3. Ruth

Related Media

A. The third appendix, a godly line established (Ruth 1:1—4:22).

After working through the book of Judges, one feels the need of a shower. This makes the little book of Ruth a shower most refreshing. It is an idyllic, godly respite in the midst of the canaanization of the Jewish people. The sordid story of the acquisition of wives for the Benjamites is in sharp contrast to the acquisition of a wife by Boaz. The mutual concern of Naomi and Ruth is radically different from the attitude of the Levite to his concubine wife.

1. Struggling in Bethlehem (1:1).

The existence of a famine is an oxymoron in an area known for its productivity. Bethlehem means “house of bread.” The story happened sometime during the period of the judges, but obviously, it is being produced in final form after the time of David. It, no doubt, is designed to help elevate the family of David, perhaps over the family of Saul. The famine caused a migration to a part of the world that was not under a famine.

In contrast to the book of Judges, everyone has a name: Elimelech (my God is King); Naomi (pleasant); Mahlon (sickly); and Chilion (puny). This whole family unit made the fairly long journey to Moab ¹ and settled there.²

2. Struggling in Moab (1:2-5).

Unfortunately, this major family move did not prove salutary. First, Elimelech died. Then her two sons married Moabite girls. Orpah, the meaning of whose name is uncertain, but some suggest that it is a variant of Oprah, a gazelle, and Ruth. BDB derives her name from רְעוּת R^e‘uth meaning “friendship.” HALOT derives it from a different root, and so (refreshment.)³ Then the two boys died. We are told that the family lived there for ten years, but the intermediate time elements are not given, however, since there were no babies, the boys must have died shortly after marriage.⁴ So, Naomi was left with no blood kinsman.

3. Returning to Bethlehem (1:6-18).

Rumor has announced that Yahweh had returned prosperity to the house of bread.⁵ Consequently, Naomi packs up her meager belongings to go home. Her daughters-in-law are with her. ⁶ They started out on the arduous trek to Judah. Naomi turns to her two daughters-in-law and urges them to return to their parents’ home. The MT (ketib) says that Yahweh will show kindness to them as they have toward her but reads (qere) a form that makes it a prayer, “May Yahweh show you kindness…” Her prayer continues, asking Yahweh to make them find rest, each in the house of her husband. The women were still young, so, she prays that they will find a second husband. Then she kissed them, and they cried. In unison, they said, “let us return with you.” (1:6-11).

Naomi explains, logically, that she is incapable of providing more sons as husbands. Even if she could, they would not be willing to wait until they were grown. She does not want them to share in the bitterness she has received from the hand of Yahweh on their account. Here is the first mention of her bitterness (cf. 1:20). The meaning is not clear as to whom she compares her bitterness. Campbell says, “She makes her case against God stronger by comparing her condition to that of her daughters-in-law.”⁷ So, they both weep again, and Orpah leaves to return home, ⁸ but Ruth clings to Naomi (1:12-14).

We now turn to one of the most beautiful accounts in the Bible. Naomi urges Ruth to follow Orpah. Ruth begs Naomi to stop urging her to leave her. “Wherever you go, I go, and wherever you stay, I will stay; your people will be my people, and your God, my God. Wherever you die, I will die and be buried. Thus, may Yahweh do to me [the oath formula] and even more, if anything but death separate us.” Ruth is acknowledging her allegiance to Yahweh, not Chemosh the god of the Moabites. So, Naomi accepted the determination of Ruth to go with her and gave up urging her (1:15-18).

4. Coming home after a ten-year absence (1:19-22).

As they entered the village of Bethlehem, the women gathered around in astonishment. They had assumed they would never see her again. They ask, “Is this really Naomi.” However, Naomi replies bitterly, “Do not call me pleasant, but call me bitter, for Shadday (the Almighty) has treated me very bitterly.” Here she uses Shadday not Yahweh because she argues that God could have prevented her problems had he chosen to. She says that she went out full, but Yahweh has returned her empty. So, why should you call me pleasant. Yahweh has answered ⁹ (in court) against me, and Shadday has mistreated me. Now she brings both names into the action. Whether the covenant keeping Yahweh or the powerful Shadday, she has been the brunt of bad treatment.

The narrator concludes with the statement that Naomi and the foreign girl Ruth returned to Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley har-vest.¹⁰

5. The kinsman redeemer (goel) (2:1-3).¹¹

The kinsman redeemer or goel has four usages in the Old Testament. The classic passage is Lev 25:23-28. 1) when a person sells land because of poverty, the next of kin is to buy it back so that it can stay in the family. If he has no kinsman, but he regained his prosperity, he may buy it back himself. He buys it back on a pro-rata basis. If he is unable to buy it back, it remains in the hand of the purchaser until the year of Jubilee (Lev 25:10). An example is found in Jeremiah 32, where Jeremiah’s cousin, Hanamel, asked Jeremiah to buy property occupied by the Babylonian army. 2) Blood avenger (Numbers 35). The next of kin is to kill the one who killed a man. The cities of refuge were established to allow room for accidental killing. 3) An Israelite sells himself to a sojourner as a slave (Lev 25:47-5). A kinsman may redeem him on a prorated basis. 4) God as the goel of Israel appears 21 times in Isaiah alone. So, in the Book of Ruth, the redemption of Abimelech’s land by Boaz is clearly the enactment of the redeemer of land to keep it in the family.

A second set of laws is merged into the Ruth story: the levirate ¹² marriage. This practice is defined in Deut 25:5-10. If a man dies without a son, his brother is obligated to marry the widow. The first son born to this union belongs to the dead brother and inherits his property. The implementation of this practice is found in Genesis 38.

The story of Ruth and Boaz does not quite fit the regulation.¹³ Boaz is not Elimelech’s brother; even if so, he should not marry Ruth, but Naomi. Thus, we have a mixture of the practice of goel of property and partial levirate marriage. The implementation of this was probably lax and, therefore, allowed for flexibility.¹⁴

So, we meet Boaz. Note that he is a relative of Elimelech, not Mahlon, but it is through Ruth that he raises seed to Elimelech.

This Boaz is a אִישׁ גִּבּוֹר חַיִל ish gibbor ḥayil. This phrase appears some 15 times (plus אשׁת חיל ishet ḥayil of Ruth in 3:11, and of the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31). In the plural (men of valor), it appears some 29 times. The vast majority of the times it refers to fighting men (especially in the plural). Here in Ruth, the translators struggle to know how to deal with it. KJV “mighty man of wealth”; NASB “great wealth”; ESV “a worthy man”; NIV “a man of standing.” I once read an article (now lost to me) where the author posited that Boaz was a member of the militia. This is more in keeping with the basic meaning. However, we also have Proverbs 31:10 where a good woman is referred to as a woman of valor. She is not a gibbor (man). In any event, Boaz is one who stands out.¹⁵ It is important to note that he is a kinsman of Elimelech.¹⁶

Ruth displays her diligence (see Proverbs 31) in setting out to provide food for her little family as only poor people can. Joüon cites Janssen regarding a scene where poor Arabs glean in modern times.¹⁷ It was “just her luck” to ask at a field owned by Boaz.¹⁸ The narrator, of course, is committed to the idea that Yahweh is engineering this whole process.

6. The kinsman redeemer notices (2:4-7).

And look! Says the narrator. Here comes the man himself. He called out a greeting (really a blessing) to the reapers. They respond in kind. All this sets the frame for the picture that Boaz is a good, godly man. He looks behind the reapers and sees a young woman. He turns to the man in charge and asks, “To whom does this girl belong?”¹⁹ His response is brief but clear, she is the Moabite girl who came back with Naomi from Moab. She asked permission to glean, and she has been at it all day except for a bit of rest in the house.²⁰

7. The kinsman redeemer gives special attention (2:8-16).

Boaz begins the choreography by urging her to spend the rest of the harvest in his field.²¹ He tells her he has charged the young men to leave her alone (was this a common problem?). Furthermore, when she is thirsty, she is to come to the water station and drink. She fell on her face and expressed her thanksgiving, but Boaz said that he already knows her story. He calls on Yahweh to fully reward her; this Yahweh under whose wings she has taken refuge.²² She again expressed her appreciation (2:8-13).

He takes it one step further. He tells her to come to the place they eat and participate with them. The Hebrew is subtle, but it looks as though he, himself, dipped some parched corn for her in the vinegar, she ate it, was satisfied, and had some left over. After lunch, she went back to work, and he charges the servants to let her glean among the sheaves and not to insult her. Furthermore, he tells them to pull out some of the stalks and leave them for her and again tells them not to rebuke her (2:14-16).

8. The kinsman redeemer revealed (2:17-23).

Ruth kept working until the evening, then she beat out the grain and had about half an ephah of barley. This comes to approximately one-half bushel. She shows ²³ this, plus the extra parched grain, to Naomi who is amazed. She wants to know where she gleaned to get so much barley. She told Naomi everything, including the name Boaz. Naomi praised God and told her he was a near kinsman, one who could redeem them. Naomi agreed with Boaz that she should stick with his maidens so that no one could molest her in another field. Consequently, she stuck with Boaz’s maidens until the barley harvest and wheat harvest were over. During that time, she stayed with her mother-in-law.

9. Naomi’s plan of attack (3:1-5).²⁴

Naomi, having come to know who Boaz was, as a potential husband for Ruth, sets out to create a situation in which he commits himself.²⁵ She says to Ruth, should I not seek a pleasant rest ²⁶ for you? ²⁷ “Rest” in this context means security and care from a husband (3:1).²⁸

Now, she says, “Boaz, our acquaintance, with whose female servants you were—look, he is winnowing on the barley threshing floor tonight.” Winnowing consists of throwing the stalks into the air after beating them with a flail. The wind blows away the chaff (Psalm 1:4), and the grain falls to the ground.²⁹ She then tells Ruth what to do.³⁰ These are short commands: wash, anoint, put on your garment, and go down to the threshing floor.³¹ She is not to reveal herself until he has finished eating and drinking. Next, when he lies down, she is to mark the place, uncover his feet, and lie down. She tells her that Boaz will take it from there. Ruth agreed to do all this (3:2-5).

10. The encounter on the threshing floor (3:6-13).

She did as she was told, and when Boaz had eaten and drunk, he was tipsy (his heart was good), and he lay down by the heaps (of barley). She came quietly and uncovered his feet (literally, the place of his feet). This action would presumably awaken him when his feet became cold.³² In the middle of the night, Boaz awoke trembling and looked all around. Look, there was a woman lying at the place of his feet. He asked her who she was, and she replied, I am Ruth your servant, therefore,³³ spread out your garment (wing) over your handmade, for you are a kinsman redeemer (3:6-9).

What is this strange request Ruth, makes? Ezek 16:8 spells it out explicitly as an action of Yahweh with Israel: “I crossed over to you and saw you, and look, your time for loving had come. So, I spread my garment (wing) over you, and covered your nakedness. I swore to you and entered a covenant with you, says Yahweh, and you became mine.” This makes it clear that Ruth was asking Boaz to marry her.

Boaz praised her for her kindness to him (latter kindness, ḥesed) in that she has chosen an older man rather than one of the young guys. So, he understood her actions to be a request of marriage, and he commits himself to it (3:10).

However, there is an impediment, she has a nearer kinsman than he. He tells her to spend the night, and, in the morning, the great shootout will begin (3:11-13).

11. The kinsman redeemer ensnared (3:14-18).

Ruth lay at his feet until the crack of dawn (did either of them sleep?), and Boaz said, “We do not want anyone to know that a woman has come to the threshing floor.” Boaz is concerned about the reputation of both of them. He told her to make a lap out of her robe.³⁴ He measured six measures of barley.³⁵ He put the barley on her, and she went ³⁶ to the village (4:14-15).

She came to her mother-in-law, who said (probably loudly), “who are you, my daughter?” This construction means “what is your situation?” Naomi had probably been up all night. Now she’s anxious to hear how it all came down. So, Ruth told her everything, as well as showed her the six measures of barley. Naomi told her to sit tight and wait to see how it would all fall out. She was sure that the man would not stay quiet until he had solved everything.

12. The kinsman redeemer checkmates the closer kinsman (4:1-6).

As Naomi suspected, Boaz wasted no time dealing with the issue.³⁷ He was well prepared and rehearsed as to what to say and do. The gates of walled cities had seats installed where official business could take place. He went to the gate early and took a seat.³⁸ He must have known the habits of the near kinsman. When he strolled by, Boaz invited him to take a seat. He does not name him, because the storyteller wants him out of the picture. Consequently, he calls him “Mr. so-and-so.”³⁹ Then Boaz took ten men of the elders of the city and seated them in the gate (4:1-2).

Boaz then addressed the near kinsman. That piece of land belonging to our relative (literally, brother), Elimelech, Naomi, who returned from Moab is selling.⁴⁰ “So, I said, I will tell you about it (literally uncover your ear), saying, acquire it before those sitting here and before the elders of my people. If you want to redeem it, redeem, but if you will not redeem it, tell me so that I might know, for you are the only one to redeem it, and I am after you.” The near kinsman almost nonchalantly says, “I will buy it.” The “I” is emphatic (4:3-4).

Then Boaz pulls the string on the trap. As soon as you get the field from Naomi,⁴¹ you also get Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, so as to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance.⁴² The near kinsman immediately demurred because of his fear of what it might do to his inheritance.⁴³ “You go ahead and redeem my redemption rights” (4:5-6).

13. The kinsman redeemer’s triumph (4:7-12).

The narrator, who is some distance in time from the events, explains what is about to happen. Any kind of redemption or exchange was accompanied by the removal of a sandal and giving it to the other party. This became a testimony in Israel. The near kinsman did just that. This practice is different from the original goel legislation in Deut 25:5-10. There, the woman pulls off the man’s sandal and spits in his face. Time apparently has affected the tradition.

