^arioi/; x.a,\ t/lxaxi'i^sii cti/roi;, x.a.1 eTrccra^su a-vrov; tig rd; tSpa? xirZi', T'/iU "A^cirou khi rcc opict aiirvK ; and at the end of ver. 4 : Kai 1^,^701/ T'/jg x^ipoig otvrviq ci.'Ji(pvYiactv f^vig xai syhsro ffuyx^trig dauxrov pcsydy^y] ku TJ7 iro'Kii. This last clause we also find in the Vulgate, expressed as follows : Et eballiveruut villm et agri in medio reyionis illius, et nati sunt mures, et facta est confusio mortis magnse in civitate. Ewald's decision with regard to these clauses (GescJt. ii. p. 541) is, that they are not wanted at ch. v 3, 6, but that they are all the more necessary at ch. vi. 1 ; whereas at ch. V. 3, 6, they would rather injure the sense. Thenius admits that the clause appended to ver. 3 is nothing more than a second translation of our sixth verse, which has been interpolated by a copyist of the Greet in the wrong place ; whereas that of ver. 6 contains the original though somewhat 60 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. which is used in ch. vi. 11, 17, and was probably regarded as more decorous. Ashdod is a more precise definition of tlie word them, viz. Ashdod, i.e. the inhabitants of Ashdod and its teri'itory. Vers. 7-12. " When the Ashdodites saw that it loas so," they were unwilling to keep the ark of the God of Israel any longer, because the hand of Jehovah lay heavy upon them and their god Dagon ; whereupon the princes of the Philistines Qpo, as in Josh. xiii. 3, etc.) assembled together, and came to the reso- lution to " let the ark of the God of Israel turn (i.e. be taken) to Gath" (ver. 8). The princes of the Philistines probably imagined that the calamity which the Ashdodites attributed to the ark of God, either did not proceed from the ark, i.e. from the God of Israel, or if actually connected with the presence of the ark, simply arose from the fact that the city itself was hate- ful to the God of the Israelites, or that the Dagon of Ashdod was weaker than the Jehovah of Israel : they therefore resolved to let the ark be taken to Gath in order to pacify the Ash- dodites. According to our account, the city of Gath seems to have stood between Ashdod and Ekron (see at Josh. xiii. 3). — Ver. 9. But when the ark was brought to Gath, the hand of Jehovah came upon that city also with very great alarm. n^ina noWD is subordinated to the main sentence either adver- bially or in the accusative. Jehovah smote the people of the city, small and great, so that boils broke out upon their hinder parts. — Vers. 10-12. They therefore sent the ark of God to Ekron, i.e. Akii; the north-western city of the Philistines (see corrupt text, according to which the Hebrew text should be emended. But an impartial examination would show very clearly, that all these additions are nothing more than paraphrases founded upon the context. The last part of the addition to ver. 6 is taken verhatim from ver. 11, whilst the first part is a conjecture based upon oh. vi. 4, 5. Jerome, if indeed the addi- tion in our text of the Vulgate really originated with him, and was not transferred into his version from the Itala, did not venture to suppress the clause interpolated in the Alexandrian version. This is very evident from the words confusio mortis magnx, which are a literal rendering of myxvuii Sccvarov fiiya.'An ; whereas in ver. 11, Jerome has given to fllD nDWD, which the LXX. rendered ai'/x'^'"S ^x^o-tov, the much more accurate ren- dering pavor mortis. Moreover, neither the Syriac nor Targum Jonaih. has this clause ; so that long before the time of Jerome, the Hebrew text existed in the form in which the Masoretes have handed it down to us. CHAP. VI. 1-a 61 at Josh. xiii. 3). But the Ekronites, who had been informed of what had taken place in Ashdod and Gath, cried out, when the ark came into their city, " They have brought the ark of the God of Israel to me, to slay me and my people" (these words are to be regarded as spoken by the whole town) ; and they said to all the princes of the Philistines whom they had called together, " Send away the ark of the God of Israel, that it may return to its place, and not slay me and my people. For deadly alarm (n"iD liDinp, confusion of death, i.e. alarm produced by many sudden deaths) ruled in the whole city ; very heavy was the hand of God there. The people who did not die were smitten with boils, and the cry of the city ascended to heaven." From this description, which simply indicates briefly the particulars of the plagues that God inflicted upon Ekron, we may see very clearly that Ekron was visited even more severely than Ashdod and Gath. This was naturally the case. The longer the Philistines resisted and refused to recognise the chastening hand of the 'iving God in the plagues inflicted upon them, the more severely ■vould they necessarily be punished, that they might be brought at last to see that the God of Israel, whose sanctuary they still wanted to keep as a trophy of their victory over that nation, was the omnipotent God, who was able to destroy His foes. Chap, vi.-vii. 1. The Ark of God sent back. — Vers. 1—3. The ark of Jehovah was in the land (lit. the fields, as in Ruth i. 2) of the Philistines for seven months, and had brought destruction to all the towns to which it had been taken. At length the Philistines resolved to send it back to the Israelites, and therefore called their priests and diviners (see at Num. xxiii. 23) to ask them, " What shall we do with regard to the ark of God; tell us, with what shall we send it to its place ?" "Its -place " is the land of Israel, and naa does not mean " in what manner" (guomodo: Vulgate, Thenius), but with what, wherewith (as in Micah vi. 6). There is no force in the objection brought by Thenius, that if the question had implied with what pre- sents, the priests would not have answered, " Do not send it with- out a present ; " for the priests did not confine themselves to this answer, in which they gave a general assent, but proceeded at once to define the present more minutely. They replied, " If they send away the ark of the God of Israel (^''npE'D is to bo 62 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. taken as the third person in an indefinite address, as in ch. ii 24, and not to be construed with DON suppb'ed), do not send it away empty {i.e. without an expiatory offering), hut return Him {i.e.. the God of Israel) a trespass-offering." Dti'N, lit. guilt, then the gift presented as compensation for a fault, the trespass- offering (see at Lev. v. 14-26). The gifts appointed by the Philistines as an asham were to serve as a compensation and satisfaction to be rendered to the God of Israel for the robbery committed upon Him by the removal of the ark of the cove- nant, and were therefore called asham, although in their nature they were only expiatory offerings. For the same reason the verb y^i}, to return or repay, is used to denote the presentation of these gifts, being the technical expression for the payment of compensation for a fault in Num. v. 7, and in Lev. v. 23 for compensation for anything belonging to another, that had been unjustly appropriated. " Are ye healed then, it will show you vjhy His hand is not removed from you," sc. so long as ye keep back the ark. The words iNDin ts are to be understood as conditional, : IT" 1 ' even without DX, which the rules of the language allow (see Ewald, § 357, h) ; this is required by the context. For, accord- ing to ver. 9, the Philistine priests still thought it a possible tiling that any misfortune which had befallen the Philistines might be only an accidental circumstance. With this view, tliey could not look upon a cure as certain to result from the sending back of the ark, but only as possible ; consequently they could only speak conditionally, and with this the words " we shall know " agree. Vers. 4-6. The trespass-offering was to correspond to the number of the princes of the Philistines. ISDO is an accusative employed to determine either measure or number (see Ewald, § 204, a), lit. " the number of their princes : " the compensations were to be the same in number as the princes. " Five golden hoik, and five golden mice," i.e., according to ver. 5, images resembling their boils, and the field-mice which overran the land ; the same gifts, therefore, for them ali, "for one plague is to all and to your princes," i.e. the same plague has fallen upon all the people and their princes. The change of person in the two words, obi), " all of them.," i.e. the whole nation of the Philistines, and D3\J"ip7, " your pnVices," appears very strange to us with our modes of thought and speech, but it is by no means CHAP. VI. 4-6. 63 unusual in Hebrew. The selection of this peculiar kind of expia- tory present was quite in accordance with a custom, which was not only widely spread among the heathen but was even adopted in the Christian church, viz. that after recovery from an illness, or rescue from any danger or calamity, a representation of the member healed or the danger passed through was placed as an offering in the temple of the deity, to whom the person had prayed for deliverance ; ^ and it also perfectly agrees with a custom which has prevailed in India, according to Tavernier (Ros. A. u. N. Morgenland iii. p. 77), from time immemorial down to the present day, viz. that when a pilgrim takes a journey to a pagoda to be cured of a disease, he offers to the idol a present either in gold, silver, or copper, according to his ability, of the shape of the diseased or injured member, and then sings a hymn. Such a present passed as a practical acknowledg- ment that the god had inflicted the suffering or evil. If offered after recovery or deliverance, it was a public expression of thanks- giving. In the case before us, however, in which it was offered before deliverance, the presentation of the images of the things with which they had been chastised was probably a kind of fine or compensation for the fault that had been committed against the Deity, to mitigate His'wrath and obtain a deliverance from the evils with which they had been smitten. This is contained in the words, "Give glory unto the God of Israel! peradventure He will lighten His (punishing) hand from off you, and from off your ^ Thus, after a shipwreck, any who escaped presanted a tablet to Isis, or Neptune, with the representation of a shipwreck upon it ; gladiators offered their weapons, and emancipated slaves their fetters. In some of the nations of antiquity even representations of the private parts, in which a cure had been obtained from the deity, were hung up in the temples in honour of the gods (see Schol. ad Aristoph. Acharn. 243, and other proofs in Winer's Real-worterhucli, ii. p. 255). Theodoret says, concerning the Christians of the fourth century {Therapeutik. J)isp. viii.) : °Ori 5s Tv/xcx-vovaiu uwjTip atrovatv ol 'Kioroig k'Trctyyi'K'hovrig^ dva.(pa.-jhov f^otprvou rcc TovTUV dvxd'/}fcscTX^ TVit/ loCTpiiccy "hrihwvTU^ oi fiiv yccf) o'tp^otAjtcw]/, ol Se ^oSwy, aXhot Sfi y^tipuy '7rpou see Ps. Ixxviii. 8 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 19. Vers. 5-14. Victory obtained over the Philistines through SamueVs prayer. — Vers. 5, 6. When Israel had turned to the Lord with all its heart, and had put away all its idols, Samuel gathered together all the people at Mizpeh, to prepare them for fighting against the Philistines by a solemn day for peni- tence and prayer. For it is very evident that the object of calling all the people to Mizpeh was that the religious act performed there might serve as a consecration for battle, not only from the circumstance that, according to ver. 7, when the Philistines heard of the meeting, they drew near to make war upon Israel, but also from the contents of ver. 5 : " Samuel said (sc. to the heads or representatives of the nation). Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I icill pray for you unto the Lord" His intention could not possibly have been any other than to put the people into the right relation to their God, and thus to prepare the way for their deliverance out of the bondage of the Philistines. Samuel appointed Mizpeh, i.e. Nehi Samwil, on the western boundary of the tribe of Benjamin (see at Josh. xviii. 26), as the place of meeting, partly no doubt on historical grounds, viz. because it was there that the tribes had formerly held their consultations respecting the wickedness of the inhabit- ants of Gibeah, and had resolved to make war upon Benjamin (Judg. XX. 1 sqq.), but still more, no doubt, because Mizpeh, on the western border of the mountains, was the most suitable place for commencing the conflict with the Philistines. — Ver. 6. When they had assembled together here, " they drew water and poured it out before Jehovah, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against the Lord.'' Drawing water and pouring it out before Jehovah was a symbolical act, which has been thus correctly explained by the Chaldee, on the whole : " They poured out their heart like water in penitence before the Lord." This is evident from the figurative expres- CHAP, VII. 5-14. 73 slonSj " poured out like water," in Ps. xxii. 15, and " pour out tliy heart like water," in Lam. ii. 19, which are used to denote inward dissolution through pain, misery, and distress (see 2 Sam. xiv. 14). Hence the pouring out of water before God was a symbolical representation of the temporal and spiritual distress in which they were at the time, — a practical confession before God, " Behold, we are before Thee like water that has been poured out ;" and as it was their own sin and rebellion against God that had brought this distress upon them, it was at the same time a confession of their misery, and an act of the deepest humiliation before the Lord. They gave a still further practical expression to this humiliation by fasting (KS), as a sign of their inward distress of mind on account of their sin, and an oral confession of their sin against the Lord. By the word OE', which is added to ^ilON'l, "they said there" i.e. at Mizpeh, the oral confession of their sin is formally separated from the two symbolical acts of humiliation before God, though by this very separation it is practically placed on a par with them. What they did symbolically by the pouring out of water and fastinc:, they explained and confirmed by their verbal con- fession. QB' is never an adverb of time signifying "then;" neither in Ps. xiv. 5, cxxxii. 17, nor Judg. v. 11. " And thus Samuel judged the children of Israel at Mizpeh." tOSB'^l does not mean " he became judge " (Mich, and others), any more than " he punished every one according to his iniquity " (Thenius, after David Kimchi). Judging the people neither consisted in a censure pronounced by Samuel afterwards, nor in absolution granted to the penitent after they had made a confession of their sin, but in the fact that Samuel summoned the nation to Mizpeh to humble itself before Jehovah, and there secured for it, through his intercession, the forgiveness of its sin, and a renewal of the favour of its God, and thus restored the proper relation between Israel and its God, so that the Lord could proceed to vindicate His people's rights against their foes. When the Philistines heard of the gathering of the Israel- ites at Mizpeh (vers. 7, 8), their princes went up against Israel to make war upon it ; and the Israelites, in their fear of the Philistines, entreated Samuel, " Do not cease to cry for us to the Lord our God, that He may save us out of the hand of the Phili- etines." Ver. 9. " A nd Samuel took a milk-lamb (a lamb that 74 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. was still sucking, probably, according to Lev. xxii. 27, a lamb seven days old), and offered it whole as a burnt-offerivg to the Lord." ?v3 is used adverbially, according to its original mean- ing as an adverb, " whole." The Chaldee has not given the word at all, probably because the translators regarded it as pleonastic, since every burnt-offering was consumed upon the altar whole, and consequently the word ?v3 was sometimes used in a substantive sense, as synonymous with HPiy (Deut. xxxiii. 10 ; Ps. li. 21). But in the passage before us, PV3 is not synonymous with n?ij?, but simply affirms that the lamb was offered upon the altar without being cut up or divided. Samuel selected a young lamb for the burnt-offering, not "as being the purest and most innocent kind of sacrificial animal," — for it cannot possibly be shown that very young animals were re- garded as purer than those that were full-grown, — but as being the most suitable to represent the nation that had wakened up to new life through its conversion to the Lord, and was, as it were, new-born. For the burnt-offering represented the man, who consecrated therein his life and labour to the Lord. The sacrifice was the substratum for prayer. When Samuel offered it, he cried to the Lord for the children of Israel ; and the Lord "answered" i.e. granted, his prayer. — Ver. 10. When the Philistines advanced during the offering of the sacrifice to fight against Israel, " Jehovah thundered with a great noise," i.e. with loud peals, against the Philistines, and threw them into confu- sion, so that they were smitten before Israel. The thunder, which alarmed the Philistines and threw them into confusion (Dsn^., as in Josh. x. 10), was the answer of God to Samuel's crying to the Lord. — Ver. 11. As soon as they took to flight, the Israelites advanced from Mizpeh, and pursued and smote them to below Beth-car. The situation of this town or locality, which is only mentioned here, has not yet been discovered. Josephus {Ant. vi. 2, 2) has ^le-xpt Koppalwv. — Ver. 12. As a memorial of this victory, Samuel placed a stone between Mizpeh and Shen, to which he gave the name of Eben-ha-ezer, i.e. stone of help, as a standing memorial that the Lord had thus far helped His people. The situation of Shen is also not known. The name Shen {i.e. tooth) seems to indicate a projecting point of rock (see ch. xiv. 4), but may also signify a place situated upon such a point.— Ver. 13. Through this victory which was CHAP. VII. 5-14. 75 obtained by the miraculous help of God, the Philistines were so humbled, that they no more invaded the territory of Israel, i.e. with lasting success, as they had done before. This limi- tation of the words " thej/ came no more " (lit. " they did not add again to come into the border of Israel"), is implied in the context; for the words whicli immediately follow, "and the hand of Jeliovali was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel," show that they made attempts to.i'ecover their lost supremacy, but that so long as Samuel lived they were unable to effect anything against Israel. This is also manifest from the successful battles fought by Saul (cli. xiii. and xiv.), when the Philistines had made fresh attempts to subjugate Israel during his reign. The defeats inflicted upon them by Saul also belong to the days of Samuel, who died but a very few years before Saul himself. Because of these battles which Saul fought with the Philistines, Lyra and Brentius understand the expression " all the days of Samuel " as referring not to the lifetime of Samuel, but simply to the duration of his ofKcial life as judge, viz. till the commencement of Saul's reign. But this is at variance with ver. 15, where Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life. Seb. Schmidt has given, on the whole, the correct explanation of ver. 13 : " They came . no more so as to obtain a victory and subdue the Israelites as before ; yet they did return, so that the hand of the Lord was against them, i.e. so that they were repulsed with great slaughter, although they were not actually expelled, or the Israelites delivered from tribute and the presence of military garrisons, and that all the days that the judicial life of Samuel lasted, in fact all his life, since they were also smitten by Saul." ■ — -Ver. 14. In consequence of the defeat at Ebenezer, the Phili- stines were obliged to restore to the Israelites the cities which they had taken from them, "from Ekron to Gafh." This defi- nition of the limits is probably to be understood as exclusice, i.e. as signifying that the Israelites received back their cities up to the very borders of the Philistines, measuring these borders from Ekron to Gatli, and not that the Israelites received Ekron and Gath also. For although these chief cities of the Phili- stines had been allotted to the tribes of Judah and Dan in the time of Joshua (Josh. xiii. 3, 4, xv. 45, 46), yet, notwith- standing the fact that Judah and Simeon conquered Ekron, 76 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. together with Gaza and Askelon, after the death of Joshua (Judg. i. 18), the Israelites did not obtain any permanent pos- session. "And their territory" (coasts), i.e. the territory of the towns that were given back to Israel, not that of Ekron and Gath, " did Israel deliver out of the hands of the Philistines. A nd there loas peace between Israel and the Amorites ;" i.e. the Canaanitish tribes also kept peace with Israel after this victory of the Israelites over the Philistines, and during the time of Samuel. The Amorites are mentioned, as in Josh. x. 6, a,s being the most powerful of the Canaanitish tribes, who had forced the Danites out of the plain into the mountains (Judg, i. 34, 35). Vers. 15-17. Samuel's judicial labours. — With the calling of the people to Mizpeh, and the victory at Ebenezer that had been obtained through his prayer, Samuel had assumed the government of the whole nation ; so that his office as judge dates from this period, although he had laboured as prophet among the people from the death of Eli, and had thereby pre- pared the way for the conversion of Israel to the Lord. As ills prophetic labours were described in general terms in ch. iii. 19-21, so are his labours as judge in the verses before us : viz. in ver. 15 their duration, — " all the days of his life," as his activity during Saul's reign and the anointing of David (ch. xv. xvi.) sufficiently prove ; and then in vers. 16, 17 their general character, — " he went round from year to year" (3301 serves as a more precise definition of Wj^., he went and travelled round) to Bethel, i.e. Beitin (see at Josh. vii. 2), Gilgal, and Mizpeh (see at ver. 5), and judged Israel at all these places. Which Gilgal is meant, whether the one situated in the valley of the Jordan (Josh. iv. 19), or the Jiljilia on the higher ground to the south- west of Shiloh (see at Josh. viii. 35), cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The latter is favoured partly by thr order in which the three places visited by Samuel on his cir cuits occur, since according to this he probably went first of all from Eamah to Bethel, which was to the north-east, then farther north or north-west to Jiljilia, and then turning back went towards the south-east to Mizpeh, and returning thence to Ramah performed a complete circuit ; whereas, if the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan had been the place referred to, we should expect him to go there first of all from Ramah, and CHAP. VIII.- XV. 77 then towards the north-east to Bethel, and from that to the south-west to Mizpeh ; and partly also by the circumstance that, according to 2 Kings ii. 1 and iv. 38, there was a school of the prophets at Jiljilia in the time of Elijah and Elisha^ the founding of which probably dated as far back as the days of Samuel. If this conjecture were really a well-founded one, it would furnish a strong proof that it was in this place, and not in the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan, that Samuel judged the people. But as this conjecture cannot be raised into a cer- tainty, the evidence in favour of Jiljilia is not so conclusive as I myself formerly supposed (see also the remarks on eh. ix. 14). nioipsn-p3 ns is grammatically considered an accusative, and is in apposition to '''?"iK'^"riK, lit. Israel, viz. all the places named, i.e. Israel which inhabited all these places, and was to be found there. "And his return was to Ramali ;" i.e. after finishing the annual circuit he returned to Ramah, where he had his house. There he judged Israel, and also built an altar to conduct the religious affairs of the nation. Up to the death of Eli, Samuel lived and laboured at Shiloh (ch. iii. 21). But when the ark was carried away by the Philistines, and consequently the tabernacle at Shiloh lost what was most essential to it as a sanctuary, and ceased at once to be the scene of the gracious presence of God, Samuel went to his native town Ramah, and there built an altar as the place of sacrifice for Jehovah, who had manifested himself to him. The building of the altar at Ramah would naturally be suggested to the prophet by these extraordinary circumstances, even if it had not been expressly commanded by Jehovah. II. THE MONARCHY OF SAUL FROM HIS ELECTION TILL HIS ULTIMATE REJECTION. Chap, vrii.-xv. The earthly monarchy in Israel was established in the time of Samuel, and through his mediation. At the pressing desire of the people, Samuel installed the Benjaminite Saul as king, according to the command of God. The reign of Saul may 78 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. be divided into two essentially different periods : viz. (1) the establishment and vigorous development of his regal supremacy (eh. viii.-xv.) ; (2) the decline and gradual overthrow of his monarchy (ch. xvi.-xxxi.). The establishment of the monarchy is introduced by the negotiations of the elders of Israel with Samuel concerning the appointment of a king (ch. viii.). This is followed by (1) the account of the anointing of Saul as king (ch. ix. 1-x. 16), of his election by lot, and of his victory over the Ammonites and the confirmation of his monarchy at Gilgal (ch. X. 17-xi. 15), together with Samuel's final address to the nation (ch. xii.) ; (2) the history of Saul's reign, of which only his earliest victories over the Philistines are given at all elabo- rately (ch. xiii. 1-xiv. 46), his other wars and family history being disposed of very summarily (ch. xiv. 47-52) ; (3) the account of his disobedience to the command of God in the war against the Amalekites, and the rejection on the part of God with which Samuel threatened him in consequence (ch. xv.). The brevity with which the history of his actual reign is treated, in contrast with the elaborate account of his election and con- firmation as king, may be accounted for from the significance and importance of Saul's monarchy in relation to the kingdom of God in Israel. The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it vfus both wrong and hostile to God, since the source of all the evils and mis- fortunes from which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obsti- nacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, smce He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart. Samuel CHAP. VIII.-XV. I'J pointed this out to the elders of Israel, when they laid their peti- tion before him that he would choose them a king. But Jehovah fulfilled their desires. He directed Samuel to appoint them a king, ■who possessed all the qualifications that were necessary to secure for the nation what it looked for from a king, and who therefore might have established the monarchy in Israel as foreseen and foretold by Jehovah, if he had not presumed upon his own power, but had submitted humbly to the will of God as made known to him by the prophet. Saul, who was chosen from Benjamin, the smallest but yet the most warlike of all the tribes, a man in the full vigour of youth, and surpassing all the rest of the people in beauty of form as well as bodily strength, not only possessed "warlike bravery and talent, un- broken courage that could overcome opposition of every kind, a stedfast desire for the well-being of the nation in the face of its many and mighty foes, and zeal and pertinacity in the exe- cution of his plans" (Ewald), but also a pious heart, and an earnest zeal for the maintenance of the provisions of the law, and the promotion of the religious life of the nation. He would not commence the conflict with the Philistines until sacrifice had been offered (ch. xiii. 9 sqq.) ; in the midst of the hot pur- suit of the foe he opposed the sin committed by the people in eating flesh with the blood (ch. xiv. 32, 33) ; he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land (ch.xxviii. 3, 9); and in general he appears to have kept a strict watch over the ob- servance of the Mosaic law in his kingdom. But the conscious- ness of his own power, coupled with the energy of his character, led liim astray into an incautious disregard of the commands of God ; his zeal in the prosecution of his plans hurried him on to reckless and violent measures ; and success in his under- takings heightened his ambition into a haughty rebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel. These errors come out very conspicuously in the three great events of his reign which are the most circumstantially described. When Saul was preparing for war against the Philistines, and Samuel did not appear at once on the day appointed, he presumptuously disregarded the prohibition of the prophet, and offered the sacrifice himself without waiting for Samuel to arrive (ch. xiii. 7 sqq.). In the enc^agement with the Philistines, he attempted to force on the annihilation of the foe by pronouncing the ban upon any one RO THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. in his army who should eat bread before the evening, or till he had avenged himself upon his foes. Consequently, he not only diminished the strength of the people, so that the overthrow of the enemy was not great, but he also prepared humiliation for himself, inasmuch as he was not able to carry out his vow (cli. xiv. 24 sqq.). But he sinned still more grievously in the war with the Amalekites, when he violated the express command of the Lord by only executing the ban upon that nation as far as he himself thought well, and thus by such utterly unpardon- able conduct altogether renounced the obedience which he owed to the Lord his God (ch. xv.). All these acts of transgression manifest an attempt to secure the unconditional gratification of his own self-will, and a growing disregard of the government of Jehovah in Israel ; and the consequence of the whole was simply this, that Saul not only failed to accomplish that deliverance of the nation out of the power of its foes which the Israelites had anticipated from their king, and was unable to inflict any last- ing humiliation upon the Philistines, but that he undermined the stability of his monarchy, and brought about his own rejection on the part of God. From all this we may see very clearly, that the reason why the occurrences connected with the election of Saul as king are fully described on the one hand, and on the other only sucb incidents connected with his enterprises after he began to reign as served to bring out the faults and crimes of his monarchy, was, that Israel might learn from this, that royalty itself could never secure the salvation it expected, unless the occupant of the throne submitted altogether to the will of the Lord. Of the other acts of Saul, the wars with the different nations round about are only briefly mentioned, but with this remark, that he displayed his strength and gained the victory in whatever direction he turned (ch. xiv. 47), simply because this statement was sufficient to bring out the brighter side of his reign, inas- much as this clearly showed that it might have been a source of blessing to the people of God, if the king had only studied how to govern his people in the power and according to the will of Jehovah. If we examine the history of Saul's reign from this. point of view, all the different points connected with it exhibit tlie greatest harmony. Modern critics, however, have discovered irreconcilable contradictions in the history, simply because, in- CHAP. VIII. 1-5. 81 stead of studying it for the purpose of fathoming the plan and purpose which he at the foundation, they have entered upon the inquiry with a twofold assumption : viz. (1) that the govern- ment of Jehovah over Israel was only a subjective idea of the Israelitish nation, without any objective reality ; and (2) that the human monarchy was irreconcilably opposed to the government of God. Governed by these axioms, which are derived not from the Scriptures, but from the philosophical views of modern times, the critics have found it impossible to explain the diffe- rent accounts in any other way than by the purely external hypothesis, that the history contained in this book has been compiled from two different sources, in one of which the estab- lishment of the earthly monarchy was treated as a violation of the supremacy of God, whilst the other took a more favour- able view. From the first source, ch. viii., x. 17-27, xi., xii., and XV. are said to have been derived; and ch. ix.-x. 17, xiii., and xiv. from the second. Israel's prayer for a king. — chap. viii. As Samuel had appointed his sons as judges in his old age, and they had perverted justice, the elders of Israel entreated him to appoint them a king after the manner of all the nations (vers. 1-5). This desire not only displeased Samuel, but Jeho- vah also saw in it a rejection of His government ; nevertheless He commanded the prophet to fulfil the desire of the people, but at the same time to set before them as a warning the prero- gatives of a king (vers. 6-9). This answer from God, Samuel made known to the people, describing to them the prerogatives which the king would assume to himself above the rest of the people (vers. 10-18). As the people, however, persisted in their wish, Samuel promised them, according to the direction of God, that their wishes should be gratified (vers. 19-22). Vers. 1-5. The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel's sons as judges is his own advanced age. The infer- ence which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge here- ditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that 82 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. they were stationed as judges of tlie nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan (Judg. xx. 1, etc. ; see at Gen. xxi. 31). The sons are also mentioned again in 1 Chron. vi. 13, though the name of the elder has either been dropped out of the Masoretic text or has become corrupt. — Ver. 3. The sons, however, did not walk in the ways of their father, but set their hearts upon gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, in opposition to the command of God (see Ex. xxiii. 6, 8 ; Deut. xvi. 19). — Vers. 4, 5. These circumstances (viz. Samuel's age and the degeneracy of his sons) furnished the elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply to Samuel with this request: " Appoint us a king to judge us, as all the nations " (the heathen), sc. have kings. This request resembles so completely the law of the king in Deut. xvii. 14 (observe, for example, the expres- sion D;i3n-p33)j that the distinct allusion to it is unmistakeable. The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law is met with for the first time in the writings of the period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah had foretold through His servant Moses, as a thing that would take place in the future and for which He had even made provision. Vers. 6-9. Nevertheless " the thing displeased Samuel when they said" etc. This serves to explain "^^^J], and precludes the supposition that Samuel's displeasure had reference to what they had said concerning his own age and the conduct of his sons. At the same time, the reason why the petition for a king displeased the prophet, was not that he regarded the eartiily monarchy as irreconcilable with the sovereignty of God, or even as untimely ; for in both these cases he would not have entered into the question at all, but would simply have refused the request as ungodly or unseasonable. But " Samuel prayed to the Lord" i.e. he laid the matter before the Lord in prayer, and the Lord said (ver. 7) : ^^ Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee'' This clearly implies, that not only in Samuel's opinion, but also according to the counsel of God, the time had really come for the establishment of the earthly sovereignty in Israel. In this respect the request of the elders for a king to reign over them was perfectly justifiable ; and there is no reason to say, with Calvin, " they ought to have had regard to the times and conditions prescribed by God, and It would no doubt have come to pass that the regal power would CHAP. VIII G-9. 83 have grown up in the nation. Although, therefore, it had not yet been estabhshed, they ought to have waited patiently for the time appointed by God, and not to have given way to their own reasons and counsels apart from the will of God." For God had not only appointed no particular time for the establishment of the monarchy ; but in the introduction to the law for the king, " When thou shalt say, I will set a king over me," He had ceded the right to the representatives of the nation to deliberate upon the matter. Nor did they err in this respect, that while Samuel was still living, it was not the proper time to make use of the permission that they had received ; for they assigned as the reason for their application, that Samuel had grown old : consequently they did not petition for a king instead of the prophet who had been appointed and so gloriously accredited by God, but simply that Samuel himself would give them a king in consideration of his own age, in order that when he should become feeble or die, they might have a judge and leader of the nation. Nevertheless the Lord de- clared, " They have not rejected thee, hut they have rejected rrie, that I should not reign over them. As they have always done from the day that I brought them up out of Egypt unto this day, that they have forsaken me and served other gods, so do they also unto thee." This verdict on the part of God refers not so much to the desire expressed, as to the feelings from which it had sprung. Exter- nally regarded, the elders of Israel had a perfect right to pre- sent the request; the wrong was in their hearts.^ They not only declared to the prophet their confidence in his administra- tion of his office, but they implicitly declared him incapable of any further superintendence of their civil and political affairs. This mistrust was founded upon mistrust in the Lord and His ^ Calvin has correctly pointed out how much would have been warrant- able under the circumstances : "They might, indeed, have reminded Samuel of his old age, which rendered him less able to attend to the duties of hia office, and also of the avarice of his sons and the corruptness of the judges; or they might have complained that his sons did not walk in his footsteps, and have asked that God would choose suitable men to govern them, and thus have left the whole thing to His will. And if they had done this, there can be no doubt that they would have received a gracious and suitable answer. But they did not think of caUing upon God ; they demanded that a king should be given them, and brought forward the customs and insti- tutions of other nations." 84 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. guidance In the person of Samuel they rejected the Lord and His rule. They wanted a king, because they imagined that Jehovah their God-king was not able to secure their constant prosperity. Instead of seeking for the cause of the misfortunes which had hitherto befallen them in their own sin and want of fidelity towards Jehovah, they searched for it in the faulty con- stitution of the nation itself. In such a state of mind as this, their desire for a king was a contempt and rejection of the kingly government of Jehovah, and was nothing more than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods. (See ch. x. 18, 19, and ch. xii. 7 sqq., where Samuel points out to the people still more fully the wrong that they have committed.) — Ver. 9. In ■order to show them wherein they were wrong, Samuel was in- structed to bear witness against them, by proclaiming the right of the king who would rule over them. Dna Tjin lyn neither means " warn them earnestly " (De Wette), nor " explain and solemnly expound to them" (Thenius). 3 TJ/n means to hear ivitness, or give testimony against a person, i.e. to point out to him his wrong. The following words, 'Wl ^']V}\ are to be under- stood as explanatory, in the sense of " ly proclaiming to them" " The manner (inishpat) of the king" is the right ov prerogative which the king would claim, namely, such a king as was possessed by all the other nations, and such an one as Israel desired in the place of its own God-king, i.e. a king who would rule over his people with arbitrary and absolute power. Vers. 10-18. In accordance with the instructions of God, Samuel told the people all the words of Jehovah, i.e. all that God had said to him, as related in vers. 7-9, and then pro- claimed to them the right of the king. — Ver. 11. '■'■He will take your sons, and set them for himself upon his chariots, and upon his saddle-horses, and they will run before his chariot;" i.e. he will make tlie sons of the people his retainers at court, his charioteers, riders, and runners. The singular suffix attached to Was-ioa is not to be altered, as Thenius suggests, into the plural form, according to the LXX., Chald., and Syr., since the word refers, not to war-chariots, but to the king's state-carriage ; and cng does not mean a rider, but a saddle-horse, as in 2 Sam. i. 6, 1 Kings V. 6, etc.— Ver. 12. " And to make himself chiefs over t/wusands and over fifties ;" — the greatest and smallest military officers are mentioned, instead of all the soldiers and officers CHAP. VIII. 19-22. 85 (comp. Num. xxxi. 14, 2 Kings i. 9 sqq., with Ex. xviii. 21, 25). avffb] is also dependent upon ni3'_ (ver. 11), — " and to plough his field (tJ'^in, lit. the ploughed), and reap his harvest, and make his instruments of war and instruments of his chariots" — Ver. 13. " Your daughters he will take as preparers of ointments, cooks, and bakers," sc. for his court. — Vers. 14 sqq. All their possessions he would also take to himself : the good (i.e. the best) fields, vineyards, and olive-gardens, he would take away, and give to his servants ; he would tithe the sowings and vineyards (i.e. the produce which they yielded), and give them to his courtiers and servants. D'''iD, Ut. the eunuch ; here it is used in a wider sense for the royal chamberlains. Even their slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and their beasts of draught and burden he would take and use for his own work, and raise the tithe of the flock. The word D3''"iin3, between the slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and the asses, is very striking and altogether un- suitable ; and in all probability it is only an ancient copyist's error for D?'''?.P?, your oxen, as we may see from the LXX. rendering, TO, ^ovkoXm. The servants and maids, oxen and asses, answer in that case to one another ; whilst the young men are included among the sons in vers. 11, 12. In this way the king would make all the people into his servants or slaves. This is the meaning of the second clause of ver. 17 ; for the whole are evidently summed up in conclusion in the expression, "and ye shall be his servants." — Ver. 18. Israel would then cry out to God because of its king, but the Lord would not hear it then. This description, which contains a fearful picture of the tyranny of the king, is drawn from the despotic conduct of the heathen kings, and does not presuppose, as many have maintained, the times of the later kings, which were so full of painful experiences. Vers. 19-22. With such a description of the " right of the king" as this, Samuel had pointed out to the elders the dangers connected with a monarchy in so alarming a manner, that they ought to have been brought to reflection, and to have desisted from their demand. " But the people refused to hearken to the voice of Samuel." They repeated their demand, " We loill have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and conduct our battles." — Vers. 21, 22. These words of the people were laid by Samuel before the Lord, and the Lord commanded him to give 8G THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL the people a king. With this answer Samuel sent the men of Israel, i.e. the elders, away. This is implied in the words, " Go ye every man unto his city," since we may easily supply from the context, " till I shall call you again, to appoint you the king you desire." ANOINTING OF SAUL AS KING. CHAP. IX.-X. 16. When the Lord had instructed Samuel to appoint a king over the nation, in accordance with its own desire, He very speedily proceeded to show him the man whom He had chosen. Saul the Benjaminite came to Samuel, to consult him as a seer about his father's she-asses, which had been lost, and for which he had been seeking in all directions in vain (ch. ix. 1-14). And 'he Lord had already revealed to the prophet the day before, that He would send him the man who had been set apart by Him as the king of Israel ; and when Samuel met with Saul, He pointed him out as the man to whom He had referred (vers. 15-17). Accordingly, Samuel invited Saul to be his guest at a sacrificial meal, which he was about to celebrate (vers. 18-24). After the meal he made known to him the purpose of God, ^mointed him as king (vers. 25-27, ch. x. 1), and sent him away, with an announcement of three signs, which would serve to confirm his election on the part of God (ch. x. 2-16). This occurrence is related very circumstantially, to bring out dis- tinctly the miraculous interposition of God, and to show that Saul did not aspire to the throne; and also that Samuel did not appoint of his own accord the man whom he was afterwards obliged to reject, but that Saul was elected by God to be king over His people, without any interference on the part of either Samuel or himself.^ Ch. ix. 1-10. Saul searches for his fathers asses. — Vers. 1, 2. The elaborate genealogy of the Benjaminite Kish, and the minute description of the figure of his son Saul, are in- ' There is no tenable ground for the assumption of Thenius and others, that this account \Yas derived from a different source from ch. viii., x. 17-27, and xi. sqq. ; for the assertion that ch. x. 17-27 connects itself in the most natural way with ch. viii. is neither well-founded nor correct. In the first place, it was certainly more natural that Samuel, who was to place a king over the nation according to the appointment of God, should ba CHAP. IX. 1-10. 87 tended to indicate at the very outset the importance to wliich Saul attained in relation to the people of Israel. Kish was the son of Ahiel: this is in harmony with ch. xiv. 51. But when, on the other hand, it is stated in 1 Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39, that Ner begat Kish, the difference may be reconciled in the simplest manner, on the assumption that the Ner mentioned there is not the father, but the grandfather, or a still more remote ancestor of Kish, as the intervening members are frequently passed over in the genealogies. The other ancestors of Kish are never mentioned again. 7\n "1133 refers to Kish, and signifies not a brave man, but a man of property, as in Euth ii. 1. This son Saul (i.e. " prayed for ;" for this meaning of the word, comp. ch. i. 17, 27) was " young and beautiful." It is true that even at that time Saul had a son grown up (viz. Jonathan), according to ch. xiii. 2 ; but still, in contrast with his father, he was " a young man," i.e. in the full vigour of youth, probably about forty or forty-five years old. There is no necessity, therefore, to follow the Vulgate rendering electus. No one equalled him in beauty. " From his shoulder upwards he was higher than any of the people." Such a figure as this was well adapted to commend him to the people as their king (cf. ch. x. 24), since size and beauty were highly valued in rulers, as signs of manly strength (see Herod, iii. 20, vii. 187 ; Aristot. Polit. iv. c. 24). — Vers. 3-5. Having been sent out by his father to search for his she-asses which had strayed, Saul went with his servant through the mountains of Ephraim, which ran south- wards into the tribe-territory of Benjamin (see at ch. i. 1), then through the land of Shalishah and the land of Shaalirn, and after that through the land of Benjamin, without finding the asses ; and at length, when he had reached the land of Zuph, he deter- mined to return, because he was afraid that his father might turn his mind from the asses, and trouble himself about them (the son and servant), p 7}!^, to desist from a thing, to give it up or renounce it. made acquainted with the man whom God had appointed, before the people elected him by lot. And secondly, Saul's behaviour in hiding himself when the lots were cast (ch. x. 21 sqq.), can only be explained on the supposition that Samuel had already informed him that he was the appointed king ; wherea.s, if this had not been the case, it would be altogether incompre- hensible. 88 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. As Saul started in any case from Gibeah of Benjamin, his own home (ch. x. 10 sqq., 2(3, xi. 4, xv. 34, xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1), i.e. the present Tuleil el Phul, which was an hour or an hour and a half to the north of Jerusalem (see at Josh, xviii. 28), and went thence into the mountains of Ephraim, he no doubt took a north-westerly direction, so that he crossed the boundary of Benjamin somewhere between Bireh and Atarah, and passing through the crest of the mountains of Ephraim, on the west of Gophnah (Jifna), came out into the land of Shalishah. Sha- lishah is unquestionably the country round (or of) Baal-shalishah (2 Kings iv. 42), which was situated, according to Eusebius (Onom. s.v. BaiOaapiadd : Betli-sarisa or Beth-salisa), in regione Tliamnitica, fifteen Koman miles to the north of Diospolis (Lydda), and was therefore probably the country to the west of Jiljilia, where three different wadys run into one large wady, called Kurawa ; and according to the probable conjecture of Thenius, it was from this fact that the district received the name of Shalishah, or Three-land. They proceeded thence in their search to the land of Shaalim : according to the Onom. (s.u.), " a village seven miles off, in jinibus Eleulheropoleos co7itra occidentem." But this is hardly correct, and is most likely connected with the mistake made in transposing the town of Samuel to the neighbourhood of Diospolis (see at ch. i. 1). For since they went on from Shaalim into the land of Benjamin, and then still further into the land of Zuph, on the south-west of Benjamin, they probably turned eastwards from Shalishah, into the country where we find Beni Mussah and Beni Salem marked upon Robinson's and v. de Velde's maps, and where we must therefore look for the land of Shaalim, that they might proceed thence to explore the land of Benjamin from the north- east to the south-west. If, on the contrary, they had gone from Shaalim in a southerly or south-westerly direction, to the district of Eleutheropolis, they w'ould only have entered the land of Benjamin at the south-west corner, and would have had to go all the way back again in order to go thence to the land of Zuph. For we may infer with certainty that the land of Zuph was on the south-west of the tribe-territory of Benjamin, from the fact that, according to ch. x. 2, Saul and his companion passed Eachel's tomb on their return tJieuce to their own home, and then came to the border of CHAP. IX. 1-10. 89 Benjamin. On the name Zupli, see at ch. i. 1 — Ver. 6. When Saul proposed to return home from the land of Zuph, his servant said to him, " Behold, in this city (' this,' referring to the town which stood in front of them upon a hill) is a man of God, much honoured ; all that he saith cometh surely to pass : now we will go thither ; perhaps he will tell us our way that we have to go" {lit. have gone, and still go, sc. to attain the object of our journey, viz. to find the asses). The name of this town is not mentioned either here or in the further course of this history. Nearly all the commentators suppose it to have been Ramah, Samuel's home. But this assumption has no founda- tion at all in the text, and is irreconcilable with the statements respecting the return in ch. x. 2-5. The servant did not say there dwells in this city, but there is in thic city (ver. 6 ; comp. with this ver. 10, " They went into the city where the man of God was," not " dwelt"). It is still more evident, from the answer given by the drawers of water, when Saul asked them, "Is the seer heref" (ver. 11), — viz. "He came to-day to the city, for the people have a great sacrifice upon the high place" (ver. 12), — that the seer (Samuel) did not live in the town, but had only come thither to a sacrificial festival. Moreover, " every impartial man will admit, that the fact of Samuel's having honoured Saul as his guest at the sacrificial meal of those who participated in the sacrifice, and of their having slept under the tame roof, cannot possibly weaken the impression that Samuel tvas only there in his peculiar and official capacity. It could not be otherwise than that the presidency should be assigned to him at the feast itself as priest and prophet, and therefore that the appointments mentioned should proceed from him. And it is but natural to assume that he had a house at his command for any repetition of such sacrifices, which we find from 2 Kings iv. to have been the case in the history of Elisha" (Valentiner). And lastly, the sacrificial festival itself does not point to Eamah ; for although Samuel had built an altar to the Lord at Ramah (ch. vii. 17), this was by no means the only place of sacrifice in the nation. If Samuel offered sacrifice at Mizpeh and Gilgal (ch. vii. 9, X. 8, xiii. 8 sqq.), he could also do the same at other places. What the town really was in which Saul met with him, cannot indeed be determined, since all that we can gather from ch. X. 2 is, that it was situated on the south-west of Bethlehem. 90 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. • — Vers. 7-10. Saul's objection, that tliey had no present to bring to the man of God, as the bread was gone from their vessels, was met by the servant with the remark, that he had a quarter of a shekel which he would give. — ^Ver. 9. Before pro- ceeding with the further progress of the affair, the historian introduces a notice, which was required to throw light upon what follows; namely, that beforetime, if any one wished to inquire of God, i.e. to apply to a prophet for counsel from God upon any matter, it was customary in Israel to say, We will go to the seer, because " he that is now called a prophet was before- time called a seer." After this parenthetical remark, the account is continued in ver. 10. Saul declared himself satisfied with the answer of the servant ; and they both went into the town, to ask the man of God about the asses that were lost. Vers. 11-17. As they were going up to the high place of the town, they met maidens coming out of the town to draw water ; and on asking them whether the seer was there, they received this answer : " Yes; behold, he is before thee: make haste now, for he has come into the town to-day ; for the people have a sacrifice to-day upon the high place." Bamah (in the singular) does not mean the height or hill generally ; but throughout it signifies the high place, as a place of sacrifice or prayer. — Ver. 13. " When ye come into the city, ye loill find him directly, before he goes up to the high place to eat" 15 not only intro- duces the apodosis, but corresponds to 3, as, so : here, how- ever, it is used with reference to time, in the sense of our " immediately." " For the people are not accustomed to eat till he comes, for he blesses the sacrifice," etc. 'H']?, like evXoyelv, refers to the thanksgiving prayer offered before the sacrificial meal. " Go now for him; ye will meet him even to-day." The first ink is placed at the beginning for the sake of emphasis, and then repeated at the close. Di^na, "Even to-day." — Ver. 14. AVhen they went into the town, Samuel met them on his way out to go to the high place of sacrifice. Before the meeting itself is described, the statement is introduced in vers. 15-17, that the day before Jehovah had foretold to Samuel that the man was coming to him whom he was to anoint as captain over his people. IT^< rvi, to open any one's ear, equivalent to 7'eveal some- thing to him (ch. xx. 12 ; 2 Sam. vii. 27, etc.). rhm, I will send thee, i.e. "I will so direct his way in my overruling providence, CHAP. IX. 18-24. 91 that he shall come to tliee" (J. H. Mich.). Tlie words, '' that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines ; for 1 have looked upon my people, for their cry is come unto me" are not at all at variance with ch. vii. 13. In that passage there is simply the assertion, that there was no more any permanent oppression on the part of the Philistines in the clays of Samuel, such as had taken place before ; but an attempt to recover their supremacy over Israel is not only not precluded, but is even indirectly affirmed (see the comm. on ch. vii. 13). The words before us simply show that the Philistines had then begun to make a fresh attempt to contend for dominion over the Israel- ites. " / have looked upon my people :" this is to be explained like the similar passage in Ex. ii. 25, " God looked upon the children of Israel," and Ex. iii. 7, " I have looked upon the misery of my people." God's looking was not a quiet, inactive looking on, but an energetic look, which brought help in trouble. " Their cry is come unto me :" this is word for word the same as in Ex. iii. 9. As the Philistines wanted to tread in the foot- steps of the Egyptians, it was necessary that Jehovah should also send His people a deliverer from these new oppressors, by giving them a king. The reason here assigned for the estab- lishment of a monarchy is by no means at variance with the displeasure which God had expressed to Samuel at the desire of the people for a king (ch. viii. 7 sqq.) ; since this displeasure had reference to the state of heart from which the desire had sprung. — Ver. 17. When Samuel saw Saul, the Lord answered him, sc. in reply to the tacit inquiry, ' Is this he?' " Behold, this is the man of whom I spake to thee." Ivy, coercere imperio. Vers. 18-24. The thread of the narrative, which was broken off in ver. 15, is resumed in ver. 18. Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and asked him for the seer's house. The expression iVE'n Tjina is used to define more precisely the general phrase in ver 14, I'VC "^"^^^ ^''^^', and there is no necessity to alter "I'J'n in ver. 14 into iVKiri, as Thenius proposes, for l''i'i^ ^i^^? ^i3 does not mean to go (or be) in the middle of the town, as he imagines, but to go into, or enter, the town ; and the entrance to the town was through the gate. — Ver. 19. Samuel replied, " / am the seer : go up before me to the high place, and eat with me to-day ; and to-morrow I will send thee away, and make known to thee all that is in thy heart" Letting 92 THK FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. a person go in front was a sign of great esteem. The change from the singular npj? to the plural QW??X may be explained on the ground that, whilst Samuel only spoke to Saul, he intended expressly to invite his servant to the meal as well as himself. " All that is in thine heart" does not mean " all that thou hast upon thy heart," i.e. all that troubles thee, for Samuel relieved him of all anxiety about the asses at once by telling him that they were found ; but simply the thoughts of thy heart gene- rally. Samuel would make these known to him, to prove to him that he was a prophet. He then first of all satisfied him respect- ing the asses (ver. 20) : " As for the asses that loere lost to thee to-day three days (three days ago), do not set thy heart upon them {i.e. do not trouble thyself about them), for they are found" After this quieting announcement, by which he had convinced Saul of his seer's gift, Samuel directed Saul's thoughts to that higher thing which Jehovah had appointed for him: "And to whom does all that is worth desiring of Israel helong ? is it not to thee, and to all thy father's house?" " The desire of Israel" [optima qucBque Israel, Vulg. ; " the best in Israel," Luther) is not all that Israel desires, but all that Israel possesses of what is precious or worth desiring (see Hag. ii. 7). "The antithesis here is between the asses and every desirable thing" (Seb. Schmidt). Notwithstanding the indefinite character of the words, they held up such glorious things as in prospect for Saul, that he replied in amazement (ver. 21), " Am not I a Benjaminite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel f and my family is the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin ('J3 it33E' is unquestionably a copyist's error for 'J3 DaE*) ; and hoio speakest thou such a word to nief" Samuel made no reply to this, as he simply wanted first of all to awaken the expectation in Saul's mind of things that he had never dreamt of before. — Ver. 22. When they arrived at the high place, he conducted Saul and his servant into the cell (the apartment prepared for the sacrificial meal), and gave them (the servant as well as Saul, according to the simple customs of antiquity, as being also his guest) a place at the upper end among those who had been invited. There were about thirty persons present, no doubt the most distinguished men of the city, whilst the rest of the people probably encamped in the open air.— Vers. 23, 24. He then ordered the cook to bring the piece which he had directed him to set aside, and to CHAP. IX. 25-27. 93 place it before Saul, namely the leg and '1*?j?n (the article in the place of the relative ; see Ewald, § 331, b) ; i.e. not what was over it, viz. the broth poured upon it (Dathe and Maurer), but what was attached to it (Luther). The reference, however, is not to the kidney as the choicest portion (Thenius), for the kidneys were burned upon the altar in the case of all the slain sacrifices (Lev. iii. 4), and only the flesh of the animals offered in sacrifice was applied to the sacrificial meal. What was at- tached to the leg, therefore, can only have been such of the fat upon the flesh as was not intended for the altar. Whether the right or left leg, is not stated : the earlier commentators decide in favour of the left, because the right leg fell to the share of the priests (Lev. vii. 32 sqq.). But as Samuel conducted the whole of the sacrificial ceremony, he may also have offered the sacrifice itself by virtue of his prophetic calling, so that the right leg would fall to his share, and he might have it reserved for his guest. In any case, however, the leg, as the largest and best portion, was to be a piece of honour for Saul (see Gen. xliii. 34). There is no reason to seek for any further symbo- lical meaning in it. The fact that it was Samuel's intention to distinguish and honour Saul above all his other guests, is evident enough from what he said to Saul when the cook had brought the leg : " Behold, that which is reserved is set before thee (Q'K' is the passive participle, as in Num. xxiv. 21) ; for unto this time hath it been kept for thee, as I said I have invited the people." "l??i'2? is either " to the appointed time of thy coming," or possibly, ^^for the (this) meeting together." Samuel mentions this to give Saul his guest to understand that he had foreseen his coming in a supernatural way. ""3N?, saying, i.e. as I said (to the cook). Vers. 25-27. When the sacrificial meal was over, Samuel and Saul went down from the high place into the town, and he (Samuel) talked with him upon the roof (of the house into which Samuel had entered). The flat roofs of the East were used as places of retirement for private conversation (see at Deut. xxii. 8). This conversation did not refer of course to the call of Samuel to the roj^al dignity, for that was not made known to him as a word of Jehovah till the following day (ver. 27) ; but it was intended to prepare him for that announce- ment: so that O. V. Gerlach's conjecture is probably the correct 94 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL one, viz. that Samuel " talked with Saul concerning the deep religious and political degradation of the people of God, the oppression of the heathen, the causes of the inability of the Israelites to stand against these foes, the necessity for a conver- sion of the people, and the vi'ant of a leader who was entirely devoted to the Lord."' — Ver. 26. "And they rose up early in 1 For 13n 'py 7^i\&'Dll "I3T1 the LXX. have x,xl Idarpairxii t^ SaouA iVi Tsj liif-ciri xai iKoifi-fidn, " they prepared Saul a bed upon the house, and he slept," from which Clerious conjectured that these translators had read ^1XEJ>^ H^T'l 0"'3"l''l or fl31»l) ; and Ewald and Thenius propose to alter the Hebrew text in'this way.' But although '1J1 iiD'aB^'l (ver. 26) no doubt presupposes that Saul had slept in Samuel's house, and in fact upon the roof, the remark of Thenius, " that the private conversation upon the roof (ver. 25) comes too early, as Saul did not yet know, and -was not to learn till the following day, what was about to take place," does not supply any valid objection to the correctness of the Masoretic text, or any argument in favour of the Septuagint rendering or interpretation, since it rests upon an altogether unfounded and erroneous assumption, viz. that Samuel had talked with Saul about his call to the throne. Moreover, " the strangeness" of the statement in ver. 26, "they rose up early," and then " when the morning dawned, Samuel called," etc., cannot possibly throw any suspicion upon the integrity of the Hebrew text, as this "strange- ness '' vanishes when we take '1J1 ni7J)3 ^H'l as a more precise definition of ?D'3ti''1. The Septuagint translators evidently held the same opinion as their modern defenders. They took offence at Samuel's private conversa- tion with Saul, because he did not make known to him the word of God concerning his call to the throne till the next morning ; and, on the other hand, as their rising the next morning is mentioned in ver. 26, they felt the absence of any allusion to their sleeping, and consequently not only interpreted -\'2T by a conjectural emendation as standing for ^3^^ because D'l'nanD 13"l is used in Prov. vii. 16 to signify the spreading of mats or carpets for a bed, but also identified 1D3E'''1 with UDC'\ and rendered it UoifiiiOn- At the same time, they did not reflect that the preparation of the bed and their sleeping during the night were both of them matters of course, and there was consequently no necessity to mention them; whereas Samuel's talking with Saul upon the roof was a matter of importance in relation to the whole affair, and one which could not be passed over in silence. Moreover, the correctness of the Hebrew text is confirmed by all the other ancient versions. Not only do the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic follow the Masoretic text, but Jerome does the same in the rendering adopted by him, "Et locutus est cum Sauh in solaria. Cumque mane surrexissent ;" Ihough the words " siravitque Saul in solaria el dormivit " have been interpolated probably from the Itala into the text of the Vul- gate which has come down to us CHAP. XI '95 the morning : namely, when the morning dawn arose, Samuel called to Saul upon the roof (i.e. he called from below within the house up to the roof, where Saul was probably sleeping upon the balcony ; cf. 2 Kings iv, 10), Get up, I will conduct thee." As soon as Saul had risen, " they both (both Samuel and Saul) went out (into the street)." And when they had gone down to the extremity of the town, Samuel said to Saul, " Let the servant pass on before us (and he did so), and do thou remain here for the present ; I will show thee a word of God." Ch. X. 1. Samuel then took the oil-flask, poured it upon his (Saul's) head, kissed him, and said, " Hath not Jehovah (equi- valent to -Jehovah assuredly hath') anointed thee to be captain over His inheritance V NvH^ as an expression of lively assurance, receives the force of an independent clause through the follow- ing '3, "w it not so ?" i.e. "yea, it is so, that," etc., just as it does before DX in Gen. iv. 7. in?nj. His (Jeliovah's) possession, was the nation of Israel, which Jehovah had acquired as the people of His own possession through their deliverance out of Egypt (Deut. iv. 20, ix. 26, etc.). Anointing with oil was a symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God ; as the oil itself, by virtue of the strength which it gives to the vital spirits, was a symbol of the Spirit of God as the principle of divine and spiritual power (see at Lev. viii. 12), Hitherto there had been no other anointing among the people of God than that of the priests and sanctuary (Ex. xxx. 23 sqq. ; Lev. viii. 10 sqq.). When Saul, therefore, was consecrated as king by anointing, the monarchy was inaugurated as a divine institution, standing on a par with the priesthood ; through which henceforth the Lord would also bestow upon His people the gifts of His Spirit for the building up of His kingdom. As the priests were consecrated by anointing to be the media of the ethical blessings of divine grace for Israel, so the king was consecrated by anointing to be the vehicle and medium of all the blessings of grace which the Lord, as the God-king, would confer upon His people through the institution of a civil government. Through this anointing, which was performed by Samuel under the direction of God, the king was set apart from the rest of the nation as " anointed of the Lord " (cf. ch. xii. 3, 5, etc.), and sanctified as the T33, i.e. its captain, its leader and com- mandei-. Kissing was probably not a sign of liomage or rever- 96 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. eiice towards the anointed of the Lord, so much as "^a_kiss_of affection, with which the grace of God itself was sealed " (Seb. Schmidt).^ Vers. 2—7. To confirm the consecration of Saul as king over Israel, which had been effected through the anointing, Samuel gave him three more signs which would occur on his journey home, and would be a pledge to him that Jehovah would accompany his undertakings with His divine help, and practically accredit him as His anointed. These signs, there- fore, stand in the closest relation to the calling conveyed to Saul through his anointing. — Ver. 2. The first sign: " When thou goest aioay from me to-day {i.e. now), thou wilt meet two men at Rachel's sepulchre, on the border of Benjamin at Zelzah; and they will say unto thee, The asses of thy father, which thou wentest to seek, are.found. Behold, thy father hath given up ni^hsn ''"lavriN, the words (i.e. talking) about the asses, andtroubleth himself about you, saying, What shall I do about my son ? " According to Gen. XXXV. 16 sqq., Rachel's sepulchre was on the way from Bethel ^ The LXX. and Vulgate have expanded the second half of this vers* by a considerable addition, which reads as follows in the LXX. : oii;^l Ki-)(,ptKi (ji jcvpio^ £(V alpxo'JTsi i'TTi Toi/ TiUou ocifTOV £xi ^lapdyj'K ; x.a.i rjij ap^u; h 7\a.u x.vpiov, Kxl av auaitg avroi/ kx. x-^POS i)C^p<^v ocvrov x.vx,'Kldiv^ xxl tqvtq not TO ari^iioi/ on £;^p;o-£ as Kvpiog S'ttI K)\ripovo^ictv aurcv itg ctpxovra. And in the Vulgate : Ecce, unxit te Dominus super hxreditatem suam in priiicipem, et liberabis populum suum de manibus inimicorum ejus, qui in circuitu ejus sunt. Et hoc tibi signum, quia unxit te Deus in principem. A comparison of these two texts will show that the LXX. interpolated their addition between tiipn and ''3, as the last clause, oV; iXP'"^ "^ xvpio; 1^! y.y^t^po'jofiia.u airoS lig a.pxoiTa., is a verbal translation of "Viyp Stbuyhv HiiT' ^HK'D ^3- In the Vulgate, on the other hand, the first clause, ecce unxit — in principem, corre- sponds word for word with the Hebrew text, from which we may see that Jerome translated our present Hebrew text; and the addition, c< liberabis,etc., was interpolated into the Vulgate from the Itala. The text of the Septuagint is nothing more than a gloss formed from ch. ix. 16, 17, which the trans- lator thought necessary, partly because he could not clearly see the force of ''Ti NvH, but more especially because he could not explain the fact that Samuel speaks to Saul of signs, without having announced them to him as such. But the author of the gloss has overlooked the fact that Samuel does not give Saul a eitpislov, but three u^fii'ia., and describes the object of them in ver. 7 as being the following, namely, that Saul would learn when they took place what he had to do, for Jehovah was with him, and cot that they would prove that the Lord had anointed him to be captain. CHAP. X. 2-7. 97 to Bethlehem, only a short distance from the latter place, and therefore undoubtedly on the spot which tradition has assigned to it since the time of Jerome, viz. on the site of the Kubhet Rahil, half an hour to the north-west of Bethlehem, on the left of the road to Jerusalem, about an hour and a half from the city (see at Gen. xxxv. 20). This suits the passage before us very well, if we give up the groundless assumption that Saul came to Samuel at Ramah and was anointed by him there, and assume that the place of meeting, which is not more fully de- fined in ch. ix., was situated to the south-west of Bethlehem.' The expression " in the border of Benjamin" is not at variance with this. It is true that Kuhbet Raliil is about an hour and a quarter from the southern boundary of Benjamin, which ran "oast the Rogel spring, through the valley of Ben-Hinnom (Josh, xviii. 16) ; but the expression nniap Dj; must not be so pressed as to be restricted to the actual site of the grave, since other- wise the further definition "a< Zelzah" would be superfluous, as Rachel's tomb was unquestionably a well-known locality at that time. If we suppose the place called Zelzah, the situation of which has not yet been discovered,^ to have been about mid- way between Rachel's tomb and the Rogel spring, Samuel could very well describe the spot where Saul would meet the "■ As the account of Saul's meeting with Samuel, in ch. ix., when pro- perly understood, is not at variance with the tradition concerning the situation of Rachel's tomb, and the passage before us neither requires ua on the one hand to understand the Ephratah of Gen. xxxv. 19 and xlviii. 7 as a different place from Bethlehem, and erase " iAai is Bethkhem^' Ivom both passages as a gloss that has crept into the text, and then invent au Ephratah in the neighbourhood of Bethel between Benjamin and Ephraim, as Thenius does, nor warrants us on the other hand in transferring Rachel's tomb to the neighbourhood of Bethel, in opposition to the ordinary tradi- tion, as Kurtz proposes ; so the words of Jer. xxxi. 15, "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her chil- dren," etc., furnish no evidence that Rachel's tomb was at Ramah (i.e. er Ram). " For here (in the cycle of prophecy concerning the restoration of all Israel, Jer. xxx.-xxxiii.) Rachel's weeping is occasioned by the fact of the exiles of Benjamin having assembled together in Ramah (Jer. xl. 1), with- out there being any reason why Rachel's tomb should be sought for in the neighbourhood of this Ramah" (Delitzsch on Gen. xxxv. 20). 2 Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 29) supposes Zelzah to be unsuitable to the con- text, if taken as the name of a place, and therefore follows the aXKof^hovi ft'.yaha. of the LXX., and renders the word " in great haste ;" but he has neither given any reason why the name of a place is unsuitable here, nor Q 98 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. two men in the way that he has done. This sign, by confirming the information which Samuel had given to Saul with reference to the asses, was to furnish him with a practical proof that what Samuel had said to him with regard to the monarchy would quite as certainly come to pass, and therefore not only to delivei him from all anxiety as to the lost animals of his father, but also to direct his thoughts to the higher destiny to which God had called him through Samuel's anointing. The second sign (vers. 3, 4) : " Then thou shalt go on for- ward from thence, and thou shalt come to the terebinth of labor; and there shall meet thee there three men going up to God to Bethel, carrying one three kids, one thr-ee loaves of bread, and one a bottle of wine. They will ask thee after thy welfare, and give thee two loaves ; receive them at their hands." The tere- binth of Tabor is not mentioned anywhere else, and nothing further can be determined concerning it, than that it stood by the road leading from Rachel's tomb to Gibeah.^ The fact that the three men were going up to God at Bethel, shows that tliere was still a place of sacrifice consecrated to the Lord at Bethel, where Abraham and Jacob had erected altars to the Lord who had appeared to them there (Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3, 4, xxviii. 18, 19, xxxv. 7) ; for the kids and loaves and wine were sacrificial gifts which they were about to offer. DiPC*? PKti', to ask after one's welfare, i.e. to greet in a friendly manner (of. Judg. xviii. 15 ; Gen. xliii. 27). The meaning of this double sign consisted in the fact that these men gave Saul two loaves from their sacrificial offerings. In this he was to considered that the Septuagint rendering is Kierely conjectural, and has nothing further to support it than the fact that the translators rendered np^ lipri'hxTO, " he sprang upon him," in ver. 6 and ch. xi. 6, and took niTi to lae an emphatic form of nPS- ^ The opinion expressed by Ewald and Thenius, that Deborah's mourn- ing oak (Gen. xxxv. 8) is intended, and that Tabor is either a different form of Deborah, or that Tahor should be altered into Deborah, has no foundation to rest upon ; for the fact that the oak referred to stood below (i.e. to the south of) Bethel, and the three men whom Saul was to meet at the terebinth of Tabor were going to Bethel, by no means establishes the identity of the two, as their going up to Bethel does not prove that they were already in the neighbourhood of Bethel. Moreover, the Deborah oak was on the north of Gibeah, whereas Saul met the three men between Rachel's tomb and Gibeah, i.e. to the south of Gibeah. CHAP. X. 2-7. 99 discern a homage paid to the anointed of the Lord ; and he was therefore to accept the gift in this sense at their hand. The third sign (vers. 5, 6) Saul was to receive at Gibeah of Ood, where posts of the Philistines were stationed. Gibeath ha-Elohim is not an appellative, signifying a high place of God, i.e. a high place dedicated to God, but a proper name referring to Gibeah of Benjamin, the native place of Saul, which was called Gibeah of Saul from the time when Saul resided there as king (ver. 16 : cf. ch. xi. 4, xv. 34 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 6 ; Isa. x. 29). This is very apparent from the fact that, according to vers. 10 sqq., all the people of Gibeah had known Saul of old, and therefore could not comprehend how he had all at once come to be among the prophets. The name Gibeah of God is here given to the town on account of a bamah or sacrificial height which rose within or near the town (ver. 13), and which may possibly have been renowned above other such heights, as the seat of a society of prophets. C'^K'pQ ^5V^ are not bailiffs of the Philistines, still less columns erected as signs of their supremacy (Thenius), but military posts of the Philistines, as ch. xiii. 3, 4, and 2 Sam. viii. 6, 14, clearly show. The allusion here to the posts of the Philistines at Gibeah is connected with what was about to happen to Saul there. At the place where the Philistines, those severe oppressors of Israel, had set up military posts, the Spirit of God was to come upon Saul, and endow him with the divine power that was required for his regal office. " And it shall come to pass, ichen thou comest to the town there, thou wilt light upon a company of prophets coming down from the high place (bamah, the sacrificial height), before them lyre and tam- bourin, and flute, and harp, and they prophesying.^' ?3n signifies a rope or cord, then a band or company of men. It does not follow that because this band of prophets was coming down from the high place, the high place at Gibeala must have been the seat of a school of the prophets. They might have been upon a pilgrimage to Gibeah. The fact that they were pre- ceded by musicians playing, seems to indicate a festal procession. Nebel and kinnor are stringed instruments which were used after David's time in connection with the psalmody of divine worship (1 Chron. xiii. 8, xv. 20, 21 ; Ps. xxxiii. 2, xliii. 4, etc.). The nebel was an instrument resembling a lyre, the kinnor was more like a guitar than a harp. Toph : the tambourin, which 100 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. was plaj'ed by Miriam at the Red Sea (Ex. xv. 20). Chalil, the flute ; see my Bibl. Archceology, ii. § 137. By the pro- phesying of these prophets we are to understand an ecstatic utterance of religious feelings to the praise of God, as in the case of the seventy elders in the time of Moses (Num. xi. 25). AV'hether it took the form of a song or of an enthusiastic dis- course, cannot be determined ; in any case it was connected with a very energetic action indicative of the highest state of mental excitement. (For further remarks on these societies of prophets, see at ch. xix. 18 sqq.) — Yer. 6. "And the Spirit of Jehovah will come upon thee, and thou wilt prophesy with them, iind be changed into another' man." " Ecstatic states," says Tholuck (die Propheten, p. 53), "have something infectious about them. The excitement spreads involuntarily, as in the American revivals and the preaching mania in Sweden, even to persons in whose state of mind there is no affinity with anything of the kind." But in the instance before us there was something more than psychical infection. The Spirit of Jehovah, which manifested itself in the prophesying of the prophets, was to pass over to Saul, so that he would prophesy along with them (n'33nn formed like a verb n"^ for DXainn ; so again in ver. 13), and was entirely to transform him. This transformation is not to be regarded indeed as regeneration in the Christian sense, but as a change resembling regeneration, which affected the entire disposition of mind, and by which Saul was lifted out of his former modes of thought and feelint^, which were confined within a narrow earthly sphere, into the far higher sphere of his new royal calling, was filled with kingly thoughts in relation to the service of God, and received " another heart" (ver. 9). Heart is used in the ordinary scrip- tural sense, as the centre of the whole mental and psychical life of will, desire, thought, perception, and feeling (see De- litzsch, BiM. Psychol, pp. 248 sqq., ed. 2). Through this sign his anointing as king was to be inwardly sealed. — Ver. 7. " When these signs are come unto thee (the Kethibh njiKlD is to be read nrNhn, as in Ps. xlv. 16 and Esther iv. 4 ; and the Keri njNan is a needless emendation), do to thee what thy hand findeth, i.e. act according to the circumstances (for this formula, see Judg. ix. 33) ; for God will be loith thee:' The occurrence of the signs mentioned was to assure him of the certainty that CHAP. X. 8 101 God would assist him in all that he undertook as king. The first opportunity for action was afforded him by the Ammonite Nahash, who besieged Jabesh-gilead (ch. xi.). Ver. 8. In conclusion, Samuel gave him an important hint with regard to his future attitude : " And goest tliou before me down to Gilgal ; and, behold, I am coming down to thee, to offer burnt-offerings, and to sacrifice peace-offerings : thou shall wait seven days, till I come to thee, that T may show thee what thou art to do." The infinitive clause '1^1 niPJJn? is undoubtedly dependent upon the main clause '^'\T)., and not upon the circumstantial clause which is introduced as a parenthesis. The thought therefore is the following : If Saul went down to Gilgal to offer sacrifice there, he was to wait till Samuel arrived. The construction of the main clause itself, however, is doubtful, since, grammatically considered, ^T\) can either be a continua- tion of the imperative nby (ver. 7), or can be regarded as inde- pendent, and in fact conditional. The latter view, according to which '^TZ supposes his going down as a possible thing that may take place at a future time, is the one required by the circumstantial clause which follows, and which is introduced by n^ni ; for if ^TT^. were intended to be a continuation of the imperative which precedes it, so that Samuel commanded Saul to go down to Gilgal before him, he would have simply an- nounced his coming, that is to say, he would either have said 'nT]^'! or T}X ''JN1. The circumstantial clause " and behold I am coming down to thee" evidently presupposes Saul's going down as a possible occurrence, in the event of which Samuel pre- scribes the course he is to pursue. But the conditional interpre- tation of ^'TT\ is still more decidedly required by the context. For instance, when Samuel said to Saul that after the occur- rence of the three signs he was to do what came to his hand, he could hardly command him immediately afterwards to go to Gilgal, since the performance of what came to his hand might prevent him from going to Gilgal. If, however, Samuel meant that after Saul had finished what came to his hand he was to go down to Gilgal, he would have said, " And after thou hast done this, go down to Gilgal," etc. But as he does not express himself in this manner, he can only have referred to Saul's going to Gilgal as an occurrence which, as he foresaw, would take place at some time or other. And to Saul himself this ]()2 l-HE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. must not only have presented itself as a possible occurrence, but under the existing circumstances as one that was sure to take place ; so that the whole thing was not so obscure to him as it is to us, who are only able to form our conclusions from the brief account which lies before us. If we suppose that in the conversation which Samuel had with Saul upon the roof (ch. ix. 25), he also spoke about the manner in which the Philistines, who had pushed their outposts as far as Gibeali, could be successfully attacked, he might also have mentioned that Gilgal was the most suitable place for gathering an army together, and for making the necessary preparations for a suc- cessful engagement with their foes. If we just glance at the events narrated in the following chapters, for the purpose of getting a clear idea of the thing which Samuel had in view; we find that the three signs announced by Samuel took place on Saul's return to Gibeah (vers. 9—16). Samuel then summoned the people to Mizpeh, where Saul was elected king by lot (vers. 17-27) ; but Saul returned to Gibeah to his own house even after this solemn election, and was engaged in ploughing the field, when messengers came from Jabesh with the account of the siege of that town by the Ammonites. On receiving this intelligence the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, so that he summoned the whole nation with energy and without delay to come to battle, and proceeded to Jabesh with the assembled army, and smote the Ammonites (ch. xi. 1-11). Thereupon Samuel summoned the people to come to Gilgal and renew the monarchy there (ch. xi. 12-15) ; and at the same time he renewed his office of supreme judge (ch. xii.), so that now for the first time Saul actually commenced his reign, and began the war against the Philistines (ch. xiii. 1), in which, as soon as the latter advanced to Michmash with a powerful army after Jonathan's victorious engagement, he summoned the people to Gilgal to battle, and after waiting there seven days for Samuel in vain, had the sacrifices offered, on which account as soon as Samuel arrived he announced to him that his rule would not last (ch. xiii. 13 sqq.). Now, it cannot have been the first of these two gatherings at Gilgal that Samuel had in his mind, but must have been the second. The first is precluded by the simple fact that Samuel summoned the people to go to Gilgal for the purpose of renewing the monarchy ; and therefore, as CHAP. X. 9-16. 103 the words " come and let us go to Gilgal" (ch. xi. 14) unques- tionably imply, he must have gone thither himself along with the people and the king, so that Saul was never in a position to have to wait for Samuel's arrival. The second occurrence at Gilgal, on the other hand, is clearly indicated in the words of ch. xiii. 8, " Said tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed" in which there is almost an express allusion to the instructions given to Saul in the verse before us. But whilst we cannot but regard this as the only true explana- tion, we cannot agree with Seb. Schmidt, who looks upon the instructions given to Saul in this verse as " a rule to be observed throughout the whole of Samuel's life," that is to say, who interprets fp^l in the sense of " as often as thou goest down to Gilgal." For this view cannot be grammatically sustained, although it is founded upon the correct idea, that Samuel's instructions cannot have been intended as a solitary and arbi- trary command, by which Saul was to be kept in a conditioii of dependence. According to our explanation, however, this is not the case ; but there was an inward necessity for them, so far as the government of Saul was concerned. Placed as lie was by Jehovah as king over His people, for the purpose of rescuing them out of the power of those who were at that time its most dangerous foes, Saul was not at liberty to enter upon the war against these foes simply by his own will, but was directed to wait till Samuel, the accredited prophet of Jehovah, had completed the consecration through the offering of a solemn sacrifice, and had communicated to him the requisite instruc- tions from God, even though he should have to wait for seven days.i Vers. 9-16. When Saul went away from Samuel, to return .to Gibeah, " God changed to him another heart," — a pregnant expression for " God changed him, and gave him another heart" 1 The difficulty in question has been solved on the whole quite cor- rectly by Brentius. "It is not to be supposed," he says, "that Samuel was directing Saul to go at once to Gilgal as soon as he should go away from him, and wait there for seven days ; but that he was to do this after he had been chosen king by public lot, and having conquered the Ammon- ites and been confirmed in the kingdom, was about to prepare to make war upon the Philistines, on whose account chiefly it was that he had been called to the kingdom. For the Ijord had already spoken thus to Samuel concerning Saul: ' He will save my people from the hands of the Phili- 104 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. (see at ver. 6) ; and all these signs (the signs mentioned by Samuel) happened on that very day. As he left Samuel early in the morning, Saul could easily reach Gibeah in one day, even if the town where he had met with Samuel was situated to the south-west of Rachel's tomb, as the distance from that tomb to Gibeah was not more than three and a half or four hours. — Ver. 10. The third sign is the only one which is minutely described, because this caused a great sensation at Gibeah, Saul's home. "And they (Saul and his attendant) came thither to Gibeah" " Thither" points back to " thither to the city" in ver. 5, and is defined by the further expression "to Gibeah" (Eng. version, " to the hill :" Tr.). The rendering eKeidev (LXX.) does not warrant us in changing Dt' into DE'O ; for the latter would be quite superfluous, as it was self-evident that they came to Gibeah from the place where they had been in the company of Samuel. — Ver. 11. When those who had known Saul of old saw that he prophesied with the prophets, the people said one to another, " What has happened to the son of Kishi Is Saul also among the prophets 1 " This e.xpression presupposes that Saul's previous life was altogether different from that of the disciples of the prophets. — Ver. 12. And one from thence {i.e. from Gibeah, or from the crowd that was gathered round the prophets) answered, "And who is their father f" i.e. not " who is their president?" which would be a very gratuitous question; but, "is their father a prophet then? ".i.e., according to the explanation given by Oehler (Herzog's Real. Enc. xii. p. 216), " have they the prophetic spirit by virtue of their birth ? " Under- stood in this way, the retort forms a very appropriate " answer" to the expression of surprise and the inquiry, how it came to pass that Saul was among the prophets. If those prophets had not obtained the gift of prophecy by inheritance, but as a free gift of the Lord, it was equally possible for the Lord to communi- stines, because I have looked upon my people.' This is the meaning there- fore of Samuel's command : Thou hast been called to the kingdom chiefly for this purpose, that thou mayest deliver Israel from the tyranny of the Philistines. When therefore thou shalt enter upon this work, go down into Gilgal and vi'ait there seven days, until I shall come to thee : for thou shalt then offer a holocaust, though not before I come to thee, and I -will show thee what must be done in order that our enemies the Philistinea may be conquered. The account of this is given below in ch. xiii., where we learn that Saul violated this command." CHAl". X. 17-27. 105 cate the same gift to Saul. On the other hand, the alteration of the text from Dn''3S (their father) into W'as (his father), according to the LXX., Vulg., Syr., and Arab., which is favoured by Ewald, Thenius, and others, must be rejected, for the simple reason that the question. Who is his father ? in the mouth of one of the inhabitants of Gibeah, to whom Saul's father was so well known that they called Saul the son of Kish at once, would have no sense whatever. From this the proverb arose, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" — a proverb which was used to express astonishment at the appearance of any man in a sphere of life which had hitherto been altogether strange to him. — Vers. 13 sqq. When Saul had left off prophesying, and came to Bamah, his uncle asked him and his attendant where they had been ; and Saul told him, that as they had not found +he asses anywhere, they had gone to Samuel, and had learned from him that the asses were found. But he did not relate the words which had been spoken by Samuel concerning the monarchy, from unambitious humility (cf. vers. 22, 23) and not because he was afraid of unbelief and envy, as Thenius follows Josephus in supposing. From the expression " he came to Bamah" (Eng. ver. " to the high place"), we must conclude, that not only Saul's uncle, but his father also, lived in Bamah, as we find Saul immediately afterwards in his own family circle (see vers. 14 sqq.). SAUL ELECTED KING. HIS ELECTION CONFIRMED. CHAP. X. 17-XI. 15. Vers. 17-27. Saul's Election by Lot. — After Samuel had secretly anointed Saul king by the command of God, it was his duty to make provision for a recognition of the man whom God had chosen on the part of the people also. To this end he summoned the people to Mizpeh, and there instructed the tribes to choose a king by lot. As the result of the lot was regarded as a divine decision, not only was Saul to be accredited by this act in the sight of the whole nation as the king appointed by the Lord, but he himself was also to be more fullj^ assured of the certainty of his own election on the part of God.^ — Ver. 17. 1 Thenius follows De Wette, and adduces the incompatibility of ch. viii. and ch. X. 17-27 with ch. ix. 1-10, 16, as a proof that in vers. 17-27 wa lOf) THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. CJ)n is the nation in its heads and representatives. Samuei selected Jifizpeh for this purpose, because it was there that lie had once before obtained for the people, by prayer, a great victory over the Philistines (ch. vii. 5 sqq.). — Vers. 18, IS). "But before proceeding to the election itself, Samuel once more charged the people with their sin in rejecting God, who had brought them out of Egypt, and delivered them out of the hand of all their oppressors, by their demand for a king, that he might show them how dangerous was the way which they were taking now, and how bitterly they would perhaps repent of what they had now desired" (O. v. Gerlach ; see the commentary on ch. viii.). The masculine CVH'''] is construed ad sensum with niJPDJsn. In h> nDNni_ the early translators have taken 'h for N^, which is the actual reading in some of the Codices. But although this reading is decidedly favoured by the parallel pas- sages, ch. viii. 19, xii. 12, it is not necessary ; since ''3 is used t(i introduce a direct statement, even in a declaration of the oppo- site, in the sense of our " no but" (e.g. in Ruth i. 10, where rb precedes). There is, therefore, no reason for exchanging 6 for iih. — ^Vers. 20, 21. After this warning, Samuel directed the assembled Israelites to come before Jehovah (i.e. before the altar of Jehovah which stood at Mizpeh, according to ch. vii. 9) according to their tribes and families (alaphim : see at Num i. 16) ; " and there was taken (by lot) the tribe of Benjamin" have a different account of the manner in which Saul became king from that given in ch. ix. 1-10, 16, and one which continues the account in ch. viii. 22. " It is thoroughly inconceivable," he says, " that Samuel should have first of all anointed Saul king by the instigation of God, and then have caused the lot to be cast, as it were, for the sake of further con- firmation ; for in that case either the prophet would have tempted God, or he would have made Him chargeable before the nation with an unworthy act of jugglery." Such au argument as this could only be used by critics who deny not only the inspiration of the prophets, but all influence on the ])art of the living God upon the free action of men, and cannot therefore render the truth of the biblical history at all doubtful. Even Ewald sees no discrepancy here, and observes in his history {Gesch. iii. p. 82) : " If wo bear in mind the ordinary use made of the sacred lot at that time, we shall find that there is nothing but the simple truth in the whole course of the narrative. The secret meeting of the seer with Saul was not sufiicient to secure a complete and satisfactory recognition of him as king ; it was also necessary that the Spirit of Jehovah should single him out publicly in a solemn assembly of the nation, and point him out as the man of Jehovah." CHAP. X. 17-27. 107 wH, lU, to be snatched out by Jehovah, namely, through the lot (see Josh. vii. 14, 16). He then directed the tribe of Ben jamin to draw near according to its families, i.e. he directed the heads of the families of this tribe to come before the altar of the Lord and draw lots ; and the family of Matri was taken. Lastl}', when the heads of the households in this family came, and after that the different individuals in the household which had been taken, the lot fell upon Saul the son of Kish. In the words, "Saul the son of Kish was taken,'^ the historian proceeds at once to the final result of the casting of the lots, without describing the intermediate steps any further.'- When the lot fell upon Saul, they sought him, and he could not be found. — ■ Ver. 22. Then they inquired of Jehovah, " Is avy one else come hither V and Jehovah replied, "Behold, he (whom ye are seeking) is hidden among the things." The inquiry was made through the high priest, by means of the Urim and Thummim, for which nin^B pxB' was the technical expression, according to Num. xxvii. 21 (see Judg. xx. 27, 28, i. 1, etc.). There can be no doubt, that in a gathering of the people for so important a purpose as the election of a king, the high priest would also be present, even though this is not expressly stated. Samuel pre- sided over the meeting as the prophet of the Lord. The answer given by God, " Behold, he is hidden''' etc., appears to have no relation to the question, " Is any one else come ?" The Sept. and Vulg. have therefore altered the question into el en 'ipj(eTai, 6 avrjp, utrum,nam venturus esset ; and Thenius would adopt this ^ It is true the Septuagint introduces the words x.x\ 'TrpoaAyoiKn riu tpvX'i!/ MxTTxpl li; diiOpct; before ^3?'1, and this clause is also found in a very recent Hebrew MS. (viz. 451 in Kennicott's dissert, gener. p. 491). But it is very evident that these words did not form an integral part of the original text, as Thenius supposes, but were nothing more than an interpolation of the Sept. translators, from the simple fact that they do not fill up the supposed gap at all completely, but only in a very partial, and in fact a very mistaken manner ; for the family of Matri could not come to the lot il; A'jlpx; (man by man), but only xht ohov; (by house- holds : Josh. vii. 14). Before the household (beth-aboth, father's house) of Saul could be taken, it was necessary that the Cnaa (£ulpes), i.e. the dif- ferent heads of households, should be brought ; and it was not till then that ICish, or his son Saul, could be singled out as the appointed of the Lord. Neither the author of the gloss in the LXX., nor the modern defender o/ tl.e gloss, has thought of th!.-j. 108 THE FIKST UOOK OF SAMUEL. as an emendation. But he is wrong in doing so ; for there was no necessity to ask whether Saul would still come : they might at once have sent to fetch him. What they asked was rather, whether any one else had come besides those who were present, as Saul was not to be found among them, that they might know where they were to look for Saul, whether at home or anywhere else. And to this question God gave the answer, " He is present, only hidden among the things." By Dv3 (the things or vessels, Eng. ver. the stuff) we are to understand the travelling baggage of the peoj)le who had assembled at Mizpeh. Saul could neither have wished to avoid accepting the monarchy, nor have imagined that the lot would not fall upon him if he hid himself. For he knew that God had chosen him ; and Samuel had anointed him already. He did it therefore simplv from humility and modesty. " In order tliat he might not appear to have either the hope or desire for anything of the kind, he pre- ferred to be absent when the lots were cast" (Seb. Schmidt). — Vers. 23, 24. He was speedily fetched, and brought into tlie midst of the (assembled) people ; and when he came, he was a head taller than all the people (see ch. ix. 2). And Samuel said to all the people, " Behold ye whom the Lord hath chosen ! for there is none like him in all the nation" Then all the people shouted aloud, and cried, " Let the king live .'" Saul's bodily stature won the favour of the people (see the remarks on ch. ix. 2). Samuel then communicated to the people the right of the monarchy, and laid it down before Jehovah. " The right of the monarchy" (meluchah) is not to be identified with the right of the king (melech), which is described in ch. viii. 11 and sets forth the right or prerogative which a despotic king would assume over the people ; but it is the right which regulated the attitude of the earthly monarchy in the theocracy, and deter- mined the duties and rights of the human king in relation to Jehovah the divine King on the one hand, and to the nation on the other. This right could only be laid down by a prophet Jke Samuel, to raise a wholesome barrier at the very outset against all excesses on the part of the king. Samuel therefore wrote it in a document which was laid down before Jehovah, i.e. in the sanctuary of Jehovah ; though certainly not in the sanc- tuary at Bamah in Gibeah, as Thenius supposes, for nothing is CHAP. XI 109 known respecting any such sanctuary. It was no doubt placed in the tabernacle, where the law of Moses was also deposited, by the side of the fundamental law of the divine state in Israel. When the business was all completed, Samuel sent the people away to their own home. — Ver. 26. Saul also returned to his house at Gibeah, and there went with him the crowd of the men whose hearts God had touched, sc. to give him a royal escort, and show their readiness to serve him. t'^nn is not to be altered into '■'HH ''.