Now, Boaz was free to turn to the people gathered, and to the ten elders, “You are witnesses that I have acquired all that was Elimelech’s and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s from Naomi. And also, Ruth the Moabitess, wife of Mahlon, I have acquired as a wife to establish the name of the dead on his inheritance, so that the name of the dead would not be cut off from his brothers and the gate of his place—you are witnesses this day.” Everyone happily agreed, raised their hands as witnesses, and prayed a prayer: “May Yahweh make this woman who has come into your house like Rachel and Leah, the two of whom built the house of Israel. And may he acquire wealth in Ephrathah, and may people call out his name in Bethlehem. Furthermore, may your house be like the house of Perez ⁴⁴ whom Tamar birthed to Judah. All this from the seed which Yahweh will give you from this woman.”

14. The marriage made in heaven (4:13-17).

Marriages were made when a man took the woman to the bridal chamber and consummated the relationship. Soon Ruth was pregnant and produced a son. Naomi plays a different role. Under ordinary circumstances, Boaz would marry Naomi and raise up seed to Elimelech. Since Naomi was beyond childbearing age, it is Ruth who has the child, but he belongs to Naomi. So, the women said to Naomi, “You are blessed of Yahweh who did not allow a redeemer this day to cease, and his name will be called out in Israel. This child shall restore your life and sustain you when you get old, because your daughter-in-law who loves you, has given birth to him. She is better to you than ten sons.” Naomi then took the baby, placed him in her bosom and became his nurse. The neighbors called out a name for the baby saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” So, they called him Obed (he is the father of Jesse, the father of David).

15. The main purpose of the book of Ruth (4:18-22).

Suddenly, there is an insert into the story that takes us back to Genesis, “these are the generations of . . .” A genealogical list of ten names, culminating with David is given. Ten is an important number in genealogies. One has to ask whether the ten names provided are in any sense related to the prohibition of the Moabites from entering the assembly of the Lord (Deut 23:3). I suspect Jack Deere has it right, “The treatment of Ruth, however, by Boaz along with other Israelites of Bethlehem demonstrates that this law was never meant to exclude one who said, ‘your people will be my people and your God, my God’ (Ruth 1:16).” ⁴⁵ It is astounding that this foreign woman, and a Moabitess at that, is now placed on a par with the matriarchs of Israel and included by Matthew in the genealogy of Jesus.

¹The theological implications of Elimelech’s action are discussed by Block, Judges, Ruth, pp. 626-27.

²Language would not have been a problem (see the Moabite stone). There would have been dialectical differences.

³Koehler-Baumgarten, Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, op. cit.

⁴Joüon, Ruth, says, “The text does not say that Orpah and Ruth lived ten years in marriage, but that the two sons (and Naomi) resided ten years in Moab,” p. 33.

⁵Block, Judges, Ruth, p. 631, “The ‘house of bread’ is being restocked.”

⁶Joüon, Ruth, says, “To be loved so deeply by her daughters-in-law, Naomi would probably be the most loving of mothers-in-law. The unselfish nature of her affection is shown in her efforts to dissuade her daughters-in-law from sharing her sad life and her concern to find a husband for Ruth,” p. 9.

⁷Campbell, Ruth, p. 70.

⁸Block, Judges, Ruth, p. 606 argues that Naomi may not be a “confessional mono-theist.” Still when she urges the girls to go back, she appeals to Yahweh to bring his blessing upon them.

⁹Greek has “afflicted me.” The consonants are the same for both meanings. Joüon suggests a different reading, “He has acted against me,” p. 43.

¹⁰Generally, in April.

¹¹See Boling, Ruth, p. 109, for a discussion of the literary structure of this chapter.

¹²Levir, means “brother-in-law” in Latin.

¹³Boling, Ruth, p. 109, uses “covenant brother” to indicate relationship entered into voluntarily rather than the accident of blood relationship.

¹⁴See Joüon, Ruth, p. 16, “In the book of Ruth, we are not really dealing with a levirate marriage, but only a marriage of the levirate type.” See his discussion for more details, pp. 14-17.

¹⁵Block, Judges, Ruth, p. 651, says, “Boaz is not an ordinary, run-of-the-mill Israelite. This will be confirmed by the following episode, where he is presented as a man with land and servants. On the other hand, as in Prov 31:10, which employs the feminine equivalent, the name can also mean ‘noble with respect to character’ a genuine Mensch.”

¹⁶Joüon, Ruth, p. 45, “literally mighty of power, has here (and in 1 Sam. 9:1) the sense of very rich. חיל ḥayil has also the sense of riches in 4:11 (but 3:11: virtue).”

¹⁷Ibid., p. 48.

¹⁸This stress on “luck” is designed to draw attention to God’s sovereignty at work. It is similar to Esther 4:14: “another place” and “you have attained royalty for such a time as this.”

¹⁹The lamed in לְמִי l^emi indicates that she belongs to someone. Joüon, Ruth, p. 47.

²⁰This is a difficult phrase. See Joüon, Ruth, p. 49, who translates, “she has not taken even a little rest.”

²¹Some are cynical about Ruth’s motives, but Boling, Ruth, says, “His characters are to be taken at face value and without devious motives. This is important to realize here in chapter 2, and all the more important for understanding chapter 3 correctly. What is at issue here is men and women, old and young, living out publicly the sort of lives the storyteller commends,” p. 112.

²²Block, Judges, Ruth, p. 219, says, “In the man who speaks to this Moabite field worker biblical ḥesed becomes flesh and dwells among mankind.”

²³The Hebrew has either, “she showed her mother-in-law (as here) or “her mother-in-law saw.” I have followed the former with a few MSS, Syriac, and Vulgate.

²⁴Boling, Ruth, pp. 130-33 has an excellent discussion of the literary skill of the narrator.

²⁵Ibid., p. 124, “Ruth’s action has put Boaz on the spot, and that is what it was intended to do. Boaz must now act, and, of course he will do so in accordance with what righteous human behavior calls for.”

²⁶In 1:9 she prays that Yahweh will make it possible for the girls to find מְנוּחָה m^enuḥah (“rest”) each in the house of her husband. Now Naomi sets out to assist Yahweh in the fulfillment by seeking מָנוֹחַ manoaḥ “rest.” Joüon, Ruth, says this is a different form but with the same sense, p. 63.

²⁷Hebrew: “which will be good for you.”

²⁸“The verbal link [with 1:9] invites the reader to consider whether subsequent events are to be viewed not only as the consequence of Naomi’s scheming, but also the result of her prayer in 1:8-9,” Block, Judges, Ruth, p. 681.

²⁹See Joüon, Ruth, pp. 64-65 for a fuller discussion of winnowing.

³⁰Hebrew uses the waw consecutive perfect as an imperative.

³¹Block argues that these actions indicate an end of her mourning for husband. This is attractive, but there is no way to know how long her mourning period was, Judges, Ruth, p. 684.

³²Joüon, Ruth, p. 68.

³³Waw consecutive perfect again as an imperative or a request.

³⁴The only occurrence of this word. It is probably the same as the garment in 3:3, Boling, Ruth, p. 127.

³⁵We are not sure of the amount, but it was a lot! He did not want to send her to her mother-in-law empty, the same word Naomi used of herself in 1:21, Boling, Ruth, p. 128.

³⁶Hebrew: “He went,” but a lot of MSS have “She went.”

³⁷Block, Judges, Ruth, says that the lack of the usual waw consecutive imperfect to show sequence, “by front-loading Boaz, the reader’s attention is drawn to this character. Admittedly Ruth’s fate will be a key issue in the court proceedings, but the narrator hereby forces the reader to focus on Boaz,” p. 704.

³⁸See Block, Judges, Ruth, for a discussion of God’s hidden hand in the events, p. 705

³⁹Of course, these are the narrator’s words. Boaz would have used his name, Joüon, Ruth p. 76, but see Boling’s long discussion, Ruth, pp. 142-43.

⁴⁰Ibid., for a discussion of the time of selling, but see Block, Judges, Ruth, p. 710, for an entirely different discussion of the meaning of this word.

⁴¹The KJV translates “Thou must buy it also of Ruth . . .” They are following the MT, but most now treat the מ “m” from as an enclitic “m,” used for emphasis.

⁴²Block, Judges, Ruth, p. 715, says, “Because the personal story of these characters must lead inexorably and ultimately to David, this sentence is one of the most significant in the book.”

⁴³See Joüon, Ruth, pp. 80-81, for a discussion of the nearer kinsman’s situation relative to the property.

⁴⁴This was another story of levirate marriage. Judah refused his third son to Tamar, who then tricked Judah into fathering her child.

⁴⁵Deere, Deuteronomy, p. 303.

4. 1 Samuel

Related Media

I. Historical background to the Books of Samuel.²

The beginning date for the activity of the Books of Samuel is early in the eleventh century B.C. The Hittites, Mitanni and Babylon were kingdoms in decline or complete defeat during this time in the north. The Arameans or Syrians began to move into the northern area in large numbers but did not consolidate until after David’s time.

The Sea People (from the Aegean) had invaded the entire Levant in the preceding century. They were defeated by the Egyptians, but at great cost to the latter who were weak during the time of the judges. Some of the Sea People became the Philistines. They apparently brought with them the secret of iron smelting which they kept for themselves and dominated the Israelites.³

The Canaanites were subdued by the Israelites and the Philistines. Pockets of them were probably under Philistine control as they had previously been under Egyptian control. Some Canaanites moved to Tyre and Sidon and became great maritime people, establishing colonies along North Africa and in southern Spain. They were called Phoenicians.

There were small kingdoms on the eastern border called Ammon, Moab, and Edom. There were continual clashes between them and Israel. Israel, during the time of the Judges, was struggling to consolidate her power particularly in the central hill country. Her religious state as a whole was abysmal. She had adopted many of the practices of the Canaanites. There was a centrifugal force (tribal units) and a centripetal force (central worship). These forces obviously created constant tension. Israel moved rapidly under David and Solomon to become the most powerful nation in the Middle Eastern arena.⁴

II. The place of 1 and 2 Samuel in Israel’s history.

Judges is a period without a king, with much internecine conflict and considerable practice of paganism and accompanying immorality. Ruth is a delightful interlude to an otherwise tragic drama. There is a central sanctuary, but the pericope on the Danite migration (Judges 17‑18) may indicate little support for the priesthood and a typically independent approach to religion and rule.

1 and 2 Samuel form a transition between the judges who were raised up spontaneously by God to be charismatic defenders of his people and the monarchy, an inherited rule of one who was to represent, defend, and judge God’s people.

The man Samuel looms large in this transition. From his Nazirite youth to his recall after death, he was a man of deep convictions, impeccable conduct, and unrelenting commitment to the cause of right. Yet, his compassion for Saul is evident when Yahweh rebukes Samuel for continuing to mourn Saul after his rejection.

III. The authorship and composition of the Books of Samuel.

The name Samuel is attributed to the books because he dominates the history of the era. That he did not write them all is obvious from the fact that he was dead during the entire period of 2 Samuel. The books were originally one, which accounts for Samuel’s name being attached to both books. The LXX used 1‑4 Kingdoms to describe 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings.

Samuel and other prophets were involved in writing as indicated by 1 Chron 29:29f: “Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the chronicles of Gad the seer.”⁵ Did the account of Nathan’s confrontation with David and the Davidic covenant come from that prophet’s hand? Samuel’s records of the kingship (1 Sam 10:25) probably are reflected in that section of the book. The final form of the book may have come about through court prophets, but we do not know who finally composed the book from the various sources.

IV. The text of Samuel.

The text of Samuel contains a number of corruptions. Haplography is one of the more common problems. Some help comes from LXX and Qumran, but all this material must be evaluated carefully before trying to correct the MT. It is unfortunate that Cross has not yet published the Samuel texts from Qumran after more than four decades. Some of the work appears in the critical apparatus of BHS.⁶

V. The purpose of Samuel.

These books were not written merely to present history. Their contents are historical, but the arrangement and emphases are to point up God’s work among His people through the judges (e.g., Samuel) and through the kings. Much of the book is to show God’s plan in rejecting Saul and selecting David with whom he makes his covenant and promises a dynasty (2 Samuel 7). The place of the sanctuary is also central to the book when one compares the loss and restoration of the ark (1 Samuel 4‑6) with David’s placement of it in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6) and the plan for the temple with the ensuing covenant (2 Samuel 7) and finally with the discovery of the place of the future temple (2 Samuel 24).

VI. Synthesis of Samuel.

The books of Samuel were composed after the death of David from court records, eyewitness accounts, and the writings of the prophets Samuel, Nathan and Gad. Though there are many sub themes running through the books (such as obedience and reward), the main purpose of the books seems to center on the concept that God is working out his divine purposes through the covenant kindness shown to David and his seed.

Few would question this thesis in 1 Samuel 16—2 Samuel, but even in 1 Samuel where Samuel is being contrasted to Eli’s house, this seems to be the case. Samuel will bring the word of judgment on Eli’s house, and David (via Solomon) will execute it over fifty years later (1 Kings 2:26-27). In the concluding verse of Hannah’s psalm (2:10), the king/anointed is mentioned. For Hannah this was a non-specific statement predicated on earlier statements about the coming monarchy (Gen 17:6); from the author’s viewpoint, this could only refer to David.

The “man of God” who brings a prophetic word against the house of Eli says, “But I will raise up for myself a faithful priest who will do according to what is in my heart and in my soul; and I will build him an enduring house, and he will walk before my anointed always.” This is the position Zadok will hold under David.

Thus, Samuel, the antithesis of the sons of Eli and the one who confirms the message of judgment on the dynasty of Eli (3:12-14), also anoints David. Both the Davidic dynasty and the Zadokite priesthood are established. The writer of 1-2 Samuel is showing his readers how God’s purposes through David were worked out decades before he came on the scene.

The place of Saul in the argument of the books seems to be transitional—not from judges to a monarchy, but from judges to David. Saul, as a member of the now insignificant tribe of Benjamin, was probably selected as the least threatening possible king of the tribes. His task was designated as attacking the Philistines (1 Sam 9:16), a task completed by David. A deliberate contrast is made between Saul and David from 1 Samuel 16 on (note the juxtaposition of the Spirit of the Lord on David and away from Saul in 1 Sam 16:13, 14). All of first Samuel is leading up to David becoming king in 2 Samuel.

The first eight chapters of 2 Samuel represent the apex of David’s reign. These events did not transpire in a short time; they occurred throughout David’s reign.⁷ Consequently, this unit is designed to show that God blessed David’s reign and fulfilled His promises to him. The first four chapters are devoted to showing how David, through patience and wisdom, came to rule over all twelve tribes of Israel. Two important events are listed in chapter 5: the selection of the Jebusite fortress for the capital and the defeat of the Philistines. Chapter 6 records the movement of the ark to Jerusalem making that the site of the central sanctuary. Chapter 7 gives the all-important Davidic covenant which will form the basis of God’s future dealings with the descendants of David. Finally, chapter 8 lists the many surrounding small states David defeated. This chapter closes with a list of David’s administrative cabinet showing that the kingdom is established (cf. the same type of list at the end of chapter 20 showing the reestablishment of the kingdom).⁸ The following chart shows how First Samuel is laying the groundwork for 2 Samuel 1-8.

Once the kingdom was established, the writer now wants to develop two themes: (1) the issue of the successor of David who will thus come under the Davidic covenant promises and (2) the development of the temple as the central sanctuary.

Most commentators speak of the succession narrative and identify it with 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2.⁹ From the author’s point of view, the issue of succession begins in chapter 10. Chapter 9 shows David’s kindness to Jonathan’s son (per their agreement) and is to be compared with chapter 21 where David turns seven of Saul’s family over to the Gibeonites for execution.

Chapters 10-12 form a unit designed to show that God has chosen Solomon to be the successor to David. The Ammonite war brackets the story (10:1—11:1 with 12:26-31). The Ammonites were dealt with in a summary fashion in chapter 8 along with the other surrounding peoples. They are reintroduced here in detail to provide the setting for the sin of David with Bathsheba and Uriah. While this unit gives us much information about several issues, the author draws attention to the fact that the child born from the union of David and Bathsheba was Solomon. Lest there be any question about the relation of Solomon to David, he is the second son born after Uriah’s death. 1 Sam 12:24 says of Solomon: “Now the Lord loved him.” This is the Hebrew way of saying; the Lord chose him. Furthermore, the Lord sends word through Nathan the prophet stating that the other name of Solomon is to be Jedidiah (Yahweh loves). Clearly, then, this unit is designed to show the next successor to David. Furthermore, chapter 7 has indicated that David’s son will build the temple. Thus, Solomon will build it.

The unit from chapter 13 to chapter 20 (1 Kings 1-2 is included in the whole narrative) shows how God judged David for his sin (negative part of Davidic covenant), but also how he eliminated the contenders for the throne who would threaten Solomon. Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah were all from David’s earlier marriages and therefore in line for the throne by birth. Amnon shows his unworthiness to rule and is killed by his brother. Absalom because of rebellion against his father is killed, and finally Adonijah, who decided to “buck the odds,” is killed in a foolish bid for the kingship. The way now is clear for Solomon to rule without opposition.

The final unit in 2 Samuel is chapters 21-24. The literary structure of this unit looks back on David’s victories and forward to the temple. As the chart below shows, there is a chiasm with the Famine in 21 paralleling the plague in 24; the defeat of the Philistines in 21b parallels the heroes of David (who defeated the Philistines). The two middle sections of praise tie the unit together: Chapter 22 praises God for victory over the house of Saul (21a) and over all his enemies (21b). Chapter 23 praises God for the establishment of the kingdom. Chapter 24 speaks of David’s sin in the census, but the outcome of that sin (the plague) is stopped at the very site that will later become the temple. There David builds an altar and sacrifices. Chronicles (1 Chron 21:18—22:2) ties the plague into the temple site. Given the Chronicler’s predilection for omitting David’s sins, the presence of the census/plague is singular and argues for its position in both Samuel and Chronicles as an indicator of the future site of the temple.

Thus, the purposes of God are being worked out through his ḥesed to David, his anointed. David’s seed will be blessed in obedience and disciplined in disobedience. The first “seed” of David will be Solomon whom God chose over his older brothers as David was chosen over his older brothers. To Solomon goes the task of building the temple, but David chose the city and the altar site for its location. Henceforth, the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem at the temple will be a main issue to the author of Kings. Further the successors of David will be judged in light of the Davidic covenant.

VII. Notes on First Samuel.

A. Samuel, Prophet, Priest and Judge (1 Sam 1:1—7:17).

1. The Birth of Samuel (1:1—2:10).

a. Samuel’s tribal origins (1:1).

First Samuel clearly identifies Elkanah with the tribe of Ephraim while 1 Chron 6:28, 33 places him squarely in the Levitical family. The reason for this is that Levites often became identified with the tribe to which they were ministering. Samuel should be considered a member of the priestly family.¹⁰

b. Elkanah’s family struggle (1:2‑8).

Hannah (hypocoristic for “Yahweh is gracious”) was childless: a virtual curse for an Old Testament woman. Peninnah (probably a “precious stone”) had children. Elkanah carried out his responsibility as an Israelite man by going to the worship center at Shiloh annually to sacrifice (actually they were to appear before the Lord three times a year [Deut 16:16], but this was obviously not being obeyed). Shiloh was the place where the tabernacle was pitched after the tribes had settled in the land (Josh 18:1, 8‑10).

Eli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are mentioned here to prepare for their involvement later. Elkanah’s favoritism is shown by his giving to Hannah a double portion of the sacrificial feast. There was rivalry between the two women, with Peninnah practicing particular cruelty toward Hannah.

c. Hannah’s prayer and vow (1:9‑11).

Hannah resorted to prayer to alleviate her problem. Eli was sitting in his customary place where he could observe the worshippers. Hannah told the Lord that if he would answer her prayer and give her a son that she would devote him to the Lord “all the days of his life and a razor shall never come on his head.” This clearly was a dedication of her son as a Nazirite (Num 6:13‑21) though the text does not call him that. A fragment from Qumran (4QSam^a) has a phrase at 1:11 and 1:22 not found in either the MT or LXX that says, “And I will dedicate him as a Nazirite forever, all the days of his life.”

d. Eli’s misunderstanding of Hannah (1:12‑18).

It is a sad commentary on the spiritual state of affairs that Eli would assume a worshipper to be drunk because she was moving her lips in prayer. It is to Eli’s credit that he rebuked her. Hannah’s defense was that she was not a worthless woman (Hebrew: בַּת בְּלִיַּעַל bath b^eliyy’al). This phrase will be used to describe the sons of Eli later (2:12). Recognizing the integrity of Hannah, Eli dismissed her with his blessing.

e. Hannah’s prayer answered (1:19‑20).

Yahweh remembered Hannah, and she bore a son and named him Samuel. The reason for the name, she said was “because I have asked him from the Lord.” The name Saul (Heb.: שָׁאוּל Ša’ul) means “asked one.” Samuel (Heb.: שְׁמוּאֵל Š^emu’el) ought to mean “Name of God,” or something like that unless it is a reduction of שְׁמוּעְאֵל Š^emu‘’el, i.e., “Heard of God.” The latter is probably correct, and she was saying, “I asked for him, and God heard.”

f. Dedication of Samuel (1:21‑28).

The time for the annual trek to the tabernacle arrived, but Hannah refused to go up until she had weaned Samuel, at which point, she promised, she would leave the child in the tabernacle. Elkanah may have been worried that she would not follow through on her vow, and so he said, “Only may the Lord confirm His word” (1:21‑23). The husband was responsible to approve or annul his wife’s vows (Num 30:1f) (1:21-23).

True to her vow, she brought Samuel to the tabernacle when she had weaned him. This was truly a festive occasion (cf. Gen 21:8). She may have nursed Samuel until he was about four (2 Macc 7:27: three years), but even so he was very young to leave at the tabernacle. KJV says she brought three bullocks; NASB says a three‑year‑old bull. Both LXX and Qumran (4QSam^a) have one three‑year‑old bull and this is probably the correct reading (1:24).

The phrase, “although the child was young” (Heb.: “The child was a child”) is very unusual in Hebrew and looks suspiciously like a form of haplography.¹² The LXX has “and the child was with them and they brought [him] before the Lord, and his father killed the sacrifice which he was making annually to the Lord, and she brought the child.” Unfortunately, Qumran has a break in the manuscript at this point, but there is room for this line in the break. Hertzberg, on the other hand, argues for the MT, comparing it with Judges 8:20 where a similar construction appears (1:25).¹³

This godly woman then surrendered her son to Eli and explained to him that she was the woman who had prayed for a son and who had vowed to give him to the Lord all the days of his life. What an example! (1:26-28).

g. Hannah’s psalm of thanksgiving and praise (2:1‑10).

One of the most beautiful psalms of the Old Testament is this prayer of Hannah. The psalm was probably already in circulation (the mention of the barren having children makes it so apropos to the circumstances); Hannah recited it, and thus it became a part of Scripture. Hannah’s psalm should be compared to Mary’s Magnificat, composed under similar circumstances.

The psalm eulogizes the Lord’s greatness and his graciousness. It shows that God does not always operate as people think he should. He exalts the lowly and humbles the mighty. He strengthens the weak and feeds the hungry. He searches the heart and knows all that each one thinks. He will ultimately set things right and vindicate those who put their trust in him. These themes of the psalm will be worked out in the lives of the characters of these books.

2. The Family of Eli (2:11—4:22).

a. The writer’s purpose.

The purpose of this section is to contrast the godly life of Samuel with the ungodly life of Eli’s two sons (Samuel now ministers at the altar) and to show why God removed the family of Eli from the priesthood.¹⁴ Eli seems to be a good man. He was concerned about the life of the people as evidenced in the way he dealt with Hannah. Yet, he was weak, lacking the fortitude to discipline his own sons. Therefore, he suffered the consequences personally, and the people nationally.

b. The practice of Eli’s sons (2:12‑17).

The character of Hophni and Phinehas is indicated by the fact that they “did not know the Lord.” This means that they had no regard for him. They were totally selfish in their thoughts and conduct (2:12).

They were also called “worthless” men. This is the same phrase (בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל b^ene b^eliyy’al) Hannah uses in denying Eli’s charge. The word in 2 Cor 6:15, Belial, is from this Hebrew word. It means first to be worthless and then it refers to the most worth-less of all creatures: Satan. The character of these men is demonstrated in the way they treated God’s people who came to sacrifice. They chose whatever meat they wanted, disregarding the normal practices decreed by the law of Moses (2:13-17).

c. The contrast of the boy Samuel (2:18‑21).

Samuel served as a little priest, and his mother provided for him annually. Whenever Elkanah and Hannah came to Shiloh, Eli would bless them. God’s blessing in their lives was evident in the birth of five children. God’s intervention in history to bring this little boy into the world was no little thing. He was raising up a very significant person to carry out his divine will for Israel. The boy Samuel grew before the Lord (as the sons of Eli failed to know or obey the Lord).

d. More on the wickedness of Eli’s sons (2:22‑26).

The women “who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting” seem to be housekeepers or some other such maintenance people (cf. Exod 38:8), (the word “served” is related to S^ebaoth (צְבָאוֹת) which usually refers to an army or some other such organization). One can only wonder whether the conduct in 2:22 may involve Canaanite cult practices. Eli protests their wickedness to no avail (2:23‑25). God’s purpose is given in 2:25, but like the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, human responsibility should be seen prior to the judgment. The contrast of Samuel’s life to Eli’s sons is given in v. 26. The similarity of this statement to the one made of Jesus in Luke 2:52 is not accidental.

e. Prediction of judgment on Eli’s house through a prophet (2:27‑36).

God sent a man of God (a prophet) to tell Eli that in spite of the fact that he held an elect position as a member of Levi’s family, God was going to judge his house because of the crass disobedience of Hophni and Phinehas (2:27‑30). The destruction of the family would not be complete, but they would lose their privileged position. Furthermore, both Hophni and Phinehas would be killed on the same day. In addition, God promised to raise up a faithful priest who would walk before God’s king forever.

The implication of this message is that Samuel would take the place of Eli, as he indeed did, acting as priest‑judge. But Eli’s house was not to be totally destroyed, only demoted. Several years later, the tabernacle was at Nob and Ahimelech, a descendant of Eli, was ministering as high priest (1 Samuel 21, cf. 14:3 also). The entire family, with the exception of Abiathar, was wiped out. Later (1 Kings 2:26‑37), Solomon dismissed Abiathar to his village of Anathoth and replaced him with Zadok who became the “faithful priest.”

f. Prediction of judgment on Eli’s house through faithful Samuel (3:1-21).

The situation out of which the prophecy arose was that Samuel was ministering in the tabernacle (lighting lights, running errands). God’s word was rare, visions were infrequent (this means that there were few prophets). Eli was sleeping (in the adjoining buildings to the tabernacle?). He was old and going blind. The ceremonial lights were still burning. Samuel was also sleeping in the adjoining rooms. The Lord called to Samuel three times. Samuel assumed that it was Eli. Eli finally discerned that it was Yahweh calling and he instructed Samuel to respond: “Speak Lord for your servant hears.” Samuel and Eli’s sons are again contrasted. Eli’s sons did not “know the Lord” in the sense that they did not obey him. Samuel has not yet had such an opportunity, but it has now come, and he responds affirmatively.