^3, according to the free rendering of the LXX., but is used as in Ex. xiv. 28 ; with this difference, however, that here it does not signify a large military force, but a crowd of brave men, who formed Saul's escort of honour. — Ver. 27. But as it generally happens that, where a person is suddenly lifted up to exalted honours or office, there are sure to be envious people found, so was it here : there were ?Vv3 ''J3, worthless people, even among the assembled Israelites, who spoke disparagingly of Saul, saying, " How ivill this man help us ? " and who brought him no present. Minchah: the present which from time immemorial every one has been expected to bring when entering the presence of the king ; so that the refusal to bring a present was almost equivalent to rebellion. But Saul was " as being deaf," i.e. he acted as if he had not heard. The objection which Thenius brings against this view, viz. that in that case it would read '133 n^n XWI, exhibits a want of acquaint- ance with the Hebrew construction of a sentence. There is no more reason for touching ''H'^l than 13<^1 in ver. 26. In both cases the apodosis is attached to the protasis, which precedes it in the form of a circumstantial clause, by the imperfect, with vav consec. According to the genius of our language, these protases would be expressed by the conjunction when, viz. : " ichen Saul also went home, . . . there went with him," etc. ; and " when loose (or idle) people said, etc., he was as deaf." Ch. xi. Saul's Victoet over the Ammonites. — Even after the election by lot at Mizpeh, Saul did not seize upon the reins of government at once, but returned to his father's house in Gibeah, and to his former agricultural occupation ; not, however, merely from personal humility and want of ambition, but rather from a correct estimate of the circumstances. The monarchy was something so new in Israel, that the king could 110 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. not expect a general and voluntary recognition of liis regaJ dignity and authority, especially after the conduct of the worth- less people mentioned in ch. x. 27, until he had answered their expectations from a king (ch. viii. 6, 20), and proved himself a deliverer of Israel from its foes by a victorious campaign. But as Jehovah had chosen him ruler over his people without any seeking on his part, he would wait for higher instructions to act, before he entered upon the government. The opportunity was soon given him. Vers. 1-5. Nahash, the king of the Ammonites (cf. ch. xii. 12 ; 2 Sam. x. 2), attacked the tribes on the east of the Jordan, no doubt with the intention of enforcing the claim to a part of Gilead asserted by his ancestor in the time of Jephthah (Judg. xi. 13), and besieged Jahesh in Gilead,^ — according to Josephus the metropolis of Gilead, and probably situated by the Wady Jabes (see at Judg. xxi. 8) ; from which we may ^ The time of this campaign is not mentioned in the Hebre'W text. But it is very evident from ch. xii. 12, where the Israehtes are said to have desired a ting, vifheu they saw that Nahash had come against them, that Nahash had invaded Gilead before the election of Saul as king. The Septuagint, however, renders the words E'^-inD3 M''! (ch. x. 27) by x«i i-yiv/iSyi u^ find a-^i/a, and therefore the translators must have read E'l'riDS, which Ewald and Thenius would adopt as an emendation of the Helirew text. But all the other ancient versions give the Masoretic text, viz. not only the Chaldee, Syriao, and Arabic, but even Jerome, who renders it ille vero dissimulabat se audire. It is true that in our present Vulgate text these words are fol- lowed by et factum est quasi post mensem; but this addition has no doubt crept in from the Itala. With the general character of the Septuagint, the rendering of E'nnioa by as y^trd fiiji/a is no conclusive proof that the word in their Hebrew Codex was EinhOB ; it simply shows that this was the interpretation which they gave to t;"inD3- And Josephus (vi. 5, 1), who is also appealed to, simply estabUshes the fact that a; ^£t« fiYiua. stood in the Sept. version of his day, since he made use of this version and not of the original text. Moreover, we cannot say with Ewald, that this was the last place in which the time could be overlooked ; for it is perfectly evi- dent that Nahash commenced the siege of Jabesh shortly after the election of Saul at Mizpeh, as we may infer from the verb ^jjsi, when taken in con- nection with the fact implied in ch. xii. 12, that he had commenced the war with the Israelites before this. And lastly, it is much more probable that the LXX. changed K'nnoa into CHriDB, than that the Hebrew- readers of the Old Testament should have altered K'inD3 into ty'inoa, v;ithout defining the time more precisely by nnx, or some other number. CHAI'. XI. 6 11. Ill see tliat lie must have penetrated very far into the territory of the Israelites. The inhabitants of Jabesh petitioned the Ammonites in their distress, "Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee ;" i.e. grant us favourable terms, and we will submit. — Ver. 2. But Nahash replied, " On this condition (DNta, lit. at this price, 3 pretii) will I make a covenant with you, that I may put out all your rigid eyes, and so bring a reproach upon all Israel." From the fact that the infinitive lip3 is continued with ''ijil?'?''!, it is evident that the subject to lipJ is Nahasli, and not the Israelites, as the Syriac, Arabic, and others have rendered it. The suffix to '}''^iy^ is neuter, and refers to the previous clause : " it," i.e. the puttina; out of the right eye. This answer on the part of Nahash shows unmistakeably that he sought to avenge upon the people of Israel the shame of the defeat which Jephthah had inflicted upon the Ammonites. — Ver. 3. The elders of Jabesh replied : " Leave us seven days, that we may send messengers into all the territory of Israel; and if there is no one who saves us, we will come out to thee," i.e. will surrender to thee. This request was granted by Nahash, because he was not in a condition to take the town at once by storm, and also probably because, in the state of internal dissolution into which Israel had fallen at that time, he had no expectation that any vigorous help would come to the inhabitants of Jabesh. From the fact that the mes- sengers were to be sent into all the territory of Israel, we may conclude that the Israelites had no central government at that time, and that neither Nahash nor the Jabeshites had heard anything of the election that had taken place ; and this is still more apparent from the fact that, according to ver. 4, their messengers came to Gibeah of Saul, and laid their business before the people generally, without applying at once to Saul. ■ — Ver. 5. Saul indeed did not hear of the matter till he came (returned home) from the field behind the oxen, and found the people weeping and lamenting at these mournful tidings. "Behind the oxen," i.e., judging from the expression "yoke of oxen " in ver. 7, the pair of oxen with which he had been ploughing. Vers. 6-11. When the report of the messengers had been communicated to him, " the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, and his anger was kindled greatly" sc. at the shame which the 112 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUKL. Ammonites had resolved to bring upon all Israel. — Ver. 7. He took a yoke of oxen, cut them in pieces, and sent (the pieces) into every possession of Israel by messengers, and said, " Who- ever cometh not forth after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen." The introduction of Samuel's name after that of Saul, is a proof that Saul even as king still recognised the authority which Samuel possessed in Israel as the prophet of Jehovah. This symbolical act, like the cutting up of the woman in Judg. xix. 29, made a deep impression. " The fear of Jehovah fell upon the people, so that they went out as one man." By " the fear of Jehovah " we are not to understand SeZ/ia iravLKov (Thenius and Bottcher), for Jehovah is not equi- valent to Elohim, nor the fear of Jehovah in the sense of fear of His punishment, but a fear inspired by Jehovah. In Saul's energetic appeal the people discerned the power of Jehovah, which inspired them with fear, and impelled them to immediate obedience. — Ver. 8. Saul held a muster of the people of war. who had gathered together at (or near) Bezek, a place which was situated, according to the Onom. (s. v. Bezek), about seven hours to the north of Nabulus towards Beisan (see at Judg. i. 4). The number assembled were 300,000 men of Israel, and 30,000 of Judah. These numbers will not appear too large, if we bear in mind that the allusion is not to a regular army, but that Saul had summoned all the people to a general levy. In the distinction drawn between the children of Judah and the children of Israel we may already discern a trace of that separation of Judah from the rest of the tribes, which even- tually led to a formal secession on the part of the latter.— Ver. 9. The messengers from Jabesh, who had been waiting to see the result of Saul's appeal, were now despatched with this message to their fellow-citizens : " To-morrow you will have help, when the sun shines hot," i.e. about noon. — Ver. 10. After receiving these joyful news, the Jabeshites announced to the Ammonites : " To-morrow we will come out to you, and ye may do to us what seemeth good to you," — an untruth by which they hoped to assure the besiegers, so that they might be fallen upon unexpectedly by the advancing army of Saul, and thoroughly beaten. — Ver. 11. The next day Saul arranged the people in three divisions (Q^K'N'i, as in Judg. vii. 16), who forced their way into the camp of the foe from three different sides, in the CHAP XI. 12-15. 113 morning watch (iDetween three and six o'clock in the morning;, smote the Ammonites " till the heat of the day" and routed them so completely, that those who remained were all scattered, and there were not two men left tocjether. Vers. 12-15. Renewal of the Monarchy. — Saul had so thoroughly acted the part of a king in gaining this victory, and the people were so enthusiastic in his favour, that they said to Samuel, viz. after their return from the battle, " Who is he that said, Saul should reign over us ! " The clause ^3''7JJ ^^p\ ^WK' contains a question, though it is indicated simply by the tone, and there is no necessity to alter 71KK' into PWOT. These words refer to the exclamation of the worthless people in ch. x. 27. " Bring the men (who spoke in this manner), that we may put them to death." But Saul said, " There shall not a man be put to death this day ; for to-day Jehovah hath lurougJtt salvation in Israel;" and proved thereby not only his magnanimity, but also his genuine piety.-' — Yer. 14. Samuel turned this victory to account, by calling upon the people to go with him to Gilgal, and there renew the monarchy. In what the renewal consisted is not clearly stated ; but it is simply recorded in ver. 15 that " they (the whole people) made Saul king there before the Lord in Gilgal." Many commentators have supposed that he was anointed afresh, and appeal to David's second anointing (2 Sam. ii. 4 and v. 3). But David's example merely proves, as Seb Schmidt has correctly observed, that the anointing could be repeated under certain circumstances ; but it does not prove that it was repeated, or must have been repeated, in the case of Saul. If the ceremony of anointing had been performed, it would no doubt have been mentioned, just as it is in 2 Sam. ii. 4 and v. 3. But l^pp^ does not mean " they anointed," althoagh the LXX. have rendered it e^xpi^cre Xa-ixovrfK, accord- ing to their own subjective interpretation. The renewal of the monarchy may very well have consisted in nothing more than ' " Not only signifying that the public rejoicing should not be inter- rupted, but reminding them of the clemency of God, and urging that since Jehovah had shown such clemency upon that day, that He had overlooked their sins, and given them a glorious victory, it was only right that they should follow His example, and forgive their neighbours' sins without bloodshed." — Scb. Schmidt. H 114 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. a solemn confirmation of the election that had taken place at Mizpeh, in which Samuel once more laid before both king and people the right of the monarchy, receiving from both parties in the presence of the Lord the promise to observe this right, and sealing the vow by a solemn sacrifice. The only sacrifices mentioned are zebachim shelamim, i.e. peace-offerings. These were thank-offerings, which were always connected with a sacrificial meal, and when presented on joyous occasions, formed a feast of rejoicing for those who took part, since the sacrificial meal shadowed forth a living and peaceful fellowship with the Lord. Gilgal is in all probability the place where Samuel judged the people every year (ch. vii. 16). But whether it was the Gilgal in the plain of the Jordan, or Jiljiha on higher ground to the south-west of Shiloh, it is by no means easy to determine. The latter is favoured, apart from the fact that Samuel did not say " Let us go down," but simply " Let us go" (cf. ch. X. 8), by the circumstance that the solemn ceremony took place after the return from the war at Jabesh ; since it is hardly likely that the people would have gone down into the valley of the Jordan to Gilgal, whereas Jiljilia was close by the road from Jabesh to Gibeah and Kamah. Samuel's address at the renewal of the monarchy. — CHAP. XII. Samuel closed this solemn confirmation of Saul as king with an address to all Israel, in which he handed over the office of judge, which he had hitherto filled, to the king, who had been appointed by God and joyfully recognised by the people. The good, however, ,which Israel expected from the king depended entirely upon both the people and their king maintaining that proper attitude towards the Lord with which the prosperity of Israel was ever connected. This truth the prophet felt impelled to impress most earnestly upon the hearts of all the people or this occasion. To this end he reminded them, that neither he himself, in the administration of his office, nor the Lord in His guidance of Israel thus far, had given the people any reason for asking a king when the Ammonites invaded the land (vers. 1-12). Nevertheless the Lord had given them a king, and would not withdraw His hand from them, if they would only CHAP. XII. 1-6. 115 ftar Him and confess their sin (vers. 13-15). This address was then confirmed by the Lord at Samuel's desire, through a miraculous sign (vers. 16-18); whereupon Samuel gave to the people, who were terrified by the miracle and acknowledged their sin, the comforting promise that the Lord would not for- sake Plis people for His great name's sake, and then closed his address with the assurance of his continued intercession, and a renewed appeal to them to serve the Lord with faithfulness (vers. 19-25). With this address Samuel laid down his office as judge, but without therefore ceasing as prophet to represent the people before God, and to maintain the rights of God in relation to the king. In this capacity he continued to support the king with his advice, until he was compelled to announce his rejection on account of his repeated rebellion against the commands of the Lord, and to anoint David as his successor. Vel's. 1-C. The time and place of the following address are not given. But it is evident from the connection with the pre- ceding chapter implied in the expression "i^^'l? and still more from the introduction (vers. 1, 2) and the entire contents of tha address, that it was delivered on the renewal of the monarchy at Gilgal. — Vers. 1, 2. Samuel starts with the fact, that he had given the people a king in accordance with their own desire, who would now walk before them. Hjin with the participle ex- presses what is happening, and will happen still, ''.^sp ^.?Linn must not be restricted to going at the head in war, but signifies the general direction and government of the nation, which had been in the hands of Samuel as judge before the election of Saul as king. "And I have grown old and grey Q^^^ from 3''K') ; and my sons, hehold, they are with you." With this allu- sion to his sons, Samuel simply intended to confirm what he had said about his own age. By the further remark, " and I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day" he prepares the way for the following appeal to the people to bear witness concerning his conduct in office. — Ver. 3. " Bear witness against me before the Lord" i.e. looking up to the Lord, the omnipotent .nid righteous God-king, " and before His anointed" the visible administrator of His divine government, whether I have com- mitted any injustice in my office of judge, by appropriating another's property, or by oppression and violence ()'V"i, to pound or crush in pieces, when used to denote an act of violence, is IIG THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. stronger than P'^V, with which it is connected here and in many other passages, e.g. Deut. xxviii. 33 ; Amos iv. 1), or by taking atonement money ("ir?^^ redemption or atonement money, ia used, as in Ex. xxi. 30 and Num. xxxv. 31, to denote a payment made by a man to redeem himself from capital punishment), " so that T had covered my eyes xvith it" viz. to exempt from punishment a man who was worthy of death. The 13, which is construed with QvPlI, is the 3 instrumenti, and refers to 123 ; consequently it is not to be confounded with tP, "to hide from," which would be quite unsuitable here. The thought is not that the judge covers his eyes from the copher, that he may not see the bribe, but that he covers his eyes with the money offered him as a bribe, so as not to see and not to punish the crime committed. • — Ver. 4. The people answered Samuel, that he had not done them any kind of injustice. — Ver. 5. To confirm this declara- tion on the part of the people, he then called Jehovah and His anointed as witnesses against the people, and they accepted these witnesses. ^^Iti"-^? is the subject to "IDN'I ; and the Keri =nON'1, though more simple, is by no means necessary. Samuel said, " Jelwvah be witness against you" because with the declaration which the people had made concerning Samuel's judicial labours they had condemned themselves, inasmuch as they had thereby acknowledged on oath that there was no ground for their dissatisfaction with Samuel's administration, and conse- quently no well-founded reason for their request for a king. — Ver. 6. But in order to bring the people to a still more thorough acknowledgment of their sin, Samuel strengthened still more their assent to his solemn appeal to God, as expressed in the words "iJe is loitness," by saying, "Jehovah (i.e. yea, the witness is Jehovah), who made Moses and Aaron, and brought your fathers out of the land of Egypt." The context itself is suffi- cient to show that the expression " is witness " is understood ; and there is no reason, therefore, to assume that the word has dropped out of the text through a copyist's error. nB'Jf, to make, in a moral and historical sense, i.e. to make a person what he is to be ; it has no connection, therefore, with his physical birth, but simply relates to his introduction upon the stage of history, like TToiew, Heb. iii. 2. But if Jehovah, who redeemed Israel out of Egypt by the hands of Moses and Aaron, and exalted it into His own nation, was witness of the unselfishness and CHAP. Xn. 7-12. 117 impartiality of Samuel's conduct in his office of judge, then Israel had grievously sinned by demanding a king. In the person of Samuel they had rejected Jehovah their God, who had given them their rulers (see ch. viii. 7). Samuel proves this still further to the people from the following history. Vers. 7-12. '■^ And now come hither, and I will reason with you before the Lord with regard to all the righteous acts which He has shown to you and your fathers." flippy, righteous acts, is the expression used to denote the benefits which Jehovah had con- ferred upon His people, as being the results of His covenant fidelity, or as acts which attested the righteousness of the Lord in the fulfilment of the covenant grace which He had promised to His people. — Ver. 8. The first proof of this was furnished by the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and their safe guidance into Canaan (" tlds place " is the land of Canaan). The. second was to be found in the deliverance of the people out of the power of their foes, to whom the Lord had been obliged to give them up on account of their apostasy from Him, through the judges whom He had raised up for them, as often as they turned to Him with penitence and cried to Him for help. Of the hostile oppressions which overtook the Israel- ites during this period of the judges, the following are singled out in ver. 9 : (1) that by Sisera, the commander-in-chief of Hazor, i.e. that of the Canaanitish king Jabin of tiazor (Judg. iv. 2 sqq.) ; (2) that of the Philistines, by which we are to understand not so much the hostilities of that nation described in Judg. iii. 31, as the forty years' oppression mentioned in Judg. X. 2 and xiii. 1 ; and (3) the Moabitish oppression under Eglon (Judg. iii. 12 sqq.). The first half of ver. 10 agrees almost word for word with Judg. x. 10, except that, according to Judg. X. 6, the Ashtaroth are added to the Baalim (see at ch. vii. 4 and Judg. ii. 13). Of the judges whom God sent to the people as deliverers, the following are named, viz. Jerub- baal (see at Judg. vi. 32), i.e. Gideon (Judg. vi.), and Bedan, and Jephthah (see Judg. xi.), and Samuel. There is no judge named Bedan mentioned either in the book of Judges or any- where else. The name Bedan only occurs again in 1 Chron. vii. 17, amons the descendants of Machir the Manassite : con- sequently some of the commentators suppose Jair of Gilead to be the judge intended. But such a supposition is perfectly 118 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. arbitral'}-, as it is not rendered probable by any identity in the two names, and Jair is not described as having delivered Israel from any hostile oppression. Moreover, it is extremely impro- bable that Samuel should have mentioned a judge here, who had been passed over in the book of Judges on account of his comparative insignificance. There is also just as little ground for rendering Bedan as an appellative, e.g. the Danite (ben-Dan), as Kimchi suggests, or corpulentus as Bottcher maintains, and so connecting the name with Samson. There is no other course left, therefore, than to regard Bedan as an old copyist's error for Barak (Judg. iv.), as the LXX., Syriac, and Arabic have done, — a conclusion which is favoured by the circumstance that Barak was one of the most celebrated of the judges, and is placed by the side of Gideon and Jephthah in Heb. xi. 32. The Syriac, Arabic, and one Greek MS. (see Kennicott in the Addenda to his Dissert. Gener.), have the name of Samson instead of Samuel. But as the LXX., Chald., and Vulg. all agree with the Plebrew text, there is no critical ground for rejecting Samuel, the more especially as the objection raised to it, viz. that Samuel would not have mentioned himself, is far too trivial to overthrow the reading supported by the most ancient versions ; and the assertion made by Thenius, that Samuel does not come down to his own times until the follow- ing verse, is altogether unfounded. Samuel could very well class himself with the deliverers of Israel, for the simple reason that it was by him that the people were delivered from the forty years' tyranny of the Philistines, whilst Samson merely commenced their deliverance and did not bring it to completion, Samuel appears to have deliberately mentioned his own name along with those of the other judges who were sent by God, that he might show the people in the most striking manner (ver. 12) that they had no reason whatever for saying to him, " -^«y) ^"if « ^ing shall reign over us" as soon as the Ammonites invaded Gilead. " As Jeliovah your God is your King," i.e. has ever proved himself to be your King by sending judges to deliver you. Vers. 13-18a. After the prophet had thus held up before the people their sin against the Lord, he bade them still further consider, tliat the king would only procure for them the antici- pated deliverance if they would fear the Lord, and give up CHAP. XII. 13-18. 119 their rebellion against God.— Yer. 13. ^^ But now behold the king whom ye have chosen, whom ye have asked for! behold, Jehovah hath set a king over you." By the second nsnij the thought is brought out still more strongly, that Jehovah had fulfilled the desire of the people. Although the request of the people had been an act of hostility to God, yet Jehovah had ful- filled it. The word D)ji"in3, relating to the choice by lot (ch. x. 17 sqq.), is placed before Ol^^^f "'B'N, to show that the demand was the strongest act that the people could perform. They had not only chosen the king with the consent or by the direction of Samuel ; they had even demanded a king of their own self- will. — Ver. 14. Still, since the Lord had given them a king, the further welfare of the nation would depend upon whether they would follow the Lord from that time forward, or whether they would rebel against Him again. " If ye will only fear the Lord, and serve Him, . . . and ye as well as the king tvho rules over you will be after Jehovah your God." DN, in the sense of modo, if only, does not require any apodosis, as it is virtually equivalent to the wish, " that ye would only!" for which DX with the imperfect is commonly used {vid. 2 Kings xx. 19 ; Prov. xxiv. 11, etc.; and Ewald, § 329, b). There is also nothing to be supplied to nin; inx . . . Dn^ni, since int? i^^_^^, to be after or behind a person, is good Hebrew, and is frequently met with, particularly in the sense of attaching one's self to the king, or holding to him (vid. 2 Sam. ii. 10; 1 Kings xii. 20, xvi. 21, 22). This meaning is also at the foundation of the present passage, as Jehovah was the God-king of Israel. — Ver. 15. " But if ye do not Jiear/cen to the voice of Jehovah, and strive against His commandment, the liand of JeJiovah ivill be heavy upon you, as upon your fathers." \ in the sense of as, i.e. used in a comparative sense, is most frequently placed before whole sentences (see Ewald, § 340, b) ; and the use of it here may be explained, on the ground that D3''riaxa contains the force of an entire sentence: " as it was upon your fathers" The allusion to the fathers is very suitable here, because the people were looking to the king for the removal of all the cala- mities, which had fallen upon them from time immemorial. The paraphrase of this word, which is adopted in the Septuagint, eirl Tov ^aaCKw vjx&v, is a very unhappy conjecture, although Thenius proposes to alter the text to suit it. — Ver. 16. In order 120 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. to give still greater emphasis to las words, and to secure their lasting, salutary effect upon the people, Samuel added still further : Even now ye may see that ye have acted very wickedly in the sight of Jehovah, in demanding a king. This chain of thought is very clearly indicated by the words nrijTDjij " yea, even nowr " Even now come hither, and see this great thing ivhich Jehovah does before your eyes!' The words nnj)-D3, which are placed first, belong, so far as the sense is concerned, to 'irrns ^X"i; and 13i';;rin ("p/ace yourselves" i.e. make your- selves ready) is merely inserted between, to fix the attention of the people more closely upon the following miracle, as an event of great importance, and one which they ought to lay to heart. " Is it not noiv wheat harvest ? / will call to Jehovah, that He may give thunder (ni^p, as in Ex. ix. 23, etc.) and rain. Then perceive and see, that the evil is great which ye have done in the eyes of Jehovah, to demand a king.'' The wheat harvest occurs in Palestine between the middle of May and the middle of Juno (see my Bibl. Arch. i. § 118). And during this time it scarcely ever rains. Thus Jerome affirms (ad Am. c. 4) : " Nunquam in fine inensis Junii aut in Julio in his provinciis maximeque in Judaea pluvias vidimus." And Robinson also says in his Pales- tine (ii. p. 98) : " In ordinary seasons, from the cessation of the showers in spring until their commencement in October and November, rain never falls, and the sky is usually serene" (see my Aj'ch. i. § 10). So that when God sent thunder and rain on that day in answer to Samuel's appeal to him, this was a miracle of divine omnipotence, intended to show to the people that the judgments of God might fall upon the sinners at any time. Thunderings, as " the voices of God" (Ex. ix. 28), are harbingers of judgment. Vers. 186-25. This miracle therefore inspired the people with a salutary terror. " All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel," and entreated the prophet, " Pray for thy servants to the J^ord thy God, that we die not, because we have added to all our sins the evil thing, to ask us a king." — Vers. 20, 21 Samuel thereupon announced to them first of all, that the Lord would not forsake His people for His great name's sake, if they would only serve Him with uprightness. In order, however, to give no encouragement to any false trust in the covenant faithfulness of the Lord, after the comforting words, " Fear CHAP. XII. 18-25. 12] not," he told them again very decidedly that they had done wrong, but that now they were not to turn away from the Lord, but to serve Him with all their heart, and not go after vain idols. To strengthen this admonition, he repeats the niDn N7 in ver. 21, with the explanation, that in turning from the Lord they would fall away to idols, which could not bring them either help or deliverance. To the ''3 after niDri the same verb must be supplied from the context : " Do not turn aside (from the Lord), for (ye turn aside) after that which is vain." inririj the vain, worthless thing, signifies the false gods. This will explain the construction with a plural : " which do not profit and do not save, because they are emptiness " (tohu), i.e. worthless beings (elilim. Lev. xix. 4 ; cf. Isa. xliv. 9 and Jer. xvi. 19). — Ver. 22. " For C? gives the reason for the main thought of the previous verse, ' Fear not, but serve the Lord,' etc.) the Lord will not forsake His people for His great names sake ; for it hath pleased the Lord (for ^''^in^ see at Deut. i. 5) to make you His people" The emphasis lies upon His. This the Israelites could only be, when they proved themselves to bo the people of God, by serving Jehovah with all their heart. " For His great names sake" i.e. for the great name which He had acquired in the sight of all the nations, by the marvellous guidance of Israel thus far, to preserve it against misappre- hension and blasphemy (see at Josh. vii. 9). — -Ver. 23. Samuel then promised the people his constant intercession : " Far be it from me to sin against the Lord, that I should cease to pray for you, and to instruct you in the good and right vmy" i.e. to work as prophet for your good. " In this he sets a glorious example to all rulers, showing them that they should not be led astray by the ingratitude of their subordinates or subjects, and give up on that account all interest in their welfare, but should rather persevere all the more in their anxiety for them" (Berleb. Bible). — Vers. 24, 25. Lastly, he repeats once more his admo- nition, that they would continue stedfast in the fear of God, threatening at the same time the destruction of both king and people if they should do wrong (on ver. 24a, see ch. vii. 3 and Josh. xxiv. 14, where the form IXT^ is also found). " For see what great things He has done for you" (shown to you), not by causing it to thunder and rain at Samuel's prayer, but by giving them a king. tiV, ii'^Jn, as in Gen. xix. 19. 122 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL Saul's reign, and nis unseasonable sacrifice in the WAR against the PHILISTINES. — CHAP. XIII. The history of the reign of Saul commences with this chapter ;^ and according to the standing custom in the history of the kings, it opens with a statement of the age of the king when he began to reign, and the number of years that his reign lasted. If, for example, we compare the form and con- tents of this verse with 2 Sam. ii. 10, v. 4, 1 Kings xiv. 21, 1 The connection of vers. 8-11 of this chapter with ch. x. 8 is adduced in support of the hypothesis that ch. xiii. forms a direct continuation of the account that was broken oif in ch. x. 16. This connection must be admitted ; but it by no means follows that in the source from which the books before us were derived, ch. xiii. was directly attached to ch. viii. 16, and that Samuel intended to introduce Saul publicly as king here in Gilgal immediately before the attack upon the Philistines, to consecrate him by the solemn presentation of sacrifices, and to connect with this the reli- gious consecration of the approaching campaign. For there is not a word about any such intention in the chapter before us or in ch. x. 8, nor even the slightest hint at it. Thenius has founded this view of his upon his erroneous interpretation of DT)^ in ch. x. 8 as an imperative, as if Samuel intended to command Saul to go to Gilgal immediately after the occur- rence of the signs mentioned in ch. s. 2 sqq. : a view which is at variance with the instructions given to him, to do what his hand should find after the occurrence of those signs (see p. 101). To this we may also add the following objections : How is it conceivable that Saul, who concealed his anointing even from his own family after his return from Samuel to Gibeah (ch. x. 16), should have immediately after chosen 3000 men of Israel to begin the war against the Philistines ? How did Saul attain to any such distinction, that at his summons all Israel gathered round him as their king, even before he had been publicly proclaimed king in the pre- sence of the people, and before he had secured the confidence of the people by any kingly heroic deed ? The fact of his having met with a band of prophets, and even prophesied in his native town of Gibeah after his departure from Samuel, and that this had become a proverb, is by no means enough to explain the enterprises described in ch. xiii. 1-7, which so absolutely demand the incidents that occurred in the meantime as re- corded in ch. X. 17-xii. 25 even to make them intelligible, that any writing in which ch. xiii. 2 sqq. followed directly upon ch. x. 16 would necessarily be regarded as utterly faulty. This fact, which I have already adduced in my examination of the hypothesis defended by Thenius in my Introduction to the Old Testament (p. 168), retains its force undiminished, even though, nfter a renewed investigation of the question, I have given up the supposed connection between ch. x. 8 and the proclamation mentioned in ch. xi. 14 sqq., which I defended there. CHAR XIII. 123 xxii. 42, 2 Kings viii. 26, and other passages, wliere the age is given at which Tshbosheth, David, and many of the kings of Judah began to reign, and also the number of years that their reign lasted, there can be no doubt that our verse was also intended to give the same account concerning Saul, and there- fore that every attempt to connect this verse with the one which follows is opposed to the uniform historical usage. More- over, even if, as a matter of necessity, the second clause of ver. 1 could be combined with ver. 2 in the following manner : He was two years king over Israel, then Saul chose 3000 men, etc. ; the first half of the verse would give no reasonable sense, according to the Masoretic text that has come down to us. i3?D3 ?';NB' njK'"t3 cannot possibly be rendered "jam per annum regnaverat Saul," " Saul had been king for a year," or "Saul reigned one year," but can only mean " Saul was a year old when he became king." This is the way in which the words have been correctly rendered by the Sept. and Jerome ; and so also in the Chaldee paraphrase (" Saul was an innocent child when he began to reign ") this is the way in which the text has been understood. It is true that this statement as to his age is obviously false ; but all that follows from that is, that there is an error in the text, namely, that between [3 and njC' the age has fallen out, — a thing which could easily take place, as there are many traces to show that originally the numbers were not tvritten in words, but only in letters that were used as numerals. This gap in the text is older than the Septuagint version, as our present text is given there. There is, it is true, an anony- mus in the hexapla, in which we find the reading v/o? TpiaKovra €tS)U Saovk, but this is certainly not according to ancient MSS., but simply according to a private conjecture, and that an incorrect one. For since Saul already had a son, Jonathan, who commanded a division of the array in the very first years of his reign, and therefore must have been at least twenty years of age, if not older, Saul himself cannot have been less than forty years old when he began to reign. Moreover, in the second half of the verse also, the number given is evi- dently a wrong one, and the text therefore equally corrupt; for the rendering "when he had reigned two years over Israel" is opposed both by the parallel passages already quoted, and also by the introduction of the name Saul as the subject in ver. 2a, 124 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. ■which shows very clearly that ver. 2 commences a fresh sen- tence, and is not merely the apodosis to ver. lb. But Saul's reio-n must have lasted longer than two years, even if, in oppo- sition to all analogies to be found elsewhere, we should under- stand the two years as merely denoting the length of his reign up to the time of his rejection (ch. xv.), and not till the time of his death. Even then he reigned longer than that ; for he could not possibly have carried on all the wars mentioned in ch. xiv. 47, with Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah and the Philistines, in the space of two years. Consequently a numeral, say 3, twenty, must also have dropped out before Q>y^ iji^ (two years) ; since there are cogent reasons for assum- ing that his reign lasted as long as twenty or twenty-two years, reckoning to the time of his death. We have given the reasons themselves in connection with the chronology of the period of the judges (vol. iv. pp. 283-4).-^ Vers. 2-7. The wai' with the Philistines (ch. xiii. xiv.) cer- tainly falls, at least so far as the commencement is concerned, in the very earliest part of Saul's reign. This we must infer partly from the fact, that at the very time when Saul was seeking for his father's asses, there was a military post of the Philistines at Gibeah (ch. x. 5), and therefore the Philistines had already occupied certain places in the land ; and partly also from the fact, that according to this chapter Saul selected an army of 3000 men out of the whole nation, took up his post at Michmash with 2000 of them, placing the other thousand at Gibeah under his son Jonathan, and sent the rest of the people home (ver. 2), because his first intention was simply to check the further advance of the Philistines. The dismission of the rest of the people to their own homes presupposes that the whole of the fighting men of the nation were assembled together. But as no other summoning together of the people has been ' The traditional account that Saul reigned forty years (Acts xiii. 24, and Josephus, Ant. vi. 14, 9) is supposed to have arisen, according to the conjecture of Thenius (on 2 Sam. ii. 10), from the fact that his son Ish- bosheth was forty years old when he began to reign, and the notion that as he is not mentioned among the sons of Saul in 1 Sam. xiv. 49, he must have been born after the commencement of Saul's own reign. This con- jecture is certainly a probable one ; but it is much more natural to assume that as David and Solomon reigned forty years, it arose from the desire to iDake Saul's reign equal to theirs. CHAP. XIII. 2-7. 125 mentioned before, except to the war upon the Ammonites at Jabesh (eh. xi. 6, 7), where all Israel gathered together, and at the close of which Samuel had called the people and their king to Gilgal (eh. xi. 14), the assumption is a very probable one, that it was there at Gilgal, after the renewal of the monarchy, that Saul formed the resolution at once to make war upon the Philistines, and selected 3000 fighting men for the purpose out of the whole number that were collected together, and then dismissed the remainder to their homes. In all probability Saul did not consider that either he or the Israelites were suffi- ciently prepared as yet to undertake a war upon the Philistines generally, and therefore resolved, in the first place, only to attack the outpost of the Philistines, which was advanced as far as Gibeah, with a small number of picked soldiers. According to this simple view of affairs, the war here described took place at the very commencement of Saul's reign ; and the chapter before us is closely connected with the preceding one. — Ver. 2. Saul posted himself at Michmash and on the mount of Bethel with his two thousand men. Michmasli, the present Muklnnuf, a village in I'uins upon the northern ridge of the Wady Stiweinit, according to the Onom. {s. v. Machmas), was only nine Eoman miles to the north of Jerusalem, whereas it took Robinson three hours and a half to go from one to the other {Pal. ii. p. 117). Bethel {Beitin; see at Josh. vii. 2) is to the north-west of this, at a distance of two hours' journey, if you take the road past Deir-Diwan. The mountain (in) of Bethel cannot be precisely determined. Bethel itself was situated upon very high ground ; and the ruins of Beitin are completely surrounded by heights (Eob. ii. p. 126 ; and v. Kaumer, Pal. pp. 178-9). Jonathan stationed himself with his thousand men at (by) Gibeah of Benjamin, the native place and capital of Saul, which was situated upon Tell el Phul (see at Josh, xviii. 28), about an hour and a half from Michmas. — Ver. 3. "JncZ Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was at Geba," probably the military post mentioned in ch. x. 5, which had been advanced in the meantime as far as Geba. For Geba is not to be con- founded with Gibeah, from which it is clearly distinguished in ver. 16 as compared with ver. 15, but is the modern Jeba, between the Wady Smveinit and Wady Fara, to the north-west of Ramah (er-Eam ; see at Josh, xviii. 24). " The Philistines 126 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. heard this. And Saul had the trumpet blown throughout ilit whole land, and proclamation made : let the Hebrews hear it." yonb after IBiti'3 J)pi^ points out the proclamation that was made after the alarm given by the shophar (see 2 Sam. xx. 1 ; 1 Kings i. 34, 39, etc.). The object to " let them hear" may be easily supplied from the context, viz. Jonathan's feat of arms. Saul had this trumpeted in the whole land, not only as a joyful message for the Hebrews, but also as an indirect summons to the whole nation to rise and make war upon the Philistines. In the word VO^ (hear), there is often involved the idea of observing, laying to heart that which is heard. If we under- stand IVp^' in this sense here, and the next verse decidedly hints at it, there is no ground whatever for the objection which Thenius, who follows the LXX., has raised to Q'l^Jjn ^vm\ He proposes this emendation, D^"]?J)n ^J'K'a^, " let the Hebrews fall away," according to the Alex, text rjOeT-qKaa-iv ol hovKoi, without reflecting that the very expression ol hovkoL is sufficient to render the Alex, reading suspicious, and that Saul could not have summoned the people in all the land to fall away from the Philistines, since they had not yet conquered and taken pos- session of the whole. Moreover, the correctness of IJJOB". is confirmed by WOtt' ^t<-itfr^?l in ver. 4. " All Israel heard," not tlie call to fall away, but the news, " Saul has smitten a garrison of the Philistines, and Israel has also made itself stinking with the Philistines," i.e. hated in consequence of the bold and suc- cessful attack made by Jonathan, which proved that the Israel- ites would no longer allow themselves to be oppressed by the Philistines. " And the people let themselves be called together after Saul to Gilgal." PV^n, to permit to summon to war (as in Judg. vii. 23, 24). The words are incorrectly rendered by the Vulgate, " clamavit ergo populus post Saul," and by Luther, " Then the people cried after Saul to Gilgal." Saul drew back to Gilgal, when the Philistines advanced with a large army, to make preparations for the further conflict (see at ver. 13). — Ver. 5. The Philistines also did not delay to avenge the defeat at Geba. They collected an innumerable army : 30,000 chariots, 6000 horsemen, and people, i.e. foot-soldiers, without number (as the sand by the sea-shore ; of. Judg. vii. 12, Josh, xi. 4, etc.;. 3aT by the side of D'K'ns can only mean war chariots. 30,000 war chariots, however, bear no proportion CHAP. XIII. 2-7. 127 whatever to 6000 horsemen, not only hecause the number of war chariots is invariably smaller than that of the horsemen (ef. 2 Sam. x. 18 ; 1 Kings x. 26 ; 2 Chron. xii. 3), but also, as Bochart observes in his Hieroz. p. i. lib. ii. c. 9, because such a number of war chariots is never met with either in sacred or profane history, not even in the case of nations that were much more powerful than the Phihstines. The number is therefore certainly corrupt, and we must either read 3000 ('i'N nthp instead of 'I'K Q^C'i'p), according to the Syriac and Arabic, or else simply 1000 ; and in the latter case the origin of the number thirty must be attributed to the fact, that through the oversight of a copyist the ? of the word ^^^'^\ was written twice, and consequently the second h was taken for the numeral thirty. This army was encamped '• at Michmash, before {i.e. in the front, or on the western side of) Bethaven :" for, according to Josh. vii. 2, Bethaven was to the east of Michmash ; and nmp, when it occurs in geographical accounts, does not " always mean to the east," as Thenius erroneously maintains, but in- variably means simply "in front" (see at Gen. ii. 14).' — Vers, fi, 7. When the Israelites saw that they had come into a strait (i? IS), for the people were oppressed (by the Philistines), they hid themselves in the caves, thorn-bushes, rocks (i.e. clefts of- the rocks), fortresses (Cnn^ ; see at Judg. ix. 46), and pits (which were to be found in the land) ; and Hebrews also went over the Jordan into the land of Gad and Gilead, whilst Saul was still at Gilgal ; and all the people (the people of war who had been called together, ver. 4) trembled behind him, i.e. were gathered together in his train, or assembled round him as leader, trembling or in despair. The Gilgal mentioned here cannot be Jiljilia, which is situated upon the high ground, as assumed in the Comm. on Joshua, p. 94, but must be the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan. This is not only favoured by the expression iTi'. (the Philistines will come down from Michmash to Gilgal, ver. 12), ^ Consequently there is no ground whatever for altering the text according to the confused rendering of the LXX., h Ma^^oef ii, iuavTia; Bctiiapui/ xeerd p6rov, for the purpose of substituting for the correct state- ment in the text a description whicli would be geographically wrong, viz. to the south-east of Beth-horon, since Michmash was neither to the south nor to the south-east, but to the east of Beth-horon. 128 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. but also by PJJ'l (Samuel went up from Gilgal to Gibeah, ver. 15), and by the general attitude of Saul and his army towards the Philistines. As the Philistines advanced with a powerful army, after Jonathan's victory over their garrison at Geba (to the south of Michmash), and encamped at Michmash (ver. 5) ; and Saul, after withdrawing from Gilgal, where he had gathered the Israelites together (vers. 4, 8, 12), with Jonathan and the six hundred men who were with him when the muster took place, took up his position at Geba (vers. 15, 16), from which point Jonathan attacked the Philistine post in the pass of Michmash (ver. 23, and ch. xiv. 1 sqq.) : Saul must have drawn back from the advancing army of the Philistines to the Gilgal in the Jordan valley, to make ready for the battle by collect- ing soldiers and presenting sacrifices, and then, after this had been done, must have advanced once more to Gibeah and Geba to commence the war with the army of the Philistines that was encamped at Michmash. If, on the other hand, he had gone northwards to Jiljilia from Michmash, where he was first stationed, to escape the advancing army of the Philistines ; he would have had to attack the Philistines from the north when they were encamped at Michmash, and could not possibly have returned to Geba without coming into conflict with the Phili- stines, since Michmash was situated between Jiljilia and Geba. Vers. 8-15. SauTs untimely sacrifice. — Vers. 8, 9. Saul waited seven days for Samuel's coming, according to the time appointed by Samuel (see at ch. x. 8), before proceeding to offer the sacrifices through which the help of the Lord was to be secured for the approaching campaign (see ver. 12) ; and as Samuel did not come, the people began to disperse and leave him. The Ketliib ^H"! is either the Niphal 7n>>l^ as in Gen.viii. 12, ov Piel ?ni^h and the Keri hnm (^Hiphil) is unnecessary. The verb "rpi may easily be supplied to PNIOB' "lE'X from the word ^l'iQ> (see Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 851).— Ver. 9. Saul then resolved, in his anxiety lest the people should lose all heart and forsake him altogether if there were any further delay, that he would offer the sacrifice without Samuel. npij;n hvi\ does not imply that Saul offered the sacrifice with his own hand, i.e. that he performed the priestly function upon this occasion. The co- operation of the priests in performing the duties belonging to thein on such an occasion is taken for gi'anted, just as in the CHAP. XIII. 8-15. 129 case of the sacrifices offered by David and Solomon (2 Sam. xxiv. 25 ; 1 Kings iii. 4, viii. 63). — Vers. 10 sqq. The offering of the sacrifice was hardly finished when Samuel came and said to Saul, as he came to meet him and salute him, " What hast thou done ? " Saul replied, " When I saw that the people were scattered away from me, and thou earnest not at the time appointed, and the Philistines were assembled at Michmash, I thought the Philistines will come down to me to Gilgal now (to attack me), before I have entreated the face of Jehovah ; and I overcaine myself, and offered the burnt-off'ering.'' '" \^3 npn ; see Ex. xxxii. 11. — Ver. 13. Samuel replied, " Thou hast acted foolishly, (and) not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God, which He commanded thee : for noiu (sc. if thou hadst obeyed His commandment) Jehovah woidd have established thy sove- reignty over Israel for ever ; but now (sc. since thou hast acted thus) thy sovereignty shall not continueT The antithesis of ppn nrijj and Wpn np nnvi requires that we should understand these two clauses conditionally. The conditional clauses are omitted, simply because they are at once suggested by the tenor of the address (see Ewald, § 358, a). The ''2 (for) assigns the reason, and refers to J^pspj ("thou hast done foolishly"), the '1J1 JjilD?* ^^ being merely added as explanatory. The non-con- tinuance of the sovereignty is not to be regarded as a rejection, or as signifying that Saul had actually lost the throne so far as he himself Vi^as concerned ; but D^pn N? (shall not continue) forms the antithesis to o7\V~\V fan (established for ever), and refers to the fact that it was not established in perpetuity by being transmitted to his descendants. It was not till his second trans- gression that Saul was rejected, or declared unworthy of being king over the people of God (ch. xv.). We are not compelled to assume an immediate rejection of Saul even by the further announcement made by Samuel, " Jehovah hath sought him a man after his own heart ; him hath Jehovah appointed prince over His people ; " for these words merely announce the purpose of God, without defining the time of its actual realization. Whether it would take place during Saul's reign, or not till after his death, was known only to God, and was made contin- gent upon Saul's further behaviour. But if Saul's sin did not consist, as we have observed above, in his having interfered with the prerogatives of the priests by offering the sacrifice I 130 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. himself, but simply in the fact that he had transgressed the commandment of God as revealed to him by Samuel, to post- pone the sacrifice until Samuel arrived, the punishment which the prophet announced that God would inflict upon him in con- sequence appears a very severe one, since Saul had not come to the resolution either frivolously or presumptuously, but had been impelled and almost forced to act as he did by the difficulties in which he was placed in consequence of the prophet delaying his coming. But wherever, as in the present instance, there is a definite command given by the Lord, a man has no right to allow himself to be induced to transgress it, by fixing his atten- tion upon the earthly circumstances in which he is placed. As Samuel had instructed Saul, as a direct command from Jehovah, to wait for his arrival before offering sacrifice, Saul might have trusted in the Lord that he would send His prophet at the right time and cause His command to be fulfilled, and ought not to have allowed his confidence to be shaken by the pressing danger of delay. The interval of seven days and the delay in Samuel's arrival were intended as a test of his faith, which he ought not to have lightly disregarded. Moreover, the matter in hand was the commencement of the war against the principal enemies of Israel, and Samuel was to tell him what he was to do (ch. X. 8). So that when Saul proceeded with the consecrating sacrifice for that very conflict, without the presence of Samuel, he showed clearly enough that he thought he could make war upon the enemies of his kingdom without the counsel and assistance of God. This was an act of rebellion against the sovereignty of Jehovah, for which the punishment announced was by no means too severe. — Ver. 15. After this occurrence Samuel went up to Gibeali, and Saul mustered the people who were with him, about six hundred men. Consequently Saul had not even accomplished the object of his unseasonable sacri- fice, namely, to prevent the dispersion of the people. With tins remark the account of the occurrence that decided the fate of Saul's monarchy is brought to a close. Vers. 16-23. Disarming of Israel by the Philistines. — The following account is no doubt connected with the foregoing, so far as the facts are concerned, inasmuch as Jonathan's brave heroic deed, which brought the Israelites a splendid victory over the Philistines, terminated the war for which Saul had entreated CHAP. XIII. 16-23. 131 the help of God by his sacrifice at Gilgal; but it is not formally connected with it, so as to form a compact and complete account of the successive stages of the war. On the contrary, the 16th verse, where we have an account of the Israelitish warriors and their enemies, commences a new section of the history, in which the devastating march of the Philistines through the land, and the disarming of the Israelites by these their enemies, are first of all depicted (vers. 17-23); and then the victory of the Israelites through Jonathan's daring and heroic courage, notwithstanding their utter prostration, is recorded (ch. xiv. 1-46), for the pur- pose of showing how the Lord had miraculously helped His people.-' Ver. 16. The two clauses of this verse are circumstantial clauses : " But Saul, and Jonathan his son, and the people that were with him, were sitting, i.e. tarrying, in Geha of Benjamin (the present Jeba ; see at ver. 3) ; and the Philistines had en- camped at Michmash." Just as in vers. 2-4 it is not stated when or why Saul went from Michmash or Geba to Gilgal, ^ From this arrangement of the history, according to which the only two points that are minutely described in connection with the war with the Philistines are those which bring out the attitude of the king, whom the nation had desired to deliver it from its foes, towards Jehovah, and the way in which Jehovah acted towards His people, whilst all the rest is passed over, we may explain the absence of any closer connection between ver. l.i and ver. 16, and not from a gap in the text. The LXX., however, adopted the latter supposition, and according to the usual fashion filled up the gap by expanding ver. 15 in the following thoughtless manner : x,«.i dniazvi y.ui^dV'/iT^ x-tzi ci'7rv}7\hii ifc Va'Kya.'hu^j' Ktzi to icizTa'hst^fiei rov T^aov dn/^vi owiau 2ao[/A t/f cc-T^auTriaiu oitigoi rov T^aov rov 'TroXifnarov' sci/ruu '^a.^a.yiud^kvuv ix. Yu'hycO^av £('5 r«/3aa Beuicifiiii x-a-t Wiaxi-^aro 2«o!)?v, x.t.X. For there is no sense in ei? avdinmi" oiriau, and the whole thought, that the people who were left went up after Saul to meet the people of war, is unintelligible, since it is not stated whence the people of war had come, who are said to have met with those who had remained behind with Saul, and to have gone up with him from Gilgal to Gibeah. If, however, we overlook this, and assume that when Saul returned from Gilgal to Gibeah a further number of fighting men came to him from different parts of the land, bow does this assumption agree with the account which follows, viz. that when Saul mustered the people lie found only six hundred men, — a statement which is repeated again in ch. xiv. 2 ? The discrepancy remains even if w6 adopt Ewald's conjecture (Gesch. iii. 43), that tig dicanwiv is a false rendering of 31|57, "to the conflict.'' Aforeover, even with the Alexandrian filling up, no natural con- nection is secured between vers. 15 and 16, unless we identify Geha of Ben- 132 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. but tins change in his position is merely hinted at indirectly at the close of ver. 4 ; so here Saul's return from Gilgal to Geba with the firhting men who remained with him is not distinctly mentioned, but simply taken for granted as having already occurred. — Vers. 17, 18. Then the spoiler went out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies. D''B'5<"i riB'PB' ig made subject to the verb to define the mode of action (see Ewald, § 279, c) ; and i^asldm is used here, as in eh. xi. 11. nTiE'Qnj according to the context, is a hostile band that went out to devastate the land. The definite article points it out as well known. One company took the road to Ophrali into the land of Shual, i.e. went in a north-easterly direction, as, accord- ing to the Onom., Ophrali of Benjamin was five Roman miles to the east of Bethel (see at Josh, xviii. 23). Robinson sup- poses it to have been on the site of Tayibeh. The land of Shual (fox-land) is unknown ; it may possibly have been iden- tical with the land of Saalim (ch. ix. 5). The other company turned on the road to Beth-horon (Beit-ur : see at Josh. x. 11), that is to say, towards the west ; the third, " the way to the territory that rises above the valley of Zeboim towards the jamin with Gibeah, as the Septuagint and its latest defenders have done, and not only change the participle D^D'C^ (ver. 16) into the aorist exaSiira), but interpolate x.al 'ix.'ha.tov after " at Geha of Benjamin ;" whereas the statement of the text "at Geha in Benjamin" is proved to be correct by the simple fact that Jonathan could only attempt or carry out the heroic deed recorded in eh. xiv. from Geha and not from Gibeah; and the altera- tion of the participle into the aorist is just as arbitrary as the interpolation of x.cei £xA«/oi/. From all this it follows that the Septuagint version has not preserved the original reading, as Ewald and Thenius suppose, but contains nothing more than a mistaken attempt to restore the missing link. It is true the Vulgate contains the same filling up as the Septuagint, but with one alteration, which upsets the assertion made by Thenius, that the repeti- tion of the expression ^j^an [D, U TxXyaXui^, caused the reading contained in the Septuagint to be dropped out of the Hebrew text. For the text of the Vulgate runs as follows : Surrexit autem Samuel et asrendit cle Galgalis in Gahaa Benjamin. Et reliqui populi ascenderunt post Saul obviampopulo, qui expugnabant eos venientes de Galgala in Gabaa in colle Benjamin. Et recensuit Saul, etc. Jerome has therefore rendered the first two clauses of ver. 15 in perfect accordance with the Hebrew text ; and the addition which follows is nothing more than a gloss that has found its way into hia translation from the Itala, and in which de Galgala in colle Benjamin is KtiU retained, whereas Jerome nimself rendered bihi^ ffi '-'s Galgalis. CHAP. XIII. lG-23. ] 33 desert." These descriptions are obscure ; and the valley of Zeboim altogether unknown. There is a town of this name (a'py, different from D''U^, Deut. xxix. 22, Gen. xiv. 2, 8 ; or Ci^'^V, Hos. xi. 8, in the vale of Siddim) mentioned in Neh. xi. 34, which was inhabited by Benjaminites, and was appa- rently situated in the south-eastern portion of the land of Ben- jamin, to the north-east of Jerusalem, from which it follows that the third company pursued its devastating course in a south easterly direction from Michmash towards Jericho. " The wilderness" is probably the desert of Judah. The intention of the Philistines in carrying out these devastating expeditions, was no doubt to entice the men who were gathered round Saul and Jonathan out of their secure positions at Gibeah and Geba, and force them to fight. — Vers. 19 sqq. The Israelites could not offer a successful resistance to these devastating raids, as there was no smith to be found in the whole land : " For the Phili- stines thought the Hebrews might make themselves sword or spear" ("lOX followed by 13, " to say, or think, that not," equivalent to being unwilling that it should be done). Consequently (as the words clearly imply) when they proceeded to occupy the land of Israel as described in ver. 5, they disarmed the people throughout, i.e. as far as they penetrated, and carried off the smiths, who might have been able to forge weapons ; so that, as is still further related in ver. 20, all Israel was obliged to go to the Philistines, every one to sharpen his edge-tool, and his ploughshare, and his axe, an^d his chopper. According to Isa. ii. 4, Micah iv. 3, and Joel iv. 10, nt? is an iron instrument used in agriculture ; the majority of the ancient versions render it ploughshare. The word inK'']nD is striking after the previous Sporym (from nci'nnD) ; and the meaning of both words is un- certain. According to the etymology, na^nqa might denote any kind of edge-tool, even the ploughshare. The second iOB'nna is rendered to hpeiravov avTOv (his sickle) by tlie LXX., and sarculum by Jerome, a small garden hoe for loosening and weedino- the soil. The fact that the word is connected with D'Tip, the axe or hatchet, favours the idea that it signifies a hoe or spade rather than a sickle. Some of the words in ver. 21 are still more obscure, nn^ni, which is the reading adopted by all the earlier translators, indicates that the result is about to be given of the facts mentioned before : " Arid there caw£ to 1P)4 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL pass" i.e. so that there came to pass (or arose)j D''3 '^"]''VS[I, " a blunting of the edges'' '">";'>'?) bhintness, from "isa, to tear hence to make blunt, is confirmed by the Arabic jWai, gladius fissuras hahens, ohtusus ensis, whereas the meaning to hammer, i.e. to sharpen by hammering, cannot be established. The insertion of the article before ^Tva is as striking as the omission of it before D'S ; also the stat. abs. instead of the construct JTi'^Q. These anomalies render it a very probable conjecture that the reading may have been Q'sn I'V?!? {inf. Hiph. nomin.). Accordingly the rendering would be, "so that bluntness of the edges occurred in the edge-tools, and the plough- shares, and the trident, and the axes, and the setting of the goad." liK'pip E'PB' is to be regarded as a nom. comp. like our trident, denoting an instrument with three prongs, according to the Chaldee and the Rabbins (see Ges. Thei. p. 1219). l^i^, stimulus, is probably a pointed instrument generally, since the meaning goad is fully established in the ca.^e of li3"|'^ by Eccl. xii. 11.^ — Ver. 22. On the day of battle, therefore, the people with Saul and Jonathan were without either sword or spear ; Saul and Jonathan were the only persons provided with them. The account of the expedition of the Israelites, and their victory over the Auimonites, given in ver. 11, is apparently at variance with this description of the situation of the Israelites, since the 1 Ver. 21 runs very differently in the LXX., namely, x.a,\ tji) 6 Tpvyvrii iroifcog Tov dspt'^siv, to, bs uiciVYi vitf Tpfig aix-'hot tig toy oBoVrat, kcc] TYi d^'ittvj y-al rZ tptTravu vTroaraai; '^v ij a,vT'/i ; and Thenius and Bbttoher propose an emendation of the Hebrew text accordingly, so as to obtain the fol- lowing meaning : " And the sharpening of the edges in the case of the spades and ploughshares was done at three shekels a tooth (i.e. three shekels each), and for the axe and sickle it was the same" (Thenius) ; or, " and the same for the sickles, and for the axes, and for setting the prong" (Bottcher). But here also it is easy enough to discover that the LXX. had not another text before them that was different from the Masoretic text, but merely confounded "ii^isn with T'Snn, r^i/ynroV, and took )iB>^p vh'if, which was unintelligible to them, e conjcctura for |i5»n 'p& K'l'C', altogether regardless of the sense or nonsense of their own translation. The latest supporters of this senseless rendering, however, have neither undertaken to prove the possibility of translating olourx (diois), " each single piece" (i.e. each), or inquired into the value of money at that time, so as to see whether three shekels would be an unexampled charge for the sharpening of an axe or sickle. CHAP. XIII. 16-23. 135 war in question not only presupposes the possession of weapons by the Israelites, but must also have resulted in their captur- ing a considerable quantity. The discrepancy is very easily removed, however, when we look carefully at all the circum- stances. For instance, we can hardly picture the Israelites to ourselves as amply provided with ordinary weapons in this expedition against the Ammonites. Moreover, the disarming of the Israelites by the Philistines took place for the most part if not entirely after this expedition, viz. at the time when the Philistines swept over the land with an innumerable army after Jonathan had smitten their garrison at Geba (vers. 3, 5), so that the fighting men who gathered round Saul and Jonathan after that could hardly bring many arms with them. Lastly, the words " there was neither sword nor spear found in the hands of all the people with Saul and Jonathan" must not be too closely pressed, but simply affirm that the 600 fighting men of Saul and Jonathan were not provided with the necessary arms, because the Philistines had prevented the possibility of their arming themselves in the ordinary way by depriving the people of all their smiths. Ver. 23 forms the transition to the heroic act of Jonathan described in ch. xiv. : "An outpost of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash ■" i.e. the Philistines pushed forward a company of soldiers to the pass (l35Jp, the crossing place) of Michmash, to prevent an attack being made by the Israelites upon their camp. Between Geha and Michmash there runs the great deep Wady es Suweinit, which goes down from Beitin and Bireh (Bethel and Beeroth) to the valley of the Jordan, and intersects the ridge upon which the two places are situated, so that the sides of the wady form very precipitous walls. When Robinson was travelling from Jeba to Mukhmas he had to go down a very steep and rugged path into this deep wady (Pal. ii. p. 116). " The way," he says in his Biblical Researches, p. 289, " was so steep, and the rocky steps so high, that we were compelled to dismount ; while the baggage mules got alono- with great difficulty. Here, where we crossed, several short side wadys came in from the south-west and north-west. The rido-es between these terminate in elevating points pro- jecting into the great wady ; and the most easterly of thesa bluffs on each side were probably the outposts of the two gar- 136 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. risons of Israel and the Philistines. The road passes around the eastern side of the southern hill, the post of Israel, and then strikes up over the western part of the northern one, the post of the Philistines, and the scene of Jonathan's adventure." Jonathan's heroic act, and Israel's victory over the PHILISTINES. Saul's wars and family. — chap xiv. Vers. 1-15. Jonathan's heroic act. — With strong faith and confidence in the might of the Lord, that He could give the victory even through the hands of very few, Jonathan resolved to attack the outpost of the Philistines at the pass of Mukhmas, accompanied by his armour-bearer alone, and the Lord crowned his enterprise with a marvellous victory. — Ver. 1. Jonatlian said to his armour-bearer, " We will go over to the post of the Philistines, that is over there." To these words, which introduce the occurrences that followed, there are attached from V^xpi to ver. 5 a series of sentences introduced to explain the situation, and the thread of the narrative is resumed in ver. 6 by a re- petition of Jonathan's words. It is first of all observed that Jonathan did not disclose his intentions to his father, who would hardly have approved of so daring an enterprise. Then follows a description of the place where Saul was stationed with the six hundred men, viz. " at the end of Giheah (i.e. the extreme northern end), under the pomegranate-tree (Rimmon) which is hy Migron." Rimmon is not the rock Eimmon (Judg. XX. 45), which was on the north-east of Michmash, but is an appellative noun, signifying a pomegranate-tree. Migron is a locality with which we are not acquainted, upon the north side of Gibeah, and a different place from the Migron which was on the north or north-west of Michmash (Isa. x. 28). Giheah {Tiileil el Phul) was an hour and a quarter from Geba, and from the pass which led across to Michmash. Consequently, when Saul was encamped with his six hundred men on the north of Gibeah, he may have been hardly an hour's journey from Geba. — Ver. 3. Along with Saul and his six hundred men, there was also Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, the (elder) brother of Ichabod, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest at Shiloh, and therefore a great-grandson of Eli, wearing the ephod, i.e. in the high priest's robes. Ahiah is generally CHAP. XIV. 1-15. 137 supposed to be the same person as AldmelecJi, the son of Ahituh (eh. xxii. 9 sqq.), in which case AJiiah (n^nN, brother, i.e. friend of Jehovah) would be only another form of the name Ahimelech {i.e. brother or friend of the King, viz. Jehovah). This is very probable, although Ahimelech might have been Ahiah's brother, who succeeded him in the office of high priest on account of his having died without sons, since there is an interval of at least ten years between the events related in this chapter and those referred to in ch. xxii. Ahimelech was afterwards slain by Saul along with the priests of Nob (ch. xxii. 9 sqq.) ; the only one who escaped being his son Abiathar, who fled to David and, according to ch. xxx. 7, was invested with the ephod. It follows, therefore, that Ahiah (or Ahimelech) must have had a son at least ten years old at the time of the war referred to here, viz. the Abiathar mentioned in ch. xxx. 7, and must have been thirty or thirty-five years old himself, since Saul had reigned at least twenty-two years, and Abiathar had become high priest a few years before the death of Saul. These assumptions may be very easily reconciled with the passage before us. As Eli was ninety-eight years old when he died, his son Phinehas, who had been killed in battle a short time before, might have been sixty or sixty-five years old, and have left a son of forty years of age, namely Ahitub. Forty years later, therefore, i.e. at the beginning of Saul's reign, Ahitub's son Ahiah (Ahimelech) might have been about fifty years old ; and at the death of Ahimelech, which took place ten or twelve years after that, his son Abiathar might have been as much as thirty years of age, and have succeeded his father in the office of high priest. But Abiathar cannot have been older than this when his father died, since he was high priest during the whole of David's forty years' reign, until Solomon deposed him soon after he ascended the throne (1 Kings ii. 26 sqq.). Compare with this the remarks on 2 Sam. viii. 17. Jonathan had also refrained from telling the people anything about his intentions, so that they did not know that he had gone. In vers. 4, 5, the locality is more minutely described. Between the passes, through which Jonathan endeavoured to cross over to go up to the post of the Philistines, there was a sharp rock on this side, and also one upon the other. One of these was called Bozez, the other Seneh ; one (formed) a 138 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. pillar (P^^'9), «'•«• a steep height towards the north opposite to Michmash, the other towards the south opposite to Geba. The expref?sion '■'between the passes" may be explained from the remark of Robinson quoted above, viz. that at the point where he passed the Wady Suweinit, side wadys enter it from the south-west and north-west. These side wadys supply so many different crossings. Between them, however, on the north and south walls of the deep valley, were the jagged rocks Bozez and Seneh, which rose up like pillars to a great height. These were probably the "hills" which Robinson saw to the left of the pass by which he crossed : " Two hills of a conical or rather spherical form, having steep rocky sides, with small wadys run- ning up behind so as almost to isolate them. One is on the side towards Jeba, and the other towards Mukhmas " (Pal. ii. p. 116). — Ver. 6. And Jonathan said to his armour-bearer, " Come, ive will go over to the post of these uncircumcised ; it may he that Jehovah will work for us ; for (there is) no hindrance for Jehovah to work salvation by many or few" Jonathan's resolution arose from the strong conviction that Israel was the nation of God, and possessed in Jehovah an omnipotent God, who would not refuse His help to His people in their conflict with the foes of His kingdom, if they would only put their whole trust in Him. — Ver. 7. As the armour-bearer approved of Jonathan's resolution ('^? HDJ, turn thither), and was ready to follow him, Jonathan fixed upon a sign by which he would ascertain whether the Lord would prosper his undertaking. — Vers. 8 sqq. " Behold, we go over to the jieople and show our- selves to them. If they say to us, Wait (iB'l, keep quiet) till we come to you, we will stand still in our place, and not go up to them ; hut if they say thus, Come up wito us, then ive will go up, for Jehovah hath (in that case) delivered them into our hand!' The sign was well chosen. If the Philistines said, " AVait till we come," they would show some courage ; but if they said, "Come up to us," it would be a sign that they were cowardly, and liad not courage enough to leave their position and attack the Hebrews. It was not tempting God for Jonathan to fix upon such a sign by which to determine the success of his enterprise; for he did it in the exercise of his calling, when fighting not for personal objects, but for the kingdom of God, which the uncircumcised were threatening to annihilate, and in CHAP. XIV. 1-15. 139 the most confident belief that the Lord would deliver and pre- serve His people. Such faith as this God would not put to shame. — Vers. 11 sqq. When the two showed themselves to the garrison of the Philistines, they said, ^^ Behold, Hebrews come forth out of the holes in which they have hidden themselves," And the men of the garrison cried out to Jonathan and his armour- bearer, " Come up to us, and we will tell you a word," i.e. we will communicate something to you. This was ridicule at the daring of the two men, whilst for all that they had not courage enough to meet them bravely and drive them back. In this Jonathan received the desired sign that the Lord had given the Phili- stines into the hand of the Israelites : he therefore clambered up the rock on his hands and feet, and his armour-bearer after him; and ^Hhey (the Philistines) /eZi before Jonathan" i.e. were smitten down by him, " and his armour-bearer was slaying be- hind him." — Ver. 14. The first stroke that Jonathan and his armour-bearer struck was (amounted to) about twenty men " on about half a furrow of an acre of field" '^^VJ^, a farrow, as in Ps. cxxix. 3, is in the absolute state instead of the construct, because several nouns follow in the construct state (cf. Ewald, § 291, a). ^P)>, lit. things bound together, then a pair ; here it signifies a pair or yoke of oxen, but in the transferred sense of a piece of land that could be ploughed in one morning with a yoke of oxen, like the Latin jugum, jugerum. It is called the furrow of an acre of land, because the length only of half an acre of land was to be given, and not the breadth or the entire circumference. The Philistines, that is to say, took to flight in alarm as soon as the brave heroes really ascended, so that the twenty men were smitten one after another in the distance of half a rood of land. Their terror and flight are perfectly con- ceivable, if we consider that the outpost of the Philistines was so stationed upon the top of the ridge of the steep mountain wall, that tiiey could not see how many were following, and the Philistines could not imagine it possible that two Hebrews would have ventured to climb the rock alone and make an attack upon them. Sallust relates a similar occurrence in con- nection with the scaling of a castle in the Numidian war {Bell. Jugurth. c. 89, 90). — Ver. 15. And there arose a terror in the camp upon the field {i.e. in the principal camp) as well as among all the people (of the advanced outpost of the Philistines) ; the 140 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. garrison (i.e. tlie army that was encamped at Miclimasli), and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the earth quaked, sc. with the noise and tumult of the frightened foe ; " and it grew into a trembling of God," i.e. a supernatural terror miraculously infused by God into the Philistines. The subject to the last '•nni is either iT'"i[l, the alarm in the camp, or all that has been men- tioned before, i.e. the alarm with the noise and tumult that sprang out of it. Vers. 16-23. Flight and defeat of the Philistines. — Ver. 16. The spies of Saul at Gibeah saw how the multitude (in the camp of the Philistines) melted away and was beaten more and more. The words DPni T]?'! are obscure. The Rabbins are unanimous in adopting the explanation magis magisque frangebatur, and have therefore probably taken dSt as an inf. absol. Di?n^ and interpreted D?n according to Judg. v. 26. This was also the case with the Chaldee ; and Gesenius [Thes. p. 383) has adopted the same rendering, except that he has taken D7n in the sense of dissolutus, dissipatus est. Others take DvH as adverbial (" and thither"), and supply the correlate Dpn (hither), so as tc bring out the meaning " hither and thither." Thus the LXX. render it evOev Kal evOev, but they have not translated '^?.'l at all. — Ver. 17. Saul conjectured at once that the excitement in the camp of the Philistines was occasioned by an attack made by Israelltish warriors, and therefore commanded the people: tovS iv rfi ■rj/j,epa i/celvr] evmiriov ^laparfK, which would give as the Hebrew text, ^t<"i'K''' ''32^ ^'\nr\ Di>3 liSKH >^)_ is appended in the form of an apo- dosis. Tl'' ^bx, " draw thy hand in' (back) ; i.e. leave off now. ■ — Ver. 20. ^^ And {i.e. in consequence of the increasing tumult in the enemy's camp) Saul had himself, and all the people with lam, called" i.e. called together for battle ; and when they came to the war, i.e. to the place of conflict, " behold, there was the sword of the one against the other, a very great confusion," in consequence partly of terror, and partly of the circumstance alluded to in ver. 21. — Ver. 21. " And the Flehrews were with the Philistines as before (yesterday and the day before yester- day), who had come along with them in the camp round about ; they also came over to Israel, which was with Saul and Jonathan" y^D means distributed round about among the Philistines. Those Israelites whom the Philistines had incorporated into their army are called Hebrews, according to the name which was current among foreigners, whilst those who were with Saul are called Israel, according to the sacred name of the nation. The difficulty which many expositors have found in the word ni'n^ has been very correctly solved, so far as the sense is con- cerned, by the earlier translators, by the interpolation of " they returned:" l^n (Chald.), eTrea-Tpd(pr]a-av (LXX.), reversi sunt (Vulg.), and similarly the Syriac and Arabic We are not at 142 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. liberty, however, to amend the Hebrew text in this manner, as nothing more is omitted than the finite verb 1'n before the infinitive ni'np (for this construction, see Gesenius, Gramm. § 132, 3, Anm. 1), and this might easily be left out here, since it stands at the beginning of the verse in the main clause. Thfi literal rendering would be, they were to be with Israel, i.e. they came over to Israel. The fact that the Hebrews who were serving in the army of the Philistines came over to Saul and his host, and turned their weapons against their oppressors, naturally heightened the confusion in the camp of the Phili- stines, and accelerated their defeat ; and this was still further increased by the fact that the Israelites who had concealed themselves on the mountains of Ephraim also joined the Israel- itish army, as soon as they heard of the flight of the Philistines fver. 22). — Ver. 23. " Thus the Lord helped Israel that day, and the conflict loent out beyond Sethaven." Betliaven was on the east of Michmash, and, according to ver. 31, the Philistines fled westwards from Michmash to Ajalon. But if we bear in mind that the camp of the Philistines was on the eastern side of Michmash before Bethaven, according to ch. xlii. 5, and that the Israelites forced their way into it from the south, we shall see that the battle might easily have spread oat beyond Bethaven, and that eventually the main body of the enemy might have fled as far as Ajalon, and have been pursued to that point by the victorious Israelites. Vers. 24-31. SauFs precipitate haste. — A'''er. 24. The men of Israel wei'e pressed (i.e. fatigued) on that day, sc. through the military service and fighting. Then Saul adjured the people, saying, " Cursed be the man that eateth bread until the evening, and (till) / have avenged myself upon mine enemies." ?8?^, fut. apoo. of nPN^ for Hji^;;, from npN^ to swear, liiphil to adjure or require an oath of a person. The people took the oath by saying "amen" to what Saul had uttered. This command of Saul did not proceed from a proper attitude towards the Lord, but was an act of false zeal, in which Saul had more regard to himself and his own kingly power than to the cause of the kingdom of Jehovah, as we may see at once from the expression 1J1 ''FiDgi:, " till / have avenged myself upon mine enemies." It was a despotic measure which not only failed to accomplish its object (see vers. 30, 31), but brought Saul into the unfortunate CHAP. XIT. 31-46. 143 position of being unable to carry out the oath (see ver. 4,5). All the people kept the command. ^^ They tasted no h'ead." DJJO"N?l is not to be connected with "''ii'Pii'31 as an apodosis. — Yer. 25. " And all the land (i.e. all the people of the land who had gathered round Sanl : vid. ver. 29) came into the woody country- there was honey upon the field." "iV^ signifies here a woody dis- trict, in which forests alternated with tracts of arable land and meadows. — Ver. 26. When the people came into the wood and saw a stream of honey (of wild or wood bees), " no one put his hand to his mouth (sc. to eat of the honey), because they feared the oath." — Ver. 27. But Jonathan, who had not heard his father's oath, dipped (in the heat of pursuit, that he might not have to stop) the point of his staff in the new honey, and put it to his mouth, " and his eyes became bright ;" his lost strength, which is reflected in the eye, having been brought back by this invigorating taste. The Chethibh ruxnn is probably to be read '^J??'!'!') the eyes became seeing, received their power of vision aeain. The Masoretes have substituted as the Keri HilNn from "liN, to become bright, according to ver. 29; and this is probably the correct reading, as the letters might easily be transposed. — Vers. 28 sqq. When one of the people told him thereupon of his father's oath, in consequence of which the people were exhausted (pV[} ^V^l belongs to the man's words ; and ^yj1_ is the same as in Judg. iv. 21), Jonathan condemned the prohibition. " My father has brought the land (i.e. the people of the land, as in ver. 25) into trouble (1?J', see at Gen. xxxiv. 30) : see how bright mine eyes have become because I tasted a little of this honey. How much more if the people had eaten to-day of the booty of its enemies, would not the overthrow among the Phili- stines truly have then become great f" ''3 ^^, lit. to this (there comes) also that = not to mention how much more ; and nnjj ''3 is an emphatic introduction of the apodosis, as in Gen. xxxi. 42, xliii. 10, and other passages, and the apodosis itself is to be taken as a question. Vers. 31-46. Result of the battle, and consequences of SauVs rashness. Ver. 31. " On that day they smote the Philistines from Michmash to Ajalon," which has been preserved in the village of Ydlo (see at Josh. xix. 42), and was about three gcoo-raphical miles to the south-west o.i Michmash ; " and the people were very faint," because Saul had forbidden them to 144 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. eat before the evening (ver. 24). — Ver. 32. Thoy therefcra "/«Z^ voraciously upon the booty"- — (the Chetliibh B'l'^ is no doubt merely an error in writing for ^V% imperf. Kal of tO''J? with Dagesh forte implic. instead of I2J?J1, as we may see from ch. xv. 19, since the meaning required by the context, viz. to fall upon a thing, cannot be established in the case of HK'j; with PX. (Jn the other hand, there does not appear to be any necessity to supply the article before ??E'', and this Keri seems only to have been taken from the parallel passage in ch. xv. 19), — " and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground (i^^"!^, lit. to the earth, so that when they were slaughtered the animal fell upon the ground, and remained lying in its blood, and was cut in pieces), and ate upon the blood" (D'^G ^V, with which D'^n 7N, " lying to the blood," is interchanged in ver. 34), i.e. the flesh along with the blood which adhered to it, by doing which they sinned against the law in Lev. xix. 26. This sin had been occasioned by Saul himself through the prohibition which he issued. — Vers. 33, 34. When this was told to Saul, he said, " Ye act faithlessly towards Jehovah " by transgressing the laws of the covenant ; " roll me now (lit. this day) a large stone. Scatter yourselves among the people, and say to them. Let every one bring his ox and his sheep to me, and slay here" (upon the stone that has been rolled up), viz. so that the blood could run off properly upon the ground, and the flesh be separated from the blood. This the people also did. — Ver. 35. As a thanks- giving for this victory, Saul built an altar to the Lord. iriN nijnp pnn^ " Ae began to build it," i.e. he built this altar at the beginning, or as the first altar. This altar was probably not intended to serve as a place of sacrifice, but simply to be a memoi'ial of the presence of God, or the revelation of God which Saul had received in the marvellous victory. — Ver. 36. After the people had strengthened themselves in the evening with food, Saul wanted to pursue the Philistines still farther during the night, and to plunder among them until the light (j.fi. till break of day), and utterly destroy them. The people assented to this proposal, but the priest (Ahiah) wished first of all to obtain the decision of God upon the matter. " We will draw near to God here" (before the altar which has just been built). — Ver. 37. But when Saul inquired of God (through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest), "Shall T go down CHAP. XIV. 31-46. 145 after the Philistines? wilt Thou deliver them into the hand of Israel V God did not answer him. Saul was to perceive from this, that the guilt of some sin was resting upon the people, on account of which the Lord had turned away His countenance, and was withdrawing His help. — ^Vers. 38, 39. When Saul perceived this, he directed all the heads of the people (pinnoih, as in Judg. xx. 2) to draw near to learn whereby (wherein) the sin had occurred that day, and declared, " As truly as Jehovah liveth, loho has brought salvation to Israel, even if it were upon Jonathan my son, he shall die'' The first '3 in ver. 39 is ex- planatory ; the second and third serve to introduce the words, like oTi, quod ; and the repetition serves to give emphasis, lit. " that even if it were upon my son, that he shall die." " And of all the people no one answered him" from terror at the king's word. — Ver. 40. In order to find out the guilt, or rather the culprit, Saul proceeded to the lot; and for this purpose he made all the people stand on one side, whilst he and his son Jonathan went to the other, and then solemnly addressed Jehovah thus : " God of Israel, give innocence (of mind, i.e. truth). And the lot fell upon Saul and Jonathan ("i??1, as in ch. x. 20, 21) ; and the people went out," sc. without the lot falling upon them, i.e. they went out free. — Ver. 42. When they proceeded still further to cast lots between Saul and his son (I?'?!!, sc. 7"iia ; cf. 1 Chron. xxvi. 14, Neh. xi. 11, etc.), Jonathan loas taken} — Vers. 43, 1 In the Alex, version, vers. 41 and 42 are lengthened out with long paraphrases upon the course pursued in casting the lots : x«.' sItts Io.ov'k, Kupii 6 6toi ' luoa.vj'h ri on oiix, d'TTixptSrii ru SouTiu aov a-iifiifiou ; d in ifiol '/i in luaaSav ru via fcov i] dliKi'x ; xipit 6 ko; ' lapa-n^. 16; Irihovg' x.a.1 ixu ra.li EiVj), lof I'/] TU A«w aov ' lapcfiiT^, io; 5-,) daioTnra, x.xi A/ipovrcci luvc'Jtx.u n-ai SaoiiTi, x«j 6 T^ak ii,^>.k. Ver. 42 : K«i ii'Tvi 2«oii?i, BaAAsTS dna fikmv epiov X.XI a,aa, fiiuov' luuiiaviov vim fioV on an y.a.TO.x.'h-np'-'oma.i KupiOf diioict-nkru. Kai EliTEi/ -Ka-Oi vpo; SaoiJX, Ovx. hri to P'/ipi.a. toSto. K«( y.x-n-^iiarr,as 2aovX rov y^aov, xxl /3«XA(,!/ir;» Unti fieuon avzov x«i dnd, ^incn 'UniJctn to5 vioZ «iroS, x«( xccrax.K-npoirai 'I^-j.a^ai'. One portion of these additions is also found in the text of our present Vulgate, and reads as follows : El dixit Saul ad Dominum Deum Israel: Domine Deus Israel, da indicium! quid est quod non responderis servo tuo liodie ? Si in me out in Jonathafilio meo est iniquitas, da ostensionem; aut si lose iniquitas est in populo tuo, da sanctitatem. Et deprehensus est JonalTias et Saul, populus autem exivit. The beginning and end of this verse, as well as ver. 42, agree here most accurately with tne Hebrew text. But the words from quid est quod to da sanctitatem are interpolated, so that D'Cn nzn are translated twico . K 146 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. 44. When Saul asked him what he had done, Jonathan con- fessed that he had tasted a httle honey (see ver. 27), and resigned himself to the punishment suspended over him, say- ing, "Behold, I shall die ;" and Saul pronounced sentence of death upon him, accompanying it with an oath (" God do so," etc. : vid. Euth i. 17). — ^Ver. 45. But the people interposed, " Shall Jonathan die, toho has achieved this great salvation (^ victory) in Israel ? God forbid ! As truly as Jehovah liveth, not a hair shall fall from his head upon the ground ; for he hath wrought (the victory) with God to-day T Thus the people delivered Jonathan from death. The objection raised by the people was so conclusive, that Saul was obliged to yield. What Jonathan had done was not wrong in itself, but became so simply on account of the oath with which Saul had first in the words da indicium, and then in the interpolation da osteTisionem. This repetition of the same words, and that in different renderings, when taken in connection with the agreement of the Vulgate with the Hebrew text at the beginning and end of the verse, shows clearly enough, that the interpolated clauses did not originate with Jerome, but are simply inserted in his translation from the Itala. The additions of the LXX., in which T«Se thvi is evidently only a distortion of ii dlixitt, are regarded by Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 48) and Thenius as an original portion of the text which has dropped out from the Masoretio text. They therefore infer, that instead of D''On we ought to read D'lsn (Thummim) , and that we have here the full formula used in connection with the use of the Urim and Thummim, from which it may be seen, that this mode of divine revelation consisted simply in a sacred lot, or in the use of two dice, the one of which was fixed upon at the outset as meaning no, and the other as meaning yes. So much at any rate is indisputable, that the Septuagint translator took Qion in the sense of thummim, and so assumed that Saul had the guilty person dis- covered by resorting to the Urim and Thummim. But this assumption is also decidedly erroneous, together with all the inferences based upon it. For, in the first place, the verbs i^*3^ and 13^1 can be proved to be never used throughout the whole of the Old Testament to signify the use of the Urim and Thummim, and to be nothing more than technical expressions used to denote the casting of a simple lot (see the passages cited above in the text). Moreover, such passages as ch. x. 22, and ii. 5, 23, show most unmistakeably that the divine oracle of the Urim and Thummim did not consist merely in a sacred lot with yes and no, but that God gave such answers through it as could never have been given through the lots. The Septuagint expansions of the text are nothing more, therefore, than a sub- jective and really erroneous interpretation on the part of the translators, which arose simply from the mistaken idea that Qion was thummim, and 7/hich is therefore utterly worthless. CHAP. XIV. 31-46. 147 forbidden it. But Jonatlian did not hear the oath, and there- fore had not even consciously transgressed. Nevertheless a curse lay upon Israel, which was to be brought to light as a warning for the culprit. Therefore Jehovah had given no reply to Saul. But when the lot, which had the force of a divine verdict, fell upon Jonathan, sentence of death was not thereby pronounced upon him by God; but it was simply made manifest, that through his transgression of his father's oath, with which he was not acquainted, guilt had been brought upon Israel. The breach of a command issued with a solemn oath, even when it took place unconsciously, excited the wrath of God, as being a profanation of the divine name But such a sin could only rest as guilt upon the man who had committed, or the man who occasioned it. Now where the command in question was one of God himself, there could be no question, that even in the case of unconscious transgression the sin fell upon the transgressor, and it was necessary that it should either be expiated by him or forgiven him. But where the command of a man had been unconsciously transgressed, the guilt might also fall upon the man who issued the command, that is to say, if he did it without being authorized or empowered by God. In the present instance, Saul had issued the prohibition with- out divine authority, and had made it obligatory upon the people by a solemn oath. The people had conscientiously obeyed the command, but Jonathan had transgressed it without being aware of it. For this Saul was about to punish him with death, in order to keep his oath. But the people opposed it. They not only pronounced Jonathan innocent, because he had broken the king's command unconsciously, but they also exclaimed that he had gained the victory for Israel " with God." In this fact (Jonathan's victory) there was a divine verdict. And Saul could not fail to recognise now, that it was not Jonathan, but he himself, who had sinned, and through his arbitrary and despotic command had brought guilt upon Israel, on account of which God had given him no reply. — Ver. 46. With the feeling of this guilt, Saul gave up any further pursuit of the Philistmes : he "went up" (sc. to Gibeah) "from beJiind the Philistines" i.e. desisting from any further pursuit. But the Philistines went to their place, i.e. back into their own land. 148 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Vers. 47-52. General Summary of Saul's other Wars, AND Account of his Family. — Ver. 47. " But Saul had taken the sovereignty P As Saul had first of all secured a recog- nition of himself as king on the part of all the tribes of Israel; through his victory over the Ammonites at Jabesh (ch. xi. 12 sqq.), so it was through tlie victory which he had gained over tlie Philistines, and by which these obstinate foes of Israe'. were driven back into their own land, that he first acquired the kingship over Israel, i.e. first really secured the regal authority over the Israelites. This is the meaning of nwtsn np? ; and this statement is not at variance either with the election of Saul by lot (cli. X. 17 sqq.), or with his confirmation at Gilgal (ch. xi. 14, 15). But as Saul had to fight for the sovereignty, and could only secure it by successful warfare, his other wars are placed in the foreground in the summary account of his reign which follows (vers. 47, 48), whilst the notices concerning his family, which stand at the very beginning in the case of the other kings, are not mentioned till afterwards (vers. 49-51). Saul fought successfully against all the enemies of Israel round about ; against Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, the kings of Zobah, a district of Syria on this side the Euphrates (see at 2 Sam. viii. 3), and against the Philistines. The war against the Ammonites is described in ch. xi. ; but with the Phihstines Saul had to wage repeated war all the days of his life (ver. 52). The other wars are none of them more fully described, simply because they were of no importance to the history of the king- dom of God, having neither furnished occasion for any miracu- lous displays of divine omnipotence, nor brought about the subjection of hostile nations to the power of Israel. " Whither- soever he turned, he inflicted punishment.'" This is the rendering which Luther has very aptly given to V'K'T ; for Tpy} signifies to declare wrong, hence to condemn, more especially as apphed to judges : here it denotes sentence or condemnation by deeds. Saul chastised these nations for their attacks upon Israel. — Ver. 48. " And he acquired power ;" P'.n HB'j; (as in Num. xxiv. 18) does not merely signify he proved himself brave, or he formed an army, but denotes the development and unfolding of power in various respects. Here it relates more particularly to the development of strength in the war against Amalek, by virtue of which Saul smote this arch-enemy of Israel, and put an end CHAP. XV U9 to their depredations. Tiiis war is described more fully in ch. sv., on account of its consequences in relation to Saul's own sove- reignty. — Vers. 49-51. SauVs family. — Ver. 49. Only three of his sons are mentioned, namely those who fell with him, accord- ing to ch. xxxi. 2, in the war with the Philistines. Jisvi is only another name for Abinadab (ch. xxxi. 2 ; 1 Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39). In these passages in the Chronicles there is a fourth mentioned, Esli-haal, i.e. the one who is called Ish-hosheth in 2 Sam. ii. 8, etc., and who was set up by Abner as the antago- nist of David. The reason why he is not mentioned here it is impossible to determine. It may be that the name has fallen out simply through some mistake in copying : the daughters Michal and Merab are mentioned, with special reference to the occurrence described in ch. xviii. 17 sqq. — Vers. 50, 51. Ahner the general was also Saul's cousin. For " son of AbieV (ben Abiel) we must read "sons of AbieV (bne Abiel: see ch. ix. 1). — Ver. 52. The statement, " and the war was hard (severe) against the Philistines as long as Saul lived" merely serves to explain the notice which follows, namely, that Saul took or drew to himself every strong man and everj' brave man that he saw If we observe this, which is the true relation between the two clauses in this verse, the appearance of abruptness which we find in the first notice completely vanishes, and the verse follows very suitably upon the allusion to the general. The meaning might be expressed in this manner : And as Saul had to carry on a severe war against the Philistines his whole life long, he drew to himself every powerful man and every brave man that he met with. WAK WITH AMALEK. SAUL S DISOBEDIENCE AND REJECTION. — CHAP. XV As Saul had transgressed the commandment of God which was given to him through Samuel, by the sacrifice which he offered at Gilgal in the war with the Philistines at the very commencement of his reign, and had thereby drawn upon him- self the threat that his monarchy should not be continued in perpetuity (ch. xiii. 13, 14) ; so his disobedience in the war against the Amalekites was followed by his rejection on the part of God. The Amalekites were the first heathen nation to 150 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. attack the Israelites after their deliverance out of Egypt, which they did in the most treacherous manner on their journey from Egypt to Sinai ; and they had been threatened by God witli extermination in consequence. This Moses enjoined upon Joshua, and also committed to writing, for the Israelites to observe in all future generations (Ex. xvii. 8-16). As the Amalekites afterwards manifested the same hostility to the people of God which they had displayed in this first attack, on every occasion which appeared favourable to their ravages, the Lord instructed Samuel to issue the command to Saul, to wao-e war against Amalek, and to smite man and beast with the ban, i.e. to put all to death (vers. 1-3). But when Saul had smitten them, he not only left Agag the king alive, but spared the best of the cattle that he had taken as booty, and merely executed the ban upon such animals as were worthless (vers. 4-9). He was rejected by the Lord for this disobedience, so that he was to be no longer king over Israel. His rejection was announced to him by Samuel (vers. 10-23), and was not retracted in spite of his prayer for the forgiveness of his sin (vers. 24-35). In fact, Saul had no excuse for this breach of the divine com- mand ; it was nothing but open rebellion against the sovereignty of God in Israel : and if Jehovah would continue Kino- of Israel, He must punish it by the rejection of the rebel. For Saul no longer desired to be the medium of the sovereignty of Jehovah, or the executor of the commands of the God-king, but simply wanted to reign according to his own arbitrary will. Never- theless this rejection was not followed by his outward deposi- tion. The Lord merely took away His Spirit, had David anointed king by Samuel, and thenceforward so directed the steps of Saul and David, that as time advanced the hearts of the people were turned away more and more from Saul to David; and on the death of Saul, the attempt of the ambi- tious Abner to raise his son Ishbosheth to the throne could not possibly have any lasting success. Vers. 1-3. The account of the war aeainst the Amalekites IS a very condensed one, and is restricted to a description of the conduct of Saul on that occasion. Without mentioning either the time or the immediate occasion of the war, the narrativo commences with the command of God which Samuel solemnly communicated to Saul, to go and exterminate that people CHAP. XV. 4-9. 