The revelation is given (3:10‑14) because the servant responds in obedience. This message is that God will judge Eli’s house. It is an “ear tingling” word of judgment. All previous promises will be carried out. Eli is held responsible for his sons’ conduct. (“Brought a curse on themselves”—this is a correction of the scribes, Tiqun Sopherim, designed to prevent the text from saying, “they cursed God.” Cf. LXX: “Because his sons were cursing God.”).¹⁵

The revelation was communicated only at Eli’s insistence (3:15‑18). Samuel was afraid to tell the revelation, but Eli adjures him to tell all, and so he does. Eli as a man of God accepts the judgment of God as just. A crescendo of judgment was reached in Samuel (1) Eli rebukes his sons (2) a prophet rebukes Eli (3) Samuel relays God’s rebuke.

The prominence of Samuel is shown again by the statement that he grew spiritually and God blessed him (3:19‑21). All Israel knew that Samuel was a prophet.¹⁶

g. The Judgment of God against the house of Eli begins (4:1‑22).

Contrary to a number of scholars,¹⁷ this is not an independent story of the ark originating separately from chapters 1‑3. Though Samuel is not mentioned (he was too young to be involved in the war), it shows the fulfillment of the threat to Eli’s sons (predicted through Samuel) and God’s faithfulness to his covenant represented by the ark.

The Philistine threat, so prominent in the book of Judges rears its head again in Samuel. The chapter begins with the statement that Samuel’s word came to all Israel. That is in the capacity of judge, people from all over came to respect this man of God to whom God revealed himself. The Philistines gathered at Aphek which lies just north of Philistine territory. The Israelites mustered at Ebenezer (a proleptic name, since it will be called “stone of help” after the defeat of the Philistines in Chapter 7) (4:1-2).

The Israelites were soundly defeated in the first foray. About 4,000 were killed. The defeat called for self-examination. The elders concluded rightly that God had allowed the defeat, but they concluded wrongly that the ark of God could be used as sort of a talisman to ward off the enemy. Perhaps they thought they could replicate the battle of Jericho. Thus, the purposes of God were worked out in the judgment against Hophni and Phinehas. The ark was brought into the battle with Eli’s two sons in attendance (4:3‑4).¹⁸

Of course, this abuse of the ark only brought a second defeat by Philistines (4:5‑11). The Philistines were frightened at first when the ark entered but rallied to defeat the Israelites (4:5‑10). (Note: The Philistines knew how God delivered Israel from Egypt [4:8]. This makes the defeat doubly bitter and shows that God will not defend even His own people when they are disobedient.)

The ark of the covenant was captured, and the sons of Eli were killed as prophesied in 2:34. The report of the battle eventually came to Eli (4:12‑18). Eli’s great concern was for the ark. Eli was ninety-eight years old and virtually blind (cataracts?). At the news of his sons’ death, but especially at the news of the capture of the ark, Eli fell from his bench and broke his neck. This is a powerful lesson for anyone in spiritual leadership.

Phinehas’ wife went into labor at the news of her husband’s death. She called her new son Ichabod (אֵי כָּבוֹד ’ey kabod lit.: “Where is the glory”). The loss of the ark symbolized to her that God was absent from Israel since the shekinah glory represented his presence. This is the final commentary on the results of disobedience to the divine law (4:19-22).

3. The evidence of God’s continued grace in the protection of the ark of the covenant (5:1—7:2).

a. The vicissitudes of the ark are recounted in chapters 5 and 6.

The purpose in this section is to show that the ark of the covenant, a symbol of God’s presence among the people, cannot be abused by either the Israelites (talisman) or the Philistines (triumph over a national god). God shows them that a proper attitude toward him (represented by the ark) brings blessing (the men of Kiriath Jearim, 7:1).¹⁹

b. Confrontation between paganism and Jehovah (5:1‑12).

The ark was first brought to the temple at the ancient Philistine city of Ashdod and placed in the temple of Dagon. This deity was once thought to be a fish god (Heb.: דָּג dag = fish) worshipped by the Aegean Philistines. We now know that Dagon (Heb.: דָּגָן dagon = grain) was a deity in the Canaanite pantheon. The presence of the ark brought judgment on the pagan divinity Dagon (1‑5) ²⁰ and on the people (6‑12). As a result, the ark was taken to three cities in the Philistine pentapolis (see atlas). The Ekronites insisted that the ark be returned to Israel (5:11‑12).

c. The restoration of the ark with recognition of the position of the God of Israel (6:1‑20).

The diviners suggested a return of the ark with a guilt offering (Heb.: אָשָׁם ’asham, Leviticus 5). This offering recognized a trespass against God (6:1‑3). The guilt offering was to consist of golden replicas of the tumors and mice—one for each lord/city of the Philistines.

The cows made their way to the border town of Beth Shemesh. The Beth Shemeshites were Israelites. They rejoiced when the ark was returned, and the Levites offered sacrifice. The offering is recounted (6:17‑18), and the statement is made that the stone on which the ark was placed was still there in the time of the author. The Beth Shemeshites profaned the ark by following idle curiosity and looking into the sacred box.²² God judged them by destroying 50,070 men.²³ The Beth Shemeshites came under the same wrath as had the Philistines. Instead of acknowledging that they were responsible, they complained about the inapproach-ability of God (6:19‑20).

The men of Kiriath-jearim (Forestville) were not priests, nor was Kiriath-jearim a priestly city. This city was chosen probably because it was near Beth Shemesh. Aminadab was surely a Levite, or his son Eleazar would not have been consecrated to supervise the ark. A larger question is why the ark was not taken back to Shiloh. The answer may lie in the fact that the city was defeated and possibly the tabernacle destroyed (cf. Jer 7:12).²⁴

The relation of this unit to the structure of 1‑2 Samuel should not be missed (see Hertzberg). Here the ark is lost and returned. In 2 Samuel 6 David brings it to Jerusalem and in 2 Samuel 7 he plans to build the temple. 2 Samuel 24 provides the place for the sanctuary.²⁵

d. Defeat of the Philistines (7:3‑17) (The right approach to battle).

There is no indication as to when this event took place. A contrast is being drawn between Samuel’s spiritual life and leadership with that of Hophni and Phinehas in chapter 4 (7:3‑4).

The first criterion to success is a repentant heart. (“Return to the Lord with all your heart.”) This will be evidenced by the renun-ciation of paganism: the removal of the Ashtoreth (fertility goddess) and Baal (storm god). Baal means “master” or “Lord” and was once used of Jehovah (cf. the word Beulah—married—in Isa 62:4). Because of the problem of syncretism, the name was dropped and Bosheth (shameful) was substituted (cf. Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth). Wondrously the Israelites repented and followed the first commandment of the covenant by “having no other gods before them.”

Samuel prepared Israel further by bringing them to Mizpah (watch point), one of his “circuit” cities and famous even in later times (Jeremiah 40; 1 Maccabees 3). They poured out water as a libation, fasted, repented, and Samuel judged them. Normally, “to judge” means to adjudicate disputes. Here it must mean that they confessed their wrongs. Samuel thus continued the tradition of judgeship so well-known already in Israel (7:5‑6).

The Philistines assumed that the Israelites were preparing for war and began to muster their troops. The Israelites were afraid and begged Samuel to pray for them. In response, Samuel offered up a whole burnt offering and prayed for God to deliver them. God’s response was to bring confusion to the Philistines allowing the Israelites to defeat them. Israel was poorly armed. Only prayer and the answer of God in direct intervention could save them. This was the war of Yahweh, not the war of his people. As such, he won decisively (7:7‑11).

After this great victory of Yahweh, Samuel erected a cairn to commemorate the victory. “Even” means “stone” and “Ezer” (as in Ezra) means “help” (אֶבֶן הָעֵזֶר ’ eben ha’ezer). This battle was decisive: The Philistines were subdued, and many of the former Israelite cities were restored. (The Philistines were not finished, of course, for they still must be defeated by Saul and David) (7:12‑14).

This major section is concluded with a summary of Samuel’s ministry. He was a judge. This is proven by his work at Mizpah. He acted as one of the judges in the book of Judges, but he loomed larger than any of them. As a matter of fact, he was more like Moses, and was included with him in Jer 15:1 (where the stress is on intercession). He conducted his ministry in various cities of southern Israel much like a circuit preacher. Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah were the three chief centers. No further mention is made of Shiloh, nor is he connected with the ark at Kiriath-jearim. His home was in Ramah (7:15‑17).

B. Samuel and Saul, a time of transition (8:1—15:35

1. The people’s choice: a monarchy rather than a theocracy (8:1‑22).

a. The Problem—Samuel’s sons (8:1‑3).

It is ironic that Samuel’s sons turn out to be unspiritual and un-worthy just like Eli’s sons. One would think that Samuel would have profited from the bad example of Hophni and Phinehas, but he apparently did not. Nothing provokes people like injustice. Because of the perversion of their office, (perhaps exacerbated by the Philistine threat) the sons of Samuel caused the people to look for a king.

b. The request of the people (8:4‑18).

The blunt request of the elders must have been a shock to Samuel. “You are old, your boys are bad, and so we need a king.” Samuel turned to the Lord who told him that it was not Samuel who was being rejected, but the Lord himself. Critics see in this section an ambivalent attitude toward the idea of a kingship which continues as a tension throughout the historical period. The “Deuteronomist,” they say, is opposed to the idea of a king and so inserts his theology into the narrative.²⁶ But God often allows people to choose the second best (“He gave them the desires of their heart and sent leanness to their souls”). In the case of the monarchy, he even chose to bless it by selecting David as the predecessor of the Messiah. God told Samuel to listen to the people and select a king for them. Implicit in this statement is the divine sanction of the monarchy. However, he first told Samuel that he must warn them of the consequence. Israel wanted a king “like all the nations.” Israel was unique in her leadership. The other nations: Egypt, the Hittites, Mitanni, Assyria, Babylonia, Tyre, Sidon, Moab, and Philistia all had a highly developed office of king. Samuel rehearsed to the people all that this king would do to them. These practices were all followed by subsequent kings. Solomon especially overtaxed the resources of the people so that they finally revolted against his son Rehoboam. Samuel also told them that they must be prepared to suffer the consequences, for God would not listen to them in the day they cry out to Him for deliverance from an oppressive king.

c. The response of the people (8:19‑22).

The people, as is often the case, traded the present for the future. Perhaps their greatest fear was to go out to war without a proper leader. Their experience in battle against the Philistines under Eli left them worried, and even the victory under Samuel did not offset their fear. They wanted a king to lead them into battle.

The Lord yielded to their desire and permitted them to have a king. Samuel sent the people away in anticipation of a future appointment. Now the stage is set for the transition from a simple, ad hoc judgeship directly under God, to a complex monarchy that will bring much grief to the people. We are now ready to be introduced to the enigmatic Saul.

The importance of this unit cannot be overemphasized. Moving from the leadership of judges to a monarchy was as significant for Israel’s history as the destruction of the first temple. Not only would the political structure be forever altered, but God’s covenant also would soon be made with David, giving theological direction to the course of Israel’s history unthought-of before the monarchy.

2. The selection of Saul as King (9:1—10:27).

a. Background of the story (9:1‑4).

The genealogy. The tribe of Benjamin was involved in the civil war of Judges 19‑21 which resulted from the sordid affair of the Levite concubine. The Benjamites were virtually decimated. This may account for the choice by God of this tribe: it was less of a threat to the rest of the tribes. (Saul of Tarsus, of course, was from this tribe and was named after the first king.)²⁷

Saul’s father was Kish of Abiel of Zeror of Becorath of Aphiah. Kish was a “mighty man of valor” (גִּבּוֹר חַיִל gibbor ḥayil) usually a Hebrew idiom for an outstanding soldier but used of Boaz (Ruth 2:1) to mean “sturdy” that is wealthy man. So, it should be understood here.

Saul ben Kish is described as a choice young man, very hand-some and tall. This may have led Samuel to look for a com-parable person to replace Saul (1 Samuel 16). However, God told Samuel not to look on the outward appearance.

The immediate circumstances leading up to the story were that some of Kish’s donkeys were lost and Saul and his servant had been looking for them without success.

b. The circumstances for the encounter with Samuel (9:5‑10).

Saul suggested that they return home because they had been gone so long that Kish would be worried about them. The servant suggested looking up the “man of God” in a nearby city to ask about the lost donkeys. The city was no doubt one of the circuit cities (1 Sam 7:16‑17). This indicates that in the popular concept, prophets were thought of almost as “crystal ball gazers.” As a matter of fact, the editor informs us that in earlier times the prophet was called a “see‑er.” (This editorial aside indicates that this part of the book is being written quite a bit later than the events in it.) Furthermore, the “seer” had to be paid for his services. Saul happily acceded to the servant’s advice, and they set out to the city to find the seer.

c. The arrival of Samuel at the city (9:11‑14).

Saul and his servant climbed the entrance slope to the city where they encountered girls leaving to draw water. The girls told them the seer had already arrived to carry out his priestly function in the “high place.” The high place was a cult center where either Jehovah or the pagan gods could be worshipped.²⁸ Later, because of their identification with paganism, the high places were removed. Here it is legitimate as a center for the worship of the Lord.²⁹ On the way to the high place, their paths crossed that of Samuel. All of these circumstances were being divinely engineered to bring about the anointing of Saul.

d. The amazing encounter with Samuel (9:15‑21).

God had already revealed to Samuel that the promised king of chap. 8 would appear on this particular day. This man would become a “prince” (נָגִיד nagid) over “my people Israel” (cf. David in 2 Sam 5:2). His task would be to deliver Israel from the Philistines. This deliverance was God’s response to the cry of the Israelites.