151 Samuel commenced with the words, " Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to he king over His people, over Israel" in order to show to Saul the obligation which rested upon him to receive his com- mission as coming from God, and to proceed at once to fulfil it. The allusion to the anointing points back not to ch. xi. 15, but to ch. X. 1. — ^Ver. 2. " Thus saith the Lord of Zehaoth, I have looked upon ivhat Amaleh did to Israel, that it placed itself in his waif when he came up out of Egypt" (Ex. xvii. 8). Samuel merely mentions this first outbreak of hostility on the part of Amalek towards the people of Israel, because in this the same disposition was already manifested which now made the people ripe for the judgment of extermination (vid. Ex. xvii. 14). The hostility which they had now displayed, according to ver. 33, there was no necessity for the prophet to mention particularly, since it was well known to Saul and all Israel. When God looks upon a sin, directs His glance towards it. He must punish it according to His own holiness. This ''Jl'li^B points at the very outset to the punishment about to be proclaimed. — Ver. 3 Saul is to smite and ban everything belonging to it without reserve, i.e. to put to death both man and beast. The last clause 'IJI nnnni is only an explanation and exemplification of 'U1 Dril3"inni. " From man to woman," etc., i.e. men and women, children and sucklings, etc. Vers. 4-9. Saul summoned the people to war, and mustered them (those who were summoned) at Telaim (this was probably the same place as the Telem mentioned in Josh. xv. 24, and is to be looked for in the eastern portion of the Negeb). " Two hundred thousand foot, and ten thousand of the men of Judah ;" this implies that the two hundred thousand were from the other tribes. These numbers are not too large ; for a powerful Bedouin nation, such as the Amalekites were, could not possibly be successfully attacked with a small army, but only by raising the whole of the military force of Israel. — Ver. 5. He then advanced as far as the city of the Amalekites, the situation of which is altogether unknown, and placed an ambush in tho valley. 3T1 does not come from ^''"i, to fight, i.e. to quarrel, not to give battle, but was understood even by the early translators as a contracted form of S"?.*?*.!., the Hiphil of a^N. And modern commentators have generally understood it in the same way ; but Olshausen (Hehr. Gramm. p. 572) questions the correctness 152 THE riEST BOOK OF SAMUEL. of the reading, and Thenius proposes to alter ^n33 3"1.5. into ntDD^O 'n'iJ!'A. ^na refers to a valley in the neighbourhood of the city of the Amalekites. — Ver. 6. Saul directed the Kenites to come out from among the Amalekites, that they might not perish with them (^sp^, imp. Kal of ^D^), as they had shoMTi affection to the Israelites on their journey out of Egypt (com- pare Nnm. X. 29 with Judg. i. 16). He then smote the Ama- lekites from Havilah in the direction towards Shur, which lay before (to the east of) Egypt (cf. Gen. xxv. 18). Shur is the desert of Jifar, i.e. that portion of the desert of Arabia which borders upon Egypt (see at Gen. xvi. 7). Havilah, the country of the Chaulotcsans, on the border of Arabia Petrsea towards Yemen (see at Gen. x. 29). — Vers. 8, 9. Their king, Agog, he took alive (on the name, see at Num. xxiv. 7), but all the people he banned with the edge of the sword, i.e. he had them put to death without quarter. "All," i.e. all that fell into the hands of the Israelites. For it follows from the very nature of the case that many escaped, and consequently there is nothing striking in the fact that Amalekites are mentioned again at a later period (ch. xxvii. 8, xxx. 1 ; 2 Sam. viii. 12). The last remnant was destroyed by the Simeonites upon the mountains of Seir in the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chron. iv. 43). Only, king Agag did Saul and the people (of Israel) spare, also " the best of the sheep and oxen, and the animals of the second birth, and the lambs and everything good ; these they would not ban." ^''JB'p, according to D. Kimchi and R. Tanch., are p37 □"JB', i.e. animalia secundo partu edita, which were considered superior to the others (vid. Roediger in Ges. Thes. p. 1451) ; and D*"i3, pasture lambs, i.e. fat lambs. There is no necessity, therefore, for the conjecture of Ewald and Thenius, D''30B'p, fattened, and D''D"j3j vineyards ; nor for the far-fetched explanation given by Bochart, viz. camels with two humps and camel-saddles, to say nothing of the fact that camel-saddles and vineyards are alto- gether out of place here. In " all that ivas good " the things already mentioned singly are all included, naxpisn, the property; here it is applied to cattle, as in Gen. xxxiii. 14. ^J^Pji = '^)?}, despised, undervalued. The form of the word is not con- tracted from a noun npip and the participle nt33 (^Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 463), but seems to be a participle Niph. formed from a noun nno. But as such a form is contrary to all analogy, Ewald CHAP. XV. 10-23. IvIS and Olshausen regard the reading as corrupt. DD3 (from ODD) : flowing away ; used with reference to diseased cattle, or such as liave perished. The reason for sparing the best cattle is very apparent, namely selfishness. But it is not so easy to determine why Agag should have been suared by Saul. It is by no means probable that he wished thereby to do honour to the royal dignity. O. v. Gerlach's supposition, that vanity or the desire to make a display with a royal slave was the actual reason, is a much more probable one. Vers. 10-23. The word of the Lord came to Samuel : " It repenteth me that I have made Saul king, for he hath turned away from me, and not set up (carried out) my word." (On the repentance of God, see the remarks on Gen. vi. 6.) That this does not express any changeableness in the divine nature, but simply the sorrow of the divine love at the rebellion of sinners, is evident enough from ver. 29. ''"'' ''in*?? ^''t^, to turn round from following God, in order to go his own ways. This was Saul's real sin. He would no longer be the follower and servant of the Lord, but would be absolute ruler in Israel. Pride arising from the consciousness of his own strength, led him astray to break the command of God. What more God said to Samuel is not communicated here, because it could easily be gathered and supplied from what Samuel himself proceeded to do (see more particularly vers. 16 sqq.). In order to avoid repetitions, only the principal feature in the divine revelation is mentioned here, and the details are given fully afterwards in the account of the fulfilment of the instructions. Samuel was deeply agitated by this word of the Lord. " It burned (in) Aim," sc. wrath (^IX, compare Gen. xxxi. 36 with xxx. 2), not on account of the repentance to which God had given utterance at having raised up Saul as king, nor merely at Saul's disobedience, but at the frustration of the purpose of God in calling him to be king in consequence of his disobedience, from which he might justly dread the worst results in relation to the glory of Jehovah and his own prophetic labours.^ The opinion 1 " Many grave thoughts seem to nave presented themselves at once to Samuel and disturbed his mind, when he reflected upon the dishonour which might be heaped upon the name of God, and the occasion which the rejection and deposition of Saul would furnish to wicked men for blasphem- ing God. For Saul had been anointed by the ministry of Samuel, and he 154 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. that ? ini is also used to signify deep distress cannot be estab- lished from 2 Sam. iv. 8. " And he cried to Jehovah the whote night," sc. praying for Saul to be forgiven. But it was in vain. This is evident from what follows, where Samuel maintains the cause of his God with strength and decision, after having wrestled with God in prayer. — Ver. 12. The next morning, after i-eceiving the revelation from God (ver. 11), Samuel rose up early, to go and meet Saul as he was returning from the war. On the way it was told him, " Saul has come to Carmel" — i.e. Kurmul, upon the mountains of Judah to the south-east of Hebron (see at Josh. xv. 55) — " setting himself a memorial " Q\, a hand, then a memorial or monument, inasmuch as the hand calls attention to anything : see 2 Sam. xviii. 18), " and has turned and proceeded farther, and gone down to GilgaV (in the valley of the Jordan, as in ch. xiii. 4). — Ver. 13. When Samuel met him there, Saul attempted to hide his consciousness of guilt by a feigned friendly welcome. "Blessed be thou of the Lord" (vid. Euth ii. 20, Gen. xiv. 19, etc.) was his greeting to the prophet ; " / have set up the word of Jehovah^ — Vers. 14, 15. But the prophet stripped his hypocrisy at once with the question, " What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears, and a lowing of oxen that I hear"?" Saul replied (ver. 15), " They have brought them from the Amaleiites, because the people spared the best sheep and oxen, to sacrifice them to the Lord thy God ; and the rest we have banned." So that it was not Saul, but the people, who had transgressed the command of the Lord, and that with the most laudable intention, viz. to offer the best of the cattle that had been taken, as a thank-offering to the Lord. The falsehood and hypocrisy of these words lay upon the very surface ; for even if the cattle spared were really intended as sacrifices to the Lord, not only the people, but Saul also, would liave had their own interests in view (vid. ver. 9), since the flesh of thank- offerings was appropriated to sacrificial meals. — Vers. 16 sqq. had been chosen by God himself from all the people, and called by Him t- the throne. If, therefore, he was nevertheless deposed, it seemed likely that so much would be detracted from the authority of Samuel and the confidence of the people in his teaching, and, moreover, that the worship of God would be overturned, and the greatest disturbance ensue ; in fact, that universal confusion would burst upon the nation. These were probably the grounds upon which Samuel's great indignation rested." — Caivm. CHAP. XV. 10-23. l/)5 Samuel therefore bade him be silent. K}\!, " leave off" excusing thyself any further. " / will tell thee what Jehovah hath said to me this night." (The Chethibh IIDN'T is evidently a copyist's error for 19'^'1-) " Is it not true, when thou wast little in thine eyes (a reference to Saul's own words, ch. ix. 21), thou didst become head of the tribes of Israel ? and Jehovah anointed thee king over Israel, and Jehovah sent thee on the way, and said, Go and ban the sinners, the Amalekites, and make ivar against them, until thou exterminatest them. And wherefore hast thou not hearkened to the voice of Jehovah, and hast fallen upon the booty," etc. ? (DVn, see at ch. xiv. 32.) Even after this Saul wanted to justify himself, and to throw the blame of sparing the cattle upon the people. — Ver. 20. " Yea, I have hearkened to the voice of Jehovah ("'B'^? serving, like "'3, to introduce the reply : here it is used in the sense of asseveration, utigue, yea), and have brought Agag the king of the Amalekites, and banned Amalek." Bringing Agag he mentioned probably as a practical proof that he had carried out the war of extermination against the Amalekites. — Ver. 21. Even the sparing of the cattle he endeavoured to defend as the fulfilment of a religious duty. The people had taken sheep and oxen from the booty, " as firstlings of the ban," to sacrifice to Jehovah. Sacrificing the best of the booty taken in war as an offering of first-fruits to the Lord, was not indeed prescribed in the law, but was a praiseworthy sign of piety, by which all honour was rendered to the Lord as the giver of the victory (see Num. xxxi. 48 sqq.). This, Saul meant to say, was what the people had done on the present occasion ; only he overlooked the fact, that what was banned to the Lord could not be offered to Him as a burnt-offering, because, being most holy, it belonged to Him already (Lev. xxvii. 29), and according to Deut. xiii. 16, was to be put to death, as Samuel had expressly said to Saul (ver. 3). — Vers. 22, 23. Without entering, therefore, into any discussion of the meaning of the ban, as Saul only wanted to cover over his own wrong-doings by giving this turn to the affair, Samuel put a stop to any further excuses, by saying, " Hath Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah 1 (i.e. in obedience to Ilij word.) Behold, hearing (obeying) is better than slain-offerings, attending better than fat of rams '* By saying this, Samuel did 156 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. not reject sacrifices as worthless , he did not say tliat God took no pleasure in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings, but simply compared sacrifice with obedience to the command of God, and pronounced the latter of greater worth than the former. " I( was as much as to say that the sum and substance of divine worship consisted in obedience, with which it should always begin, and that sacrifices were, so to speak, simple appendices, tlie force and worth of which were not so great as of obedience to the precepts of God" (Calvin). But it necessarily follows that sacrifices without obedience to the commandments of God are utterly worthless ; in fact, are displeasing to God, as Ps. 1. 8 sqq., Isa. i. 11 sqq., Ixvi. 3, Jer. vi. 20, and all the prophets, distinctly affirm. There was no necessity, however, to carry out this truth any further. To tear off the cloak of hypocrisy, with which Saul hoped to cover his disobedience, it was quite enough to affirm that God's first demand was obedience, and that observing His word was better than sacrifice ; because, as the Berleb. Bible puts it, " in sacrifices a man offers only the strange flesh of irrational animals, whereas in obedience he offers his own will, which is rational or spiritual worship " (Rom. xii. 8). This spiritual worship was shadowed forth in tiie sacrificial worship of the Old Testament. In the sacrificial animal the Israelite was to give up and sanctify his own person and life to the Lord. (For an examination of the meaning of the different sacrifices, see Pent. vol. ii, pp. 274 sqq., and Keil's Bibl. Arclidol. i. § 41 sqq.) But if this were the design of the sacrifices, it was clear enough that God did not desire the animal sacrifice in itself, but first and chiefly obedience to His own word. In ver. 22, 3iD is not to be connected as an ad- jective with nar, " more than good sacrifice," as the Sept. and Thenius render it; it is rather to be taken as a predicate, " better than slain-offerings" and naitp is placed first simply for the sake of emphasis. Any contrast between good and bad sacrifices, such as the former construction would introduce into the words, is not only foreign to the context, but also opposed to the parallelism. For D'^''N 3^n does not mean fat rams, but the fat of rams ; the fat portions taken from the ram, which were placed upon the altar in the case of the slain-offerings, and for which 3?n is the technical expression (compare Lev. iii. 9, 16, with vers. 4, 11, etc.). " For" continued Samuel (vei. 23), CHAP. XV. 24-35. 157 " rebellion is the sin of soothsaying, and opposition is heathenism and idolatry." ''ID and IV?'] are the subjects, and synonymou.s in their meaning. DDi? nNtsn^ the sin of soothsaying, i.e. of divination in connection with the worship of idolatrous and demoniacal powers. In the second clause idols are mentioned instead of idolatry, and compared to resistance, but without any particle of comparison. Opposition is keeping idols and teraphim, i.e. it is like worshipping idols and teraphim. D.X, nothingness, then an idol or image (yid. Isa. Ixvi. 3 ; Hos. iv. 15, X. 5, 8). On the teraphim as domestic and oracular deities, see at Gen. xxxi. 19. Opposition to God is compared by Samuel to soothsaying and oracles, because idolatry was mani- fested in both of them. All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God. " Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He hath rejected thee, that thou mayst be no longer king.'' T]7E)0 = T]70 niTilD (ver. 26), away from being king. Vers. 24-35. This sentence made so powerful an impression upon Saul, that he confessed, " T have sinned : for I have trans- gressed the command of the Lord and thy words, because I feared the people, and hearkened to their voiced But these last words, with which he endeavoured to make his sin appear as small as possible, show that the consciousness of his guilt did not go very deep. Even if the people had really desired that the best of the cattle should be spared, he ought not as king to have given his consent to their wish, since God had commanded that they should all be banned (i.e. destroyed) ; and even though he had yielded from weakness, this weakness could not lessen his guilt before God. This repentance, therefore, was rather the effect of alarm at the rejection which had been announced to him, than the fruit of any genuine consciousness of sin. " It was not true and serious repentance, or the result of genuine sorrow of heart because he had offended God, but was merely repentance of the lips arising from fear of losing the kingdom, and of incurring public disgrace" (0. v. Lapide). This is apparent even from ver. 25, but still more from ver. 30. In ver. 25 he not only entreats Samuel for the forgiveness of his sin, but says, " Return with me, tliat T may pray to the Lord." 158 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. The 2'^ presupposes that Samuel was about to go away after executing his commission. Saul entreated him to remain that he might pray, i.e. not only in order to obtain for him the for- giveness of his sin through his intercession, but, according to ver. 30, to show him honour before the elders of the people and before Israel, that his rejection might not be known. — Vers. 26, 27. This request Samuel refused, repeating at the same time the sentence of rejection, and turned to depart. " Then Saul laid hold of the lappet of his mantle (i.e. his upper gar- ment), and it tore" {lit. was torn off). That the Niphal y]iji)l is correct, and is not to be altered into i^nx J?^ip'l, " Saul tore off the lappet," according to the rendering of the LXX., as Thenius supposes, is evident from the explanation which Samuel gave of the occurrence (ver. 28) : ^^ Jehovah hath torn the sovereignty of Israel from thee to-day, and given it to thy neighbour, who is letter than thou." As Saul was about to hold back the prophet by force, tliat he miglit obtain from him a revocation of the divine sentence, the tearing of the mantle, which took place accidentally, and evidently without any such intention on the part of Saul, was to serve as a sign of the rending away of the sovereignty from him. Samuel did not yet know to whom. J ehovah would give it ; he therefore used the expression 13J]p, as Vi is applied to any one with whom a person associates. To confirm his own words, he adds in ver. 29 : " And also the Trust of Israel doth not lie and doth not repent, for He is not a man to repent." nit3 signifies constancy, endurance, then confi- dence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant. This meaning is to be retained here, where the word is used as a name for God, and not the meaning gloria, which is taken in 1 Chron. xxix. 11 from the Aramaean usage of speech, and would be altogether unsuitable here, where the context suggests the idea of unchangeableness. For a man's repentance or regret arises from his changeableness, from the fluctuations in his desires and actions. This is never the case with God; consequently He is ^^^^'^ HVJ, the unchangeable One, in lohom Israel can trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or repent of His purposes. These words are spoken deoTj-peirm (theomorphi- cally), whereas in ver. 11 and other passages, which speak of God as repenting, the words are to be understood avdpwiTO- iraOm (anthropomorphically ; cf. Num. xxiii. 19). — Vers. 30, CHAP XV. 24-36. l-'iO 31. After this declaration as to the irrevocable character of the determination of God to reject Saul, Samuel yielded to the renewed entreaty of Saul, that he ■would honour him by his presence before the elders and the people, and remained whilst Saul worshipped, not merely " for the purpose of preserving the outward order until a new king should take his place" (O. V. Gerlach), but also to carry out the ban upon Agag, whom Saul had spared. — Ver. 32. After Saul had prayed, Samuel directed him to bring Agag the king of the Amalekites. Agag came n^iyi?, i.e. in a contented and joyous state of mind, and said (in his heart), " Surely the bitterness of death is vanished" not from any special pleasure at the thought of death, or from a heroic contempt of death, but because he thought that his life was to be granted him, as he had not been put to death at once, and was now about to be presented to the prophet (Cleri- cus). — Ver. 33. But Samuel pronounced the sentence of deatli upon him : " As thy sword hath made women childless, so he thy mother childless before women ! " D''E'3D is to be understood as a comparative : more childless than (other) women, i.e. the most childless of women, namely, because her son was the king. From these words of Samuel, it is very evident that Agag had carried on his wars with great cruelty, and had therefore for- feited his life according to the lea talionis. Samuel then hewed him in pieces " before the Lord at Gilgal," i.e. before the altar of Jehovah there ; for the slaying of Agag being the execution of the ban, was an act performed for the glory of God. — Vers. 34, 35. After the prophet had thus maintained the rights of Jehovah in the presence of Saul, and carried out the ban upon Agag, he returned to his own home at Ramah ; and Saul went to his house at Gibeah. From that time forward Samuel broke off all intercourse with the king whom Jehovah had rejected. " For Samuel was grieved for Saul, and it repented the Lord that he had made Saul king," i.e. because Samuel had loved Saul on account of his previous election ; and yet, as Jehovah had rejected him unconditionally, he felt that he was precluded from doing anything to effect a change of heart in Saul, and his reinstatement as king. 160 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL III. SAUL'S FALL AND DAVID'S ELECTION. Chap, xvi.-xxxi. Although the rejection of Saul on the part of God, which was announced to him by Samuel, was not followed by imme- diate deposition, but Saul remained king until his death, the consequences of his rejection were very speedily brought to light. Whilst Samuel, by the command of God, was secretly anointing David, the youngest son of Jesse, at Bethlehem, as king (ch. xvi. 1-13), the Spirit of Jehovah departed from Saul, and an evil spirit began to terrify him, so that he fell into melancholy ; and his servants fetched David to the court, as a man who could play on stringed instruments, that he might charm away the king's melancholy by his playing (ch. xvi. 14-23). Another war with the Philistines soon furnished David with the opportunity for displaying his heroic courage, by the defeat of the giant Goliath, before whom the whole army of the Israelites trembled ; and to attract the eyes of the whole nation to himself, as the deliverer of Israel from its foes (ch. xvii. 1-54), in consequence of which Saul placed him above the men of war, whilst Saul's brave son Jonathan formed a bond of friendship with him (ch. xvii. 55-xviii. 5). But this victory, in commemorating which the women sang, " Saul hath slain a thousand, David ten thousand" (ch. xviii. 7), excited the jealousy of the melancholy king, so that the next day, in an attack of madness, he threw his spear at David, who was playing before him, and after that not only removed him from his presence, but by elevating him to the rank of chief captain, and by the promise to give him his daughter in marriage for the performance of brave deeds, endeavoured to entangle him in such conflicts with the Philistines as should cost him his life. And when this failed, and David prospered in all his under- takings, he began to be afraid of him, and cherished a lifelong hatred towards him (ch. xviii. 6-30). Jonathan did indeed try to intercede and allay his father's suspicions, and effect a recon- ciliation between Saul and David ; but the evil spirit soon drove the jealous king to a fresh attack upon David's life, so that he was obliged to flee not only from the presence of Saul, CHAP. XVI.-XXXI. 161 but from his own house also, and went to Ramah, to the prophet Samuel, whither, however, Saul soon followed him, though he was so overpowered by the Spirit of the prophets, that he could «iot do anything to David (ch. xix.). Another attempt on the part of Jonathan to change his father's mind entirely failed, and so excited the wrath of Saul, that he actually threw the spear at his own son ; so that no other course now remained for David, than to separate himself from his noble friend Jonathan, and seek safety in flight (ch. xx.). He therefore fled with his attendant first of all to Nob, where Ahimelech the high priest gave him some of the holy loaves and the sword of Goliath, on his representing to him that he was travelling hastily in the affairs of the king. He then proceeded to Achish, the king of the Philistines, at Gath ; but having been recog- nised as the conqueror of Goliath, he was obliged to feign madness in order to save his life ; and being driven away by Achish as a madman, he went to the cave of Adullam, and thence into the land of Moab. But he was summoned by the prophet to return to his own land, and went into the woof" Hareth, in the land of Judah ; whilst Saul, who had beeu informed by the Edomite Doeg of the occurrence at Nob, ordered all the priests who were there to be put to death, and the town itself to be ruthlessly destroyed, with all the men and beasts that it contained. Only one of Ahimelech's sons escaped the massacre, viz. Abiathar ; and he took refuge with David (ch. xxi. xxii.). Saul now commenced a regular pursuit of David, who had gradually collected around him a company of 600 men. On receiving intelligence that David had smitten a marauding company of Philistines at Keilah, Saul followed him, with the hope of catching him in this fortified town ; and when this plan failed, on account of the flight of David into the wilderness of Ziph, because the high priest had informed him of the intention of the inhabitants to deliver him up, Saul pursued him thither, and had actually surrounded David with his warriors, when a messenger arrived with the intelli- o-ence of an invasion of the land by the Philistines, and he was suddenly called away to make war upon these foes (ch. xxiii.). But he had no sooner returned from the attack upon the Philistines, than he pursued David still farther into the wilderness of Engedi, where he entered into a large cave, h 162 THE FIKST BOOK OF SAMUEL. behind which David and his men were concealed, so that he actually fell into David's hands, who might have put him to death. But from reverence for the anointed of the Lord, instead of doing him any harm, David merely cut off a corner of his coat, to show his pursuer, when he had left the cave, in what manner he had acted towards him, and to convince him of the injustice of his hostility. Saul was indeed moved to tears ; but he was not disposed for all that to give up any further pursuit (ch. xxiv.). David was still obliged to wander about from place to place in the wilderness of Judah ; and at length he was actually in want of the necessaries of life, so that on one occasion, when the rich Nabal had churlishly turned away the messengers who had been sent to him to ask for a present, he formed the resolution to take bloody revenge upon this hard-hearted fool, and was only restrained from carrying the resolution out by the timely and friendly intervention of the wise Abigail (ch. xxv.). Soon after this Saul came a second time into such a situation, that David could have killed him ; but during the night, whilst Saul and all his people were sleeping, he slipped with Abishai into the camp of his enemy and carried off as booty the spear that was at the king's head^ that he might show him a second time how very far he was from seeking to take his life (ch. xxvi.). But all this only made David's situation an increasingly desperate one ; so that eventually, in order to save his life, he resolved to fly into the country of the Philistines, and take refuge with Achish, the king of Gath, by whom he was now received in the most friendly manner, as a fugitive who had been proscribed by the king of Israel. At his request Achish assigned him the town of Ziklag as a dwelling-place for himself and his men, whence he made sundry excursions against different Bedouin tribes of the desert. In consequence of this, however, he was brought into a state of dependence upon this Philistian prince (ch. xxvii.) ; and shortly afterwards, when the Philistines made an attack upon the Israelites, he would have been perfectly unable to escape the necessity of fighting in their ranks against his own ])eople and fatherland, if the other princes of the Philistines had not felt some mistrust of " these Hebrews," and compelled Achish to send David and his fighting men back to Ziklag (ch. sxix.). But this was also to put an end to his prolonged flight. CHAP. AVI.-XXXI. 163 Saul's fear of the power of the Philistines, and the fact that he could not obtain any revelation from God, induced him to have recourse to a necromantist woman, and he was obliged to hear from the mouth of Samuel, whom she had invoked, not only tlie confirmation of his own rejection on the part of God, but also the announcement of his death (ch. xxviii.). In the battle which followed on the mountains of Gilboa, after his three sons had been put to death by his side, he fell upon his own sword, that he might not fall alive into the hands of the archers of the enemy, who were hotly pursuing him (ch. xxxi.), whilst David in the meantime chastised the Amalekites for their attack upon Ziklag (ch. xxx.). It is not stated anywhere how long the pursuit of David by Saul continued ; the only notice given is that David dwelt a year and four months in the land of the Philistines (ch. xxvii. 7). If we compare with this the statement in 2 Sam. v. 4, that David was thirty years old when he became king (over Judah), the supposition that he was about twenty years old when Samuel anointed him, and therefore that the interval between Saul's rejection and his death was about ten years, will not be very far from the truth. The events which oc- curred during this interval are described in the most elaborate way, on the one hand because they show how Saul sank deeper and deeper, after the Spirit of God had left him on account of his rebellion against Jehovah, and not only was unable to procure any longer for the people that deliverance which they had expected from the king, but so weakened the power of the throne through the conflict which he carried on against David, whom the Lord had chosen ruler of the nation in his stead, that when he died the Philistines were able to inflict a total defeat upon the Israelites, and occupy a large portion of the land of Israel ; and, on the other hand, because they teach how, after the Lord had anointed David ruler over His people, and had opened the way to the throne through the victory which he gained over Goliath, He humbled him by trouble and want, and trained him up as king after His own heart. On a closer examination of these occurrences, which we have only briefly hinted at, giving their main features merely, we see clearly how, from the very day when Samuel announced to Saul his rejection by God, he hardened himself more and more against 164 THE FIRST ROOK OF SAMUEL the leadings of divine grace, and continued steadily ripenino for tlie judgment of death. Immediately after this announce- ment an evil spirit took possession of his soul, so that he fell into trouble and melancholy ; and when jealousy towards David was stirred up in his heart, he was seized with fits of raving madness, in which he tried to pierce David with a spear, and thus destroy the man whom he had come to love on account of his musical talent, which had exerted so beneficial an influence upon his mind (ch. xvi. 23, xviii. 10, 11, xix. 9, 10). These attacks of madness gradually gave place to hatred, which de- veloped itself with full consciousness, and to a most deliberately planned hostility, which he concealed at first not only from David but also from all his own attendants, with the hope that he should be able to put an end to David's life through his' stratagems, but which he afterwards proclaimed most openly as soon as these plans had failed. When his hostility was first openly declared, his eagerness to seize upon his enemy carried him to such a length that he got into the company of prophets at Ramah, and was so completely overpowered by the Spirit of God dwelling there, that he lay before Samuel for a whole day in a state of prophetic ecstasy (ch. xix. 22 sqq.). But this irresistible power of the Spirit of God over him produced no change of heart. For immediately afterwards, when Jonathan began to intercede for David, Saul threw the spear at his own son (ch. XX. 33), and this time not in an attack of madness or insanity, but in full consciousness ; for we do not read in this instance, as in ch. xviii. xix., that the evil spirit came upon him. He now proceeded to a consistent carrying out of his purpose of murder. He accused his courtiers of having con- spired against him like Jonathan, and formed an alliance with David (ch. xxii. 6 sqq.), and caused the priests at Nob to be murdered in cold blood, and the whole town smitten with the edge of the sword, because Ahimelech had supplied David with bread ; and this he did without paying any attention to the conclusive evidence of his innocence (ch. xxii. 11 sqq.). He then went with 3000 men in pursuit of David ; and even after he had fallen twice into David's hands, and on both occa- sions had been magnanimously spared by him, he did not desist from plotting for his life until he had driven him out of the land ; so that we may clearly see how each fresh proof of tba CHAP. XVI.-XXXI. 1G5 righteousness of David's cause only increased his hatred, until at length, in the war against the Philistines, he rashly resorted to the godless arts of a necromancer which he himself had formerly prohibited, and eventually put an end to his own life by falling upon his sword. Just as clearly may we discern in the guidance of David, from his anointing by Samuel to the death of Saul, how the Lord, as King of His people, trained him in the school of afHictlon to be His servant, and led him miraculously on to the goal of his divine calling. Plaving been lifted up as a young man by his anointing, and by the favour which he had acquired with Saul through his playing upon the harp, and still more by his victory over Goliath, far above the limited circumstances of his previous life, he might very easily have been puffed up in the consciousness of the spiritual gifts and powers conferred upon him, if God had not humbled his heart by want and tribulation. The first outbursts of jealousy on the part of Saul, and his first attempts to get rid of the favourite of the people, only furnished him with the opportunity to distinguish himself still more by brave deeds, and to make his name still dearer to the people (ch. xviii. 30). When, therefore, Saul's hostility was openly displayed, and neither Jonathan's friend- ship nor Samuel's prophetic authority could protect him any longer, he fled to the higli priest Ahimelech, and from him to king Achish at Gath, and endeavoured to help himself through by resorting to falsehood. He did save himself in this way no doubt, but he brought destruction upon the priests at Nob. And he was very soon to learn how all that he did for his people was rewarded with ingratitude. The inhabitants of Keilah, whom he had rescued from their plunderers, wanted to deliver him up to Saul (ch. xxiii. 5, 12) ; and even the men of his own tribe, the Ziphites, betrayed him twice, so that he was no longer sure of his life even in his own land. But the more this necessarily shook his confidence in his own strength and wisdom, the more clearly did the Lord manifest himself as his faithful Shepherd. After Ahimelech had been put to death, his son Abiathar fled to David with the light and right of the high priest, so that he was now in a position to inquire the will and counsel of God in any difficulty into which he might be brought (ch. xxiii. 6). On two occasions God brought his 1G6 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUKL. mortal foe Saul into his hand, and David's conduct in both these cases shows how the deliverance of God which he had hitherto experienced had strengthened his confidence in tlie Lord, and in the fulfilment of His promises (compare ch. xxiv. with ch. xxvi.). And his gracious preservation from carrying out his purposes of vengeance against Nabal (ch. xxv.) could not fail to strengthen him still more. Nevertheless, when his troubles threatened to continue without intermission, his courage beo-an to sink and his faith to waver, so that he took refujre in the land of the Philistines, where, however, his wisdom and cunning brought him into a situation of such difficulty that nothing but the grace and fidelity of his God could possibly extricate him, and out of which he was delivered without any act of his own. In this manner was the divine sentence of rejection fulfilled upon Saul, and the prospect which the anointing of David had set before him, of ascending the throne of Israel, carried out to completion. The account before us of the events which led to this result of the various complications, bears in all respects so thoroughly the stamp of internal truth and trustworthiness, that even modern critics are unanimous in acknovidedging the genuine historical character of the biblical narrative upon the whole. At the same time, there are some things, such as the supposed irreconcilable discrepancy between ch. xvi. 14-23 and ch. xvii. 55-58, and certain repetitions, such as Saul's throwing the spear at David (ch. xviii. 10 and xix. 9, 10), the treachery of the Ziphites (ch. xxiii. 19 sqq. and xxvi. 1 sqq.), David's sparing Saul (ch. xxiv. 4 sqq. and xxvi. 5 sqq.), which they cannot explain in any other way than by the favourite hypo- thesis that we have here divergent accounts, or legendary traditions derived from two different sources that are here woven together; whereas, as we shall see when we come to the exposition of the chapters in question, not only do the dis- crepancies vanish on a more thorough and minute examination of the matter, but the repetitions are very clearly founded on facta. CHAP. XVI. 1-13. 167 AKOINTraG OF DAVID. HIS PLAYING BEFORE SAXJL. — CHAP. XVI. After the rejection of Saul, the Lord commanded Samuel the prophet to go to Bethlehem and anoint one of Jesse's sons as king ; and when he went to carry out this commission, He pointed out David, the youngest of eight sons, as the chosen one, whereupon the prophet anointed him (vers. 1-13). Through the overruling providence of God, it came to pass after this, that David was brought to the court of Saul, to play upon the harp, and so cheer up the king, who was troubled with an evil spirit (vers. 14-23). Vers. 1-13. Anointing of David. — Ver. 1. The words in which God summoned Samuel to proceed to the anointing of another king, " How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, whom I hane rejected, that he may not be Icing over Israel?" show that the prophet had not yet been able to reconcile himself to the hidden ways of the Lord ; that he was still afraid that the people and kingdom of God would suffer from the rejection of Saul ; and that he continued to mourn for Saul, not merely from his own personal attachment to the fallen king, but also, or perhaps still more, from anxiety for the welfare of Israel. He was now to put an end to this mourning, and to fill his horn with oil and go to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for the Lord had chosen a king from among his sons. — Ver. 2. But Samuel replied, " How shall I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me." This fear on tlie part of the prophet, who did not generally show himself either hesitating or timid, can only be explained, as we may see from ver. 14, on the supposition that Saul was already given up to the power of the evil spirit, so that the very worst might be dreaded from his madness, if he discovered that Samuel had anointed another king. That there was some foundation for Samuel's anxiety, we may infer from the fact that the Lord did not blame him for his fear, but pointed out the way by which he might anoint David without attracting attention (vers. 2, 3) " Take a young heifer with thee, and say (sc. if any one ask the reason for your going to Bethlehem), / am, come to sacrifice to the Lord." There was no untruth in this, for Samuel was really about to conduct a sacrificial festival, and was to invite Jesse's 168 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. family to it, and then anoint the one whom Jehovah should point out to him as the chosen one. It was simply a conceal- ment of the principal object of his mission from any who might make inquiry about it, because they themselves had not been invited. " There was no dissimulation or falsehood in this, since God really wished His prophet to find safety under the pretext of the sacrifice. A sacrifice was therefore really offered, and the prophet was protected thereby, so that he was not exposed to any danger until the time of full revelation arrived " (Calvin). — Ver. 4. When Samuel arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the city came to meet him in a state of the greatest anxiety, and asked him whether his coming was peace, or promised good. The singular l?**'! may be explained on the ground that one of the elders spoke for the rest. The anxious inquiry of the elders presupposes that even in the time of Saul the prophet Samuel was frequently in the habit of coming un- expectedly to one place and another, for the purpose of reproving and punishing wrong-doing and sin. — Ver. 5. Samuel quieted them with the reply that he was come to offer sacrifice to the Lord, and called upon them to sanctify themselves and take part in the sacrifice. It is evident from this that the prophet was accustomed to turn his visits to account by offering sacri- fice, and so building up the people in fellowship with the Lord The reason why sacrifices were offered at different places was, that since the removal of the ark from the tabernacle, this sanctuary had ceased to be the only place of the nation's worship. tJ'!'.pni?, to sanctify one's self by washings and legal purifications, which probably preceded every sacrificial festival (yid. Ex. xix. 10, 22). The expression, " Come with me to the sacrifice^' is constructio praegnans for " Come and take part in the sacrifice." " Call to the sacrifice " (ver. 3) is to be under- stood in the same way. n3T is the slain-offering, which was connected with every sacrificial meal. It is evident from the following words, " and he sanctified Jesse and his sons," that Samuel addressed the general summons to sanctify themselves more especially to Jesse and his sons. For it was with them that he was about to celebrate the sacrificial meal. — Vers. 6 sqq. When they came, sc. to the sacrificial meal, which was no doubt held in Jesse's house, after the sacrifice had been presented upon an altar, and when Samuel saw the eldest son Eliab, who waa CHAP. XVI. 1-13. 109 tall and handsome according to ver. 7, " he thought (lit. he said, sc. in his heart), Surely His anointed is before Jehovah,^' i.e. surely the man is now standing before Jehovah whom He hath chosen to be His anointed. But Jehovah said to him in the spirit, " Look not at his form and the height of his stature, for 1 have rejected him : for not as man seeth (sc. do I see) ; for man looketh at the eyes, and Jehovah looleeth at the heart^^ The eyes, as contrasted with the heart, are figuratively employed to denote the outward form. — Vers. 8 sqq. When Jesse thereupon brought up his other sons, one after another, before Samuel, the prophet said in the case of each, " This also Jehovah hath not chosen^ As Samuel must be the subject to the verb ION'1 in vers. 8-10, ue may assume that he had communicated the object of his .toming to Jesse. — Ver. 11. After the seventh had been pre- sented, and the Lord had not pointed any one of them out as the chosen one, " Samuel said to Jesse, Are these all the boys?" When Jesse replied that there was still the smallest, i.e. the youngest, left, and he was keeping the sheep, he directed him to fetch him ; "for," said he, " we will not sit down till he has come hither." 320, to surround, sc. the table, upon which the meal was arranged. This is implied in the context. — Vers. 12, 13. When David arrived, — and he was ruddy, also of beautiful eyes and good looks C^iDlX, used to denote the reddish colour of the hair, which was regarded as a mark of beauty in southern lands, where the hair is generally black. OV is an adverb here = therewith), and therefore, so far as his looks and figure were concerned, well fitted, notwithstanding his youth, for the office to which the Lord had chosen him, since corporeal beauty was one of the outward distinctions of a king, — the Lord pointed him out to the prophet as the chosen one; whereupon he anointed him in the midst of his brethren. Along with the anointing the Spirit of Jehovah came upon David from that day forward. But Samuel returned to Ramah when the sacrificial meal was over. There is nothing recorded concerning any words of Samuel to David at the time of the anointing and in explanation of its meaning, as in the case of Saul (ch. x. 1). In all probability Samuel said nothing at the time, since, according to ver. 2, he had good reason for keeping the matter secret, not only on his own account, but still more for David's sake ; so that even the brethren of David who were present knew nothing about the 170 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. meaning and object' of the anointing, but may have imagined tliat Samuel merely intended to consecrate David as a pupil of the prophets. At the same time, we can hardly suppose that Samuel left Jesse, and even David, in uncertainty as to the object of his mission, and of the anointing which he had per- formed. He may have communicated all this to both of them, without letting the other sons know. It by no means follows, that because David remained with his father and kept the sheep as before, therefore his calling to be king must have been un- known to him ; but only that in the anointing which he had received he did not discern either the necessity or obligation to appear openly as the anointed of the Lord, and that after receiving the Spirit of the Lord in consequence of the anoint- ing, he left the further development of the matter to the Lord in childlike submission, assured that He would prepare and show him the way to the throne in His own good time. Vers. 14—23. David's Intkoduction to the Couet of Saul. — Ver. 14. With the rejection of Saul on the part of God, the Spirit of Jehovah had departed from him, and an evil spirit from Jehovah had come upon him, who filled him with fear and anguish. The " evil spirit from Jehovah " which came into Saul in the place of the Spirit of Jehovah, was not merely an inward feeling of depression at the rejection an- nounced to him, which grew into melancholy, and occasionally broke out in passing fits of insanity, but a higher evil power, which took possession of him, and not only deprived him of his peace of mind, but stirred up the feelings, ideas, imagination, and thoughts of his soul to such an extent that at times it drove him even into madness. This demon is called " an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah," because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment, or "an evil spirit of God" (Elohim : ver. 15), or briefly "a spirit of God" (Elohim), or " the evil spirit" (ver. 23, compare ch. xviii. 10), as being a supernatural, spiritual, evil power ; but never " the Spirit of Jehovah," because this is the Spirit proceeding from the holy God, which works upon men as the spirit of strength, wisdom, and knowledge, and generates and fosters the spiritual or divine life. The ex- pression r\vi nin_' rm (ch. xix. 9) is an abbreviated form for nin; nx» njf-i nn, and is to be interpreted accordingly.— Ver. CHAP. XVI. 14-23. 171 15. When Saul's attendants, i.e. his officers at court, perceived the mental ailment of the king, they advised him to let the evil spirit which troubled him be charmed avraj by instrumental music. " Ijet our lord speak (command) ; thi; servants are before thee (i.e. ready to serve thee) : thei/ will seek a man skilled in playing upon the harp ; so will it be well with thee when an euil spirit of God comes upon thee, and he (the man referred to) plays with his handr The powerful influence exerted by music upon the state of the mind was well known even in the earliest times; so that the wise men of ancient Greece recommended music to soothe the passions, to heal mental diseases, and even to check tumults among the people. From the many examples collected by Grotius, Clericus, and more especially Bochart in the Ilieroz. P. i. 1. 2, c. 44, we will merely cite the words of Censorinus (de die natali, c. 12) : "Pythagoras ut animum sua semper divinitate imbueret, priusquam se somno daret et cum esset expergitus, cithara ut ferunt cantare consueverat, et Asclepi- ades medicus phreneticorum mentes niorbo turbatas scepe per symphoniam suce natures reddidit." — Vers. 17, 18. When Saul commanded them to seek out a good player upon a stringed instrument in accordance with this advice, one of the youths (D^"iy3, a lower class of court servants) said, " / have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, skilled in playing, and a brave man, and a man of war, eloquent, and a handsome man, and Jehovah is ivith him." The description of David as " a mighty man '" and " a man of war " does not presuppose that David had already fought bravely in war, but may be perfectly explained from what David himself afterwards affirmed respecting his conflicts with lions and bears (ch. xvii. 34, 35). The courage and strength which he had then displayed furnished sufficient proofs of heroism for any one to discern in him the future war- rior. — Vers. 19, 20. Saul thereupon sent to ask Jesse for his son David; and Jesse sent him with a present of an ass's burden of bread, a bottle of wine, and a buck-kid. Instead of the singular expression Dn? "lion, an ass with bread, i.e. laden with bread, the LXX. read DH? "ipn, and rendered it yofiop aprmv , but this is certainly wrong, as they were not accustomed to measure bread in bushels. These presents show how simple were the customs of Israel and in the court of Saul at that time. — Ver. 21. When David came to Saul and stood before 172 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. him, i.e. served him by playing upon his harp, Saul took a great liking to him, and nominated him his armour-bearer, i.e. his adjutant, as a proof of his satisfaction with him, and sent to Jesse to say, " Let David stand before me" i.e. remain in my service, "for he lias found favour in my sight." The historian then adds (ver. 23) : " When the (evil) spirit of God came to Saul (7^, as in ch. xix. 9, is really equivalent to 7V), and David took the harp and played, there came refreshing to Saul, and he became well, and the evil spirit departed from him." Thus David came to Saul's court, and that as his benefactor, without Saul having any suspicion of David's divine election to be king of Israel. This guidance on the part of God was a school of preparation to David for his future calling. In the first place, he was thereby lifted out of his quiet and homely calling in the country into the higher sphere of court-life; and thus an oppor- tunity was afforded him not only for intercourse with men of high rank, and to become acquainted with the affairs of the kingdom, but also to display those superior gifts of his intellect and heart with which God had endowed him, and thereby to gain the love and confidence of the people. But at the same time he was also brought into a severe school of affliction, in which his inner man was to be trained by conflicts from without and within, so that he might become a man after God's heart, who should be well fitted to found the true monarchy in Israel. David's victory over goliath. — chap. xvii. 1-54. A war between the Philistines and the Israelites furnished David with the opportunity of displaying before Saul and all Israel, and greatly to the terror of the enemies of his people, that heroic power which was firmly based upon his bold and pious trust in the omnipotence of the faithful covenant God (vers. 1-.3). A powerful giant, named Goliath, came forward from the ranks of the Philistines, and scornfully challenged the Israelites to produce a man who would decide the war by a single combat with him (vers. 4-11). David, who had returned home for a time from the court of Saul, and had just been sent into the camp by his father with provisions for his elder brothers who were serving in the army, as soon as he heard the challenge and the scornful words of the Philistine, offered to fight with CHAP. XVII. 1-11. 173 him (vers. 15-37), and killed the giant with a stone from a sling; wheieupon the Philistines took to flight, and were pur- sued by the Israelites to Gath and Ekron (vers. 38-54). Vers. 1-11. Some time after David first came to Saul for the purpose of playing, and when he had gone back to his father to Bethlehem, probably because Saul's condition Jiad improved, the Philistines made a fresh attempt to subjugate the Israelites. They collected their army together (machaneh, as in Ex. xiv. 24, Judg. iv. 16), to war at Shoclwh, the present Shuweikeli, in the Wady Sumt, three hours and a half to the south-west of Jerusalem, in the hilly region between the moun- tains of Judah and the plain of Philistia (see at Josh. xv. 35), and encamped between Shochoh and Azekali, at Ephes-dammim, which has been preserved in the ruins of Damum, about an liour and a half east by north of Shuweikeh ; so that Azekali, which has not yet been certainly traced, must be sought for to the east or north-east of Damum (see at Josh. x. 10). — Vers, 2, 3. Saul and the Israelites encamped opposite to them in the terebinth valley (Emek ha-Elah), i.e. a plain by the Wady Musur, and stood in battle array opposite to the Philistines, in such order that the latter stood on that side against the moun- tain (on the slope of the mountain), and the Israelites on this side against the mountain ; and the valley (^'IlI, the deeper cut- ting made by the brook in the plain) ivas between them. — Vers. 4 sqq. And the (well-known) champion came out of the camps of the Philistines (D^^an C'^S^ the middle-man, who decides a war between two armies by a single combat ; Luther, " the giant," according to the avrjp Bwaro^ of the LXX., although in ver. 23 the Septuagint translators have rendered the word correctly avTjp 6 afjieacraiot;, which is probably only another form of o fi,e(Taio<;), named Goliath of Gath, one of the chief cities of the Philistines, where there were Anakim still left, according to Josh. xi. 22. His height was six cubits and a span (6^ cubits), i.e., according to the calculation made by Thenius, about nine feet two inches Parisian measure, — a great heiglit no doubt, though not altogether unparalleled, and hardly greater than that of the great uncle of Iren, who came to Berlin in the year 1857 (see Pentateuch, vol. iii. p. 303, note).^ The armour ' According to Pliny {h. n. vii. 16), the giant Pasio and the giantess Secundilla, who lived in the time of Augustus, were ten feet three inches 1 7-i THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUI'X. of Goliath corresponded to his gigantic stature : " a helmet of brass upon his head, and clothed in scale armour, the loeight of which loas five thousand shekels of brass." The meaning scales is sustained by the words nK'pB'i^ in Lev. xi. 9, 10, and Deut. xiv. 9, 10, and nwi^bp in Ezek! xxix. 4. D'-E'i^^i? [inK', therefore, is not dcopa^ akvaiScoTo^ (LXX.), a coat of mail mada of rings worked together hke chains, such as were used in the army of the Seleucidse (1 Mace. vi. 35), but according to Aquila's ^oXt- Smrov (scaled), a coat made of plates of brass lying one upon another like scales, such as we find upon the old Assyrian sculp- tures, where the warriors fighting in chariots, and in attendance upon the king, wear coats of scale armour, descending either to the knees or ankles, and consisting of scales of iron or brass, wliich were probably fastened to a shirt of felt or coarse linen (see Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 335). The account of the weight, 5000 shekels, i.e. according to Thenius, 148 Dresden pounds, is hardly founded upon the actual weigh- ing of the coat of mail, but probably rested upon a general estimate, which may have been somewhat too high, although we must bear in mind that the coat of mail not only covered the chest and back, but, as in the case of the Assyrian warriors, the lower part of the body also, and therefore must have been very large and very heavy .^ — Ver. 6. And " greaves of brass upon his feet, and a brazen lance (hung) between his shoulders^' i.e. upon his back. pT'? signifies a lance, or small spear. The LXX. and Vulgate, however, adopt the rendering aatrh xaXKrj, clypeus ceneus ; and Luther has followed them, and translates (Roman) in height ; and a Jew is mentioned by Josephus (4ni. xviii. 4, 5), who was seven cubits in height, i.e. ten Parisian feet, or if the cubits are Koman, nine and a half. ^ According to Thenius, the cuirass of Augustus the Strong, which has been preserved in the historical museum at Dresden, weighed fifty-five pounds; and from that he infers, that the weight given as that of Goliath's coat of mail is by no means too great. Ewald, on the other hand, seems to have no idea of the natuie of the Hebrew weights, or of the bodily strength of a man, since he gives 5000 lbs. of brass as the weight of Goliath's coat of mail (Gesch. iii. p. 90), and merely observes that the pounds were of course much smaller than ours. But the shekel did not even weigh so much as our full ounce. With such statements as these you may easily turn the historical character of the scriptural narrative into incredible myths ; but they cannot lay any claim to the name of science. CHAP. XVII. 12-31. 175 it a brazen shield. Thenius therefore proposes to alter jlTS into IJO, because the expression " between his shoulders " does not appear applicable to a spear or javelin, which Goliath must have suspended by a strap, but only to a small shield slung over his back, whilst his armour-bearer carried the larger nsy in front of him. But the difficulty founded upon the expression " between Ids shoulders " has been fully met by Bochart (^Hieroz. i. 2, c. 8), in the examples which he cites from Homer, Virgil, etc., to prove that the ancients carried their own swords slung over their shoulders (^afj,(pl 8' Sfj-oicriv : II. ii. 45, etc.). And Josephus understood the expression in this way {Ant. vi. 9, 1). Goliath had no need of any shield to cover his back, as this was suffi- ciently protected by the coat of mail. Moreover, the allusion to the ti'T'3 in ver. 45 points to an offensive weapon, and not to a shield. — Ver. 7. " And the shaft of his spear was like a weaver s beam, and the point of it six hundred shekels of iron' (about seventeen pounds). For fOj according to the Keri and the parallel passages, 2 Sam. xxi. 19, 1 Chron. xx. 5, we should read fV, wood, i.e. a shaft. Before him went the bearer of the zinnah, i.e. the great shield. — Ver. 8. This giant stood and cried to the ranks of the Israelites, " Why come ye out to place yourselves in battle array f Am I not the Philistine, and ye the servants of Saul .? Choose ye out a man who may come down to me" (into the valley where Goliath was standing). The meaning is : " Why would you engage in battle with us ? I am the man who represents the strength of the Philistines, and ye are only servants of Saul. If ye have heroes, choose one out, that we may decide the matter in a single combat." — Ver. 9. " If he can fight with vie, and kill me, ive will be your servants ; if T overcome Mm, and slay him, ye shall be our servants, and serve us." He then said still further (ver. 10), " I have mocked the ranks of Israel this day (the mockery consisted in his desig- nating the Israelites as servants of Saul, and generally in the triumphant tone in which he issued the challenge to single combat); give me a man, that we may fight together!" — Ver. 11. At these words Saul and all Israel were dismayed and greatly afraid, because not one of them dared to accept the challenge to fight with such a giant. Vers. 12-31. David's arrival in the camp, and wish to fight with Goliath. — David had been dismissed by Saul at that time, 176 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. and having returned home, lie was feeding his father's sheep once more (vers. 12-15). Now, when the Israehtes were standing opposite to the Phihstines, and Goliath was repeating his challenge every day, David was sent by his father into the camp to bring provisions to his three eldest brothers, who were serving in Saul's army, and to inquire as to their welfare (vers. 16-19). He arrived when the Israelites had placed themselves in battle array ; and running to his brethren in the ranks, he saw Goliath come out from the ranks of the Philistines, and heard his words, and also learned from the mouth of an Israelite what reward Saul would give to any one who would defeat this Philistine (vers. 20-25). He then inquired more minutely into the matter ; and having thereby betrayed his own intention of ti-ying to fight with him (vers. 26, 27), he was sharply re proved by his eldest brother in consequence (vers. 28, 29). He did not allow this to deter him, however, but turned to another with the same question, and received a similar reply (ver. 30); whereupon his words wei'e told to the king, who ordered David to come before him (ver. .31). This is, in a condensed form, the substance of the section, which introduces the conquest of Goliath by David in the character of an episode. This first heroic deed was of the greatest importance to David and all Israel, for it was David's first step on the way to the throne, to which Jehovah had resolved to raise him. This explains the fulness and circumstantiality of the narrative, in which the intention is very apparent to set forth most distinctly the marvellous overruling of all the circumstances by God himself. And this circumstantiality of the account is closely connected with the form of the narrative, which abounds in repetitions, that appear to us tautological in many instances, but which belong to the characteristic peculiarities of the early Hebrew style of historical composition.^ ' On account of these repetitions and certain apparent differences, the LXX. {Cod. Vat.') have omitted the section from ver. 12 to ver. 31, and also that from ver. 55 to ch. xviii. 5 ; and on the ground of this omission, Houbigant, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Dathe, Bertheau, and many- others, have pronounced both these sections later interpolations ; whereas the more recent critics, such as De Wette, Thenius, Ewald, Bleek, StaheUn, and others, reject the hypothesis that they are interpolations, and infer from the supposed discrepancies that ch. xvii. and xviii. were written by some one who was ignorant of the facts mentioned in ch. xvi., and was CHAP. XVII 12-31. 177 Vers. 12-15 are closely connected with the preceding words, " All Israel was alarmed at the challenge of the Philistine ; hut David the son of that Ephratile {Ephratite, as in Euth i. 1, 2) of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse," etc. The verb and predicate do not follow till ver. 15 ; so that the word.s occur here in the form of an anacolouthon. The traditional introduction of the verb n^n between ^)'^1. and tJ'^X'ta (David was the son of that Ephratite) is both erroneous and misleading. If the words were to be understood in this waj', n^n could no more be omitted here than nn^n in 2 Chron. xxii. 3, 11. The true explanation is rather, that vers. 12—15 form one period expanded by parentheses, and that the historian lost sight of altogether a different person from the author of this chapter. According to ch. xvi. 21 sqq., they say, David was Saul's armour-bearer already, and his family connections were well known to the king, whereas, according to ch. xvii. 15, David was absent just at the time when he ought as armour- bearer to have been in attendance upon Saul ; whilst in ch. xvii. 33 he is represented as a shepherd boy who was unaccustomed to handle weapons, and as being an unauthorized spectator of the war, and, what is still more striking, even his lineage is represented in vers. 55 sqci- as unknown both to Abner and the king. Moreover, in ver. 12 the writer introduces a notice concerning David with which the reader must be abeady well acquainted from ch. xvi. 5 sqq., and which is therefore, to say the least, superfluous ; and in ver. 54 Jerusalem is mentioned in a manner which does not quite harmonize with the history, whilst the account of the manner in which he disposed of Goliath's armour is apparently at variance with ch. xxi. 9. But the notion, that the sections in question are interpolations that have crept into the text, cannot be sustained on the mere authority of the Septuagint version ; since the arbitrary manner in which the translators of this version made omissions or additions at pleasure is obvious to any one. Again, the assertion that these sections cannot well be reconciled with ch. xvi., and emanated from an author who was unacquainted with the history in ch. xvi., is overthrown by the unquestionable reference to oh. xvi. which we iind in ver. 12, " David the son of that Ephratite," — where Jerome has correctly paraphrased n-TH, de quo supra dictum est, — and also by the remark in ver. 15, that David went backwards and forwards from Saul to feed his" father's sheep in Bethlehem. Neither of these can be pronounced interpo- lations of the compiler, unless the fact can be established that the supposed discrepancies are really well founded. But it by no means follows, that because Saul loved David on account of the beneficial effect which his playing upon the harp produced upon his mind, and appointed him his armour-bearer, therefore David had really to carry the king's armour in time of war. The appointment of armour-bearer was nothing more tlian conferring upon him the title of aide-de-camp, from which it cannot bo M 178 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. the construction with which he commenced in the intermediate clauses ; so that he started afresh with the subject 1^1 in '\-er. 15, and proceeded with what he had to say concerning David, doing this at the same time in such a form that what he writes is attaclied, so far as the sense is concerned, to the parenthetical remarks concerning Jesse's eldest sons. To bring out dis- tinctly the remarkable chain of circumstances by which David was led to undertake the conflict with Goliath, he links on to the reference to his father certain further notices respecting David's family and his position at that time. Jesse had eight sons and was an old man in the time of Saul. D'K'JNl Hl^ " come among the weak." D''C'3K generally means, no doubt, inferred that David had already become well known to the king through the performance of warlike deeds. If Joab, the commander-in-chief, had ten armour-bearers (2 Sam. xviii. 15, compare oh. xxiii. 37), king Saul would certainly have other armour-bearers besides David, and such as were well used to war. Moreover, it is not stated anywhere in ch. xvi. that Saul took David at the very outset into his regular and permanent service, but, according to ver. 22, he merely asked his father Jesse that David might ntand before him, i.e. might serve him ; and there is no contradiction in •■/he supposition, that when his melancholy left him for a time, he sent David back to his father to Bethlehem, so that on the breaking out of the war with the PhiUstines he was living at home and keeping sheep, whilst his three eldest brothers had gone to the war. The circumstance, however, that when David went to fight with Goliath, Saul asked Abner his captain, ""Wliose son is this youth?" and Abner could give no explanation to the king, so that after the defeat of Goliath, Saul himself asked David, " Whose son art thou?" (vers. 55-58), can hardly be comprehended, if all that Saul wanted to ascertain was the name of David's father. For even if Abner had not troubled himself about the lineage of Saul's harpist, Saul himself could not well have forgotten that David was a son of the Bethlehemite Jesse. But there was much more implied in Saul's question. It was not the name of David's father alone that he wanted to discover, but what kind cf man the father of a youth who possessed the courage to accomplish so marvellous a heroic deed really was ; and the question was put not merely in order that he might grant him an exemption of his house from taxes as the reward promised for the conquest of Goliath (ver. 25), but also in all probability that he might attach such a man to his court, since he inferred from the courage and bravery of the son the existence of similar qualities in the father. It is true that David merely replied, " The son of thy servant Jesse of Bethlehem ; " but it is very evident from the expression in ch. xviii. 1, " when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul," that Saul conversed with him still further about his family affairs, since the very words imply a lengthened conversation. The other difficulties are very trivial, and will be answered in connection with the exposition of the passages in question. CHAP. XV[I. 12-31. 179 people or men. But this meaning does not give any appro- priate sense here ; and the supposition that the word has crept in through a slip of the pen for CJS'B, is opposed not only by the authority of the early translators, all of whom read Q'B'JX, but also by the circumstance that the expression D''3^? Xi3 does not occur in the whole of the Old Testament, and that 0''D>5 Kia alone is used with this signification. — Ver. 13. " The three great {i.e. eldest) sons of Jesse had gone behind Saul into the luar." I37n, which appears superfluous after the foregoing 13?."1, has been defended by Bottcher, as necessary to express the plu- perfect, which the thought requires, since the imperfect consec. I3p'l_, when attached to a substantive and participial clause, merely expresses the force of the aorist. Properly, therefore, it reads thus : "And then (in Jesse's old age) the three eldest sons followed, had followed, Saul ;" a very ponderous construc- tion indeed, but quite correct, and even necessary, with the great deficiency of forms, to express the pluperfect. The names of these three sons agree with ch. xvi. 6-9, whilst the third, Shammah, is called Shimeah (nyoB') in 2 Sam. xiii. 3, 32, '^tpti* in 2 Sam. xxi. 21, and KVOB' in l' Chron. ii. 13, xx. 7.— Ver.'ly. "But David was going and returning away from Saul:" i.e. he went backwards and forwards from Saul to feed his father's sheep in Bethlehem ; so that he was not in the permanent service of Saul, but at that very time was with his father. The latter is to be supplied from the context. — Ver. 16. The Philistine drew near (to the Israelitish ranks) morning and evening, and stationed himself for forty days (in front of them). This remark continues the description of Goliath's appearance, and introduces the account which follows. Whilst the Phili- stine was coming out every day for forty days long with his challenge to single combat, Jesse sent his son David into the camp. " Take now for thy brethren this ephah of parched grains (see Lev. xxiii. 14), and these ten loaves, and bring them, quickly into the camp to thy brethren" — Ver. 18. " And these ten slices of soft cheese (so the ancient versions render it) bring to the c/def captain over thousand, and visit thy brethren to inquire after their welfare, and bring with you a pledge from them" — a pledge tliat they are alive and well. This seems the simplest explana- tion of the word onaij?, of which very different renderings were l^iven by the early translators. — Ver. 19. ".Sai Saul and they 180 THE FIKST BOOK OF SAMUEL. (the brothers), and the wJwle of the men of Israel, are in th terebinth valley" etc. This statement forms part of Jesse's words. — Vers. 20, 21. In pursuance of this commission, David went in the morning to the waggon-rampart, when the army, which was going out (of the camp) into battle array, raised the war-cry, and Israel and the Philistines placed themselves battle-array against battle-array. 'W1 -'^DO] is a circumstantial clause, and the predicate is introduced with ^V}}]], as '131 7^nni is placed at the head absolutely : " and as for the army which, etc., it raised a shout." nDnPB3 vy], lit. to make a noise in war, i.e. to raise a war-cry. — Ver. 22. David left the vessels with the provisions in the charge of the keeper of the ves- sels, and ran into the ranks to inquire as to the health of his brethren. — Ver. 23. Whilst he was talking with them, the champion (middle-man) Goliath drew near, and spoke according to those words (the words contained in vers. 8 sqq.), and David heard it. va ninyBD is probably an error for 'bs, nb-iytSD (Keri, LXX., Vulg! ; cf. ver. 26). If the Chethihh were the proper reading, it would suggest an Arabic word signi- fying a crowd of men (Dietrich on Ges. Lex.). — Vers. 24, 25. All the Israelites fled from Goliath, and were sore afraid. They said (??<"]V! ^^^ is a collective noun), ^^ Have ye seen this man who is coming ? (Dn''N'nn, with Dagesh dirim. as in ch. x. 24.) Surely to defy Israel is he coming ; and whoever shall slay him, the king icill enrich him with great loealth, and give him his dauglder, and make his father s house (i.e. his family) free in Israel," viz. from taxes and public burdens. There is nothing said afterwards about the fulfilment of these promises. But it by no means follows from this, that the statement is to be regarded as nothing more than an exaggeration, that had grown up among the people, of what Saul had really said. There is all the less probability in this, from the fact that, according to rer. 27, the people assured him again of the same thing. In ail ])robabiiity Saul had actually made some such promises as these, but did not feel himself bound to fulfil them afterwards, because he had not made them expressly to David himself. — Ver. 26. When David heard these words, he made more minute inquiries from the bystanders about the whole matter, and dropped some words which gave rise to the supposition that he wanted to go and fight with this Philistine himself This is implied in the CHAP. XVIT. 32-40. 181 words, '• For who is the Philistine, this uncircumcised one (i.e. standing as he. does outside the covenant with Jehovah), that he insults the ranks of the living God ! " whom he has defied in His army. " He must know," says the Berlehurger Bible, " that he has not to do with men, but with God. With a living God he will have to do, and not with an idol." — Ver. 28. David's eldest brother was greatly enraged at his talking thus with the men, !ind reproved David : " Why hast thou come down (from Beth- lehem, which stood upon high ground, to the scene of the war), and ivith whom hast thou left those few sheep in the desert ? " ' Those few sheep," the loss of only one of which would be a very great loss to our family. " I know thy presumption, and the wickedness of thy heart; for thou hast come down to look at the war ;" i.e. thou art not contented with thy lowly calling, but aspirest to lofty things ; it gives thee pleasure to look upon bloodshed. Eliab sought for the splinter in his brother's eye, and was not aware of the beam in his own. The very things with which he charged his brother — presumption and wicked- ness of heart — were most apparent in his scornful reproof. — Vers. 29, 30. David answered very modestly, and so as to put the scorn of his reprover to shame : " What have T done, then ? It was only a word" — a very allowable inquiry certainly. He then turned from him (Eliab) to another who was standing by ; and having repeated his previous words, he received the same answer from the people. — Ver. 31. David's words were told to Saul, who had him sent for immediately. Vers. 32-40. David! s resolution to fight with Goliath ; and his equipment for the conflict. — Ver. 32. When in the presence of Saul, David said, "Let no man's heart (i.e. courage) fail on his account (on account of the Philistine, about whom they had been speaking) : thy servant will go and fight with this Phili- stine?' — Vers. 33 sqq. To Saul's objection that he, a mere youth, could not fight with this Philistine, a man of war from his youth up, David replied, that as a shepherd he had taken a sheep out of the jaws of a lion and a bear, and had also slain them both. The article before ''i.?* and 3n points out these animals as the well-known beasts of prey. By the expression Dilirnxi the bear is subordinated to the lion, or rather placed afterwards, as something which came in addition to it ; so that J^^? is to be taken as a nota accus. (vid. Ewald, § 277, a), though it is not to 182 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL be understood as implying that tlie lion and tlie bear went together in search of prey. The subordination or addition is merely a logical one : not only the lion, but also the bear, whicn seized the sheep, did David slay. HT, which we find in most of the editions since the time of Jac. Chayiin, 1525, is an error in writing, or more correctly in hearing, for nb'j a sheep. " And I went out after it ; and when it rose up against me, I seized it by its beard, and smote it, and killed it." Ii^f, beard and chin, signifies the bearded chin. Thenius proposes, though without any necessity, to alter i3^f3 into iJiiJ?^ for the simple but weak reason, that neither lions nor bears have any actual beard. We have only to think, for example, of the Xt? ■^vyeveio'; in Homer (II. XV. 275, xvii. 109), or the barbam vellere mortuo leoni of Martial (x. 9). Even in modern times we read of lions having been killed by Arabs with a stick (see Eosenmiiller, Bibl. Althk. iv. 2, pp. 132-3). The constant use of the singular suffix is suffi- cient to show, that when David speaks of the lion and the bear, he connects together two different events, which took place at different times, and then proceeds to state how he smote both the one and the other of the two beasts of prey. — Ver. 36. " Thy servant slew both tlie lion and the bear ; and the Philistine, this uncircumcised one, shall become like one of them (i.e. the same thing shall happen to him as to the lion and the bear), because he has defied the ranks of the living God." " And," he continued (ver. 37), "the Lord who delivered me out of the hand (the power) of the lion and the hear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine." David's courage rested, therefore, upon his confident belief that the living God would not let His people be defied by the heathen with impunity. Saul then desired for him the help of the Lord in carrying out his resolution, and bade him put on his own armour-clothes, and gird on his armour. V'HD (his clothes) signifies probably a peculiar kind of clothes which were worn under the armour, a kind of armour-coat to which the sword was fastened. — Vers. 39, 40. When he was thus equipped with brazen helmet, coat of mail, and sword, David began to walk, but soon found that he could do nothing with these. He therefore said to Saul, "I cannot go in these things, for T have not tried them ; " and having taken them off, he took his shepherd's staff in his hand, sought out five smooth stones from the brook-valley, and put them in the shepherd's thing that he CHAP. XVII. 41-54. 183 had, namely his shepherd's bag. He then took the sling in his hand, and went up to the Philistine. In the exercise of his shepherd's calling he may have become so skilled in the use of the sling, that, like the Benjaminites mentioned in Judg. XX. 16, he could sling at a hair's-breadth, and not miss. Vers. 41-54. David and Goliath: fall of Goliath, and flight of the Philistines. — Ver. 41. The Philistine came closer and closer to David. — Vers. 42 sqq. When he saw David, " he looked at him, and despised him," i.e. he looked at him contemptuously, because he was a youth (as in ch. xvi. 12) ; " and then said to him, Am I a dog, that thou earnest to me with sticks ? " (the plural Jlvipo is used in contemptuous exaggeration of the armour of David, which appeared so thoroughly unfit for the occasion) ; " and cursed David by his God (i.e. making use of the name of Jeho- vah in his cursing, and thus defying not David only, but the God of Israel also), and finished with the challenge, Come to me, and I loill give thy flesh to the birds of heaven and the beasts of the field" (to eat). It was with such threats as these that Homer's heroes used to defy one another (yid. Hector's threat, for example, in II. xiii. 831-2). — Vers. 45 sqq. David answered this defiance with bold, believing courage : " Thou comest to me toith sword, and javelin, and lance ; but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of Sabaoth, the God of the ranks of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day luill Jehovah deliver thee into my hand ; and I shall smite thee, and cut off thine head, and give the corpse of the army of the Philistines to the birds this day. , . . And all the world shall leai'n that Israel hath a God; and this whole assembly shall discover that Jehovah bringeth deliverance (victory) not by sword and spear : for war belongeth to Jehovah, and He vnll give you into our hand." Whilst Goliath boasted of his strength, David founded his own assurance of victory upon the Almiffhty God of Israel, whom the Philistine had defied. "133 is to be taken collectively. ?^"J^y ^'''Pii C; does not mean " God is for Israel," but " Israel hath a God," so that Elohim is of course used here in a pregnant sense. This God is Jehovah; war is his, i.e. He is the Lord of war, who has both war and its results in His power. — Vers. 48, 49. When the Philistine rose up, drawing near towards David (Di^ and '^?.'', simply serve to set forth the occurrence in a more pictorial manner), David Jiastened and ran to the battle array to meet him, took a stone out 184 THE FIRST BOOK OF SALIUEI.. of his pocket, hurled it, and hit the Philistine on his temples, so that the stone entered them, and Goliath fell upon his face to the ground.- — Ver. 50 contains a remark by the historian with reference to the result of the conflict : " Thus was David stronger than the Philistine, with sling and atone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him without a sword hi his hand." And then in ver. 51 the details are given, namely, that David cut off the head of the fallen giant with his own sword. Upon the downfall of their hero the Philistines were terrified and fled ; whereupon the Israelites rose up with a cry to pursue the flying foe, and pursued them "to a valley, and to the gates of Ehron." The first place mentioned is a very striking one. The " valley " cannot mean the one which divided the two armies, according to ver. 3, not only because the article is wanting, but still more from the facts themselves. For it is neither stated, nor really probable, that the Philistines had crossed that valley, so as to make it possible to pursue them into it again. But if the word refers to some other valley, it seems very strange that nothing further should be said about it. Both these circumstances render the reading itself, X^3, suspicious, and give great probability to the conjecture that N''J is only a copyist's error for Gath, which is the rendering given by the LXX., especially when taken in connection with the following clause, " to Gath and to Ekron " (ver. 52). — Ver. 52. " And ivounded of the Philistines fell on the way to Shaaraim, and to Gath and to Ekron." Shaaraim is the town of Saarayim, in the lowland of Judah, and has probably been preserved in the Tell Kefr Zakariya (see at Josh. xv. 36). On Gath and Ekron, see at Josh. xiii. 3. — Ver. 53. After returning from the pursuit of the flying foe, the Israehtes plundered the camp of the Philistines. ■'^nN pp'i, to pursue hotly, as in Gen. xxxi. 36. — Ver. 54. But David took the head of Goliath and brought it to Jerusalem, and put his armour in his tent, ^nx is an antiquated term for a dwelling-place, as in ch. iv. 10, xiii. 2, etc. The reference is to David's house at Bethlehem, to which he returned with the booty after the defeat of Goliath, and that by the road which ran past Jerusalem, where he left the head of Goliath. There is no anachronism in these statements ; for the assertion made by some, that Jeru- salem was not yet in the possession of the Israelites, rests upon a confusion between the citadel of Jebus upon Zion, which CHAP. XVII. 55-XVIII. 30. 185 was still in the hands of the Jebusites, and the city of Jeru- salem, in which Israelites had dwelt for a long time (see at Josh. XV. 63, and Judg. i. 8). Nor is there any contradiction between this statement and eh. xxi. 9, where Goliath's sword is said to have been preserved in the tabernacle at Nob : for it is not affirmed that David kept Goliath's armour in his own home, but only that he took it thither ; and the supposition that Goliath's sword was afterwards deposited by him in the sanctuary in honour of the Lord, is easily reconcilable with this. Again, the statement in ch. xviii. 2, to the effect that, after David's victory over Goliath, Saul did not allow him to return to his father's house any more, is by no means at variance with this explana- tion of the verse before us. For the statement in question must be understood in accordance with ch. xvii. 15, viz. as signifying that from that time forward Saul did not allow David to return to his father's house to keep the sheep as he had done before, and by no means precludes his paying brief visits to Bethlehem. Jonathan's friendship, saul's jealousy and plots against david. — chap. xtii. 55-xviii. 30. David's victory over Goliath was a turning-point in his life, which opened the way to the throne. But wliilst this heroic deed brought him out of his rural shepherd life to the scene of Israel's conflict with its foes, and in these conflicts Jehovah crowned all h's undertakings with such evident success, that the Israelites could not fail to discern more and more clearly in him the man whom God had chosen as their future king ; it brought him, on the other hand, into such a relation to the royal house, which had been rejected by God, though it still continued to reign, as produced lasting and beneficial results in connection with his future calling. In the king himself, from whom the Spirit of God had departed, there was soon stirred up such jealousy of David as his rival to whom the kingdom would one day come, that he attempted at first to get rid of him by stratagem ; and when this failed, and David's renown steadily increased, he proceeded to open hostility and persecu- tion. On the other hand, the heart of Jonathan clung more and more firmly to David with self-denying love and sacrifice. This friendship on the part of the brave and noble son of the 186 THE FIKST BOOK OF SAMUEL. kino;, not only helped David to bear the more easily all tha enmity and persecution of the king when plagued by his evil spirit, but awakened and strengthened in his soul that pure feeling of unswerving fidelity towards the king himself, which amounted even to love of his enemy, and, according to the marvellous counsel of the Lord, contributed greatly to the training of David for his calling to be a king after God's own heart. In the account of the results which followed David's victory over Goliath, not only for himself but also for all Israel, the friendship of Jonathan is mentioned first (ver. 55-ch. xviii. 5) ; and this is followed by an account of the growing jealousy of Saul in its earliest stages (vers. 6-30). Ch. xvii. 55-xviii. 5. Jonathan s friend.'ilip. — Vers. 55-58. The account of the relation into which David was brought to Saul through the defeat of Goliath is introduced by a supple- mentary remark, in vers. 55, 56, as to a conversation which took place between Saul and his commander-in-chief Abner concerning David, whilst he was fighting with the giant. So far, therefore, as the actual meaning is concerned, the verbs in vers. 55 and 56 should be rendered as pluperfects. When Saul saw the youth walk boldly up to meet the Philistine, he asked Abner whose son he was ; whereupon Abner assured him with an oath that he did not know. In our remarks concerning the integrity of this section (p. 177) we have already observed, with regard to the meaning of the question put by Saul, that it does not presuppose an aetual want of acquaintance with the person of David and the name of his father, but only igno- rance of the social condition of David's family, with which both Abner and Saul may hitherto have failed to make them- selves more fully acquainted.^ — Vers. 57, 58. When David returned ^'from the slaughter of the Philistine," i.e. after the defeat of Goliath, and when Abner, who probably went as com- mander to meet the brave hero and congratulate him upon his victory, had brought him to Saul, the king addressed the same question to David, who immediately gave him the information he desired. For it is evident that David said more than is ^ The common solutions of this apparent discrepancy, such as that Saul pretended not to know David, or that his question is to be explained on the supposition that his disease affected his memory, have but little pro- DabiUty in them, although Karkar still adheres to them . CHAP. XVIII. 1-16. 287 liere communicated, viz. "the son of tliy servant Jesse the Belli- lehemite" as we have already observed, from the words of ch. xviii. 1, which presuppose a protracted conversation between Saul and David. The only reason, in all probability, why this conversation has not been recorded, is that it was not followed by any lasting results either for Jesse or David. Ch. xviii. 1-5. The bond of friendship which Jonathan formed with David was so evidently the main point, that in ver. 1 the writer commences with the love of Jonathan to David, and then after that proceeds in ver. 2 to observe that Saul took David to himself from that day forward ; whereas it is very evident that Saul told David, either at the time of his conversation with him or immediately afterwards, that he was henceforth to remain with him, i.e. in his service. " Tlte soul of Jonathan hound itself (lit. chained itself; cf. Gen. xliv. 30) to David's soul, and Jonathan loved him as his soul" The Cheihibh i^nx'l with the suffix i attached to the imperfect is very rare, and hence the Keri '^^'?\}^}}. (yid. Ewald, § 249, b, and Olshausen, Gramm. p. 469). ^^t^J, to return to his house, viz. to engage in his former occupation as shepherd. — Ver. 3. Jonathan made a covenant (i.e. a covenant of friendship) and (i.e. with) David, because he loved him as his soul. — Ver. 4. As a sign and pledge of his friendship, Jonathan gave David his clothes and his armour. Meil, the upper coat or cloak. Maddim is probably the armour coat (vid. ch. xvii. 39). This is implied in the word "IJ/I, which is repeated three times, and by which the different arms were attached more closely to V'np. For the act itself, compare the exchange of armour made by Glaucus and Diomedes (Horn. //. vi. 230). This seems to have been a common custom in very ancient times, as we meet with it also among the early Celts (see Macpherson's Ossian). — Ver. 5. And David went out, sc. to battle ; ivhithersoever Saul sent him, he acted wisely and prosperously/ {^''^pl, as in Josh. i. 8 : see at Deut. xxix. 8). Saul placed him above the men of war in consequence, made him one of their commanders ; and he pleased all the people, and the servants of Saul also, i.e. the courtiers of the king, who are envious as a general rule. Vers. 6-16. SauVs jealousy towards David.^ — Saul had no ' The section vers. 6-14 is supposed by Tlienius and others to have been taken by the compiler from a diiierent source from the previous one, and 188 THE FIKST BOOK OF SAMUEL. sooner attached the conqueror of Goliath to his court, than ho becran to be jealous of him. The occasion for his jealousy was the celebration of victory at the close of the war with the Philistines. — Vers. 6, 7. " When they came" i.e. when the warriors returned with Saul from the war, " when (as is added to explain what follows) David returned from the slaughter" i.e. from the war in which he had slain Goliath, the women came out of all the towns of Israel, " to singing and dancing" i.e. to celebrate the victory with singing and choral dancing (see the remarks on Ex. XV. 20), " to meet king Saul with tambourines, with joy, and with triangles'' ^nab is used here to signify expressions of joy, a fete, as in Judg. xvi. 23, etc. The striking position in which the word stands, viz. between two musical instruments, shows that the word is to be understood here as referring specially to songs of rejoicing, since according to ver. 7 their playing was accompanied with singing. The women who " sported" (nipnc'p), i.e. performed mimic dances, sang in alter- nate choruses (" answered" as in Ex. xv. 21), " Saul hath slain not to have been •written by the same author : (1) because the same thing is mentioned in vers. 13, 14, as in ver. 5, though in a somewhat altered form, and vers. 10, 11 occur again in ch. xix. 9, 10, with a few different words, and in a more appropriate connection ; (2) because the contents of ver. 9, and the word DinaD in ver. 10, are most directly opposed to vers. 2 and 5. On these grounds, no doubt, the LXX. have not only omitted the beginning of ver. 6 from their version, but also vers. 9-11. But the supposed discrepancy between vers. 9 and 10 and vers. 2 and 5, — viz. that Saul could not have kept David by his side from attachment to him, or have placed him over his men of war after several prosperous expeditions, as is stated in vers. 2 and 5, if he had looked upon him with jealous eyes from the very first day, or if his jealousy had broken out on the second day in the way described in vers. 10, 11, — is founded upon two erroneous assumptions ; viz. (1) that the facts contained in vers. 1-5 were contempo- raneous with those in vers. 6-14 ; and (2) that everything contained in these two sections is to be regarded as strictly chronological. But the fact recorded in ver. 2, namely, that Saul took David to himself, and did not allow him to go back to his father's house any more, occiu-red unquestion- ably some time earlier than those mentioned in vers. 6 sqq. with their consequences. Saul took David to himself immediately after the defeat of Goliath, and before the war had been brought to an end. But the celebra- tion of the victory, in which the paean of the women excited jealousy in Saul's mind, did not take place till the return of the people and of the king at the close of the war. How long the war lasted we do not know ; but from the fact that the Israelites pursued the flying Phihstines to Gath CHAP, XVIII. 6-16. 189 Ms thousands, and David Ms ten thousands." — Ver. 8. Saul was enraged at this. The words displeased him, so that he said, " They have given David ten thousands, and to me thousands, and there is only the kingdom more for him" (i.e. left for him to obtain). " In this foreboding iitterance of Saul there was involved not only a conjecture which the result confirmed, but a deep inward truth : if the king of Israel stood powerless before the subjugators of his kingdom at so decisive a period as this, and a shepherd boy came and decided the victory, this was an additional mark of his rejection" (O. v. Gerlach). — Ver. 9. From that day forward Saul was holing askance at David. IIJI, a denom. verb, from ]''V, an eye, looking askance, is used for V^V (Keri). — Vers. 10, 11. The next day the evil spirit fell upon Saul (" the evil spirit of God;" see at ch. xvi. 14), so that he raved in his house, and threw his javelin at David, who played before him " as day by day," but did not hit him, because David turned away before him twice. S, does not always signify complete nudity, but is also applied to a person with his upper garment off (cf. Isa. xx. 2 ; Micah i. 8 ; John xxi. 7). From the repeated expression " he also," in vers. 23, 24, it is not only evident that Saul came into an ecstatic condition of prophesying as well as his servants, but that the prophets themselves, and not merely the servants, took off their clothes like Saul when they prophesied. It is only in the case of D'ly 7S?1 that the expression " he also" is not repeated ; from which we must infer, that Saul alone lay there the whole day and night with his clothes off, and in an ecstatic state of external unconsciousness ; whereas the ecstasy of his servants and the prophets lasted only a short time, and the clear self- consciousness returned earlier than with Saul. This difference ]s not without significance in relation to the true explanation of the whole affair. Saul had experienced a similar influence of the Spirit of God before, namely, immediately after his anoint- ing by Samuel, when he met a company of prophets who were prophesying at Gibeah, and he had been thereby changed into 198 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. another man (ch. x. 6 sqq.). This miraculous seizure by the Spirit of God was repeated again here, when he came near to the seat of the prophets ; and it also affected the servants whom he had sent to apprehend David, so that Saul was obliged to relinquish the attempt to seize him. This result, however, we cannot regard as the principal object of the whole occurrence, as Vatablus does when he says, " The spirit of prophecy came into Saul, that David might tlie more easily escape from his power." Calvin's remarks go much deeper into the meaning : " God," he says, " changed their (the messengers') thoughts and purpose, not only so that they failed to apprehend David accord- ing to the royal command, but so that they actually became the companions of the prophets. And God effected this, that tlie fact itself might show how He holds the hearts of men in His hand and power, and turns and moves them according to flis will." Even this, however, does not bring out the full meaning of the miracle, and more especially fails to explain why the same thing should have happened to Saul in an intensified degree. Upoa this point Calvin simply observes, that " Saul ought indeed to have been strongly moved by these things, and to have discerned the impossibility of his accomplishing any- thing by fighting against the Lord ; but he was so hardened that he did not perceive the hand of God : for he hastened to aSTaioth himself, when he found that his servants mocked him ;" and in this proceeding on Saul's part he discovers a sign of his increasing hardness of heart. Saul and his messengers, the zealous performers of his will, ought no doubt to have learned, from what happened to them in the presence of the prophets, that God had the hearts of men in His power, and guided them at His will ; but they were also to be seized by the might of the Spirit of God, which worked in the prophets, and thus brought to the consciousness, that Saul's raging against David was fighting against Jehovah and His Spirit, and so to be led to give up the evil thoughts of their heart. Saul was seized by this mighty influence of the Spirit of God in a more powerful manner than his servants were, both because he had most obsti- nately resisted the leadings of divine grace, and also in order that, if it were possible, his hard heart might be broken and subdued by the power of grace. If, however, he should never- theless continue obstinately in his rebellion against God, he CHAP. XIX. 18-24. 199 would then fall under the judgment of hardening, which would be speedily followed by his destruction. This new occurrence in Saul's life occasioned a renewal of the proverb : " Is Saul also among the prophets ?" The words " wherefore they saj/" do not imply that the proverb was iirst used at this time, but only that it received a new exemplification and basis in the new event in Saul's experience. The origin of it has been already mentioned in ch. X. 12, and the meaning of it was there explained. This account is also worthy of note, as having an important bearing upon the so-called Schools of the Prophets in the time of Samuel, to which, however, we have only casual allusions. From the passage before us we learn that there was a company of prophets at Kamah, under the superintendence of Samuel, whose members lived in a common building (n^u), and that Samuel had his own house at Eamah (ch. vii. 17), though he sometimes lived in the Naioth (cf. vers. 18 sqq.). The origin and history of these schools are involved in obscurity. If we bear in mind, that, according to ch. iii. 1, before the call of Samuel as prophet, the prophetic word was very rare in Israel, and prophecy was not widely spread, there can be no doubt that these unions of prophets arose in the time of Samuel, and were called into existence by him. The only uncertainty is whether there were other such unions in different parts of the land beside the one at Ramah. In ch. x. 5, 10, we find a band of prophesying prophets at Gibeah, coming down from the sacrificial height there, and going to meet Saul ; but it is not stated there that this company had its seat at Gibeah, although it may be inferred as probable, from the name " Gibeah of God" (see the commentary on ch. x. 5, 6). No further mention is made of these in the time of Samuel ; nor do we meet with them again till the times of Elijah and Elisha, when we find them, under the name of sons of the prophets (1 Kings xx. 35), livinn- in considerable numbers at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho {vid. 2 Kings iv. 38, ii. 3, 5, 7, 15, iv. 1, vi. 1, ix. 1). Accord- ing to ch. iv. 38, 42, 43, about a hundred sons of the prophets sat before Elisha at Gilgal, and took their meals together. The number at Jericho may have been quite as great ; for fifty men of the sons of the prophets went with Elijah and Elisha to the Jordan (comp. ch. ii. 7 with vers. 16, 17). These passages render it very probable tiiat the sons cf the prophets also lived JiOO THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. in a common liouse. And this conjecture is raised into a cer» tainty by ch. vi. 1 sqq. In this passage, for example, they are represented as saying to EHsha : " The place where we sit before thee is too strait for us ; let us go to the Jordan, and let eacli one fetch thence a beam, and build ourselves a place to dwell in there." It is true that we might, if necessary, supply 'T'iSp from ver. 1, after DK' niB'?, " to sit before thee," and so understand the words as merely referring to the erection of a more com- modious place of meeting. But if they built it by the Jordan, we can hardly imagine that it was merely to serve as a place of meeting, to which they would have to make pilgrimages from a distance, but can only assume that they intended to live there, and assemble together under the superintendence of a prophet. In all probability, however, only such as were unmarried lived in a common building. Many of them were married, and there- fore most likely lived in houses of their own (2 Kings iv. 1 sqq.). We may also certainly assume the same with reference to the unions of prophets in the time of Samuel, even if it is impos- sible to prove that these unions continued uninterruptedly from the time of Samuel down to the times of Ehjah and Elisha. Oehler argues in support of this, " that the historical connec- tion, which can be traced in the influence of prophecy from the time of Samuel forwards, may be most easily explained from the uninterrupted continuance of these supports ; and also that the large number of prophets, who must have been already there according to 1 Kings xviii. 13 when Elijah first appeared, points to the existence of suclj unions as these." But the his- torical connection in the influence of prophecy, or, in other words, the uninterrupted succession of prophets, was also to be found in the kingdom of Judah both before and after the times of Elijah and Elisha, and down to the Babylonian captivity, without our discovering the slightest trace of any schools of the prophets in that kingdom. All that can be inferred from \ Kings xviii. is, that the large number of prophets mentioned there (vers. 4 and 13) were living in the time of Elijah, but not that they were there when he first appeared. The first mission of Elijah to king Ahab (ch. xvii.) took place about three years before the events described in 1 Kings xviii., and even this first appearance of the prophet in the presence of the king is not to be regarded as the commencement of his prophetic labours. CHAP. XIX. 18-24. 201 How long Elijah had laboured before he announced to Ahab the judgment of three years' drought, cannot indeed be decided ; but if we consider that he received instructions to call Elisha to be his assistant and successor not very long after this period of judgment had expired (1 Kings xix. 16 sqq.), we may cer- tainly assume that he had laboured in Israel for many years, and may therefore have founded unions of the prophets. In addition, however, to the absence of any allusion to the con- tinuance of these schools of the prophets, there is another thing which seems to preclude the idea that they were perpetuated from the time of Samuel to that of Elijah, viz. the fact that the schools which existed under Elijah and Elisha were only to be found in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and never in that of Judah, where we should certainly expect to find them if they had been handed down from Samuel's time. Moreover, Oehler also acknowledges that "the design of the schools of the prophets, and apparently their constitution, were not the same under Samuel as in the time of Elijah." This is confirmed by the fact, that the members of the prophets' unions which arose under Samuel dre never called " sons of the prophets," as those who were under the superintendence of Elijah and Elisha invariably are (see the passages quoted above). Does not this peculiar epithet seem to indicate, that the " sons of the prophets" stood in a much more intimate relation to Elijah and Elisha, as their spiritual fathers, than the O-'^'^m bn or n''ii<''33ri np_rh did to Samuel as their president ? (1 Sam. xix. 20.) D'''<''?3ri ''J3 does not mean filii prophetce, i.e. sons who are prophets, as some maintain, though without being able to show that V.3 is ever used in this sense, but Jilii prophetarum, disciples or scholars of the prophets, from which it is very evident that these sons of the prophets stood in a relation of dependence to the prophets (Elijah and Elisha), i.e. of subordination to them, and followed their instructions and admonitions. They received commissions from them, and carried them out (vid. 2 Kings ix. 1). On the other hand, the expressions ?3n and njjn? simply point to com- binations for common working under the presidency of Samuel, although the words Qi]''?!'. 3S3 certainly show that the direction of these unions, and probably the first impulse to form them, proceeded from Samuel, so that we might also call these societies schools of the prophets. 202. THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL, The opinions entertained with regard to the nature of these unions, and their importance in relation to the development of the kingdom of God in Israel, differ very widely from one another. Whilst some of the fathers (Jerome for example) looked upon them as an Old Testament order of monks ; others, such as Tennemann, Meiners, and Winer, compare them to the Pythagorean societies. Kranichfeld supposes that they were free associations, and chose a distinguished prophet like Samuel as their president, in order that they might be able to cement their union the more firmly through his influence, and carry out their vocation with the greater success.'' The truth lies between these two extremes. The latter view, which precludes almost every relation of dependence and community, is not reconcilable with the name " sons of the prophets," or with ch. xix. 20, where Samuel is said to have stood at the head of the prophesying prophets as Qf^vV 3SJ, and has no support whatever in the Scriptures, but is simply founded upon the views of modern times and our ideas of liberty and equality. The prophets' unions had indeed so far a certain resemblance to the monastic orders of the early church, that the members lived together in the same buildings, and performed certain sacred duties in common ; but if we look into the aim and purpose of monas- ticism, they were the very opposite of those of the prophetic life. The prophets did not wish to withdraw from the tumult of the world into solitude, for the purpose of carrying on a contemplative life of holiness in this retirement from the earthly life and its affairs ; but their unions were associations formed for the purpose of mental and spiritual training, that they might exert a more powerful influence upon their contem- poraries. They were called into existence by chosen instru- ments of the Lord, such as Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, whom the Lord had called to be His prophets, and endowed, with a peculiar measure of His Spirit for this particular calling, that they might check the decline of religious life in the nation, and bring back the rebellious " to the law and the testimony." ^ Compare Jerome (JEpist. iv. ad Rustic. Monach. c. 7) : "The sons of the prophets, whom we call the monks of the Old Testament, built them- selves cells near the streams of the Jordan, and, forsaking the crowded cities, lived on meal and wild herbs." Compare with this his Epist. xiii. ad, PauUn, c. 5. CHAP. XIX. 18-24. 203 Societies which follow this as their purpose in life, so long as they do not lose sight of it, will only separate and cut them- selves off from the external world, so far as the world itself opposes them, and pursues them with hostility and persecution. The name " schools of the prophets" is the one which expresses most fully the character of these associations ; only we must not think of them as merely educational institutions, in which the pupils of the prophets received instruction in prophesying or in theological studies.''' We are not in possession indeed of any minute information concerning their constitution. Pro- phesying could neither be taught nor communicated by instruc- tion, but was a gift of God which He communicated according to His free will to whomsoever He would. But the communi- cation of this divine gift was by no means an arbitrary things but presupposed such a mental and spiritual disposition on the part of the recipient as fitted him to receive it ; whilst the exercise of the gift required a thorough acquaintance with the law and the earlier revelations of God, which the schools of the prophets were well adapted to promote. It is therefore justly and generally assumed, that the study of the law and of the history of the divine guidance of Israel formed a leading feature in the occupations of the pupils of the prophets, which also included the cultivation of sacred poetry and music, and united exercises for the promotion of the prophetic inspiration. That the study of the earlier revelations of God was carried on, may be very safely inferred from the fact that from the time of Samuel downwards the writing of sacred history formed an essential part of the prophet's labours, as has been already observed at vol. iv. pp. 9, 10 (translation). The cultivation of sacred music and poetry may be inferred partly from the fact that, according to ch. x. 5, musicians walked in front of the 1 Thus the Rabbins regarded them as {yilD '03 ; and the earUer theo- logians as colleges, in 'which, as Vitringa expresses it, "philosophers, or if you please theologians, and candidates or students of theology, assembled for the purpose of devoting themselves assiduously to the study of divinity under the guidance of some one 'who was well skilled as a teacher ;" whilst others regarded them as schools for the training of teachers for the people, and leaders in the worship of God. The English Deists — Morgan for ex- ample — regarded them as seats of scientific learning, in which the study of history, rhetoric, poetry, natural science, and moral philosophy was carried on. 204 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. prophesying prophets, playing as they went along, and partly also from the fact that sacred music not only received a fresh impulse from David, who stood in a close relation to the asso- ciation of prophets at Ramah, but was also raised by him into an integral part of public worship. At the same time, music was by no means cultivated merely that the sons of the prophets might employ it in connection with their discourses, but also as means of awakening holy susceptibilities and emotions in the soul, and of lifting up the spirit to God, and so preparing it for the reception of divine revelations (see at 2 Kings iii. 15). And lastly, we must include among the spiritual exercises pro- phesying in companies, as at Gibeah (ch. x. 5) and Ramah (cli. xix. 20). The outward occasion for the formation of these commu- nities we have to seek for partly in the creative spirit of the prophets Samuel and Elijah, and partly in the circumstances of the times in which they lived. The time of Samuel forms a turning-point in the development of the Old Testament kingdom of God. Shortly after the call of Samuel the judgment fell upon the sanctuary, which had been profaned by the shameful conduct of the priests : the tabernacle lost the ark of the cove- nant, and ceased in consequence to be the scene of the gracious presence of God in Israel. Thus the task fell upon Samuel, as prophet of the Lord, to found a new house for that religious life which he had kindled, by collecting together into closer com- munities, those who had been awakened by his word, not only for the promotion of their own faith under his direction, but also for joining with him in the spread of the fear of God and obedience to the law of the Lord among their contemporaries. But just as, in the time of Samuel, it was the fall of the legal sanctuary and priesthood which created the necessity for the founding of schools of the prophets ; so in the times of Elijah and Elisha, and in the kingdom of the ten tribes, it was the utter absence of any sanctuary of Jehovah which led these prophets to found societies of prophets, and so furnish the worshippers of Jehovah, who would not bend their knees to Baal, with places and means of edification, as a substitute for what the righteous in the kingdom of Judah possessed in the temple and the Levitical priesthood. But the reasons for the establishment of prophets' schools were not to be found merely in the circumstances of CHAP. XIX. 18-24. 205 the times. There was a higher reason still, which must not be overlooked in our examination of these unions, and their importance in relation to the theocracy. We may learn from the fact that the disciples of the prophets who were associated together under Samuel are found prophesying (ch. x. 10, xix. 20), that they were also seized by the Spirit of God, and that the Divine Spirit which moved them exerted a powerful influ- ence upon all who came into contact with them. Consequently the founding of associations of prophets is to be regarded as an operation of divine grace, which is generally manifested with all the greater might where sin most mightily abounds. As the Lord raised up prophets for His people at the times when apostasy had become great and strong, that they might resist idolatry with almighty power ; so did He also create for himself organs of His Spirit in the schools of the prophets, who united with their spiritual fathers in fighting for His honour. It was by no means an accidental circumstance, therefore, that these unions are only met with in the times of Samuel and of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. These times resembled one another in the fact, that in both of them idolatry had gained the upper hand ; though, at the same time, there were some respects in which they differed essentially from one another. In the time of Samuel the people did not manifest the same hostility to the prophets as in the time of Elijah. Samuel stood at the head of the nation as judge even during the reign of Saul; and after the rejection of the latter, he still stood so high in authority and esteem, that Saul never ventured to attack the prophets even in his madness. Elijah and Elisha, on the other hand, stood opposed to a royal house which was bent upon making the worship of Baal the leading religion of the kingdom ; and they had to contend against priests of calves and prophets of Baal, who could only be compelled by hard strokes to acknow- ledge the Lord of Sabaoth and His prophets. In the case of the former, what had to be done was to bring the nation to a recognition of its apostasy, to foster the new life which was just awakening, and to remove whatever hindrances might be placed in its way by the monarchy. In the time of the latter, on the contrary, what was needed was " a compact phalanx to stand against the corruption which had penetrated so deeply into the nation." These differences in the times would certainly not bo 206 THE FIRST BOOK Or SAMUEL. without their influence upon the constitution and operations of tlie schools of the prophets. Jonathan's last attempt to reconcile his father to DAVID. — chap. XX.-XXI. 1. Vers. 1-11. After the occurrence which had taken place at Naioth, David fled thence and met with Jonathan, to whom he poured out his heart.^ Though he had been delivered for the moment from the death which threatened him, through the mar- vellous influence of the divine inspiration of the prophets upon Saul and his messengers, he could not find in this any lasting protection from the plots of his mortal enemy. He therefore sought for his friend Jonathan, and complained to him, "What have I done? what is my crime, my sin before thy father, that he seeks my life? " — Ver. 2. Jonathan endeavoured to pacify him : "Far be it! thou slialt not die : behold, my father does no- thing great or small (i.e. not the smallest thing ; cf. ch. xxv. 36 and Num. xxii. 18) that he does not reveal to me; why should my father hide this thing from me ? It is not so." The V after nsn stands for N? : the Chethibh nL'^J? is probably to be preferred to the Keri i^^VI, and to be understood in this sense : " My father has (hitherto) done nothing at all, which he has not told to me." This answer of Jonathan does not presuppose that he knew nothing of the occurrences described in ch. xix. 9-24, although it is possible enough that he might not have been with his father just at that time ; but it is easily explained from the fact that Saul had made the fresh attack upon David's life in a state of madness, in which he was no longer master of himself ; so that it could not be inferred with certainty from this that he would ' According to Bwald and Thenius, this chapter was not -written by the author of the previous one, but was borrowed from an earlier source, and ver. 1 was inserted by the compiler to connect the two together. But the principal reason for this conjecture — namely, that David could never have thought of sitting at the royal table again after what had taken place, and that Saul would still less have expected him to come — is overthrown by the simple suggestion, that all that Saul had hitherto attempted against David, according to ch. xix. 8 sqq., had been done in fits of insanity (cf. ch. xix. 9 sqq.), which had passed away again ; so that it formed no criterion by which to judge of Saul's actual feelings towards David when he was in a Btate of mental sanity. CHAP. XX 1-11. 207 still plot against David's life in a state of clear consciousness. Hitherto Saul had no doubt talked over all his plans and under- takings with Jonathan, but he had not uttered a single word to him about his deadly hatred, or his intention of killing David ; so that Jonathan might really have regarded his previous attacks upon David's life as nothing more than symptoms of temporary aberration of mind. — Ver. 3. But David had looked deeper into Saul's heart. He replied with an oath (" he sware again," i.e. a second time), " Thi; father hioweih that I have found favour in thine eyes (i.e. that thou art attached to me) ; and ihinketh Jonathan shall not know this, lest he be grieved. But truly, as surely as Jehovah liveth, and thy sold liveth, there is hardly a step (lit. about a step) between me and death." ''3 in- troduces the substance of the oath, as in ch. xiv. 44, etc. — Yer. 4. When Jonathan answered, "What thy soul saith, will I do to thee," i.e. fulfil every wish, David made this request, " Behold, to-morrow is new moon, and Taught to sit and eat with the king: let me go, that I may conceal myself in the field (i.e. in the open air) till the third evening." This request implies that Saul gave a feast at the new moon, and therefore that the new moon was not merely a religious festival, according to the law in Num. X. 10, xxviii. 11-15, but that it was kept as a civil festival also, and in the latter character for two days ; as we may infer both from the fact that David reckoned to the third evening, i.e. the evening of the third day fi'om the day then present, and therefore proposed to hide himself on the new moon's day and the day following, and also still more clearly from vers. 12, 27, and 34, where Saul is said to have expected David at table on the day after the new moon. We cannot, indeed, conclude from this that there was a religious festival of two days' dura- tion ; nor does it follow, that because Saul supposed that David might have absented himself on the first day on account of Levitical uncleanness (ver. 26), therefore the royal feast was a sacrificial meal. It was evidently contrary to social propriety to take part in a public feast in a state of Levitical uncleanness, even though it is not expressly forbidden in the law. — Ver. 6. " If thy father should miss me, then say, David hath asked per- mission of me to hasten to Bethlehem, his native town; for there is a yearly sacrifice for the whole family there." This ground of excuse shows that families and households v/ere accustomed to 208 THE KIEST BOOK OF SAMUEL. keep united sacrificial feasts once a year. According to the law in Deut. xii. 5 sqq., they ought to have been kept at the taber- nacle ; but at this time, when the central sanctuary had fallen into disuse, they were held in different places, wherever there were altars of Jehovah — as, for example, at Bethlehem (cf. ch. xvi. 2 sqq.). We see from these words that David did not look upon prevarication as a sin. — Ver. 7. " If thy father says, It is loell, there is peace to thy servant (i.e. he cherishes no murderous thoughts against me) ; hut if he be very loroth, know that evil is determined by him." nps^ to be completed ; hence to be firmly and unalterably determined (cf. ch. xxv. 17; Esther vii. 7). Seb. Schmidt infers from the closing words that the fact was certain enough to David, but not to Jonathan. Tlienius, on the other hand, observes much more correctly, that " it is perfectly obvious from this that David was not quite clear as to Saul's intentions,'' though he upsets his own previous assertion, that after what David had gone through, he could never think of sitting again at the king's table as he had done before. — Ver. 8. David made sure that Jonathan would grant this request on account of his friendship, as he had brought him into a covenant of Jehovah with himself. David calls the covenant of friendship with Jonathan (ch. xviii. 3) a covenant of Jehovah, because he had made it with a solemn invocation of Jehovah. But in order to make quite sure of the fulfilment of his request on the part of Jonathan, David added, " But if there is a fault in me, do thou hill me (i^JpX used to strengthen the suffix) ; for why wilt thou bring me to thy father ? " sc. that he may put me to death. — Ver. 9. Jonathan replied, " This be far from thee!" sc. that I should kill thee, or deliver thee up to my father. '^^-^ points back to what precedes, as in ver. 2. " But Q3 after a previous negative assertion) if I certainly discover that evil is determined by my father to come upon thee, and I do not tell it thee," sc. " may God do so to me," etc. The words are to be understood as an asseveration on oath, in which the formula of an oath is to be supplied in thought. This view is apparently a more correct one, on account of the cop. 1 before N% than to take the last clause as a question, " Shall I not tell it thee ? " — Ver. 10. To this friendly assurance David replied, " Who will tell iriie V sc. how thy father expresses himself concerning me ; " or what will thy father answer thee roughly?" sc. if thou shouldst CHAP. XX. 12-23. 209 attempt to do it thyself. This is the correct explanation given by De Wette and Maurer. Gesenius and Thenius, on the con- trary, take iK in the sense of " if perchance." But this is evi- dently incorrect ; for even though there are certain passages in which ix may be so rendered, it is only where some other case is supposed, and therefore the meaning or still lies at the foun- dation. These questions of David were suggested by a correct estimate of the circumstances, namely, that Saul's suspicions would leave him to the conclusion that there was some undei- standing between Jonathan and David, and that he would take steps in consequence to prevent Jonathan from making David acquainted with the result of his conversation with Saul. — Ver. 11. Before replying to these questions, Jonathan asked David to go with him to the field, that they might there fix upon the sign by which he would let him know, in a way in which no one could suspect, what was the state of his father's mind. Vers. 12-23. In the field, where they were both entirely free from observation, Jonathan first of all renewed his cove- nant with David, by vowing to him on oath that he would give him information of his father's feelings towards him (vers. 12. 13) ; and then entreated him, with a certain presentiment that David would one day be king, even then to maintain his love towards him and his family for ever (vers. 14-16) ; and lastly, he made David swear again concerning his love (ver. 17), and then gave him the sign by which he would communicate the promised information (vers. 18-23). — Vers. 12 and 13a are connected. Jonathan commences with a solemn invocation of God: "Jehovah, God of Israel!" and thus introduces his oath. We have neither to supply "Jehovah is witness," nor "as truly as Jehovah liveth," as some have suggested. " When I inquire of my father about this time to-morroiv, the day after to-morroxo (a concise mode of saying 'to-morrow or the day after'), and behold it is (stands) well for David, and then I do not send to thee and make it known to thee, Jehovah shall do so to Jonathan," etc. (" The Lord do so," etc., the ordinary formula used in an oath : see ch. xiv. 44). The other case is then added without an adversative particle : " If it should please my father evil against thee {lit. as regards evil), / will make it known to thee, and let thee go, that thou mayest go in peace ; and Jehovah be with thee, as He has been with my father T In this wish there is o 210 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. expressed tlie presentiment that David would one day occuj. v that place in Israel which Saul occupied then, i.e. the throne. — In vers. 14 and 15 the Masoretic text gives no appropriate meaning. Luther's rendering, in which he follows the Rabbins and takes the first K?! (ver. 14) by itself, and then completes the sentence from the context (" but if I do it not, show me no mercy, because I live, not even if I die"), contains indeed a certain permissible sense when considered in itself; but it is hardly reconcilable with- what follows, " and do not tear away thy compassion for ever from my housed The request that he would show no compassion to him (Jonathan) even if he died, and yet would not withdraw his compassion from his house for ever, contains an antithesis which would have been expressed most clearly and unambiguously in the words themselves, if this nad been really what Jonathan intended to say. De Wette's rendering gives a still more striking contradiction : " But let not (Jehovah be with thee) if I still live, and thou showest not the love of Jehovah to me, that I die not, and thou withdrawest not thy love from my house for ever" There is really no other course open than to follow the Syriac and Arabic, as Maurer, Thenius, and Ewald have done, and change the >^\ in the first two clauses of ver. 14 into vl. or t1, they not only appear quite suitable, but even necessary, since David's journey to Abimeleoh was not a flight, or at all events it is not described as a flight in the text ; and David's flight from Saul really began with his departure from Nob. Still less can the legendary origin of this account be inferred from the fact that some years afterwards David really did take refuge with Achish in the Philiatian country (ch. xxvii. and xxix.), or the conjecture sustained that this is only a distorted legend of that occurrence. For if the later sojourn of David with Achish be a historical fact, the popular legend could not possibly have assumed a form so utterly different as the account before us, to say nothing of the fact that this occurrence has a firm historical support in Ps. xxxiv. 1. 222 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. and Vulgate render it irvfiTravt^eiv, impingehat, he drummed'^ smote with his fists upon the wings of the door, which would make it appear as if they had read n^Jl (from '1?'^), which seems more suitable to the condition of a madman whose saliva ran out of his mouth. — Vers. 14, 15. By tiiis dissimulation David escaped the danger wliich threatened him ; for Achish thought him mad, and would have nothing to do with him. " Wherefore do ye bring Mm to me ? Have I need of madmen, that ye have brought this man hither to rave against me f Shall this man come into my house?" Thus Achish refused to receive him into his house. But whether he had David taken over the border, or at any rate out c>f the town ; or whether David went away of his own accord ; or whether he was taken away by his servants, and then hurried as quickly as possible out of the land of the Philistines, is not expressly mentioned, as being of no importance in relation to the principal object of the narra- tive. All that is stated is, that he departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam. David's wanderings in judah and moab. massacre of priests bt saul. — chap. xxii. Vers. 1-5. Having been driven away by Achish, the Philis- tian king at Gath, David took refuge in the cave Adullam, where his family joined him. The cave Adullam is not to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, as some have inferred from 2 Sam. xxiii. 13, 14, but near the town Adtdlam, which is classed in Josh. xv. 35 among the towns in the low- lands of Judah, and at the foot of the mountains ; though it has not yet been traced with any certainty, as the caves of Deir Duhban, of which Van de Velde speaks, are not the only large caves on the western slope of the mountains of Judah. When his brethren and his father's house, i.e. the rest of his family, heard of his being there, thej' came down to him, evidently because they no longer felt themselves safe in Bethlehem from Saul's revenue. The cave Adullam cannot have been more than three hours from Bethlehem, as Socoh and Jarmuth, which were near to Adullam, were only three houil's and a half from Jerusalem (see at Josh. xii. 15). — Ver. 2. There a large num- ber of malcontents gathered together round David, viz. all who CHAP. XXII. 1-5. 223 were in distress, and all who had creditors, and all who were em- bittered in spirit (bitter of soul), i.e. people who were dissatis- fied with the general state of affairs or with the government of Saul, — about four hundred men, whose leader he became. David must in all probability have stayed there a considerable time. The number of those who went over to him soon amounted to six hundred men (xxiii. lo), who were for the most part brave and reckless, and who ripened into heroic men under the com- mand of David during his long flight. A list of the bravest of them is given in 1 Chron. xii., with which compare 2 Sam. xxiii. 13 sqq. and 1 Chron. xi. 15 sqq. — Vers. .3-5. David proceeded thence to Mizpeli in Moab, and placed his parents in Safety with the king of the Moabites. His ancestress Ruth was a Moabitess. Miepeh : literally a watch-tower or mountain height commanding a very extensive prospect. Here it is probably a proper name, belonging to a mountain fastness on the high land, which bounded the Arboth Moab on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, most likely on the mountains of Abarim or Pisgah (Deut. xxxiv. 1), and which could easily be reached from the country round Bethlehem, by crossing the Jordan near the point where it entered the Dead Sea. As David came to the king of Moab, the Moabites had probably taken possession of the most southerly portion of the eastern lands of the Israel- ites ; we may also infer tliis from the fact that, according to cli. xiv. 47, Saul had also made war upon Moab, for Mizpeh Moab is hardly to be sought for in the actual land of the Moabites, on the south side of the Arnon (Mojeb). O^m . . . NrKV';, " May my father and my mother go out with you." The construction of KVi with ns is a pregnant one : to go out of thfeir home and stay with you (Moabites). " 2W I know what God will do to me" Being well assured of the justice of his cause, as con- trasted with the insane persecutions of Saul, David confidently hoped that God would bring his flight to an end. His parents remained with the king of Moab as long as David was nnivm, i.e. upon the mountain height, or citadel. This can only refer to the place of refuge which David had found at Mizpeh Moab. For it is perfectly clear from ver. 5, where the prophet Gad calls upon David not to remain any longer n"l!iSB3, but to return to the land of Judah, that the expression cannot refer either to the cave Adullam, or to any other place of refuge in the 224 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUKL. neighbourhood of Bethlehem. The prophet Gad had probably come to David from Samuel's school of prophets ; but whether he remained with David from that time forward to assist him with his counsel in his several undertakings, cannot be deter- mined, on account of our want of information. In 1 Chron. xxi. 9 he is called David's seer. In the last year of David's reign he announced to him the punishment which would fall upon him from God on account of his sin in numbering the people (2 Sam. xxiv. 11 sqq.) ; and according to 1 Chron. xxix. 29 he also wrote the acts of David. In consequence of this admonition, David returned to Judah, and went into the wood Haretli, a woody region on the mountains of Judah, which is never mentioned again, and the situation of v^rhich is unknown. According to the counsels of God, David was not to seek for refuge outside the land ; not only that he might not be estranged from his fatherland and the people of Israel, which would have been opposed to his calling to be the king of Israel, but also that he might learn to trust entirely in the Lord as his only refuge and fortress. Vers. 6-23. Murder of the Priests by Saul. — Vers. 6 sqq. When Saul heard that David and the men with him loere known, i.e. that information had been received as to their abode or hiding-place, he said to his servants when they were gathered round him, " Hear" etc. The words, "and Saul was sitting at Gibeah under ike tamarisk upon the height" etc., show that what follows took place in a solemn conclave of all the servants of Saul, who were gathered round their king to deliberate upon the more important affairs of the kingdom. This sitting took place at Gibeah, the residence of Saul, and in the open air " under the tamarisk." nona, upon the height, not " under a grove at Eamah " (Luther) ; for Eamah is an appel- lative, and ^91?) which belongs to V^v" '^-^j '® ^ more minute definition of the locahty, which is indicated by the definite article (the tamarisk upon the height) as the well-known place where Saul's deliberative assemblies were held. From the king's address ("hear, ye Benjaminites ; will the son of Jesse also give you all fields and vineyards ?") we perceive that Saul had chosen his immediate attendants from the members of his own tribe, and had rewarded their services right royally. CHAP. XXII. 6-23. 225 DD?3p"D5 is placed first for the sake of emphasis, " You Ben- jaminites also," and not rather to Judahites, the members of his own tribe. The second Q??3? (before ^'''^D is not a dative ; but b merely serves to give greater prominence to the object which is placed at the head of the clause: As for all of you, will he make (you: see Ewald, § 310, a). — Ver. 8. " That you have all of i/ou conspired against me, and no one informs me of it, since my son mahes a covenant luith the son of Jessed ^133^ lit. at the making of a covenant. Saul may possibly have heard something of the facts related in ch. xx. 12-17 ; at the same time, his words may merely refer to Jonathan's friendship with David, which was well known to him. npirpKI, " and no one of you is grieved on my account . . . that my son has set my servant (David) as a Her in wait against me," i.e. to plot against my life, and wrest the throne to himself. We may see from this, that Saul was carried by his suspicions very far beyond the actual facts. " As at this day ;" cf. Deut. viii. 18, etc. — Vers. 9, 10. The Edomite Doeg could not refrain from yielding to this appeal, and telling Saul what he had seen when staying at Nob ; namely, that Ahimelech had inquired of God for David, and given him food as well as Goliath's sword. For the fact itself, see ch. xxi. 1-10, where there is no reference indeed to his inquiring of God ; though it certainly took place, as Ahimelech (ver. 15) does not disclaim it. Doeg is here designated 3S3, " the superintendent of SauPs servants," so that apparently he had been invested with the office of marshal of the court. — Vers. 11 sqq. On receiving this information, Saul immediately summoned the priest Ahimelech and "all his fathers house," i.e. the whole priesthood, to Nob, to answer for what they had done. To Saul's appeal, " Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, by giving him bread?" Ahimelech, who was not conscious of any such crime, since David had come to him with a false pretext, and the priest had probably but very little knowledge of what took place at court, replied both calmly and worthily (ver. 14) : "And who of all thy servants is so faithful (proved, attested, as in Num. xii. 7) as David, and son-in-law of the king, and having access to thy private audience, and honoured in thy house?" The true ex- planation of 1']}^??'?'''^ "'P ™ay te gathered from a comparison of 2 Sam. xxiii. 23 and 1 Chron. xi. 25, where nyoE'p occurs v 22(i THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. again, as the context clearly shows, in the sense of a pi'ivy coun- cillor of the king, who hears his personal revelations and converses veith him about them, so that it corresponds to our " audience!' IID, lit. to turn aside from the way, to go in to any one, or to look after anything (Ex. iii. 3 ; Ruth iv. 1, etc.) ; hence in the passage before us " to have access," to be attached to a person. This is the explanation given by Gesenius and most of the modern expositors, whereas the early translators entirely mis- understood the passage, though they have given the meaning correctly enough at 2 Sam. xxiii. 23. But if this was the relation in which David stood to Saul, — and he had really done so for a long time, — there was nothing wrong in what the high priest had done for him ; but he had acted according to the best of his knowledge, and quite conscientiously as a faithful subject of the king. Ahimelech then added still further (ver 15) : "Did I then begin to inquire of God for him this day?" i.e. was it the first time that I had obtained the decision of God for David concerning important enterprises, which he had to carry out in the service of the king ? " Far be from me" sc. any conspiracy against the king, like that of which I am ac- cused. " Let not the king lay it as a burden upon thy servant, my whole fathers house (the omission of the cop. 1 before JTa'Paa may be accounted for from the excitement of the speaker) ; for thy servant knows not the least of all this." DNP^aa, of all that Saul had charged him with. — Vers. 16, 17. Notwithstanding this truthful assertion of his innocence, Saul pronounced sentence of death, not only upon the high priest, but upon all the priests at Nob, and commanded his D'^n, " runners," i.e. halberdiers, to put the priests to death, because, as he declared in his wrath, " their hand is with David (i.e. because they side with David), and because they knew that he fled and did not tell me." Instead of the Chethibh i^tij, it is ]3robably more correct to read ''ptx, according to the Keri, although the Chethibh may be accounted for if necessary from a sudden transition from a direct to an indirect form of ad- dress: "and (as he said) had not told him." This sentence was so cruel, and so nearly bordering upon madness, that the halberdiers would not carry it out, but refused to lay hands npon "the priests of Jehovah." — Ver. 18. Saul then com- manded Doeg to cut down the priests, and he at once fer- CHAP. XXII. 6-23. 227 formed the bloody deed. On the expression "wearing the linen ephod" compare the remarks at ch. ii. 18. The allusion to the priestly clothing, like the repetition of the expression "priests of Jehovah" serves to bring out into its true light the crime of the bloodthirsty Saul and his executioner Doeg. The very dress which the priests wore, as the consecrated servants of Jehovah, ought to have made them shrink from the commis- sion of such a murder. — Ver. 19. But not content with even this revenge, Saul had the whole city of Nob destroyed, like a city that was laid under the ban {yid. Deut. xiii. 13 sqq.). So completely did Saul identify his private revenge with the cause of Jehovah, that he avenged a supposed conspiracy against his own person as treason against Jehovah the God-king. — Vers. 20-23. The only one of the whole body of priests who escaped this bloody death was a son of Ahimelech, named Abiathar, who "fled after David" i.e. to David the fugitive, and in- formed him of the barbarous vengeance which Saul had taken upon the priests of the Lord. Then David recognised and confessed his guilt. " / knew that day that the Edomite Doeg teas there, that he {i.e. that as the Edomite Doeg was there, he) would tell Saul: lam the cause of all the souls of thy father s house" i.e. of their death. 33D is used here in the sense of being the cause of a thing, which is one of the meanings of the verb in the Arabic and Talmudic (vid. Ges. Dex. s.v.). "Stay with me, fear not ; for he who seeks my life seeks thy life : for thou art safe with me." The abstract mishmereth, protection, keeping (Ex. xii. 6, xvi. 33, 34), is used for the concrete, in the sense of protected, well kept. The thought is the follow- ing : As no other is seeking thy life than Saul, who also wants to kill me, thou mayest stay with me without fear, as I am sure of divine protection. David spoke thus in the firm belief that the Lord would deliver him from his foe, and give him the kingdom. The action of Saul, which had just been reported to him, could only strengthen him in this belief, as it was a sign of the growing hardness of Saul, v/hich must accele- rate his destruction. 228 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. DAVID DELIVERS KEILAH. HE IS BETRATED BY THE ZIPHITES, AND MARVELLOUSLY SAVED FROM SAUL IN THE DESERT OF MAON. — CHAP. XXIII. The following events show how, on the one hand, the Lord gave pledges to His servant David that he would eventually become king, but yet on the other hand plunged him into deeper and deeper trouble, that He might refine him and train him to be a king after His own heart. Saul's rage against the priests at Nob not only drove the high priest into David's camp, but procured for David the help of the " light and right" of the high priest in all his undertakings. Moreover, after the prophet Gad had called David back to Judah, an attack of the Phili- stines upon Keilah furnished him with the opportunity to show himself to the people as their deliverer. And although this enterprise of his exposed him to fresh persecutions on the part of Saul, who was thirsting for revenge, he experienced in con- nection therewith not only the renewal of Jonathan's friendship on this occasion, but a marvellous interposition on the part of the faithful covenant God. Vers. 1-14. Eescue of Keilah. — After his return to the mountains of Judah, David received intelligence that Phili- stines, i.e. a marauding company of these enemies of Israel, were fighting against Keilah, and plundering the threshing-floors, upon which the corn that had been reaped was lying ready for threshing. Keilah belonged to the towns of the lowlands of Judah (Josh. xv. 44) ; and although it has not yet been dis- covered, was certainly very close to the Philistian frontier. — Ver. 2. After receiving this information, David inquired of the Lord (through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest) whether he should go and smite these Philistines, and received an affirmative answer. — Vers. 3-5. But his men said to him, " BeJiold, here in Judah we are in fear (i.e. are not safe from Saul's pursuit) ; how shall we go to Keilah against the ranks of the Philistines ?" In order, therefore, to infuse courage into them, he inquired of the Lord again, and received the assurance from God, "Twill give the Philistines into thy hand." He then proceeded with his men, fought against the Philistines, drove off their cattle, inflicted a severe defeat upon them, and thus CHAP, xxiii. 1-u. 229 delivered the inhabitants of Keilah. In ver. 6 a supplementary remark is added in explanation of the expression " inquired of the Lord" to the effect that, when Abiathar fled to David to Keilah, the epliod had come to him. The words " to David to Keilah " are not to be understood as signifying that Abiathar did not come to David till he was in Keilah, but that when he fled after David (ch. xxii. 20), he met with him as he was already preparing for the march to Keilah, and immediately proceeded with him thither. For whilst it is not stated in ch. xxii. 20 that Abiathar came to David in the wood of Hareth, but the place of meeting is left indefinite, the fact that David had already inquired of Jehovah (i.e. through the oracle of the high priest) with reference to the march to Keilah, compels us to assume that Abiathar had come to him before he left the mountains for Keilah. So that the brief expression " to David to Keilah," which is left indefinite because of its brevity, must be interpreted in accordance with this fact. — Vers. 7-9. As soon as Saul received intelligence of David's march to Keilah, he said, " God has rejected him (and delivered him) into my hand." *13J does not mean simply to look at, but also to find strange, and treat as strange, and then absolutely to reject (Jer. xix. 4, as in the Arabic in the fourth conjugation). This is the weaning here, where the construction with '''7^3 is to be under- stood as a pregnant expression : "rejected and delivered into my hand" (yid. Ges. Lea:, s.v.). The early translators have ren- dered it quite correctly according to the sense l?p, ireirpaKev, tradidit, without there being any reason to suppose that they read ^?0 instead of "I3|i. " For he hath shut himself in, to come (= coming, or by coming) into a city with gates and bolts." — Ver. 8. He therefore called all the people (i.e. men of war) together to war, to go down to Keilah, and to besiege David and his men. — Vers. 9 sqq. But David heard that Saul was preparing mischief against him (lit. forging, ^'''i^}^, from tJ'']n ; Prov. iii. 29, vi. 14, etc.), and he inquired through the oracle of the high priest whether the inhabitants of Keilah would deliver him up to Saul, and whether Saul would come down ; and as both questions were answered in the affirmative, he departed from the city with his six hundred men, before Saul carried out his plan. It is evident from vers. 9-12, that when the will of God was sought through the Urim and Thummim, the person 230 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEU making the inquiry placed the matter before God in prayer, and received an answer ; but always to one particular question. For when David had asked the two questions given in ver. 11, he received the answer to the second question only, and had to ask the first again (ver. 12). — Ver. 13. " TJiey went whither- soever tJiey could go" (lit. " they wandered about where they wandered about"), i.e. wherever they could go without danger. -^Ver. 14. David retreated into the desert (of Judali), to the mountain heights (that were to be found there), and remained on the mountains in the desert of Ziph. The ^^desert of Judal" is the desert tract between the mountains of Judah and the Dead Sea, in its whole extent, from the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah to the Wady Fikreh in the south (see at Josh. XV. 61). Certain portions of this desert, however, received different names of their own, according to the names of dif- ferent towns on the border of the mountains and desert. The desert of Ziph was that portion of the desert of Judah which was near to and surrounded the town of Ziph, the name of which has been retained in the ruins of Tell Zif, an hour and three-quarters to the south-east of Hebron (see at Josh. xv. 55). — Ver. 14J. " And Saul sought him all the days, but God de- livered Mm not into his hand." This is a general remark, intended to introduce the accounts which follow, of the various attempts made by Saul to get David into his power. "All the days," i.e. as long as Saul lived. Vers. 15-28. David in the Deserts of Ziph and Maon. — The history of David's persecution by Saul is introduced in vers. 15-18, with the account of an attempt made by the noble- minded prince Jonathan, in a private interview with his friend David, to renew his bond of friendship with him, and strengthen David by his friendly words for the sufferings that yet awaited him. Vers. 15, 16 arc to be connected together so as to form I >ue period : " When David saw that Saul was come out . . . and David was in the desert of Ziph, Jonathan rose up and went to David into the wood." i^^y^, from E'']n, with n paragogic, sig- nifies a wood or thicket ; here, however, it is probably a proper name for a district in the desert of Ziph that was overgrown with wood or bushes, and where David was stopping at that time. " There is no trace of this wood now. The land lost its CHAP. XXIII. 15-28. 231 ornament of trees centuries ago through the desolating hand of man" (v. de Velde). " And strengthened his hand in God," i.e. strengthened his heart, not by supplies, or by money, or any subsidy of that kind, but by consolation drawn from his innocence, and the promises of God (vid. Jndg. ix. 24 ; Jer. xxiii. 14). '■^ Fear not" said Jonathan to him, "for the hand of Saul my father will not reach thee ; and thou wilt become ling over Israel, and I ivill be the second to thee ; and Saul my father also knows that it is so." Even though Jonathan had heard nothing from David about his anointing, he could learn from David's course thus far, and from his own father's conduct, that David would not be overcome, but would possess the sovereignty after the death of Saul. Jonathan expresses here, as his firm conviction, what he has intimated once before, in ch. xx. 13 sqq. ; and with the most loving self-denial entreats David, when he shall be king, to let him occupy the second place in the king- dom. It by no means follows from the last words (" Saul my father knoweth"), that Saul had received distinct information concerning the anointing of David, and his divine calling to be king. The w^ords merely contain the thought, he also sees that it will come. The assurance of this must have forced itself involuntarily upon the mind of Saul, both from his own rejec- tion, as foretold by Samuel, and also from the marvellous success of David in all his undertakings. — Ver. 18. After these encouraging words, they two made a covenant before Jehovah : i.e. they renewed the covenant which they had already made by another solemn oath ; after which Jonathan returned home, but David remained in the wood. The treachery of the Ziphites forms a striking contrast to Jonathan's treatment of David. They went up to Gibeah to betray to Saul the fact that David was concealed in the wood upon their mountain heights, and indeed " -upon the hill Hachilah, which lies to the south of the waste." The hill of Ziph is a flattened hill standing by itself, of about a hundred feet in height. " There is no spot from which you can obtain a better view of David's wanderings backwards and forwards in the desert than from the hill of Ziph, which affords a true panorama. The Ziphites could see David and his men moving to and fro in the mountains of the desert of Ziph, and could also perceive how he showed himself in the distance upon the 232 THE FIEST BOOK OF SAMUEL. liill Hacliilah on the south side of Zipli (which lies to the right by the desert) ; whereupon they sent as quickly as possible to Saul, and betrayed to him the hiding-place of his enemy" (v. de Velde, ii. pp. 104-5). Jeshimon does not refer here to the •waste land on the north-eastern coast of the Dead Sea, as in Num. xxi. 20, xxiii. 28, but to the western side of that sea, which is also desert. — Ver. 20 reads literally thus : " And now, according to all the desire of thy soul, king, to come down (from Gibeah, which stood upon higher ground), come down, and it is in us to deliver Mm (David) into the hand of the king." — Ver. 21. For this treachery Saul blessed them : "Be blessed of the Lord, that ye have compassion upon me." In his evil con- science he suspected David of seeking to become his murderer, and therefore thanked God in his delusion that the Ziphites had had compassion upon him, and shown him David's hiding- place. — Ver. 22. In his anxiety, however, lest David should escape him after all, he charged them, " Go, and give still further heed (psn without 3?, as in Judg. xii. 6), and reconnoitre and look at his place where his foot cometh (this simply serves as a more precise definition of the pronominal suffix in ioipo, his place), who hath seen him there (sc. let them inquire into this, that they may not be deceived by uncertain or false reports) : for it is told me that he dealeth very suhtilly." — Ver. 23. They were to search him out in every corner (the object to lyn must be supplied from the context). "And come ye again to we with the certainty (i.e. when you have got some certain intelli- gence concerning his hiding-place), that I may go with you; and if he is in the land, I ivill search him out among all the thousands (i.e. families) of Judah." — Ver. 24. With this answer the Ziph- ites arose and " ivent to Ziph before SauV (who would speedily follow with his warriors) ; but David had gone farther in the meantime, and was with his men " in the desert of Maon, in the steppe to the south of the wilderness.^' Maon, now Mam, is about three hours and three-quarters s.s.E. of Hebron (see at Josh. XV. 55), and therefore only two hours from Ziph, from which it is visible. " The table-land appears to terminate here ; nevertheless the principal ridge of the southern mountains runs for a considerable distance towards the south-west, whereas towards the south-east the land falls off more and more into a lower table-land." This is the Arabah or steppe on the right CHAP. XXIV. 1-8. 23.H of the wilderness (v. de Velde, ii. pp. 107-8). — Ver. 25. Having been informed of the arrival of Saul and his men (warriors), David went down the rock, and remained in the desert of Maon. " llie rock" is probably the conical mountain of Main (Maon), the top of which is now surrounded with ruins, pro- bably remains of a tower (Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 194), as the rock from which David came down can only have been the mountain (ver. 26), along one side of which David went with his men whilst Saul and his warriors went on the otiier, namely when Saul pursued him into the desert of Maon. — Vers. 26, 27. " Ajid David loas anxiously concerned to escape from Saul, and Saul and his men loere encircling David and his men to seize them ; hut a messenger came to Saul. . . . Then Saul turned from pursuing David." The two clauses, " for Saul and his men" (ver. 26b), and "there came a messenger" (ver. 27), are the circumstantial clauses by which the situation is more clearly defined : the apodosis to 11"i ''p^l does not follow till 3B'^1 in ver. 28. The apodosis cannot begin with '^^'pO'i, because the verb does not stand at the head. David had thus almost inextricably fallen into the hands of Saul ; but God saved him by the fact that at that very moment a messenger arrived with the intelli- gence, " Hasten and go (come), for Philistines have fallen into the land," and thus called Saul away from any further pursuit of David. — Ver. 28. From this occurrence the place received the name of Sela-hammahlekotk, " rock of smoothnesses," i.e. of slipping away or escaping, from P?n, in the sense of being smooth. This explanation is at any rate better supported than " rock of divisions, i.e. the rock at which Saul and David were separated" (Clericus), since P?n does not mean to separate. DAVID SPARES SAUL IN THE CAVE. — CHAP. XXIV. Vers. 1-8. Whilst Saul had gone against the Philistines, David left this dangerous place, and went to the mountain heights of Engedi, i.e. the present Ain-jidy (goat-fountain), ii. the middle of the western coast of the Dead Sea (see at Josh. XV. 62), which he could reach from Maon in six or seven hours. The soil of the neighbourhood consists entirely of limestone; but the rocks contain a considerable admixture of chalk and flint. Round about there rise bare conical mountains, and 234 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. even ridges of frum two to four hundred feet in height, which mostly run down to the sea. Tlie steep mountains are inter- sected by wadys running down in deep ravines to the sea. " On all sides the country is full of caverns, which might then serve as lurking-places for David and his men, as they do for outlaws at the present day" (Rob. Pal. p. 203). — Vers. 1, 2. When Saul had returned from his march against the Phili stines, and was informed of this, he set out thither with three thousand picked men to search for David and his men in the wild-goat rocks. The expression " rocks of the ivild goats " is probably not a proper name for some particular rocks, but a general term applied to the rocks of that locality on account of the number of wild goats and chamois that were to be found in all that region, as mountain goats are still (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 204). — Ver. 3. When Saul came to the sheep-folds by the way, where there was a cave, he entered it to cover his feet, whilst David and his men sat behind in the cave. V. de Velde (i2. ii. p. 74) supposes the place, where the sheep-folds by the roadside were, to have been the Wady Chareitun, on the south-west of the Frank mountain, and to the north-east of Tekoah, a very desolate and inaccessible valley. " Rocky, precipitous walls, which rise up one above another for many hundred feet, form the sides of this defile. Stone upon stone, and cliff above chff, without any sign of being habitable, or of being capable of affording even a halting-place to anything but wild goats." Near the ruins of the village of Chareitun, hardly five minutes' walk to the east, there is a large cave or chamber in the rock, with a very narrow entrance entirely concealed by stones, and with many side vaults in which the deepest darkness reigns, at least to any one who has just entered the limestone vaults from the dazzling light of day. It may be argued in favour of the con- jecture that this is the cave which Saul entered, and at the back of which David and his men were concealed, that this cave is on the road from Bethlehem to Ain-jidy, and one of the largest caves in that district, if not the largest of all, and that, according to Pococke {Beschi: des Morgenl. ii. p. 61), the Franks call it a labyrinth, the Arabs Elmaama, i.e. hiding- place, whilst the latter relate how at one time thirty thousand people hid themselves in it " to escape an evil wind," in all probability the simoom. The only difficulty connected with CHAP. XXIV. 8-16. 235 this supposition is the distance from Ain-jidy, namely about four or five German miles (fifteen or twenty English), and the nearness of Tekoah, according to which it belongs to the desert of Tekoah rather than to that of Engedi. " To cover Ms feet " is a euphemism according to most of the ancient versions, as in Judg. iii. 24, for performing the necessities of nature, as it is a custom in the East to cover the feet. It does not mean " to sleep," as it is rendered in this passage in the Peschito, and also by Michaelis and others ; for although what follows may seem to favour this, there is apparently no reason why any such euphemistic expression should have been chosen for sleep. " The sides of the cave :" i.e. the outermost or farthest sides. — Ver. 4. Then David's men said to him, " See, this is the day of which Jehovah hath said to thee, Behold, I give thine enemy into thy hand, and do to him what seemeth good to thee" Although these words might refer to some divine oracle which David had received through a prophet. Gad for example, what follows clearly shows that David had received no such oracle ; and the meaning of his men was simply this, " Behold, to-day is the day when God is saying to thee:" that is to say, the speakers regarded the leadings of providence by which Saul had been brought into David's power as a divine intimation to David himself to take this opportunity of slaying his deadly enemy, and called this intimation a word of Jehovah. David then rose up, and cut off the edge of SauVs cloak privily. Saul had probably laid the meil on one side, which rendered it pos- sible for David to cut off a piece of it unobsei'ved. — Ver. 5. But his heart smote him after he had done it ; i.e. his conscience reproached him, because he regarded this as an injury done to the king himself. — Ver. 6. With all the greater firmness, there- fore, did he repel the suggestions of his men : " Far be it to me from Jehovah (on Jehovah's account: see at Josh. xxii. 29), that (Cii<, a particle denoting an oath) / should do such a thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah, to stretch out my hand against him." These words of David show clearly enough that no word of Jehovah had come to him to do as he liked with Saul. — Ver. 7. Thus he kept back his people with words (J'BE', verbis dilacere), and did not allow them to rise up against Saul sc. to .slay him. Vers. 8-16. But when Saul had gone out of the cave, David 236 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUKL went out, and called, " My lord Mng," that wlien the king looked round he might expostulate with him, with tlie deepest reverence, but yet with earnest words, that should sharpen his conscience as to the unfounded nature of his suspicion and the injustice of his persecution. " Why dost thou hearken to words of men, who say, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt ? Behold, this day thine eyes have seen that Jehovah hath given thee to-day into my hand in the cave, and they said 0^^, thought) to hill thee, and I spared thee :" lit. it (mine eye) spared thee (cf. Gen. xlv. 20, Deut. vii. 16, etc., which show that ^^''V is to be supplied). — Ver. 11. To confirm what he said, he then showed him the lappet of his coat which he had cut off, and said, " My father, see." In these words there is an expression of the childlike reverence and affection which David cherished towai'ds the anointed of the Lord. " For that I cut off the lappet and did not kill thee, learn and see (from this) that (there is) not evil in my hand (i.e. that I do not go about for the purpose of injury and crime), and that I have not sinned against thee, as thou never- theless lay est loait for my soul to destroy it." — Vers. 12, 13. After he had proved to the king in this conclusive manner that he had no reason whatever for seeking his life, he invoked the Lord as judge between him and his adversary: ^^ Jehovah will avenge me upon thee, but my hand loill not he against thee. As the proverb of the ancients C'^ioij^n is used collectively) says. Evil proceedeth from the evil, but my hand shall not he upon thee." The meaning is this : Only a wicked man could wish to avenge himself ; I do not. — Ver. 14. And even if he should wish to attack the king, he did not possess the power. This thought introduces ver. 14 : " After whom is the king of Israel gone outf After whom dost thou pursue ? A dead dog, a single flea." By tliese similes David meant to describe himself as a perfectly harmless and insignificant man, of whom Saul had no occasion to be afraid, and whom the king of Israel ought to think it beneath his dignity to pursue. A dead dog cannot bite or hurt, and is an object about which a king ought not to trouble him- self (cf. 2 Sam. ix. 8 and xvi. 9, where the idea of somethiuf, contemptible is included). The point of comparison with a Ilea is the insignificance of such an animal (cf. ch. xxvi. 20). — Ver. 15. As Saul had therefore no good ground for persecuting David, the latter could very calmly commit his cause to the Lord God, CHAP. XXIV. 16-22, 237 that He might decide it as judge, and deliver him out of the hand of Saul : " Let Him look at it, and conduct my cause," etc. Vers. 16-22 These words made an impression upon Saul. David's conduct went to his heart, so that he wept aloud, and confessed to him : " TJioic art more righteous than I, for thou hast shoivn me good, and I (have shown) thee evil; and thou hast given me a proof of this to-day." — Ver. 19. " If a man meet loith his enemy, will he send him (let him go) in peace f" This sentence is to be regarded as a question, which requires a negative reply, and expresses the thought : When a man meets with an enemy, he does not generally let him escape without injury. But thou hast acted very differently towards me. This thought is easily supplied from the context, and what follows attaches itself to this : " The Lord repay thee good for what thou hast done to me this day." — Vers. 20, 21. This wish was expressed in perfect sincerity. David's behaviour towards him had con- quered for the moment the evil demon of his heart, and com- pletely altered his feelings. In this better state of mind he felt impelled even to give utterance to these words, '' / know that thou wilt be king, and the sovereignty will have perpetuity in thy hand." Saul could not prevent this conviction from forcing itself upon him, after his own rejection and the failure of all that he attempted against David ; and it was this which drove him to persecute David whenever the evil spirit had the upper hand in his soul. But now that better feelings had arisen in his mind, he uttered it without envy, and merely asked David to promise on oath that he would not cut off his descendants after his death, and seek to exterminate his name from his father's house. A name is exterminated when the whole of the descendants are destroyed, — a thing of frequent occurrence in the East in connection with a change of dynasties, and one which occurred again and again even in the kingdom of the ten tribes (vid. 1 Kings xv. 28 sqq., xvi. 11 sqq. ; 2 Kings x.). — Ver. 22. When David had sworn this, Saul returned home. But David remained upon the mountain heights, because he did not regard the passing change in Saul's feelings as likely to continue. nniSQn (translated " the hold") is used here to denote the mountainous part of the desert of Judah. It is different in ch. xxii. 5. 238 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. DEATH or SAMUEL. NABAL AND ABIGAIL. — CHAP. XXV. Ver. 1. The death of Samuel is inserted here, because it occurred at that time. The fact that all Israel assembled to- gether to his burial, and lamented him, i.e. mourned for him, was a sign that his labours as a prophet were recognised by the whole nation as a blessing for Israel. Since the days of Moses and Joshua, no man had arisen to whom the covenant nation owed so much as to Samuel, who has been justly called the reformer and restorer of the theocracy. They buried him "m his house at Ramah." The expression " his house" does not mean his burial-place or family tomb, nor his native place, but the house in which he lived, with the court belonging to it, where Samuel was placed in a tomb erected especially for him. After the death of Samuel, David went down into the desert of Paran, i.e. into the northern portion of the desert of Arabia, which stretches up to the mountains of Judah (see at Num. X. 12) ; most likely for no other reason than because he could no longer find sufficient means of subsistence for himself and his six hundred men in the desert of Judah. Vers. 2-44. The following history of NahaVs folly, and of the wise and generous behaviour of his pious and intelligent wife Abigail towards David, shows how Jehovah watched over His servant David, and not only preserved him from an act of passionate excitement, which might have endangered his calling to be king of Israel, but turned the trouble into which he had been brought into a source of prosperity and salvation. Vers. 2-13. At Maon, i.e. Main or the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. xv. 55), there lived a rich man ('i"'-!, great through property and riches), who had his establishment at Carmel. HB'yOj work, occupation, then establishment, possessions {vid. Ex. xxiii. 16). Carmel is not the promontory of that name (Thenius), but the present Kurmul on the mountains of Judah, scarcely half an hour's journey to the north-west of Maon (see at Josh. XV. 55). This man possessed three thousand sheep and a thousand goats, and was at the sheep-shearing at Car- mel. His name was Nahal (i.e. fool) : this was hardly his jiroper name, but was a surname by which he was popularly designated on account of his folly. His wife Abigail was " of good understanding," i,e. intelligent, " and of beautiful fgure ; CHAP. XXV. 2-13. 239 but the husband was " harsh and evil in his doings." He sprang from the family of Caleb. This is the rendering adopted by the Chaldee and Vulgate, according to the Keri ''373. The Chethibh is to be read ^373, " according to his heart;" though the LXX. (av6pcoTro<; kuwko?) and Josephus, as well as the Arabic and Syriac, derive it from 3.73, and under- stand it as referring to the dog-like, or shameless, character of the man. — ^Vers. 4, 5. When David heard in the desert (cf. ver. 1) that Nabal was shearing his sheep, which was generally accompanied with a festal meal (see at Gen. xxxviii. 12), he sent ten young men up to Carmel to him, and bade them wish him peace and prosperity in his name, and having reminded him of the friendly services rendered to his shepherds, solicit a present for himself and his people. DipOT i? 7NB', ask him after his welfare, i.e. greet him in a friendly manner (cf. Ex. xviii. 7). The word ''m is obscure, and was interpreted by the early translators merely according to uncertain conjectures. The simplest explanation is apparently in vitam, long life, understood as a wish in the sense of " good fortune to you " (Luther, Maurer, etc.) ; although the word 'n in the singular can only be shown to have the meaning life in connection with the formula used in oaths, "^^Si ''n, etc. But even if ''0 must be taken as an adjective, it is impossible to explain ''n? in any other way than as an elliptical exclamation meaning " good fortune to the living man." For the idea that the word is to be connected with D)])"!?^, "say to the living man," i.e. to the man if still alive, is overthrown by the fact that David had no doubt that Nabal was still living. The words which follow are also to be understood as a wish, " May thou and thy house, and all that is thine, he well!" After this salutation they were to proceed with the object of their visit: ^^ And now I have heard that thou hast sheep-shearers. Now thy shepherds have been with us; we have done them no harm (Dy^n, as in Judg. xviii, 7 : on the form, see Ges. § 53, 3, Anm. 6), and nothing was missed by them so long as they were in Carmel." When living in the desert, David's men had associated with the shepherds of Nabal, rendered them various services, and protected them and their flocks against the southern inhabitants of the desert (the Bedouin Arabs) ; in return for which they may have given them food and information. Thus David proved himself a 240 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMLiEL. protector of his people even in his banishment. l^VP'.lj "so may the young men (those sent by David) Jlnd favour in thine eyes ! for we have come to a good (i.e. a festive) day. Give, 1 pray, what thy hand findeth (i.e. as much as thou canst) to thy servant, and to thy son David.'' With the expression " thy son" David claims Nabal's fatherly goodwill. So far as the fact itself is concerned, " on such a festive occasion near a town or village even in our own time, an Arab sheikh of the neighbour- ing desert would hardly fail to put in a word either in person or by message ; and his message both in form and substance would be only the transcript of that of David " (Robinson, Palestine, p. 201). — Ver. 9. David's messengers delivered their message to Nabal, iniJJl, " and sat down," sc. awaiting the fulfil- ment of their request. The rendering given by the Chaldee (IpDa, cessaverunt loqui) and the Vulgate (silueruni) is less suitable, and cannot be philologically sustained. The Septua- gint, on the other hand, has koX aveTrrj^Tjcre, " and he (Nabal) sprang up," as if the translators had read Dj^'i (vid. LXX. at ch. XX. 34). This rendering, according to which the word belongs to the following clause, gives a very appropriate sense, if only, supposing that 0^1] really did stand in the text, the origin and general adoption of iniJJl could in any way be ex- plained. — Ver. 10. Nabal refused the petitioners in the most churlish manner: " Who is David? who the son of JesseV i.e. what have I to do with David ? " There he many servants now- a-days who tear away every one from his master." Thus, in order to justify his own covetousness, he set down David as a vagrant who had run away from his master. — Ver. 11. "And I should take my bread and my ivater (i.e. my food and drink), and my cattle, . . . and give them to men whom I do not know whence they are V '''!"]P?l is a perfect with vav consec, and the whole sentence is to be taken as a question. — Vers. 12, 13. The messengers returned to David with this answer. The churlish reply could not fail to excite his anger. He therefore commanded his people to gird on the sword, and started with 400 men to take vengeance upon Nabal, whilst 200 remained behind with the things. Vers. 14-31. However intelligible David's wrath may appear in the situation in which he was placed, it was not right before God, but a sudden burst of sinful passion, which was CHAP. XXV. H-31. 241 unseemly in a servant of God. By carrying out his intention, lie would have sinned against the Lord and against His people. But the Lord preserved him from this sin by the fact that, just at the right time, Abigail, the intelligent and pious wife of Nabal, heard of the affair, and vpas able to appease the wrath of David by her immediate and kindly interposition. — Vers 14, 15. Abigail heard from one of (Nabal's) servants what had taken place {T}'^, to wish any one prosperity and health, i.e. to salute, as in ch. xiii. 10 ; and W, from tD''J?, to speak wrath fully: on the form, see at ch. xv. 19 and xiv. 32), and also what had been praiseworthy in the behaviour of David's men towards Nabal's shepherds ; how they had not only done them no injury, had not robbed them of anything, but had defended them all the while. " They were a wall (i.e. a firm protection) round us by night and hy day, as long as we were with them feeding the sheep" i.e. a wall of defence against attacks from the Bedouins living in the desert. — Ver. 17. ''And noiv," continued the servant, "know and see what thou doest; for evil is determined (cf. ch. xx. 9) against our master and all his house : and he (Nabal) is a wicked man, that one cannot address him,." — -Vers. 18, 19. Then Abigail took as quickly as possible a bountiful present of provisions, — two hundred loaves, two bottles of wine, five prepared {i.e. slaughtered) sheep (n'llK'y, a rare form for JTibj? : see Ewald, § 189, a), five seahs (an ephah and two-thirds) of roasted grains {Kali : see ch. xvii. 17), a hundred D'ipsv (dried grapes, i.e. raisin-cakes : Ital. simmuki), and two hundred fig-cakes (consisting of pressed figs joined together), — and sent these gifts laden upon asses on before her to meet David, whilst she herself followed behind to appease his anger by coming to meet him in a friendly manner, but without saying a word to her husband about what she intended to do. — Ver. 20. When she came down riding upon the ass by a hidden part of the mountain, David and his men came to meet her, so that she lighted upon them, inn "inp, a hidden part of the mountain, was probably a hollow between two peaks of a mountain. This would explain the use of the word Ti*, to come down, with reference both to Abigail, who ap- proached on the one side, and David, who came on the other. — Vers. 21 and 22 contain a circumstantial clause introduced parenthetically to explain what follows : but David had said, Q 242 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. Only for deception (i.e. for no other purpose than to be deceived in my expectation) have I defended all that belongs to this man (Nabal) in the desert, so that nothing of his was missed, and (for) he hath repaid me evil for good. God do so to the enemies of David, if I leave, etc. ; i.e. " as truly as God will punish the enemies of David, so certainly will I not leave till the morning light, of all that belongeth to him, one that pisseth against the wall." This oath, in which the punishment of God is not called down upon the swearer himself (God do so to me), as it generally is, but upon the enemies of David, is analogous to that in ch. iii. 17, where punishment is threatened upon the person addressed, who is there made to swear; except that here, as the oath could not be uttered in the ears of the person addressed, upon whom it was to fall, the enemies generally are mentioned instead of " to thee." There is no doubt, therefore, as to the correctness of the text. The substance of this im- precation may be explained from the fact that David is so full of the consciousness of fighting and suffering for the cause of the kingdom of God, that he discerns in the insult heaped upon him by Nabal an act of hostility to the Lord and the cause of His kingdom. The phrase "i''ip3 pnK'O, mingens in parietem, is only met with in passages which speak of the destruction of a family or household to the very last man (viz., besides this passage, 1 Kings xiv. 10, xvi. 11, xxi. 21 ; 2 Kings ix. 8), and neither refers primarily to dogs, as Ephraem Syrus, Juda ben Karish, and others maintain ; nor to the lowest class of men, as Winer, Maurer, and others imagine ; nor to little boys, as L. de Dieu, Gesenius, etc., suppose ; but, as we may see from the explanatory clause appended to 1 Kings xiv. 10, xxi. 21, 2 Kings ix. 8, to every male (quemcumque masculi generis hominem: vid. Bochart, Hieroz. i. pp. 776 sqq., and Rodiger on Ges. Thes. pp. 1397-8). — Ver. 23 is connected with ver. 20. When Abigail saw David, she descended hastily from the ass, fell upon her face before him, bowed to the ground, and fell at his feet, saying, " Upon me, me, my lord, he the guilt; allow thy handmaid to reveal the thing to thee" She takes the guilt upon herself, because she hopes that David will not avenge it upon her. — Ver. 25. She prayed that David would take no notice of Nabal, for he was what his name declared — a fool, and folly in him; but she (Abigail) had not seen the messengers CHAP. XXV. U-31. 243 of David. " The prudent -woman uses a good argument ; for a wise man should pardon a fool" (Seb. Schmidt). She then endeavours to bring David to a friendly state of mind by three arguments, introduced with nnj/l (vers. 26, 27), before asking for forgiveness (ver. 28). She first of all pointed to the leadings of God, by which David had been kept from committing murder through her coming to meet him.'^ "As truly as JeJwvah liveth, and by the life of thy soul ! yea, the Lord hath kept thee, that thou earnest not into blood-guiltiness, and thy hand helped thee" (i.e. and with thy hand thou didst procure thyself help). itl'K, introducing her words, as in ch. xv. 20, lit. " as truly as thou livest, (so true is it) that," etc. In the second place, she points to the fact that God is tlie avenger of the wicked, by expressing the wish that all the enemies of David may become fools like Nabal ; in connection with which it must be observed, in order to understand her words fully, that, according to the Old Tes- tament representation, folly is a correlate of ungodliness, which inevitably brings down punishment.^ The predicate to the sen- tence " and they that seek evil to my lord" must be supplied from the preceding words, viz. " may they become just such fools." — Ver. 27. It is only in the third line that she finally mentions the jiresent, but in such a manner that she does not offer it directly to David, but describes it as a gift for the men in his train. "And now this blessing {^^'j? here and ch. xxx. 26, as in Gen. xxxiii. 11 : cf. jj eiXoyia, 2 Cor. ix. 5, 6), which thine handmaid hath brought, let it be given to the young men in my lord's train" (lit. " at the feet of :" cf. Ex. xi. 8 ; Judg. iv. 10, etc.).— Ver. 28. The shrewd and pious woman supports her prayer for 1 " She founds her argument upon their meeting, which -was so mar- vellously seasonable, that it might be easily and truly gathered from this fact that it had taken place through the providence of God ; i.e. And now, because I meet thee so seasonably, do thou piously acknowledge with me the providence of God, which has so arranged all this, that innocent blood might not by chance be shed by thee." — Sei. Schmidt. 2 Seb. Schmidt has justly observed, that "she reminds David of the promise of God. Not that she prophesies, but that she has gathered it from the general promises of the word of God. The promise referred to is, that whoever does good to his enemies, and takes no vengeance upon them, God himself will avenge him upon his enemies ; according to the saying. Vengeance is mine, I will repay. And this is what Abigail says : And aow thine enemies shall be as Nabal." 244 THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL forgiveness of the wrong, which she takes upon herself, by promises of the rich blessing with which the Lord would recom- pense David. She thereby gives such clear and distinct ex- pression to her firm belief in the divine election of David as king of Israel, that her words almost amount to prophecy : " Fo7' Jehovah will make my lord a lasting house (cf. ch. ii. 35 ; and for the fact itself, 2 Sam. vii. 8 sqq., where the Lord con- firms this pious wish by His own promises to David himself) ; for my lord jigliteth the tears of Jehovah (yid. ch. xviii. 17), and evil is not discovered in thee thy whole life long." ^V1, evil, i.e. misfortune, mischief ; for the thought that he might also be preserved from wrong-doing is not expressed till ver. 31. "All thy days," lit. " from thy days," i.e. from the beginning of thy life. — Ver. 29. "And should any one rise up to pursue thee, . . . the soul of my lord icill be bound up in the bundle of the living with the Lord thy God." The metaphor is taken from the custom of binding up valuable things in a bundle, to prevent their being injured. The words do not refer primarily to eternal life with God in heaven, but only to the safe preservation of the righteous on this earth in the grace and fellowship of the Lord. But whoever is so hidden in the gracious fellowship of the Lord in this life, that no enemy can harm him or injure his life, the Lord will not allow to perish, even though temporal death should come, but will then receive him into eternal life. " But the sold of thine enemies, He will hurl away in the cup of the sling." " The cup (caph : cf. Gen. xxxii. 26) of the sling" was the cavity in which the stone was placed for the purpose of hurling. — Vers. 30, 31. Abigail concluded her intercession with the assurance that the forgiveness of Nabal's act would be no occasion of anguish of heart to David when he should have become prince over Israel, on account of his having shed inno- cent blood and helped himself, and also with the hope that he would remember her. From the words, " When Jehovah shall do to my lord according to all the good that He hath spoken con- cerning him, and shall make thee prince over Israel," it appears to follow that Abigail had received certain information of the anointing of David, and his designation to be the future king, probably through Samuel, or one of the pupils of the prophets. There is nothing to preclude this assumption, even if it cannot be historically sustained. Abigail manifests such an advance CHAP. XXV. 32-33. 215 and maturity in the life of faith, as could only have been derived from intercourse with prophets. It is expressly stated with regard to Elijah and Elisha, that at certain times the pious assembled together around the prophets. What prevents us from assuming the same with regard to Samuel ? The absence of any distinct testimony to that effect is amply compensated for by the brief, and for the most part casual, notices that are given of the influence which Samuel exerted upon all Israel.^ — ■ Ver. 31 introduces the apodosis to ver. 30 : So will this (i.e. the forgiveness of Nabal's folly, for which she had prayed in ver. 28) not be a stumbling-block (pukah : anything in the road which causes a person to stagger) and anguish of heart (i.e. conscientious scruple) to thee, and shedding innocent blood, and that my lord helps himself. 'IJI ^'SK'P'! is perfectly parallel to '131 npap, and cannot be taken as subordinate, as it is in the Vulgate, etc., in the sense of " that thou hast not shed blood innocently," etc. In this rendering not only is the vav cop. overlooked, but " not" is arbitrarily interpolated, to obtain a suitable sense, which the Vulgate rendering, quod effuderis sanguinem innoxiam, does not give. 3'''?''[i'! is to be taken con- ditionally : " and if Jehovah shall deal well with my lord, then," etc. Vers. 32-38. These words could not fail to appease David's wrath. In his reply he praised the Lord for having sent Abi- gail to meet him (ver. 32), and then congratulated Abigail upon her understanding and her actions, that she had kept him from bloodshed (ver. 33) ; otherwise he would certainly have carried out the revenge which he had resolved to take upon Nabal (ver. 34). OTNl is strongly adversative : nevertheless. Vy^^, inf. constr. Hiph. of )1T\. '3, otl, introduces the substance of the affirmation, and is repeated before the oath : DK ''3 . . . w ''3, (that) if thou hadst not, etc., (that) truly there would not have been left (cf. 2 Sara. ii. 27). The very unusual form ''i^^'^ri, an imperfect with the termination of the perfect, might indeed possibly be a copyist's error for ''' . . . ^X the verb ^^\ is wanting. The fol- lowing words, nioiin nb^i, are in apposition to the foregoing : " and let not fields of first-fruit offerings be upon you," i.e. fields producing fruit, from which offerings of first-fruits were pre- sented. This is the simplest and most appropriate explanation of the words, which have been very differently, and in some resjjects very marvellously rendered. The reason for this cursing of the mountains of Gilboa was, that there the shield of the heroes, particularly of Saul, had been defiled with blood, namely the blood of those whom the shield ought to defend. ?y2 does not mean to throw away (Dietrich.), but to soil or defile (as in the Chaldee), then to abhor. " Not anointed with oil," i.e. not cleansed and polished with oil, so that the marks of Saul's blood still adhered to it. v3 poetical for tb. The interpolation CHAP, I. 17-27. 291 af the words " as though " (quasi non esset unctus oho, Vulgate) cannot be sustained. — Ver. 22. Such was the ignominy experi- enced upon Gilboa by those who had always fought so bravely, that their bow and sword did not turn back until it was satis- fied with the blood and fat of the slain. The figure upon which the passage is founded is, that arrows drink the blood of the enemy, and a sword devours their flesh (vid. Deut. xxxii. 42 ; Isa. xxxiv. 5, 6 ; Jer. xlvi. 10). The two principal weapons are divided between Saul and Jonathan, so that the bow is assigned to the latter and the sword to the former. — Ver. 23. In death as in life, the two heroes were not divided, for they were alike in bravery and courage. Notwithstanding their difference of character, and the very opposite attitude which they assumed towards David, the noble Jonathan did not forsake his father, although his fierce hatred towards the friend whom Jonathan loved as his own soul might have undermined his attachment to his father. The two predicates, ^[j'.X?, loved and amiable, and D''W, affectionate or kind, apply chiefly to Jonathan; but they were also suitable to Saul in the earliest years of his reign, when he manifested the virtues of an able ruler, which secured for him the lasting affection and attachment of the people. In his mourning over the death of the fallen hero, David forgets all the injury that Saul has inflicted upon him, so that he only brings out and celebrates the more amiable aspects of his character. The light motion or swiftness of an eagle (cf. Hab. i. 8), and the strength of a lion (vid. ch. xvii. 10), were the leading characteristics of the great heroes of antiquity. — Lastly, in ver. 24, David commemorates the rich booty which Saul had brought to the nation, for the purpose of celebrating his heroic greatness in this respect as well. ''J^ was the scarlet purple (see at Ex. xxv. 4). " With delights," or w-ith lovelinesses, i.e. in a lovely manner. The second strophe (vers. 25 and 26) only applies to the 'riendship of Jonathan : Ver. 25. Oh how are the mighty fallen in the midst oi the battle 1 Jonathan (is) slain upon thy heights ! 26. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan : Thou wast very kind to me : Stranger than the love of woman was thy love to me I Ver. 25 is almost a verbal repetition of ver. 19. li' (vet. 292 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. 26) denotes the pincliing or pressure of the heart consequent upon pain and mourning. ^nt^PSp, third per a. fern., like a verb n"^ with the termination lengthened {vid. Ewald, § 194, &), to be wonderful or distinguished, ''inanx, thy love to me. Com- parison to the love of woman is expressive of the deepest earnestness of devoted love. The third strophe (ver. 27) contains simply a brief after- tone of sorrow, in which the ode dies away : Oh how are the mighty fallen, The instruments of war perished ! " The instruments of war" are not the weapons ; but the ex- pression is a figurative one, referring to the heroes by whom war was carried on (vid. Isa. xiii. 5). Luther has adopted this rendering (die Streitbaren). DAVID KING OVEK JUDAH, AND ISHBOSHETH KING OVER ISRAEL. BATTLE AT GIBEON. CHAP. II. After David had mourned for the fallen king, he went, in accordance with the will of the Lord as sought through the Urim, to Hebron, and was there anointed king by the tribe of Judah. He then sent his thanks to the inhabitants of Jabesh, for the love which they had shown to Saul in burying liis bones (vers. 1-7), and reigned seven years and a half at Hebron over Judah alone (vers. 10 and 11). Abner, on the other hand, put forward Ishbosheth the son of Saul, who still remained alive, as king over Israel (vers. 8 and 9) ; so that a war broke out between the adherents of Ishbosheth and those of David, in which Abner and his army were beaten, but the brave Asahel, the son-in-law of David, was slain by Abner (vers. 12-32). The promotion of Ishbosheth as king was not only a continuation of the hostility of Saul towards David, but also an open act of rebellion against Jehovah, who had rejected Saul and chosen David prince over Israel, and who had given such distinct proofs of this election in the eyes of the whole nation, that even Saul had been convinced of the appointment of David to be his successor upon the throne. But David attested his unqualified submission to the guidance of God, in contrast with this rebellion against His clearly revealed will, not only by not returning to tludah till he had received per- CHAP. II. 1-7. 293 mission from the Lord, but also by the fact that after the tribe of Judah had acknowledged him as king, he did not go to war with Ishbosheth, but contented himself with resisting the attack made upon him by the supporters of the house of Saul, because he was fully confident that the Lord would secure to him in due time the whole of the kingdom of Israel. Vers. 1-ia. David's return to Hebron, and anointing as king over Judali. — Ver. 1 . " After this" i.e. after the facts re- lated in ch. i., David inquired of the Lord, namely through tlie Urim, whether he should go up to one of the towns of Judah, and if so, to which. He received the replj^, "to Hebron" a place peculiarly well adapted for a capital, not only from its situation upon the mouutains, and in the centre of the tribe, but also from the sacred reminiscences connected with it from the olden time. David could have no doubt that, now that Saul was dead, he would have to give up his existing con- nection with the Philistines and return to his own land. But as the Philistines had taken the greater part of the Israelitish territory through their victory at Gilboa, and there was good reason to fear that the adherents of Saul, more especially the army with Abner, Saul's cousin, at its head, would refuse to acknowledge David as king, and consequently a civil war might break out, David would not return to his own land without the express permission of the Lord. Vers. 2-4a. When he went with his wives and all his retinue (vid. 1 Sam. xxvii. 2) to Hebron and the " cities of Hebron" i.e. the places belonging to the territory of Hebron, the men of Judah came (in the persons of their elders) and anointed him king over the house, i.e. the tribe, of Judah. Just as Saul was made king by the tribes after his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. xi. 15), so David was first of all anointed by Judah here, and afterwards by the rest of the tribes (ch. v. 3). Vers. 4&-7. A new section commences with 112^. The first act of David as king was to send messengers to Jabesh, to thank the inhabitants of this city for burying Saul, and to an- nounce to them his own anointing as king. As this expression of thanks involved a solemn recognition of the departed king, by which David divested himself of even the appearance of a rebellion, the announcement of the anointing he had received contained an indirect summons to the Jabeshites to recognise 294 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. him as their king now. — Ver. 6. " Ar)d now," sc. that ye have shown this love to Saul your lord, " mai/ Jehovah show you grace and truth." " Grace and truth" are connected together, as in Ex. xxxiv. 6, as the two sides by which the goodness of God is manifested to men, namely in His forgiving grace, and in His trustworthiness, or the fulfilment of His promises {vid. Ps. xxv. 10). " And I also show you this good" namely the prayer for the blessing of God (ver. 5), because ye have done this (to Saul). In ver. 7 there is attached to this the demand, that now that Saul their lord was dead, and the Judseans had anointed him (David) king, they would show themselves valiant, namely valiant in their reverence and fidelity towards David, who had become their king since the death of Saul. D3''n) njjpTnri, i.e. be comforted, spirited (cf. Judg. vii. 11). It needed some resolution and courage to recognise David as king, because Saul's army had fled to Gilead, and there was good ground for apprehending opposition to David on the part of Abner. Ishbosheth, however, does not appear to have been proclaimed king yet ; or at any rate the fact was not yet known to David. DJ1 does not belong to "'nf<, but to the whole clause, as ''OX is placed first merely for the sake of emphasis. Vers. 8-11. Promotion of Ishhosheth to he hing over Israel. — The account of this is attached to the foreeoing in the form of an antithesis : " But A bner, the chief captain of Saul (see at 1 Sam. xiv. 50), had taken Ishbosheth the son of Said, and led him over to Mahanaim." Ishbosheth had probably been in the battle at Gilboa, and fled with Abner across the Jordan after the battle had been lost. Ishbosheth (i.e. man of shame) was the fourth son of Saul (according to 1 Chron. viii. 33, ix. 39) : his proper name was Esh-baal {i.e. fire of Baal, probably equiva- 'ent to destroyer of Baal). This name was afterwards changed into Ishbosheth, just as the name of the god Baal was also translated into Bosheth (" shame," Hos. ix 10, Jer. iii. 24, etc.), and Jerubbaal changed into Jerubbosheth (see at Judg. viii. 35). Ewald's supposition, that bosheth was originally employed in a good sense as well, like alSax; and ^^^ (Gen. xxxi. 53), cannot be sustained. Mahanaim was on the eastern side of the Jordan, not far from the ford of Jabbok, and was an impor- tant place for the execution of Abner's plans, partly from its historical associations (Gen. xxxii. 2, 3), and partly also from CHAP. II. 8-11. 295 its situation. There he made Ishbosheth king ''for Gilead" i.e. the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan (as in Num. xxxii. 29, Josh. xxii. 9, etc.). " For the Asliurites: " this reading is decidedly faulty, since we can no more suppose it to refer to Assyria (Asshur) than to the Arabian tribe of the Assurim (Gen. XXV. 3) ; but the true name cannot be discovered.^ "■And for Jezreel" i.e. not merely the city of that name, but the plain that was named after it (as in 1 Sam. xxix. 1). "And for Ephraim, and Benjamin, and all (the rest of) Israel" of course not including Judah, where David had already been acknowledged as king. — Vers. 10, 11. Length of the reigns of Ishbosheth over Israel, and David at Hebron. The age of Ishbosheth is given, as is generally the case at the commencement of a reign. He was forty years old when he began to reign, and reigned two years; whereas David was king at Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half. We are struck with this differ- ence in the length of the two reigns; and it cannot be explained, as Seb. Schmidt, Clericus, and others suppose, on the simple assumption that David reigned two years at Hebron over Judah, namely up to the time of the murder of Ishbosheth, and then five years and a half over Israel, namely up to the time of the conquest ^ In the Septuagint we find Qctuipl or Qaaovp, an equally mistaken form. The Chaldee has "over the tribe of Asher," which is also unsuitable, unlesi, we include the whole of the northern portion of Canaan, including the terri- tory of Zebulun and Naphtali. But there is no proof that the name Asher was ever extended to the territory of the three northern tribes. "We should be rather disposed to agree with Bachienne, who supposes it to refer to the city of Asher (Josh. xvii. 7) and its territory, as this city was in the south- east of Jezreel, and Abner may possibly have conquered this district for Ishbosheth with Gilead as a base, before he ventured to dispute the govern- ment of Israel with the Philistines, if only we could discover any reason why the inhabitants (" the Ashurites") should be mentioned instead of the city Asher, or it it were at all likely that one city should be introduced in the midst of a number of large districts. The Syriac and Vulgate have Geshuri, and therefore seem to have read or conjectured ''"ilE'jn ", and Thenius decides in favour of this, understanding the name Geshur to refer to the most northerly portion of the land on both sides of the Jordan, from Mount Hermon to the Lake of Gennesareth (as in Dent. iii. 14, Josh. xii. 5, xiii. 13, 1 Chron. ii. 23). But no such usage of speech can be deduced from any of these passages, as Geshuri is used there to denote the land of the Geshurites, on the north-east of Bashan, which had a king of its ow in the time of David (see at ch. iii. 3), and which Abner would certainly never have thought of conquering. 296 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. of Jerusalem : for tliis is at variance with the plain statement in the text, that " David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half." The opinion that the two years of Ishbosheth's reign are to be reckoned up to the time of the war with David, because Abner played the principal part during the other five years and a half that David continued to reign at Hebron, is equally untenable. We may see very clearly from ch. iii.-v. not only that Ishbosheth was king to the time of his death, which took place after that of Abner, but also that after both these events David was anointed king over Israel in Hebron by all the tribes, and that he then went directly to attack Jerusalem, and after conquering the citadel of Zion, chose that city as his own capital. The short duration of Ishbosheth's reign can only be explained, therefore, on the supposition that he was not made king, as David was, immedi- ately after the death of Saul, but after the recovery by Abner of the land which the Philistines had taken on this side the Jordan, which may have occupied five years.-' Vers. 12-32. War between the supporters of Ishbosheth and those of David. — Vers. 12, 13. When Abner had brought all Israel under the dominion of Ishbosheth, he also sought to make Judah subject to him, and went with this intention from Ma- lianaim to Gibeon, the present Jib, in the western portion of the tribe of Benjamin, two good hours to the north of Jeru- salem (see at Josh. ix. 3), taking with him the servants, i.e. the fighting men, of Ishbosheth. There Joab, a son of Zeruiah, David's sister (1 Chron. ii. 16), advanced to meet him with the servants, i.e. the warriors of David ; and the two armies met at ^ From the fact that in vers. 10, 11, Ishbosheth's ascending the throne is mentioned before that of David, and is also accompanied with a statement of his age, whereas the age of David is not given tiU ch. v. 4, 5, when he became king over all Israel, Ewald draws the erroneous conclusion that the earlier (?) historian regarded Ishbosheth as the true king, and David as a pretender. But the very opposite of this is stated as distinctly as possible in vers. 4 sqq. (compared with ver. 8). The fact that Ishbosheth is men- tioned before David in ver. 10 may be explained simply enough from the custom so constantly observed in the book of Genesis, of mentioning sub- ordinate lines or subordinate persons first, and stating whatever seemed worth recording with regard to them, in order that the ground might be perfectly clear for relating the history of the principal characters without uiy interruption. CHAP II. 12-32. 207 the pool of Gibeon, i.e. probably one of the large reservoirs that are still to be found there (see Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 135—6 ; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerusalem, ii. pp. 515—6), the one encamping upon the one side of the pool and the other upon the other. — Vers. 14 sqq. Abner then proposed to Joab that the contest should be decided by single combat, probably for the purpose of avoiding an actual civil war. " Let the yourtg men arise and lorestle before us." pnc', to joke or play, is used here to denote the war-play of single combat. As Joab accepted this proposal, twelve young warriors for Benjamin and Ishbosheth, and twelve from David's men, went over, i.e. went out of the two camps to the appointed scene of conflict ; " and one seized the other s head, and his sword was (immediately) in the side of the other (his antagonist), so that they fell together." The clause iniJT n^3 i3")ni is a circumstantial clause : and his sword (every one's sword) was in the side of the other, i.e. thrust into it. Sending the sword into the op- ponent's side is thus described as simultaneous with the seizure of his head. The ancient translators expressed the meaning by supplying a verb (ei/eTTi^^az^, c?«/?«ii ; LXX., Vulg.). This was a sign that the young men on both sides fought with great ferocity, and also with great courage. The place itself received the name of Helhath-hazzurim, "field of the sharp edges," in consequence (for this use of swr, see Ps. Ixxxix. 44). — Ver. 17. As this single combat decided nothing, there followed a general and very sore or fierce battle, in which Abner and his troops were put to flight by the soldiers of David. The only thing connected with this, of which we have any further account, is the slaughter of Asahel by Abner, which is mentioned here (vers. 18-23) on accountof the important results which followed. Of the three sons of Zeruiah, viz. Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, Asahel was peculiarly light of foot, like one of the gazelles ; and he pursued Abner most eagerly, without turning aside to the right or to the left. — Vers. 20, 21. Then Abner turned round, asked him whether he was Asahel, and said to him, " 2urn to thy right hand or to thy left, and seize one of the young men and take his armour for thyself," i.e. slay one of the common soldiers, ind take his accoutrements as booty, if thou art seeking for that kind of fame. But Asahel would not turn back from Abner. Then he repeated his command that he would depart, and added, " Why should I smite thee to the ground, and how could I then lift 298 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. up my face to Joah thy brother V from which we may see that Abner did not want to put the young hero to death, out of regard for Joab and their former friendship. — Ver. 23. But when he still refused to depart in spite of this warning, Abner wounded him in the abdomen with the hinder part, i.e. the lower end of the spear, so that the spear came out behind, and Asahel fell dead upon the spot. The lower end of the spear appears to have been pointed, that it might be stuck into the ground (vid. 1 Sam. xxvi. 7) ; and this will explain the fact that the spear passed through the body. The fate of the young hero excited such sympathy, that all who came to the place where he had fallen stood still to mourn his loss (cf. ch. xx. 12). — Ver. 24. But Joab and Abishai pursued Abner till the sun set, and until they had arrived at the hill Ammali, in front of Giali, on the way to the desert of Giheon. Nothing further is known of the jjlaces mentioned here. — Vers. 25, 26. The Benjaminites then gathered in a crowd behind Abner, and halted upon the top oi a hill to beat back their pursuers ; and Abner cried out to Joab, " Shall the sioord then devour for ever (shall there be no end to the slaughter) 1 dost thou not knoiv that bitterness arises at last f and how long wilt thou not say to the people, to return from pur- suing their brethren'?" Thus Abner warns Joab of the conse- quences of a desperate struggle, and calls upon him to put an end to all further bloodshed by suspending the pursuit. — Ver. 27. Joab replied, " i/" thou hadst not spoken (i.e. challenged to single combat, ver. 14), the people loould have gone aivay in the morning, every one from his brother," i.e. there would have been no such fratricidal conflict at all. The first '3 introduces the substance of the oath, as in 1 Sam. xxv. 34 ; the second gives greater force to it (yid. Ewald, § 330, b). Thus Joab threw all the blame of the fight upon Abner, because he had been the instigator of the single combat ; and as that was not decisive, and was so bloody in its character, the two armies had felt obliged to fight it out. But he then commanded the trumpet to be blown for a halt, and the pursuit to be closed — Ver. 29. Abner proceeded with his troops through the Arabah, i.e. the valley of the Jordan, marching the whole night ; and then crossing the river, went through the whole of Bithron back to Mahanaim. Bithron is a district upon the eastern side of the Jordan, which is only men- tioned here. Aquila and the Vulgate identify it with Bethhoron ; CHAP. III. 1. 299 but there is no more foundation for this than for the suggestion of Thenius, tliat it is the same place as Betliliaram^ the later Libias, at the mouth of the Nahr Hesbdn (see at Num. xxxii. 