When Saul and his servant appeared, God told Samuel that this was the man of whom he had spoken. At Saul’s query on the location of the seer’s house, Samuel identified himself and invited Saul to join him at the feast connected with the sacrifice. He promised to release him the next day after telling him all that was on his mind. Samuel then gave to Saul a confirmatory sign authenticating his ministry by telling him about the donkeys even before Saul asked about them. (Cf. Jesus and Nathanael—John 1:47‑51.) Saul gave a very humble response, similar to that given by Gideon when God called him to a similar task in Judges 6.

e. Samuel and Saul at the sacrificial meal (9:22‑24).

Samuel took them to the feast and seated them in the place of honor and ordered the choice piece of meat he had asked the cook to set aside just for this occasion.³⁰ The “appointed time” indicates that God was providentially working in this situation.

f. Preparation for the anointing of Saul (9:25‑27).

Samuel and Saul went down from the high place to the city to a house. (If the city were Ramah, the house would probably be Samuel’s. If it were some other, as it seems to be since Samuel was invited to the feast, the house would belong to someone else.) The Hebrew sequence of events is a little awkward:

He spoke with Saul on the roof top

They arose early

Daybreak came and Samuel called to Saul on the roof

The Greek text (B) has:

They spread (a bed) for Saul on the roof top

He lay down

Daybreak came, and Samuel called to Saul on the roof

The difference between “speak” dbr and “spread” rdb is a matter of inverted letters. The Hebrew words for “rise early” škm and “lie down” škb are very similar also.

MT וידבר עם שׁאול על הגג וישׁכמו wydbr ‘m šaul ‘l hgg wyškmu

LXX): וירבדו לשׁאול על הגג וישׁכב wyrbdu l šaul ‘l hgg wyškb (retroverted

Consequently, the LXX probably has the better reading. “And they spread for Saul [a bed] on the roof top, and he lay down.”

Samuel told Saul to send his servant ahead so that he might reveal to him the word of God (9:27).

g. The private anointing of Saul (10:1‑8).

The first anointing of Saul was done by Samuel with no one looking on (10:1). There was a public anointing later.³¹

So that there will be no question in Saul’s mind about the validity of this anointing, Samuel gave confirming signs (10:2‑7). (Can you imagine Saul’s bewilderment? There has never been a king in Israel; he had never met Samuel before; he was a simple country man looking for his donkeys—and he is told he is to be a king.)

The signs are: (1) Saul will meet two men near Rachel’s tomb (near Bethlehem) who will tell him about the donkeys. (2) Saul will meet three men going up to (worship) God in the cult center of Bethel. They will share their food with him. (3) Saul will meet a group of prophets whom he will join and begin to prophesy.³²

Saul was then told to go to Gilgal where he was to wait seven days for Samuel who would come to offer sacrifices and give Saul more instruction (10:8).³³

h. The fulfillment of the signs (10:9‑13).

Saul became a new man as he left Samuel. How are we to interpret this statement? Does it refer to salvation? It means at least that God performed a supernatural work on Saul so that he would be different in the future.

The most significant evidence of the change in Saul was the third sign, when Saul joined with the group of prophets in prophesying. Saul’s character apparently was so changed that the people were surprised to see him among the prophets, and his presence even created an aphorism: when someone acted in a way that was out of character, some wag would say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” The phrase “Now who is their father” probably means that each prophet received his own call and did not enter the prophetic office by birth. Hence, even Saul could join the group though his father was not a prophet. (Saul’s action in 19:22ff. called up the same aphorism.)

i. Saul’s reception at home (10:14‑16).

Saul explained only that they went to Samuel for help in finding the lost donkeys, refusing to satisfy his uncle’s curiosity by telling him more about Samuel.

j. The public anointing of Saul (10:17‑27).

Samuel had anointed Saul privately, but it was now necessary to present him to the people. Instead of simply saying that he had anointed Saul, Samuel used the lot as an evidence of divine choice of Saul. Samuel brought the people to Mizpah for the anointing of Saul as he had brought them there for judging in chap. 7 (10:17).

After delivering a rebuke to the people for asking for a king, Samuel used the lot to select the tribe, family and individual who would be king. Saul was chosen, but he shyly hid in the baggage from which the people took him after God told them he was there (10:18‑23).

Samuel then proudly presented Saul to the people. He took a fatherly interest in Saul from that time forward. The people excitedly accepted Saul as their king, and Samuel went home after giving the people a list of things to expect from the king (10:24‑25).

Saul also went to his home followed by a band of loyal adherents in whom the Lord had worked.³⁴ Of this new king Wright says: “Saul was no wealthy, learned

3. The first test of the new king (11:1‑15).

a. The provocation (11:1‑5).

Nahash, King of the Ammonites, besieged the Manassite city of Jabesh-gilead.³⁶ Frank Cross tells us of a fragment of Samuel from Qumran which has a paragraph not in the MT nor in the LXX (though it is reflected in Josephus and the last phrase of chapter 10).³⁷ “But he kept silent” [ וַיְּהִי כְמַחֲרִישׁ wayehi k^emaḥrish] is translated in LXX as “And it came about after about a month” [ וַיְּהִי כַחדֶשׁ wayehi kaḥodesh]. Nahash had recaptured some of the cities taken by the Reubenites and Gadites and mutilated the inhabitants. When 7,000 men fled to Jabesh‑gilead, Nahash laid siege to the city. This data would help explain the reason for Nahash’s attack on Jabesh-gilead and his demand that they put out their right eyes. Some take this paragraph for a Midrashic addition, but Cross argues rather well for its genuineness. If it were lost, it would have been lost by haplography (Nahash . . . Nahash).

The Jabesh‑gileadites persuaded the Ammonites to give them time to seek help. Apparently Nahash was fully confident of his superiority and granted it. The elders sent to Saul for help.

b. The response of Saul (11:6‑11).

Saul came home from plowing (note what this indicates about the kingdom of that time) and heard the report. The Spirit of God “came upon Saul mightily.” The Hebrew word translated “came upon mightily” is tiṣlaḥ (תִּצְלַח). It normally means “to advance” and will most commonly be translated “to prosper.” In this instance it means to “move on someone strongly.” Used of the Holy Spirit coming on men, it is applied to Samson (3x’s), Saul (3x’s) and once to David. The same word is used of the evil spirit coming on Saul (once). Saul summoned the army of Israel with the dramatic act of cutting the oxen into pieces. He mustered 330,000 people, attacked, and devastated the Ammonites.

c. The new respect for Saul (11:12‑14).

The “worthless men” of chap. 10 were threatened, but Saul spared them. Samuel took Saul and the people to Gilgal to renew the kingdom. The people happily accepted Saul as the king over Israel.

4. Samuel’s testimonial (12:1‑25).

a. Samuel calls for a testimony of his pure life (12:1‑5).

The transition has now taken place. Samuel will continue to act as a prophet of God who is actually over the king. This precedent will be continued throughout the monarchy. The king may kill the prophet, but he can never destroy the prophetic office, and prophets will continue to challenge the king to do what is right before God. Samuel called the people to bear witness to his conduct.³⁸ The corruption of public office included theft, fraud, oppression, and bribery. The people testified that Samuel’s life had been above reproach; what a testimony!

b. Samuel’s farewell message (12:6‑18).

Samuel rehearsed God’s acts in history to remind them that they had sinned in asking for a king and to challenge them to a life of obedience in the future. This practice is typical of the teachers in Israel—cf., e.g., Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7. The word “plead” in this form (v. 7) (Heb.: אִשָּׁפְטָה ‘iššap^etah) means to enter into a court case with someone.

Samuel recounted God’s deliverance of Israel from Jacob to the most recent situation with Nahash (12:6‑12).³⁹ Samuel next turned their attention to the new and first king of Israel and admonished king and people to follow the Lord (12:13‑17). Samuel then called on the Lord for a miracle which was given to authenticate Samuel’s ministry (12:18).

c. Samuel prays for the people (12:19‑25).

The people, in fear, asked Samuel to entreat the Lord in their behalf. Samuel gave the people a warm and encouraging message, perhaps the most poignant in the book, promising to pray for them.

5. Saul battles the Philistines (13:1—14:52).

a. One of the purposes for which God raised up Saul was to drive out the Philistines (9:16). This he began to do. Samson had made a slight impact on them, and some victory had been won under Samuel, but their grip was not loosened from the Israelites. Now Saul, and more significantly, his valiant son Jonathan began to make inroads into them. It was David, however, who, once and for all, broke the back of Philistine control over the Israelites.

b. The chronology of 13:1 is very difficult.

The KJV has “Saul reigned one year and when he had reigned two years . . .” but this attempt to solve the problem is syntac-tically untenable. The normal reading would be “Saul was_____years old when he began to reign, and he reigned_____years over Israel.” NASB has “Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty‑two years over Israel.” NIV has “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty‑two years.” Acts 13:21 seems to indicate 40 years for Saul’s reign. Some would argue that the 40 years in Acts includes Samuel’s time. We will have to leave the matter unsolved.⁴⁰

c. Saul decided to attack the Philistine garrison which was the reason he kept only 3,000 troops. The Philistines reacted strongly to the defeat of one of their garrisons, and Saul returned to Gilgal. The Philistines mustered a strong army and many of the Israelites began to flee the country (13:2‑7).

d. Saul violated the word of God which had been given by Samuel to Saul.⁴¹ The result is the promise that God will not allow the kingdom of Saul to endure (13:8‑14).

e. Samuel left, and Saul had only about 600 men, and the Philistines sent out raiders who were probably instrumental in disarming most of the Israelites (13:15‑18).

f. The statement in 13:19‑22 is difficult in light of the fact that Israel has won wars against the Philistines and against Ammon. The answer must be that Israel was probably not that well-armed to begin with, and the disarming in recent times had left them poorly armed (which is probably the significance of the phrase “neither was there sword or spear found in the hands of any of the people”).

g. Jonathan performs a brave deed and defeats another Philistine garrison (14:1‑15).

This act of Jonathan was one of great faith and showed him to be a spiritual man, and like David later, in contrast with his father. God supernaturally intervened and caused consternation among the Philistines which later led to an Israelite victory.

h. There is a regrouping of the Israelites, and they pursue and defeat the Philistines (14:16‑23).

This unit contains some very strange things. First the watchmen saw the Philistines sneaking away, and this could not be ex-plained. Assuming that someone must have done something to cause this, Saul mustered the troops and found Jonathan missing. Then Saul asked Ahijah to bring the ark to help ascertain Yahweh’s will in this matter.⁴³ While the priest was consulting the mind of Yahweh, the noise of the Philistine retreat grew, and they even began to kill one another. Saul, in haste, broke off efforts to communicate with God and began to fight (14:16‑19).

Jews who had apparently allied with the Philistines came over to Saul as well as those who had slunk away when the threat of war came.⁴⁴ Consequently, the advantage shifted to the Israelites and they won the battle (14:20‑23).

i. Saul makes a rash vow, ordering the soldiers to not eat anything (14:24‑30).

This rash vow was a measure of Saul’s poor leadership. Men in the heat of battle need nourishment. Jonathan ironically fell under the curse; he was the one who caused the victory to begin with.

j. The victory goes to Israel, but the people are so hungry they begin to eat blood with the meat (14:31‑35).

The rash vow of Saul brought the people under a curse since they were so hungry. They fell on the slaughtered animals and were breaking God’s law by eating the flesh with the blood. Saul wisely saved the day by asking the people to bring the animals where they could be properly prepared for food. (Perhaps this offset his foolish act of depriving the people of food.)

k. Saul decides to pursue the Philistines into their own territory, but God does not answer him when he inquires, so he assumes it to be because of some fault (14:36‑46).

Did God withhold an answer to force Saul’s hand in the rash vow? It was Saul’s rashness that has caused the problem. The refusal of the Lord to answer Saul’s request will become a pattern as God’s rejection moves to a climax. The lot fell on Jonathan who answered his father derisively. Saul was determined to kill his son, but the people interceded, and Jonathan was saved.

l. Summary of the remainder of Saul’s reign (14:47‑52).

Saul as the military-judge-king, wars against the surrounding nations of Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, and the Philistines. A roster is given of Saul’s family and administration:

Sons: Jonathan, Ishvi, and Malchi‑shua
Daughters: Merab and Michal
Wife: Ahinoam bath Ahimaaz
General of the army: Abner ben Ner, Saul’s cousin
Father: Kish (14:47-51).

A summary statement of the wars with the Philistines is given (14:52).

6. Saul’s second rejection comes with his failure in the ḥerem war against the Amalekites (15:1‑35).

a. God calls for a “total destruction” war (15:1‑3).

The Hebrew word for “totally destroy” in 15:3 is from ḥerem (חֶרֶם). It refers to something consecrated or dedicated to a particular use. It is somewhat similar to the word holy (קָדוֹשׁ qadosh). (In Arabic it refers to the sultan’s wives who are off limits to all other men.) Jericho was to be a “ḥerem” city when Joshua attacked it: its treasures were to be turned over to the sanctuary, and all men, women and children were to be killed (except for Rahab and her family). Achan’s sin was to take some of the spoil (in other cities that would not be a sin for it was not “banned”). Now God called upon Saul to carry out a “ḥerem” war against the Amalekites because of their implacable hatred of Israel.

b. Saul wins the battle but loses the “war” (15:4‑9).

Saul mustered the troops and won a decisive victory over these ancient enemies. However, he made a fatal mistake in capturing Agag alive and preserving a number of the finer animals instead of killing them as he had been instructed. Saul could (as he did) argue that the people were out of hand, but proper leadership could have dealt with the problem in such a way as to avoid God’s wrath. This is a classic example of partial obedience. When so much “good” is accomplished, the human propensity is to justify the “non-good.” In fact, it is disobedience and that to a direct command.

c. God confronts Saul with his sin through Samuel (15:10‑33).

Samuel’s distress over God’s judgment of Saul indicates the deep love he had for this man. From the time he anointed him until his own death, Samuel had a special place in his heart for Saul. He arose after a sleepless night of praying for Saul and searched for him in Carmel (this town is located in Judah). Someone told Samuel that Saul had set up a monument (apparently to commemorate his victory) and had gone on. Samuel finally caught up with him in Gilgal (15:10‑12).

Saul came out to meet Samuel in high spirits. He expected to receive a blessing for the battle he had won. Instead, Samuel asked him about the animals that had been left over. Immediately, Saul blamed the people for having kept them. Samuel proceeded to rebuke him (15:13‑16).

In words similar to Nathan’s rebuke of David, Samuel told Saul that he was king by the grace of God, but that he had violated God’s word by his disobedience. Saul again tried to blame the people for keeping out some of the animals for sacrifice, but Samuel told him that the Lord is interested in obedience far more than in sacrifice. As a result, said Samuel, Saul was rejected from being king over Israel (15:17‑23).

Saul made an effort at repentance, but Samuel refused to let it affect him. The torn mantle was a symbol of the dismemberment of Solomon’s kingdom also (1 Kings 11:30‑33). Samuel finally agreed to go back with Saul to the celebration and killed King Agag (15:24‑33).

d. Samuel left Saul and returned to Ramah (15:34-35).

Samuel went sorrowfully to his home in Ramah. In anthropocentric terms, the text says that God repented having made Saul king. This means, of course, that God was going to judge Saul for the way he was turning out.

What can we say about Saul? He seemed humble enough at the beginning. He seemed to have had a genuine religious desire to please God. He consulted Yahweh about the battle, he made a vow designed to please the Lord. One has the sense that Saul was struggling to please God but did not know how to go about it (“who being ignorant of God’s righteousness . . .”). The self-centeredness of his acts did not show up in Scripture until David came on the scene. David was all that Saul wanted to be but did not want to pay the price to be. Consequently, under divine judgment, Saul became paranoid about everyone. He is a tragic figure and no more so than when he consults the witch of Endor in a last futile effort to contact the God who has rejected him.

C. Saul and David—Struggle for Power (1 Samuel 16‑31).

1. The rise of David (16:1—17:58).

a. His anointing (16:1‑13).

The choice of this humble, talented, loving young man is one of the most heart-warming stories in the Bible. We must not lose sight of the fact that God was fulfilling his own purposes in selecting a man for the throne of Israel through whom he would install a dynasty culminating in the person of Jesus Christ. Samuel, influenced by the physical characteristics of Saul, looked for a similar type of person. God showed him that his choice went beyond the physical to the inner person. David had the spiritual characteristics God looks for in those who will lead his people.

David, probably to the chagrin of his brothers, is brought from the flock and anointed king over Israel. What an idyllic picture: the ruddy, fuzzy faced youth, chosen over his experienced, jealous brothers to be the prince over God’s flock.

The Holy Spirit came upon David from that point on. The same Holy Spirit who came upon the judges to carry out Yahweh’s purposes; the same Holy Spirit who came upon Saul, but later left him, now came upon David.⁴⁵

b. His first contact with Saul (16:14‑23).

The evil spirit coming on Saul is very puzzling. Was it a fallen demon that God allowed to trouble Saul? Was it a good spirit whose punishment of Saul was evil (calamitous)? (1 Kings 22 records that in the heavenly scene, one of God’s spirits said he would go forth and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of the prophets). In either case, how did David’s playing affect it? There is no question that God was sovereignly bringing Saul to a point of judgment because of his disobedience. Assuming that this was a good spirit doing something calamitous, God allowed David’s harp playing to soothe Saul, and God was bringing David to the court where He wanted him to be. Saul was unwittingly fulfilling God’s purposes.

c. His second contact with Saul (17:1‑58).

David and Goliath: Gooding “‘Whose son is this youth?’ (17,55); ‘Inquire whose son the stripling is’ (17,56); ‘Whose son are you’ (17,58); I am the son of your servant Jesse . . .’ (17,58). Any but the slowest of readers would surely get the point: it is David’s father, not David, that Saul is wanting to inform himself about. And it is hardly surprising, Saul . . . has promised, that if any man can defeat the champion, he (Saul) will make his father’s house free in Israel (17,25). It is only natural, therefore, that as he sees David go out to battle, and even more as he sees him come in, he should be concerned to find out all he can about David’s father and family.” (p. 223; p. 60 in D. W. Gooding, et al. The Story of David and Goliath.)⁴⁶

The battle scene was a confrontation between Saul’s men and the Philistine army. Saul had become militarily strong enough to cause this stand-off, otherwise the Philistines would have overrun the Israelites. The giant, Goliath is called a champion in NASB. The Hebrew calls him a “between” man (הַבֵּנַיִם habbenayim) that is, one to stand between the armies. Saul was scared ⁴⁷ (17:1‑11).

David met Saul again as he came from Bethlehem to bring food for his older brothers. Critics see in this section a first introduction of David. The nexus of the two encounters, however, is found in 17:15. He was Saul’s court musician and armor bearer in chapter 16, but he was going back and forth to his father’s place (17:12‑16).

David’s opportunity came because of his obedience to his father. As he came to the army camp, he heard the blasphemous challenge of Goliath and inquired as to its significance (17:17‑30).

Perhaps the best-known story in the Old Testament is that of this inexperienced youth taking on the oversized, experienced warrior of the Philistines. Linked with his anointing in the preceding chapter, this warm exciting account of the faith of the Hebrew stripling in the face of overwhelming odds and the cowardice of his own people creates one of the greatest and most endearing dramas of the Bible. David’s example should be encouraging and challenging to all of us. “God is able to do exceeding abundant above all we can ask or think” (17:31‑40).

David’s personal victory over Goliath, brought corporate victory over the Philistines.⁴⁸ David was then identified as to his family lineage so that Saul could conscript him into his army (17:41‑58)

2. The conflict between David and Saul (18:1—27:12).

a. David and Jonathan (18:1‑5).

The beginning of a unique relationship came when Jonathan was so impressed with David that he identified completely with him. This loyalty never left even when it meant that Jonathan would not succeed to the throne. This unwavering loyalty caused David to say at Jonathan’s death “his love was greater than that of women” (2 Sam 1:26). This is an example of a high and proper relationship between two young men.⁴⁹

b. Saul’s first jealousy (18:6‑9).

As the drama unfolds, the intense love and loyalty between David and Jonathan is contrasted with the beginning of an intense jealousy that led to paranoia on the part of Saul. This is a case study on the results of disobedience and defensiveness that leads to psychological problems of great magnitude.

c. Saul’s first attack (18:10‑16).

David was performing his customary task of trying to soothe Saul who was overcome by the “evil spirit.” Saul tried to kill David. The contrast between the two men is set forth by the author in 17:14‑16: David prospers, Saul becomes paranoid.

d. Saul’s subterfuge—Merab (18:17‑19).

Saul’s evil duplicity was shown in his treatment of David. By rights, David should have had Merab as his wife as soon as he defeated Goliath, for Saul had promised his oldest daughter to the one who would defeat him (17:25). Saul promised her again, but with the idea that David would try to show himself worthy and get himself killed. However, Saul gave Merab to someone else when the time came for the marriage. This was a terrible insult.

e. Saul’s second subterfuge—Michal (18:20‑30).

Saul used a concocted dowry as a means of getting David killed. For a hundred Philistine foreskins, David would be able to marry Saul’s second daughter (who loved David). David characteristically went to battle and brought two hundred foreskins to Saul. Saul was unable to thwart David’s marriage this time, and he and Michal were apparently happily married. Now two members of Saul’s house loved David. This isolated Saul even further and caused him to become even more of an enemy of David. In contrast, David behaved himself wisely and became highly respected.⁵⁰

f. Jonathan’s defense of David (19:1‑7).

Jonathan made a valiant effort to reconcile his father to David. Saul responded emotionally (as he did in every instance where he was confronted with his sin) and vowed that David would not be killed. This brought a temporary cessation of hostilities.

g. Saul’s second attack (19:8‑17).

The occasion of the renewed paranoia was apparently the great victories over the Philistines brought about by David’s leader-ship. Saul threw his spear at David, trying to kill him. This time Michal protected him from her father as Jonathan was also to do.⁵¹ This is the last recorded contact between David and Michal until he forced her return from the man to whom Saul gave her after David’s flight. The story of David and Michal is a sad one indeed!

h. David’s flight (19:18‑24).

Hertzberg says correctly (for the wrong reasons): “This interest [in David’s departure from the court] is to be explained not just as an interest in David’s person, but also as an interest in the monarchy. We have already pointed out how important it seems to have been to the tradition to show that David’s path in succeeding to the throne was a legitimate one. . . . It is therefore important that one after another Saul’s daughter Michal, the prophetic leader Samuel, and now, too, the crown prince and heir to the throne, should all have helped David’s flight.”⁵²

David sought refuge with the only man he could really trust: Samuel. He went to Samuel’s home in Ramah where Samuel was apparently carrying on a prophetic ministry with followers. It is a bit much to speak of this as a “school,” but 19:20 indicates a supervisory capacity of some kind. This seems to be the beginning of a movement called the “sons of the prophets” which was more developed in Elijah’s day.

God sovereignly protected David by causing the Spirit to overpower Saul as He did at the beginning of Saul’s public ministry. Saul thought he could destroy God’s choice to the throne, but God overpowered him and caused him to prophesy. Whether they were singing, praising or what is not clear; it is not likely that they were involved in ecstatic utterances of some kind.

i. Jonathan’s protection (20:1‑42).

David, taking the occasion of Saul’s prophetic state as his opportunity, fled to Jonathan to make one final investigation into Saul’s intentions. Jonathan assured him that he had his father’s confidence, and that he knew nothing of a plot to kill David. David developed a plan to determine Saul’s intentions. David would not play into Saul’s hands by coming to the feast, but Saul’s intentions would become known through David’s absence (20:1‑11).

They went out to the field where Jonathan devised a scheme to communicate his father’s intentions to David. They then made a covenant in which David promised to treat Jonathan’s seed properly. This is the ḥesed (חֶסֶד) covenant that will become so important later (20:12‑23).

The plan worked, in that it evoked Saul’s anger not only against David, but also against Jonathan for protecting David. Jonathan communicated the information to David who prepared to flee (20:24‑42).

j. David’s second flight (21:1‑10).

At Nob where the tabernacle was located and the priests were descendants of Eli, David received food and a sword. Doeg the Edomite was unfortunately there (21:1‑9).

At Gath David reached a low point by trying to join the traditional enemies of Israel—even those whom he had so successfully fought. Achish the Saran of Gath said that he had enough crazy men around him, and David left there (he had pretended madness to protect himself) (21:10‑15).

At Adullam David hid in caves where he was joined by about four hundred malcontents ⁵³ (22:1‑2).

At Moab David left his parents for the duration of his exile (22:3).

At the “Stronghold” (Masada?) David stayed until the prophet Gad warned him to leave (the Hebrew word for stronghold is Masada [מְצוּדָה]). From there he went to Hereth (22:4‑5).

k. The slaughter of the priests of Nob (22:6‑23).

Saul’s frustration at his inability to control David, his nemesis, led him to the most dastardly deed of his entire life. His paranoia led him to believe that everyone around him was conspiring against him. Doeg, the Edomite, to ingratiate himself with the king tells of David’s stop at the tabernacle. The priests who were located at Nob were all summoned to Saul’s courts and charged with treason. Reason could not prevail over an unreasonable king, and Saul ordered their death (22:6‑10).

When none of Saul’s men would lift a hand against Yahweh’s priests, Saul turned to the treacherous Doeg, who happily fell on the priests and slaughtered everyone connected with the tabernacle (22:11‑19).

Only one young priest, named Abiathar, escaped. He went to David and joined the dissident forces. He was David’s priest from that time on (22:20‑23).

l. David at Keilah (23:1‑13).

David defeated the Philistines when they attacked the Judahite city of Keilah. When the city welcomed them into its walls, Saul decided he would be able to take David there. Yahweh revealed to him that the Keilahites would surrender him and his men to Saul, and so they left the city and frustrated Saul’s plans.

m. David at Haresh (23:14‑29).

Saul continually looked for David, who moved from place to place in the Judean wilderness. While he was at Haresh, Jonathan came to David to encourage him. They renewed their covenant (23:14‑18).

Saul pursued David at Haresh when the Ziphites tried to betray him to Saul. Saul chased him from Haresh to Ziph, and they hid in Maon. There, David barely escaped with his life when Saul was summoned back to face a Philistine threat. David fled to En Gedi (23:19‑29).

n. David at En Gedi (24:1‑22).

En Gedi (goat fountain) was a town in the mountains overlooking the Dead Sea. It figured throughout Israel’s history and was significant to the Bar Kokhba revolt.⁵⁴ David had his first opportunity to kill Saul, but graciously refused to put his hand on Yahweh’s anointed. David refused to come to the throne by assassinating the ruling king. How could he expect to be safe as a king if he came through illegitimate means? (24:1‑7).

David challenged Saul to give him a reason for his pursuit. The cloth in hand, cut from Saul’s garment, was proof that David could have killed him had he chosen to (24:8‑15).

Saul typically showed emotional remorse and promised David not to harm him. He admitted that David would be the next king and asked David to swear to take care of Saul’s descendants. David did, and they separated (24:16‑22).

o. David and Nabal (25:1‑44).