36). It is very evident that Bithron is not the name of a city, but of a district, from the fact that it is preceded by the word all, yArLch. would be perfectly unmeaning in the case of a city. The meaning of the word is a cutting ; and it was no doubt the name given to some ravine in the neighbourhood of the Jabbok, between the Jordan and Mahanaim, which was on the north side of the Jabbok. — Vers. 30, 31. Joab also assembled his men for a retreat. Nineteen of his soldiers were missing besides Asahel, all of whom had fallen in the battle. But they had slain as many as three hundred and sixty of Benjamin and of Abner's men. This striking disproportion in the numbers may be accounted for from the fact that in Joab's army there were none but brave and well-tried men, who had gathered round David a long time before ; whereas in Abner's army there were only the remnants of the Israelites who had been beaten upon Gilboa, and who had been still further weakened and depressed by their attempts to recover the land which was occupied by the Philistines. — Ver. 32. On the way back, David's men took up the body of Asahel, and buried it in his father's grave at Bethlehem. They proceeded thence towards Hebron, marching the whole night, so that they reached Hebron itself at daybreak. " It got light to them (i.e. the day dawned) at IJebron." DAVID ADVANCES AND ISHBOSHETH DECLINES. ABNEK GOES OVER TO DAVID, AND IS MUEDEEED BY JOAB. — CHAP. III. Ver. 1. " Aiid the war became long (was protracted) between the house of Saul m^d the house of David ; but David became stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul weaker and weaker.''^ ^pn, when connected with another verb or with an adjective, expresses the idea of the gradual progress of an affair (vid. Ges § 131, 3, Anm. 3). The historian sums up in these words the historical course of the two royal houses, as they stood opposed to one another. " The war" does not mean continual fighting, but the state of hostility or war in which they con- tinued to stand towards one another. They concluded no peace, 300 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. SO that David was not recognised by Ishboslietli as king, any more than Ishbosheth by David. Not only is there nothing said about any continuance of actual warfare by Abner or Ishbosheth after the loss of the battle at Gibeon, but such a thing was very improbable in itself, as Ishbosheth was too weak to be able to carry on the war, whilst David waited with firm reliance upon the promise of the Lord, until all Israel should come over to him. Vers. 2-5. Growth of the House of David. — Proof of the advance of the house of David is furnished by the multi- plication of his family at Hebron. The account of the sons who ivere born to David at Hebron does not break the thread, as Clericus, Thenius, and others suppose, but is very appro- priately introduced here, as a practical proof of the strengthen- ing of the house of David, in harmony with the custom of beginning the history of the reign of every king with certain notices concerning his family (yid. ch. v. 13 sqq. ; 1 Kings iii. 1, xiv. 21, XV. 2, 9, etc.). We have a similar list of the sons of David in 1 Chron. iii. 1-4. The first two sons were born to liim from the two wives whom he had brought with him to Hebron (1 Sam. xxv. 42, 43). The Chethibh •n^''1 is probably only a copyist's error for 1"i?J*J, which is the reading in many Codices. From Ahinoam — the first-born, Amnon (called Ami- non in ch. xiii. 20) ; from Abigail — the second, Chileab. The latter is also called Daniel in 1 Chron. iii. 1, and therefore had probably two names. The lamed before Ahinoam and the fol- lowing names serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, like the German von, in consequence of the word son being omitted {yid. Ewald, § 292, a). The other four were by wives whom he had married in Hebron : Absalom hy Maachah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a small kingdom in the north-east of Bashan (see at Deut. iii. 14) ; Adonijah by Haggith ; Shephatiah hy A bital ; and Ithream hy Eglah. The origin of the last three wives is unknown. The clause appended to Eglah's name, viz. " David's wife," merely serves as a fitting conclusion to the whole list (Bertheau on 1 Chron. iii. 3), and is not added to show that Eglah was David's principal wife, which would necessitate the conclusion drawn by the Rabbins, that Michal was the wife intended. CHAP. III. 6-39. 301 Vers. 6-39. Decline of the House of Saul. — Vers. 6-11. Abners quarrel with Isliboslietli. — During the war be- tween the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner adhered firmly to the house of Saul, but he appropriated one of Saul's concubines to himself. When Ishbosheth charged him with this, he fell into so violent a rage, that he at once announced to Ishbosheth his intention to hand over the kingdom to David. Abner had certainly perceived the utter incapacity of Ish- bosheth for a very long time, if not from the very outset, and had probably made him king after the death of Saul, merely that he might save himself from the necessity of submitting to David, and might be able to rule in Ishbosheth's name, and possibly succeed in paving his own way to the throne. His appropriation of the concubine of the deceased monarch was at any rate a proof, according to Israelitish notions, and in fact those generally prevalent in the East, that he was aiming at the throne (yid. ch. xvi. 21; 1 Kings ii. 21). But it may gradually have become obvious to him, that the house of Saul could not possibly retain the government in opposition to David ; and this may have led to his determination to per- suade all the Israelites to acknowledge David, and thereby to secure for himself an influential post under his government. This will explain in a very simple manner Abner's fiilling away from Ishbosheth and going over to David. — Vers. 6 and 7 constitute one period, expanded by the introduction of circum- stantial clauses, the '0^5 (it came to pass) of the protasis being continued in the 10N>1 (he said) of ver. lb. " It came to pass, when there was war betioeen the house of Saul and the house of David, and Abner showed himself strong for the house of Saul, and Saul had a concubine named Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, that he (Ishbosheth) said to Abner, Why hast thou gone to my father s concubine ?" The subject to " said" is omitted in the apodosis ; but it is evident from ver. 8, and the expression " my father" that Ishbosheth is to be supplied. Even in the second circumstantial clause, " and Saul had a concubine" the reason why this is mentioned is only to be gathered from Ishbosheth's words. 3 pinnn : to prove one's self strong for, or with, a person, i.e. to render him powerful help. 7S S|i in the Chronicles ; yet the translators of the Septuagint, Chaldee, Vulgate, and other ver- sions, all had the reading ID in their text, and yPa has therefore been taken as an appellative and rendered airo tuv dp^ovraiv 'lovSd (" from the rulers of Judah "), or as Luther renders it, " from the citizens of Judah." This is decidedly incorrect, as the word " thence " which follows is j^erfectly unintelligible on CHAP. VI. 1-10. 329 acy other supposition than that Baale-Jelnidali is the name of a place. Baale-Jehudah is another name of the city of Kirjath- jearim (Josh. xv. 60, xviii. 14), which is called Baalah in Josh. XV. 9 and 1 Chron. xiii. 6, according to its Canaanitish name, instead of which the name Kirjath-jearim (city of the woods) was adopted by the Israelites, though without entirely supplant- ing the old name. The epithet " of Judah" is a contraction of the fuller expression " city of the children of Judah " in Josh, xviii. 14, and is added to distinguish this Baal city, which was situated upon the border of the tribe of Judah, frora other cities that were also named after Baal, such as Baal or Bacdath-beer in the tribe of Simeon (1 Chron. iv. 33, Josh. xix. 8), Baalath in the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 44), the present Kuryet el Enah (see at Josh. ix. 17). The tp (from) is either a very ancient error of the pen that crept by accident into the text, or, if genuine and original, it is to be explained on the supposition that the historian dropped the construction with which he started, and instead of mentioning Baale-Jehudah as the place to which David went, gave it at once as the place from which lie fetched the ark ; so that the passage is to be understood in this way : " And David went, and all the people who were with him, out of Baale-Jehudah, to which they had gone up to fetch the ark of God" (Kimchi). In the sentence which follows, a difficulty is also occasioned by the repetition of the word PB' in the clause v>V . . . ^'j^^ iti'X, " iqoon which the name is called, the name of Jehovah of hosts, who is enthroned above the cheru- bim." Tiie difficulty cannot be solved by altering the first D'w* into DK', as Clericus, Thenius, and Bertheau suggest : for if this alteration were adopted, we should have to render the passage " where the name of Jehovah of hosts is invoked, who is enthroned above the cherubim (which are) upon it {i.e. upon the ark) ; " and this would not only introduce an unscriptural thought into the passage, but it would be impossible to find any suitaljle meaning for the word IvV, except by making very arbi- trary interpolations. Throughout the whole of the Old Testa- ment we never meet with the idea that the name of Jehovah was invoked at the ark of the covenant, because no one was allowed to approach the ark for the purpose of invoking the name of the Lord there ; and upon the great day of atonement the high priest was only allowed to enter the most holy place with the 330 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. cloud of incense, to sprinkle the blood of the atoning sacrifice upon the ark. Moreover, the standing expression for "call upon' the name of the Lord" is '" Dp^ ny^ ; whereas 'S ^V "" ^^ Nipj signifies " the name of Jehovah is called above a person or thing." Lastly, even if V^V belonged to C?"!?!] ^^\ it would not only be a superfluous addition, occurring nowhere else in connection with '3n 3B''', not even in 1 Chron. xlii. 6 (vid. 1 Sam. iv. 4 ; 2 Kings xix. 15 ; Isa. xxxvii. 16; Ps. xcix. 1), but such an addition if made at all would necessarily require IvV Tl"S {vid. Ex. XXV. 22). The only way in which we can obtain a biblical thought and grammatical sense is by connecting vbv with the 1^?? before xnpj ; " above which (ark) the name of Jehovah-Zebaoth is named," i.e. above which Jehovah reveals His glory or His divine nature to His people, or manifests His gracious presence in Israel. " The name of God denotes all the operations of God thi-ough which He attests His personal presence in that relation into which He has entered to man, i.e. the whole of the divine self-manifestation, or of that side of the divine nature which is turned towards men" (Oehler, Herzog's Real-Encycl. x. p. 197). From this deeper meaning of " the name of God " we may probably explain the repetition of the word DC', which is first of all written absolutely (as at the close of Lev. xxiv. 16), and then more fully defined as "the name of the Lord of hosts." — Vers. 3, 4. '■'They set the ark of God upon a new cart, and took it away from the house of Abinadab." ^"S'ln means here " to put (load) upon a cart," and Nt": to take away, i.e. drive off: for there are grammatical (or syntactical) rea- sons which make it impossible to render WNfe")! as a pluperfect (" they had taken "), on account of the previous UDT'l. Tlie ark of the covenant had been standing in the house of Abinadab from the time when the Philistines had sent it back into the land of Israel, i.e. about seventy years (viz. twenty years to the victory at Ebenezer mentioned in 1 Sam. vii. 1 sqq., forty years under Samuel and Saul, and about ten years under David : see the chronological table in vol. iv. p. 289). The further statement, that " Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abina- dab, drove the cart," may easily be reconciled with this. These two sons were either born about the time when the ark was first taken to Abinadab's house, or at a subsequent period ; or else the term sons is used, as is frequently the case, in the sense of CHAP. VI. 1-10. 331 grandsons. The words from HB'in (tlie last word in ver. 3) to Giheah in ver. 4 are wanting in the Septuaglnt, and can only have been introduced through the error of a copyist, whose eye wandered back to the first njjV in ver. 3,. so that he copied a whole line twice over ; for they not only contain a pure tautology, a merely verbal and altogether superfluous and pur- poseless repetition, but they are altogether unsuitable to the connection in which they stand. Not only is there something very strange in the repetition of the HB'in without an article after n^JVn ; but the words which follow, 'n pN UV (with the ark of God), cannot be made to fit on to the repeated clause, for there is no sense whatever in such a sentence as this : " They brought it (the ark) out of the house of Abinadab, which is upon the hill, with the ark of God." The only way in which the words " with the ark " can be made to acquire any meaning at all, is by omitting the repetition referred to, and connecting them with the new cart in ver. 3 : " Uzzah and Ahio . . . drove the cart with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark." Ji]?, to drive (a carriage), is construed here with an accusative, in 1 Chron. xiii. 7 with 3, as in Isa. xi. 6. — Ver. 5. And David and all the house (people) of Israel were D''pnB'p, sporting, i.e. they danced and played, before Jehovah. CK'ni ''VJ? 7211^ " with all kinds of woods of cypresses." This could only mean, with all kinds of instruments made of cypress wood ; but this mode of expression would be a very strange one even if the reading were correct. In the Chronicles, however (ver. 8), instead of this strange expression, we find D''Te'31 tS!'733, " with all their might and with songs." This is evidently the correct reading, from which our text has sprung, although the latter is found in all the old versions, and even in the Septuagint, which really combines the two readings thus : ev opydvoi^ rjpfj,o(Tfj,evoi<; iv la'^vl Koi iv coSat?, where iv opydvoi'; ■r^p^ocrfievoi'i is evidently the interpretation of D''B'i"i3 ''Vj? ^33 ; for the text of the Chronicles cannot be regarded as an explanation of Samuel. Moreover, songs would not be omitted on such a festive occa- sion ; and two of the instruments mentioned, viz. the kinnor and nehel (see at 1 Sam. x. 5), were generally played as accom- paniments to singing. The vav before D''"i''t;'3, and before the different instruments, corresponds to the Latin et . . . et, both . . . and. f\^, the timbrel. D''ryr'^?'' i3''y:ptp3j sistris et cymhalis 332 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. (Vulg., Syr.), "with bells and cymbals" (Lutlicr). DW?0, from yiJ, are instruments that are shaken, the a-elarpa, sistra, of the ancients, which consisted of two iron rods fastened together at one end, either in a semicircle or at right angles, upon which rings were hung loosely, so as to make a tinkling sound when they -were shaken. D''^y?y = D^npVD are cymbals or castanets. Instead of D'yj^JD, we find ninv'sn, trumpets, mentioned in the Chronicles in the last rank after the cymbals. It is possible that sistra were played and trumpets blown, so that the two accounts complete each other. — Vers. 6, 7. When the procession had reached the threshing-floor of JVachon, Uzzah stretched out his hand to lay hold of the ark, i.e. to keep it from falling over with the cart, because the oxen slipped. And the wrath of the Lord was kindled, and God slew Uzzah upon the spot. Goren nachon means " the threshing-floor of the stroke" (nachon from n33, not from 113) ; in the Chronicles we have goren chidoii, i.e.. the threshing-floor of destruction or disaster (li'T'3 = I''?, Job xxi. 20). Chidon is probably only an explanation of nachon, so that the name may have been given to the threshing-floor, not from its owner, but from the incident connected with the ark which took place there. Eventually, however, this name was supplanted by the name Perez-uzzah (ver. 8). The situation of the threshing-floor cannot be determined, as all that we can gather from this account is that the house of Obed-edom the Gathite was somewhere near it ; but no village, hamlet, or town is mentioned.'' Jerome paraphrases "li^lC lOOE' ''2 thus : " Because the oxen kicked and turned it (the ark) over." But DDK' does not mean to kick ; its true meaning is to let go, or let lie (Ex. xxiii. 11 ; Deut. xv. 2, 3), hence to slip or stumble. The stumbling of the animals might easily have turned the cart over, and this was what Uzzah tried to prevent by laying hold of the ark. God smote him there " on account of the offence" {>^, air. "key. from ^^^, in the sense of erring, or committing a fault). The writer of the Chronicles gives it thus : " Because ^ If it were possible to discover the situation of Gath-rimraon, the home of Obed-edom (see at ver. 10), we might probably decide the question whether Obed-edom was still living in the town where he was born or not. But according to the Onom., Kirjath-jearim was ten miles from Jerusalem, and Gath-rimmon twelve, that is to say, farther off. Now, if these state- ments are correct, Obed-edom's house cannot have been in Gath-rimmon. CHAP. VI. 1-10. 333 he had stretched out his hand to the ark," though of course the text before us is not to be altered to this, as Thenius and JBertheau suggest. — Ver. 8. " And David was angry, because Jehovah had made a rent on Uzzah, and called the place Perez-uzzah" (rent of Uzzah). pQ J'lS, to tear a rent, is here applied to a sudden tearing away from life, p "in^ is under- stood by many in the sense of " he troubled himself ;" but this meaning cannot be grammatically sustained, whilst it is quite possible to become angry, or fall into a state of violent excite- ment, at an unexpected calamity. The burning of David's anger was not directed against God, but referred to the calamity which had befallen Uzzah, or speaking more correctly, to the cause of this calamity, which David attributed to himself or to his undertaking. As he had not only resolved upon the removal of the ark, but had also planned the way in which it should be taken to Jerusalem, he could not trace the occasion of Uzzah's death to any other cause than his own plans. He was therefore angry that such misfortune had attended his undertaking. In his first excitement and dismay, David may not have perceived the real and deeper ground of this divine judgment. Uzzah's offence consisted in the fact that he had touched the ark with profane feelings, although with good intentions, namely to prevent its rolling over and falling from the cart. Touching the ark, the throne of the divine glory and visible pledge of the invisible presence of the Lord, was a violation of the majesty of the holy God. " Uzzah was therefore a type of all who with good intentions, humanly speaking, yet with unsanctified minds, interfere in the affairs of the kingdom of God, from tJie notion that they are in danger, and with the hope of saving them " (O. v. Gerlach). On further reflection, David could not fail to discover where the cause of Uzzah's offence, which lie had atoned for with his life, re'dly had lain, and that it had actually arisen from the fact that he (David) and those about him had decided to disregard the distinct instructions of the law with regard to the handling of the ark. According to Num. iv. the ark was not only to be moved by none but Levites, but it was to be carried on the shoulders, not in a carnage ; and in ver. 15, even the Levites were expressly forbidden to touch it on pain of death. But instead of taking these instructions as their rule, they had followed the example of the Philistines 534 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUKL. when they sent back the ark (1 Sam. vi. 7 sqq.), and had placed it upon a new cart, and directed Uzzah to drive it, whilst, as his conduct on the occasion clearly shows, he had no idea of the unapproachable holiness of the ark of God, and had to expiate his offence with his life, as a warning to all the Israelites. — Vers. 9, 10. David's excitement at what had occurred was soon changed into fear of the Lord, so that he said, " How shall the ark of Jehovah come to met" If merely touching the ark of God is punished in this way, how can 1 have it brought near me, up to the citadel of Zion 1 He therefore relinquished his intention of bringing it into the city of David, and placed it in the house of Obed-edom the Gathite. Obed-edom was a Levite of the family of the Korahites, who sprang from Kohath (com- pare Ex. vi. 21, xviii. 16, with 1 Chron. xxvi. 4), and belonged to the class of Levitical doorkeepers, whose duty it was, in connection with other Levites, to watch over tlie ark in the sacred tent (1 Chron. xv. 18, 24). He is called the Gittite or Gailiite from his birthplace, the Levitical city of Gath-rimmon in the tribe of Dan (Josh. xxi. 24, xix. 45). Vers. 11-19. Removal of the ark of God to the city of David (cf. 1 Chron. xv.). — Vers. 11, 12. When the ark had been in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and David heard that the Lord had blessed his house for the sake of the ark of God, he went thither and brought it up to the city of David with gladness, i.e. with festal rejoicing, or a solemn procession. (For i^nob'j in the sense of festal rejoicing, or a joyous fete, see Gen. xxxi. 27, Neh. xii. 43, etc.) On this occasion, however, David adhered strictly to the instructions of the law, as the more elaborate account given in the Chronicles clearly shows. He not only gathered together all Israel at Jerusalem to join in this solemn act, but summoned the priests and Levites, and commanded them to sanctify themselves, and carry the ark " according to the right," i.e. as the Lord had commanded in the law of Moses, and to offer sacrifices during the procession, and sing songs, i.e. psalms, with musical accompaniment. In the very condensed account before us, all that is mentioned is the carrying of the ark, the sacrificing during the march, and the festivities of the king and people. But even from these few facts we see that David had discovered his former mistake, and had given up the idea of removing the ark upon a carriage CHAP. VI U-19. 335 as a transgression of the law. — Ver. 1 3. The bearers of the ark are not particularly mentioned in this account ; but it is very evident that they were Levites, as the Chronicles affirm, from the fact that the ark was carried this time, and not driven, as before. " And it came to pass, when the bearers of the ark of Jehovah had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatted calf" (i.e. had them sacrificed). These words are generally under- stood as meaning, that sacrifices of this kind were offered alone the whole way, at the distance of six paces apart. This would certainly have been a possible thing, and there would be no necessity to assume that the procession halted every six paces, until the sacrificial ceremony was completed, but the ark might have continued in progress, whilst sacrifices were being offered at the distances mentioned. And even the immense number of sacrificial animals that would have been required is no valid objection to such an assumption. We do not know what the distance really was : all that we know is, that it was not so much as ten miles, as Kirjath-jearim was only about twelve miles from Jerusalem, so that a few thousand oxen, and the same number of fatted calves, would have been quite sufficient. But the words of the text do not distinctly affirm that sacrifices were offered whenever the bearers advanced six paces, but only that this was done as soon as the bearers had taken the first six steps. So that, strictly speaking, all that is stated is, tliat when the procession had started and gone six paces, the sacrifice was offered, namely, for the purpose of inaugurating or consecrating the solemn procession. In 1 Chron. xv. this fact is omitted ; and it is stated instead (ver. 26), that " when God helped the Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, they offered seven bullocks and seven rams," i.e. at the close of the procession, when the journey was ended, to praise God for the fact that the Levites had been enabled to carry the ark of God to the place appointed for it, without suffering the slightest harm.^ — Ver. 14. " And David danced with all his might before ^ There is no discrepancy, therefore, between the two different accounts ; but the one supplements the other in a manner perfectly in harmony with the whole affair, — at the outset, a sacrifice consisting of one ox and one fatted calf ; and at the close, one of seven oxen and seven rams. Conse- quently there is no reason for altering the text of the verse before us, aa Thenius proposes, according to the senseless rendering of the LXX., x»l 336 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL the Lord {i.e. before the ark), and was girded with a white ephod ('shoulder-dress)." Dancing, as an expression of holy enthu- siasm, was a customary thing from time immemorial : we meet with it as early as at the festival of thanksgiving at the Red Sea (Ex. xv. 20) ; but there, and also at subsequent celebra- tions of the different victories gained by the Israelites, none but women are described as taking part in it (Judg. xi. M, xxi. 19 ; 1 Sam. xviii. 6). The white ephod was, strictly speaking, a priestly costume, although in the law it is not pre- scribed as the dress to be worn by them when performing their official duties, but rather as the dress which denoted the priestly character of the wearer (see at 1 Sam. xxii. 18) ; and for this reason it was worn by David in connection with these festivities in honour of the Lord, as the head of the priestly nation of Israel (see at 1 Sam. ii. 18). In ver. 15 it is still further related, that David and all the house (nation) of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with jubilee and trumpet-blast, nviin is used here to signify the song of jubilee and the joyous shouting of the people. In the Chronicles (ver. 28) the musical instru- ments played on the occasion are also severally mentioned. — Ver. 16. When the ark came (i.e. was carried) into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and there she saw king David leaping and dancing before Jehovah, and despised him in her heart, n'ni, " and it came to pass," for 'H*!, because there is no progress made, but only another element introduced. N3 is a perfect : " the ark had come, . . . and Michal looked through the window, . . . there she saw," etc. Michal is intentionally designated the daughter of Saul here, instead of the wife of David, because on this occasion she manifested her fathei''s disposition rather than her husband's. In Saul's time people did not trouble themselves about the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. xiii. 3) ; public worship was neglected, and the soul for vital religion had died out in the family of the king. Michal possessed teraphim, and in r,aciii |«tT aiTou atpot/Ti; r/iu iciliuToii stttx xopo], xat ^ijfiit f-oa^^n; k«'i Apvi; (" with David there were bearers of tlie ark, sevea choirs, and saoriflcea of a calf and Iambs"), which has also found its way into the Vulgate, though Jerome has rendered our Hebrew text faithfully afterwards (i.e. after the gloss, which was probably taken from the Itala, and inserted in bis tran-slation). CHAP. VI. 20-23. 3<> I David she only loval the brave hero and exalted king : she therefore took offence at the humility with which the king, in his pious enthusiasm, placed himself on an equality with all the rest of the nation before the Lord. — Ver. 17. When the ark was brought to the place appointed for it upon Mount Zion, and was deposited in the tent which David had prepared for it, he offered burnt-offerings and thank-offerings before the Lord. " In its place" is still further defined as " in the midst of the tent which David," etc., i.e. in the Most Holy Place ; for the tent would certainly be constructed according to the type of the Mosaic tabernacle. The burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were offered to consecrate the newly erected house of God. — Vers. 18, 19. When the offering of sacrifice was over, David blessed the people in the name of the Lord, as Solomon did afterwards at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings viii. 55), and gave to all the (assembled) people, both men and women, to every one a slice of bread, a measure (of wine), and a cake for a festal meal, i.e. for the sacrificial meal, which was cele- brated with the slielamim after the offering of the sacrifices, and after the king had concluded the liturgical festival with a benediction. On? n?n is a round cake of bread, baked for sacri- ficial meals, and synonymous with Dri7~i33 (1 Chron. xvi. 3), as we may see from a comparison of Ex. xxix. 23 with Lev. viii. 26 (see the commentary on Lev. viii. 2), But the meaning of the uTT Xey. "'SB'N is uncertain, and has been much disputed. Most of the Eabbins understand it as signifying a piece of flesh or roast meat, deriving the word from ti'X and IS ; but this is certainly false. There is more to be said in favour of the derivation proposed by L. de Dieu, viz. from the Ethiopic ISE', netiri, from which Gesenius and Roediger (Ges. Thes. p. 1470) have drawn their explanation of the word as signifying a measure of wine or other beverage. For nB'''B'X, the meaning grape-cake or raisin-cake is established by Song of Sol. ii. 5 and Hos. iii. 1 (vid. Hengstenberg, Chislol. on Hos. iii. 1). The people returned home after the festal meal. Vers. 20-23. When David returned home to bless his house, as he had previously blessed the people, Michal came to meet hiui with scornful words, saying, " How has the king of Israel glori- fied himself to-day, when he stripped himself before the eyes of the maids of his servants, as only one of the loose people strips him- Y 338 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. self V The unusual combination ni??3 nipana is explained by Ewald (§ 240, e, p. 607) in this manner, that whilst, so far as the sense of the clause is concerned, the second verb ought to be in the infinitive absolute, they were both written with a very Slight change of form in the infinitive construct ; whereas others regard niPW as an unusual form of the infinitive absolute (Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 430), or a copyist's error for npjp (Thenius, Olsh. Gr. p. 600). The proud daughter of Saul was offended at the fact, that the king had let himself down on this occasion to the level of the people. She availed herself of the shortness of the priests' shoulder-dress, to make a contemptuous remark concerning David's dancing, as an impropriety that was unbe- coming in a king. " Who knows whether the proud woman did not intend to sneer at the rank of the Levites, as one that was contemptible in her eyes, since their humble service may have looked very trivial to her?" (Berleh. Bible.) — Vers. 21, 22. David replied, " Before Jehovah, who chose me before thy father and all his house, to appoint me prince over the people of Jehovah, over Israel, before Jehovah have I plaj'ed (Jit. joked, given utterance to my joy). And I will be still more despised, and become base in my eyes : and with the maidens of whom thou hast spoken, with them will I be honoured." The copula vav before '''iiipnb' serves to introduce the apodosis, and may be explained in this way, that the relative clause appended to " before Jehovah" acquired the power of a protasis on account of its length ; so that, strictly speaking, there is an anakolouthon, as if the protasis read thus : " Before Jehovali, as He hath chosen me over Israel, I have humbled myself before Jehovah" (for "before him"). With the words "who chose me before i/i^ father and all his house" David humbles the pride of the king's daughter. His playing and dancing referred to the Lord, who had chosen him, and had rejected Saul on account of his pride. He would therefore let himself be still further despised before the Lord, i.e. would bear still greater contempt from men than that which he had jast received, and be humbled in his own eyes (yid. Ps. cxxxi. 1) : then would he also with the maidens attain to honour before the Lord. For whoso humbleth himself, him will God exalt (Matt, xxiii. 12). ^i''^ is not to be altered into '^\TV;^, as in the Septuagint. This alteration has arisen from a total miscou- CHAP. VII. 33i) ceptlon of the nature of true humility, which is of no worth in its own eyes. The rendering given by De Wette is at variance with both the grammar and the sense (" witli the maidens, . . . with them will I magnify myself") ; and so also is that of Thenius (" with them will I be honoured, i.e. in- demnify myself for thy foolish contempt!"). — Ver. 23. Michal was humbled by God for her pride, and remained childless to the time of her death David's eesolution to build a temple, the pkomised perpetuity of his throne. — chap. vii. To the erection of a sanctuary for the ark upon Mount Zion there is appended an account of David's desire to build a temple for the Lord. We find this not only in the text before us, but also in the parallel history in 1 Chron. xvii. When David had acquired rest from his enemies round about, he formed the resolution to build a house for the Lord, and this resolution was sanctioned by the prophet Nathan (vers. 1-3). But the Lord revealed to the prophet, and through him to David, that He had not required the building of a temple from any of the tribes of Israel, and that He would first of all build a house himself for His servant David, and confirm the throne to his seed for ever, and then he should build Him a temple (vers. 4-17). David then gave utterance to his thanksgiving for this glorious promise in a prayer, in which he praised the, unmeasurable grace of God, and prayed for the fulfilment of this renewed promise of divine grace (vers. 18-29).^ '■ With regard to the historical authenticity of this promise, Tholuok observes, in his Prophets and their Prophecies (pp. 165-6), that " it can be proved, with all the evidence which is ever to be obtained in support of historical testimony, that David actually received a prophetic promise that his family should sit upou the throne for ever, and consequently an inti- mation of a royal descendant whose government should be eternal. Any- thing like a merely subjective promise arising from human combinations is precluded here by the fact that Nathan, acting according to the best of his knowledge, gave his consent to David's plan of building a temple ; and that H was not till afterwards, when he had been instructed by a divine vision, that he did the very opposite, and assured him on the contrary that God would build him a house." Thenius also aflfirms that "there is no reason for assuming, as De Wette has done, that Nathan's prophecies were not composed tiU after the time of Solomon ;" that " their historical credibiUtv 340 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Vers. 1-3 When David was dwelling in his house, i.e. the palace of cedar (eh. v. 11), and Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies round about, he said to Nathan the pro- phet : " See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, and the ark of God dwelleth within the curtains." n:y'Tn in the singular is used, in Ex. xxvi. 2 sqq., to denote the inner covering, com- is attested by Ps. Ixxxix. (vers. 4, 5, 20-38, and especially ver. 20), Ps. cxxxii. 11, 12, and Isa. Iv. 3 ; and that, properly interpreted, they are also Messianic." The principal evidence of this is to be found in the prophetic utterance of David in ch. xxiii., where, as is generally admitted, he takes a retrospective glance at the promise, and thereby attests the historical credi- bility of Nathan's prophecy (Thenius, p. 245). Nevertheless, Gust. Baur maintains that " a closer comparison of this more elaborate and simple description (ch. vii.) with the brief and altogether unexampled last words of David, more especially with 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, can hardly leave the slightest doubt, that the relation in which the chapter before us stands to ■;hese words, is that of a later expansion to an authentic prophetic utterance of the king himself." For example, the distinct allusion to the birth of Solomon, and the building of the temple, which was to be completed by him, is said to have evidently sprung from a later development of the original promise after the time of Solomon, on account of the incongruity apparent in Nathan's prediction between the ideal picture of the Israelitish monarchy and the definite allusion to Solomon's building of the temple. But there is no such " incongruity" in Nathan's prediction ; it is only to be found in the naturalistic assumptions of Baur himself, that the utterances of the prophets contained nothing more than subjective and ideal hopes of the future, and not supernatural predictions. This also applies to Diestel's opinion, that the section vers. 4-16 does not harmonize with the substance of David's glorious prayer in vers. 18—29, nor the latter again with itself, because the advice given him to relinquish the idea of building the temple is not supported by any reasons that answer either to the character of David or to his peculiar circumstances, with which the allusion to his son would have been in perfect keeping ; but the prophet's dissuasion merely alludes to the fact that Jehovah did not stand in need of a stately house at all, and had never given utterance to any such desire. On account of this "obvious" fact, Diestel regards it as credible that the original dissuasion came from God, because it was founded upon an earlier view, but that the promise of the son of David which followed proceeded from Nathan, who no doubt looked with more favourable eyes upon the building of the temple. This discrepancy is also arbitrarily foisted upon the text. There is not a syllable about any " original dissuasion " in all that Nathan says ; for he simply tells the king that Jehovah had hitherto dwelt in a tent, and had not asked any of the tribes of Israel to build a stately temple, but not that Jehovah did not need a stately house at all. Of the different exegetical treatises upon this passage, see Christ. Aug, Crusii Hypomnemata, ii. 190-219, and Hengstenberp's Christol. i. 123 sqq. CHAP. VII. 1-3. M I posed of a number of lengths of tapestry sewn together, which ■was spread over the planks of the tabernacle, and made it into a dwelling, whereas the separate pieces of tapestry are called rii!''T in the plural ; and hence, in the later writers, nijf"]"' alter- nates sometimes with ?nK (Isa. liv. 2), and at other times with D'^riK (Song of Sol. i. 5; Jer. iv. 20, xlix. 29). Consequently njj'Tn refers here to the tent-cloth or tent formed of pieces of tapestry. " Wilhin (i.e. surrounded by) the tent-cloth:" in the Chronicles we find " under curtains." From the words " when the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies round about," it is evident that David did not form the resolution to build the temple in the first years of his reign upon Zion, nor immediately after the completion of his palace, but at a later period (see the remarks on ch. v. 11, note). It is true that the giving of rest from all his enemies round about does not definitely presuppose the termination of all the greater wars of David, since it is not affirmed that this rest was a definitive one ; but the words cannot possibly be restricted to the two victories over the Philistines (ch. v. 17-25), as Hengstenberg supposes, inasmuch as, however important the second may have been, their foes were not even permanently quieted by them, to say nothing of their being entirely subdued. Moreover, in the promise men- tioned in ver. 9, God distinctly says, " I was with thee whither- soever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies before thee." These words also show that at that time David had already fought against all the enemies round about, and humbled them. Now, as all David's principal wars are grouped together for the first time in ch. viii. and x., there can be no doubt that the history is not arranged in a strictly chronological order. And the expression "after this" in ch. viii. 1 is by no means at variance with this, since this formula does not at all express a strictly chronological sequence. From the words of the prophet, " Go, do all that is in thy heart, for the Lord is with thee," it is very evident that David had expressed the intention to build a splendid palatial temple. The word 'H?, go (equiva- lent to "quite right"), is omitted in the Chronicles as super- fluous. Nathan sanctioned the king's resolution " from his own feelings, and not by divine revelation " (J. K Michaelis) ; but he did not "afterwards perceive that the time for carrying out this inten.+ion had not yet come," as Thenius and Bertheau 342 THK SECOND BOOK OF SAMUICL. maintain ; on the contrary, the Lord God revealed to the prophet that David was not to carry out his intention at all. Vers. 4-17. The revelation and promise of God. — -Ver. 4. " That night^' i.e. the night succeeding the day on which Nathan had talked with the king concerning the building of the temple, the Lord made known His decree to the prophet, with instructions to communicate it to the king. '131 nnxn^ "Shouldest thou build me a house for me to dwell in?" The question involves a negative reply, and consequently in the Chronicles we find " thou shalt not." — -Vers. 6, 7. The reason assigned for this answer : " I have not dwelt in a house from the day of the bringing up of Israel out of Egypt even to this day, but I was wandering about in a tent and in a dwelling." " And in a dwelling" (mishcan) is to be taken as explanatory, viz. in a tent which was my dwelling. As a tent is a traveller's dwelling, so, as long as God's dwelling was a tent, He himself appeared as if travelling or going from place to place. "In the whole of the time that I walked among all the children of Israel, . . . have I spoken a word to one of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying, Where- fore have ye not built me a cedar house ?" A " cedar house" is equivalent to a palace built of costly materials. The expres- sion 7^1^] ''U^a' nns (" one of the tribes of Israel" ) is a striking one, as the feeding of the nation does not appear to be a duty belonging to the " tribes," and in the Chronicles we have ''^sb' (judges) instead of 'mp (tribes). But if "'BBb' had been the original expression used in the text, it would be impossible to explain the origin and general acceptance of the word ''02K'. For this very reason, therefore, we must regard '''pniJ' as the original word, and understand it as referring to the tribes, which liad supplied the nation with judges and leaders before the time of David, since the feeding, i.e. the government of Israel, which was in the hands of the judges, was transferred to the tribes to which the judges belonged. This view is confirmed by Ps. Ixxviii. 67, 68, where the election of David as prince, and of Zion as the site of the sanctuary, is described as the election of the tribe of Judah and the rejection of the tribe of Ephraim. On the other hand, the assumption of Thenius, that '''i^}^, " shepherd-staffs," is used poetically for shepherds, cannot be established on the ground of Lev. xxvii. 32 and Micah vii. 14. CHAP. VII. 4-ir. 343 Jehovah gave two reasons why David s proposal to build Him a temple should not he carried out : (1) He had hitherto lived in a tent in the midst of His people; (2) He had not com- manded any former prince or tribe to build a temple. This did not involve any blame, as though there had been something presumptuous in David's proposal, or in the fact that he had thought of undertaking such a work without an express com- mand from God, but simply showed that it was not liecause of any negligence on the part of the former leaders of the people that they had not thought of erecting a temple, and that even now the time for carrying out such a work as that had not yet come. — Ver. 8. After thus declining his proposal, the Lord made known His gracious purpose to David: "Thus saitli Jehovah of hosts" (not only Jeliovah, as in ver. 5, but Jehovah Sebaoih, because He manifests himself in the following revela- tion as the God of the universe) : " I have taken thee from the pasturage (grass-plat), behind the flock, to be prince over my people Israel ; and was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and exterminated all thine enemies before thee, and so mado thee, WW (perfect with vav consec), a great name, . . . and created a place for my people Israel, and planted them, so that they dwell in their place, and do not tremble any more (before their oppressors) ; and the sons of wickedness do not oppress them any further, as at the beginning, and from the day when I appointed judges over my people Israel : and I create thee rest from all thine enemies. And Jehovah proclaims to thee, that Jehovah will make thee a house." The words ''K'\ ''W . . . Di>n [D^ are to be joined to HJiB'Xna, " as in the beginning," i.e. in Egypt, and from the time of the judges ; that is to say, during the rule of the judges, when the surrounding nations constantly oppressed and subjugated Israel. The plan usually adopted, of connecting the words with ''nn''3ri1j does not yield any suitable thought at all, as God had not given David rest from the very beginning of the times of the judges ; but the period of the judges was long antecedent to the time of David, and was not a period of rest for the IsraeHtes. Again, ''niT'ini does not resume what is stated in ver. 9, and is not to be rendered as a preterite in the sense of " I have procured thee rest," but as a perfect with vav consec, " and I procure thee rest" from what is now about to come to pass. And T^ni is to be taken in the 344 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. same way : tlie Lord shows thee, iirst of all through His pro- mise (which follows), and then through the fact itself, the realization of His word. "'nrT'jni refers to the future, as well as she building of David's house, and therefore not to the rest from all his enemies, which God had already secured for David, but to that which He would still further secure for him, that is to say, to the maintenance and establishment of that rest. The commentary upon this is to be found in Ps. Ixxxix. 22-24. In the Chronicles (ver. 10) there is a somewhat different turn given to the last clauses : " and I bend down all thine enemies, and make it (the bending-down) known to thee (by the fact), and a house vi'ill Jehovah build for thee." The thought is not essentially changed by this ; consequently there is no ground for any emendation of the text, which is not even apparently necessary, unless, like Bertheau, we misinterpret the words, and connect ''OWpni erroneously with the previous clause. The connection between vers. 5-7 and 8-16 has been cor- rectly indicated by Thenius as follows : Thou shalt not build a house for Me ; but I, who have from the very beginning glorified myself in thee and my people (vers. 8-11), will build a house for thee ; and thy son shall erect a house for me (ver. 13). This thought is not merely "a play upon words entirely in the spirit of prophecy," but contains the deep general truth that God must first of all build a man's house, before the man can build God's house, and applies it espe- cially to the kingdom of God in Israel. As long as the quiet and full possession of the land of Canaan, which had been promised by the Lord to the people of God for their inheritance, was disputed by their enemies round about, even the dwelling- place of their God could not assume any other form than that of a wanderer's tent. The kingdom of God in Israel first acquired its rest and consolation through the efforts of David, when God had made all his foes subject to him and estab- lished his throne firmly, i.e. had assured to his descendants tlie possession of the kingdom for all future time. And it was this which ushered in the time for the building of a stationary house as a dwelling for the name of the Lord, i.e. for the visible manifestation of the presence of God in the midst of His people. The conquest of the citadel of Zion and the elevation of this fortress into the palace of the king, whom the Lord had CHAP. VII. 4-17 345 given to His people, formed the commencement of tlie estab- lishment of the kingdom of God. But this commencement received its first pledge of perpetuity from the divine assurance that the throne of David should be established for all future time. And this the Lord was about to accomplish : He would build David a house, and then his seed should build the house of the Lord. No definite reason is assigned why David himself was not to build the temple. We learn this first of all from David's last words (1 Chron. xxviii. 3), in which he says to the assembled heads of the nation, " God said to me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou art a man of wars, and hast shed blood." Compare with this the similar words of David to Solomon in 1 Chron. xxii. 8, and Solomon's statement in his message to Hiram, that David had been pre- vented from building the temple in consequence of his many wars. It was probably not till afterwards that David was informed by Nathan what the true reason was. As Hengsten- berg has correctly observed, the fact that David was not per- mitted to build the temple on account of his own personal unworthiness, did not involve any blame for what he had done ; for David stood in a closer relation to the Lord than Solomon did, and the wars which he waged were wars of the Lord (1 Sam. XXV. 28) for the maintenance and defence of the kingdom of God. But inasmuch as these wars were necessary and inevitable, they were practical proofs that David's kingdom and government were not yet established, and therefore that the time for the building of the temple had not yet come, and the rest of peace was not yet secured. The temple, as the symbolical representation of the kingdom of God, was also to correspond to the nature of that kingdom, and shadow forth the peace of the kingdom of God. For this reason, David, the man of war, was not to build the temple ; but that was to be reserved for Solomon, the man of peace, the type of the Prince of Peace (Isa. ix. 5). In vers. 12-16 there follows a more precise definition of the way in which the Lord would build a house for His servant David : " When thy days shall become full, and thou shalt lie with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, who shall come from thy body, and establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I shall establish the throne of his 3 16 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. kingdom for ever." ^''iPfl', to set up, i.e. to promote to royal dignity. *<)>.''. it."X is not to be altered into Xi'^^ itf'X, as Tlienius and others maintain. The assumption that Solomon had already been born, is an unfounded one (see the note to ch. v. 11, p. 319) ; and it by no means follows from the statement in ver. 1, to the effect that God had given David rest from all his enemies, that his resolution to build a temple was not formed till the closing years of his reign. — Vers. 14 sqq. " I will be a father to Mm, and he u'ill be a son to me ; so that if he go astray, I shall chastise him with rods of men, and with strokes of the children of men (i.e. not ' with moderate punishment, such as parents are accustomed to inflict,' as Clericus explains it, but with such punishments as are inflicted upon all men who go astray, and from which even the seed of David is not to be excepted). But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I caused it to depart from Saul, whom I put aicay before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom, shall be established for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever" It is very obvious, from all the separate details of this promise, that it related primarily to Solomon, and had a certain fulfilment in him and his reign. On the death of David, his son Solomon ascended the throne, and God defended his kingdom against the machinations of Adonijah (1 Kings ii. 12); so that Solomon was able to say, " The Lord hath fulfilled His word that He spoke ; for I have risen up in the stead of my father David," etc. (1 Kings viii. 20). Solomon built the temple, as the Lord said to David (1 Kings V. 19, viii. 15 sqq.). ■ But in his old age Solomon sinned against the Lord by falling into idolatry ; and as a punishment for this, after his death his kingdom was rent from his son, not indeed entirely, as one portion was still preserved to the family for David's sake (1 Kings xi. 9 sqq.). Thus the Lord punished him with rods of men, but did not withdraw from him His grace. At the same time, however unraistakeable the allusions to Solomon are, the substance of the promise is not fully exhausted in him. The threefold repetition of the expression " for ever," the establishment of the kingdom and throne of David for ever, points incontrovertibly beyond the time of Solomon, and to the eternal continuance of the seed of David. The word seed denotes the posterity of a person, which may consist either in one son or in several children, or in a long CHAP. VII. 4-17. 347 line of successive generations. Tlie idea of a number of persons living at the same time, is here precluded by the context of the promise, as only one of David's successors could sit upon the throne at a time. On the other hand, the idea of a number of descendants following one another, is evidently contained in the promise, that God vv'ould not withdraw His favour from the seed, even if it v*fent astray, as He had done from Saul, since this implies that even in that case the throne should be trans- mitted from father to son. There is still more, however, in- volved in the expression " for ever." When the promise was given that the throne of the kingdom of David should continue " to eternity," an eternal duration was also promised to the seed that should occupy this throne, just as in ver. 16 the house and kingdom of David are spoken of as existing for ever, side by side. We must not reduce the idea of eternity to the popular notion of a long incalculable period, but must take it in an absolute sense, as the promise is evidently understood in Ps. Ixxxix. 30 : "I set his seed for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven." No earthly kingdom, and no posterity of any single man, has eternal duration like the heaven and the earth ; but the different families of men become extinct, as the different earthly kingdoms perish, and other families and kingdoms take their place. The posterity of David, therefore, could only last for ever by running out in a person who lives for ever, i.e. by culminating in the Messiah, who lives for ever, and of whose kingdom there is no end. The promise consequently refers to the posterity of David, commencing with Solomon and closing with Christ: so that by the "seed" we are not to understand Solomon alone, with the kings who succeeded him, nor Christ alone, to the exclusion of Solomon and the earthly kings of the family of David ; nor is the allusion to Solomon and Christ to be regarded as a double allusion to two different objects. But if this is established, — namely, that the promise given to the seed of David that his kingdom should endure for ever only attained its ultimate fulfilment in Christ, — we must not restrict the building of the house of God to the erection of Solomon's temple. " The building of the house of the Lord goes hand in hand with the eternity of the kingdom" (Hengstenberg). As the kingdom endures for ever, so the house built for tlie dwell- ing-place of the Lord must also endure for ever, as Solomon 348 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. said at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings viii. 13) : "I have surely built Thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for Thee to abide in for ever." The everlasting continuance of Solomon's temple must not be reduced, however, to the simple fact, that even if the temple of Solomon should be destroyed, a new building would be erected in its place by the earthly descend- ants of Solomon, although this is also implied in the words, and the temple of Zerubbabel is included as the restoration of that of Solomon. For it is not merely in its earthly form, as a building of wood and stone, that the temple is referred to, but also and chiefly in its essential characteristic, as the place for the manifestation and presence of God in the midst of His people. The earthly form is perishable, the essence eternal. This essence was the dwelling of God in the midst of His people, which did not cease with the destruction of the temple at Jeru- salem, but culminated in the appearance of Jesus Christ, in whom Jehovah came to His people, and, as God the Word, made human nature His dwelling-place (eaKipaaev ev ■^filv, John i. 14) in the glory of the only-begotten Son of the Father ; so that Christ could say to the Jews, " Destroy this temple {i.e. the temple of His body), and in three days I will build it up again" (John ii. 19). It is with this building up of the temple destroyed by the Jews, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that the complete and essential fulfilment of our promise begins. It is perpetuated within the Christian church in the indwelling of the Father and Son through the Holy Ghost in the hearts of believers (John xiv, 23; 1 Cor. vi. 19), by which the church of Jesus Christ is built up a spiritual house of God, composed of living stones (1 Tim. iii. 15, 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; compare 2 Cor. vi. 16, Heb. iii. 6) ; and it will be perfected in the completion of the kingdom of God at the end of time in the new Jerusalem, which shall come down upon the new earth out of heaven from God, as the true tabernacle of God with men (Rev. xxi. 1-3). As the building of the house of God receives its fulfilment first of all through Christ, so the promise, " I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son," is first fully realized in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the heavenly Father [vid. Heb. i. 5). In the Old Testament the relation between father and son denotes the deepest intimacy of love ; and love CHAP. VII. 18-29. 349 is perfected in unity of nature, in the communication to the son of all that the father hath. The Father loveth the Son, and liath given all things into His hand (John iii. 35). Sonship therefore includes the government of the world. This not only appHed to Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, but also to the seed of David generally, so far as they truly attained to the relation of children of God. So long as Solomon walked in tiie ways of the Lord, he ruled over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) to the border of Egypt (1 Kings v. 1) ; but when his heart turned away from the Lord in his old age, adversaries rose up against him (1 Kings xi. 14 sqq., 23 sqq.), and after his death the greater part of the kingdom was rent from his son. The seed of David was chastised for its sins ; and as its apostasy continued, it was humbled yet more and more, until the earthly throne of David became extinct. Never- theless the Lord did not cause His mercy to depart from him. When the house of David had fallen into decay, Jesus Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, to raise up the throne of His father David again, and to reign for ever as King over the house of Jacob (Luke i. 32, 33), and to establish the house and kingdom of David for ever. — In ver. 16, where the promise returns to David again with the words, " thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever," the expression I'JQp (before thee), which the LXX. and Syriac have arbitrarily changed into '337 (before me), should be particularly observed. David, as the tribe-father and founder of the line of kings, is regarded either " as seeing all his descendants pass before him in a vision," as O. v. Gerlach supposes, or as continuing to exist in his descendants. — Ver. 17. " According to all these words . . . did Nathan speak unto David" i.e. he related the whole to David, just as God had addressed it to him in the night. The clause in apposition, " according to all this vision," merely introduces a more minute definition of the peculiar form of the revelation. God spoke to Nathan in a vision which he had in the night, i.e. not in a dream, but in a waking condition, and during the night ; for li'''n = rfn is constantly distinguished from ohn^ a revelation in a dream. Vers. 18-29. David's prayer and thanksgiving. — Ver. 18i. KintT David came, i.e. went into the sanctuary erected upon Zion, and remained before Jehovah. ^^, remained, tarried (as S50 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. in Gen. xxiv. 55, xxix. 19, etc.), not "sat" for the custom of sitting before the Lord in the sanctuary, as the posture assumed in prayer, cannot be deduced from Ex. xvii. 12, where Moses is compelled to sit from simple exhaustion. David's prayer consists of two parts, — thanksgiving for the promise (vers. 18&-24), and supplication for its fulfilment (vers. 25-29). The thanksgiving consists of a confession of unworthiness of all the great things that the Lord had hitherto done for him, and which He had still further increased by this glorious promise (vers. 18-21), and praise to the Lord that all this had been done in proof of His true Deity, and to glorify His name upon His chosen people Israel. — Ver. 18b. " Who am I, Lord Jehovah ? and who my house {i.e. my family), that Thou hast brought me hitherto ?" These words recal Jacob's prayer in Gen. xxxii. 10, " I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies," etc. David acknowledged himself to be unworthy of the great mercy which the Lord had displayed towards him, that he might give the glory to God alone (vid. Ps. viii. 5 and cxliv. 3). — Ver. 19. "And this is still too little in Thine eyes, Lord Jelwvah, and Thou still speakest with regard to the house of Thy servant for a great while to corned pilTinpj lit. that which points to a remote period, i.e. that of the eternal establishment of my house and throne. "And this is the law of man, Lord Jehovah." "The law of man" is the law which deter- mines or regulates the conduct of man. Hence the meaning of these words, which have been very differentlj' interpreted, cannot, with the context immediately preceding it, be any other than the following : This — namely, the love and condescension manifested in Thy treatment of Thy servant — is the law which applies to man, or is conformed to the law which men are to observe towards men, i.e. to the law, Thou shalt love thy neigh- bour as thyself (Lev. xix. 18, compare Micah vi. 8). With this interpretation, which is confirmed by the parallel text of the Chronicles (in ver. 17), "Thou sawest {i.e. visitedst me, or didst deal with me) according to the manner of man," the words are expressive of praise of the condescending grace of the Lord. " When God the Lord, in His treatment of poor mortals, follows the rule which He has laid dovs'n for the con- duct of men one towards another, when He shows himself kind and affectionate, this must fill with adoring amazement CHAP. VII. 18-29. 351 those who know themselves and God " (Hengstenherg). Luther is wrong in the rendering which he has adopted : " This is the manner of a man, who is God the Lord ;" for "Lord Jehovah" is not an explanatory apposition to "man," but an address to God, as in the preceding and following clause. — Ver. 20. ^^ And ivhat more shall David speak to Thee"? Thou knowest Thy servant, Lord Jehovah^ Instead of express- ing his gratitude still further in many words, David appeals to the omniscience of God, before whom his thankful heart lies open, just as in Ps. xl. 10 (compare also Ps. xvii. 3). — Ver. 21. '■'■For Thy worcPs sake, and according to Thy heart (and there- fore not because I am worthy of such grace), hast Thou done all this greatness, to make it known to Thy servant." The word, for the sake of which God had done such great things for David, must be some former promise on the part of God. Hengstenberg supposes it to refer to the word of the Lord to Samuel, " Rise up and anoint him " (1 Sam. xvi. 12), which is apparently favoured indeed by the parallel in the corresponding text of 1 Chron. xvii. 19, " for Thy servant's sake," i.e. because Thou hast chosen Thy servant. But even this variation must contain some special allusion which does not exclude a general interpretation of the expression " for Thy word's sake," viz. an .illusion to the earlier promises of God, or the Messianic pro- phecies generally, particularly the one concerning Judah in Jacob's blessing (Gen. xlix. 10), and the one relating to the raler out of Jacob in Balaam's sayings (Num. xxiv. 17 sqq.), which contain the germs of the promise of the everlasting continuance of David's government. For the fact that David recognised the connection between the promise of God com- municated to him by Nathan and Jacob's prophecy in Gen. xlix. 10, is evident from 1 Chron. xxviii. 4, where he refers to his election as king as being the consequence of the election of Judah as ruler. " According to Thine own heart " is equivalent to " according to Thy love and grace ; for God is gracious, merciful, and of great kindness and truth " (Ex. xxxiv. 6, compare Ps. ciii. 8). rhtii does not mean great things, but greatness. The praise of God commences in ver. 22 : " Wherefore Thou art great, Jehovah God; and there is not (one) like Thee, and no God beside Thee, according to all that ice have heard with 352 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMI'lL. our ears." By the word " wherefore," i.e. because Thou hast done this, the praise of the singleness of God is set forth as the result of David's own experience. God is great when He manifests the greatness of His grace to men, and brings them to acknowledge it. And in these great deeds He proves tlie incomparable nature of His Deity, or that He alone is the true God. (For the fact itself, compare Ex. xv. 11 ; Deut. iii. 24, iv. 35.) — Ver. 23. "And where is (any) like Thy people, like Israel, a nation upon earth, which God icent to redeem as a people for himself, that He might make Him a name, and do great things for you, and terrible things for Thy land before Thy people, ichich Thou hast redeemed for Thee out of Egypt, (out of the) nations and their gods V 'I? does not really mean where, but icho, and is to be connected with the words inirac- diately following, viz. int? ''13 (one nation) ; but the only way in which the words can be rendered into good English (^German in the original : Tr.) is, " where is there any people," etc. The relative li^'^^ does not belong to ^^?i}, which follows immediately afterwards; but, so far as the sense is concerned, it is to be taken as the object to rinsp, " which Elohim went to redeem." The construing of Elohim with a plural arises from the fact, that in this clause it not only refers to the true God, but also includes the idea of the gods of other nations. The idea, therefore, is not, " Is there any nation upon earth to which the only true God went?" but, "Is there any nation to which the deity wor- shipped by it went, as the true God went to Israel to redeem it for His own people "? " The rendering given in the Septuagint to 13?n^ viz. aiS-^yrja-ev, merely arose from a misapprehension of the true sense of the words ; and the emendation W?'>i^, which some propose in consequence, would only distort the sense. The stress laid upon the incomparable character of the things which God had done for Israel, is merely introduced to praise and celebrate the God who did this as the only true God. (For the thought itself, compare the original passage in Deut. iv. 7, 34.) In the clause 03^ nie^y^l, « and to do for you," David addresses the people of Israel with oratorical vivacity. Instead of saying " to do great things to (for) Israel," he says " to do great things to (for) you." For you forms an antithesis to him, " to make Him a name, and to do great things for you (Israt 1)." The suggestion made by some, that 03? is to be CHAP. VII. 18-29. S53 taken as a dativ. comm., and referred to Elohim, no more needs a serious refutation than the alteration into DH?. There have been different opinions, however, as to the object referred to in the sufBx attached to '^■f"!^?p, and it is difficult to decide between them ; for whilst the fact that ^fixi" nixnj (terrible things to Thy land) is governed by rnby? (to do) favours the allusion to Israel, and the sudden transition from the plural to the singular might be accounted for from the deep emotion of the person speaking, the words which follow ("before Thy people") rather favour the allusion to God, as it does not seem natural to take the suffix in two different senses in the two objects which follow so closely the one upon the other, viz. "for Thy land," and "before Thy people;" whilst the way is prepared for a transition from speaking of God to speaking to God by the word DDj- (to you). The words of Deut. x. 21 floated before the mind of David at the time, although he has given them a different turn. (On the " terrible things," see the commentary on Deut. x. 21 and Ex. xv. 11.) The connection of niNni (terrible things) with 1^^? (to Thy land) shows that David had in mind, when speaking of the acts of divine omnipotence which had inspired fear and dread of the majesty of God, not only the miracles of God in Egypt, but also the marvellous extermination of the Canaanites, whereby Israel had been established in the possession of the promised land, and the people of God placed iu a condition to found a kingdom. These acts were performed before Israel, before the nation, whom the Lord redeemed to himself out of Egypt. This view is confirmed by the last words, " nations and their gods," which are in apposition to " from Egypt," so that the preposition tP should be repeated before ti''iii ''nations). The suffix to l^n^NI. (literally "and its gods") is tc be regarded as distributive: " the gods of each of these heathen nations." In the Chronicles (ver. iil) the expression is simplified, and explained more clearly by the omission of " to Thy land," and the insertion of Cijb, " to drive out nations from before Thy people." It has been erroneously inferred from this, that the text of our book is corrupt, and ought to be emended, or at any rate interpreted according to the Chronicles. But whilst 1^1^? is certainly not to be altered into t5'']37, it is just as wrong to do as Hengsten- berg proposes, — namely, to take the thought expressed in K''1J? z 354 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. from the preceding niB'J|^ by assuming a zeugma ; for nb'V, to do or make, has nothing in common with driving or clearing away. — Ver. 24. " And Thou hast established to thyself Thy people Israel to he a people unto Thee for ever: and Thou, Jehovah, hast become a God to them." The first clause does not refer merely to the liberation of Israel out of Egypt, or to the conquest of Canaan alone, but to all that the Lord had done for the establishment of Israel as the people of His possession, from the time of Moses till His promise of the eternal continuance of the throne of David. Jehovah had thereby become God to the nation of Israel, i.e. had thereby attested and proved him- self to be its God. To this praise of the acts of the Lord there is attached in vers. 25 sqq. the prayer for the fulfilment of His glorious promise. Would Jehovah set up (i.e. carry out) the word which He had spoken to His servant that His name might be great, i.e. be glorified, through its being said, " The Lord of Sabaoth is God over Israel," and "the house of Thy servant will be firm before Thee." The prayer is expressed in the form ol confident assurance. — Ver. 27. David felt himself encouraged to offer this prayer through the revelation which he had received. Because God had promised to build him a house, " therefore Thy servant hath found in his heart to pray this prayer," i.e. hath found joy in doing so. — Vers. 28, 29. David then briefly sums up the two parts of his prayer of thanks- giving in the two clauses commencing with i^W, " and now." — In ver. 28 he sums up the contents of vers. 186-24 by celebrat- ing the greatness of the Lord and His promise ; and in ver. 29 the substance of the prayer in vers. 25-27. X^-i'^ '^ii^, may it please Thee to bless (?''Xin ; see at Deut. i. 5). " And from (out of) Thy blessing may the house of Thy servant be blessed for ever." DAVID S WARS, VICTOEIES, AND MINISTEES OF STATE. — CHAP. viir. To the promise of the establishment of his throne there h appended a general enumeration of the wars by which David secured the supremacy of Israel over all his enemies round about. In this survey all the nations are included with whicb CHAP VIII. 1. 355 war had ever been waged by David, and which he had con- quered and rendered tributary : the PhiUstines and Moabites, the Syrians of Zobah and Damascus, Toi of Hamath, the Ammonites, Amalekites, and Edomites. It is very evident from this, that the chapter before us not only treats of the wars which David carried on after receiving the divine promise mentioned in ch. vii., but of all the wars of his entire reign. The only one of which we have afterwards a fuller account is the war with the Ammonites and their allies the Syrians (ch. x. and xi.), and this is given on account of its connection with David's adultery. In the survey before us, the war with the Ammonites is only mentioned quite cursorily in ver. 12, in the account of the booty taken from the different nations, which David dedicated to the Lord. With regard to the other wars, so far as the principal purpose was concerned, — namely, to record the history of the kingdom of God, — it was quite sufficient to give a general state- ment of the fact that these nations were smitten by David and subjected to his sceptre. But if this chapter contains a survey of all the wars of David with the nations that were hostile to Israel, there can be no doubt that the arrangement of the several events is not strictly regulated by their chronological order, but that homogeneous events are grouped together according to a material point of view. There is a parallel to this chapter in 1 Chron. xviii. Ver. 1. Subjugation of the Philistines. — ^In the intro- ductory formula, " And it came to pass afterwards," the expres- sion " afterwards " cannot refer specially to the contents of ch. vii., for reasons also given, but simply serves as a general formula of transition to attach what follows to the account just completed, as a thing that happened afterwards. This is incon- testably evident from a comparison of ch. x. 1, where the war with the Ammonites and Syrians, the termination and result of which are given in the present chapter, is attached to what pre- cedes by the same formula, " It came to pass afterwards " (cf. ch. xiii. 1). " David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and took the bridle of the mother out of the hand of the Philistines," i.e. wrested the government from them and made them tribu- tary. The figurative expression Metheg-ammah, " bridle of the mother," i.e. the capital, has been explained hy Alb. Schultens 35(3 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. (on Job XXX. 11) from an Arabic idiom, in which givii-g up one's bridle to another is equivalent to submitting to him. Gesenius also gives several proofs of this (Thes. p. 113). Others, for example Ewald, render it arm-bridle ; but there is not a single passage to support the rendering "arm" for ammah. The vt^ord is a feminine form of ^^, mother, and only used in a tropical sense. "Mother" is a term applied to the chief city or capital, both in Arabic and Phoenician (otW. Ges. Thes. p. 112). The same figure is also adopted in Hebrew, where the towns dependent upon the capital are called its daughters {vid. Josh. xv. 45, 47). In 1 Chron. xviii. 1 the figurative expression is dropped for the more literal one : " David took Gath and its daughters out of the hand of the Philistines," i.e. he wrested Gath and the other towns from the Philistines. The Philistines had really five cities, every one with a prince of its own (Josh. xiii. 3). This was the case even in the time of Samuel (1 Sam. vi. 16, 17). But in the closing years of Samuel, Gath had a king who stood at the head of all the princes of the Philistines (1 Sam. xxix. 2 sqq., cf. xxvii. 2). Thus Gath became the capital of the land of the Philistines, which held the bridle (or reins) of Philistia in its own hand. The author of the Chronicles has therefore given the correct explanation of the figure. The one suggested by Ewald, Bertheau, and others, cannot be correct, — namely, that David wrested from the Philistines the power which they had hitherto exercised over the Israelites. The simple meaning of the passage is, that David wrested from the Philistines the power which the capital had possessed over the towns de- pendent upon it, i.e. over the whole of the land of Philistia; in other words, he brought the capital (Gath) and the other towns of Philistia into his own power. The reference afterwards made to a king of Gath in the time of Solomon in 1 Kings ii. 39 is by no means at variance with this ; for the king alluded to was one of the tributary sovereigns, as we may infer from the fact that Solomon ruled over all the kings on this side of the Euphrates as far as to Gaza (1 Kings v. 1, 4). Ver. 2. Subjugation of Moab. — "He smote Moah {i.e. the Moabites), and measured them with the line, making them lie down upon the ground, and meamired two lines (i.e. two parts) CHAF. VIII 3-8. 357 to put to death, and one line full to keep alive." Nothing further is known about either the occasion or the history of tliis war, with the exception of the cursory notice in 1 Chron. xi. 22, that Benaiah, one of David's heroes, smote two sons of the king of Moab, which no doubt took place in the same war. In the earliest period of his flight from Saul, David had met with a hospitable reception from the king of Moab, and had even taken his parents to him for safety (1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4). But the Moabites must have very grievously oppressed the Israelites afterwards, that David should liave inflicted a severer punishment upon them after their defeat, than upon any other of the nations that he conquered, with the exception of the Ammonites (ch. xii. 31), upon whom he took vengeance for having most shamefully insulted his ambassadors (ch. x. 2 sqq.). The punishment inflicted, however, was of course re- stricted to the fighting men who had been taken prisoners by the Israelites. They were ordered to lie down in a row upon the earth ; and then the row was measured for the purpose of putting two-thirds to death, and leaving one-third alive. The Moabites were then made " servants " to David (i.e. they became his subjects), "bringing gifts'" (i.e. paying tribute). Vers. 3-8. Conquest and Subjugation of the King OF ZOBAH, AND OF THE DAMASCENE SYRIANS. — -Ver. 3. The situation of Zohah cannot be determined. The view held by the Syrian church historians, and defended by Michaelis, viz. that Zobali was the ancient Nisibis in northern Mesopotamia, has no more foundation to rest upon than that of certain Jewish writers who suppose it to have been A leppo, the present Haleb. Aleppo is too far north for Zohah, and Nisibis is quite out of the range of the towns and tribes in connection with which the name of Zobah occurs. In 1 Sam. xiv. 47, com- pared with ver. 12 of this chapter, Zobah, or Aram Zohah as it is called in ch. x. 6 and Ps. Ix. 2, is mentioned along with Ammon, Moab, and Edom, as a neighbouring tribe and king- dom to the Israelites ; and, according to vers. 3, 5, and 9 of the present chapter, it is to be sought for in the vicinity of Damascus and Hamath towards the Euphrates. These data point to a situation to the north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and Euphrates, and in fact 358 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. extending as far as the latter according to ver. 3, whilst, according to ch. x. 16, it even reached beyond it with its vassal-chiefs into Mesopotamia itself. Ewald (^Gesch. iii. p. 195) has therefore combined Zobah, which was no doubt the capital, and gave its name to the kingdom, with the Sabe mentioned in Ptol. v. 19, — a town in the same latitude as Damascus, and farther east towards the Euphrates. The king of Zobah at the time referred to is called Hadadezer in the text (i.e. whose help is Hadad) ; but in ch. x. 16-19 and throughout the Chronicles he is called Hadarezer. The first is the original form ; for Hadad, the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, is met with in several other instances in Syrian names (yid. Movers, Phonizier). David smote this king "as he was going to restore his strength at the river (Euphrates)." iT" ym does not mean to turn his hand, but signifies to return his hand, to stretch it out again over or against any one, in all the passages in which the expression occurs. It is therefore to be taken in a derivative sense in the passage before us, as signifying to restore or re-establish his sway. The expression used in the Chronicles (ver. 3), ilj 3''?[', has just the same meaning, since establishing or making fast presupposes a previous weakening or dissolution. Hence the subject of the sentence "as he went," etc., must be Hadadezer and not David; for David could not have extended his power to the Euphrates before the defeat of Hadadezer. The Masoretes have inter- polated Prath (Euphrates) after " the river" as in the text of the Chronicles. This is correct enough so far as the sense is concerned, but it is by no means necessary, as the nahar (the river k. e^.) is quite sufficient of itself to indicate the Euphrates. There is also a war between David and Hadadezer and other kings of Syria mentioned in ch. x.; and the commentators all admit that that war, in which David defeated these kings when they came to the help of the Ammonites, is connected with the war mentioned in the present chapter. But the con- nection is generally supposed to be this, that the first of David's Aramaean wars is given in ch. viii., the second in ch. x. ; for no other reason, however, than because ch. x. stands after ch. viii. This view is decidedly an erroneous one. According to the chapter before us, the war mentioned there terminated in the complete subjugation of the Aramaean kings and king' CHAP. VIII S-8. 359 doms. Aram became subject to David, paying tribute (ver. 6;. Now, though the revolt of subjugated nations from their con querors is by no means a rare thing in history, and therefore it is perfectly conceivable in itself that the Aramasans should have fallen away from David when he was involved in the war with the Ammonites, and should have gone to the help of the Ammonites, such an assumption is precluded by the fact that there is nothing in ch. x. about any falling away or revolt of the Aramaeans from David ; but, on the contrary, these tribes appear to be still entirely independent of David, and to bi hired by the Ammonites to fight against him. But what is absolutely decisive against this assumption, is the fact that the number of Aramaeans killed in the two wars is precisely the same (compare ver. 4 with ch. x. 18) : so that it may safely be inferred, not only that the war mentioned in ch. x., in which the Aramaeans who had come to the help of the Ammonites were smitten by David, was the very same as the Aramaean war mentioned in ch. viii., but of which the result only is given ; but also that all the wars which David waged with the Ara- magans, like his war with Edom (vers. 13 sqq.), arose out of the Ammonitish war (ch. x.), and the fact that the Ammonites enlisted the help of the kings of Aram against David (ch. x. 6). ^Ve also obtain from ch. x. an explanation of the expression " as he went to restore his power (Eng. Ver. ' recover his border') at the river," since it is stated there that Hadadeaer was defeated by Joab the first time, and that, after sustaining this defeat, he called the Aramaeans on the other side of the Euphrates to his assistance, that he might continue the war against Israel with renewed vigour (ch. x. 13, 15 sqq.). The power of Hadadezer had no doubt been crippled by his first defeat ; and in order to restore it, he procured auxiliary troops from Mesopotamia with which to attack David, but he was defeated a second time, and obliged to submit to him (ch. x. 17, 18). In this second engagement "David took from him (i.e. captured) seventeen hundred horse-soldiers and twenty thousand foot" (ver. 4, compare ch. x. 18). This decisive battle took place, according to 1 Chron. xviii. 3, in the neighbourhood of Hamath, i.e. Epiphania on the Orontes (see at Num. xiii. 21, and Gen. x. 18), or, according to ch. x. 18 of this book, at Helam, — a difference which may easily be reconciled by the 360 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. simple assumption that the unknown Helam was somewhere near to Hamath. Instead of 1700 horse-soldiers, we find in the Chronicles (1, xviii. 4) 1000 chariots and 7000 horsemen. Consequently the word receh has no doubt dropped out after ^?X in the text before us, and the numeral denoting a thousand has been confounded with the one used to denote a hundred ; for in the plains of Syria seven thousand horsemen would be a much juster proportion to twenty thousand foot than seventeen liundred. (For further remarks, see at ch. x. 18.) '■'■And David lamed all the cavalry" i.e. he made the war-chariots and cavalry perfectly useless by laming the horses (see at Josh. xi. 6, 9), — " and onljj left a liundred horses." The word receh in these clauses signifies the war-horses generally, — not merely the carriage-horses, but the riding-horses as well, — as the meaning cavalry is placed beyond all doubt by Isa. xxi. 7, and it can hardly be imagined that David would have spared the riding- horses. — Vers. 5, 6. After destroying the main force of Hadad- ezer, David turned against his ally, against Aram-Damascus, i.e. the Aramaeans, whose capital was Damascus. Dammesek (for which we have Darmesek in the Chronicles according to its Aramaean form), Damascus, a very ancient and still a very important city of Syria, standing upon the Chrysorrlioas {Phar- par), which flows through the centre of it. It is situated in the midst of paradisaical scenery, on the eastern side of the Anti- libanus, on the road which unites Western Asia with the inte- rior. David smote 22,000 Syrians of Damascus, placed garrisons in the kingdom, and made it subject and tributary. Q'3''S3 are not governors or officers, but military posts, garrisons, as in 1 Sam. X. 5, xiii. 3. — Ver. 7. Of the booty taken in these wars, David carried the golden shields which he took from the ser- vants, i.e. the governors and vassal princes, of Hadadezer, to Jerusalem.^ Shelet signifies "a shield," according to the Targums 1 The Septuagint has this additional clause : " And Shishak the king of Egypt took them away, when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon," which is neither to be found in the Chronicles nor in any other ancient version, and is merely an inference drawn by the Greek translator, or by some copyist of the LXX., from 1 Kings xiv. 25-28, taken in connection with the fact that the application of the brass is given in 1 Chron. xviii. 8. But, in the first place, the author of this gloss has overlooked the fact that the golden shields of Rehoboam which Shishak carried away, were not those captured by David, but those CHAP. VIII. 3-3. 36L and Rabbins, and this meaning is applicable to all the passages in -wbicli the word occurs ; whilst the meaning " equivalent " cannot be sustained either by the rendering •KavoirKia adopted by Aquila and Symmachus in 2 Kings xi. 10, or by the render- ings of the Vulgate, viz. arma in loc. and armatura in Song of Sol. iv. 4, or by an appeal to the etymology (yid. Gesenius' Thes. and Dietrich's Lexicon). — Ver. 8. And from the cities of Betacli and Berothai David took very much brass, with which, according to 1 Chron. xviii. 8, Solomon made the brazen sea, and the brazen columns and vessels of the temple. The LXX. have also interpolated this notice into the text. The name Betach is given as Tibliath in the Chronicles ; and for Berothai we have Chun. As the towns themselves are unknown, it can- not be decided with certainty which of the forms and names are the correct and original ones. nD30 appears to have been written by mistake for naeip. This supposition is favoured by the rendering of the LXX., e'/c t?}? Mere^aK ; and by that of the Syriac also (viz. Tebach). On the other hand, the occur- rence of the name Tehah among the sons of Nahor the Aramcean in Gen. xxii. 24 proves little or nothing, as it is not known that he founded a family which perpetuated his name ; nor can any- thing be inferred from the fact that, according to the more modern maps, there is a town of Tayiheh to the north of Damas- cus in 35° north lat., as there is very little in common between the names Tayibeh and Tebali. Ewald connects Berothai with the Barathena of Ptol. v. 19 in the neighbourhood of Saba. The connection is a possible one, but it is not sufficiently certain to warrant us in founding any conclusions upon it with regard to the name Clmn which occurs in the Chronicles ; so that there is ■which Solomon had had made, according to 1 Kings x. 16, for the retainers of his palace ; and in the second place, he has not observed that, according to ver. 11 of this chapter, and also of the Chronicles, David dedicated to the Lord all the gold and silver that he had taken, i.e. put it in the trea- sury of the sanctuary to be reserved for the future temple, and that at the end of his reign he handed over to his son and successor Solomon all the gold, silver, iron, and brass that he had collected for the purpose, to be applied to the building of the temple (1 Chron. xxii. 14 sqq., xxix. 2 sqq.). Consequently the clause in question, which Thenius would adopt from the Septuagint into our own text, is nothing more than the production of a presumptuous Alexandrian, whose error lies upon the very surface, so that the question of its genuineness cannot for a moment be entertained. 363 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. no ground whatever for the opinion that it is a corruption of Berothai. Vers. 9-12. After the defeat of the king of Zobah and his alHes, Toi king of Hamath sought for David's friendship, sending his son to salute him, and conveying to him at the same time a considerable present of vessels of silver, gold, and brass. The name Toi is written Tou in the Chronicles, accord- ing to a different mode of interpretation ; and the name of the son is given as Hadoram in the Chronicles, instead of Joram as in the text before us. The former is evidently the true reading, and Joram an error of the pen, as the Israelitish name Joram is not one that we should expect to find among Aramseans ; whilst Hadoram occurs in 1 Chron. i. 21 in the midst of Arabic names, and it cannot be shown that the Hadoram or Adoram mentioned in 2 Chron. x. 18 and 1 Kings xii. 18 was a man of Israelitish descent. The primary object of the mission was to salute David ("to ask him of peace;'' cf. Gen. xliii. 27, etc.), and to congratulate him upon his victory (" to bless him because he had fought," etc.) ; for Toi had had wars with Hadadezer. " A man of wars" signifies a man who wages wars (cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 3 ; Isa. xlii. 13). According to 1 Chron. xviii. 3, the territory of the king of Hamath bordered upon that of Hadad- ezer, and the latter had probably tried to make king Toi submit to him. The secret object of the salutation, however, was no doubt to secure the friendship of this new and powerful neigh- bour.^Vers. 11, 12. David also sanctified Toi's presents to the Lord (handed them over to the treasury of the sanctuary), together with the silver and gold which he had sanctified from all the conquered nations, from Aram, Moab, etc. Instead of V'^^)T\ IB'X the text of the Chronicles has ^m IB'K, which he took, i.e. took as booty. Both are equally correct ; there is simply a somewhat different turn given to the thought.^ In the enumeration of the conquered nations in ver. 12, the text of tlie Chronicles differs from that of the book before us. In the ' Bertheau erroneously maintains that xj^j ^K'K, which he took, is at variance -with 2 Sam. viii. 7, as, according to this passage, the golden shields of Hadadezer did not become the property of the Lord. But there is not a word to that effect in 2 Sam. viii. 7. On the contrary, his taking the shields to Jerusalem implies, rather than precludes, the intention to devote them to the purposes of the sanctuary. CHAP. VIII. 13. 14. 3o3 first place, we find ^^ from Edom" instead of "from Aram;" and secondly, the clause " and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob king of Zohali" is altogether wanting there. Tlie text of the Chronicles is certainly faulty here, as the name of Aram (Syria) could not possibly be omitted. Edom could much better be left out, not " because the conquest of Edom belonged to a later period," as Movers maintains, but because the con- quest of Edom is mentioned for the first time in the subsequent verses. But if we bear in mind that in ver. 12 of both texts not only are those tribes enumerated the conquest of which had been already noticed, but all the tribes that David ever defeated and subjugated, even the Ammonites and Amalekites, to the war with whom no allusion whatever is made in the present chapter, we shall see that Edom could not be omitted. Consequently " from Syria " must have dropped out of the text of the Chronicles, and "from Edom" out of the one before us ; so that the text in both instances ran originally thus, " from Syria, and from Edom, and from Moab." For even in the text before us, " from Aram" (Syria) could not well be omitted, notwithstanding the fact that the booty of Hadadezer is specially mentioned at the close of the verse, for the simple reason that David not only made war upon Syria-Zobah (the kingdom of Hadadezer) and subdued it, but also upon Syria- Damascus, which was quite independent of Zobah. Vers. 13, 14. "And David made (himself) a name, ivhen he returned from smiting (i.e. from the defeat of) Aram, (and smote Edom) in the valley of Salt, eighteen thousand men." The words enclosed in brackets are wanting in the Masoretic text as it has come down to us, and must have fallen out from a mistake of the copyist, whose eye strayed from D"JX"nK to DilNTiN ; for though the text is not " utterly unintelligible " without these words, since the passage might be rendered " after he had smitten Aram in the valley of Salt eighteen thousand men," yet this would be decidedly incorrect, as the Aramasans were not smitten in the valley of Salt, but partly at Medeba (1 Chron. xix. 7) and Helam (eh. x. 17), and partly in their own land, which was very far away from the Salt valley. Moreov the difficulty presented by the text cannot be removed, as Movers supposes, by changing D"l^'nx (Syria) into DinNTiK (Edom), as the expression i3tJ'3 ^« when he returned ") would still be un- 8G4 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. explained. Tlie facts were probably these : Whilst Daviu, or rather Israel, was entangled in the war with the Ammonites and Aramaeans, the Edomites seized upon the opportunity, which appeared to them a very favourable one, to invade the land of Israel, and advanced as far as the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. As soon, therefore, as the Aramaeans were defeated and subjugated, and the Israelitish army had returned from this war, David ordered it to march against the Edomites, and defeated them in the valley of Salt. This valley cannot have been any other than the Grhor adjoining the Salt mountain on the south of the Dead Sea, which really separates the ancient territories of Judah and Edom (Robinson, Pal. ii. 483). There Amaziah also smote the Edomites at a later period (2 King? xiv. 7). We gather more concerning this war of David from the text of the Chronicles (ver. 12) taken in connection with 1 Kings xi. 15, 16, and Ps. Ix. 2. According to the Chronicles, it was Abishai the son of Zeruiah who smote the Edomites. This agrees very well not only with the account in ch. x. 10 sqq., to the effect that Abishai commanded a company in the war with the Syrians and Ammonites under the generalship of his brother Joab, but also with the heading to Ps. Ix., in which it is stated that Joab returned after the defeat of Aram, and smote the Edomites in the valley of Salt, twelve thousand men ; and with 1 Kings xi. 15, 16, in which we read that when David was in Edom, Joab, the captain of the host, came up to bury the slain, and smote every male in Edom, and remained six months in Edom with all Israel, till he had cut off every male in Edom. From this casual but yet elaborate notice, we learn that the war with the Edomites was a very obstinate one, and was not terminated all at once. The difference as to the number slain, which is stated to have been 18,000 in the text before us and in the Chronicles, and 12,000 in the heading to Ps. Ix., may be explained in a very simple manner, on the supposition that the I'eckonings made were only approximative, and yielded different results;* and the fact that David is named ' Miohaelis adduces a case in point from the Seven Years' War. After the battle of Lissa, eight or twelve thousand men were reported to have been taken prisoners ; but when they were all counted, including those who fell into the hands of the conquerors on the second, third, and fourth days of the flight, the number amounted to 22,000. CHAP. VIII. 15-18. 3G5 as the victor in the verse before us, Joah in Ps. Ix., and Ahisliai in the Chronicles, admits of a very easy explanation after what has just been observed. The Chronicles contain the most literal account. Abishai smote the Edomites as commander of the men engaged, Joab as commander-in-chief of the whole army, and David as king and supreme governor, of whom the writer of the Chronicles affirms, " The Lord helped David in all his undertakings." After the defeat of the Edomites, David placed garrisons in the land, and made all Edom subject to himself. Vers. 15-18. David's Ministers. — To the account of David's wars and victories there is appended a list of his official attendants, which is introduced with a general remark as to the spirit of his government. As king over all Israel, David continued to execute right and justice. — Ver. 16. The chief ministers were the following : — Joab (see at ch. ii. 18) was " over the army" i.e. commander-in-chief. Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, of whom nothing further is known, was mazcir, chancellor ; not merely the national annalist, according to the Septuagint and Vulgate (eTrl twv vTrofivrjfiaTcov, inrofivTjfiaro- ypa(f>o^ ; a commentariis), i.e. the recorder of the most important incidents and affairs of the nation, but an officer resembling the magister memorice of the later Romans, or the waka nuvis of the Persian court, who keeps a record of everything that takes place around the king, furnishes him with an account of all that occurs in the kingdom, places his vise upon all the king's commands, and keeps a special protocol of all these things (yid. Chardin, Voyages v. p. 258, and Paulsen, Regierung der Morgenlander, pp. 279-80). — Ver. 17. Zadok the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar (1 Chron. v. 34, vi. 37, 38), and Ahimelecli the son of Abiathar, were cohanim, i.e. officiating high priests ; the former at the tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chron. xvi. 39), the latter probably at the ark of the covenant upon Mount Zion. Instead of Ahimelech, the Chronicles have Abimelecli, evidently through a copyist's error, as the name is written Ahimelech in 1 Chron. xxiv. 3, 6. But the expression " Ahimelech the son of Abiathar" is apparently a very strange one, as Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech according to 1 Sam. xxii. 20, and in other passages Zadok and Abiathar are niei> ?>v\aKe<; (Josephus, Ant. vii. 5, 4). The words are adjectives in form, but with a sub- stantive meaning, and were used to indicate a certain rank, lit. the executioners and runners, like ■'B'YE'n (ch. xxiii. 8). 'HIS, from 013, to cut down or exterminate, signifies confessor, because among the Israelites (see at 1 Kings ii. 25), as in fact through- out the East generally, the royal halberdiers had to execute the sentence of death upon criminals. wS, from nps (to fly, or be swift), is related to !3pB, and signifies runners. It is equivalent to Tl, a courier, as one portion of the halberdiers, like the a'yyapoi, of the Persians, had to convey the king's orders to distant places {vid. 2 Chron. xxx. 6). This explanation is con- firmed by the fact that the epithet CSini nan was afterwards apphed to the king's body-guard (2 Kings xi. 4, 19), and that nan for 'ni?'? occurs as early as ch. xx. 23. '13, from iu, 3fi8 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. fodit, perfodit, is used in the same sense.^ And David's sons were D'':n3 (" confidants ") ; not priests, domestic priests, court chaplains, or spiritual advisers, as Gesenius, De Wette, and others maintain, but, as the title is explained in the correspond- ing text of the Chronicles, when the title had become obsolete, " the first at the hand (or side) of the king." The correctness ^ Gesenius (Thes. s. vv.) and Thenius (on 1 Kings i. 38) both adopt this explanation ; but the majority of the modern theologians decide in favour of Lakemacher's opinion, to which Ewald has given currency, viz. that the Creihi or Cari are Cretes or Carians, and the Peleihi PHhstines {vid. Ewald, Krit. Gramm. p. 297, and Gesck. cles Volkes Israel, pp. 330 sqq. ; Bertheau, zur Geschichte Israel, p. 197 ; Movers, Phonizier i. p. 19). This view is chiefly founded upon the fact that the Philistines are called CWethi in 1 Sam. xxx. 14, and C'rethim in Zeph. ii. 5 and Ezek. xxv. 16. But in both the passages from the prophets the name is used with special reference to the meaning of the word fT'nsn, viz. to exterminate, cut off, as Jerome has shown in the case of Ezekiel by adopting the rendering interjiciam interfectores (I will slay the slayers) for D^m3"nN 'mn. The same play upon the words takes place in Zephaniah, upon which Strauss has correctly observed : " Zephaniah shows that this violence of theirs had not been forgotten, calling the Philistines Cretliim for that very reason, ui sit nomen et omen." Besides, in both these passages the true name Philistines stands by the side as well, so that the prophets might have used the name Crethim (slayers, exterminators) without thinking at all of 1 Sam. xxx. 14. In this passage it is true the name Crethi is applied to a branch of the Philistine people that had settled on the south-west of Philistia, and not to the Philistines generally. The idea that the name of a portion of the royal body-guard was derived from the Cretans is precluded, first of all, by the fact of its combination with Tl^QH (the Pelethites) ; for it is a totally groundless assumption that this name signifies the Philistines, and is a corruption of DTIE'PS. There are no such contractions as these to be found in the Semitic languages, as Gesenius observes in his Thesaurus (l.c), " Quis hujusnaodi ooutractionem in linguis Semiticis ferat? " Secondly, it is also precluded by the strangeness of such a combination of two synony- mous names to denote the royal body-guard. " Who could believe it possible that two synonymous epithets should be joined together in this manner, which would be equivalent to saying Englishmen and Britons?" (Ges. Thes. p. 1107.) Thirdly, it is opposed to the title afterwards given to the body-guard, D^Snni nan (2 Kings xi. 4, 19), in which the Cari correspond to the Crethi, as in ch. xx. 23, and Jia-razim to the PeletM; so that the term pelethi can no more signify a particular tribe than the term razim can. Moreover, there are other grave objections to this inter- pretation. In the first place, the hypothesis that the Philistines were emigrants from Crete is merely founded upon the very indefinite statementa CHAP. VIII. 15-18. 3G9 of this explanation is placed beyond the reach of doubt by 1 Kings iv. 5, where the cohen is called, by way of explanation, " the king's friend." The title cohen may be explained from the primary signification of the verb I[i3, as shown in the corresponding verb and noun in Arabic (" res alicujus gerere," and " administrator alieni negotii"). These cohanim, therefore, were the king's confidential advisers. of Tacitus {Hist. r. 3, 2), " Judxos Creta insula profiigos novissima Libya iiisedisse memorant" and that of Steph. Byz. (s. v. Ta^a), to the effect that the city of Gaza was once called Minoa, from Minos a king of Crete, — ■ statements which, according to the correct estimate of Strauss (i.e.), " have all so evidently the marks of fables that they hardly merit discussion," at all events when opposed to the historical testimony of the Old Testament (Deut. ii, 23 ;' Amos ix. 7), to the effect that the Philistines sprang from Caphtor. And secondly, " it is a priori altogether improbable, that a man with so patriotic a heart, and so devoted to the worship of the one God, should have surrounded himself with a foreign and heathen body-guard" (Thenius). This argument cannot be invalidated by the remark " that it is well known that at all times kings and princes have preferred to commit the protection of their persons to foreign mercenaries, having, as they thought, all the surer pledge of their devotedness in the fact that they did not spring from the nation, and were dependent upon the ruler alone " (Hitzig). For, in the first place, the expression " at all times " is one that must be very greatly modified ; and secondly, this was only done by kings who did not feel safe in the presence of their own people, which was not the case with David. And the Philistines, those arch-foes of Israel, woula have been the last nation that David would have gone to for the purpose of selecting his own body-guard. It is true that he himself had met with a hospitable reception in the land of the Philistines ; but it must be borne in mind that it was not as king of Israel that he found refuge there, but as an outlaw flying from Saul the king of Israel, and even then the chiefs of the Philistines would not trust him (1 Sam. xxii. 3 sqq.). And when Hitzig appeals still further to the fact, that according to ch. xviii. 2, David handed over the command of a third of his army to a foreigner who had recently entered his service, having emigrated from Gath with a company of his fellow-countrymen (oh. xv. 19, 20, 22), and who had displayed the greatest attachment to the person of David (ver. 21), it is hardly neces.sary to observe that the fact of David's welcoming a brave soldier into his army, when he had come over to Israel, and placing him over a division of the army, after he had proved his fidelity so decidedly as Ittai had at the time of Absalom's rebellion, is no proof that he chose his body-guard from the Philistines. Nor can ch. xv. 18 be adduced in support of this, as the notion that, according to that passage, David had 600 Gathites in his Bervice as body-guard, is simply founded upon a misinterpretation of the passage mentioned. S A 370 the second book of samuel. David's kindness towards mephibosheth.^chap. ix. When David was exalted to be king over all Israel, he sought to show compassion to the house of the fallen king, and to repay the love which his noble-minded friend Jonathan had once sworn to him before the Lord (1 Sam. xx. 13 sqq. ; comp. xxiii. 17, 18). The account of this forms the conclusion of, or rather an appendix to, the first section of the history of his reign, and was intended to show how David was mindful of the duty of gratitude and loving fidelity, even when he reached the highest point of his regal authority and glory. The date when this occurred was about the middle of David's reign, as we may see from the fact, that Mephibosheth, who was five years old when Saul died (ch. iv. 4), had a young son «t the time (ver. 12). Vers. 1-8. When David inquired whether there was any one left of the house of Saul to whom he could show favour for Jonathan's sake ("lijJ'K''' '^ri : is it so that there is any one f = there is certainly some one left), a servant of Saul named Ziba was summoned, who told the king that there was a sen of Jonathan living in the house of Machir at Lodebar, and that he was lame in his feet. K'''!^ liV "QXrij " is there no one at all besides ?" The ^ before n^a is a roundabout way of expressing the genitive, as in 1 Sam. xvi. 18, etc., and is obviously not to be altered into n"'?!?, as Thenius proposes. " The kindness of God" is love and kindness shown in God, and for God's sake (Luke vi. 36). Machir the son of Ammiel was a rich man, judging from ch. xvii. 27, who, after the death of Saul and Jonathan, had received the lame son of the latter into his house. Lodebar p^To written l^TSP in ch. xvii. 27, but erro- neously divided by the Masoretes into two words in both pas- sages) was a town on the east of Mahanaim, towards Eabbath Amman, probably the same place as Lidbir (Josh. xiii. 2G) ; but it is not further known. — Vers. 5 sqq. David sent for this son of Jonathan (Mephibosheth : of. ch. iv. 4), and not only restored his father's possessions in land, but took him to his own royal table for the rest of his life. " Fear not," said David to Mephibosheth, when he came before him with the deepest obeisance, to take away any anxiety lest the king should intend to slay the descendants of the fallen king, according to CHAP. IX. 9-13. 371 the custom of eastern usurpers. It is evident from the wcrds, " / will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father" that the landed property belonging to Saul had either fallen to David as crown lands, or had been taken possession of by distant relations after the death of Saul. " Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually" i.e. eat at my table all thy life long, or receive thy food from my table. — Ver. 8. Mephibosheth expressed his thanks for this manifestation of favour with the deepest obei- sance, and a confession of his unworthiness of any such favour. On his comparison of himself to a " dead dog^' see at 1 Sam. xxiv. 15. Vers. 9-13. David then summoned Ziba the servant of Saul, told him of the restoration of Saul's possessions to his son Mephibosheth, and ordered him, with his sons and servants, to cultivate the land for the son of his lord. The words, " that thy master s son may have food to eat," are not at variance with the next clause, " Mephibosheth shall eat bread alivay at my table," as bread is a general expression, including all the neces- saries of life. Although Mephibosheth himself ate daily as a guest at the king's table, he had to make provision as a royal prince for the maintenance of his own family and servants, as he had children according to ver. 12 and 1 Chron. viii. 34 sqq. Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants (ver. 10), with whom he had probably been living in Gibeah, Saul's native place, and may perhaps have hitherto farmed Saul's land. — Ver. 11. Ziba promised to obey the king's command. The last clause of this verse is a circumstantial clause in form, with which the writer passes over to the conclusion of his account. But the words ''jnt'B' py, " at my table," do not tally with this, as they require that the words should be taken as David's own. This is precluded, however, not only by the omission of any intima- tion that David spoke again after Ziba, and repeated what he had said once already, and that without any occasion whatever, but also by the form of the sentence, more especially the par- ticiple ?3X. There is no other course left, therefore, than to regard ''^npB' (my table) as written by mistake for nn \m^ : " but Mephibosheth ate at David's table as one of the king's sons." The further notices in vers. 12 and 13 follow this in a very simple manner. JTiB DB'iD 73, " all the dwelling" i.e. all the inhabitants of Ziba's house, namely his sons and servants, were 372 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. servants of Mephiboshetli, i.e. worked for him and cultivated his land, whilst he himself took up his abode at Jerusalem, to eat daily at the king's table, although he was lamed in both his feet. III. DAVID'S REIGN IN ITS DECLINE. Chap, x.-xx. In the first half of David's reign he had strengthened and fortified the kingdom of Israel, both within and without, and exalted the covenant nation into a kingdom of God, before which all its enemies were obliged to bow ; but in the second half a series of heavy judgments fell upon him and his house, which cast a deep shadow upon the glory of his reign. David had brought these judgments upon himself by his grievous sin with Bathsheba. The success of all his undertakings, and the strength of his government, which increased year by year, had made him feel so secure, that in the excitement of undisturbed prosperity, he allowed himself to be carried away by evil lusts, so as to stain his soul not only with adultery, but also with murder, and fell all the deeper because of the height to which his God had exalted him. This took place during the war with the Ammonites and Syrians, when Joab was besieging the capital of the Ammonites, after the defeat and subjugation of the Syrians (ch. x.), and when David had remained behind in Jerusalem (ch. xi. 1). For this double sin, the adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah, the Lord announced as a punishment, that the sword should not depart from David's house, and that his wives should be openly vio- lated ; and notwithstanding the sincere sorrow and repentance of the king, when brought to see his sin. He not only caused the fruit of his sin, the child that was born of Bathsheba, to die (ch. xii.), but very soon afterwards allowed the threatened judgments to fall upon his house, inasmuch as Amnon, his first-born son, violated his half-sister Thamar, and was mur- dered in consequence by her own brother Absalom (ch. xiii.), whereupon Absalom fled to his father-in-law at Geshur ; and CHAP. X. 373 wlien at length the king restored him to favour (ch. xiv.), he Bet on foot a rebellion, which nearly cost David his life and throne (ch. xv.-xvii. 23). And even after Absalom himself was dead (ch. xvii. 24-xix. 1), and David had been reinstated in his kingdom (ch. xix. 2-40), there arose the conspiracy set on foot by the Benjaminite Sheba, which was only stopped by the death of the chief conspirator, in the fortified city of Abel- Beth-ilaachah (ch. xix. 41-xx. 26). The period and duration of these divine visitations are not stated ; and all that we are able to determine from the different data as to time, given in ch. xiii. 23, 38, xiv. 28, xv. 7, when taken in connection with the supposed ages of the sons of David, is that Amnon's sin in the case of Thamar did not take place earlier than the twentieth year of David's reign, and that Absalom's rebellion broke out seven or eight years later. Con- sequently the assumption cannot be far from the truth, that the events described in this section occupied the whole time betweeu the twentieth and thirtieth years of David's reign. We are prevented from placing it earlier, by the fact that Amnon was not born till after David became king over Judah, and there- fore was probably about twenty years old when he violated his half-sister Thamar. At the same time it cannot be placed later than this, because Solomon was not born till about two years after David's adultery ; and he must have been eighteen or twenty years old when he ascended the throne on the death of his father, after a reign of forty years and a half, since, accoi'd- ing to 1 Kings xiv. 21, compared with vers. 11 and 42, 43, he had a son a year old, named Eehoboam, at the time when he began to reign. WAR WITH THE AMMONITES AND SYRIANS. — CHAP. X. This war, the occasion and early success of wLicli are described in the present chapter and the parallel passage in 1 Chron. xix., was the fiercest struggle, and, so far as the Israel- itish kingdom of God was concerned, the most dangerous, that it ever had to sustain during the reign of David. The amount of distress which fell upon Israel in consequence of this war, and still more because the first successful battles with the Syrians of the south were no sooner over than the Edomites 374 THE SECOND BOOK OK SAMUEL. invaded the land, and went about plundering and devastating, in the hope of destroying the people of God, is shown very clearly in the two psalms which date from this period (the 44th and 60th), in which a pious Korahite and David himself pour out their lamentations before the Lord on account of the distress of their nation, and pray for His assistance ; and not less clearly in Ps. Ixviii., in which David foretels the victory of the God of Israel over all the hostile powers of the world. Vers. 1—5. Occasion of the war loith the Ammonites. — Ver. 1. On the expression " it came to pass after this" see the remarks on ch. viii. 1. When Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, died, and Hanun his son reigned in his stead, David thought that he would show him the same kindness that Nahash had formerly shown to him. We are not told in what the love shown to David by Nahash consisted. He had most likely rendered him some assistance during the time of his flight from Saul. Nahash was no doubt the king of the Ammonites mentioned in 1 Sam. xi. 1, whom Saul had smitten at Jabesh. David therefore sent an embassy to Hanun, " to comfort him for his father," i.e. to siiow his sympathy with him on the occasion of his father's death, and at the same time to congratulate him upon his ascent of the throne. — Ver. 3. On the arrival of David's ambassadors, however, the chiefs of the Ammonites said to Hanun their lord, " Doth David indeed honour thy father in thine eyes (i.e. dost thou really suppose that David intends to do honour to tliy father), because he has sent comforters to thee ? Has David not sent his servants to thee with the intention of exploring and spying out the toion, and (then) destroying it ? " The first question is introduced with n, because a negative answer is expected ; the second with f^i'!!, because it requires an affirmative reply, "''i'v' is the capital JRabbah, a strongly fortified city (see at ch. xi. 1). The suspicion expressed by the chiefs was founded upon national hatred and enmity, which had probably been increased by David's treatment of Moab, as the subjugation and severe punishment of the Moabites (ch. viii. 2) had certainly taken place a short time before. King Hanun therefore gave credence to the suspicions expressed as to David's honourable intentions, and had his ambassadors treated in the most insulting manner. — Ver. 4. He had the half of their beard shaved off, and theit clothes cut off up to the seat, and in this state he sent them CHAP. X. 6. 375 away. " The half of the heard" i.e. the beard on one side. With the value universally set upon the beard by the Hebrews and other oriental nations, as being a man's greatest ornament,^ the cutting off of one-half of it was the greatest insult that could have been offered to the ambassadors, and through them to David their king. The insult was still further increased by cutting off the long dress which covered the body ; so that as the ancient Israelites wore no trousers, the lower half of the body was quite exposed. Dri'llD, from 'no or i^.llP, the long robe reaching down to the feet, from the root ITIO = TiD, to stretch, spread out, or measure. — Ver. 5. When David received infor- mation of the insults that had been heaped upon his ambassadors, he sent messengers to meet them, and direct them to remain in Jericho until their beard had grown again, that he might not have to set his eyes upon the insult they had received. Ver. 6. When the Ammonites saw that they had made themselves stinking before David, and therefore that David would avenge the insult- offered to the people of Israel in the persons of their ambassadors, they looked round for help among the powerful kings of Syria. They hired as auxiliaries (with a thousand talents of silver, i.e. nearly half a million of pounds sterling, according to 1 Ohron. xix. 6) twenty thousand fool from Aram-Beth'Rehob and Aram-Zoha, and one thousand men from the king of Maacah, and twelve thousand troops from the men of Toh. Aram-Beth-Rehoh was the Aramsean kingdom, the capital of which was Beth-Rehoh. This Beth-Eehob, which is simply called Rehoh in ver. 8, is in all probability the city of this name mentioned in Num. xiii. 21 and Judg. xviii. 28, which lay to the south of Hamath, but the exact position of which has not yet been discovered : for the castle of Hunin, in the ruins of which Eobinson imagines that he has found Beth-Eehob ' " Cutting off a person's beard is regarded by the Arabs as an indignity quite equal to flogging and branding among ourselves. Many would rather die than have their beard shaved off" (Arvieux, Siiten der Beduinen-araher). Niebuhr relates a similar occurrence as having taken place in modern times. In the year 1764, a pretender to the Persian throne, named Kerim Khan, Bent ambassadors to Mir Mahenna, the prince of Bendervigk, on the Persian Gulf, to demand tribute from him ; but he in return cut off the ambassa- dors' beards. Kerim Khan was so enraged at this, that he went the next year with a large army to make war upon this prince, and took the city, and almost the whole of his territory, to avenge the insult. 376 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. (Bibl. Researches, p. 370), is to the south-west of Tell el Kadi, the ancient Laish-Dan, the northern boundary of the Israelitish territory ; so that the capital of this Aramaean kingdom would have been within the limits of the land of Israel, — a thing which is inconceivable. Aram- NaJiar aim is also mentioned in the corresponding text of the Chronicles, and for that reason many have identified Beth-Rehob with Rehoboth, on " the river" (Euphrates), mentioned in Gen. xxxvi. 37. But this association is precluded by the fact, that in all probability the latter place is to be found in Rachahe, which is upon the Euphrates and not more than half a mile from the river (see Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 128), so that from its situation it can hardly have been the capital of a separate Aramaean kingdom, as the government of the king of Zoba extended, according to ver. 16, beyond the Euphrates into Mesopotamia. On Aram-Zoha, see at ch. viii. 3 ; and for Maacah at Deut. iii. 14. 3iD"5;'''K is not to be taken as one word and rendered as a proper name, Ish-Tob, as it has been by most of the earlier translators ; but tJ'''S is a common noun used in a collective sense (as it frequently is in the expression 7^^&\ ^''^)) " the men of Tob." lob was the district between Syria and Ammonitis, where Jephthah had formerly taken refuge (Judg. xi. 5). The corresponding text of the Chronicles (1 Chron. xix. 6, 7) is fuller, and differs in several respects from the text before us. According to the Chronicles, Hanun sent a thousand talents of silver to hire chariots and horsemen from Aram-Naharaim, Aram-Maacah, and Zobah. With this the Ammonites hired thirty-two thousand receb (i.e. chariots and horsemen : see at ch. viii. 4), and the king of Maacah and his people. They came and encamped before Medeba, the present ruin of Medaba, two hours to the south-east of Heshbon, in the tribe of Reuben (see at Num. xxi. 30, com- pared with Josh. xiii. 16), and the Ammonites gathered together out of their cities, and went to the war. The Chronicles therefore mention Aram-Naharaim (i.e. Mesopotamia) as hired by the Ammonites instead of Aram-Beth-Rehob, and leave out the men of Tob. The first of these differences is not to be explained, as Bertheau suggests, on the supposition that the author of the Chronicles took Beth-Rehob to be the same city as Rehoboth of the river in Gen. xxxvi. 37, and therefore sub- stituted the well-known '^ Aram of the two rivers" as an CHAP. X. G. 377 interpretation of the rarer name Beth-Rehoh, thougn hardly on good ground. For this conjecture does not help to explain the omission of " the men of Tob." It is a much simpler explana- tion, that the writer of the Chronicles omitted Beth-Relwb and Toh as being names that were less known, this being the only place in the Old Testament in which they occur as separate kingdoms, and simply mentioned the kingdoms of Maacah and Zoha, which frequently occur ; and that he included " Aram of the two rivers," and placed it at the head, because the Syrians obtained succour from Mesopotamia after their first defeat. The account in the Chronicles agrees with the one before us, so far as the number of auxiliary troops is concerned. For twenty thousand men of Zoba and twelve thousand of Tob amount to thirty-two thousand, besides the people of the king of Maacah, who sent a thousand men according to the text of Samuel. But according to that of the Chronicles, the auxiliary troops consisted of chariots and horsemen, whereas only foot-soldiers are mentioned in our text, which appears all tlie more remarkable, because according to eh. viii. 4, and 1 Chron. xviii. 4, the king of Zoba fought against David with a considerable force of chariots and horsemen. It is very evident, therefore, that there are copyists' errors in both texts ; for the troops of the Syrians did not consist of infantry only, nor of chariots and horsemen alone, but of foot-soldiers, cavalry, and war-chariots, as we may see very clearly not only from the passages already quoted in ch. viii. 4 and 1 Chron. xviii. 4, but also from the conclusion to the account before us. According to ver. 18 of this chapter, when Hadarezer had reinforced his army with auxiliaries from Mesopotamia, after losing the first battle, David smote seven hundred receh and forty thousand parashim of Aram, whilst according to the parallel text (1 Chron. xix. 18) he smote seven thousand receb and forty thousand foot. Now, apart from the difference between seven thousand and seven hundred in the case of the receb, which is to be inter- preted in the same way as a similar difference in ch. viii. 4, the Chronicles do not mention any parashim at all in ver. 18, but foot-soldiers only, whereas in ver. 7 they mention only receb and parashim; and, on the other hand, there are no foot-soldiers given in ver. 1 8 of the text before us, but riders only, whereas in ver. 6 there are none but foot-soldiers mentioned, without 378 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. any riders at all. It is evident that in both engagements the Syrians fought with all three (infantry, cavalry, and chariots), so that in both of them David smote chariots, horsemen, and foot. Vers. 7-14. When David heard of these preparations and the advance of the Syrians into the land, he sent Joab and his brave army against the foe. D'liaan (the mighty men) is in apposition to ^'^sn'^S (all the host) : the whole army, namely the heroes or mighty men, i.e. the brave troops that were well used to war. It is quite arbitrary on the part of Thenius to supply vav before Ciiaan ; for, as Bertheau has observed, we never find a distinction drawn between the gihhorim and the whole army. — Ver. 8. On the other hand, the Ammonites came out (from the capital, where they had assembled), and put themselves in battle array before the gate. The Syrians were alone on the field, i.e. they had taken up a separate position on the broad treeless table-land (cf. Josh. xiii. 16) by Medeba. Medeba lay about four geographical miles in a straight line to the south-west of Rabbath-Ammon. — Ver. 9. When Joab saw that " the front of the war was (directed) against him both before and behind," he selected a picked body out of the Israel- itish army, and posted them (the picked men) against the children of Aram (i.e. the Syrians). The rest of the men he gave to his brother Abishai, and stationed them against the Ammonites. " The front of the battle :" i.e. the face or front of the hostile army, when placed in battle arraj'. Joab had this in front and behind, as the Ammonites had taken their stand before Rabbali at the back of the Israelitish army, and the Syrians by Medeba in their front, so that Joab was attacked both before and behind. This compelled him to divide his army. lie chose out, i.e. made a selection. Instead of •'^?^'?'l? ''73'^? (the picked men in Israel) the Chronicles have ?X"Jtf".3 '''"^? (the men in Israel), the singular lina being more commonly employed than the plural to denote the men of war. The 3 before ?^"]K'^. is not to be regarded as suspicious, although the early translators have not expressed it, and the Masoretes wanted to expunge it. " The choice of Israel" signifies those who were selected in Israel for the war, i.e. the Israelitish soldiers. Joab himself took up his station opposite to the Syrians with a picked body of men, because they were the CHAP. X. 16-19. 379 stronger force of the two. He then made this arrangement with Abishai (ver. 11) : ^^ If Aram becomes stronger than I {i.e. overpowers me), come to my help ; and if the Ammonites should overpower thee, I will go to help thee." Consequently tlie attack was not to be made upon both the armies of the enemy simul- taneously ; but Joab proposed to attack the Aramseans (Syrians) first (cf. ver. 13), and Abishai was merely to keep the Ammon- ites in check, though there was still a possibility that the two bodies of the enemy might make their attack simultaneously. — Ver. 12. " Be firm, and let us be firm (strong) for our people, and for the towns of our God: and Jehovah will do tuliat seemeth Him good." Joab calls the towns of Israel the towns of our God, inasmuch as the God of Israel had given the land to the people of Israel, as being His own property. Joab and Abishai were about to fight, in order that Jehovah's possessions mighf. not fall into the hands of the heathen, and become subject to their gods. — Ver. 13. Joab then advanced with his army to battle against Aram, and " they fled before him." — Ver. 14. When the Ammonites perceived this, they also fled before Abishai, and drew back into the city (Rabbah) ; whereupon Joab returned to Jerusalem, probably because, as we may infer from ch. xi. 1, it was too late in the year for the siege and capture of Rabbah. Vers. 15-19. The Aramaeans, however, gathered together again after the first defeat, to continue the war ; and Hadarezer, the most powerful of the Aramseau kings, sent messengers to Mesopotamia, and summoned it to war. It is very evident, not only from the words " he sent and brought out Aram, which was beyond the river," but also from the fact that Shobach, Hadarezer's general (Shophach according to the Chronicles), was at the head of the Mesopotamian troops, that the Meso- potamian troops who were summoned to help were under the supreme rule of Hadarezer. This is placed beyond all possible doubt by ver. 19, where the kings who had fought with Hadar- ezer against the Israelites are called his " servants," or vassals. UT!} !iNn>l (ver. 16) might be translated "and their army came;" but when we compare with this the i^9 t- '^■^t- °f '^^^- ■'•'^j '^'^ are compelled to render it as a proper name (as in the Septua- gint, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic) — " and they (the men from beyond the Euphrates) came (marched) to Helam" — and to tako f580 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. DP'n as a contracted form of DX?n. The situation of this place has not yet been discovered. Ewald supposes it to be connected with the Syrian town Alamatha upon the Euphrates (Ptol. Geogr. v. 15) ; but this is not to be thought of for a moment, if only because it cannot be supposed that the Aramaeans would fall back to the Euphrates, and wait for the Israelites to follow them thither before they gave them battle ; and also on account of ch. viii. 4 and 1 Chron. xviii. 3, from which it is evident that Ilelam is to be sought for somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hamath (see p. 360). For rmvhn Kb>l_ we find nnh^f. xhM, " David came to them" (the Aramaeans), in the Chronicles : so that the author of the Chronicles has omitted the unknown place, unless indeed onvX has been written by mistake for DWn. — Vers. 17 sqq. David went with all Israel (all the Israelitish forces) against the foe, and smote the Aramaeans at Helam, where they had placed themselves in battle array, slaying seven hundred charioteers and forty thousand horsemen, and so smiting (or wounding) the general Shobach that he died there, i.e. that he did not survive the battle (Tlienius). With regard to the different account given in the corresponding text of the Chronicles as to the number of the slain, see the remarks on ver. 6 (pp. 376-7). It is a fact worthy of notice, that the number of men who fell in the battle (seven hundred receb and forty thousand parashim, according to the text before us ; seven thousand receb and forty thousand ragli, according to the Chronicles) agrees quite as well with the number of Aramaeans reported to be taken prisoners or slain, according to ch. viii. 4 and 1 Chron. xviii. 4, 5 (viz. seventeen hundred parashim or a thousand receb, and seven thousand parashim and twenty thousand ragli of Aram-Zoba, and twenty-two thousand of Aram-Damascus), as could possibly be expected considering the notorious corruption in the numbers as we possess them ; so that there is scarcely any doubt that the number of Aramaeans who fell was the same in both accounts (ch. viii. and x.), and that in the chapter before us we have simply a more circumstantial account of the very same war of which the result is given in ch. viii. and 1 Chron. xviii. — Ver. 19. " A nd when all the kings, the vassals of Hadarezer, saw that they were smitten before Israel, they made peace with Israel, and became subject to them ; and Aram tvas afraid to render any further help to the Ammonites." It might appear from the first half of this CHAP. XI. 1. 381 verse, that it was only the vassals of Hadarezer who made peace with Israel, and became subject to it, and that Hadarezer him- self did not. But the last clause, " and the Aramseans were afraid," etc., shows very clearly that Hadarezer also made peace with the Israelites, and submitted to their rule ; so that the expression in the first half of the verse is not a very exact one. SIEGE OF KABBAH. DAVID S ADULTERY. — CHAP. XI. Ver. 1 (cf. 1 Chron. xx. 1). Siege or Kabbah. — " And it came to pass at the return of the year, at the time when the kings marched out, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the Ammonites and he- sieged Rabhah: but David remained in Jerusalem" This verse is connected with ch. x. 14, where it was stated that after Joab had put to flight the Aramaeans who came to the help of the Ammonites, and when the Ammonites also had fallen back before Abisliai in consequence of this victory, and retreated into their fortified capital, Joab himself returned to Jerusalem. He remained there during the winter or rainy season, in which it was impossible that war should be carried on. At the return of the year, i.e. at the commencement of spring, with which the new year began in the month Abib (Nisan), the time when kings who were engaged in war were accustomed to open their campaign, David sent Joab his commander-in-chief with the whole of the Israelitish forces to attack the Ammonites once more, for the purpose of chastising them and conquering their capital. The Chethibh D'3Xj''3l' should be changed into D'S^Jpn, according to the Keri and the text of the Chronicles. The N interpolated is a perfectly superfluous muter lectionis, and probably crept into the text from a simple oversight. The "servants" of David with Joab were not the men performing military service, or soldiers, (in which case " all Israel " could only signify the people called out to war in extraordinary cir- cumstances,) but the king's military olficers, the military com- manders ; and " all Israel," the whole of the military forces of Israel. Instead of " the children of Ammon " we find " the country of the children of Ammon," which explains the meaning more fully. But there was no necessity to insert pS (the land SS2 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. or country), as rT'liK'n is applied to men in other passages in the sense of " cast to the ground," or destroy (e.g. 1 Sam. xxvi. 15). Rabhah was the capital of Ammonitis (as in Josh. xiii. 25) : the fuller name was Rabbath of the children of Ammon. It has been preserved in the ruins which still exist under the ancient name of Rabbat-Ammdn, on the Nahr Amman, i.e. the upper Jabbok (see at Deut. iii. 11). The last clause, " hut David sat (remained) in Jerusalem" leads on to the account which follows of David's adultery with Bathsheba (vers. 2-27 and ch. xii. 1—25), which took place at that time, and is therefore in- serted here, so that the conquest of Rabbah is not related till afterwards (ch. xii. 26-31). Vers. 2-27. David's Adultery. — David's deep fall forms a turning-point not only in the inner life of the great king, but also in the history of his reign. Hitherto David had kept free from the grosser sins, and had only exhibited such infirmities and failings as simulation, prevarication, etc., which clung to all the saints of the Old Covenant, and were hardly regarded as sins in the existing stage of religious culture at that time, although God never left them unpunished, but invariably visited them upon His servants with humiliations and chastise- ments of various kinds. Among the unacknowledged sins which God tolerated because of the hardness of Israel's heart was polygamy, which encouraged licentiousness and the ten- dency to sensual excesses, and to which but a weak barrier had been presented by the warning that had been given for the Israelitish kings against taking many wives (Deut. xvii. 17), opposed as such a warning was to the notion so prevalent in the East both in ancient and modern times, that a well-filled harem is essential to the splendour of a princely court. The custom to which this notion gave rise opened a dangerous preci- pice in David's way, and led to a most grievous fall, that can only be explained, as O. v. Gerlach has said, from the intoxi- cation consequent upon undisturbed prosperity and power, which grew with every year of his reign, and occasioned a long series of most severe humiliations and divine chastisements that marred the splendour of his reign, notwithstanding the fact that the great sin was followed by deep and sincere repentance. Vers. 2-5. Towards evening David walked upon the rooi CHAP. XI. 2-6. 383 of his palace, after rising from his couch, i.e. after taking hia mid-day rest, and saw from the roof a woman bathing, namely in the uncovered court of a neighbouring house, where there was a spring with a pool of water, such as you still frequently meet with in the East. " The woman was beautiful to look upon." Her outward charms excited sensual desires. — Ver. 3. David ordered inquiry to be made about her, and found (lON'l, "he, i.e. the messenger, said;" or indefinitely, ''they said") that she was Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hethite. Ki^n^ noiine, is used, as it frequently is, in the sense of an affirmation, " it is indeed so." Instead of Bathsheba the daughter of Eliam, we find the name given in the Chronicles (1 Ohron. iii. 5) as Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel. The form VltJ'Tia may be derived from JJl'^'ria, in which 3 is softened into 1 ; for Bath- sheba (with betli) is the correct and original form, as we may see from 1 Kings i. 11, 15, 28. Eliam and Ammiel have the same signification ; the difference simply consists in the transr position of the component parts of the name. It is impossible to determine, however, which of the two forms was the original one. — Ver. 4. The information brought to him, that the beau- tiful woman was married, was not enough to stifle the sensual desires whicli arose in David's sonl. " When lust hath con- ceived, it bringeth forth sin" (Jas. i. 15). David sent for the woman, and lay with her. In the expression " he took her, and she came to him," there is no intimation whatever that David brought Bathsheba into his palace through craft or violence, but rather that she came at liis request without any hesitation, and offered no resistance to his desires. Consequently Bathsheba is not to be regarded as free from blame. The very act of bathing in the uncovered court of a house in the heart of the city, into which it was possible for any one to look down from the roofs of the houses on higher ground, does not say much for her feminine modesty, even if it was not done with an ulterior purpose, as some commentators suppose. Nevertheless in any case the greatest guilt rests upon David, that he, a man upon whom the Lord had bestowed such grace, did not resist the temptation to the lust of the flesh, but sent to fetch the woman. " When she had sanctified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house" Defilement from sexual intercourse rendered unclean till the evening (Lev. xv. 18). Bathsheba 3S4 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. thought it her duty to observe this statute most scrupulously, though she did not shrink from committing the sin of aduUery^ — Ver. 5. When she discovered that she was with child, shu sent word to David. This involved an appeal to him to take the necessary steps to avert the evil consequences of the sin, inasmuch as the law required that both adulterer and adulteress should be put to death (Lev. xx. 10). Vers. 6-13. David had Uriah the husband of Bathsheba sent to him by Joab, under whom he was serving in the army before Rabbah, upon some pretext or other, and asked him as soon as he arrived how it fared with Joab and the people (i.e. the army) and the war. This was probably the pretext under which David had had him sent to him. According to ch. xxiii. 39, Uriah was one of the gibboriin (" mighty men ") of David, and therefore held some post of command in the army, although there is no historical foundation for the statement made by Josephus, viz. that he was Joab's armour-bearer or aide-de- camp. The king then said to him, " Go down to thy home (from the palace upon Mount Zion down to the lower city, where Uriah's house was situated), and wash thy feet ; " and when he had gone out of the palace, he sent a royal present after him. The Israelites were accustomed to wash their feet when they returned home from work or from a journey, to take refreshment and rest themselves. Consequently these words contained an intimation that he was to go and refresh himself in his own home. David's wish was that Uriah should spend a night at home with his wife, that he might afterwards be regarded as the father of the child that had been begotten in adultery. n^'E'D, a present, as in Amos v. 11, Jer. xl. 5, Esther ii. 18. — Ver. 9. But Uriah had his suspicions aroused. The connection between his wife and David may not have remained altogether a secret, so that it may have reached his ears as soon as he arrived in Jerusalem. " He lay down to sleep before the king's house with all the servants of his lord (i.e. the retainers of the court), and went not down to his house." " Before, or at, the door of the king's house," i.e. in the court of the palace, or in a building adjoining the king's palace, where the court ser- vants lived. — Ver. 10. When this was told to David (the next morning), he said to Uriah, " Didst thou not come from the way (I.e. from a journey) 1 whi/ didst thou not go down (as men CHAP. XI. U-27. 385 generally do when tliey return from a journey) V Uriah replied (ver. 11), " The ark (ark of the covenant), and Israel, and Judah, dwell in the huts, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord encamp in the field; and should I go to my house to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife ? By thy life, and by the life of thy soul, I do no such thing!" ni3E)3 DK"^, to sit or sojourn in huts, is the same practically as being encamped in the field. Uriah meant to say : Whereas the ark, i.e. Jehovah with the ark, and all Israel, were engaged in conflict with tlie enemies of God and of His kingdom, and therefore encamped in the open country, it did not become a warrior to seek rest and pleasure in his own home. This answer expressed tlie feelings and the consciousness of duty which ought to animate one who was fighting for the cause of God, in such plain and unmistakeable terms, that it was well adapted to prick the king to the heart. But David's soul was so beclouded by the wish to keep clear of the consequences of his sin in the eyes of the world, that he did not feel the sting, but simply made a still further attempt to attain his purpose with Uriah. He com- manded him to stop in Jerusalem all that day, as he did not intend to send him away till the morrow. — Ver. 13. The next day he invited him to his table and made him drunken, with the hope that when in this state he would give up his intention of not going home to his wife. But Uriah lay down again the next night to sleep with the king's servants, without going down to his house; for, according to the counsel and provi- dence of God, David's sin was to be brought to light to his deep humiliation. Vers. 14-27. When the king saw that his plan was frus- trated through Uriah's obstinacy, he resolved upon a fresh and still greater crime. He wrote a letter to Joab, with which lie sent Uriah back to the army, and the contents of which were these : " Set ye Uriah opposite to the strongest contest, and then turn away behind him, that he may be slain, and die." ' David was so sure that his orders would be executed, that he 1 " We may see from this how deep a soul may fall when it turns away from God, and from the guidance of His grace. This David, who in the days of his persecution would not even resort to means that were really plausible in order to defend himself, was now not ashamed to resort to the greatest crimes in order to cover his sin. God ! how great is our strength 2B 386 THE SECOND ROOK OF SAMUEL. did not think it necessary to specify any particular crime of which Uriah had been guilty. — Ver. 16. The king's wishes were fully carried out by Joab. " When Joab watched (i.e. blockaded) the city, he stationed Uriah just where he knew that there were brave men'' (in the city). — Ver. 17. " And the men of the city came out (i.e. made a sally) and fought with Joab, and some of the people of the servants of David fell, and Uriah the Hethite died also." The literal fulfilment of the king's com- mand does not warrant us in assuming that Joab suspected how the matter stood, or had heard a rumour concerning it. As a general, who was not accustomed to spare human life, he would be a faithful servant of his lord in this point, in order that his own interests might be served another time. — Vers. 18-21. Joab immediately despatched a messenger to the king, to give him a report of the events of the war, and with these instruc- tions : " When thou hast told all the things of the war to the king to the end, in case the anger of the king should be excited (^^V^, ascend), and he should say to thee, Why did ye advance so near to the city to fight? knew ye not that they would shoot from the wall ? Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbosheth (i.e. Gideon, see at Judg. vi. 32) ? did not a woman throw down a millstone from the wall, that he died in Thebez (Judg. ix. 53) ? why went ye so nigh to the wall? then only say, Thy servant Uriah the Hethite has perished." Joab assumed that David might possibly be angry at what had occurred, or at any rate that he might express Lis displeasure at the fact that Joab had sacrificed a number of warriors by imprudently approaching close to the wall: he therefore instructed the messenger, if such should be the case, to announce Uriah's death to the king, for the purpose of miti- gating his wrath. The messenger seems to have known that Uriah was in disgrace with the king. At the same time, the words "thy servant Uriah is dead also" might be understood or interpreted as meaning that it was without, or even in oppo- sition to, Joab's command, that Uriah went so far with his men, when we lay firm hold of Thee ! And how weak we become as soon as we turn away from Thee ! The greatest saints would be ready for the worst of deeds, if Thou shouldst but leave them for a single moment without Thj protection. Whoever reflects upon this, will give up all thought of .self- eecurity and spiritual pride " — Berlehurg Bible. CHAP. XI. 14-27. 387 and that he was therefore chargeable with his own death and that of the other warriors who had fallen. — Vers. 22 sqq. The messenger brought to David all the information with which Joab had charged him (n?B' with a double accusative, to send or charge a person with anything), but he so far condensed it as to mention Uriah's death at the same time. " When the men (of Rabbah) became strong against us, and came out to us into the field, and we prevailed against them even to the gate, the archers shot at thy servants down from the wall, so that some of the servants of the king died, and thy servant Uriah the Hethite is dead also." The s in the forms D^X-iitsn iisnsi instead of D''"iit2n n*i is an Aramaic mode of writing the words. — Ver. 25. David received with apparent composure the intelligence which he was naturally so anxious to hear, and sent this message back to Joab : " Ziet not this thing depress thee, for the sword devours thus and thus. Keep on with the battle against the city, and, destroy it'' The construction of Vyp^ with nx ohj. is analogous to the combination of a passive verb with rix : " Do not look upon this affair as evil" (disastrous). David then sent the mes- senger away, saying, " Encourage thou him " {lit. strengthen him, put courage into him), to show his entire confidence in the bravery and stedfastness of Joab and the army, and their ultimate success in the capture of Rabbah. — In ver. 26 the account goes back to its starting-point. When Uriah's wife heard of her husband's death, she mourned for her husband. When her mourning was over, David took her home as his wife, after which she bore him a son (the one begotten in adultery). The ordinary mourning of the Israelites lasted seven days (Gen. 1. 10 ; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13). Whether widows mourned any longer we do not know. In the case before us Bathsheba would hardly prolong her mourning beyond the ordinary period, and David would certainly not delay taking her as his wife, in order that she might be married to the king as long as possible before the time of childbirth. The account of these two grievous sins on the part of David is then closed with the assurance that "the thing that David had done dis- pleased the Lord," which prepares the way for the following chapter. 388 the second book of samuel. Nathan's repeoof and david's repentance, conquest of kabbah. chap. xii. The Lord left David almost a whole year in his sin, befora sending a prophet to charge the haughty sinner with his mis- deeds, and to announce the punishment that would follow. He did this at length through Nathan, but not till after the birth of Bathsheba's child, that had been begotten in adultery (com- pare vers. 14, 15 with ch. xi. 27). Not only was the fruit of the sin to be first of all brought to lisht, and the hardened sinner to be deprived of the possibility of either denying or concealing his crimes, but God would first of all break his unbroken heart by the torture of his own conscience, and prepare it to feel the reproaches of His prophet. The reason for this delay on the part of God in the threatening of judgment is set forth very clearly in Ps. xxxii., where David describes most vividly the state of his heart during this period, and the sufferings that he endured as long as he was trying to conceal his crime. And whilst in this Psalm he extols the blessedness of a pardoned sinner, and admonishes all who fear God, on the ground of his own inmost experience after his soul had tasted once more the joy and confidence arising from the full for- giveness of his iniquities ; in the fifty-first Psalm, which was composed after Nathan had been to him, he shows clearly enough that the promise of divine forgiveness, which the prophet had given him in consequence of his confession of his guilt, did not take immediate possession of his soul, but simply kept him from despair at first, and gave him strength to attain to a thorough knowledge of the depth of his guilt through prayer and supplication, and to pray for its entire removal, that his heart might be renewed and fortified through the Holy Ghost. But Nathan's reproof could not possibly have borne this saving fruit, if David had still been living in utter blindness as to the character of his sin at the time when the prophet went to him. Vers. 1-14. Nathan's Reproof. — Vers. 1 sqq. To ensure the success of his mission, viz. to charge the king with his crimes, Nathan resorted to a parable by which he led on the king to pronounce sentence of death upon himself. The parable is a very simple one, and drawn from life. Two men CHAP. XII. H4. 389 were living in a certain city : the one was rich, and had many- sheep and oxen ; the other was poor, and possessed nothing at all but one small lamb which he had bought and nourished (^'.'.0^ lit. kept alive), so that it grew up in his house along with his son, and was treated most tenderly and loved like a daughter. The custom of keeping pet-sheep in the house, as we keep lap-dog.s, is still met with among the Arabs (vid. Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 594). There came a traveller (^J}, a journey, for a traveller) to the rich man (C'^N? without an article, the express definition being introduced afterwards in connection with the adjective l''K'Vn ; vid. Ewald, § 293a, p. 741), and he grudged to take of his own sheep and oxen to prepare {sc. a meal) for the traveller who had come to his house ; " and he took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that had come to him."— Vers. 5, 6. David was so enraged at this act of violence on the part of the rich man, that in the heat of his anger he pronounced this sentence at once: "As the Lord liveth, the man who did this deserves to die; and the lamb he shall restore fourfold." The fourfold restora- tion corresponds to the law in Ex. xxi. 37. The culprit himself was also to be put to death, because the forcible robbery of a poor man's pet-lamb was almost as bad as man-stealing. — Vers. 7 sqq. The parable was so selected that David could not sus- pect that it had reference to him and to his sin. With all the greater shock therefore did the words of the prophet, " Thou art the man" come upon the king. Just as in the parable the sin is traced to its root — namely, insatiable covetousness — so now, in the words of Jehovah which follow, and in which the prophet charges the king directly with his crime, he brings out again in the most unsparing manner this hidden background of all sins, for the purpose of bringing thoroughly home to his heart the greatness of his iniquity, and the condemnation it deserved. "Jehovah the God of Israel hath said, I anointed thee king over Israel, and T delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy master s house and thy master s wives into thy bosom." These words refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king died, his successor upon the^ throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David was at liberty to take his predecessor's wives ; though we cannot infer from this that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, 390 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. since, according to 1 Sam. xiv. 50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2 Sam. iii. 7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself. " And gave thee the house of Israel and Judah ;" i.e. I handed over the whole nation to thee as king, so that thou couldst have chosen young virgins as wives from all the daughters of Judah and Israel. tDlfp D!<1, " and if (all this was) too little, I would have added to thee this and that" — Ver. 9. " Why hast thou despised the ivord of Jehovah, to do eril in His eyes ? Thou hast slain Uriah the Hethite with the siiwrd, and taken his wife to be thy loife, and slain him with the sword of the Ammonites" The last clause does not contain any tautology, but serves to strengthen the thought by defining more sharply the manner in vi^hich David destroyed Uriah. J^n, to murder, is stronger than nari; and the fact that it was by the sword of the Ammonites, the enemies of the people of God, that the deed was done, added to the wickedness. — Vers. 10-12. The punishment answers to the sin. There is first of all (ver. 10) the punishment for the murder of Uriah : " The sword shall not depart from thy house for ever, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife," etc. ''For ever" must not be toned down to the indefinite idea of a long period, but must be held firmly in its literal signification. The expression " thy house," however, does not refer to the house of David as continued in his descendants, but simply as existing under David himself until it was broken up by his death. The fulfilment of this threat commenced with the murder of Amnon by Absalom (ch. xiii. 29); it was continued in the death of Absalom the rebel (ch. xviii. 14), and was consummated in the execution of Adonijah (1 Kings ii. 24, 25).— Vers. 11, 12. But David had also sinned in committing adultery. It was therefore an- nounced to him by Jehovah, " Behold, I raise up mischief over thee out of thine own house, and will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them to thy neighbour, that he may lie ivilh thy ivives before the eyes of this sun (for the fulfilment of this by Absalom, see ch. xvi. 21, 22). For thou hast done it in secret; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before (in the face of) the sun!' David's twofold sin was to be followed by a two- fold punishment. For his murder he would have to witness the commission of murder in his own family, and for his Bdultery the violation of his wives, and both of them in an CHAP. XII. 1-14 391 intensified form. As his sin began with adultery, and was consummated in murder, so the law of just retribution was also carried out in the punishment, in the fact that the judg- ments which fell upon his house commenced with Amnon's incest, whilst Absalom's rebellion culminated in the open viola- tion of his father's concubines, and even Adonijah lost his life, simply because he asked for Abishag the Shunammite, who had lain in David's bosom to warm and cherish him in his old age (1 Kings ii. 23, 24). — Ver. 13. These words went to David's heart, and removed the ban of hardening which pressed upon it. He confessed to the prophet, " / have sinned against the Lord." " The words are very few, just as in the case of the publican in the Gospel of Luke (xviii. 13). But that is a good sign of a thoroughly broken spirit. . . . There is no excuse, no cloaking, no palliation of the sin. There is no searching for a loophole, ... no pretext put forward, no human weakness pleaded. He acknowledges his guilt openly, candidly, and without prevarication " {Berleb. Bible). In response to this candid confession of his sin, Nathan announced to him, " The Lord also hath let thy sin pass by (i.e. forgiven it). Thou wilt not die. Only because by this deed thou hast given the enemies of the Lord occasion to blaspheme, the son that is born unto thee shall die." J*^?, inf. abs. Piel, with chirek, because of its similarity in sound to the following perfect (see Ewald, § 240, c). 03, with which the apodosis commences, belongs to the |3n which follows, and serves to give emphasis to the expression: "Nevertheless the son" (yid. Ges. § 155, 2, a). David himself had deserved to die as an adulterer and mur- derer. The Lord remitted the punishment of death, not so much because of his heartfelt repentance, as from His own fatherly grace and compassion, and because of the promise that He had given to David (ch. vii. 11, 12), — a promise which rested upon the assumption that David would not altogether fall away from a state of grace, or commit a mortal sin, but that even in the worst cases he would turn to the Lord again and seek forgiveness. The Lord therefore punished him for this sin with the judgments announced in vers. 10-12, as about to break upon him and his house. But as his sin had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord — i.e. not only to the heathen, but also to the unbelieving among the Israelites 392 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. themselves — to blasplieme or ridicule his religion and that of all other believers also, the child that was begotten in adultery and had just been born should die ; in order, on the one hand, that the father should atone for his adultery in the death of the son, and, on the other hand, that the visible occasion for any further blasphemy should be taken away : so that David was not only to feel the pain of punishment in the death of his son, but was also to discern in it a distinct token of the grace of God. Vers. 15-25. David's penitential. Grief, and the Birth op Solomon. — Ver. 15. The last-mentioned punish- ment was inflicted without delay. When Nathan had gone home, the Lord smote the child, so that it became very ill. — Vers. 16, 17. Then David sought God (in prayer) for the boy, and fasted, and went and lay all night upon the earth. N3ij " he came," not into the sanctuary of the Lord (ver. 20 is proof to the contrary), but into his house, or into his chamber, to pour out his heart before God, and bend beneath His chastising hand, and refused the appeal of his most confidential servants, who tried to raise him up, and strengthen him with food. " The elders of his house,^' judging from Gen. xxiv. 2, were the oldest and most confidential servants, " the most highly honoured of his servants, and those who had the greatest influence with him" (Clericus). — Ver. 18. On the seventh day, when the child died, the servants of David were afraid to tell him of its death ; for they said (to one another), " Behold, while the child «as still living, we spoke to him, and he did not hearken to our voice ; how should we say to him, now the child is dead, that he should do harm?" (i.e. do himself an injury in the depth of his anguish.) — Vers. 19, 20. David saw at once what had hap- pened from their whispering conversation, and asked whether the child was dead. When they answered in the affirmative, he rose up from the ground, washed and anointed himself, and changed his clothes ; that is to say, he laid aside all the signs of penitential grief and mourning, went into the house of the Lord (the holy tent upon Mount Zion) and worshipped, and then i-eturned to his house, and had food set before him. — Vers. 21 sqq. When his servants expressed their astonishment at all this, David replied, "As long as the hoy lived, I fasted and wept: fot CHAP. XII. 15-'25. 393 T thought (said), Perhaps (who knows) the Lord may he gracious tc me, that the child may remain alive. But now he is dead, why should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." On this O. v. Gerlach has the following admirable remarks : " In the case of a man whose penitence was so earnest and so deep, the prayer for the pre- servation of his child raust have sprung from some other source than excessive love of any created object. His great desire was to avert the stroke, as a sign of the wrath of God, in the hope that he might be able to discern, in the preservation of the child, a proof of divine favour consequent upon the restora- tion of his fellowship with God. But when the child was dead, he humbled himself under the mighty hand of God, and rested satisfied with His grace, without giving himself up to fruitless pain." This state of mind is fully explained in Ps. li., though his servants could not comprehend it. The form ^Jjri'' is the imperfect Kal, ''^211'; according to the Chethibh, though the Masoretes have substituted as the Keri ''J^ri'i, the perfect with vav consec. — Ver. 235 is paraphrased very correctly by Cleri- cus : " I shall go to the dead, the dead will not come to me."- — ■ Ver. 24. David then comforted his wife Bathsheba, and lived with her again ; and she bare a son, whom he called Solomon, the man of peace (cf. 1 Chron. xxii. 9). David gave the child this name, because he regarded his birth as a pledge that he should now become a partaker again of peace with God, and not from any reference to the fact that the war with the Ammonites was over, and peace prevailed when he was born ; although in all probability Solomon was not born till after the capture of Eabbah and the termination of the Ammonitish war. His birth is mentioned here simply because of its connection with what immediately precedes. The writer adds (in vers. 24, 25), ^^ And Jehovah loved him, and sent by the hand (through the medium) of Nathan the prophet ; and he called Ms son Jedidiah {i.e. beloved of Jehovah), for Jehovali s sake." The subject to npc'M (he sent) cannot be David, because this would not yield any appropriate sense, but must be Jehovah, the subject of the clause immediately preceding. " To send by the hand," i.e. to make a mission by a person (yid. Ex. iv. 13, etc.), is equiva- lent to having a commission performed by a person, or entrust- ing a person with a commission to another. We learn from 394 THE SliCOND BOOK OF SAMUEI, what follows, in what the commission with which Jehovah entrusted Nathan consisted : "And he (Nathan, not Jehovah) called his (the boy's) name Jedidiah." And if Nathan is the subject to " called," there is nothing to astonish in the expres- sion " because of the Lord." The idea is this : Nathan came to David according to Jehovah's instructions, and gave Solo- mon the name Jedidiah for Jehovah's sake, i.e. because Jehovah loved him. The giving of such a name was a practical declara- tion on the part of Jehovah that He loved Solomon, from which David could and was intended to discern that the Lord had blessed his marriage witli Bathsheba. Jedidiah, therefore, was uot actually adopted as Solomon's name. Vers. 26-31. Conquest of Kabbah, and Punishment OF THE Ammonites (comp. 1 Chron. xx. 1-3). — "Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the king's city." nwiiin Tij;, the capital of the kingdom, is the city with the exception of the acropolis, as ver. 27 clearly shows, where the captured city is called " the water-city.'' Rabbah was situated, as the ruins of Amman show, on both banks of the river (Moiet) Amman (the upper Jabbok), in a valley which is shut in upon the north and south by two bare ranges of hills of moderate height, and is not more than 200 paces in breadth. " The northern height is crowned by the castle, the ancient acropolis, which stands on the north-western side of the city, and commands the whole city" (see Burckhardt, Syria ii. pp. 612 sqq., and Ritter, Erdkunde xv. pp. 1145 sqq.). After taking the water-city, Joab sent messengers to David, to inform him of the result of the siege, and say to him, " Gather the rest of the people together, and besiege the city (i.e. the acropolis, which may have been peculiarly strong), and take it, that I may not take the city (also), and my name be T>a"^ed upon it," i.e. the glory of the conquest be ascribed to me. Luther adopts this explanation in his free rendering, " and I have a name from it." — Ver. 29. Accordingly David " gathered together all the people," ■ — i.e. all the men of war who had remained behind in the land from which we may see that Joab's besieging army had been considerably weakened during the long siege, and at the capture of the water-city, — " and fought against the acropolis, and took it." — Ver. 30. He then took their king's crown (" their king," CHAP. XII. 26-31. 31'5 viz. the king of the Ammonites) from off his (the king's) head ; so that he had either been taken prisoner or slain at the cap- ture of the city. The weight of the crown was " a talent of gold, and precious stones" (sc. were upon it): as the writer of the Chronicles has correctly explained it by supplying ^3. The Hebrew talent (equal to 3000 shekels) was 83^ Dresden pounds. But the strongest man could hardly have borne a crown of this weight upon his head for however short a time ; and David could scarcely have placed it upon his own head. We must therefore assume that the account of the weight is not founded upon actual weighing, but simply upon an approximative esti- mate, which is somewhat too high. David also took a great quantity of booty out of the city. — Ver. 31. He also had the inhabitants executed, and that with cruel tortures. " He sawed them in pieces with the saw and loith iron harrows." i^^?.'?? ^^% " he put them into the saw," does not give any appropriate sense ; and there can be no doubt, that instead of DB'''1 we should read lti'^1 (from ~\Vi>) : " he cut (sawed) them in pieces." 7nan niinD^I, " and with iron cutting tools." The meaning of the air. Xey. riiino cannot be more precisely determined. The current rendering, " axes or hatchets," is simply founded upon the circumstance that 1]2, to cut, is applied in 2 Kings vi. 4 to the felling of trees. The reading in the Chronicles, riih3B31, is evidently a copyist's error, as we have already had ^1?.'23, " with the saw." The meaning of the next clause is a disputed point, as the reading itself varies, and the Masoretes read t???i instead of the Chethibh p703, " he made them go through brick-kilns," i.e. burnt them in brick-kilns, as the LXX. and Vulgate render it. On the other hand, Thenius takes the Chethibh under his protection, and adopts Kimchi's explanation : " he led them through Malchan, i.e. through the place where the Ammonites burned their children in honour of their idol." Thenius would therefore alter I3^l?3 into O^bcz or Dbpsa : " he offered them as sacrifices in their image of Moloch." But this explanation cannot be even grammatically sustained, to say nothing of the arbitrary character of the alteration proposed; for the tech- nical expression 'ilpQ? ^*?? "'''?.5?v), " to cause to go through the fire for Moloch" (Lev. xviii. 21), is essentially different from I]?i3a '^''?V\}, to cause to pass through Moloch, an expression that wc never meet with. Moreover, it is impossible to see how 396 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. burning the Ammonites in the image of Moloch could possibly be " an obvious mode of punishing idolatry," since the idolatry itself consisted in the fact that the Ammonites burned their children to Moloch. So far as the circumstances themselves are concerned, the cruelties inflicted upon the prisoners are not to be softened down, as Daaz and others propose, by an arbi- trary perversion of the words into a mere sentence to hard labour, such as sawing wood, burning bricks, etc. At the same time, the words of the text do not affirm that all the inhabitants of Rabbah were put to death in this cruel manner. riB "it^'x Dyn (without ^b) refers no doubt simply to the fighting men that were taken prisoners, or at the most to the male population of the acropolis of Kabbah, who probably consisted of fighting men only. In doing this, David merely retaliated ijpon the Ammonites the cruelties with which they had treated their foes ; since according to Amos i. 13 they ripped up women who were with child, and according to 1 Sam. xi. 2 their king Nahash would only make peace with the inhabitants of Jabesli upon the condition that the right eye of every one of them should be put out. It is sufficiently evident from this, that the Ammonites had aimed at the most shameful extermination of the Israelites. " Thus did he unto all the cities of the Am- monites" i.e. to all the fortified cities that resisted the Israelites. After the close of this war, David returned to Jerusalem with all the men of war. The war with the Syrians and Ammonites, including as it did the Edomitish war as well, was the fiercest in which David was ever engaged, and was also the last great war of his life. AMNON S INCEST, AND ABSALOM S FRATRICIDE. — CHAP. XIII. The judgments threatened to king David in consequence of his sin with Bathsheba soon began to fall upon him and upon his house, and were brought about by sins and crimes on the part of his own sons, for which David was himself to blame, partly because of his own indulgence and want of discipline, and partly because of the bad example that he had set them. Having grown up without strict paternal discipline, simply under the care of their difierent mothers, who were jealous of one another, his sons fancied that they might gratify their own CHAP. SlII. 1-14. 397 fleshly lusts, and carry out their own ambitious plans ; and from this there arose a series of crimes, which nearly cost the king his life and throne. Amnon, David's eldest son, led the way with his forcible violation of his step-sister Tamar (vers. 1-22). The crime was avenged by her own brother Absalom, who treacherously assassinated Amnon, in consequence of which he was obliged to flee to Geshur and take refuge with his father-in-law (vers. 23—39). Vers. 1-22. Amnon's Incest. — Vers. 1-14. The following occurrences are assigned in a general manner to the times suc- ceeding the Ammonitish war, by the words " And it came to pass after this ;" and as David did not marry Maacah the mother of Absalom and Tamar till after he had been made king at Hebron (see ch. iii. 3), they cannot well have taken place before the twentieth year of his reign. Amnon, the eldest son of David by Ahinoam the Jezreelite (ch. iii. 2), loved Tamar, the beautiful sister of his step-brother Absalom, so passionately that he became ill in consequence, because he could not get near to her as she was a virgin. Vers. 1 and 2 form one period. "is;i_ is a continuation of p'^^nx ''n]^ ; and the words from DwaWl to 1W"t? are a circumstantial clause. I^'l : literally " it became narrow (anxious) to Amnon, even to making himself ill," i.e. he quite pined away, not " he pretended to be ill " (Luther), for it was not till afterwards that he did this according to Jonadab's advice (ver. 5). ni?nnn : to make one's self ill, here to become ill, in ver. 5 to pretend to be ill. The clause K'n npin2 '3 is to be joined to the one which follows : " because she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible to him to do anything to her^' The maidenly modesty of Tamar evidently raised an insuperable barrier to the gratification of his lusts. — Vers. 3-5. Amnon's miserable appearance was observed by his cousin Jonadab, a very crafty man, who asked him what was the reason, and then gave him advice as to the way in which he might succeed in gratify- ing his desires. Shimeah is called Shammah in 1 Sam. xvi. 9. — Ver. 4. " Why art thou so wasting away (?1, thin, spare, here equivalent to wasting away, looking miserable), hinges son, from morning to morning ?" i.e. day by day. "The morning" is men- tioned because sick persons look worst in the morning. The advice given in ver. 5, — viz. " Lay thee down upon thy bed, and 398 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. pretend to be ill ; and when thy father comes to visit thee, say to him, May my sister Tamar come to me, and give me to eat?" etc., — was very craftily devised, as Amnon's wretched appearance would favour his pretence that he was ill, and it might be hoped that an affectionate father would gratify him, since even if the wish seemed a strange one, it might easily be accounted for from the marvellous desires of persons who are ill, particularly with regard to food,^desires which it is often very difficult to gratify. — Vers. 6 sqq. Amnon acted upon the advice, and begged his father, when he came to ask him how he was, to allow his sister Tamar to come and bake two heart-cakes for him before his eyes, which she very speedily did. 3ap is a denom. from nuap^ to make or bake heart-cakes. nU3p is a heart-strengthening kind of pastry, a kind of pancake, which could be very quickly made. It is evident from these verses that the king's children lived in different houses. Probably each of the king's wives lived with her children in one particular compartment of the palace. — Vers. 9 sqq. "And she took the pan and shook out (what she had prepared) before him. The air. Xey. ITibp signi- fies a frying-pan or sauce-pan, according to the ancient versions. The etymology is uncertain. But Amnon refused to eat, and, like a whimsical patient, he then ordered all the men that were with him to go out ; and when this had been done, he told Tamar to bring the food into the chamber, that he might eat it from her hand ; and when she handed him the food, he laid hold of her, and said, " Come, lie with me, my sister!" — Vers. 12, 13. Tamar attempted to escape by pointing to the wicked- ness of such a desire : " Pray, do not, my brother, do not humble me ; for they do not such things in Israel : do not this folly." The words recal Gen. xxxiv. 7, where the expression "folly" (nebalah) is first used to denote a want of chastity. Such a sin was altogether out of keeping with the calling and holiness of Israel (vid. Lev. xx. 8 sqq.). " And I, whither should I cany my shame'?" i.e. shame and contempt would meet me everywhere. " And thou zvouldst be as one of the fools in Israel." We should both of us reap nothing but shame from it. What Tamar still farther said, " A^ow therefore, I pray thee, speak to the king, for he will not refuse me to thee," is no doubt at variance with the law which prohibits marriage be- tween step-brothers and sisters (Lev. xviii. 9, 11, xx. 17); hu.t CHAP. XTII. 15-22. 399 it by no means proves that the laws of Leviticus were not in existence at the time, nor does it even presuppose that Tamar was ignorant of any such law. She simply said this, as Olericus observes, " that she might escape from his hands by any means in her power, and to avoid inflaming him still more and driving him to sin by precluding all hope of marriage." ^ We cannot therefore even infer from these words of hers, that she really thought the king could grant a dispensation from the existing hindrances to their marriage. — Ver. 14. Amnon would not listen to her, however, but overpowered her, forced her, and lay with her. Vers. 15-22. Amnon had no sooner gratified his animal passion, than his love to the humbled sister turned into hatred, which was even greater than his (previous) love, so that he commanded her to get up and go. This sudden change, which may be fully explained from a psychological point of view, and is frequently exemplified still in actual life, furnishes a striking proof that lust is not love, but simply the gratification of the animal passions. — Ver. 16. Tamar replied, "Do not become the cause of this great evil, (which is) greater than another that thou hast done to me, to thrust me away" i.e. do not add to the great wrong which thou hast done me the still greater one of thrust- ing me away. This is apparently the only admissible expla- nation of the difficult expression nhN"7X, as nothing more is needed than to supply '•n'^. Tamar calls his sending her awav a greater evil than the one already done to her, because it would inevitably be supposed that she had been guilty of some shameful conduct herself, tliat the seduction had come from her; whereas she was perfectly innocent, and had done nothing but what affection towards a sick brother dictated, whilst it was impossible for her to call for help (as prescribed in Dent. xxii. 27), because Amnon had sent the servants away, and Tamar could not in any case expect assistance from them. — Ver. 17. Amnon then called the boy who waited upon him, and ordered him to put out this person (the sister he had humbled), and to bolt the door behind her, so that it had the appearance of her having made a shameful proposal to him. — Ver. 18. Before stating that this command was obeyed, the writer inserts this ' .Josephus adopts this explanation : " This she said, as desirous to avmd her brother's violent passion at present " {Ant. viii. 8, 1). 400 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. remark : " She (Tamar) wore a long dress with sleeves (see Gen. xxxvii. 3) ; for in this manner did the virgin daughters of the king dress themselves loith mantles^ Oy''J"? is an accusative belonging to "jB'apri, and the meaning is that the king's daugh- ters, who were virgins, wore long dresses with sleeves as cloaks. The cetoneth passim was not an ordinary under-garment, but was worn over the plain cetoneth or tunic, and took the place of the ordinary meil without sleeves. Notwithstanding this dress, by which a king's daughter could at once be recognised, Amnon's servant treated Tamar like a common woman, and turned her out of the house. — Ver. 19. And Tamar took ashes upon her head, rent her sleeve-dress (as a sign of grief and pain at the disgrace inflicted upon her), laid her hand upon her head (as a sign that a grievous trouble had come upon her, that the hand of God was resting as it were upon her : vid. Jer. ii. 37), and " went going and cried" i.e. crying aloud as she went along. — Ver. 20. Then Absalom said to her, namely when she came home mourn- ing in this manner, "Has Amnon thy brother been with thee?" This was a euphemism for what had taken place (cf. Gen. xxxix. 10), as Absalom immediately conjectured. " And now, mi) sister, be silent ; it is thy brother, do not take this thing to heart!' Absalom quieted the sister, because he was determined to take revenge, but wished to conceal his plan of vengeance for the time. So Tamar remained in her brother's house, " and indeed desolate" i.e. as one laid waste, with the joy of her life hope- lessly destroyed. It cannot be proved that DOB' ever means single or solitary. — Vers. 21, 22. When David heard "all these things," he became very wrathful ; but Absalom did not speak to Amnon "from good to evil" (i.e. either good or evil, not a single word : Gen. xxiv. 50), because he hated him for having humbled his sister. The LXX. add to the words " he (David) was very wroth," the following clause: "He did not trouble the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, for he was his first-born." This probably gives the true reason why David let such a crime as Amnon's go unpunished, when the law en- joined that incest should be punished with death (Lev. xx. 17) ; at the same time it is nothing but a subjective conjecture of the translators, and does not warrant us in altering the text. The fact that David was contented to be simply angry is pro- bably to be accounted for partly from his own consciousness of CHAP. XIII. 23-39. 401 guilt, since he liimself had been guilty of adultery ; but it arose chiefly from his indulgent affection towards his sons, and his consequent want of discipline. This weakness in his character bore very bitter fruit. Vers. 23-39. Absalom's Eevenge and Flight. — Vers. 23, 24. Absalom postponed his revenge for two full years. He then " kept sheep-shearing^' which was celebrated as a joyous festival (see 1 Sam. xxv. 2, 8), ^^ at Baal-Hazor, near Ephraim," where he must therefore have had some property. The situa- tion of Baal-Hazor cannot be precisely determined. The clause " which (was) beside Ephraim" points to a situation on the border of the tribe-territory of Ephraim {juxta Ephraim, ac- cording to the Onom. s.v. Baalasor) ; for the Old Testament never mentions any city of that name. This definition does not exactly tally with v. Raumer's conjecture (^Pal. p. 149), that Baal-Hazor may have been preserved in Tell Asur (Bob. Pal. ii. p. 151, iii. p. 79); for this Tell is about five Roman miles to the north-east of Bethel, i.e. within the limits of the tribe of Ephraim. There is greater probability in the suggestion made by Ewald and others, that Baal-Hazor is connected with the Hazor of Benjamin (Neh. xi. 33), though the situation of Hazoi has not yet been thoroughly decided ; and it is merely a conjec- ture of Robinson's that it is to be found in Tell Asur. The following statement, that " Absalom invited all the king's sons ' (sc. to the feast), somewhat anticipates the course of events ; for, according to ver. 24, Absalom invited the king himself, together with his courtiers ; and it was not till the king declined the invitation for himself, that Absalom restricted his invitation to the royal princes. — Ver. 25. The king declined the invitation, that he might not be burdensome to Absalom. Absalom pressed him indeed, but he would not go, and blessed him, i.e. wished him a pleasant and successful feast (see 1 Sam. xxv. 14). —Ver. 26. Then Absalom said, "And not {i.e. if thou dost not go), mar/ my brother Amnon go with me ?" The king would not give his consent to this ; whether from suspicion cannot be de- termined with certainty, as he eventually yielded to Absalom's entreaties and let Amnon and all the other king's sons go. From the length of time that had elapsed since Amnon's crime was committed, without Absalom showing any wish for revenge, SO 402 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. David might have felt quite sure that he had nothing more to fear. But this long postponement of revenge, for the purpose of carrying it out with all the more certainty, is quite in the spirit of the East. — Ver. 28. Absalom then commanded his servants to put Amnon to death vi^ithout fear, as he had com- manded, as soon as his heart should become merry with wine and he (Absalom) should tell them to smite him. The arrange- ment of the meal is passed over as being quite subordinate to the main purpose of the narrative ; and the clause added hj the LXX. at the close of ver. 27, koI eTroiTjaev ' A^ecraaXmv ttotov Kara top ttotov tov jSacriXew?, is nothing more than an explana- tory gloss, formed according to 1 Sam. xxv. 36. The words "Have not I commanded you?" implied that Absalom would take the responsibility upon himself. — Ver. 29. The servants did as he commanded, whereupon the other king's sons all fled upon their mules. — Ver. 30. But whilst they were on the road, the report of what Absalom had done reached the ears of the king, and, as generally happens in such cases, with very great exaggeration: "Absalom hath slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left" — Ver. 31. The king rent his clothes with horror at such a deed, and sat down upon the ground, and all his servants (courtiers) stood motionless by, with their clothes rent as well. This is the rendering adopted by Bottcher, as 3S3 has frequently the idea of standing perfectly motionless {e.g. Num. xxii. 23, 24 ; Ex. v. 20, etc.). — Ver. 32. Then Jonadab, the same person who had helped Amnon to commit his crime, said, " Let not my lord say (or think) thai they have slain all the young men the king's sons, hut Amnon alone is dead ; for it was laid upon the mouth of A hsalom from the day that he forced his sister Tamar." The meaning is either " they mig-ht see it (the murder of Amnon) by his mouth," or " they might gather it from what he said." n'Cb nn^n : it was a thing laid down, i.e. determined (vid. Ex. xxi. 13). The sub- ject, viz. the thing itself, or the intended murder of Amnon, may easily be supplied from the context. D« ''3 is undoubtedly used in the sense of " no but." The negation is implied in tlie thought : Let the king not lay it to heart, that they say all the king's sons are dead ; it is not so, but only Amnon is dead. Jonadab does not seem to speak from mere conjecture ; he is much too sure of what he says. He might possibly have heard CHAP. XIII. 23-39. 403 expressions from Absalom's lips which made him certain as to how the matter stood. — Ver. 34. " And Absalom fled." This statement follows upon ver. 29. When the king's sons fled upon their mules, Absalom also took to flight. — Vers. 30-33 are a parenthesis, in which the writer describes at once the impression made upon the king and his coiart by the report of what Absalom had done. The apparently unsuitable position in which this statement is placed may be fully explained from the fact, that the flight of Absalom preceded the arrival of the rest of the sons at the king's palace. The alteration which Bottcher proposes to make in the text, so as to remove this statement altogether on account of its unsuitable position, is proved to be inadmissible by the fact that the account of Ab- salom's flight cannot possibly be left out, as reference is made to it again afterwards (vers. 37, 38, "Absalom had fled"). The other alterations proposed by Thenius in the text of vers. 34, 37, 38, are just as arbitrary and out of place, and simply show that this critic was ignorant of the plan adopted by the historian. His plan is the following : To the account of the murder of Amnon, and the consequent flight of the rest of tlie king's sons whom Absalom had invited to the feast (ver. 29), there is first of all appended a notice of the report which preceded the fugitives and reached the king's ears in an exaggerated form, together with the impression which it made upon the king, and the rectification of that report by Jonadab (vers. 30-33). Then follows the statement that Absalom fled, also the account of the arrival of the king's sons (vers. 34-36). After this we have a statement as to the direction in which Absalom fled, the king's continued mourning, and the length of time that Absalom's banishment lasted (vers. 37, 38), and finally a remark as to David's feelings towards Absalom (ver. 39). Jonadab's assertion, that Amnon only had been slain, was very speedily confirmed (ver. 34). Tiie young man, the spy, i.e. the young man who was looking out for the return of those who had been invited to the feast, " lifted up his eyes anrt saw," i.e. saw as he looked out into the distance, " much people (a crowd of men) coming from the way behind him along the side of the mountain." I^'^D?? =17'!!'?) ^v rfj oBm oincrOev avrov (LXX.), pe7' iter devium (Vulg.), is obscure; and "in«, "behind," 19 prubably to be understood as meaning " to the west :" from 404 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. the way at the back of the spy, i.e. to the west of his statioa The following words, inn nSD, also remain obscure, as the posi- tion of the spy is not given, so that the allusion may be to a mountain in the north-west of Jerusalem quite as well as to one on the west.^ When the spy observed the crowd of mea approaching, Jonadab said to the king (ver. 35), " Behold, the king's sons are coming : as thy servant said, so has it come to pass." — Ver. 36. Jonadab had hardly said this when the king's sons arrived and wept aloud, sc. as they related what had oc- curred ; whereupon the king and all his retainers broke out in loud weeping. — Ver. 37. " Only Absalom had fled and gone to Talmai the son of Amraihud, the king of Geshur." These words form a circumstantial clause, which the writer has inserted as a parenthesis, to define the expression " the king's sons " more particularly. If we take these words as a parenthesis, there will be no difficulty in explaining the following word "mourned," as the subject (David) may very easily be supplied from the preceding words "the king," etc. (ver. 36). To the remark that David mourned all his life for his son (Amnon), there is attached, just as simply and quite in accordance with the facts, the more precise information concerning Absalom's flight, that he remained in Geshur three years. The repetition of the words "Absalom had fled and gone to Geshur" may be ac- counted for from the general diffuseness of the Hebrew style. Talmai the kinff of Geshur was the father of Maacah. Absalom's mother (ch. iii. 3). The LXX. thought it necessary expressly to indicate this by inserting eh yrjv Xa/j.a'^daS (al. '^tjv Ma^dS). ' — Ver. 39. ''And it (this) held king David back from going out ^ The LXX. have very comprehensive additions here : first of all, after 6x 'TtAivpS.g ToS o';0ot/;, they have the more precise definition h rii /c«t«/3»£/, and then the further clause, " and the spy came and announced to the king," "Au'^pag koipaxoi Ix, rvig ohav rvig upai/yiu (?) Ix ^kpovg rev opovg, partly to indicate more particularly the way by which the king's sons came, and partly to fill up a supposed gap in the account. But they did not consider that the statement in ver. 35, " and Jonadab said to the king. Behold, the king's sons are coming," does not square with these additions ; for if the spy had already informed the king that his sons were coming, there was no necessity for Jonadab to do it again. This alone is sufficient to show that the additions made by the LXX. are nothing but worthless glosses, introduced according to subjective conjectures and giving no foandation for alterations of the test. CHAP. XIV. 405 to Absalom, for lie comforted Mmself concerning Amnon, because he was dead." In adopting this translation of the difficult clause with which the verse commences, we take 7^^\ in the sense of t'V{ must be supplied before T''??'']? : vfho is to destroy, i.e. who is seeking to destroy {yid. Gesenius, § 132, 3). "The inheritance of God" was the nation of Israel (as in 1 Sam. xxvi. 19 ; cf. Deut. xxxii. 9). — Ver. 17. " Tlien thine handmaid thought, may the word of my lord the king he for rest (i.e. tend to give me rest) ; for as the angel of God (the angel of the covenant, the mediator of the blessings of divine grace to the covenant-nation), so is my lord the king to hear good and evil (i.e. listening to every just complaint on the part of his sub- jects, and granting help to the oppressed), and Jehovah thy God be with thee!" — Vers. 18 sqq. These words of the woman were so well considered and so crafty, that the king could not fail to see both what she really meant, and also that she had not come with her petition of her own accord. He therefore told her to answer the question without disguise : whether the hand of Joab was with her in all this. She replied, " Truly there is not (DN) anything to the right hand or to the left of all that my lord CHAP. XIV. 21-33. 411 the king saith" i.e. tlie king always hits the right point in everything that he says. " Yea, thy servant Joab, he hath com- manded me, and he hath put all these words into thy servant's mouth." tJ'K is not a copyist's error, but a softer form of ty', as in Micah vi. 10 {vid. Ewald, § 5dc, and Olshausen, Gramm. p. 425). — Ver. 20. " To turn the appearance of the king (i.e. to disguise the affair in the finest way) Joab hath done this ; my lord (i.e. the king), however, is ivise, like the wisdom of the angel of God, to know all that is (happens) upon earth." She hoped by these flattering words to gain the king completely over. Vers. 21-33. David then promised Joab, that the request which he had presented through the medium of the woman of Tekoah should be fulfilled, and commanded him to fetch Absalom back. The Chethih WtJ'J? (ver. 21) is the correct reading, and the Keri n'K'Jf has arisen from a misunderstanding. ■ — Ver. 22. Joab thanked the king for this, and blessed him : " To-day thy servant hnoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord, king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant." It is pretty evident from tliis, that Joab had fre- quently applied to David for Absalom's return, without anj attention being paid to his application. David therefore sus- pected that Joab had instructed the woman of Tekoah. The Chethib HM is not to be exchanged for the Keri T^.^J?. — ■ Ver. 23. Joab then went to Geshur (see ch. xiii. 37), and fetched Absalom back to Jerusalem.— Ver. 24. But David could not forgive Absalom altogether. He said to Joab, " Let him turn to his own house, and my face he shall not see" This half forgiveness was an imprudent measure, and bore very bitter fruit. The further account of Absalom is introduced in vers. 25-27 with a description of his personal appearance and family affairs. — Ver. 25. There was no man in all Israel so handsome as Absalom, ^^*vl| here, simply because it does not relate to a thing which the person addressed could not deny. Consequently the word must be pointed thus, nsnn (with the article), and rendered as a vocative, as it has been by Jerome and Luther. HKn, seer, is equivalent to profhet. He applies this epithet to Zadok, as the high priest 422 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. who received divine revelations by means of tlie Urim. Tlie meaning is, Tliou Zadol? art equal to a propliet ; therefore thy proper place is in Jerusalem (O. v. Gerlach). Zadok was to stand as it were upon the watch there with Abiathar, and the sons of both to observe the events that occurred, and send him word through their sons into the plain of the Jordan. "Behold, I loill tarry by the ferries of the desert, till a loord comes from you to show me," sc. what has taken place, or how the things shape themselves in Jerusalem. Instead of niiaya, the earlier translators as well as the Masoretes adopted the reading nuij)3, " in the steppes of the desert." The allusion in this case would be to the steppes of Jericho (2 Kings xxv. 5). But Bottclier has very properly defended the Chethih on the strength of ch. xvii. 16, where the Keri has niaiy again, though nil^v is the true reading (cf. ch. xix. 19). The "ferries of the desert" are the places where the Jordan could be crossed, the fords of the Jordan (Josh. ii. 7 ; Judg. iii. 28). — Ver. 29. Zadok and Abiathar then returned to the city with the ark of God. Vers. 30-37. Ahithnphel and Hushai. — ^Vers, 30, 31. When David was going by the height of the olive-trees, i.e. the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went, with his head covered, and barefooted, as a sign of grief and mourning (see Esther vi. 12 ; Ezek. xxiv. 17), and with the people who ac- companied him also mourning, he received intelligence that Ahithophel (see at ver. 12) was with Absalom, and among the conspirators. T'Sn ITn gives no sense ; for David cannot be the subject, because the next clause, " and David said," etc., con- tains most distinctly an expression of David's on receiving some information. Thenius would therefore alter 1*?n into the Hophal 13n, whilst Ewald (§ 131, a) would change it into I"?!], an unusual form of the Hophal, " David was informed," accord- ing to the construction of the Hiphil with the accusative. But although this construction of the Hiphil is placed beyond all doubt by Job xxxi. 37, xxvi. 4, and Ezek. xliii. 10, the HipUl is construed as a rule, as the Hophal always is, with h of the person who receives information. Consequently Ti'^ must be altered into ^1■^P, and I'Sn taken as impersonal, "they announced to David." Upon receipt of this intelligence David prayed to the Lord, that He would " turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness," make it appear as folly, i.e. frustrate it,— a prayer CHAP. SVI. 1-4. 423 which God answered (yid. ch. xvii. 1 sqq.). — Vers. 32, 33. On David's arrival at the height where people were accustomed to worship, i.e. upon the top of the Mount of Olives, the Archite Husliai came to meet him with his clothes rent and earth upon his head, that is to say, in the deepest mourning (see 1 Sam. iv. 12). It is evident from the words '121 ninriE^_--iE'S that there was a place of worship upon the top of the Mount of Olives, probably a bamah, such as continued to exist in different places throughout the land, even after the building of the temple. According to ver. o7, ch. xvi. 16, and 1 Chron. xxvii. 33, Hushai was ^T\_, a friend of David, i.e. one of his privy coun- cillors. 'Sl^?!;! (the Archite), if we may judge from Josh. xvi. 2, was the name of a family whose possessions were upon the southern boundary of the tribe of Ephraim, between Bethel and Ataroth. Hushai was probably a very old man, as David said to him (vers. 33, 34), " If thou goest with me, thou wilt be a burden to me. But if thou returnest to the city and offerest Absalom thy services, thou canst bring foi me the counsel of Ahithophel to nought. If thou sayest to Absalom, I will be thy servant, O king ; servant of thy father (i.e. as regards this) I was that of old, but now I am thy servant." The 1 before ''3X introduces the apodosis both times (vid. Ewald, § 348, a). — ^Vers. 35, 36. David then commissioned him to communicate to the priests Zadok and Abiathar dll that he should hear of the king's house, and send word to him through their sons. — Yer. 37. So Hushai went into the city when Absalom came to Jerusalem. The 1 before the second clause, followed by the imperfect f'U', indicates contemporaneous occurrence (vid. Ewald, § 346, h). Oh. xvi. 1-4. Zibcis faithless conduct towards Mephibosheth. — Ver. 1. When David had gone a little over the height (of the Mount of Olives : B'Xin points back to ch. xv. 32), Mephi- bosheth's servant Ziba came to meet him, with a couple of asses saddled, and laden with two hundred loaves, a hundred raisin-cakes, a hundred date or fig-cakes, and a skin of wine. The word f)^ corresponds to the Greek oirdpa, as the LXX. have rendered it in Jer. xl. 10, 12, and is used to signify summer fruits, both here and in Amos viii. 1 (Symm.). The early translators rendered it lumps of figs in the present passage (waXddai ; cf. Ges. Tlies. p. 1209). The Scptuagint only has 424 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. eKarov (f>olvi.Ke<;. The latter Is certainly the moi'e correct, as the dried lumps of figs or fig-cakes were called Dv^'^ (1 Sam XXV. 18) ; and even at the present day ripe dates, pressed to- gether in lumps like cakes, are used in journeys through the desert, as a satisfying and refreshing food {vid. Winer, bibl. Heahi'orterbuch, i. 253). — Ver. 2. When the king asked him, " What are these for thee?" i.e. what art thou going to do with them ? Ziba replied, " The asses are for the king's family to ride upon (to ride upon in turn), the bread and summer fruits for the young men (the king's servants) to eat, and the wine for those that are faint in the desert to drink'' (see at ch. xv. 23). The Chethib Dn!'ni'1 is evidently a copyist's error for '-'['?il''!- — Yer. 3. To the further question put by the king, " Wiiere is thy lord (Mephibosheth) ? Ziba replied, " Behold, he sits (is staying) in Jerusalem ; for he said. To-day will the house of Israel restore the kingship (government) of my father." The " Idngship of my father" inasmuch as the throne would have passed to Jonathan if he had outlived Saul. It is obvious enough, apart altogether from ch. xix. 25 sqq., that Ziba was calumniating his master Mephibosheth, in the hope of getting possession of the lands that he was farming for him. A cripple like Mephibosheth, lame in both feet, who had never put in any claim to the throne before, could not possibly have got the idea now that the people of Israel, who had just chosen Absalom as king, would give the throne of Saul to such a cripple as he was. It is true that Ziba's calumny was very improbable ; neverthe- less, in the general confusion of affairs, it was not altogether an inconceivable thing that the oppressed party of Saul might avail themselves of this opportunity to make an attempt to restore the power of that house, which many greatly preferred to that of David, under the name of Mephibosheth. — Ver. 4. And in the excited state in which David then was, he was weak enough to give credence to Ziba's words, and to commit the injustice of promising the calumniator all that belonged to Mephibosheth, — a promise for which he most politely thanked him. ''n''.'!nriK'n, " / bow myself" equivalent to, I lay myself at thy feet. ''May I find favour in the eyes of my lord the king!" i.e. may the king grant me his favour {yid. 1 Sam. i. 18). Vers. 5-14. Shimeis cursing. — Vers. 5, 6. When the king ha-d come to Bahurim, on the other side of the ilount of Olives, CHAP. XVI. o-U. '1-5 but not far off (see at ch. iii. 16), tliere came out of that place a man of the family of the house of Saul, i.e. a distant relation of Saul, cursing him ; and he pelted David and all his servants with stones, although all the people and all the heroes (the household troops and body-guard : ch. xv. 17, 18) were (march- ing) on the right and left of the king. The words " all the people," etc., are a circumstantial clause. — Vers. 7, 8. Shimei cursed thus : " Out, out (away, away), thou man of blood, and ^vorthless man ! Jehovah hath repaid thee (now) for all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast become king, and hath given the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son. Behold^ now thou art in thy misfortune, for thou art a man of blood." D''DT E'''X, a man of drops of blood, i.e. one who has shed blood or committed murder. What Shimei meant by " all the blood of the house of Saul," which David had shed, and because of which he was a man of blood, it is impossible to determine with certainty. He may possibly have attributed to David the murder of Ishbosheth and Abner, not- withstanding the fact that David was innocent of the death of both (see ch. iii. 27 sqq., and 4, 6 sqq.). By " in whose stead thou hast reigned," he meant whose throne thou hast forcibly usurped ; and by 'ini'")? "lan^ " it is for this that punishment hath overtaken thee now." — ^Vers. 9, 10. Abishai wanted to put an end to this cursing (on the expression " dead dog," see ch. ix. 8). " Let me go," said he to David, " and take away his head," i.e. chop off his head. But David replied, " What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah ? " Joab probably joined with Abishai. The formula "what to me and you I" signifies that a person did not wish to have anything in common with the feelings and views of another (cf. 1 Kings xvii. 18, Josh. xxii. 24 ; and ri ifjuol koI ctol, John ii. 4. For the thing itself, comp. Luke ix. 52-56). " If he curses, and if Jehovah hath said to him, Curse David, who shall then say. Wherefore hast thou done so ?" For 'n'' ''31 ^^2^ ^3 (Chethib), the Masoretes give us the Keri, 'iT* ''3 7}p_ nb^ " so let him curse, for Jehovah," etc. This thought lies at the foundation of the rendering adopted by the LXX., who have inserted, by way of explanation, koI aeTe avTov Kol : so let him go, and so may he curse. The Vulgate is just the same : dimittite eum ut maledicat. This interpolation (6 taken from ver. 11, and, like the Keri, is nothing more than 426 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. a conjecture, which was adopted simply because ^3 was taken as a causal particle, and theu offence was taken at ''31. But ''3 signifies if, quando, in this passage, and the 1 before the follow- ing ''CT introduces the apodosis. — Vers. 11, 12. David said still further to Abishai and all his servants : " Behold, my own son seeketh after my life ; how much more then the Ben jaminite ! (who belongs to a hostile race.) Let him curse, for Jehovah hath bidden him. Perhaps Jehovah will look upon my guilt, and Jehovah will requite me good for the curse which befals me this day." ''Jll?| (^Chethib) has been altered by the Maso- retes into ''^''JfS, " upon mine eye," probably in the sense of " upon my tears ;" and ''ri??!? into inppp, — from pure misappre- hension. ''W3 does not mean "upon my misery,'' for flV never has this meaning, but upon the guilt which really belongs to me, in contrast with that with which Shimei charges me ; and wpp is the curse that has come upon me. Although David had committed no murder upon the house of Saul, and therefore Shimei's cursing was nothing but malicious blasphemy, he felt that it came upon him because of his sins, though not for the sin imputed to him. He therefore forbade their putting the blasphemer to death, and said Jehovah had commanded him to curse ; regarding the cursing as the consequence of the wrath of God that was bringing him low (comp. the remarks on 1 Sam. xxvi. 19). But this consciousness of guilt also excited the assurance that the Lord would look upon his sin. When God looks upon the guilt of a humble sinner. He will also, as a just and merciful God, avert the evil, and change the suffering into a blessing. David founded upon this the hope, that the Lord would repay him with good for the curse with which Shimei was pursuing him now. — Ver. 13. " So David went with his men on the way, whilst Shimei went on the slope of the hill opposite to him, cursing continually, and pelted with stones over against him, and with earth." inBV? means over against him in both instances. It is not expressly stated that Shimei threw stones and earth at David, but this is implied in the context. — Ver. 14. The king came with his train, pursued in this manner, to Ayephim, and refreshed himself there. The context requires that Ayephim should be taken as the name of a place. If it were an appellative, signifying wsary, there would be no information as to the place to which CHAP. XVI. 15-23. 427 David came, and to which the word DK' (there) distinctly refers. Bahurim cannot be the place alluded to, for the simple reason that, according to ch. xvii. 18, the place where David rested was a considerable distance beyond Bahurim, towards the Jordan, as we may see from the fact that it is stated there that the priests' sons, who were sent to carry information to David of what was occurring in Jerusalem, hid themselves in a well at Bahurim from the officers who were following them, and con- sequently had to go still further in order to convey the news to David ; so that it is out of the question to supply this name from ver. 5. It is true that we never meet with the name Ayephim again ; but this applies to many other places whose existence is not called in question.^ Absalom's entkance into Jerusalem, advice or ahitho- PHEL AND HCSHAI.