Two important events are recorded in this chapter: the death of Samuel and the acquisition of Abigail by David. The first event shows that David was officially alone and prepares for the scene with the witch of En Dor. The second one not only shows David’s activities while in exile, but also explains the presence of Abigail as a wise woman, who with all wise people, understood the divine place of David in Judah’s history.⁵⁵

David’s practice was to protect the shepherds in the wilderness when they were pasturing the flock. This protection was necessary as the servants of Nabal later recount. David in this manner, provided food for his entourage, but he was also preparing the people for his rulership by acting as protector and judge. At the time of shearing, he sent to Nabal, a rich sheep owner in Carmel (of Judah), but he refused to help David (25:2‑13).

Abigail showed great wisdom in bypassing her husband and making direct contact with David. She brought him the food he had requested and begged his compassion on her foolish husband. David responded favorably and was impressed by her wise action (25:14‑35).⁵⁶

Nabal awoke from his drunken sleep, and Abigail told him of how close he had come to being killed. The news shocked him so much that he apparently had a stroke and died as a result (25:36‑38).

David rejoiced when he heard the news of Nabal’s death because he recognized God’s hand in the matter. Remembering Abigail’s attractiveness as a wise woman, David sent a marriage proposal to her which she gladly accepted (25:39-42).

David by now had collected three wives: Ahinoam, Abigail and Michal, but Saul had treacherously given Michal to another man (25:43‑44).

p. David at Ziph (26:1‑25).

The Ziphites kept their word to watch for David and to inform Saul. They told him that David was in Hachilah, and Saul came after him. David observed Saul’s camp and was able to approach it unmolested because everyone was soundly sleeping. He now had his second opportunity to kill his adversary, and Abishai urged him to do so, but David refused (26:1‑12).

For the second time David challenged Saul, and for a second time Saul acted remorseful. They each went their way never to see one another again (26:13‑25).

q. David at Gath (27:1‑12).

David went to Achish once again and convinced Achish of his enmity to Saul and loyalty to Achish. Achish received him as one of his officers. As a result, Saul stopped looking for David (27:1‑4).

David asked permission to live in a remote Philistine town and permission was granted. This allowed him to raid Judah’s enemies and to claim that he was raiding Judah. Consequently, he was able to help Judah without the Philistines knowing it (27:5‑12).

3. Saul’s last days (28:1—31:13).

a. Preparation for the battle (28:1‑7).

Achish naively wanted to take David along, who avowed his complete loyalty to his overlord (28:1‑2).

The historical note about Samuel’s death and Saul’s removal of the mediums from the land is necessary to the story about to follow (28:3).

The ranks of the armies gathered and got set in the Valley of Jezreel. The Philistines camped at Shunem, and Saul was on Mount Gilboa (a fairly large mountain near Beth Shan [cf. 29:1]) (28:4).

The complete desertion of Saul by Yahweh is clearly set forth by the fact that He would not answer Saul when he consulted him in desperation. Saul then resorted to a medium as a last-ditch attempt to get some kind of guidance (28:5‑7).

b. Saul and the witch of Endor (28:8‑25).

Saul overcame the fears of the necromancer and asked her to contact someone for him. She then called up someone who turned out to be Samuel. Samuel told Saul the same thing he had told him before: Yahweh had rejected him and tomorrow he and his sons would be dead. This was Saul’s final rejection.⁵⁷

c. The Final Battle (29:1—31:13).

(1) The Ziklag interlude (29:1—30:31).

The Philistine overlords adamantly refused to let David join in this important battle. David was thereby spared from an impossible situation that would surely have resulted in dire harm to him and his men. David and his men returned to Ziklag as the battle was joined (29:1‑11).

When David and his men got home, they discovered that their hometown had been attacked by the Amalekites, the city burned, the property all looted, and their wives and children taken captive. This created so much consternation that David’s men almost turned on him. (They may already have been unhappy at the prospects of joining the Philistines in war against Israel and may have argued that David should have stayed home) (30:1‑6).

David strengthened himself in the Lord and consulted the Lord for guidance through Abiathar the priest. Yahweh told him to pursue the Amalekites for he would overtake them and deliver the captives. So, David and his men took off after the Amalekites (30:7‑10).

An Egyptian slave, deserted by his master when he became sick, gave David all the intelligence he needed about the Amalekites (30:11‑15).

The Amalekites, thinking that David was preoccupied in the war, were enjoying the fruits of plunder when David overtook them and utterly defeated them. The spoils were divided, and David insisted that even those who had dropped out in weariness should share equally. This became a dictum in the future practices (30:16‑25).

David wisely sent gifts to the people of Judah, thus helping to cement his relationship with them (30:26‑31).

(2) Saul and Israel are defeated (31:1‑13).

The scene is a sad one. Saul’s armies, fighting on the slopes of Mt. Gilboa, are being pursued and slaughtered. The inexorable “fate” of Saul caught up with him, and wounded, he pled with his armor bearer to kill him. The latter refused, and Saul fell on his own sword ending his tragic life. Saul’s three sons were also killed (31:1-6).

The Philistines were completely triumphant. The once powerful lords of the Israelites were again dominant. They found Saul, removed his head to show in the cities of the Philistines and hung his and his sons’ bodies on the wall at Beth Shan (31:7‑10).

The Jabesh-gileadites, first to enjoy the benefits of Saul’s leadership (chapter 11) and perhaps his relatives, braved the Philistine defense to remove the bodies of the Saulides and gave them a decent burial (31:11‑13).

¹See Heater, God Rules among Men, for an integrated harmony of these books.

²Ibid., A Theology of Samuel and Kings.

³There were Philistines in “Palestine” during the time of the patriarchs. This later wave joined and dominated an older group. See M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch, p. 34.

⁴See Wright, Biblical Archaeology, pp. 86ff.

⁵There are two different words for “seer” here.

⁶In this connection, Fokkelman’s seminal work (Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel), is instructive: “A concrete example: While the Bible de Jerusalem numbers 400 adjustments in I‑II Sam. in relation to the MT, the acceptance of the text which has been handed down brings one to the discovery that the number of alternations [sic] can be reduced considerably. In this way I see the necessity of only a dozen alternations [sic] in II Sam. 9‑20 and I Kings 1‑2,” p. 5. Kyle McCarter (First Samuel in AB, p. ix) says he had access to all the photographs of the Qumran texts.

⁷See Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, a History of Old Testament Israel, pp. 238-39, who argues for a time later in David’s rule for the movement of the ark to Jerusalem.

⁸Cf. H. Hertzberg, First and Second Samuel, p. 375.

⁹See, e.g., M. H. Segal, “The Composition of the Books of Samuel,” JQR 55 (1965): 319 and A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, pp. xxx-xxxv.

¹⁰Critical scholarship argues for a tribal identification with Ephraim that was turned into a Levitical identification by the Chronicler. Amerding concedes this to a point when he argues for a royal priesthood for David and Solomon and perhaps for Samuel, “Were David’s Sons really priests?”

¹¹F. M. Cross, “A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,” BASOR 132 (1953):15-26. McCarter, First Samuel, loc. cit., says that 1:22 is original.

¹²True haplography would have only one “child.”

¹³Hertzberg, First and Second Samuel, p. 27.

¹⁴Not only is 1 Samuel preparing the way for David, the recognition of the Zadokite priesthood in lieu of Eli’s is also a theme. The fulfillment is in 1 Kings 2:26-27. Samuel becomes the agent of judgment on the house of Eli and Saul. He will also select David as God’s chosen one.

¹⁵See Würthwein, The Text of the OT, pp. 14ff.

¹⁶The word prophet, נָבִיא nabi’, only appears about seventeen times prior to this book (two of these are feminine). Usually, “man of God” refers to a prophet, cf., e.g., 2:27. Samuel’s period marks the real beginning of the prophetic movement—see Young, My Servants the Prophets.

Samuel’s period marks the real beginning of the prophetic movement—see E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets.

¹⁷See, e.g., Hertzberg, First and Second Samuel, loc. cit.

¹⁸The phrase “Lord of Hosts” (יהוה צְבָאוֹת Yahweh ṣ^eba’oth) begins to be used at this point. See M. Tsevat “Studies in the Book of Samuel,” HUCA 36 (1965): 49-58 who argues that “Hosts” is an appositional noun like “Elisha: Chariots and Horsemen of Israel.” Yahweh: the “army” of Israel.

¹⁹Note a similar teaching about the ark when David tries to bring it to Jerusalem improperly (2 Samuel 6), as a matter of fact, the author of Samuel may be relating these two incidents.

²⁰See ANET p. 130.

²¹LaSor, et al., Old Testament Survey, p. 243. See also J. B. Geyer, “Mice and Rites in 1 Samuel 6:5,” VT 31 (1981): 293-304 who argues that it is not a plague of or from mice. The plague produced dysentery and piles came from the plague. עְפלִים ‘^epholim is used in the story, but עַכְבְּרִים ‘akb^erim in the offering to take away guilt (אָשָׁם asham).

²²Syriac: “They defiled the ark.” Looking may imply more than mere gazing.

²³The Hebrew construction is so unusual, the number so large for a small town, and the fact that some Hebrew manuscripts do not have the number 50,000, leads Keil and Delitzsch to assume a textual error: that only seventy were killed. They are surely right.

²⁴ See Shiloh, “Did the Philistines Destroy the Israelite Sanctuary at Shiloh?” BAR 1:2 (1975): 3‑5 for the archaeological evidence of Shiloh.

²⁵See the structure of 1 Samuel on p. 153f.

²⁶For a discussion of the issue that the two ideas (monarchy/theocracy) are antithetical concepts in later Israel see Cohen, “The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel” HUCA 36 (1965) 59-98; also I. Mendelssohn, “Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the Akkadian Documents from Ugarit,” BASOR 143 (1956) 17-22.

²⁷There were two forces at work in Israel’s history: one was centripetal and the other was centrifugal. The centripetal force was the central sanctuary. It was the rallying point for all the people of Israel. The centrifugal force was tribal independence. Each tribe wanted to go its own way and to ignore any central authority. The schismatic altar (Joshua 22 esp. v. 29), the Benjamite war (Judges 19-21), jealousy against Gideon and Abimelech as judges (Judges 9), anti‑Judah feelings after the Davidite civil war (2 Samuel 19), and finally the breech after Solomon’s death, show that the nation was always ripe for dissension and division.

²⁸See A. Mazar, Archaeology and the Land of the Bible, pp. 350-51 for a description of a high place found in Samaria.

²⁹The phrase “the place which Yahweh your God shall choose from all your tribes to put his name there” (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11), or some variation thereof, has been the linchpin of the theory that Deuteronomy was composed in the seventh century during the time of Josiah to force all Israel to worship at Jerusalem. If this is a command to choose one site out of all Israel as the only place Yahweh can be legitimately worshiped, it conflicts with the obvious popularity of the high places (בָּמוֹת bamoth) and their use by Yahweh’s representatives throughout the monarchy as well as preceding it. M. H. Segal (The Pentateuch, pp. 87-89) argues (with predecessors) that the rule is not for one place only, but for pure, non-Canaanite places. “That place” in Deut 12:3 refers to all Canaan which is to become a holy place where God causes his name to dwell. Every altar in it is to be divinely sanctioned or destroyed. Woudstra, Joshua and Craigie, Deuteronomy, agree. Furthermore, it seems to me that the use of the word “to sacrifice” (זָבַח zabaḥ in the context of Deut 12:20‑23 argues that private sacrifice was allowed if the distance to the sanctuary was too great. This word always means to sacrifice, not simply to kill, with the possible exception of 1 Sam 28:24 where the witch of Endor prepared a calf, and I have to wonder if that does not refer to ritual killing. The history of the central sanctuary is uneven. It began at Shiloh (Josh 18:1) but was destroyed in the Philistine wars of Samuel’s day (Jeremiah 7). It was at Nob when David fled Saul (1 Sam 21:1) and was at Gibeon when Solomon became king (2 Chron 1:3). A permanent sanctuary did not come into existence until the tenth century. Many other “high places” and cult centers existed along with Shiloh and even with Solomon’s temple until reform under Hezekiah and Josiah forced their closing. These centers existed because of the lack of a clear-cut central city. Precedent was given for this in the erection of altars by Joshua (Josh 8:30‑35). Therefore, their use was considered legitimate until they became corrupted with syncretism. The similarity of Israelite faith with Canaanite religion made “crossover” very easy (names for God, common sacrifices, and the “high places”). Consequently, syncretism became the order of the day and absolutely required the closing down of these high places and priests connected with them (2 Kings 23:4‑9). (Cf. A. Mazar, “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ from the Time of the Judges,” BAR 9 [1983] 34-40.) However, the central sanctuary at Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon and eventually Jerusalem was a rallying point for the people of Israel. They chose their king, consulted about war and tribal matters as well as worshipped there. The books of Samuel are usually considered to be the product of the “Deuteronomist” who wrote Israel’s history with a particular viewpoint. This deuteronomistic philosophy is against high places. However, when we have a section like this one where Samuel is closely identified with a high place, McCarter, (1 Samuel, p. 177), e.g., says “The present passage with its unflinching

³⁰This is a good place to observe the way some of the sacrifice was carried out. The animal was killed, offered to God, and the people then shared in the meal of the cooked meat. Cf. 1 Samuel 2 where this was taking place at the tabernacle. Here it takes place on the “high place,” a substitute for the central sanctuary.