— CHAP. XVI. 15-XVII. 23. Vers. 15-23. When Absalom and " all the people, the men of Israel," i.e. the people who had joined him out of all the tribes of Israel (ch. xv. 10), came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him, Hushai the Archite also came and greeted him warmly as king, by exclaiming again and again, " Long live the king!" — Vers. 17. sqq. Absalom, apparently astonished at this, said to him, " Is this thy love to thy friend (David) ? why wentest thou not with thy friendt" But Hushai replied, "No; but whom Jehovah hath chosen, and this people (i.e. the people who had entered Jerusalem with Absalom), and all the men of Israel (i.e. the whole nation), to him (N? for v, Keri) vvill I belong, and will remain with him. And again, whom should I serve ? Is it not before his son ? As I have served thy father, so will I be before thee" (i.e. serve thee). With great craftiness, Hushai declared at the very outset that Jehovah had chosen Absalom — at least he could not come to any other conclusion, judging from the results. And under such circum- ^ The meaning of the ■word, wearied or weariness, does not warrant any conjectures, even though they should be more felicitous than that of Bbttcher, who proposes to alter Ayephim into Ephraim, and assumes that there was a place of this name near Mahanaim, though without reflecting that the place where David rested was on this side of the Jordan, and some- where near to Gil gal or Jericho (ch. xvii. 16 sqq. and 22). 428 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Stances he could not have any doubt as to whom it was Lis duty to serve. As he had formerly served the father, so now he would serve his son Absalom. In this way he succeeded in completely deceiving Absalom, so that he placed unbounded confidence in him. — Ver. 20. After taking possession of the capital of the kingdom, the next thing to do was to form the resolution to take and keep the throne. Absalom therefore turned to Ahithophel, and said, " Give ye counsel what we are to do." The plural ^i^n (give ye) may be explained on the supposition that the other persons present were addressed as well as Ahithophel, as being capable of giving advice. — Ver. 21. Ahithophel gave the following counsel : " Go to thy father's concubines, whom he hath left behind to keep the house (i.e. lie with them : for ??< ^'is, compare ch. iii. 7, etc.) ; so will all Israel hear that thou hast made thyself stinking with thy father, and the hands of all those who are with thee will strengthen themselves." This advice was sagacious enough. Lying with the king's concubines was an appropriation of th? royal harem, and, as such, a complete usurpation of the throne (see at ch. iii. 7), which would render any reconciliation between Absalom and his father utterly impossible, and therefore would of necessity instigate the followers of Absalom to maintain his cause with all the greater firmness. This was what Ahithophel hoped to attain through his advice. For unless the breach was too great to be healed, with the affection of David towards his sons, which might in reality be called weakness, it was always a possible thing that he should forgive Absalom ; and in that case Ahithophel would be the one to suifer. But under the superintendence of God this advice of Ahithophel was to effect the fulfilment, without any such intention on his part, of the threat held over David in ch. xii. 8. — Ver. 22. Absalom had a tent put up on the roof of the king's palace, that his going into the concubines might be done publicly in the sight of all Israel. For (as the historian adds in ver. 23 by way of explanation) the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was like a divine oracle both with David and with Absalom. The words from nw to ann are placed at the commencement abso- lutely : " and (as for) the counsel of Ahithophel, ... as if one inquired the word of God, so was every counsel of Ahithophel.' The Mascretes have supplied tJ'''K as the Keri to 'pi^f'.. This is CHAP. XVII. 1-14. 429 correct so far as the sonse is concerned, but it is quite unneces- sary, as 7^^\ may be taken impersonally. O'l??*? ''^I? -'??' is to be explained from the formula D^iPKB 7KB' (see at Judg. i. 1). Chap. xvii. 1-14. Ahitliopliel s advice frustrated by Hushai. — Vers. 1-3. Ahithophel said still further to Absalom, " I will choose out twelve thousand men, and arise, and pursue after David this night ; and fall upon him when he is exhausted and weak, and fill him with alarm : so shall all the people that are with him flee ; and I will smite the king alone (when he is alone), and will bring back all the people to thee." np^jn, the night, is the night followmg the day of David's flight and Absalom's entrance into Jerusalem, as we may see very clearly from ver. 16. This advice was sagaciously conceived; for if David had been attacked that night by a powerful army, he might possibly have been defeated. '^JT'J, to bring back, may be explained on the supposition that Ahithophel regarded Absalom as king, and those who had fled with David as rebels, who were to be brought back under Absalom's sceptre. The following words, 'IJI Pbn aiE^a, " as the return of the whole (the whole nation) is the man,'' i.e. the return of all is dependent upon David, for whom thou liest in wait, are somewhat difficult, though the meaning of Ahithophel is evident enough from what precedes : viz. if he is beaten, they will all come over to thee ; "the whole nation will be at peace" (DiP^ is used adverbially).' — Vers. 4, 5. Although this advice pleased Absalom and all the elders of Israel (present), Absalom sent for Hushai the Archite to hear his opinion. KWD3 serves to strengthen the suffix in VM (cf. Ewald, § 311, a). — Vers. 6, 7. In answer to Absalom's inquiry, " Shall we do his word (i.e. follow Ahithophel's advice) or not?" Hushai said, "The advice is not good that Ahithophel hath given this time;" and then still further explained (ver. 8): ' CoDsequently no conjectures are needed as to the rendering of the words in the Septuagint, viz. icaSui (al. Si/ Tpovnv) iTriar/iipti i) uvfiCPn Tpo; TCiu dv&pa avrvii' ■?r'h'/iii •^vyiV ccuipos tiidg av ^nrti;, such as Ewald, Thenius, and Bottcher have attempted. For t is very ohvious that ii vvfi(pn ■irpig rail a.i/'ipx avTijf owes its origin simply to a false reading of cyiKn pan as C"K nVsn, and that 't^'K'/iv i^'w^j^k dulpo; ho; has been interpolated by way of explanation from nothing but conjecture. No other of the ancient versions con tains the slightest trace of a different reading from that givon ic the text. 430 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. " Thou knowest thy father and his men, that they are heroes, and of a ferocious disposition (like Judg. xviii. 25), like a bear in the field robbed of her young ; and thy father is a man of war, and will not pass the night with the people," sc. so that it would be possible to come upon him unawares and slay him (pp ■with ns, as in Job six. 4). The idea that IyJ is to be taken as a Hiphil, in the sense of " and does not let the people lodge for the night" (Bottcher), is quite untenable, since it does not tally with ver. 9, " Behold, he is hid now in one of the pits, or one of the places (Q^nC? are hiding-places that are strong by nature, nbipD are places rendered strong by art) ; and it comes to pass that he falls upon them at the first: so will men hear it, and say a defeat has taken place among the people that follow Absalom." PDJ with 3, as in Josh. xi. 7, to fall upon a person. The subject to ?b3 is David, but it is not mentioned as being evident enough from the context ; so that there is no necessity for the emendation i^BJ, which Thenius proposes. The suiBx 0^3 relates to those making the attack, the hosts of Absalom. Thenius has given the meaning correctly : " The report that David has made an attack will be sufficient to give rise to the belief that our men have sustained a severe defeat." — Ver. 10. *'And even if he (the hearer, ver. 9) be a brave man, who has a lion's heart (lion-like courage), he will be thrown into despair, for all Israel knows that thy father is a hero, and brave men (are those) who are with him." — Ver. 11. "Yea (''3, profecto), I advise : let all Israel be gathered round thee from Dan to Beersheba (see at Judg. xx. 1), numerous as the sand by the sea ; and thou thyself go into the war." T'ps, thy person, i.e. thou thyself be marching. The plural C^pn is used because of TJS. For 3 7]pn, to enter into anything, see 1 Kings xix. 4, Isa. xlv. 16, xlvi. 2. 3"iip, war, the early translators have con- founded with T}J>,. — Ver. 12. " And come we to him (if wo come upon him) in one of the places where lie is found, we let ourselves down upon him, as the dew falls upon the earth; and of him and all the men with him there will not be one left." onj might be a contraction of 13n^^?, as in Gen. xlii. 11, Ex. xvi. 7, 8, etc.: "so we upon him," equivalent to "so shall we come upon him." But if this were the meaning, we should *xpect vhy «;ni. It is more correct, therefore, to take IJTO as the first pers. perf. of TO, as the early translators have done: so do we CHAP. XVII. 15-23. let ourselves down upon him. (For nu as applied to an army en- camping, see Isa. vii. 2, 19 ; and as denoting the swarming of flies and grasshoppers, Isa. vii. 19 and Ex. x. 14.) In Ahithophel's opinion, it would be possible with a very small army to crush David and his little band, however brave his followers might be, and in fact to annihilate them altogether. — Ver. 13. "And if he draw back into a city, all Israel lays ropes to that city, and we drag it to the brook, till there is not even a little stone found there.'' 'nan-ij? ; inasmuch as fortified cities were generally built upon mountains, lii^ signifies a little stone, according to the ancient versions. Hushai speaks in hyperboles of the irresistible power which the whole nation would put forth when summoned together for battle, in order to make his advice appear the more plausible. — Ver. 14. And he secured his end. Absalom and all Israel thought his advice better than that of Ahithophel ; for it was intended to commend itself to Absalom and his supporters. " The counsel appeared safe ; at the same time it was full of a certain kind of boasting, which pleased the younger men" (Clericus). All that Hushai had said about the bravery and heroism of David and his followers, was well founded. The deception lay in the assumption that all the people from Dan to Beersheba would crowd around Absalom as one man; whereas it might easily be foreseen, that after the first excitement of the revolution was over, and greater calmness ensued, a large part of the nation and army would gather round David. But such a possibility as this never entered the minds of Absalom and his supporters. It was in this that the divine sentence referred to in ver. lib was seen : " The Lord had commanded (appointed) it, to defeat the good counsel of Ahitho- phel, that he might bring the evil (intended) upon Absalom." Vers. 15-23. David is informed of what has occurred. — Vers. 15, 16. Hushai communicated without delay to the priests Zadok and Abiathar the advice which had been given to Absalom both by Ahithophel and himself, and requested them to make it known to David as quickly as possible. " Stay not the night," he said, "by the ferries (l^i"'^J', as in ch. xv. 28) of the desert ; but rather go over, lest the king and all the people with him be destroyed." Oi), " and indeed," or after a negative clause, "but rather." ^j'B^ v'p^ is either "there will be a devouring," i.e. destruction, to the king, it will fall upon him 432 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. or if we supply the subject fi'om the previous clause "li^VH 1i3V, as Bottcher proposes, " that it (the crossing over) may not be swallowed up or cut off from the king." There is nothing to justify Ewald's explanation, " it (misfortune) is swallowed by him." Hushai recommended of course an immediate crossinir o of the Jordan ; because he did not know whether Absalom would really act upon his advice, although he had expressed his approval of it, or whether he might not change his mind and follow Ahithophel's counsel. — Ver. 17. " Jonathan and Ahimaaz (the sons of the priests : ch. xv. 27) stood at the Rogel spring (the present well of Job or Nehemiah, at the south-east corner of Jerusalem : see at Job xv. 7), and the maid-servant (of one of the high priests) went and told them (Hushai's message), and they went and told it to king David ; for they durst not let themselves be seen to come into the city." They had therefore been staying at the Rogel spring outside the city. After what had taken place publicly, according to ch. XV. 24 sqq., Absalom could not be in any doubt as to the views of the high priests. Consequently their sons could not come into the city, with the intention of leaving it again directly, to inform David of the occurrences that had taken place there ;is he had requested (ch. xv. 28). The clause ^^ and they went and told David " anticipates the course of the affair, according to the general plan adopted by Hebrew historians, of com- municating the result at the very outset wherever they possibly could. — Ver. 18. " And a lad (servant) saw them, and told Absalom." Absalom had most likely set spies to watch the priests and their sons. But the two sons who had noticed the spy hurried into the house of a man at Bahurim, who had a well (or cistern that was dry at the time) in his court, and went down into the well. — Ver. 19. And the man's wife spread a covering ('H?'?'!', the covering which she had close at hand) over the well (over the opening into the cistern), and scattered groats (nis''"!, peeled barley : Prov. xxvii. 22) upon it, so that nothing was noticed. The Vulgate explanation is a very gooa one : " quasi siccans ptisanas " (as if drying peeled barley). — Ver. 20. When Absalom's servants came and asked for the priest's sons, the woman said. They have gone over the little water-brook (D^Qn b^a^ a-K. 'K.ey.), and thus led them wrong, ss that they did not find them.— Vers. 21, 22. When they had CHAP. XVII. 24-XIX. 1. 433 gone away, the priest's sons came up out of the well and brought David the news, saying, "Go quickly over the water, for thus hath Ahithophel counselled against you;" whereupon David and all the people with him went hastily over the Jordan. " Till the morning dawn not one was missed who had not gone over." "ins ^y, lit. even to one there was not any one missed. — Ver. 23. It is still further stated in conclusion, that when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not carried out, he saddled his ass and returned to his home, and there set his house in order and hanged himself, because he could foresee that Absalom would lose his cause through not taking his advice, and it would then be all over with himself. Thus was David's prayer (ch. xv. 31) fulfilled. Absalom's defeat and death. — chap. xvii. 24-xix. i. The account of the civil war, which terminated with Ab- salom's defeat and death, is introduced in vers. 24-26 with a description of the relative position of the two hostile parties. David had come to Mahanaim, a city, probably a fortified one, on the east of the Jordan, not far from a ford of the Jabbok (see at ch. ii. 8). Absalom had also gone over the Jordan, " he and all the men with him," i.e. all the fighting men that he had gathered together according to Hushai's advice, and encamped in the land of Gilead. — Ver. 25. Absalom had made Amasa captain over his army instead of Joab, who had re- mained true to David, and had gone with his king to Mahanaim. Amasa was the son of a man named Jiilira, y??"!?^!'!') who had gone in to {i.e. had seduced) Abigail, the daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah, Joab's mother. He was therefore an illegitimate cousin of Joab. The description given of Jiilira as ''pNlK'' is very striking, since there was no reason whatever why it should be stated that Amasa's father was an Israelite. The Seventy have therefore given o 'le^parfkirr]^, i.e. sprung from Jezreel, where David's wife Ahinoam came from (1 Sam. xxvii. 3) ; but they have done so apparently from mere con- jecture. The true reading is evidently vWpB'^rij an Ishmaelite, according to 1 Chron. ii. 1 7, where the name is written Jether, a contracted form of Jithra. From the description given of Abigail as a daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah, not 2 B 434 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. of David, some of the earlier commentators have very justly concluded that Abigail and Zeruiah were only step-sisters of David, i.e. daughters of his mother by Nahash and not by Jesse. — Vers. 27-29. When David came to Mahanaim, some of the wealthier citizens of the land to the east of the Jordan supplied the men who were with him with provisions. This is mentioned as the first sign that the people had not all fallen away from David, but that some of the more distinguished men were still firm in their adherence. Shobi, the son of Nahash of Rahhah, the capital of the Ammonites (see ch. xi. 1), was possibly a son of Nahash the deceased king of the Ammonites, and brother of Ilanun, who was defeated by David (ch. x. 1, 2), and one of those to whom David had shown favour and kindness when Rabbah was taken. At the same time, it is also quite possible that Shobi may have been an Israelite, who was merely living in the capital of the Ammonites, which had been incorporated into the kingdom of David, as it is evident from ver. 25 that Nahash was not an uncommon name among the Israelites. Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar (see at ch. ix. 4), and Barsillai of Roglim the Gileadite. Roglim was a town in Gilead, which is only mentioned once again, viz. in ch. xix. 32, and of which nothing further is known. They brought " bedding, basins, earthenware, and wheat, barley, meal, and parched grains, beans, lentils and parched." The position of the verb, which is not placed between the subject and the object of the sentence, but only at the close of the whole series of objects, is certainly unusual; but this does not warrant any alteration of the text. For if we were to supply a verb before 33t^'Dj as having fallen out of the text, it would be necessary, since W^'i'i} follows without a copula, to divide the things enumerated into two classes, so as to connect one portion of the objects with v3''^'i}, which is obviously un- natural. The early translators who interpolate a verb before the objects have therefore also supplied the copula 1 before ^Ci^n. There is still less ground for supplying the number 10, as having dropped out before ^aTO and niSD, as the LXX. have done, since none of the translators of the other ancient versions had any such reading. 33B'p, couch or bed, is used here for bedding. niSD, basins, probably field-kettles. The repetition of ViJI is very striking ; nevertheless the second must not bo CHAP. XVni. 1-5. 4iJ5 struck out without further ground as a supposed copyist's error. As they not only ate parched ears or grains of wheat (see at Lev. ii. 14), but were also in the habit of drying pulse, pease, and lentils before eating them (vid. Harmar, Beohasli- tungen, i. pp. 255-6), the second y^ may be understood as referring to parched pulse. The am-. Xej. Ij^S riiBE' signifies, according to the Chaldee and the Rabbins, cheese of oxen (i.e. of cows), and according to the conjecture of Eoediger (Ges. Thes. p. 1462), a peculiar kind of cheese, such as the Aeneze in the province of Nedjid still make,''- and for which the term aa^ibd ^ocbv retained by the LXX. was pi'obably the technical name. Tlieodotus, on the other hand, has yaXaOTjva /loa-^^^dpia, milch-calves ; and the Vulgate pingues vitulos, — both of them renderings which can certainly be sustained from the Arabic usage of speech, and would be more in accordance with the situation of the words, viz. after JX'^. Iipx ''3, " for they said (or thought) the people have become hungry and faint and thirsty in the desert," i.e. in their flight to Mahanaim. Cliap. xviii. 1-5. Preparation for war. — Vers. 1, 2. David mustered the people that were with him, and placed over them captains of thousands and hundreds, and divided them into three companies, under the generals Joab, Abishai, and Ittai tlie Gathite, who had given such decided proofs, according to ch. XV. 21, 22, of his fidelity to David. T? C.??', to leave to the hand of a person, i.e. to his power, is used here in the sense of placing under his direction. The people opposed in the most decided manner the wish of the king to go with them to the war, saying (ver. 3), " Thou shalt not go out : for if we flee, they will take no heed of us (i.e. attach no importance to this) ; and if half of us die, they will take no heed of us : for thou art as ten thousand of us (we must evidently read nriK for nny, and nriy has merely got into the text in consequence of nnjil follow- ing) : and now it is good that thou be ready to give us help from the city" (the Cliethib T'lVr', inf. Hiphil for 173|l'|', is not to be disputed). David was to stay behind in the city with a reserve, 1 According to Burckhardt's account (Die Beduinen, p. 48), "after they have taken the butter from the butter-milk, they beat the latter again till it coagulates, and then dry it tiU it is quite hard. It is then rubbed to pieces, and in the spring every family stores up two or three laete of it, which they eat mixed with butter." 436 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. that he might be able to come to their relief in case of need.- Vers. 4, 5. The king gave his consent to these proposals, and went to the side of the gate, whilst the people went out by hundreds and thousands ; but in the liearing of all he com- manded the principal generals, " Mildly for me (i.e. deal gently for my sake) with the boy Absalom!' t:xp is not the impera- tive of t^^??, to cover over, which would not suit the connection, and could not be construed with ?, but an adverb from t3^>, as in Isa. viii. 6, 1 Kings xxi. 27, Job xv. 11. Vers. 6-18. Battle in the ivood of Ephraim, and death of Absalom. — Vers. 6, 7. When the people, i.e. David's army, had advanced into the field against Israel (those who followed Absalom), a battle was fought " in the wood of Ephraim,'' when Israel was smitten by David's warriors and sustained a loss of 20,000 men. The question, where the " wood of JUphraim" was situated, is a disputed one. But both the name and the fact that, according to Josh, xvil 15, 16, the tribe- land of Ephraim abounded in forests, favour the idea that it was a wood in the inheritance of Ephraim, on this side of the Jordan ; and this is in perfect harmony with the statement in ver. 23, that Ahimaaz took the way of the Jordan valley to bring the news of the victory to David, who was staying behind in Mahanaim. Nevertheless the majority of commentators have supposed that the place alluded to was a woody region on the other side of the Jordan, which had received the name of " wood Ephraim" probably after the defeat of the Ephraim- ites in the time of Jephthah (Judg. xii. 1-5). The reasons assigned are, first, that according to ch. xvii. 26, Absalom had encamped in Gilead, and it is not stated that he had crossed the Jordan again ; secondly, that ver. 3 (" that thou succour us ou: of the city") presupposes that the battle took place in the /leighbourhood of Mahanaim (Thenius) ; and thirdly, that after the victory tiie army returned to Mahanaim ; whereas if the battle had been fought on this side of the Jordan, it would evidently have been much better for it to remain there and occupy Jerusalem (Ewald, Gesch. iii. p. 237). But neither of these reasons is decisive, and there is no force in the other arguments employed by Thenius. There was no necessity for an immediate occupation of Jerusalem by David's victorious army, since all Israel fled to their tents after the fall of Absa- CHAP. XVIII. 6-18. 437 iom and the defeat of his army (ver. 17 and ch. xix. 9) ; that is to say, such of Absalom's followers as had not fallen in or after the battle, broke up and returned home, and therefore the revolution was at an end. Consequently there was nothing left for David's army to do but to return to its king at Maha- naim, and fetch him back to Jerusalem, and reinstate him in his kingdom. The other two reasons might have some force in them, if the history before us contained a complete account of the whole course of the war. But even Ewald admits that it is restricted to a notice of the principal battle, which completely crushed the rebellion. There can be no doubt, however, that this was preceded, if not by other battles, yet by such military operations as accompany every war. This is clearly indicated in ver. 6, where it is stated that the army advanced into the field against Israel (ver. 6), which evidently refers to such an advance on the part of David's array as might compel Absalom tc draw back from Gilead across the Jordan, until at length a Jecisive battle was fought, which ended in the complete destruc- tion of his army and his own death. Ewald observes still further, that " it seems impossible, at any rate so far as the name is concerned, to assume that the wood of Ephraim was on the other side of the Jordan, whilst according to ch. xviii. 23, the messenger who reported the victory went from the field of battle towards the Jordan valley in order to get to David." But the way in which Ewald tries to set aside this important point, as beai'ing upon the conclusion that the battle took place on this side of the Jordan, — namely, by adopting this rendering of ver. 23, " he ran after the manner of KikJcar, running, and therefore overtook Kushi," — is far too unnatural to meet with acceptance. Under all these circumstances, therefore, we de- cide in favour of the assumption that the wood of Ephraim is to be sought for in the tribe-territory of Ephraim. The nature of the ground contributed a great deal to the utter defeat of Absalom. — Ver. 8. The conflict extended over the surface of the whole land, i.e. the whole of that region (the Cliethib niSSJ is not the plural nilib:, which would be quite unsuitable, but is most probably a noun, ri«W, signifying burst- ing asunder, or wild flight ; the Keri nSM is a Niplial participle, fern, gen.) ; " and the wood devoured more of the people than ihe sword ate on the same day." The woody region was most- 438 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL, likely full of ravines, precipices, and marshes, into which the flying foe was pursued, and where so many perished. — Ver. 9. " And Absalom was lighted upon {^'}x>\ = <^'}^^\) by the servants of David, riding upon the mule ; and the mule had come under the thick branches of the great terebinth, and his head fastened itself (remained hanging) on the terebinth, so that he was held (hung) between heaven and earth, as the mule under him went away." The imperfects, 5<'3»1, P]n»lj and p'!, are only a combi- nation of the circumstantial clause 331 '^'3X1. With regard to the fact itself, it is not clearly stated in the words that Absa- lom hung only by his hair, but simply that his hair entangled him in the thick branches, and his head was fastened in the terebinth, namely, by being jammed between the strong boughs. —Ver. 10. A man (one of David's men) saw him in this situa- tion, and told Joab. Joab replied (ver. 11), " Behold, thou hast seen it, and wherefore hast thou not smitten him there to the ground ? and it was for me to give thee ten silverlings and a girdle ;" i.e. if thou hadst slain him, it would have been my duty to reward thee. — Ver. 12. But the man replied, " And 1 . . . not weighing a thousand shekels in my hand . . . might not stretch out my hand to the king's son," i.e. I could not do it for a reward of a thousand shekels. This is the meaning of the Chethib N?l ; the Masoretes, on the other hand, have substi- tuted vl, which is the reading adopted in most of the ancient versions, and the one preferred by the majority of expositors : " if I weighed ... I would not," etc. But there is no necessity for this alteration, as the Chethib is quite in accordance with the character of the words. " For before our ears the king com- manded" (cf . ver. 5) : ''O 11'??', " take care whoever (it be) of the boy Absalom." On this use of 'I?, see Ewald, § 104 d, a. The Keri V is merely a conjecture, notwithstanding the fact that all the versions follow it, and that one of the Codices in Kennicott has Y- " Or" continued the man (ver. 13), " should I have acted deceitfully towards his life {i.e. have slain him secretly, which he calls lipE', cheating, because it was opposed to the king's open command) : and, nothing remains hidden from the king ; . . . thou vjouldst have set thyself in opposition to me" «'•«■ have risen up acjainst me before the kinc The middle clause is a circumstantial one, as the fact that I3'n"731 is placed first clearly shows ; so that it cannot be regarded as introducing iha CHAP. XVIII. 6-18. 439 apodosis, which really follows in the clause commencing with '^^^V — Ver. 14. Joab replied, ^^ Not so will I wait before thee" i.e. I will not leave the thing to thee. He then took three staffs in his hand, and thrust them into Absalom's heart. D'tpiB' is rendered by the LXX. and Vulgate, /SeXij, lanceas ; and Thenius would adopt OTxp^ accordingly, as an emendation of the text. But in the earlier Hebrew npe* only occurs in poetical writings in the sense of a missile or dart (Job xxxiii. 18, xxxvi. 12 ; Joel ii. 8) ; and it is not till after the captivity that we find it used to denote a weapon generally. There is no neces- sity, however, for altering the text. Joab caught up in his hurry the first thing that he found, namely pointed staffs, and pierced Absalom with them to the heart. This explains the reason for his taking three, whereas one javelin or dart would have been sufficient, and also the fact that Absalom was not slain, notwithstanding their being thrust at his heart. The last clause of the verse belongs to what follows : " Still living (i.e. as he was still alive) in the midst of the terebinth, ten young men, Joab's armour-bearers, surrounded him, and smote him to death." — Ver. 16. Immediately afterwards Joab stopped any further pursuit, " for Joab spared the people," i.e. he wanted to spare them. — Ver. 17. But Absalom they cast into a great pit in the wood, and threw up over him a very large heap of stones, as an ignominious monument, like those thrown up over Achan (Josh. vii. 26) and the king of Ai (Josh. viii. 29). This was the end of Absalom and his rebellion. " All Israel (that had crowded round him) had fled, every one to his tent" (i.e. home : see at Deut. xvi. 7). — Ver. 18. Absalom had erected a monument to himself in the king's valley during his lifetime ; " for he said, I have no son to preserve the remembrance of my name, and he called the monument by his own name ; and so it was called hand (memorial) of Absalom unto this day." The ni^P before 3?fl! is apparently pleonastic ; but it belongs to the diffuse and circumstantial character of the antiquated Hebrew diction (as in Num. xvi. 1). riDSD, a memorial of stone ; whether in the form of a column, or an obelisk, or a monolith, cannot be determined (vid. Gen. xxviii. 22, xxxi. 52). The king's valley, which received its name from the event nar- rated in Gen. xiv. 17, was two stadia from Jerusalem according 10 Joeephus (Ant. vii. 10, 3), and therefore not " close to the 1-40 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Dead Sea," or in regione transjordanensi (Ges. Thes. pp. 1045. 1377), or " in the Jordan valley in Ephraim" (Tuch and Winer). It was on the eastern side of Jerusalem, in the Kidron valley ; though Absalom's pillar, which ecclesiastical tradition has transferred thither, a monument about forty feet in height and pointed like a pyramid, is not of early Hebrew, but of Grecian origin. On the words " I have no son," see at ch. xiv. 27. Vers. 19-32. David is informed of the victory, and of the death of Absalom. — Vers. 19, 20. Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, wanted to carry the news to David, that Jehovah had " procured the king justice out of the hand of his enemies" (OSB' with |0 is a pregnant expression signifying to procure justice and deliver out of) ; but Joab, knowing how David would receive the tid- ings of the death of Absalom, replied, " Thou art no man of good tidings to-day ; thou shalt take the news on another day, not on this, even because (Jif^'^ '■?, see at Gen. xviii. 5) the king's son is dead." The Keri t5"?J' ''3 is to be preferred to the Ckethib ?V~^2 ; and [3 has no doubt been dropt out merely because of p which follows. The Chethib does not give any suitable sense ; for the absence of the article before rip is decisive against the explanation proposed by Maurer, viz. " for (tidings have to be carried) concerning the king's son dead." If np were to be construed as an adverb with ^?P"13, it would of necessity have the article. — Ver. 21. Joab therefore entrusted the Cushite with the duty of conveying to David the announcement of what had occurred. It cannot be decided with certainty whether ''B'isn or Cushi is the proper name of an Israelite, or whether it signi- fies the " Cushite," i.e. a descendant of Gush. The form of the name rather favours the latter view, in which case it would suggest the idea of a Moorish slave in the service of Joab. — Vers. 22, 23. As Ahimaaz still expressed a wish to hasten to the king, even after Cushi had been sent, and could not be induced to relinquish his purpose by the repeated expostulations of Joab, the latter at length permitted him to run. And he ran so fast, that he got before Cushi. np \T1 : let whatever will happen. 11371 is the pronoun " to thee," as in Gen. xxvii. 37, and not the imperative of ^Pn, " thou mayest go." The mean- ing is, " and there is no striking message for thee," no message that strikes the mark, or affects anything. We mv.st supply CHAP. XVIII. 19-32. 441 "he said" in thought before ver. 23. There was the less necessity to write it here (as in 1 Sam. i. 20), since it is per- fectly obvious from the repetition of nn ^ii'l that it is Ahimaaz who is speaking. Ahimaaz then ran by the way of the plain, i.e. the way which lies through or across the plain of the Jordan, Now he could not possibly have taken this road, if the battle had been fought in a wood on the eastern side of the Jordan, and he had wanted to hurry from the scene of battle to Maha- naim; for in that case he would have taken a circuitous route two or three times the distance of the straight road, so that it would have been utterly impossible for him to get there before the Cushite, however quickly he might run. This notice therefore furnishes a decisive proof that the battle was fought upon the mountains of Ephraim, in the land to the west of the Jordan, since the straight road thence to Mahanaim would lie through the valley of the Jordan. — Ver. 24. David was sitting between the two gates of Mahanaim waiting for tidings of the result of the battle. The two gates are tiie outer and inner gate of the fortified city wall, between which there v/as a small court, where David was sitting. The watchman then went up to the roof of the gate by the wall, probably the outer gate in the city wall, and as he looked he saw a man running alone. — Ver. 25. When he announced this to the king, he said, " If he (is or comes) alone, there is good news in his mouth," namely, because several runners would have shown themselves if it had been a flight. As the first messenger came nearer and nearer, the watchman saw another man running, and shouted this into the gate C^V^^i] is wrongly pointed for ly^i], according to the LXX., Syr., and Vulgate) ; whereupon the king replied, " This is also a good messenger." — Ver. 27. When the watchman saw by the running of the first that it was Ahimaaz, recognising him probably by the swiftness of his running, and announced it to the king, he replied, " He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings," because Joab would not have selected him to bring any other than good news. — Ver. 28. Ahimaaz then called out to the king, " Shalom," i.e. Hail ! and fell down before him to greet him reverentially, and said, " Blessed be Jehovah thy God, who hath given up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king." — Ver. 29. In answer to the king's inquiry, "Is it well with the young man Absalom?" Ahimaaz 442 rHli SECOND book of SAMUEL. replied, " I saw the great tumult (that arose) when Joab sent off the king's servant, and thy servant, and know not what" (sc. had occurred). Ahimaaz spoke as if he had been sent off before Absalom's fate had been decided or could be known " T/ie king's servant" is the Cushite, whom Ahimaaz saw just approaching, so that he could point to him. Joab is the sub- ject, which is sometimes written after the object in the case of an infinitive construction (vid. Gesenius, § 133, 3 Anm.) ; and the expression " thj' servant" is a conventional one for " me" (viz. Ahimaaz). — Ver. 30. And the king said, " Turn, and stand here," that he might hear the further news from the Cushite, who had just arrived. — Ver. 31. The Cushite said, " Let my lord the king receive good tidings, for Jehovah hath procured thee justice to-day out of the hand of all who have risen up against thee" (cf. ver. 19). — ^Ver. 32. When asked about the welfare of Absalom, the Cushite replied, " May it happen to the enemies of my lord the king, and all who have risen up against thee for evil (i.e. to do thee harm), as to the young man." The death of Absalom was indicated clearly enouch in these words. Ver. 33. The king understood the meaning of the words. He was agitated, and went up to the balcony of the gate (the room above the entrance) and wept, and said, walking about, " My son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom ! Oh that I had died for thee, Absalom, my son, my son !" To under- stand this passionate utterance of anguish, we must bear in mind not only the excessive tenderness, or rather weakness, of David's paternal affection towards his son, but also his anger that Joab and his generals should have paid so little regard to his command to deal gently with Absalom. With the king's excitable temperament, this entirely prevented him from taking a just and correct view of the crime of his rebel son, whicli merited death, and of the penal justice of God which had been manifested in his destruction. DAVID REINSTATED IN HIS KINGDOM. — CHAP. XIX. 1-39. In his passionate and sinful sorrow on accoimt of Absalom's death, David not only forgot altogether what it was his duty to do, in order to recover the affections of the people, so that Joab CHAP. XIX. 1-8. 443 was obliged to remind him of this duty which was binding upon liim as king (vers. 1-8) ; but he even allowed himself to be carried away into the most inconsiderate measures (vers. 9-14), and into acts of imprudence and injustice (vers. 16-23, 24-30), which could not contribute to the strengthening of his thi'one, however much the affection with which he wished to reward the old man Barzillai for his faithful services (vers. 31-40) might show that the king was anxious to promote the welfare of his subjects. Vers. 1-8. DavicUs mourning, and Joab's 7-eproof. — Vers, 1-6. When Joab was told that the king was mourning and weeping for Absalom, he went to him into the house to expos- tulate with him. Ver. 5 introduces the continuation of ver. 1 ; vers. 2-4 contain parenthetical sentences, describing the impres- sion made upon the people by the king's mourning. Through the king's deep trouble, the salvation (the victory) upon that day became mourning for all the people who had fought for David, and they went by stealth into the city (i^i^? 33301 : they stole to come, came by stealth), "as people steal away who have covered themselves with shame, when they flee in battle." — Ver. 4. But the king had covered his face, and cried aloud, "My son Absalom," etc. — Ver. 5. Then Joab went into the house to the king, and said to him, " Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants who have saved thy life, and the life of thy sons and daughters, thy wives and concubines " (covered them with shame, by deceiving their hope that thou wouldest rejoice in the victory). — Ver. 6. i^^O^?, " to love" {i.e. in that thou lovest) " those who hate thee, and hatest those who love thee ; for thou hast given to know to-day (through thy conduct) that chiefs and servants (commanders and soldiers) are nothing (are worth nothing) ; for I have perceived to-day (or I perceive to-day) that if (N^ for 1^) Absalom were alive, and we had all perished, that it would be right in thine eyes." — Ver. 7. " And now rise up, go out and speak to the heart of thy servants (i.e. speak to them in a friendly manner : Gen. xxxiv. 3, 1. 21, etc.) : for I swear by Jehovah, if thou go not out, verily not a man will stay with thee to-night ; and this will be worse to thee than all the evil that has come upon thee from thy youth until now." Joab was certainly not only justified, but bound in David's own interests, to expostulate with him upon his conduct, and to urge 14'i THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL him to speak in a friendly manner to the people who had ex. posed their lives for him, inasmuch as his present conduct would necessarily stifle the affection of the people towards their king, and might be followed by the most serious results with refer- ence to his throne. At the same time, he did this in so heart- less and lordly a manner, that the king could not fail to be deeply hurt by his words. — Ver. 8. Nevertheless David was obliged to yield to his representations. " The king rose up, and sat in the gate, and . . . all the people came before the king" i.e. the troops marched before the king, who (as we may supply from the context) manifested his good-will in both looks and words. But Israel, i.e. that portion of the people which had followed Absalom, had returned to its tents (i.e. gone home: cf. ch. xviii. 17). This sentence forms the transition to the account which follows. Vers. 9-14. Preliminaries to the return of David to Jerusa- lem. — Vers. 9, 10. As the rebellion was entirely crushed by Absalom's death, and the dispersion of his followers to their respective homes, there arose a movement among all the tribes in favour of David. " All the people were disputing (JilJ, cast- ing reproaches at one another) in all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king has saved us out of the hand of our enemies, . . , and now he is fled out of the land before Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle ; and now why do ye keep Still, to bring back the king ? " This movement arose from the consciousness of having done an in- justice to the king, in rising up in support of Absalom. — Vers. 1 1, 12. When these words of all Israel were reported to David, he sent to the priests Zadok and Abiathar, saying, " Speak to the elders of Judah, why will ye be the last to bring back the king to his palace ? . . . Ye are my brethren, my bones and flesh (i.e. my blood relations) : why then," etc. ? The last clause of ver. 11, ^Hhe speech of all Israel is come to the ling, even to his house" is a circumstantial clause inserted in the midst of David's words, to explain the appeal to the men of Judah not to be the last. In the LXX., and some Codices of the Vulgate, this sentence occurs twice, viz. at the end of ver. 10, and also of ver. 11 ; and Thenius, Ewald, and Bottcher regard the clause at the end of ver. 10 as the original one, and the re'ietition of it at the close of ver. 11 as a gloss. But this CHAP. XIX. 9-14. 445 is certainly a mistake : for if the clause, " and the speech of all Israel came to the king to his house (at Mahanaim)/' ought to stand at the close of ver. 10, and assigns the reason for David's sending to Zadok and Abiathar, ver. 11 vcould certainly, or rather necessarily, commence with 'n?'2n npK''J : " The word of all Israel came to the king, and then king David sent," etc. But instead of this, it commences with npK' in ^?lpni, " But king David sent." This construction of the sentence decidedly favours the correctness of the Hebrew text ; whereas the text of the Septuagint, apart altogether from the tautological repe- tition of the whole of the sentence in question, shows obviously enough that it is nothing more than a conjecture, by which the attempt was made to remove the difficulty occasioned by the striking position in which the circumstantial clause occurred. — Ver. 13. " And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not my bone and flesh ? so shall God do to me, and so add, if thou shalt not be prince of the army (chief captain) before me continually in the place of Joab." — Ver. 14. Thus he (David) inclined the heart of all the people as of one man, and they sent to the king, saying, " Eeturn thou, with all thy servants." The result of David's message to the priests is given summarily here. The subject to ^'X is David, not Amasa or Zadok. So far as the fact itself is conceiucd, it was certainly wise of David to send to the mem- bers of his own tribe, and appeal to them not to be behind the rest of the tubes in taking part in his restoration to the kingdom, lest it should appear as though the tribe of Judah, to which David himself belonged, was dissatisfied with his victory, since it was in that tube that the rebellion itself first broke out ; and this would inevitably feed the jealousy between Judah and the rest of the tribes. But it was not only unwise, but unjust, to give to Amasa, the traitor-general of the rebels, a promise on oath that he should be commander-in-chief in the place of Joab ; for even if the promise was only given privately at first, the fact that it had been given could not remain a secret from Joab very long, and would be sure to stir up his ambition, and lead him to the commission of fresh crimes, and in all probability the enmity of this powerful general would become dangerous to the throne of David. For however Joab might have excited David's anger by slaying Absalom, and by the offensive manner in which he had reproved the king for giving way to his grief, 446 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. David ought to have suppressed his anger in his existing cir* cumstances, and ouglit not to have rendered evil for evil, especially as he was not only about to pardon Amasa's crime, hut even to reward him as one of his faithful servants. Vers. 15-30. Return of the king ; and occurrences at the crossing of the Jordan. — Vers. 15-23. Pardon of Shimei. — Vers. 15, 16. When David reached the Jordan on his return, and Judah had come to Gilgal " to meet him, to conduct the king over the Jordan," i.e. to form an escort at the crossing, Shimei the Benjaminite hastened down from Bahurim (see ch, xvi. 5 sqq.) with the men of Judah to meet David. — ^Vers. 17 sqq. There also came along with Shimei a thousand men of Ben- jamin, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, with his fifteen sons and twenty servants (see ch. ix. 10); and they went over the Jordan before the king, viz. through a ford, and the ferry-boat had crossed over to carry over the king's family, and to do whatever seemed good to him, i.e. to be placed at the king's sole disposal. And Shimei fell down before the king, ^"i^ya, i,e. " when he (David) was about to cross over the Jordan" not " when Shimei had crossed over the Jordan ;" for after what has just been stated, such a remark would be superfluous : moreover, it is very doubtful whether the infinitive with 3 can express the sense of the pluperfect. Shimei said, " Let not my lord impute to me any crime, and do not remember how thy servant hath sinned." — Ver. 20. " For thy servant knoweth (i.e. 1 know) that I have sinned, and behold I have come to-day the first of the whole house of Joseph, to go to meet my lord the king." By "the whole house of Joseph" we are to under- stand the rest of the tribes with the exception of Judah, who are called "all Israel" in ver. 12. There is no reason for the objection taken by Thenius and Bottcher to the expression flDV-n^B. The rendering of the LXX. (Trai/ro? 'laparfK Kal oiKov TaxTTji^) does not prove that ^Xlb)"?!! was the original reading, but only that the translator thought it necessary to explain o'Ikov 'Icoaijcp by adding the gloss iravTO'; ^IcrparjK ; and the assertion that it was only in the oratorical style of a later period, when the kingdom had been divided, that Joseph became the party name of all that were not included in Judah, is overthrown by 1 Kings xi. 28. The designation of the tribes that opposed Judah by the name of the leading tribe (Joseph: CHAP. XIX. 15-30 447 Josh. xvi. 1) was as old as tlie jealousy between these tribes and Judah, which did not commence with the division of the kingdom, but was simply confirmed thereby into a permanent distinction. Shimei's prayer for the forgiveness of his sin was no more a proof of sincere repentance than the reason which he adduced in support of his petition, namely that he was the first of all the house of Joseph to come and meet David. Shimei's only desire was to secure impunity for himself Abishai therefore replied (ver. 21), " Shall not Shimei be put to death for this (HNt nnn, for this, which he has just said and done), because he hath cursed the anointed of Jehovah ?" (yid. ch. xvi. 5 sqq.) But David answered (ver. 22), " What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah (cf. ch. xvi. 10), for ye become opponents to me to-day ? " lt2B>, an opponent, who places obstacles in the way (Num. xxii. 22) ; here it signifies one who would draw away to evil. " Should any one be put to death in Israel to-day ? for do 1 not know that I am this day king over Israel ? " The reason assigned by David here for not punishing the blasphemer as he had deserved, by taking away his life, would have been a very laudable one if the king had really forgiven him. But as David when upon his death- bed charged his successor to punish Shimei for this cursing (1 Kings ii. 8, 9), the favour shown him here was only a sign of David's weakness, which was not worthy of imitation, the more especially as the king swore unto him (ver. 24) that he should not die. Vers. 24-30. JDavid^s conduct towards Mephiboslieth admits still less of justification.— Ver. 24. Mephibosheth, the son, i.e. o-randson, of Saul, had also come down (from Jerusalem to the Jordan) to meet David, and had not " made his feet and his beard" i.e. had not washed his feet or arranged his beard (nby, as in Deut. xxi. 12), and had not washed his clothes — all of them signs of deep mourning (cf. Ezek. xxiv. 17) — since the day that the king had gone {i.e. had fled from Jerusalem) until the day that he came (again) in peace.— Ver. 25. " Now when Jerusalem {i.e. the inhabitants of the capital) came to meet the ki7ig," ^ David said to him {i.e. to Mephibosheth, who was 1 Dathe and Thenius propose to alter U'hm-\\ into D^^CTT'D (from Jerusalem), from a simple misunderstanding of the true meaning of the voTih ; for', as Bottcher has observed, the latter (Jrom Jerusalem) would 448 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. with tlie deputation from the capital which welcomed David at the Jordan), " Wluj iventest thou not loitli me, Mephihoslieth ?" David was justified in putting this question after what Ziba had told him concerning Mephibosheth (ch. xvi. 3). — Ver. 26. Mephibosheth replied, " My lord king, my servant hath de- ceived me : for thy servant thought I will have the ass saddled and go to the king ; for thy servant is lame." If we under- stand fi^sn?? as signifying that Mephibosheth had the ass saddled by a servant, and not that he saddled it with his own hands, the meaning is obvious, and there is no ground whatever for altering the text. tJ'an is certainly used in this sense in Gen. xxii. 3, and it is very common for things to be said to be done by a person, even though not done with his own hands. The rendering adopted by the LXX. and Vulgate, " Thy ser- vant said to him (the servant), Saddle me the ass," is not true to the words, though correct so far as the sense is concerned. — Vers. 27, 28. "And he (Ziba) slandered thy servant to my lord the king." Mephibosheth had not merely inferred this from David's words, and the tone in which they were spoken, but liad certainly found it out long ago, since Ziba would not delay very long to put David's assurance, that all the possessions of Mephibosheth should belong to him, in force against his master, so that Mephibosheth would discover from that how Ziba had slandered him. " And my lord the king is as the angel of God," i.e. he sees all just as it really is (see at ch. xiv. 17) ; " and do what is good in thy sight : for all my father's house (the whole of my family) were but men of death against my lord the king (i.e. thou mightest have had us all put to death), and thou didst set thy servant among thy companions at table be quite superfluous, as it is abeady contaiued in the previous nnv But Bottcher's emendation of K3 into nx3, because Jerusalem or the population of Jerusalem is a feminine notion, is equally unnecessary, since towns and lands are frequently construed as mascuUnes when the inhabitants are intended (vid. Ewald, § 318, a). On the other hand, the rendering adopted by the LXX., and by Luther, Miohaelis, and Maurer, in whicli D''?ti'!l"l'_ is taken as an accusative in the sense of " when Mephibosheth came to Jerusalem to meet the king," is altogether wrong, and has been very properly given up by modern expositore, inasmuch as it is at Tariance not only with the word it, but also with ch. xvi. 3 and ix. 13, where Mephibosheth is said to have lived in Jerusalem. CHAP. XIX. 24-30. 449 (see ch. ix. 7, 11) ; and wliat right or (what) more have I still to cry (for help) to the king?" The meaning is, "I cannot assert any claims, but will yield to anything you decide con- cerning me." It must have been very evident to David from these words of Mephibosheth, that he had been deceived by Ziba, and that he had formed an unfounded prejudice against Mephibosheth, and committed an act of injustice in handing over his property to Ziba. He therefore replied, in evident displeasure (ver. 29), "Why talkest thou still of thine affairs? I have said, thou and Ziba shall divide the field?" to which Mephibosheth answered (ver. 30), " He may take the whole, since my lord the king has returned in peace to his own house." T'his reply shows very clearly that an injustice had been done to Mephibosheth, even if it is not regarded as an expression of wounded feeling on the part of Mephibosheth because of David's words, but, according to the view taken by Seb. Schmidt and others, as a vindication of himself, as said not to blame the king for the opinion he had formed, but simply to defend himself. But this completely overthrows the opinion held by Thenius and O. v. Gerlach, that David's words in ver. 30 contain nothing more than a revocation of his hasty decla- ration in ch. xvi. 4, and a confirmation of his first decision in ch. ix. 7-10, and are to be understood as signifying, " Let every- thing be as I settled it at first ; hold the property jointly," inas much as Ziba and his sons had of course obtained their living from the produce of the land. Moreover, the words " thou and Ziba divide the land " are directly at variance with the promise in ch. ix. 7, " I will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father," and the statement in ch. ix. 9, " I have given unto thy master's son all that pertained to Saul, and to all his house." By the words, " / have said, thou and Ziha divide the land" David re- tracted the hasty decree in ch. xvi. 4, so as to modify to f.^ie extent the wrong that he had done to Mephibosheth, but he had not courage enough to retract it altogether. He did not venture to dispute the fact that Mephibosheth had really been calum- niated by Ziba, which was placed beyond all doubt by his mourning during the whole period of David's flight, as described in ver. 24. There is no ground for Winer's statement, there- fore, that "it is impossible now to determine whether Mephi- bosheth was really innocent or not." 2 F 450 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Yers. 31-39. Barzillai comes to greet David. — Ver. 31, Barzillai the octogenarian " had also come down from Rogliin and gone across the Jordan with the king, to escort him over the river." Hl'S'^X is the portion in, or over, the Jordan. riN is the sign of the accusative, " the piece in the Jordan," and no further. This is the correct explanation as given by Bottcher, after Gesenius and Maurer ; and the Keri VPi'J] is a bad emen- dation. — Vers. 32, 33. As Barzillai had supplied the king with provisions during his stay in Mahanaim (^^''B' for n^''?'!) like nxiS for nxiv^, and other words of the same kind), because he was very wealthy (lit. great), David would gladly have taken him with him to Jerusalem, to repay him there for his kindness ; but Barzillai replied (vers. 34 sqq.), " How many days are there of the years of my life (i.e. how long shall I have yet to live), that I should go up with the king to Jerusalem ? I am now eighty years old ; can I (still) distinguish good and evil, or will thy servant taste what I eat and drink, or listen again to the voice of the singing men and singing women ? and why should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king? Thy servant would go over the Jordan with the king for a short time (i.e. could not remain long with him), and why does the king wish to repay me this favour'?" N3"3B'^ : "Let thy servant return, that I may die in my city (my home), at the grave of my parents ; and behold thy servant Chimham (i.e. according to the explanation given by Josephus, Barzillai's son, who had come down with his father, as we may infer from 1 Kings ii. 7) may go over with my lord the king; and do to him what seemeth good to thee," i.e. show him favours at thy pleasure. — Ver. 38. David consented to this, and said, "All that thou desirest of me I will do to him." ina with ?V is a pregnant construction, signifying to choose and impose, " choose upon me" i.e. the thing for me to grant thee. — Ver. 39. Thus all the people went over the Jordan ; and when the king had crossed over, he kissed Barzillai (to take leave of him : vii. Ruth i. 9) ; and he (Barzillai) blessed him, and turned to his place (returned home). Barzillai only escorted the king over the Jordan, and the conversation (vers. 31-38) probably took place as they were crossing. CHAP. XIX. 40-43. 451 DISCONTENT IN ISRAEL, AND SHEBA's EEBELl ION. — CHAP. XTX. 40-XX. 26. Vers. 40-43. Quarrel between Israel and Judali about the restoration of the king. — Ver. 40. David went across to Gilgal (in the plain of the Jordan: Josh. iv. 19), and Chimham {Chimhan is a modified form for Chimham : ver. 37) had gone over with him, and all the people of Judah had brought the king over (the Keri 1T?.3{n is an easier reading than the Chethib ^l'3JJ'l, "and as for the people, they had," etc.), and also '•' half the people of Israel," namely, beside the thousand Benjaminites who came with Shimei (ver. 17), other Israelites who dwelt in the neighbourhood. — Ver. 41. All the men of Israel, i.e. the representatives of the other tribes of Israel, came to meet the king in Gilgal ; and being annoyed at the fact that the men of Judah had anticipated them, they exclaimed, " Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee awayl" i.e. fetched thee thus secretly without saying a word to us. ^^ All David's men" were all his faithful adherents who had fled with him from Jerusalem (ch. xv. 17 sqq.). — Ver. 42. The men of Judah replied against OV) the men of Israel : " The king stands near to us" (inasmuch ss he belonged to their tribe), " and wherefore then art thou angry at this matter ? Have we eaten from the king (i.e. derived any advantage from our tribe-relationship to him, as the Benjaminites did from Saul, according to 1 Sam. xxii. 7), or received anything for ourselves therefrom?" ^^^\ is an infinitive abs. Niph. with a feminine termination, borrowed from n"? ; literally, " or has taking been taken for us." — Ver. 43. The Israelites were annoyed at this answer, and retorted, " I (Israel) have ten portions in the king, and also more than thou in David ; and wherefore hast thou despised me?" They considered that they had ten shares in the king, because they formed ten tribes, in opposition to the one tribe of Judah, as the Levites did not come into considera- tion in the matter. Although David was of the tribe of Judah, he was nevertheless king of the whole nation, so that the ten tribes had a larger share than one tribe. ''Jnpi'pn refers to • the fact, that Judah took no notice at all of the tribes of Israel when fetching back the king. 'Ul n^H'^-'l., "and was not my speech the first to fetch back my king V (Ou the fact itself, see 452 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. ch. six. 10, 11.) Y is an emphatic dat. commodi, and is to be taken in connection with ^^i^?, notwithstanding the accents. " And the speech of the men of Judah became fiercer (more violent) than the speech of the men of Israel." With these words the historian sums up briefly the further progress of the dispute, for the purpose of appending the account of Sheba's rebellion, to which it gave rise. Chap. XX. 1-22. Sheba's Eebellion. — Ver. 1. There hap- pened to be a worthless man there, named Sheba, a Benjaminite. He blew the trumpet, and said, " We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, O Israel !" " To Ms tents," i.e. to his home, as in ch. xix. 9, etc. — Ver. 2. All the men of Israel responded to this call, and went up (to the mountains) away from David and after Sheba ; but the men of Judah adhered to their king from the Jordan to Jerusalem. The construction of p?"i with ^5?) . . . f? is a jiregnaiit one : they adhered to and followed him. The expres- sion "from Jordan" does not prove that Sheba's rebellion broke out at the Jordan itself, and before David's arrival in Gilgal, but may be accounted for from the fact that the men of Judali had already fetched the king back across the Jordan. — Ver. 3. As soon as David returned to his palace at Jerusalem, he brought the ten concubines whom he had left behind, and with whom Absalom had lain, into a place of safety, and took care of them, without going in unto them any more. The mascuhne suffixes attached to DW^, t^????'!, and D[>Yf? are used, as they frequently are, as being the more general and indefinite, instead of the feminine, which is the more definite form. Thus were they shut up in lifelong widowhood until the day of their death, nwnpx is an adverbial accusative, and ni'n signifies " condition in life ;" literally, in widowhood of life. — Ver. 4. David then ordered Amasa to call the men of Judah to pursue Sheba the rebel, and attack him within three days, and then to present himself to him again. This commission was intended as the commencement of the fulfilment of the promise which David had given to Amasa (ch. xix. 14). It was no doubt his inten- tion to give him the command over the army that marched against Sheba, and after the defeat of the rebel to niaKe him commander-in-chief. But this first step towards the fulfilment CHAP. XX. 1-22. 453 of the promise was a very imprudent act, like the promise itself, since Joab, who had been commander of the army for so many years, was grievously offended by it ; and moreover, being a well-tried general, he had incomparably more distinction in the tribe of Judah than Amasa, who had taken part in Absalom's rebellion and even led the rebel army, could possibly have. — Vers. 5, 6. But when Amasa stayed out beyond the time fixed for the execution of the royal commission (the Chetkib "in"! is the Piel "in"!!, whilst the Keri is either the Hiphil ini»lj or the imperfect Kal of "in^ = 1^^J, cf. Jni^, ver. 9, and is quite un- necessary), probably because the men of Judah distrusted him, and were not very ready to respond to his summons, David said to Abishai, " Now will Sheba the son of Bichri be more injurious (more dangerous) to us than Absalom. Take thou the servants (soldiers) of thy lord and pursue after him, lest he reach fortified cities, and tear out our eye^' i.e. do us a serious injury. This is the correct explanation given by Bottcher, who refers to Deut. xxxii. 10 and Zech. ii. 12, where the apple of the eye is the figure used to signify the most valuable posses- sion ; for the general explanation, " and withdraw from our eye," cannot be grammatically sustained. — Ver. 7. Tims there went after 1dm (Abishai) JoaUs men (the corps commanded by Joab), and the Crethi and Plethi (see at ch. viii. 18), out of Jerusalem, to pursue Sheba. — Ver. 8. " When they were by the great stone at Gibeon, and Amasa came to meet them (there), Joab was girded with his armour-coat as his clothing, and the girdle of the sword was bound over it upon his loins in its sheath, which came out, and it fell {i.e. the sheath came out of the sword-belt in which it was fastened, and the sword fell to the ground), Joab said to Amasa," etc. The eighth verse contains only circumstantial clauses, the latter of .which (from 3K^''1 onwards) are subordinate to the earlier ones, so that llON'l (ver. 9) is attached to the first clause, which describes the meeting between the advancing army and Amasa. There is something striking, however, in the fact that Joab appears among them, and indeed, as we see from what follows, as the commander of the forces ; for according to ver. 6, David had commissioned Abishai, Joab's brother, to pursue Sheba, and even in ver. 7 Joab's men only are mentioned. This diffi- culty can hardly be solved in any other manner than by the 454 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. simple assumption that David had told Abishai to go out with Joab, and that this circumstance is passed over in the brief account in ver. 6, in vvhich the principal facts alone are given, and consequently the name of Joab does not occur there. Clericus adopts the following explanation. " Mention," he says, " has hitherto been made simply of the command given to Abishai, but this included an order to Joab to go as well; and there is nothing to preclude the supposition that Joab's name was mentioned by the king, although this is not distinctly stated in the brief account before us." ^ — Ver. 9. Joab asked Amasa liow he was, and laid hold of his beard with his right hand to kiss him. And as Amasa took no heed of the sword in Joab's hand, he smote him with it in the paunch (abdomen), and shed out his bowels upon the ground, " and repeated not (the stroke) to him" (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 8). Laying hold of the beard to kiss is still customary among Arabs and Turks as a sign of friendly welcome (yid. Arvieux, Merkwiirdige Naclinchten, iv. p. 182, and Harmar, Beohachtungen, ii. p. 61). The reason for this assassination was Joab's jealousy of Amasa. Joab and Abishai then followed Sheba. — Ver. 11. One of Joab's attendants remained standing by him (Amasa), no doubt at Joab's com- mand, and said to the people who came thither, i.e. to the men of Judah who were collected together by Amasa (yid. ver. 4), " He that favoureth Joab, and he that (is) for David, let him (go) after Joab," i.e. follow him to battle against Sheba. — Vers. 12, 13. Amasa lay wallowing in blood in the midst of the road ; and when the man (the attendant) saw that all the ^ This difficulty cannot be removed by emendations of the text, inasmucli as all the early translators, with the exception of the Syriac, had our Hebrew text before them. Thenius does indeed propose to alter Ahislmi into Joab in ver. 6, after the example of Josephua and the Syriac ; but, aa Bbttcher observes, if Joab had originally formed part of the text, it could not have been altered into Abishai either accidentally or intentionally, and the Syriac translators and Josephus have inserted Joab merely from con- jecture, because they inferred from what follows that Joab's name ought to be found here. But whilst this is perfectly true, there is no ground for Bottcher's own conjecture, that in the original text ver. 6 read as follows : " Then David said to Joab, Behold, the three days are gone : shall we wait for Amasa?" and through the copyist's carelessness a whole line was left out. For this conjecture has no tenable support in the senseless reading of the Cod. Vat., irpo; ' Afnaaat iov ' AfimscT. CHAP. XX. 1-22. 455 people stood still (by the corpse), he turned (pushed) Amasa from the road to the field, and threw a cloth over him, where- upon they all passed by and went after Joab. — Ver. 14. But Joab " went through all the tribes of Israel to Abela, and Beth- Maacah, and all Berim." Ahela (ver. 15), or Abel (ver. 18), has been preserved in the large Christian village of Ahil, a place with ruins, and called Ahil-el-Kamh on account of its excellent wheat (Kamh), which lies to the north-west of Lake Huleh, upon a Tell on the eastern side of the river Derddra; not in Ihl-el- Hawa, a place to the north of this, upon the ridge between Merj Ayun and Wady et Teim (yid. Eitter, Erdk. xv. pp. 240, 241 ; Eobinson, Bihl. Researches, pp. 372-3 ; and v. de Velde, Mem. p. 280). Beth-Maacah was quite close to Abela ; so that the names of the two places are connected together in ver. 15, and afterwards, as Ahel-Beth-Maacah (vid. 1 Kings xv. 20, and 2 Kings XV. 29), also called Abel-Maim in 2 Chron. xvi. 4. Berim is the name of a district which is unknown to us ; and even the early translators did not know how to render it. There is nothing, however, either in the Traire? iv X'^pM '^^ ^^® LXX or the omnes viri electi of the Vulgate, to warrant an alteration of the text. The latter, in fact, rests upon a mere conjecture, which is altogether unsuitable ; for the subject to 1^nj3;i can- not be CiBii'^S on account of the vav consec., but must be obtained from i'K'iB'! ''tDDB'-ba. The Chethib inlspn is evidently a slip of the pen for li'L]!''.?. — Ver. 15. They besieged him (Sheba) in Abel-Beth-Maacah, and piled up a rampart against the city, so that it rose up by the town-moat (?n, the moat with the low wall belonging to it) ; and all the people with Joal destroyed to throw down the wall. Vers. 16 sqq. Then a wise woman of the city desired to speak to Joab, and said (from the wall) to him (ver. 18), " They were formerly accustomed to say, ask Abel ; and so they brought (a thing) to pass." These words show that Abel had formerly been celebrated for the wisdom of its inhabitants. Yer. 19. "I am of the peaceable, faithful in Israel: thou seekest to slay a city and mother in Israel ; wherefore wilt thou destroy the inheritance of Jehovah?" The construing of ''9ii« with a predicate in the plural may be explained on the simple ground that the woman spoke in the name of the city as well as in its favour, and therefore had the citizens in her mind at 456 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. the time, as is very evident from the figurative expression DK (mother) for mother-city or capital.'^ Tlie woman gave Joab to understand, in the first place, that he ought to have asked the inhabitants of Abela whether they intended to fight for Sheba before commencing the siege and destruction of the town, according to the law laid down in Deut. xx. 10 sqq. with reference to the siege of foreign towns ; and secondly, that he ought to have taken into consideration the peaceableness and fidelity of the citizens of Abela, and not to destroy peace- loving citizens and members of the nation of God. — Ver. 20. The woman's words made an impression upon Joab. He felt the truthfulness of her reproaches, and replied, " Far be it, far be it from me, to swallow up or destroy." DN, as in the case of oaths : " truly not." — Ver. 21. " It is not so {sc. as thou sayest), but a man of the mountains of Ephraim (which extended into the tribe of Benjamin : see at 1 Sam. i. 1), Sheba the son of Bichri, hath lifted up his hand against the king David. Only give him up, and I will draw away from the city." The woman promised him this : " Behold, his head shall be thrown out to thee over the wall." — Ver. 22. She then came to all the people [i.e. the citizens of the town) " with her vnsdom" i.e. with the wise counsel which she had given to Joab, and which he had accepted ; whereupon the citizens cut off Sheba's head, and threw it out to Joab. Then Joab had a trumpet blown for a retreat, and the men disbanded, whilst he himself returned to Jerusalem to the king. Vers. 23-26. David's Ministers of State. — The second section of the history of David's reign closes, like the first (ch. viii. 16 sqq.), with a list of the leading ministers of state. The author evidently found the two lists in his sources, and included ^ The correctneBs of the text is not to be called in question, as Thenius and Bottcher suppose, for the simple reason that all the older translators have followed the Hebrew text, including even the LXX. with their iyii iifii (ipvi'jiKti rui/ aTr,iiiyfi.aTati if ' lopciifh \ whereas the words a Uiino oi ■jriaroi rou 'lapxij'K, which some of the Mss. contain at the close of ver. 18 after el s^iT^nrov, and upon which Thenius and Bottcher have founded their conjectures, are evidently a gloss or paraphrase of ^lOnn pi, and of so little value on critical grounds, that Tischendorf did not even think the reading worth mentioning in his edition of the Septuagint. CHAP. XX. 23-26. 457 tliem both in his work, for the simple reason that they belonged to different periods, as the difference in the names of some of the officers clearly shows, and that they supplemented one another. The list before us belongs to a later period of David's reign than the one in ch. viii. 16-18. In addition to the office- bearers mentioned in ch. viii., we find here Adoram over the tribute, and Ira the Jairite a confidential counsellor (cohen ; see at ch. viii. 18), in the place of the sons of David noticed in ch. viii. 18. The others are the same in both lists. The Chethib nan is to be read '"lan (cf. 2 Kings xi. 4, 19), from "VO, perfodit, and is synonymous with ''n']3n (see at ch. viii. 18). Adoram is the same person as Adoniram, who is mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 6 and v. 28 as overseer over the tributary service in the time of Solomon ; as we may see from the fact, that the latter is also called Adoram in 1 Kings xii. 18, and Hadoram in 2 Chron. x. 18. Hadoram is apparently only a contracted form of the name, and riot merely a copyist's mistake for Adoniram. But when we find that, according to the passages cited, the same man filled this office under three kings, we must bear in mind that he did not enter upon it till the close of David's reign, as he is not mentioned in ch. viii. 16 sqq., and that his name only occurs in connection with Rehoboam's ascent of the throne ; so that there is no ground for assuming that he filled the office for any length of time under that monarch. Dsn does not mean vectigal, i.e. tribute or tributary service, but tributary labourers. The derivation of the word is uncertain, and has been disputed. The appointment of a special prefect over the tributary labourers can hardly have taken place before the closing years of David's reign, when the king organized the internal administration of the kingdom more firmly than before. On the tributary labourers, see at 1 Kings v. 27. Ira the Jairite is never mentioned again. There is no ground for altering Jairi (the Jairite) into Jitliri (the Jithrite), as Thenius proposes, since the rendering given in the Syriac (" from Jathir") is merely an inference from ch. xxiii. 38 ; and the assumption upon which this conclusion is founded, viz. that Ira, the hero mentioned in ch. xxiii. 38, is the same person as Ira the royal cohen, is altogether unfounded. 458 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. IV. CLOSE OF DAVID'S RElGll Chap, xxr.-xxiv. After the suppression of the rebellion headed by Sheba, David spent the remaining years of his reign in establishing the kingdom upon a firmer basis, partly by organizing the army, the administration of justice, . and the general government of the realm, and partly by making preparations for the erection of the temple, and enacting rules for the service of the Levites ; that he might be able to hand over the government in a firm and satisfactory state to his youthful son Solomon, whom the Lord had appointed as his successor. The account of these regulations and enactments fills up the whole of the last section of the history of David's reign in the first book of Chronicles. But in the book before us, several other things — -(1) two divine punishments inflicted upon Israel, with the expiation of the sins that occasioned them (ch. xxi. 1-14, and ch. xxiv.); (2) David's psalm of pi'aise for deliverance out of the hand of all his ene- mies (ch. xxii.), and his last prophetic words (ch. xxiii. 1-7) ; and (3) a few brief notices of victorious acts performed in the wars with the Philistines (ch. xxi. 15-22), and a longer list of David's heroes (ch. xxiii. 8-39) — -form, as it were, a historical framework for these poetical and prophetic portions. Of the two divine visitations mentioned, the pestilence occasioned by the numbering of the people (ch. xxiv.) occurred undoubtedly in the closing years of David's reign ; whereas the famine, and the expiation connected with it (ch. xxi. 1-14), happened most probably at an earlier period, and are merely introduced here because no fitting opportunity had presented itself before. The kernel and centre of this last section of the history of David is to be found unquestionably in the psalm of thanksgiving in ch. xxii., and the prophetic announcement of an exalted and blessed king. In the psalm of thanksgiving David looks back at the close of his life upon all the mercy and faithfulness which he had experienced throughout his reign, and praises the Lord his God for the whole. In his "last words" he looks forward into the time to come, and on the strength of the promise which he has received, of the eternal duration of the dominion of his house, CHAP. XXI. 1-6. 459 sees in spirit the just Euler, who will one day arise from hia seed, and take the throne of his kingdom for ever. These two lyrical and prophetic productions of David, the ripest spiritual fruit of his life, form a worthy conclusion to his reign. To this there is appended the list of his heroes, in the form of a supple- ment (ch. xxiii. 8-39) ; and finally in ch. xxiv. the account of the numbering of the people, and the pestilence which fell upon Israel, as a punishment for this fault on the part of David. This account is placed at the close of the books of Samuel, merely because the altar which was built to expiate the wrath of God, together with the sacrifices offered upon it, served to consecrate the site for the temple, which was to be erected after David's death, in accordance with the divine promise (ch. vii. 13), by his son and successor Solomon. THEEE tears' FAMINE. HEROIC ACTS PERFORMED IN THE WARS WITH THE PHILISTINES. CHAP. XXI. Vers. 1-14. Three Years' Famine. — A three years' famine in the land, the occasion of which, as Jehovah declared to the king, was Saul's crime with regard to the Gibeonites, was expiated by David's delivering up to the Gibeonites, at theit own request, seven of Saul's descendants, who were then hung by them upon a mountain before Jehovah. This occurrence certainly did not take place in the closing years of David's reign ; on the other hand, it is evident from the remark in ver. 7, to the effect that Mephibosheth was spared, that it hap- pened after David had received tidings of Mephibosheth, and had taken him to his own table (ch. ix.). This is mentioned here as a practical illustration, on the one hand of the manner in which Jehovah visited upon the house of Saul, even after the death of Saul himself, a crime which had been committed by him ; and, on the other hand, of the way in which, even in such a case as this, when David had been obliged to sacrifice the descendants of Saul to expiate the guilt of their father, he showed his tenderness towards him by the honourable burial of their bones. Vers. l-6a. A famine, which lasted for three successive years induced David to seek the face of Jehovah, i.e. to ap- proach God in prayer and ask the cause of this judgment 4 GO THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. ■which had fallen upon the land. The Lord replied, " Because of Saul, and because of the house of blood-guiltiness, because he hath slain the Gibeonites." The expression "because of the house of blood-guiltiness " is in apposition to " Saul," and determines the meaning more precisely : " because of Saul, and indeed because of the blood-guiltiness which rests upon his house." Q'''?'^Q fT'3 signifies the house upon which blood that had been shed still rested as guilt, like l3''P'=in TJ/ in Ezek. xxii. 2, xxiv. 6, 9, and DW \y'^ in Ps. v. 7, xxvi. 9, etc. Nothing further is known about the fact itself. It is simply evident from the words of the Gibeonites in ver. 5, that Saul, in his pretended zeal for the children of Israel, had smitten the Gibeonites, i.e. had put them to death. Probably some dis- satisfaction with them had furnished Saul with a pretext for exterminating these Amoritish heathen from the midst of the people of God. — Ver. 2. In consequence of this answer from God, which merely indicated in a general manner the cause of the visitation that had come upon the land, David sent for the Gibeonites to ask them concerning the wrong that had been done them by Saul. But before the historian communicates their answer, he introduces an explanation respecting the Gibeonites, to the effect that they were not Israelites, bul remnants of the Amorites, to whom Joshua had promised on oath that their lives should be preserved (yid. Josh. ix. 3 sqq.) They are called Hivites in the book of Joshua (ch. ix. 7). whereas here they are designated Amorites, according to the more general name which is frequently used as comprehending all the tribes of Canaan (see at Gen. x. 16 and xv. 16). David said to the Gibeonites, " What shall I do for you, and where- with shall I expiate " {sc. the wrong done you), " that ye may bless the inheritance {i.e. the nation) of Jehovah?" On the use of the imperative 13^31 to denote the certam consequences, see Ewald, § 347. — Ver. 4. The Gibeonites answered, "I have not to do with silver and gold concerning Saul and his house" {lit. it is not, does not stand, to me at silver and gold with Saul and his house), i.e. I have no money to demand of Saul, require no pecuniary payment as compensation for the blood which he shed among us (yid. Num. xxxv. 31). The Chethib '^ is not to be touched, notwithstanding the WP which follows. The use of the singular may be explained on the simple ground that tba CHAP. XXI. 6-10. 4GI speaker thought of the Gibeonites as a corporation. "And it does not pertain to us to put any one to death in Israel " (sc. of our own accord). "When David inquired still further, " What do you mean, then, that I should do to you?" they replied, " (As for) the man who consumed us, and who thought against us, that we should be destroyed (l^'ipB'J without '3, subordinate to nan, like HB'VN in the previous verse), so as not to continue in the whole of the territory of Israel, let seven men of his sons be given us, that we may crucify them to Jehovah at Gibeali of Saul, the chosen of Jehovah." '1J1 IK'S K''''X is placed at the head absolutely (cf. Gesenius, § 145, 2). On crucifixion as a capital punishment, see at Num. xxv. 4, where it has already been observed that criminals were not impaled or fastened to the cross alive, but were first of all put to death. Consequently the Gibeonites desired that the massacre, which had taken place among them by the command of Saul, should be expiated by the execution of a number of his sons — blood for blood, accord- ing to Num. XXXV. 31. They asked for the crucifixion for Jehovah, i.e. that the persons executed might be impaled, as a public exhibition of the punishment inflicted, before the face )f the Lord (yid. ver. 9), as the satisfaction required to expiate His wrath. Seven was a sacred number, denoting the per- formance of a work of God. This was to take place in Gibeah, the home and capital of Saul, who had brought the wrath of God upon the land through his crime. There is a sacred irony in the epithet applied to Saul, " chosen of the Lord." If Saul was the chosen of Jehovah, his actions ought to have been in accordance with his divine election. Vers. 66-10. David granted the request, because, according to the law in Num. xxxv. 33, blood-guiltiness when resting upon the land could only be expiated by the blood of the criminal ; but in delivering up the members of Saul's house for whom they asked, he spared Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan and grandson of Saul, for the sake of the bond of friendship which he had formed with Jonathan on oath (1 Sam. xviii. 3, xx. 8, 16), and gave up to the Gibeonites two sons of Rizpah, a concubine of Saul (vid. ver. 11 and ch. iii. 7), and five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel of Meholah. The name of Michal, which stands in the text, is founded upon an error of memory or a copyist's mistake ; for it 4()2 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. was not Miclial, but Merab, Saul's eldest daughter, who was given to Adriel the Meholathite as his wife (1 Sam. xviii. 19). The Gibeonites crucified those who were delivered up to them upon the mountain at Gibeah before Jehovah (see the remarks on ver. 6). " Thus fell seven at once." The Chethib DinMB*, at which the Masoretes took such offence that they wanted to change it into DriWK', is defended by Bottcher very properly, on the ground that the dual of the numeral denotes what is uniformly repeated as if by pairing ; so that here it expresses what was extraordinary in the event in a more pictorial manner than the Keri : " They fell sevenfold at once,'" i.e. seven in the same way. The further remark, " they were slain in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of the barlej'' harvest," belongs to what foUovps, for which it prepares the way. The two Keris, neril for Dni, and npnna for ripnn, are needless emendations, njnpi is an adverbial accusative {yid. Ges. § 118, 2). The harvest began with the barley harvest, about the middle of Nisan, our April. — Ver. 10. And Rizpah took sack- cloth, i.e. the coarse hairy cloth that was worn as mourning, and spread it out for herself by the rock — not as a tent, as Clericus supposes, still less as a covering over the corpses of those who had been executed, according to the exegetical hand- book, but for a bed — '■'■from the beginning of the harvest till tcater was poured out upon them (the crucified) from heaven^' i.e. till rain came as a sign that the plague of drought that had rested upon the land was appeased ; after which the corpses could be openly taken down from the stakes and buried, — a fact which is passed over in the account before us, where only the principal points are given. This is the explanation which Josephus has correctly adopted ; but his assumption that the rain fell at once, and before the ordinary early rain, has no foundation in the text of the Bible. " And suffered not the birds of heaven to settle upon the corpses by day, or the wild beasts by night." Leaving corpses without burial, to be con- sumed by birds of prey and wild beasts, was regarded as the greatest ignominy that could befal the dead (see at 1 Sam. svii. 44). According to Deut. xxi. 22, 23, persons executed were not to remain hanging through the night upon the stake, but to be buried before evening. This law, however, had no ap- plication wliatever to the case before us, where the expiation ot CHAP. XXI. 11-22. 463 guilt that rested upon the whole land was concerned. In thia instance the expiatory sacrifices were to remain exposed before Jehovah, till the cessation of the plague showed that His wrath had been appeased. Vers. 11-14. When this touching care of Kizpah for the (lead was told to David, he took care that the bones of the whole of the fallen royal house should be buried in the burial- place of Saul's family. He therefore sent for the bones of Saul and Jonathan, which the men of Jabesh had taken away secretly from the wall of Beisan, where the PhiHstines had fastened the bodies, and which had been buried in Jabesh (1 Sam. xxxi. 10 sqq.), and had the bones of the sons and grand- sons of Saul who had been crucified at Gibeah collected together, and interred all these bones at Zela in the land of Benjamin, in the family grave of Kish the father of Saul. 3Ja, to take away secretly. IK'Tl'S 3rnD, from the market-place of Bethshan, does not present any contradiction to the statement in 1 Sam. xxxi. 10, that the Philistines fastened the body to the wall of Bethshan, as the rechob or market-place in eastern towns is not in the middle of the town, but is an open place against or in front of the gate (cf. 2 Chron. xxxii. 6 ; Neh. viii. 1, 3, 16). This place, as the common meeting-place of the citizens, was the most suitable spot that the Philistines could find for fasten- ing the bodies to the wall. The Chethib D^^i^i is the true Hebrew form from n^n, whereas the Keri Dixpn is a formation resembling the Aramsean (cf. Ewald, § 252, a). The Keri Wn^B nB2> is correct, however, as C'!'?'??, being a proper name, does not take any article. In nisn oVa the literal meaning of Di' (day) must not be strictly pressed, but the expression is to be taken in the sense of " at the time of the smiting ;" for the hanging up of the bodies did not take place till the day after the battle (1 Sam. xxxi. 8 sqq.). — In ver. 14 the account is abridged, and the bones of the crucified persons are not men- tioned acrain. The situation of Zela is unknown (see at Josh, xviii. 28). After this had been carried out in accordance with the kino-'s command, God suffered himself to be entreated for the land, so that the famine ceased. Vers. 15-22. Heroic Acts performed in the Wars v;iTH THE Philistines. — The brief accounts contained in i 64 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. these verses of different heroic feats were probably taken from a history of David's wars drawn up in the form of chronicles, and are introduced here as practical proofs of the gracious deliverance of David out of the hand of all his foes, for which he praises the Lord his God in the psalm of thanksgiving which follows, so that the enumeration of these feats is to be regarded as supplying a historical basis for the psalm. — Vers. 15-17. The Philistines had war with Israel again. *liv (again) refers gene- rally to earlier wars with the Philistines, and has probably been taken without alteration from the chronicles employed by our author, where the account which follows was attached to notices of other wars. This may be gathered from the books of the Chronicles, where three of the heroic feats mentioned here are attached to the general survey of David's wars (vid. 1 Ohron. XX. 4). David was exhausted in this fight, and a Philistian giant thought to slay him ; but Abishai came to his help and slew the giant. He was called Yishbo bench (Keri, Yislibi), i.e. not Yishbo at JVob, but Yishbobenob, a proper name, the mean- ing of which is probably "his dwelling is on the height," and which may have been given to him because of his inaccessible castle. He was one of the descendants of Raphah, i.e. one of the gigantic race of Rephaim. Raphah was the tribe-father of the Eephaira, an ancient tribe of gigantic stature, of whom only a few families were left even in Moses' time {vid. Deut. ii. 11, iil. 11, 13, and the commentary on Gen. xiv. 5). The weight of his lance, i.e. of the metal point to his lance, was three hundred shekels, or eight pounds, of brass, half as much as the spear of Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 7) ; " and he was girded with new armour." Bottcher has no doubt given the correct explanation of the word nB'']n ; he supposes the feminine to be used in a collective sense, so that the noun (" armour," VP3j could be dispensed with. (For parallels both to the words and facts, vid. Judg. xviii. 11 and Deut. i. 41.) ■'?'^% he said {sc. to himself), i.e. he thought. — Ver. 17. The danger into which the king had been brought in this war, and out of which he had been rescued solely by Abishai's timely help, induced his attendants to make him swear that he would not go into battle any more in person, v V^^^, administered an oath to him, i.e. fixed him by a promise on oath, naan NPl, "and shalt not extinguish the light of Israel." David had CHAP. XXI. 15-22. iC)5 become the light of Israel from the fact that Jehovah was his light (ch. xxii. 29), or, according to the parallel passage in Ps. xviii. 29, that Jehovah had lighted his lamp and enlightened his darkness, i.e. had lifted him out of a state of humiliation and obscurity into one of honour and glory. The light (or lamp) is a figure used to represent the light of life as continu- ally burning, i.e. life in prosperity and honour. David's regal life and actions were the light which the grace of God had kindled for the benefit of Israel. This light he was not to extin- guish, namely by going into the midst of war and so exposing his valuable life to danger. — Ver. 18 (compare 1 Chron. xx. 4). In a second war, Sibhechai the Hushathite slew SajyJi the Rephaite at Gob. According to 1 Chron. xxvii. 11, Sibhechai, one of the gibborim of David (1 Chron. xi. 29), was the leader of the eighth division of the army (see at ch. xxiii. 27). ''riE'nn is a patronymic from T^^n in 1 Chron. iv. 4. The scene of conflict is called Gob in our text, and Geeer in the Chronicles. As Gob is entirely unknown, Thenius supposes it to be a slip of the pen for Gezer; but this is improbable, for the simple reason that Gob occurs again in ver. 19. It may possibly have been a small place somewhere lear to Gezer, which some suppose to have stood on the site of el Kubah, on the road from Ramleh to Yalo (see at Josh. x. 33). The name Saph is written Sippai in the Chronicles. — Ver. 19 {vid. 1 Chron. XX. 5). In another war with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan the son of Yaare-Orgim of Bethlehem smote Goliath of Gath, whose spear was like a weaver's beam. In the Chronicles, however, we find it stated that " Elhanan the son of Jair smote Lahmi the brother of Goliath of Gath, whose spear," etc. The words of our text are so similar to those of the Chronicles, if we only leave out the word CJiX, which probably crept in from the next line through oversight on the part of a copyist, that they presuppose the same original text, so that the differenc^ can only have arisen from an error in copying. The majority of the expositors {e.g. Piscator, Clericus, Michaelis, Movers, and Thenius) regard the text of the Chronicles as the true and original one, and the text before us as simply corrupt. But Bertheau and Bottcher maintain the opposite opinion, because It is impossible to see how the reading in 2 Sam. could grow out of that in the Chronicles ; whereas the reading in the 46G THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Chronicles might have arisen through conscious alteration ori- ginating in the offence taken by some reader, who recalled the account of the conflict between David and Goliath, at the statement that Elhanan smote a giant named Goliath, and who therefore altered ns '•DH^n nu into inx •'Drh DN. But apart from the question whether there were two Goliaths, one of whom was slain by David and the other by Elhanan, the fact that the conjecture of Bertheau and Bottcher presupposes a deliberate alteration of the text, or rather, to speak more cor- rectly, an intentional falsification of the historical account, is quite sufficient to overthrow it, as not a single example of anything of the kind can be adduced from the whole of the Chronicles. On the other hand, the recollection of David's celebrated officer Elhanan of Bethlehem (ch. xxiii. 24; 1 Ghron. xi. 2G) might easily lead to an identification of the Elhanan mentioned here with that officer, and so occasion the alteration of ■'DH^ ns into ''nn!^n nu. This alteration was then followed by that of Tihi ^DX into nhi riN, and all the more easily from the fact that the description of Lahmi's spear corresponds word for word with that of Goliath's spear in 1 Sam. xvii. 7. Con- sequently we must regard the reading in the Chronicles as the correct one, and alter our text accordingly; since the assumption that there were two Goliaths is a very improbable one, and there is nothing at all strange in the reference to a brother of Goliath, who was also a powerful giant, and carried a spear like Goliath. Elhanan the son of Jairi is of course a different person from Elhanan the Bethlehem ite, the son of Dodo (ch. xxiii. 24). The Chronicles have IIJJJ instead of Jairi (the reading according to the Chethib), and the former is probably the correct way of writing the name. — Vers. 20, 21 (cf. 1 Chron. XX. 6, 7). In another war at Gath, a Philistian warrior, who nad six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot,^ defied [srael, and was slain by Jonathan the son of Shimeah, the brother of David (see at ch. xiii. 3). The Chethib [nn is pro- bably to be read P.I?, an archaic plural (" a man of measurco, ^ Men with six fingers and six toes have been met with elsewhere. Phny (h. nat. xi. 43) speaks of certain sedigiti (six-fingered) Romans. This peculiarity is even hereditary in some families. Other examples are collected by Trusen (Sitten, Gebraucke, unci Kranklieiten der alien lielriier, pp. 198-9, ed. 2) and Friedreich {zur Bibel, i. 298-9). CHAP. XXII. 4G7 or extensions:" de Dieu, etc.); in the Chronicles we find the singular HTO instead. — Ver. 22 (of. 1 Chron. x.x. 8). This verse contains a postscript, in which the previous verses are summed up. The accusative ni??"!^"'^?? niay be explained from a species of attraction, i.e. from the fact that the historian had W3^ (ver. 21) still in his mind : " As for these four, they were born to Rapha" i.e. they were descendants of the E,ephaite family at Gath, where remnants of the aboriginal Canaanitish tribes of gigantic stature were still to be found, as in other towns of the Philistines {vid. Josh. xi. 22). "They fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants." " By the hand of David " refers to the fact that David had personally fought with Yishbobenob (ver. 16). DAVID S PSALM OF THANKSGIVING FOR VICTORY OVER ALL HIS ENEMIES. — CHAP. XXII. In the following psalm of thanksgiving, David praises the Lord as his deliverer out of all dangers during his agitated life and conflicts with his foes (vers. 2-4). In the first half he pictures his marvellous deliverance out of all the troubles which he passed through, especially in the time of Saul's persecutions, under the image of an extraordinary theophany (vers. 5-20), and unfolds the ground of this dehverance (vers. 21-28). In the second half he proclaims the mighty help of the Lord, and his consequent victories over the foreign enemies of his govern- ment (vers. 29-46), and closes with renewed praise of God for all His glorious deeds (vers. 47-51). The psalm is thus arranged in two leading divisions, with an introductory and concluding strophe. But we cannot discover any definite system of strophes in the further arrangement of the principal divisions, as the several groups of thoughts are not rounded off symmetrically. The contents and form of this song of praise answer to the fact attested by the heading, that it was composed by David in the later years of his reign, when God had rescued him from all his foes, and helped his kingdom to victory over all the neighbouring heathen nations. The genuineness of the psalm is acknowled'pi ^y70 (my rock, and my castle) in Ps. xxxi. 4 as well (cf. Ps. Ixxi. 4). The two epithets are borrowed from the natural character of Palestine, where steep and almost inaccessible rocks afford protection to tlie fugitive, as David had often found at the time when Saul was pursuing him (vid. 1 Sam. xxiv. 23, xxii. 5). But whilst David took refuge in rocks, he placed his hopes of safety not in their inac- cessible character, but in God the Lord, the eternal spiritual rock, whom he could see in the eai'thly rock, so that he called Him his true castle, 'i' 'tppSD (my deliverer to me) gives the real explanation of the foregoing figures. The v (to me) is omitted in Ps. xviii. 2, and only serves to strengthen the suffix, " my, yea my deliverer." " My Rock- God," equivalent to, God who is my Rock : this is formed after Deut. xxxii. 4, where Moses calls the Lord the Rock of Israel, because of His un- changeable faithfulness ; for eur, a rock, is a figure used to represent immoveable firmness. In Ps. xviii, 3 we find '''ili' V??) "my God" (strong one), " my rock," two synonyms which are joined together in our text, so as to form one single predicate of God, which is repeated in ver. 47. The predicates which follow, " my horn and my salvation-shield" describe God as the mighty protector and defender of the righteous. A shield covers against hostile attacks. In this respect God was Abra- ham's shield (Gen. xv. 1), and the helping shield of Israel CHAP. XXII. 0-7. 471 (Deut. xxxiii. 29 ; cf. Ps. iii. 4, lix. 12). He is the " horn of salvation," according to Luther, because He overcomes enemies, and rescues from foes, and gives salvation. The figure is bor- rowed from animals, which have their strength and defensive weapons in their horns (see at 1 Sam. ii. 1). "If;/ fortress:'" misgab is a high place, where a person is secure against hostile attacks (see at Ps. ix. 10). The predicates which follow, viz. my refuge, etc., are not given in Ps. xviii. 3, and are probably only added as a rhythmical completion to the strophe, which was shortened by the omission of the introductory lines, " I love thee heartily, Jehovah " (Ps. xviii. 1). The last clause, " Mt/ Saviour, who redeemest me from violence" corresponds to i3"npnx in the first hemistich. In ver. 4, David sums up the contents of his psalm of thanksgiving in a general sentence of experience, which may be called the theme of the psalm, for it embraces " the result of the long life which lay behind him, so full of dangers and deliverances." ■'?i?P, ^^ the praised one" an epithet applied to God, which occurs several times in the Psalms (xlviii. 2, xcvi. 4, cxiii. 3, cxlv. 3). It is in apposition to Jehovah, and is placed first for the sake of emphasis : " I invoke Jehovah as the praised one." The imperfects ^~}^^ and V^)^ are used to denote what continually happens. In ver. 5 we have the com- mencement of the account of the deliverances out of great tribulations, which David had experienced at the hand of God. Ver. 5 For breakers of death had compassed me, Streams of wickedness terrified me. 6 Cords of hell had girt me about, Snares of death overtook me. 7 In my distress I called Jehovah, And to my God I called ; And He heard my voice out of His temple, And my crying came into His ears. David had often been in danger of death, most frequently at the time when he was pursued by Saul, but also in- Absalom's conspiracy, and even in several wars (cf. ch. xxi. 16). All these dano-ers, out of which the Lord delivered him, and not merely those which originated with Saul, are included in vers. 5 6. The figure '^breakers or waves of death" is analogous to that of the " streams of Belial" His distress is represented in both of them under the image of violent floods of water. In the psalm we find niD ''bn, " snares of death," as in Ps, cxvi, 3, 472 THE SECOND ROOK OF SAMUEL. deatli being regarded as a hunter with a net and snare (cf. Ps, xci. 3) : this does not answer so well to the parallel vnj^ and tlierefore is not so good, since ^iXK* ''pan follows immediately. bVy'2, (Belial), uselessness in a moral sense, or worildessness. The meaning " mischief," or injury in a physical sense, which many expositors give to the word in this passage on account of the parallel " death," cannot be grammatically sustained. Belial was afterwards adopted as a name for the devil (2 Cor. vi. 15). Streams of wickedness are calamities that proceed from wicked- ness, or originate with worthless men. D'Hp, to come to meet with a hostile intention, i.e. to fall upon (yid. Job xxx. 27). ?3''n^ the temple out of which Jehovah heard him, was the heavenly abode of God, as in Ps. xi. 4 ; for, according to vers. 8 sqq., God came down from heaven to help him. Ver. 8 Then the earth swayed and trembled, The foundations of the heavens shook And swayed to and fro, because He was wroth. 9 Smoke ascended in His nose. And fire out of His mouth devoured. Red-hot coals burned out of Him. 10 And He bowed the heavens and came down, And cloudy darkness under His feet. Jehovah came down from heaven to save His servant, as He had formerly come down upon Sinai to conclude His cove- nant with Israel in the midft of terrible natural phenomena, which proclaimed the wrath of the Almighty. The theophany under which David depicts the deliverance he had experienced, had its type in the miraculous phenomenon which accompanied the descent of God upon Sinai, and which suggested, as in the song of Deborah (Judg. v. 4, 5), the idea of a terrible storm. It is true that the deliverance of David was not actually attended by any such extraordinary natural phenomena ; but the saving hand of God from heaven was so obviously manifested, that the deliverance experienced by him could be poetically described as a miraculous interposition on the part of God. When the Lord rises up from His heavenly temple to come down upon the earth to judgment, the whole world trembles at the fierce- ness of His wrath. Not only does the earth tremble, but the foundations of the heavens shake : the whole universe is moved. In the psalm we have " the foundations of the hills " instead of " the fomidatiois of the heavens," — a weaker expression, signify- CHAP. XXII. 11-13. 473 ing the earth to its deepest foundations. The Hithpael ^V^'T., lit. to sicay itself, expresses the idea of continuous swaying to and fro. i? iTin ^3, ^' for it {sc. wrath) burned to him" it flamed up like a fire ; cf. Deut. xxxii. 22, xxix. 19. " Smoke," the fore- runner of fire, " ascended in His nose." The figurative idea is that of snorting or violent breathing, which indicates the rising of wrath. Smoke is followed by fire, which devours out of the mouth, i.e. bursts forth devouring or consuming all that opposes it. The expression is strengthened still further by the parallel : " red-Jiot coals come out of Him," i.e. the flame of red-hot coals pours out of Him as out of a glowing furnace (cf. Gen. xv. 17). This description is based entirely upon Ex. xix. 18, where the Lord conies down upon Sinai in smoke and fire. We are not to picture to ourselves flashes of lightning ; for all these phe- nomena are merely the forerunners of the appearance of God in the clouds, which is described in ver. 10, " He bowed the heavens" to come down. ^Sl^, which is frequently connected with I^V, signifies cloudy darkness, or dark clouds. The sub- stratum of this description is the fact that in a severe storm the heavens seem to sink down upon the earth with their dark clouds. The Lord draws near riding upon black thunder-clouds, " that the wicked may not behold His serene countenance, but only the terrible signs of His fierce wrath and punishment " (J. H. Michaelis). Ver. 11 He rode upon a cherub and flew hither, And appeared upon the wings of the wind. 12 He made darkness round about Him as pavilions, Water-gathering, thick clouds. 13 Out of the splendour before Him Burned red-hot coals of fire. These three verses are a further expansion of ver. 10, and ver. 11 of ver. 10a. The cherub is not a personified earthly creature, for cherubim are angels around the throne of God (see at Gen. iii. 22). The poetical figure "riding upon the cherub" is borrowed from the fact that God was enthroned between the two cherubim upon the lid of the ark of the covenant, and above their outspread wings (Ex. xxv. 20, 21). As the idea of His " dwelling between the cherubim " (ch. vi. 2 ; 1 Sam. iv. 4 , Ps. Ixxx. 2) was founded upon this typical manifestation of the gracious presence of God in the Most Holy place, so here David 174 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. depicts the descent of Jehovah from heaven as " riding upon a cherab," picturing the cherub as a throne upon which God appears in the clouds of heaven, though without therefore imagining Him as riding upon a sphinx or driving in a chariot- throne. Such notions as these are preckided by the addition of the term ^Vjl, " did fly." The '■'■flying " is also suggested by the wings of the cherubim. As the divine " shechinah'" -fi&s, enthroned above the ark of the covenant upon the wings of tlie cherubim, David in his poetical description represents the cherub and his wings as carrying the throne of God, to express the thought that Jehovah came down from heaven as the judge and saviour of His servants in the splendour of His divins glory, surrounded by cherubim who stand as His highest ser- vants around His throne, just as Moses in his blessing (Deut. xxxiii. 2) speaks of Jehovah as coming out of myriads of His holy angels. The elementary substratum of this was the wings (if the wind, upon which He appeared. In the psalm we have '^'7.'1, from nx^, to soar (Deut. xxviii. 49 ; Jer. xlviii. 40), which suggests the idea of flying better than t*^*^ (He was seen), though the latter gives the real explanation. In vers. 12 and 13, the "cloudy darkness under His feet" (ver. 105) is still further expanded, so as to prepare the way for the description of thunder and lightning in vers. 14 sqq. God in His wrath withdraws His face from man. He envelopes himself in clouds. The darkness round about him is the black thunder- cloud which forms His hut or tent. The plural succoth is occasioned by the plural VnhUD, " His surroundings : " it is used with indefinite generality, and is more probably the original term than insp in the psalm. The "darkness'' is still further explained in the second clause, CD JTiC'n, loater-gatheritigs. nnt^'n (utt. Xey.) signifies, according to the Arabic, a gathering or collection. The expression used in the psalm is D^D riDE'n, ivater-darkness, which, if not less appropriate, is at any rate not the original term. D'pnc'" 'DV, clouds of clouds, i.e. the thickest clouds ; a kind of superlative, in which a synonym is used in- stead of the same noun. — Ver. 13. The splendour of the divine nature enveloped in clouds breaks through the dark covering in burning coals of fire. The coals of fire which burst forth, i.e. which break out in flame from the dark clouds, are the lightning whi'ih shoots forth from the dark storm-clouds in streams of fire. CHAP. XXII. 14-20. 475 Ver. 14 Jehovah thundered from the heavens, And the Most High gave His voice. 15 He sent arrows, and scattered them ; Lightning, and discomfited them. 16 Then the beds of the sea became visible ; The foundations of the world were uncovered Through the threatening of Jehovah, By the snorting of the breath of His nostrils. God sent lightning as arrows upon the enemies along with violent thunder, and threw them thereby into confusion. Don, to throw into confusion, and thereby to destroy, is the standing expression for the destruction of the foe accomplished by the miraculous interposition of God (vid. Ex. xiv. 24, xxiii. 27 ; Josh. X. 10 ; Judg. iV. 15 ; 1 Sam. vii. 10). To the thunder there were added stormy wind and earthquake, as an effect of the wrath of God, whereby the foundations of the sea and land were laid bare, i.e. whereby the depth of the abyss and of the hell in the interior of the earth, into which the person to be rescued had fallen, were disclosed.^ Ver. 17 He reached out of the height, He laid hold of me ; Drew me out of great waters : 18 Saved me from my enemy strong ; From my haters, because they were too strong for mei 19 They fell upon me in my day of calamity : Then Jehovah became my stay, 20 And led me out into a broad place ; Delivered me, because He had pleasure in me. ^ In vers. 13-16 the text of the Psalms deviates greatly and in many instances from that before us. In ver. 13 we find C'X 'iriJI ina 1125? lUV instead of B'X 'iinj ^-|JJ3 ; and after ver. 14 tf'K ''.^njl Tl3 is repeated in the psalm. In ver. 15 we have an D''p"l31 for pia, and in ver. 16 D'D ''p''3X for D'l ip^QX- The other deviations are inconsiderable. So far as the repetition of CS'N ''bnji nn3 at the end of ver. 14 is concerned, it is not only superfluous, but unsuitable, because the lightning following the thunder is described in ver. 15, and the words repeated are probably nothing mora than a gloss that has crept by an oversight into the text. The WD 'p^SN in ver. 16 is an obvious softening down of the D'' ''p''ax of the text before us. In the other deviations, however, the text of the Psalms is evidently the more original of the two ; the abridgment of the second clause of ver. 13 is evidently a simplification of the figurative description in the psalm, and 31 DVS i° *^^ ^^^^ '^^^^^ °^ ^^^ psalm is more poetical and a stronger expressi ;n than the mere pia of our text. 476 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. The Lord stretched His hand from the height into the deep abysses, which had been uncovered through the threatening of the wrath of God, and drew out the sinking man. npK'l with- out IJ is used to denote the stretching out of the hand, and in the sense of reaching out to a thing (as in ch. vi. 6). D''?"! Q^C (great waters) does not refer to the enemy, but to the cala- mities and dangers (waves of death and streams of Behal, ver. 5) into which the enemies of the Psalmist had plunged him. ''it'f^l, from HE'D (Ex. ii. 10), from which the name of Moses was derived, to whom there is probably an allusion made. As Moses was taken out of the waters of the Nile, so David was taken out of great (many) waters. This deliverance is still further depicted in more literal terms in vers. 18 sqq. W 'S^N,, my enemy strong, poetical for my strong enemy, does not refer to one single enemy, namely Saul ; but, as the parallel " my haters " shows, is a poetical personification of all his enemies. They were stronger than David, therefore the Lord had to deliver him with an almighty hand. The " dai/ of calandly" in which the enemy fell upon him (ff^p : see at ver. 6) was the time when David wandered about in the desert helpless and homeless, fleeing from the pursuit of Saul. The Lord was then his support, or a staff on which he could support himself (yid. Ps. xxiii. 4), and led him out of the strait into the broad, i.e. into a broad space where he could move freely, because God had pleasure in him, and had chosen him in His grace to be His servant. This reason for his deliverance is carried out still further in what follows. Ver. 21 Jehovah rendered to me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands He recompensed me. 22 For I have observed the ways of Jehovah, And have not wickedly departed from my God. 23 For all His rights are before my eyes ; And His statutes, — I do not depart from them. 24 And I was innocent towards Him, And kept myself from mine iniquity. 703 signifies to do to a person good or evil, like the Greek ev and Kaic5iD for «a^xa (Job XXXV. 11; cf. Ewald, § 232, h). The form nriri for nnnj (in the psalm) is unusual, and the aphseresis of the i can 'only be accounted for from the fact that this much-used word constantly drops its 3 as a radical sound in the im- perfect (see Ewald, § 195, c). The phrase ^1^ '^ nm is formed after Ex. xxiii. 27. "Giving the enemy to a person's back" 2il 482 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. means causing them to turn the back, i.e. putting them to flight. Ver. 42 They look out, but there is no deliverer ; For Jehovah, but He answereth them not. 43 And I rub in pieces as the dust of the earth, " Like the mire of the streets I crush them and stamp upon them. The cry of the foe for help is not attended to ; they arc- annihilated without quarter. ^Vf), to look out to God for help (with 7^ and ^IJ ; vid. Isa. xvii. 7, 8), is more poetical than W?''!? "they cry" (in the psalm) ; and ptJ~iQj;3 is more simple than ni"i"''3B'?y 1BJJ3 (in the psalm), " I crush them as dust before the wind," for the wind does not crush the dust, but carries it away. In the second clause of ver. 43, Di?."]^ is used instead of E3ip^'"iN in the psalm, and strengthened by QyiJIS, D|7)"]X, from Pi>1, to make tJdn, to crush ; so that instead of " I pour them out like mire of the streets which is trodden to pieces," the Psalmist simply says, " I crush and stamp upon them like mire of the streets." Through the utter destruction of the foe, God establishes the universal dominion to which the throne of David is to attain. Ver. 44 And Thou rescuest me out of the strivings of my people, Preservest me to be the head of the heathen. People that I knew not serve me. 45 The sons of the stranger dissemble to me, Upon hearsay they obey me. 46 The sons of the stranger despair, And tremble out of their castles. By " iJie strivings of my people " the more indefinite expres- sion in the psalm, "strivings of the people," is explained. The words refer to the domestic conflicts of David, out of which the Lord delivered him, such as the opposition of Ishbosheth and the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba. These deliverances formed the prelude and basis of his dominion over the heathen. Consequently ''Jl'pK'n {Thou preservest me to be the head of the nations) occurs quite appropriately in the second clause ; and ^JD^syri, " Thou settest me," which occurs in the psalm, is a far less pregnant expression. Dy before '•Jiiy'l!^ N^ is used indefinitely to signify foreign nations. Toi king of Hamath (ch. viii. 10) was an example, and his subjugation was a prelude of the future subjection of all the heathen to the sceptre of the Son CHAP. XXII. 47-49. 483 of David, as predicted in Ps. Ixxii. In ver. 45 the two clauses of the psalm are very appropriately transposed. The Hithpael '■!^n?'?!, as compared with =iti'n3'_, is the later form. In the primary passage (Deut. xxxiii. 29) the Niphal is used to sig- nify the dissembling of friendship, or of involuntary homage on the part of the vanquished towards the victor, l.tx iWiOK'i', " hy the hearing of the ear^'' i.e. by hearsay, is a simple explanation of irx 3'oB'Pj at the rumour of the ears (vid. Job xlii. 5), i.e. at the mere rumour of David's victories. The foreign nations pine away, i.e. despair of ever being able to resist the victorious power of David, ^isn^, '■'■iliey gird themselves" does not yield any appropriate meaning, even if we should take it in the sense of equipping themselves to go out to battle. The word is probably a misspelling of iJ^n^j which occurs in the psalm, J^n being a air. Xey. in the sense of being terrified, or trem- bling : they tremble out of their castles, i.e. they come trem- bling out of their castles (for the thought itself, see Micah vii. 17). It is by no means probable that the word l^n, which is so frequently met with in Hebrew, is used in this one passage in the sense of " to limp," according to Syriac usage. In conclusion, the Psalmist returns to the praise of the Lord, who had so highly favoured him. Ver. 47 Jehovah liveth, and blessed is my rock, And the God of my refuge of salvation is exalted. 48 The God who giveth me vengeance, And bringeth nations under me; 49 Who leadeth me out from mine enemies, And exalteth me above mine adversaries, Delivereth me from the man of violence. The formula nin;-in does not mean " let Jehovah live," for the word 'ni would be used for that (vid. ch. xvi. 16, 1 Sam. X. 24), but "is a declaration: "the Lord is living." The de- claration itself is to be taken as praise of God, for " praising God is simply ascribing to Him the glorious perfections which belontr to him ; we have only to give Him what is His own " (Heno-stenberg). The following clauses also contain simply declarations; this is evident from the word DIT, since the optative D'l; would be used to denote a wish. The Lord is living or aUve when He manifests His life in acts of omni- potence. In the last clause, the expression in (rock) is in- '484 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. tensified into ^Vf] 11^' ''iyii (the God of my refuge, or rock, of salvation), i.e. the God who is my saving rock (cf. ver. 3). In the predicates of God in vers. 48, 49, the saving acts depicted by David in vers. 5-20 and 29-46 are summed up briefly. Instead of T'lio, "He causes to go down under me," i.e. He subjects to me, we find in the psalm is'iy, "He drives nations under me," and ''?^?'p instead of 'X'SiD ; and lastly, instead of Don B'''X in the psalm, we have here D^p^P ^''^i ^^ '" P^- cxl. 2. Therefore the praise of the Lord shall be sounded among all nations. Ver. 50 Therefore ■will I praise Thee, Jehovah, among the nations, And sing praise to Thy name. 51 As He who magnifies the salvation of His king, And showeth grace to His anointed. To David, and his seed for ever. The grace which the Lord had shown to David was so great, that the praise thereof could not be restricted to the narrow limits of Israel. With the dominion of David over the nations, there spread also the knowledge, and with this the praise, of the Lord who had given him the victory. Paul was therefore perfectly justified in quoting the verse before us (ver. 50) in Eom. xvi. 9, along with Deut. xxxii. 43 and Ps. cxvii. 1, as a proof that the salvation of God was intended for the Gentiles also. The king whose salvation the Lord had magni- lied, was not David as an individual, but David and his seed for ever, — that is to say, the royal family of David which culminated in Christ. David could thus sing praises upon the ground of the promise which he had received (ch. vii. 12-16), and which is repeated almost verbatim in the last clause of ver. 5L The Chetliib ^''IJa is the Hipliil participle ''^IJ?, according to Ps. xviii. 51 ; and the Keri ^i'^M, " tower of the fulness of salvation," is a singular conjecture. David's last words. — chap, xxiir. 1-7. The psalm of thanksgiving, in which David praised the Lord for all the deliverances and benefits that he had experi- enced throughout the whole of his life, is followed by the pro- phetic will and testament of the great king, unfolding the importance of his rule in relation to the sacred history of the CHAP. XXIII. 1, 2. 485 future. And wliilst the psalm may be regarded (cl). xxii.) as a great hallelujah, with which David passed away from the stage of life, these " last words " contain the divine seal of ali that he has sung and prophesied in several psalms concerning the eternal dominion of his seed, on the strength of tlie divine promise which he received through the prophet Nathan, that his throne should be established for ever (ch. vii.). These words are not merely a lyrical expansion of that promise, but a prophetic declaration uttered by David at the close of his life and by divine inspiration, concerning the true King of the kingdom of God. " The aged monarch, who was not gene- rally endowed with the gift of prophecy, was moved by the Spirit of God at the close of his life, and beheld a just Ruler in the fear of God, under whose reign blessing and salvation sprang up for the righteous, and all the wicked were over- come. The pledge of this was the eternal covenant which God had concluded with him " (Tholuck : die Proplieten und Hire Weissagungen, p. 166). The heading " these are the last words of David" serves to attach it to the preceding psalm of thanks* giving. Ver. 1 Divine saying of David the son of Jesse, Divine saying of the man, the highly exalted, Of the anointed of the God of Jacob, And of the lovely one in the songs of praise of Israel. 2 The Spirit of Jehovah speaks through me, And His word is upon my tongue. This introduction to the prophetic announcement rests, both as to form and substance, upon the last sayings of Balaam con- cerning the future history of Israel (Num. xxiv. 3, 15). This not only shows to what extent David had occupied himself with the utterances of the earlier men of God concerning Israel's future ; but indicates, at the same time, that his own prophetic utterance was intended to be a further expansion of Balaam's prophecy concerning the Star out of Jacob and the Sceptre out of Israel. Like Balaam, he calls his prophecy a DXJ, i.e. a divine saying or oracle, as a revelation which he had received directly from God (see at Num. xxiv. 3). But the recipient of this revelation was not, like Balaam the son of Beor, a man with closed eye, whose eyes had been opened by a vision of the Almighty, but " the man who was raised up on high" (?V, adver- 48G THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. bially " above," is, strictly speaking, a substantive, " heigfit," used in an adverbial sense, as in Hos. xi. 7, and probably also ch. vii. 16), i.e. whom God had lifted up out of humiliation to be the ruler of His people, yea, even to be the head of the nations (ch. xxii. 44). Luther's rendering, " who is assured of the Messiah of the God of Jacob," is based upon the Vulgate, " cui constitutum est de Christo Dei Jacob" and cannot be grammatically sustained. David was exalted on the one hand as " the anointed of the God of Jacob'j'' i.e. as the one whom the God of Israel had anointed king over His people, and on the other hand as " iAe lovely one in IsraeVs songs of praise" i.e. the man whom God had enabled to sing lovely songs of praise in celebration of His grace and glory. T'PT ^ ITiDt does not mean a song generally, but a song of praise in honour of God (see at Ex. xv. 2), like li^iTD in the headings to the psalms. As David on the one hand had firmly established the kingdom of God in an earthly and political respect as the anointed of •Jehovah, i.e. as king, so had he on the other, as the composer of Israel's songs of praise, promoted the spiritual edification of that kingdom. The idea of DX3 is explained in ver. 2. The Spirit of Jehovah speaks through him ; his words are the inspiration of God. The preterite "13'^. relates to the divine inspiration which preceded the utterance of the divine saying. 3 I3'i, literally to speak into a person, as in Hos. i. 2. The Baying itself commences with ver. 3. Ver. 3 The God of Israel saith, The Rook of Israel speaketh to me : A Ruler over men, just, A Ruler in the fear of God. 4 And as light of the morning, when the sun rises, As morning without clouds : From shining out of rain (springeth) green out of the earth. 5 For is not my house thus with God ? For He hath made me an everlasting covenant. Provided with all, and attested ; For all my salvation and all good pleasure, Should He then not cause it to grow ? As the prophets generally preface their saying with " thus saith the Lord," so David commences his prophetic saying with " the God of Israel saith" for the purpose of describing it most emphatically as the word of God. He designates God "tin CHAP. XXIII. 3-5. 487 God " and " the Rod " (as in ch. xxii. 3) of Israel, to indicate that the contents of his prophecy relate to the salvation of the people of Israel, and are guaranteed by the unchangeableness of God. The saying which follows bears the impress of a divine oracle even in its enigmatical brevity. The verbs are wanting in the different sentences of vers. 35 and 4. " A ruler over men" so. " will arise," or there will be. D^^53 does not mean " among men," but " over men ;" for 3 is to be taken as with the verb i'K'O, as denoting the object ruled over (cf. Gen. iii. 16, iv. 7, etc.). Dl^n does not mean certain men, but the human race, humanity. This ruler is "just" in the fullest sense of the word, as in the passages founded upon this, viz. Jer. xxiii. 5, Zech. ix. 9, and Ps. Ixxii. 2. The justice of the ruler is founded in his "fear of GodV Cn?!;? nN"!^, is governed freely by ^ti'iD. (On the fact itself, see Isa. xi.' 2, 3.) The meaning is, " A ruler over the human race will arise, a just ruler, and will exercise his dominion in the spirit of the fear of God." — Ver. 4 describes the blessing that will proceed from this ruler. The idea that ver. 4 should be connected with ver. 3& so as to form one period, in the sense of " when one rules justly over men (as I do), it is as when a morning becomes clear," must be rejected, for the simple reason that it overlooks ISTathan's promise (ch. vii.) altogether, and weakens the forcb of the saying so solemnly introduced as the word of God. The ruler over men whom David sees in spirit, is not any one who rules righteously over men ; nor is the seed of David to be regarded as a collective expression indicating a merely ideal personality, but, according to the Ohaldee rendering, the Mes- siah himself, the righteous Shoot whom the Lord would raise up to David (Jer. xxiii. 5), and who would execute righteous- ness and judgment upon earth (Jer. xxxiii. 15).— Ver. 4 is to be taken by itself as containing an independent thought, and the connection between it and ver. 3 must be gathered from the words themselves : the appearance (the rise) of this Euler will be " as light of the morning, when the sun rises." At the same time, the Messiah is not to be regarded as the subject to "1P3 liN (the light of the morning), as though the ruler over men were compared with the morning light ; but the subject compared to the morning light is intentionally left indefinite, according to the view adopted by Luther in his exposition, " Id the time of 488 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. the Messiah it will be like the light of the morning." We are precluded from regarding the Messiah as the subject, by the fact that the comparison is instituted not with the sun, but with the morning dawn at the rising of the sun, whose vivify- ing effects upon nature are described in the second clause of the verse. The words E'OE' nnr are to be taken relatively, as a more distinct definition of the morning light. The clause which follows, " morning withovt clouds," is parallel to the fore- going, and describes more fully the nature of the morning. The light of the rising sun on a cloudless morning is an image of the coming salvation. The rising sun awakens the germs of life in the bosom of nature, which had been slumbering through the darkness of the night. " The state of things before the coming of the ruler resembles the darkness of the night" (Hengstenberg). The verb is also wanting in the second hemistich. " From the shining from rain (is, comes) fresh green out of the earth." HiJi signifies the brightness of the rising sun ; but, so far as the actual meaning is concerned, it relates to the salvation which attends the coming of the righteous ruler. "'9?'? i^ either subordinate to fi3i!?, or co-ordi nate with it. In the former case, we should have to render the passage, " from the shining of the sun which proceeds out of rain," or " from the shining after rain ;" and the allusion would be to a cloudless morning, when the shining of the sun after a night's rain stimulates the growth of the plants. In the latter case, we should have to render it " from the shining (and) from the rain ; " and the reference would be to a cloudless morning, on which the vegetation springs up from the ground through sunshine followed by rain. Grammatically considered, the first view (? the second) is the easier of the two ; nevertheless we regard the other Q the first) as the only admissible one, inasmuch as rain is not to be expected when the sun has risen with a cloudless sky. The rays of the sun, as it rises after a night of rain, strengthen the fresh green of the plants. The rain is therefore a figurative representation of blessing gene- rally (cf. Isa. xliv. 3), and the green grass which springs up from the earth after the rain is an image of the blessings of the Messianic salvation (Isa. xliv. 4, xlv. 8). In Ps. Ixxii. 6, Solomon takes these words of David as the basis of his comparison of the effects resulting from the govern- CHAP. XXIII. 3-4 489 ment of the true Prince of peace to the coming down of the rain upon the mown grass. In ver. 5, the prophecy concerning the coming of the just ruler is sustained by being traced back to the original promise in ch. vii., in which David had received a pledge of this. The first and last clauses of this verse can only be made to yield a meaning in harmony with the context, by being taken interro- gatively : "/or is not my Jwiise so with God ?" The question is only indicated by the tone (iO '3 = Npn ^3 ; ch. xix. 23), as is frequently the case, even before clauses commencing with i6 (e.g. Hos. xi. 5, Mai. ii. 15 : cf. Ewald, § 324, a). !3-S'l' (not so) is explained by the following clause, though the ''3 which follows is not to be taken in the sense of " that." Each of the two clauses contains a distinct thought. That of the first is, " Does not my house stand in such a relation to God, that the righteous ruler will spring from it?" This is then explained in the second : " for He hath made an everlasting covenant with me." David calls the promise in ch. vii. 12 sqq., that God would establish his kingdom to his seed for ever, a cove- nant, because it involved a reciprocal relation, — namely, that Jehovah would first of all found for David a permanent house, and then that the seed of David was to build the house of the Lord. This covenant is ?3? ^^'^''V., " equipped (or provided) with all" that could help to establish it. This relates more especially to the fact that all eventualities were foreseen, even the falling away of the bearers of the covenant of God, so that such an event as this would not annul the covenant (ch. vii. 14, 15). nniOB^, " and preserved," i.e. established by the assurance that even in that case the Lord would not withdraw His grace. David could found upon this the certainty, that God would cause all the salvation to spring forth which had been pledged to his house in the promise referred to. ''J'P"?3, " all my sal- vation " i.e. all the salvation promised to nie and to my house. J'srri'3 not " all my desire," but " all the good pleasure " of God \.e. all the saving counsel of God expressed in that cove- nant. The '3 before ^b is an energetic repetition of the "'3 which introduces the explanatory thought, in the sense of a firm assurance : "for all my salvation and all good pleasure, yea, should He not cause it to spring forth ?" 490 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Ver. 6 But the worthless, as rejected thorns are they all ; For men do not take them in the hand. 7 And the mau who touches them Provides himself with iron and spear-shaft, And they are utterly burned with fire where they dwell. The development of salvation under the ruler in righteous- ness and the fear of God is accompanied by judgment upon the ungodly. The abstract ?J?'.?3, worthlessness, is stronger than 7i'!?3 B''*?, the worthless man, and depicts the godless as personified worthlessness. Ijp, in the Keri 13D, the Hoplial of Ti3 or T]3, literally " scared " or hunted away. This epithet does not apply to the thorns, so well as to the ungodly who are compared to thorns. The reference is to thorns that men root out, not to those which they avoid on account of their prickles. Dn^2, an antiquated form for d)'3 (see Ewald, § 247, d). To root them out, or clean the ground of them, men do not lay hold of them with the bare hand ; but " whoever would touch them equips himself {^t^\, so. i"i', to 'Jill the hand' with any thing : 2 Kings ix. 24) with iron, i.e. with iron weapons, and spear-shaft" (yid. 1 Sam. xvii. 7). This expression also relates to the godless rather than to the thorns. They are consumed nai^a, " at the dwelling," i.e. as Kimchi explains, at the place of their dwelling, the place where they grow. For n?E5'i cannot mean "on the spot" in the sense of without delay. The burn- ing of the thorns takes place at the final judgment upon the ungodly (Matt. xiii. 30). David's heroes. — chap, xxiii. 8-39. The following list of David's heroes we also find in 1 Chron. xi. 10-47, and expanded at the end by sixteen names (vers. 41-47), and attached in ver. 10 to the account of the conquest of the fortress of Zion by the introduction of a special heading. According to this heading, the heroes named assisted David greatly in his kingdom, along with all Israel, to make him king, from which it is evident that the chronicler intended by this heading to justify his appending the list to the account of the election of David as king over all the tribes of Israel (1 Chron. xi. 1), and of the conquest of Zion, which followed immediately afterwards. In every other respect the two lists CHAP. XXIII. 8-12. 491 agree with one another, except that there are a considerable number of errors of the text, more especially in the names, which are frequently corrupt in both texts, so that the true reading cannot be determined with certainty. The heroes enumerated are divided into three classes. The first class consists of three, viz. Jaslioheam, Eleazar, and Shammah, of whom certain brave deeds are related, by which they reached the first rank among David's heroes (vers. 8-12). They were followed by Abishai and Benaiah, who were in the second class, and who had also distinguished themselves above the rest by their brave deeds, though they did not come up to the first three (vers. 18-23). The others all belonged to the third class, which consisted of thirty-two men, of whom no particular heroic deeds are mentioned (vers. 24-39). Twelve of these, viz. the five belonging to the first two classes and seven of the third, were appointed by David commanders of the twelve detach- ments into which he divided the army, each detachment to serve for one month in the year (1 Chron. xxvii.). These heroes, among whom we do not find Joab the commander-in-chief of the whole of the forces, were the king's aides-de-camp, and are called in this respect V??''!' (ver. 8), though the term Ct^'^ll^n (the thirty, vers. 13, 23, 24) was also a very customary one, as their number amounted to thirty in a round sum. It is possible that at first they may have numbered exactly thirty ; for, from the very nature of the case, we may be sure that in the many wars in which David was engaged, other heroes must have arisen at different times, who would be received into the corps already formed. This will explain the addition of sixteen names in the Chronicles, whether the chronicler made use of a dif- ferent list from that employed by the author of the books before us, and one belonging to a later age, or whether the author of our books merely restricted himself to a description of the corps in its earlier condition. Vers. 8-12. Heroes of the first class.— The. short heading to our text, with which the list in the Chronicles also begins (1 Chron. xi. 11), simply gives the names of these heroes. But instead of " the names of the mighty men," we have in the Chronicles " the number of the mighty men." This variation is all the more striking, from the fact that in the Chronicles the total number is not given at the close of the list as it is in onr 492 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. text. At the same time, it can hardly be a copyist's error for in3D (^selection), as Bertheau supposes, but must be attributable to the fact that, according to vers. 13, 23, and 24, these heroes constituted a corps which was named from the number of which it originally consisted. The first, Jashobeam, is called " the chief of the thirty " in the Chronicles. Instead of QWB'J (Jasliobeani), the reading in the Chronicles, we have here naS'B y^'' (JosJieb-basshebeth), unquestionably a spurious read- ing, which probably arose, according to Kennicott's conjecture, from the circumstance that the last two letters of DJJ3E'' were written in one MS. under natfi in the line above (ver. 7), and a copyist took n3C^'3 from that line by mistake for DJ?. The correctness of the reading Jashobeam is established by 1 Chron. xxvii. 2. The word ''^osnn is also faulty, and should be corrected, according to the Chronicles, into ''3i03n"|3 (^Ben- hachmoni) ; for the statement that Jashobeam was a son (or descendant) of the family of Haclimon (1 Chron. xxvii. 32) can easily be reconciled with that in 1 Chron. xxvii. 2, to the effect that he was a son of Zabdiel. Instead of n^^hm m^ (fiead of the thirty), the reading in the Chronicles, we have here ^U7^r\ CNi Qiead of the three). Bertheau would alter our text in accordance with the Chronicles, whilst Thenius proposes to bring the text of the Chronicles into accordance with ours. But although the many unquestionable corruptions in the verse before us may appear to favour Bertheau's assumption, we cannot regard either of the emendations as necessary, or even warrantable. The proposed alteration of ''y^m is decidedly precluded by the recurrence of ''^^T^ B'NT in ver. 18, and the alteration of D'E'PE'ri in the Chronicles by the repeated allusion to the D^B'PK', not only in vers. 15, 42, eh. xii. 4, and ch. xxvii. 6 of the Chronicles, but also in vers. 13, 23, and 24 of the chapter before us. The explanation given of ''B^E' and 13''E'?K', as signi- fying chariot-warriors, is decidedly erroneous ; ^ for the singular B'\?|'n is used in all the passages in which the word occurs to signify the royal aide-de-camp (2 Kings vii. 2, 17, 19, ix. 25, * This explanation, which we find in Gesenius (Tlies. and Lex.) and Bertheau, rests upon no other authority than the testimony of Origen, to the effect that an obscure writer gives this interpretation of rpiararni;, the rendering of ^'h^, an authority which is completely overthrown by the writer of the gloss in Octateuch. (Schleussner, Lex. in LXX. t. v. p. 338), CHAP. XXIII. 8-12. 493 XV. 25), and the plural d'B'^^B' the royal body-guard, not only in 2 Kings x. 25, but even in 1 Kings ix. 22, and Ex. xiv. 7, XV. 4, from which the meaning chariot-warriors has been derived. Consequently ''K'i'B'n B'n-i is the head of the king's aides-de-camp, and the interchange of ''E^E'ri with the wehm of the Chronicles may be explained on the simple ground that David's thirty heroes formed his whole body of adjutants. The singular WB' is to be explained in the same manner as ''flian (see at ch. viii. 18). Luther expresses the following opinion in his marginal gloss with regard to the words which follow (ijsyn irnj; Kin) : « We believe the text to have been corrupted by a writer, probably from some book in an unknown character and bad writing, so that orer should be substituted for adino, and lia-eznib for eth hanitho ;" that is to say, the reading in the Chronicles, " he swung his spear," should be adopted (cf. ver. 18). This supposition is certainly to be preferred to the attempt made by Gesenius (^Lew.) and v. Dietrich (s.v. pl.J?) to find some sense in the words by assuming the existence of a verb n.V and a noun IW, a spear, since these words do not occur any- where else in Hebrew ; and in order to obtain any appropriate sense, it is still necessary to resort to alterations of the text. " He swung his spear over eight hundred slain at once." This is not to be understood' as signifying that he killed eight hundred men at one blow, but that in a battle he threw his spear again and again at the foe, until eight hundred men had been slain. The Chronicles give three hundred instead of eight hundred ; and as that number occurs again in ver. 18, in the case of Abishai, it probably found its way from that verse into this in the book of Chronicles. — ^Vers. 9, 10. " After him (i.e. next to him in rank) was Eleazar the son of Dodai the Ahohite, among the three heroes with David when they defied the Phili- stines, who had assembled there, and the Israelites drew near." The Chethib m is to be read ^"p^, Dodai, according to 1 Chron. xxvii. 4, and the form inn {Dodo) in the parallel text (1 Chron. xi. 12) is only a variation in the form of the name. Instead of 'nhN-p (the son of Ahohi) we find "'nriKn (the Ahohite) in the who gives this explanation of TpiGra-Tct; : tou; vxpd. xnpa. toS liajji'Kios iipii in ver. 11.— Vers. 11, 12. The third leading hero was Shammah, the son of Age the Hararite Q-nn is probably contracted from ^TlUX}, ver. 33). Pie also made himself renowned by a great victory over the Philistines. The enemy had gathered together n>np, " as a troop," or in a crowd. This meaning of n»n (here and ver. 13, and possibly also in Ps. Ixviii. 11) is thoroughly established by the Arabic (see Ges. Thes. p. 470). But it seems to have fallen into disuse afterwards, and in the Chronicles it is explained in ver. 13 by 'l^n?'?, and in ver. 15 by njnD. " On a portion of a field of lentils there," sc. where the Philistines had gathered together, the people (of Israel) were smitten. Then Shammah stationed himself in the midst of the field, and Cf ?-5 "wrested it," from the foe, and smote the Philistines. Instead of Q''B''1J?, lentils, we find in the Chronicles D''"]ij;t;', barley, a very inconsiderable difference. Vers. 13-17. To this deed there is appended a similar heroic feat performed by three of the thirty heroes whose names are not given. The Chetldb D''B'1'B' is evidently a slip of the pen for riEOK' {Keri and Chronicles). The thirty chiefs are the heroes named afterwards (see above at p. 491). As na^B* has no article either in our text or the Chronicles, the three intended are not the three already mentioned (Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah), but three others out of the number mentioned in vers. 24 sqq. These three came to David in the harvest time unto the cave of Adullam (see at 1 Sam. xxii. 1), when a troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim, and David was on the mountain fortress, and a Philistian post was then in Bethlehem. And David longed for water, and said, " Oh that one would bring me water to drink out of the well of Bethlehem at the gate !" The encamp- ment of the Philistines in the valley of Eephaim, and the position of David on. the mountain forti-ess (nnissa), render it probable that the feat mentioned here took place in the war 496 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. with the Pliilistines described in eh. v. 17 sqq. Kobinson could not discover any well in Bethlehem, "especially none * by the gate,' except one connected with the aqueduct on the south" (Palestine, vol. ii. p. 158). "lyE'a need not be understood, however, as signifying that the well was in or under the gate ; but the well referred to may have been at the gate outside the city. The well to which tradition has given the name of " David's well " (cisterna David), is about a quarter of an hour's walk to the north-east of Bethlehem, and, according to llobinson's description, is " merely a deep and wide cistern or cavern now dry, with three or four narrow openings cut in the rock." But Ritter {Erdk. xvi. p. 286) describes it as "deep with clear cool water, into which there are three openings from above, which Tobler speaks of as bored ;" and again as a cis- tern " built with peculiar beauty, from seventeen to twenty-one feet deep, whilst a house close by is pointed out to pilgrims as Jesse's house." — Ver. 16. The three heroes then broke through the camp of the Philistines at Bethlehem, i.e. the outpost that occupied the space before the gate, fetched water out of the well, and brought it to David. He would not drink it, how- ever, but poured it out upon the ground to the Lord, as a drink-offering for Jehovah. " He poured it out upon the eartli, rendering Him thanks for the return of the three brave men " (Clericus). And he said, " Far be it from me, O Jehovah, to do this ! The blood of the men who went with their lives {i.e. at the risk of their lives)," sc. should I drink it 1 The verb nriE'N is wanting in our text, but is not to be inserted according to the Chronicles as though it had fallen out ; the sentence is rather to be regarded as an aposiopesis. nini_ after ''^ np^n is a vocative, and is not to be altered into ni^'T'O, according to the 'nPKD of the Chronicles. The fact that the vocative does not occur in other passages after 7 i^^Y^ proves nothing. It is equivalent to the oath nSj\\ ipi (1 Sam. xiv. 45). The chronicler has endeavoured to simplify David's exclamation by completing the sentence. DniB'a23, ^^for the price of their souls" i.e. at the risk of their lives. The water drawn and fetched at the risk of their lives is compared to the soul itself, and the soul is in the blood (Lev. xvii. 11). Drinking this water, therefore, would be nothing else tiian drinking their blood. Vers,. 18-23. Heroes of the second class. — Vers. 18, 19. CHAP. XXIII. 18-23. 497 Abishai, Joab's brother (see 1 Sam. xxvi. 6), was also chief of the body-guard, like Jashobeam (ver. 8 : the Chethih ''B'^E'n is correct; see at ver. 8). He swung his spear over three hundred slain. " He had a name among the three," i.e. the three prin- cipal heroes, Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. The following words, T\'&>^r\-\'a^ make no sense. T\W7^r\ is an error in writing for D^K'^E'n, as ver. 23 shows in both the texts (ver. 25 of the Chronicles) : an error the origin of which may easily be ex- plained from the word i^KOB*, which stands immediately before. " He was certainly honoured before the thirty (heroes of David), and became their chief, but he did not come to the three," i.e. he was not equal to Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. "'Sn has the force of an energetic assurance : " is it so that," i.e. it is certainly so (as in ch. ix. 1 ; Gen. xxvii. 36, xxix. 15). — Vers. 20-23. Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, " Jehoiada the priest " according to 1 Chron. xxvii. 5, possibly the one who was " prince for Aaron," i.e. of the family of Aaron, according to 1 Chron. xii. 27, was captain of the Crethi and Pletlii according to ch, viii. 18 and xx. 23. He was the son of a brave man, rich in deeds Cn is evidently an error for 7\T\ in the Chronicles), of Kabzeel in the south of Judah (Josh. xv. 21). " He smote the two Ariels of Moab." The Arabs and Persians call every remarkably brave man Ariel, or lion of God (yid. Bochart, Hieroz. ii. pp. 7, 63). They were therefore two cele- brated Moabitish heroes. The supposition that they were sons of the king of the Moabites is merely founded upon the con- jecture of Thenius and Bertheau, that the word ^3 (sons of) has dropped out before Ariel. " He also slew the lion in the well on the day of the snow," i.e. a iion which had been driven into the neighbourhood of human habitations by a heavy fall of snow, and had taken refuge in a cistern. The Clietldb nnxn and 1N3 are the earlier forms for the Keris substituted by the Masoretes ''l^n and lian, and consequently are not to be altered. He also slew an Egyptian of distinguished size. According to the Keri we should read nsiD C'X (instead of nNiD lE'S), "y^ -. " Bnehashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Sage the Harante." The text of the Chronicles is evidently the more correct of the two, as Bne Jashen Jehonatlian does not make any sense. The only ques- tion is whether the form DB''^ ''p? is correct, or whether V.^ has not arisen merely through a misspelling. As the name does not occiu- ao-ain, all that can be said is that Bne hashem must at any rate be written as one word, and therefore should be pointed differently. The place mentioned, Gizon, is unknown. •IBB' for KJB^ia probably arose from ver. 11. Ahiam the son of Sharar or Sacar (Chron.) the Ararite (in the Chronicles the Hararite). Ver. 34. The names in 34a, Eliphelet ben-Ahasbai ben-Hammaacathi, read thus in the Chronicles (vers. 35, 36) : Eliphal ben-Ur ; Hepher hammecerathi. "We see from this that in ben-Ahasbai ben two names have been fused together; for the 500 THE SKCOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. text as it lies before us is rendered suspicious partly by tlie facl that the names of both father and grandfather are given, which does not occur in connection with any otlier name in the whole list, and partly by the circumstance that t? cannot properly be written with 'n^VBii, which is a Gentile noun. Consequently the following is probably the correct way of restoring the text, •■riajjan -isn llX-ia ahp;h^_, EUphelet (a name which frequently occurs) the son of Ur ; Bepher the Maachathite, i.e. of Maacah in the north-east of Gilead (see at ch. x. 6 and Deut. iii. 14). Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite, the clever but treacherous counsellor of David (see at ch. xv. 12). This name is quite corrupt in the Chronicles. — Ver. 35. Hezro the Carmelite, i.e. of Carmel in the mountains of Judah (1 Sam. xxv. 2). Paarai the Arbite, i.e. of Arab, also in the mountains of Judah (Josh. XV. 52). In the Chronicles we find Naarai hen-Ezbi: the latter is evidently an error in writing for ha-Arbi ; but it is impossible to decide which of the two forms, Paarai and Naarai, is the correct one. — Ver. 36. Jigal the son of Nathan of Zoba (see at ch. viii. 3) : in the Chronicles, Joel the brother of Nathan. Bani the Gadite : in the Chronicles we have Mibhar the son of Hagri. In all probability the names in the Chronicles are corrupt in this instance also. — Ver. 37. Zeleh the Ammonite, Nacharai the Beerothite (of Beeroth : see at ch. iv. 2), the armour-bearer of Joab. Instead of ^i^ti'J, the Keri and the Chronicles have KB'J : the latter reading is favoured by tlie circumstance, that if more than one of the persons named had been Joab's armour-bearers, their names would most probably have been linked together by a copulative vav. — Ver. 38. Ira and Gareb, both of them Jithrites, i.e. sprung from a family in Kirjath-jearim (1 Chron. ii. 53). Ira is of course a different man from the cohen of that name (ch. xx. 26). — Ver. 39. Uriah the Hittite is well known from ch. xi. 3. " Thirty and seven in all." This number is correct, as there were three in the first class (vers. 8-12), two in the second (vers. 18-23), and thirty-two in the third (vers. 24-39), since ver. 34 contains three names according to the amended text. NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE, AND PESTILENCE. — CHAP. XXIV. For the purpose of ascertaining the number of the people, and their fitness for war, David ordered Joab, his commander- cnAP, XXIV. 501 in-chief, to take a census of Israel and Judah. Joab dissuaded him from such a step ; but inasmuch as the king paid no atten- tion to his dissuasion, he carried out the command with the help of the military captains (vers. 1-9). David very speedily saw, however, that he had sinned ; whereupon the prophet Gad went to him by the command of Jehovah to announce the coming punishment, and give him the choice of three different judgments which he placed before him (vers. 10-13). As David chose rather to fall into the hand of the Lord than into the hand of men, God sent a pestilence, which carried off seventy thousand men in one day throughout the whole land, and had reached Jerusalem, when the Lord stopped the destroying angel in consequence of the penitential prayer of David (vers. 14-17), and sent Gad to the king to direct him to build an altar to the Lord on the spot where the destroying angel had appeared to him (ver. 18). Accordingly David bought the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, built an altar upon it, and sacrificed burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, after which the plague was stayed (vers. 19-25). This occurrence, which is introduced in the parallel history in 1 Chron. xxi. between David's wars and his arrangements for a more complete organization of the affairs of the nation, belongs undoubtedly to the closing years of David's reign. The mere taking of a census, as a measure that would facilitate the general organization of the kingdom, could not in itself be a sinful act, by which David brought guilt upon himself, or upon the nation, before God. Nevertheless it is not only represented in ver. 1 as a manifestation of the wrath of God against Israel, but in ver. 3 Joab seeks to dissuade the king from it as being a wrong thing; and in ver. 10 David himself admits that it was a grievous sin against God, and as a sin it is punished by the Lord (vers. 12 sqq.). In what, then, did David's sin consist ? Certainly not in the fact that, when taking the census, " he neglected to demand the atonement money, which was to be raised, according to Ex. xxx. 12 sqq., from all who were num- bered, because the numbering of the people was regarded in itself as an undertaking by which the anger of God might easily be excited," as Josephus and Bertheau maintain ; for the Mosaic instructions concerning the atonement money had reference to the incorporation of the people into the army of 502 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. Jehovah (see at Ex. xxx. 13, 14), and therefore did not come into consideration at all in connection with the census appointed by David as a purely political measure. Nor can we imagine that David's sin consisted merely in the fact that he " entered upon the whole affair from pride and vain boasting," or that "he commanded the census from vanity, inasmuch as he wanted to have it distinctly set before his own eyes how strong and mighty he was" (Buddeus, Hengstenberg, and others); for although pride and vanity had something to do with it, as the words of Joab especially seem to indicate, David was far too great a man to allow us to attribute to him a childish de- light in the mere number of souls in his kingdom. The census had certainly a higher purpose than this. It is very evident from 1 Chron. xxvii. 23, 24, where it is mentioned again that it was connected with the military organization of the people, and probably was to be the completion of it. David wanted to know the number of his subjects, not that he might be able to boast of their multitude, nor that he might be able to impose all kinds of taxes upon every town and village according to their houses and inhabitants, as Ewald maintains ; but that he might be fully acquainted with its defensive power, though we can neither attribute to him the definite purpose " of transform- ing the theocratic sacred state into a conquering world-state" (Kurtz), nor assume that through this numbering the whole nation was to be enrolled for military service, and that thirst for conquest was the motive for the undertaking. The true Kernel of David's sin was to be found, no doubt, in self-exalta- tion, inasmuch as he sought for the strength and glory of his kingdom in the number of the people and their readiness for war. This sin was punished. " Because David was about to boast proudly and to glory in the number of his people, God determined to punish him by reducing their number either by famine, war, or pestilence" (Seb. Schmidt). At the Same time, the people themselves had sinned grievously against God and their king, through the two rebellions headed by Absalom and Sheba. Vers. 1-9. " Again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel ; and He moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah." niin^ , . . fiD*l points back to the manifestation of the wrath of God, which Israel had ex CHAP. XXIV. 1-S. 50S perienced in tlie three years' famine (ch. xxi.). Just as that plague had burst upon the land on account of the guilt which rested upon the people, so the kindling of the wrath of God against Israel a second time also presupposes guilt on the part of the nation ; and as this is not expressly pointed out, we may seek for it generally in the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba against the divinely established government of David. The subject to " moved" is Jehovah, and the words " against them" point back to Israel. Jehovah instigated David against Israel to the performance of an act which brought down a severe judgment upon the nation. With regard to the idea that God instigates to sin, see the remarks on 1 Sam. xxvi. 19. In the parallel text of the Chronicles, Satan is mentioned as the tempter to evil, through whom Jehovah led David to number the people. — Ver. 2. David entrusted the task to his com- mander-in-chief Joab. ins "iB'X, "who was with him:" the meaning is, " when he was with him" (David). We are not warranted in attempting any emendations of the text, either by the expression in^ "IK'S, or by the reading in the Chronicles, Dyn "'7B'"^!<1 (" and to the rulers of the people") ; for whilst the latter reading may easily be seen to be a simplification founded upon ver. 4, it is impossible to show how inx -\m 7]nr}~\&, which is supported by all the ancient versions (with the sole exception of the Arabic), could have originated in DVn n.B'-i'Sl. " Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Ban to Beersheba 'see at Judg. xx. 1), and muster the people." 1i?3, to muster or number, as°in Num. i. 44 sqq. The change from the singular DW to the plural 'np? may be explained very simply, from the fact that, as a matter of course, Joab was not expected to take the census by himself, but with the help of several assistants.— Ver. 3. Joab discountenanced the thing : " Jehovah thy God add to the nation, as it is, a hundredfold as many, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?" The 1 before ^IDi' stands at the commencement, when what is said contains a sequel to some- thing that has gone before {vid. Ges. § 255, 1, a). The thought to which Joab's words are appended as a sequel, is implied in what David said, " that I may know the number of the people;" and if expressed fully, his words would read somewhat as fol- lows : " If thou hast delight in the greatness of the number of 504 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEI,. the people, may Jehovali," etc. Joab evidently saw through the king's intention, and perceived that the numbering of the people could not be of any essential advantage to David's government, and might produce dissatisfaction among the people, and therefore endeavoured to dissuade the king from his purpose. Dn31 Dns, " as they (the Israelites) just are," i.e. in this connection, " just as many as there are of them." From a grammatical point of view, or\3 is to be taken as the object to ^Di'', as in the parallel passages, Deut. i. 11, 2 Sam. xii. 8. Not only did he desire that God would multiply the nation a hundredfold, but that He would do it during the life- time of David, so that his eyes might be delighted with the immense numbers. — Vers. 4, 5. But as the king's word pre- vailed against Joab and against the captains of the army, they (Joab and the other captains) went out to number Israel. 13n', they encamped, i.e. they fixed their headquarters in the open field, because great crowds assembled together. This is only mentioned here in connection with the place where the num- l)ering commenced ; but it is to be understood as applying to the other places as well (Thenius). In order to distinguish Aroer from the place of the same name on the Arnon, in the tribe of Reuben (Josh. xii. 2 ; Num. xxxii. 34, etc.), it is de- fined more precisely as " the town in the brook-valley of Gad," i.e. Aroer of Gad before Kabbah (Josh. xiii. 25 ; Judg. xi. 33), in the Wady Nahr Amman, to the north-east of Amman (see at Josh. xiii. 25). 1J.Vr''^1 (and to Jazer) : this is a second place of encampment, and the preposition ?X is to be explained on the supposition that 1N3^ (they came), which follows, was already in the writer's thoughts. Jazer is probably to be found in the ruins of es Szir, at the source of the Nahr Szir (see at Num. xxi. 32). — Ver. 6. "And they came to Gilead," i.e. the moun- tainous district on the two sides of the Jabbok (see at Deut. iii. 10). The words which follow, viz. " into the land "S'ln D'nnn," are quite obscure, and were unintelligible even to the earlier translators. The Septuagint has v ^ASacrai, or yfiv &aj3acrd}V (also jfjv ^exTtet/i) y iariv 'ASaaai. Symmachus has rr]v KaTcorepav oSov ; Jonathan '^^rh KDiTl ^^1^6 (" into the southland Chodshi") ; and the Vulgate in terram inferiorem. The singular form C)"'nnri^ and the fact that we never read of a land called Chodshi, render the conjecture a very probable CHAP. XXIV. 1-9. 505 one that the text is corrupt. But it is no longer possible to dis- cover the correct reading. Ewald imagines that we should read Hermon instead of the unintelligible ClwdsU; but this is not very probable. Bottcher supposes D^nnn to be a mistake ni writing for D^ nn;., « below the lake," namely the lake of Grennesareth, which might have been called CliodsU (the new-moon-hke), since it had very much the appearance of a crescent when seen from the northern heights. This is ino-e- nious, but incredible. The order of the plaices named points^to the eastern side of the sea of Galilee ; for they went thence to Dan-Jaan, i.e. the Dan in northern Perasa," mentioned in Gen. xiv. 14, to the south-west of Damascus, at that time pro- bably the extreme north-eastern boundary of the kingdom of David, in the direction towards Syria (see at Gen. xiv. 14) : " and round to Sidon," the extreme north-western boundary of the kingdom. — Ver. 7. Thence southwards to the fortress of Zor, i.e. Tyre (see at Josh. xix. 29), and " into all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites" i.e. the towns in the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar, or the (subsequent) province of Galilee, in which the Canaanites had not been exterminated by the Israelites, but had only been made tributary. — Vers. 8, 9. When they had traversed the whole land, they came back to Jerusalem, at the end of nine months and twenty days, and handed over to the king the number of the people mustered : viz. 800,000 men of Israel fit for military service, drawing the sword, and 500,000 men of Judah. According to the Chronicles (ver. 5), there were 1,100,000 Israelites and 470,000 Judaeans. The numbers are not given by thousands, and therefore are only approximative statements in round numbers; and the difference in the two texts arose chiefly from the fact, that the statements were merely founded upon oral tradition, since, according to 1 Chron. xxvii. 4, the result of the census was not inserted in the annals of the kingdom. There is no ground, however, for regarding the numbers as exaggerated, if we only bear in mind that the entire population of a land amounts to about four times the number of those who are fit for military service, and there- fore 1 300 000, or even a million and a half, would only repre- sent a total population of five or six millions, — a number which could undoubtedly have been sustained in Palestine, according to thorouo-hiy reliable testimony as to its unusual fertility (see 50fi THE SECOND BOOK 01 SAMUEL. the discussion of this subject at Num. i.-iv., vol. iii. pp. 4-13), Still less can we adduce as a proof of exaggeration the fact, that according to 1 Chron. xxvii. 1-15, David had only an army of 288,000 ; for it is a well-known fact, that in all lands the army, or number of men in actual service, is, as a rule, much smaller than the total number of those who are capable of bearing arms. According to 1 Chron. xxi. 6, the tribes of Levi and Benjamin were not numbered, because, as the chro- nicler adds, giving his own subjective view, " the word of the king was an abomination to Joab," or, as it is affirmed in 1 Chron. xxvii. 4, according to the objective facts, " because the numbering was not completed." It is evident from this, that in consequence of Joab's repugnance to the numbering of the people, he had not hurried with the fulfilment of the king's command; so that when David saw his own error, he revoked the command before the census was complete, and so the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered at all, the tribe of Levi being of course eo ipso exempt from a census that was taken for the sake of ascertaining the number of men who were capable of bearing arms. Vers. 10-18. David's heart, i.e. his conscience, smote him, after he had numbered the people, or had given orders for the census to be taken. Having now come to a knowledge of his sin, he prayed to the Lord for forgiveness, because he had acted foolishly. The sin consisted chiefly in the self-exaltation which had led to this step (see the introductory remarks). — Vers. 11-13. When he rose up in the morning, after he had calmly reflected upon the matter during the night upon his bed, and had been brought to see the folly of his determina- tion, the prophet Gad came to him by the command of God, pointed out to him his fault, and foretold the punishment that would come from God. " Shall seven years of famine come upon thy land, or three months of flight before thine oppres- sors that they may pursue thee, or shall there be three days of pestilence in thy land? Now mark and see what answer I shall bring to Him that sendeth me." These three verses form one period, in which 13 N3J1 (ver. 13) answers as the consequent to '131 "in Di^>i in ver. 11, and the words from nin; lani (ver, \lh) to Tip-nK'j?S1 (ver. 12) form a circumstantial clause inserted between. 'U1 niVi' -\y^\ ; « and tlie word of the Lord had taken CHAP. XXIV. 10-18. 507 place (gone forth) to Gad, David's seer, saying. Go . . . thus saith Jehovah, I lay upon thee three (things or evils) ; choose thee one of them that I may do it to thee." Instead of bv i^QJ, to lay upon, we find noj in the Chronicles, "to turn upon thee." The three things are mentioned first of all in connec- tion vi^ith the execution of Gad's commission to the king. Instead of seven years of famine, we find three years in the Chronicles ; the Septuagint has also the number three in the passage before us, and apparently it is more in harmony with the connection, viz. three evils to choose from, and each lasting through three divisions of time. But this agreement favours the seven rather than the three, which is open to the suspicion of being intentionally made to conform to the rest. 'Hpp is an infinitive : " thy fleeing," for that thou fliest before thine enemies. In the Chronicles the last two evils are described more fully, but the thought is not altered in consequence. — Ver. 14. David replied, " I am in great trouble. Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercy is great ; but let me not fall into the hand of men." Thus David chose the third judgment, since pestilence comes directly from God. On the other hand, in flight from the enemy, he would have fallen into the hands of men. It is not easy to see, however, how far this could apply to famine ; probably inasmuch as it tends more or less to create dependence upon those who are still in possession of the means of life. — Ver. 15. God then gave (sent) a pestilence into (upon) Israel, "from the morning till the time of the assembly;" and there died of the people in the whole land (from Dan to Beersheba) seventy thousand men. " From the morning :" on which Gad had foretold the punish- ment. The meaning of ^yiD ^V"^V\ is doubtful. The render- ing "to the time appointed," i.e. "till the expiration of the three days," in support of which the Vulgate (ad tempus constitutum) is wrongly appealed to, is precluded not only by the circum- stance that, according to ver. 16, the plague was stayed earlier because God repented Him of the evil, so that it did not last so long as was at first appointed, but also by the grammatical difficulty that ^yiO nV has no article, and can only be rendered " for an (not for the) appointed time." We meet with two different explanations in the ancient versions : one in the Septuagint, em &pa<; apiarov, " till the hour of breakfast," i.e. 508 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. till the sixth hour of the clay, which is the rendering also adopted by the Syriac and Arabic as well as by Kimchi and several of the Rabbins ; the other in the Chaldee (Jonathan), " from the time at which the sacrifice is commonly slain until it is consumed." Accordingly Bochart explains 'lyiD ny as signifying "the time at which the people came together for evening prayers, about the ninth hour of the day, i.e. the third hour in the afternoon " (vid. Acts iii. 1). The same view also lies at the foundation of the Vulgate rendering, according to the express statement of Jerome (traditt. Hebr. in 2 libr. Regum) : " He calls that the time appointed, in which the even- ing sacrifice was offered." It is true that this meaning of IJJiD cannot be established by precisely analogous passages, but it may be very easily deduced from the frequent employment of the word to denote the meetings and festivals connected with the worship of God, when it generally stands without an article, as for example in the perfectly analogous "IpiO Qi' (Hos. ix. 5 ; Lam. ii. 7, 22) ; whereas it is always written with the article when it is used in the general sense of a fixed time, and some definite period is referred to.^ We must therefore decide in favour of the latter. But if the pestilence did not last a whole day, the number of persons carried off by it (70,000 men) exceeded very considerably the number destroyed by the most violent pestilential epidemics on record, although they have not unfrequently swept off hundreds of thousands in a very brief space of time. But the pestilence burst upon the people in this instance with supernatural strength and violence, that it might be seen at once to be a direct judgment from God. — Ver. 16. The general statement as to the divine judg- ment and its terrible effects is followed by a more minute ' The objections brought against this have no force in them, viz. thai, according to this view, the section must have been written a long time after the captivity (Clericus and Theniiis), and that " the perfectly general expression ' the time of meeting'' could not stand for the time of the afternoon or evening meeting" (Thenius) : for the former rests upon the assumption that the daily sacriiice was introduced after the captivity, — an assumption quite at variance with historical facts ; and the latter is overthrown by the simple remark, that the indefinite expression derived its more precise meaning from the legal appointment of the morning and evening sacrifice as times of meeting for the worship of God, inasmuch as the evening meet- ing was the only one that could be placed in contrast .with the morning. CHAP. XXIV. 10-18. 509 description of the judgment itself, and the arrest of the plague. "When the destroying angel (' the angeV is defined immediately afterwards as Ulie angel that destroyed the people') stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem to destroy it, Jehovah repented of the evil (for this expression, see Ex. xxxii. 14, Jer. xxvi. 13, 19, etc. ; and for the repentance of God, the remarks on Gen. vi. 6), and He commanded the angel. Enough ! stay now thine hand." This implies that the progress of the pestilence was stayed before Jerusalem, and therefore that Jerusalem itself was spared. " And the angel of Jehovah was at the threshing- floor of Aravnah the Jebusite." These words affirm most dis- tinctly that the destroying angel was visible. According to ver. 17, David saw him there. The visible appearance of tlie angel was to exclude every thought of a natural land plague. The appearance of the angel is described more minutely in the Chronicles : David saw him standing by the threshing-floor of Aravnah between heaven and earth witli a drawn sword in his hand, stretched out over Jerusalem. The drawn sword was a symbolical representation of the purpose of his coming (see at Num. xxii. 23 and Josh. v. 13). The threshing-floor of Aravnah was situated, like all other threshing-floors, outside the city, and upon an eminence, or, according to the more precise statement which follows, to the north-east of Zion, upon Mount Moriah (see at ver. 25). According to the Chethib of ver. 16, the name of the owner of the floor was ™"'A^.'!^, of ver. 18 n^n^, and of ver. 20 (twice) ^\'pj^,- The last form also occurs in vers. 22, 23, and 24, and has been substituted by the Masoretes as the Keri in vers. 16 and 18. In the Chronicles, on the other hand, the name is always written [JIN {Oman), and hence in the Septuagint we find "Opva in both texts. "The form njps (Aravnah) has not a Hebrew stamp, whereas Orna and Oman axe true Hebrew formations. But for this, very reason Aravnah appears to be derived from an ancient tradi- tion " (Bertheau).— Ver. 17. When David saw the angel, he prayed to the Lord (he and the elders being clothed in mourn- ino- costume: Chron.) : "Behold, /have sinned, and /have acted perversely ; but these, the flock, what have they done ? Let Thy hand come upon me and my house." The meaning is': I the shepherd of Thy people have sinned and transgressed, but the nation is innocent; i.e. not indeed free from every kind .'ilO THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. of blame, but only from the sin which God was punishing by the pestilence. It belongs to the very nature of truly peni- tential prayer, that the person praying takes all the blame upon himself, acknowledges before God that he alone is de- serving of punishment, and does not dwell upon the complicity of others for the sake of palliating his own sin in the sight of God. We must not infer, therefore, from this confession on the part of David, that the people, whilst innocent themselves, had had to atone only for an act of transgression on the part of their king. — Ver. 18. David's prayer was heard. The prophet Gad came and said to him by command of Jehovah, " Go up, and erect an altar to the Lord upon the floor of Aravnah the Jebusite." This is all that is communicated here of the word of Jehovah which Gad was to convey to the king ; the rest is given afterwards, as is frequently the case, in the course of the subsequent account of the fulfilment of the divine command (ver. 21). David was to build the altar and offei burnt-offerings and supplicatory-offerings upon it, to appease the wrath of Jehovah. The plague would then be averted from Israel. Vers. 19-25. David went up to Aravnah according to the command of God. — Vers. 20, 21. AVhen Aravnah saw the king coming up to him with his servants (^[^?'!1, " he looked out," viz. from the enclosure of the threshing-floor), he came out, bowed low even to the earth, and asked the king what was the occasion of his coming ; whereupon David replied, " To buy the floor from thee, to build an altar to the Lord, that the plague may be turned away from the people." — Ver. 22. Aravnah replied, " Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him : behold (i.e. there thou hast) the ox for the burnt-offering, and the threshing-machine, and the harness of the ox for wood" (i.e. for fuel), "'ij'^n, the pair of oxen yoked together in front of the threshing-machine. iiJ3[i \<3, the wooden yokes. " All this giveth Aravnah, king, to the king." ^iPan is a vocative, and is simply omitted by the LXX., Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic, because the translators regarded it as a nominative, which is quite unsuitable, as Aravnah was not a king. When Thenius, on the other hand, objects to this, for the purpose of throwing suspicion upon the passage, that the sentence is thus stamped as part of Aravnah's address to CHAP. XXIV. 19-25. 511 the king, and that in that case the words that follow, " and Aravnah said," would be altogether superfluous ; the former remark is correct enough, for the words " all this givetli Aravnah ... to the king" must form part of what Aravnah said, inasmuch as the remark, " all this gave Aravnah to the king," if taken as the historian's own words, would be in most glaring contradiction to what follows, where the king is said to have bought the floor and the oxen from Aravnah. And the words that follow (" and Aravnah said") are not superfluous on that account, but simply indicate that Aravnah did not proceed to say the rest in the same breath, but added it after a short pause, as a word which did not directly bear upon the question put by the king. "it?f<'l (and he said) is often repeated, where the same person continues speaking (see for example eh. xv. 4, 25, 27). " Jehovah thy God accept thee graciously," i.e. fulfil the request thou presentest to Him with sacrifice and prayer. — Ver. 24. The king did not accept the offer, however, but said, " No ; but I will buy it of thee at a price, and will not offer burnt-offerings to the Lord my God without paying for them." Thus David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. Instead of this, the Chronicles give " shekels of gold, in weight six hundred." This difference cannot be reconciled by assuming that David paid his fifty shekels in "old coin, which would have been worth as much as six hundred shekels of silver, since gold was worth twelve times as much as silver. For there is nothing about gold shekels in our text; and the words of the Chronicles cannot be inter- preted as meaning that the shekels of gold were worth six hundred shekels of silver. No other course is left, therefore, than to assume that the number must be corrupt in one of the texts. Apparently the statement in the Chronicles is the more correct of the two: for if we consider that Abraham paid four hundred shekels of silver for the site of a family burial- place, at a time when the land was very thinly populated, and therefore land must certainly have been much cheaper than it was in David's time, the small sum of fifty shekels of silver (about £6) appears much too low a price ; and David would certainly pay at least fifty shekels of gold. But we are not warranted in any case in speaking of the statement in the Chronicles, as Thenius does, as " intentionally exaggerated." 512 THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEt,. This style of criticism, which carries two kinds of weiglits and measures in its bag, explaining the high numbers in the booka of Samuel and Kings as corruptions of the text, and those in tli« Chronicles as intentional exaggerations on the part of the chronicler, is sufficiently dealt with by the remark of Bertheau, that " this (i.e. the charge of exaggeration) could only be sus- tained if it were perfectly certain that the chronicler had our present text of the books of Samuel before him at the time." — Ver. 25. After acquiring the threshing-floor by purchase, David built an altar to the Lord there, and offered burnt-offerings and supplicatory-offerings {shelamim : as in Judg. xx. 26, xxi. 4 ; 1 Sam. xiii. 9) upon it to the Lord. " So Jehovah was entreated, and the plague was turned away from Israel." This remark brings to a close not only the account of this particular occurrence, but also the book itself ; whereas in the Chronicles it is still further stated that Jehovah answered David with fire from heaven, which fell upon the burnt- offering ; and that after his prayer had been answered thus, David not only continued to offer sacrifice upon the floor of Aravnah, but also fixed upon it as the site for the temple which was afterwards to be built (1 Chron. xxi. 27, xxii. 1) ; and to this there is appended, in ch. xxii. 2 sqq., an account of the ])reparations which David made for the building of the temple. It is not affirmed in the Chronicles, however, that David fixed upon this place as the site for the future temple in consequence of a revelation from God, but simply that he did this, because he saw that the Lord had answered him there, and because he could not go to Gibeon, where the tabernacle was standing, to seek the Lord there, on account of the sword of the angel, i.e. on account of the pestilence. The command of God to build an altar upon the threshing-floor of Aravnah, and offer expia- tory sacrifices upon it, when connected with His answering his prayer by turning away the plague, could not fail to be taken as a distinct intimation to David, that the site of this altar was the place where the Lord would henceforth make known His gracious presence to His people ; and this hint was quite suffi- cient to determine the site for the temple which his son Solo- mon was to build. PUBLlCAl lUiNtj UF T. &c T. C Xj ^ I^ IC, 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT & CO. LIMITED. Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of Jjjvies. 8vo, 9s. Ahlfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price 5s. Alcock (Deborah) — The Seven Churches of Asia. Is. Alexander (Prof. W. Lindsay) —Biblical Theology. Two vols. 8 vo, 2 1 s. Alexander (Dr. J. A.) — Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 17s. AUen (Prof. A. V. G.) — Life of Jonathan Edwards. Fcap. 8vo, 5 s. Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works or THE Fathers of the Chuistian Church peior to the Council of Nic^A. Twenty-four vols. 8to, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols. 8to, Subscription price, £3, 19s. nett. Bannerman (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Bannerman (D. D., D.D.) — The Doctrine of the Church. 8vo, 12s. Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. Svo, 27s. Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s. Pastoral Theology in the New Testament. Crown 8vo, 6s. Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. Svo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d. Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s. Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s. Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown Svo. BiNNiE (Prof.)— The Church, Is. 6cl. Brown (Principal)— The Epistle to the Romans, 2s. Candlish (Prof.)— The Christian Sacraments?, Is. 6d.— The Work of the Holy Spirit, Is. 6d. — Christian Doctrine of Gorl, Is. 6d. Davidson (Prof.)— The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2s. 6d. DODS (Prof.)— Post-Exilian Prophets, 2s. Book of Genesis, 2s. Douglas (Principal)— Book of Joshua, Is. 6d. Book of Judges, Is. 3d. Hamilton (T., D.D.)— Irish Presbyterian Church History, 2s. Henderson (Archibald, D.D.) — Palestine, with Maps, 2s. 6d. Innes (A. Taylor) — Church and State. 8s. Kilpatrick (T. B., B.D.)— Butler's Three Sermons on Human Nature, Is. 6d. Lindsay (Prof.)— St. Mark's Gospel, 2s. 6d.— St. Luke's Gospel, Part I., 2s.; Part II., Is. 3d.— The Reformation, 2s. — The Acts of the Apostles, two vols., Is. 6d. each. Macgregor (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Galatians, Is. 6d. . Book of Exodus. Two vols., 2s. each. Macphei!S0N (John, M.A.)— Presbyterianism, Is. 6d. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 23. The Sum of Saving Knowledge, Is. 6d. MuEPHT (Prof.)- The Books of Chronicles, Is. 6d. Reith (Geo., M.A.)— St. John's Gospel. Two vols., 2s. each. SCRYMGEOUR (Wm.)— Lessons on the Life of Christ, 2s. 6d. Stalker (James, D.D.)— Life of Christ, Is. 6d. Life of St. Paul, Is. 6d. Smith (George, LL.D.)— A Short History of Missions, 2s. 6d. Thomson (W. D., M.A.)— Christian Miracles and Conclusions of Science, 2s. Walker (Norman L., D.D.)— Scottish Church History, Is. 6d. Whyte (Alexander, D.D.)— The Shorter Catechism, 2s. 6d. Bible-Class Primers. Paper covers, 6d. each; free by post, 7d, In cloth, 8d. each ; free by post, 9d. ,-n ,^ rri. v ,-, a -^ Croskeet (Prof.)-Joshua and the Conquest. Given (Prof.)-The Kings of Judah. Gloag (Paton J., D.D.)— Life of Paul. Ivekach (James, M.A.)— Life of Moses. Patbrson (Prof. J. A.)— Period of the Judges. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Bible-Class Primers — continued. BoBSON (John, D.D.)— Outltnea of Protestant Missions. SALMOND(Prof.) — Life of Peter. The Shorter Catechism, 3 Parts. Life of Christ. Scott (C. A., B.D.)— Life of Abraham. Skinner (J., Prof.V— Historical Connection between Old and New Testaments. Smith (H. W., n.D.)— Outlines of Early Church History. THOMSON(P.,M.A.)—Lifeof David. Walkek(W.,M.A.)— The Kingsof Israel. WiNTEEBOTHAM (Eayner, M.A.) — Life and Eeign of Solomon. WiTHEKOw (Prof.) — The History of the Eeformation. BlaiMe (Prof. W. G.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the 6th TO THE 19th Century. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 2Is. Bowman (T., M.A.) — Easy and Complete Hebrew Course. 8vo. Part I., 7s. 6d. ; Part IL, 10s. 6d. Briggs (Prof.)— Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods, and History. Second Kdition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d. American Presbyterianism. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Messianic Prophecy. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. W HITHER % A Theological Question for th e Times. Post 8 vo, 7s. 6d. Brown (David, D.D.) — Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Pre- Miilennial ? Seventh Edition, crown Svo, 7s. 6d. Bruce (A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting the Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. 4th Ed. , Svo, 10s. 6d. The Humiliation of Christ. 3rd Ed., Svo, 10s. 6d. ■ The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the Synoptical Gospels. New Edition, 7s. 6d. Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. Svo, 10s. 6d. On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. On Improvement of Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. Bungener (Felix) — Eome and the Council in 19th Century. Cr.8vo,5s. Calvin's Institutes of Christian Eeligion. (Translation. )2vols.8vo, 1 4s. Calvini Instltutio Christianse Keligionis. Curavit A. Tholuck. Two vols. Svo, Subscription price, 14a. CandUsh (Prof. J. S., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God, Biblically and HiSTOKIOALLY CONSIDEKED. 8vo, lOs. 6d. Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc- tion TO THE Life of Christ. Svo, 7s. 6d. Caspers (A.) — The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. Cassel (Prof) — Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Cave (Prof) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atone- ment. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d. An Introduction to Theology : Its Principles, its Branches, its Results, and its Literature. Svo, 12s. Christlieb (Dr.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. Svo, 10s. 6d. Cotterill — PeregRINUS Proteus : Clement to the Corinthians, etc. Svo, 12s. Modern Criticism : Clement's Epistles to Virgins, etc. 8vo, 5s. Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa- ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History op Christian Doctrine. Svo, 9s. Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Discussions on Church Principles. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Curtiss (Dr. S. I.)— The Levitical Priests. Crown Svo, 5s. Dabney (R. L., D.D.) — The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Considered. Crown Svo, 6s. 1 . ana i . i^iar/e s jruoucations. Davidson (Professor) — An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. With Progressive Exercises in Eeading and Writing. '&m.'(Si Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d. Delitzsch (Prof.)— A System of Biblical Psychology. 8vo, 12s. New Commentary on Genesis. Two Vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Job. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Psalms. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. On the Proverbs of Solomon. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Song of Solomon and Ecglesiastes. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on Isaiah. Second Edition, two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Isaiah. Fourth Edition, re-written, two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Iris : Studies in Colour and Talks about Flowers. Post Svo, 6s. Doedes — Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics. Cr. Svo, 3s. DoUInger (Dr.) — Hippolytus and Callistus. Svo, 7s. 6d. Domer (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine OF THE Person of Christ. Five vols. Svo, £2, 12s. 6d. System of Christian Doctrine. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s. System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s. Eadie (Professor) — Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. New and Kevised Editions, Edited by Eev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. Svo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. nett. Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. Svo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Apologetics. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Elliott — On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Svo, 6s. Emesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s. Ewald (Heinrich) — Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. Svo, Ss. 6d. Revelation: Its Nature and Eecord. Svo, 10s. 6d. Old and New Testament Theology. Svo, 10s. 6d. Fairbaim (Prin.) — The Eevelation of Law in Scripture, Svo, 10s. 6d. Ezekiel AND the Book of his Prophecy. 4th Ed., Svo, 10s. 6d. Prophecy. Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special Functions, and Peopek Interpretations. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d. Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. Svo, 8s. 6d. ■ Analytical Commentary on the Eomans. Svo, 10s. 6d. Studies in the Book of Psalms. Svo, 7s. 6d. The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Cr. 8vo, 5s. Frank (Prof. F. H.)— System of Christian Evidence. Svo, 10s. 6d. Fyfe (James) — The Hereafter : Sheol, Hades, and Hell, the World to Come, and the Scriptuie Doctrine of Retribution according to Law. Svo, 7s. 6d. Gebhardt (H. ) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its relation to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Svo, 10s. 6d. Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. Svo, lOs. 6d. Gieseler (Dr. J. 0. L.) — Ecclesiastical History. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s. Gifford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. Given (Eev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truths of Scripture in connection with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon. Svo, 6s. Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. Svo, io/6. Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary ON THE Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. Svo, 21s. The Messianic Prophecies. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. T. and T. ClarMs Publications. Gloag(P. J.,D.D.) — Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 12s. Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Exegetical Studies. Crown 8vo, 5s. Godet (Prof.) — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo,21s. Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. 8vo, 3 Is. 6d. Commentary on Epistle TO THE Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. • Commentary ON 1st Epistle TO Corinthians. 2voIs. 8vo,21s. Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cr. 8vo, 6s. Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things THAT ARE Made. Crown 8vo, 5s. Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans- lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayek, D.D. Demy 4to, 36s. Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Creation ; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d. Hagenbach (Dr.K.R.) — History of Doctrines. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. History of the Eeformation. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. HaU (Eev. Newman, LL.B.) — The Lord's Prayer. 2nd Ed., cr. 8vo, 6s. Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants, Occupations, and Life. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Harris(Rev. S., D.D.) — The Philosophical Basis of Theism. 8vo,12s. The Self-Eevelation of God. 8vo, 12s. Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Havemick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d. Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.) — The Tripartite Nature of Man — Spirit, Soul, and Body. Fifth Edition, crown Svo, 6s. Old AND New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr. 8vo,6s. Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol. L, to A.D. 325 ; Vol. II., a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. III., a.d. 431 to the close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Svo, 12s. each. Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms. 3 vols. 8vo, 33s. Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, etc. 8vo, 9s. The Prophecies of Ezekiel Elucidated. 8vo, lOs. 6d. The Genuineness of Daniel, etc. Svo, 12s. History of the Kingdom of God. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Christology of the Old Testament. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s. On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Herzog — ENCYCLOPJiDiA of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology. Based on the Real-EncyMopddie of Henog, PUtt, and HaucJc. Edited by Prof. Sohaff, D.D. In three vols., price 24s. each. En"cyclop.^dia of Living Divines, etc., op all Denominations IN Europe AND America. (Supplementto Herzog' sEncyclopcedia.) Imp.8vo,8s. Hutchison (John, D.D.) — Commentary on Thessalonians. Svo, 9s. Commentary on Philippians. Svo, 7s. 6d. Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. By Paul Janet, Member of the In- stitute. Translated from the French. Second Edition, demy Svo, 123. The Theory of Morals. Demy 8vo, lOs. 6d. Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.) — Commentary on 1st Peter. Svo, lOs. 6d. Jones (E. E. 0.) — Elements of Logic. Svo, 7s. 6d. JoufFroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown Svo, 6s. Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. Hastie, B.D. Cr. Svo, 5s. Kell (Prof.) — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. T. and T. Clark's FubLications. Keil (Prof.)— Commentary ON Joshua, Judges,and Euth. 8vo,10s.6d. ■ Commentary on the Books of Samuel. 8vo, 10s. 6d. ■ Commentary on the Books of Kings. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary on Chronicles. 8vo, 10s. 6d. • Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d. • Commentary on Jeremiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Ezekiel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Daniel. 8vo, 10s. 6d. On the Books of the Minor Prophets. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Sokiptures of the Old Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Handbook of Biblical Archeology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Keymer (Eev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Killen (Prof.) — The Framework of the Church. A Treatise on Church Government. 8vo, 9s. The Old Catholic Church ; or, The History, Doctrine, ■Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced to a.d. 755. 8vo, 9s. The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Or. 8vo, 2s. 6d. Kdnig (Dr. F. E.) — The Religious History of Israel. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eightli Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. Svo, 6s. Autobiography. Crown Svo, 6s. Kurtz (Prof.) — Handbook of Church History. Two vols. Svo, 15s. History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Ladd (Prof. G. T.) — The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture : A Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. Svo, 1600 pp., 24s. Laidlaw (Prof.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man. Svo, 10s. 6d. Lane (Laura M.) — Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. Lange (J. P., D.D.) — -The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. 2ud Ed., in 4 vols. Svo, Subscription price, 28s. Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10 vols. ; Apockypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each. On St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. On the Gospel of St. Luke. Two vols. Svo, 1 8s. On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) — The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. Svo, 16s. Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. Lichtenberger (F., D.D.) — History of German Theology in the 19th Centukt. Svo, 14s. Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his relation to the World. Fourth Edition, two vols. Svo (1450 pages), 36s. Luthardt, Kahnis, and Brtlckner — The Church. Crown Svo, 5s. Luthardt (Prof ) — St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s. 6d. , St. John's Gospel Described and Explained according TO ITS Peoitliaii Chaeactek. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (6 Ed.), Saving (5 Ed.\ Moral Truths of Chbtstianity (3 Ed.). 3 vols. cr. Svo, 6s. each. . , History of Christian Ethics. Vol. I., Svo, 10s. 6d. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s. Mair (A., D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. Martensen (Bishop) — Christian Dogmatics : A Compendium of the Doctrines of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (General Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (Individual Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (Social Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Aids to the Study of German Theology. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d. Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 2Is. On Mark and Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On St. John's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Epistle to the Eomans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On Corinthians. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On Galatians. 8vo, 10s. 6d. On Ephesians and Philemon. One vol. 8vo, lOs. 6d. On Philippians and Colossians. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. On Thessalonians. {Dr. Lunemann.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Pastoral Epistles. (Dr. Huther.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Epistle TO the Hebrews. (Dr. iMnemann.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. St. James' and St. John's Epistles. (Huther.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Peter and Jude. (Dr. Huther.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Michie (Charles, M.A.)— Bible Words and Phrases. ISmo, Is. Monrad (Dr. D. G.) — The World of Prayer. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d. Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Milller (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. An entirely New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Murphy (Professor) — Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 12s. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s. Naville (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despr^. Cr.8vo,4s.6d. Modern Physics: Studies Historical and Philosophical. Translated by Rev. Henry Downton, M.A. Crown 8vo, 5s. Neander (Dr.) — General History of the Christian Religion and Chukch. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d. NicoU (W. K., LL.D.)— The Incarnate Saviour: A Life of Jesus Christ. Crown 8vo, 6s. Novalis — Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s. Oehler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown 8vo, 24s. Romans. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Corinthians. One vol. 8vo, 9s. Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. Words of Life for Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols. 8vo, 6s. each. Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s. 1 . and 1 . L Lark's fubUcations. Orelli — Old Testament Prophecy oe the Consummation of God's Kingdom. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Commentary ON Isaiah. 8vo,10s. 6d. Jeremiah. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 43. The ' Hebreivs ' may be had separately, in seven vols., £2, 2s. nett. Philippi (F. A. ) — Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. From the Third Improved Edition, by Rev. Professor Banks. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Piper — Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 2] s. Popular Conunentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip ScHAFF, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. — The Synoptical Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. III. — Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. — Heeeews to Revelation. In four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d. each. Pressens6 (Edward de) — The Eedeemer : Discourses. Crown 8vo, 6s. Punjer (Bemhard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion fkom the Eefokmation to Kant. 8vo, 16s. Eabiger (Prof.) — ENCYCLOPiEDiA of Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine. {The Fifth Series of the Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Reusch (Prof.) — Nature and the Bible : Lectures on the Mosaic History of Creation in Relation to Natural Science. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Eeuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. 640 pp. 8vo, 15s. Eiehni(Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy. New Ed., re-trans. {In Press.) Ritter (Carl) — Comparative GtEOGRAphy of Palestine. 4 vols. 8vo, 26s. Eobinson (Eev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Eedemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Robinson (B., D.D. ) — Greek and Eng. Lexicon of the N. Test. 8vo,9s. Ross(C.) — OurFather'sKingdom: LectureontheLord'sPrayer. Cr.Svo. Rothe (Prof.) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of IJivine Love. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Schaff (Professor)— History op the Christian Church. (New Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Apostolic Christianity, a.d. I-IOO. 2 vols. Ex. Svo, 21s. — Ante-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 100-325. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is. — PosT-NrcENE Christianity, A.D. 325-600. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is. — Medieval Christianity, A.D. 590-1073. 2 vols. Ex.8vo,2is. {Completion of this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation.) — Modern Christianity, A.D. 1517-1530. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Didache and Kindred Documents in the Original. Second Edition, ex. 8vo, 9s. Schleiermacher's Christmas Eve. Crown 8vo, 2s. Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Schiirer (Prof.) — History of the Jewish People. 5 vols. Svo, 52/6. Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) — Principles op New Testament Quotation Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit., 4s. Shedd — History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Sermons to the Natural Man. Svo, 7s. 6d. Sermons to the Spiritual Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Dogmatic Theology. Two vols. ex. Svo, 25s. Simon (Prin. ) — The Bible ; An Outgrowth of TheocraticLif e. Cr. 8vo, 4/6. The Redemption of Man. Svo, 10s. 6d. Smeaton (Professor) — The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught BY Christ Himself. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d. T, and T. Clark's Publications. Smeaton (Professor) — On the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Second Edition, 8vo, 9s. Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.) — Medieval Missions. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. Stahlin (Leonh.) — Kant, Lotze, and Kitschl. 8vo, 9s. Stalker (Jas.,D.D.) — Life or Christ. Large Type Ed., cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. Stanton (V. H., M.A.) — The Jewish and The Christian Messiah. A Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, lOs. 6d. Steinmeyer (Dr. P. L.) — The Miracles of Our Lord. 8vo, 7s. 6d. The History of the Passion and Eesurrection of cue Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. Steward (Eev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, 10s.6d. Stier (Dr. Eudolph) — On the "Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight vols. Svo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d. The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on THE Epistle of St. James. Svo, 10s. 6d. The "Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Stirling (Dr. J. Hutchison)— Philosophy and Theology. Post Svo, 9s. Tholuck (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s. Tophel (Pastor G-.) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d. TJhlhorn(Gr.)— Christian Charity in the Ancient Church. Cr. Svo, 6s. UUmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi- pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. Svo, 21s. The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity. Fourth Edition, crown Svo, 6s. TIrwick (W., M.A.) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary upon Isaiah lii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Svo, 3s. Vinet (Professor) — Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown Svo, 5s. Vinet (Life and "Writings of). By L. M. Lane. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. Walker (J., D.D.) — Theology and Theologians of Scotland. New Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d. Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of THE Faith. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s. The Reign of Causality : A Vindication of the Scientific Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency. Crown Svo, 6s. The New Apologetic. Crown 8vc, 6s. Weir (J. F., M.A.) — The "Way : The Nature and Means op Salva- tion. Ex. crown Svo, 6s. 6d. Weiss (Prof. ) — Biblical Theology ofNewTestament. 2 vol s. Svo, 2 1 s. Life of Christ. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. "White (Eev. M.) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. 8vo, 4s. WiUiams — Select Vocabulary of Latin Etymology. Fcap. Svo, is. 6d. Winer (Dr. 6. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar op New Testa- ment Gkeek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third Edition, edited by W. E. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, Svo, 16s. TheDoCTRINESANDCONFESSIONSOFChRISTENDOM. 8vo,10s.6d. Witherow(Prof .T. ,D.D. ) — The Form of the Christian Temple. Svo,io/6. Workman (Prof. G. C.)— The Text of Jeremiah; or, A Critical Investi- gation of the Greek and Hebrew, with the Variations in the LXX Retrans- lated into the Original, and Explained. Post Svo, 9s. Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown 8vo, 5s. Wuttke (Professor) — Christian Ethics. Two vols. Svo, 12s. 6d.