³¹The Hebrew word “to anoint” is mašacḥ. The passive form is mešiacḥ (מְשִׁיח). From this comes the word “Messiah” which can be applied to either a priest, king, or the Messiah. When David says that he will not touch the Lord’s anointed, this is the word he uses. The Greek counterpart is christos from which we get Christ. ḥ

³²Only a word on prophets and prophesying can be given here. For an excellent discussion, see Young, My Servants the Prophets. The word prophet is the Hebrew nabi (נָבִיא). The etymology is obscure. Some argue for “to bubble forth,” more a reflection of their idea of a prophet than an etymology. Others (e.g., Albright, in From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 303) argue that it means “to be called.” It most certainly means to be a spokesman for God, but its precise etymology cannot be determined. The classic passage on the Old Testament prophet is Deuteronomy 18 where Moses was preparing the people to enter Canaan where they would encounter all kinds of occult practices. In contrast to this false activity, Israel is to listen to her prophets. Amos is told by Amaziah to go home and prophesy rather than in Israel. Likewise, Ezekiel is told to “prophesy to the bones and say . . .” This implies that the idea of prophesying means basically to communicate what God says. On the other hand, the references to prophesying in Samuel (chapter 10, 18 [an evil spirit causes it!], 20) indicate that sometimes, at least, bizarre behavior accompanied prophesying. Certainly, it means that God overpowered the prophet so that he was no longer acting of his own accord. Instead of simply going home, Saul prophesied. Instead of capturing David, Saul lay naked. God seizes upon men to carry out His divine purposes as he did the seventy elders working with Moses to help in judging.

³³Critical scholars argue that chapter 13 originally followed chapter 10 (see Hertz-berg, First and Second Samuel, loc. cit., or McCarter, I Samuel, loc. cit., for a discussion.) In chapter 10, Samuel told Saul to go to Gilgal and wait seven days for him to come and offer sacrifices. In chapter 13 Saul waited seven days and forced himself to make the sacrifices. It is my opinion that the directions in chapter 10 were standing orders to be fulfilled as the occasion demanded. He could not have fulfilled it in chapter 10 because (1) No one knew who Saul was or that he had been anointed. How could he muster the troops of Israel against the Philistines? This is not insuperable, since an analogous situation is the story of Gideon where it is the Angel of Yahweh who speaks. Samuel’s statement to Saul (10:7) “And it shall be when these signs come to you, do for yourself what the occasion requires; for God is with you” sounds as though that might be the beginning of his charismatic ministry. The signs did indeed come to pass, but Saul merely went home. Furthermore, Gideon had to make his commission known by tearing down the altar of Baal in his back yard. (2) The more likely sequence is that presently in the MT: Saul went back home to farming, conscious that God was going to use him, but probably puzzled as to how that would come about. Samuel publicly anointed him at Mizpah, and Saul then mustered the troops for the Ammonite war in chapter 11. (3) The promise was made to Saul in chapter 13 that the kingdom would be removed from him. It would be strange if this were done the very same day that Saul’s delivering work began. See also Keil: God had told Samuel that Saul would deliver from the Philistines. He would go to Gilgal at the right time for preparation for war and wait seven days. After the intervening events, he went there, but despaired of Samuel’s coming.

³⁴For Saul’s “palace” in Gibea see Wright, Biblical Archaeology, pp. 122‑123.

³⁵Ibid.

³⁶See Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 181 who suggests that Saul’s ancestors were the Jabesh-gileadites who were brought in to marry the few men left in Benjamin (Judges 21). This would help to explain Saul’s interest in this city.

³⁷F. M. Cross, “New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research,” Bible Review 1 (1985): 26-29.

³⁸Cf. Paul’s testimony before the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.

³⁹Bedan in v. 11 is not known in the Judges. It may be that he was a minor judge unmentioned in the book of Judges, but it is probably an old copyist error for Barak, corrected in the LXX.

⁴⁰Cf. also Noth, History of Israel, p. 176.

⁴¹Keil argues that Saul was not acting as priest—the priests would have offered the sacrifice—but he failed to obey the word of the Lord spoken through Samuel, but see Cohen, “The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 36 [1965] 153-160. He says it was the intrusion into the sacrifice, but he sees it as a powerite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel,’’ HUCA 36 [1965] 153-160. He says it was the intrusion into the sacrifice, but he sees it as a power struggle between Samuel and Saul.

⁴²See Schedl, History of the Old Testament, 3:88 for a discussion of the necessity of the supernatural in Old Testament history.

⁴³LXX has “ephod” instead of ark which has led some scholars to argue that the LXX has the original reading. However, there was already a precedent for bringing the ark into battle (1 Samuel 4). Consequently, we should follow the hard reading of the MT. But see Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, pp. 202-3 who supports the reading “ephod.”

⁴⁴Some argue that these “Hebrews” are really the old ‘apiru who are now Philistine mercenaries. See Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 202.

⁴⁵Some would question how David could be called a “mighty man of valor” (16:18) when he was such a youth, but Keil and Delitzsch argue that the feats with the bear and the lion were enough to allow him to be so described.

⁴⁶I assume this is D. W. Gooding, but I can no longer find the reference.

⁴⁷Sélincourt, The World of Herodotus, pp. 124-25, recounts a story of Greeks having 300 picked champions from each side to fight each other in lieu of the whole army.

⁴⁸17:54 raises two problems: whose tent and why Jerusalem. J. K. Hoffmeier (“The Aftermath of David’s Triumph over Goliath,” ArchBW 1:1 [1991] 18-23) argues that the tent belongs to Goliath (David had seized it, a practice known from Egypt and Assyrian evidence). He threw the head in Jerusalem to serve notice on the Jebusites that this was what David did to his enemies. However, Merrill (Kingdom of Priests, p. 241) believes that Nob would have been considered part of greater Jerusalem, and this is where David probably took both the head and the sword.

⁴⁹See Cohen, “The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 36 [1965] 153-160, for a refutation of sexual relationship. The covenant was political.

⁵⁰See my “Young David and the Practice of Wisdom.”

⁵¹The Hebrew word teraphim means in all other places an idol (household idol). Rachel, e.g., stole her father’s household idols which may have had economic significance as well as religious. The question here is whether David would have tolerated such pagan practice in his house even if one were to conclude that Saul’s daughter were the real culprit. There is no verbal root in Hebrew for this word, but in Aramaic, the root trp means to be soft, then to blaspheme. In Arabic it means to be soft, effeminate or luxurious. Is it possible that Michal folded up clothes so as to look like a man, and the Hebrew word for idol or image fits that activity? I would be inclined in that direction rather than to the idea of a man-sized idol in David’s home.

⁵²Hertzberg, First and Second Samuel, p. 171.

⁵³The limestone rock formations leave many caves in this area. Cf. the bell caves where the limestone was excavated.

⁵⁴See Yadin, The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters.

⁵⁵See my “Young David and the Practice of Wisdom,” pp. 56-57.

⁵⁶Cf. Proverbs in its contrast between the fool and the wise person.

⁵⁷The practice of consulting with the dead is a longstanding one in the middle east. It is condemned in the Scripture, but obviously continued to be popular in spite of its ban. The “witch” would be called a “medium” today. Literally she is referred to as a “woman possessing a (necromancing) spirit” (אֵשֶׁת בַּעֲלַת אוֹב ‘eshet ba’^alt ‘ob). The word ‘ob may refer to the chirping sounds made in the efforts to consult the dead. Presumably, then as now, most of this activity was charlatanism, although Satanic activity is always a possibility. It seems that this woman was surprised to see Samuel coming up as a “god” or a supernatural creature. I suspect she was surprised because it did not normally happen. In this case God brought Samuel back in spirit form to give the final message to Saul.

5. 2 Samuel

Related Media

Second Samuel ¹

D. The apex of David’s reign (1:1—8:18). See charts on p. 158.

1. Transition—God prepares David for rule over all Israel (1:1—4:12)

a. Report of Saul’s death (1:1‑16).

It is ironic that an Amalekite killed Saul. It was his failure to eradicate the Amalekites that caused his downfall. There were surely many bands of these semi-nomadic Amalekites, however, and this young man may have come from a different one than that in chapter 15. Another band was involved in the attack on Ziklag.

1 Sam 31:5‑6 says Saul committed suicide, but 2 Sam 1:10 says an Amalekite killed him. There are two possible explanations:

(1) Saul fell on his sword; his armor bearer thought he was dead and killed himself. However, Saul did not die and asked the Amalekite to finish him off (“my life is still in me” ki kol ‘od naphshi bi כִּי כל עוֹד נַפְשִׁי בִּי).

(2) The Amalekite stripped the dead Saul and made up the story of killing him, hoping for reward.²

Whatever the situation, the young Amalekite, thinking he would be greatly rewarded saw his plan backfire, and David killed him for daring to “destroy the Lord’s anointed” (1:11‑16).

b. David’s lament psalm over Saul and Jonathan (1:17‑27).

David wrote a lament and ordered that it be taught to the sons of Judah as the “song of the bow” (1:17‑18). The word “lament” is the Hebrew qinah (קִינָה) which is probably onomatopoeia (word comes from the sound). The keening sound of mourning is its root. The “song of the bow” probably means that it is to be understood as a war song. This would account for its having been written in the book of Jashar, a non-extant book that seems to have had military accounts in it.

David expresses his great love for Jonathan in this psalm. One wonders whether David understood a woman’s love when he makes this statement about Jonathan (1:26‑27).

c. David is made king over Judah (2:1‑4a).

David begins carefully to make his move toward being king over all Israel. Every action becomes critical. David’s attitude is good and proper, but he is also fully aware of the political implications of all he does. Yahweh led him to Hebron where he was anointed king by the tribe of Judah. All the rest of Israel was under the titular king Ishbosheth.³

d. David expresses thanks to the Jabesh-gileadites (2:4b‑7).

David showed genuine compassion for Saul, but he also showed political astuteness in rewarding the Jabesh-gileadites since Ishbosheth ruled Gilead.

e. Abner tries to continue the Saulide dynasty contrary to God’s purpose (2:8‑11).

Abner, Saul’s general, made Ishbosheth king and took him to the east side of Jordan from where he ruled. Ishbosheth was 40 when he became king. Abner of course ruled in fact, and Ish-bosheth was the figurehead.⁴

David ruled seven- and one-half years in Hebron. David’s total rule was forty years. Ishbosheth ruled only two years. These two years may be the last two of David’s seven, and it took five years for Abner to regain territory from the Philistines (2:11).⁵

f. Abner fights against Joab, David’s general (2:12‑32).

David’s overture to the Jabesh-gileadites who are in Ishbosheth’s and Abner’s backyard probably precipitated this military confrontation between the two groups.⁶ The individual contest is probably to be understood in a similar fashion to David and Goliath’s battle. The winner takes all.⁷ The principals of the combat are Abner (Saul’s relative and de facto head of the kingdom of the north) and Joab, Abishai, and Asahel: three sons of Zeruiah, sister of David (1 Chron 2:16). These men were rash, ruthless and somewhat precipitate in their actions. David, on more than one occasion, differentiates himself from them and seems unable to control them (2:12‑13).

Twelve young men were chosen to represent each side. The results were inconclusive as they killed one another. Consequently, the war was prosecuted, and Abner was defeated. (There was bad blood between the Gibeonites (where the battle took place) and Saul as we will learn in chapter 21. They may have been favorably disposed to David’s men.) (2:14‑17).

The second part of the account that is significant for the future involves the death of the younger brother Asahel at the hands of Abner. This will show why Joab treacherously killed Abner when he came to make a covenant with David. Asahel pursued Abner relentlessly as was his nature. In spite of Abner’s pleas, Asahel would not turn back, and Abner killed him. A truce was called, and each group went to its respective home (2:18‑32).

2. Circumstances work together to bring David to the place where he is allowed by God to take over the whole kingdom (3:1—4:12.)

A historical interlude is given showing God’s blessing on David. Apparently the war lasted most of the seven years David ruled in Hebron. However, God’s divine purposes were being realized as David grew stronger, and the house of Saul grew weaker. David’s family was also increasing: he now had six wives, each of whom had a child. Take note of Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah, each of whom will figure prominently in the coming narrative (3:1‑5).

A charge against Abner by Ishbosheth caused a rift between them. Abner was the de facto ruler, while Ishbosheth was the titular head. Ishbosheth accused Abner of going in to one of Saul’s concubines (Rizpah whose love for her children is demonstrated in 21:8‑11). To “go in to a concubine” is to assert dominance (cf., e.g., Gen 35:22; 1 Kings 2:21 and esp. 2 Sam 16:20‑23). This would be a strange charge for Ishbosheth to make if it were not true. It may be that Abner was moving toward making himself king. Abner recognized that God intended for David to have the whole kingdom and openly asserted his intention of turning the northern unit over to David (3:6‑11).

Abner made an overture to David by asking for a covenant with him. David responded positively with only one condition: his wife Michal must be taken from her second husband and returned to David. This appears to be a violation of Deut 24:1‑4 as well as a very cruel act (note the way Paltiel, her husband, follows her weeping). However, David did this for political as well as personal reasons. Apparently Michal, who had loved David in her younger days, never forgave him for this act (note her attitude in 6:20‑23) (3:12‑16).

Abner demonstrated considerable finesse in convincing the northern tribes as well as Saul’s tribe of Benjamin of the wisdom of making David king. He consulted with the other segments of the kingdom and reminded them of their past love for David and erstwhile willingness to have him over them. He reminded them that God had chosen David to be the ruler of Israel and to deliver them from the Philistines (3:17‑19).

Abner’s attempts to make a covenant with David resulted in tragedy because of Joab’s treachery. Abner came to Hebron and was welcomed by David. Joab was away at the time and became very unhappy when he heard about David’s pact with Abner. Joab told David he was worried that Abner had merely come to spy out the situation, but he had two motives for murdering Abner: Abner would be his rival as general of the army, and Abner was the slayer of his brother. In typical Semitic fashion, Joab believed he had to avenge his brother’s death in spite of the fact that Abner killed Asahel reluctantly, because Asahel would not fall back. Joab’s deed is even more heinous when we remember that Hebron was a Refuge City, specifically designed to protect a man from the goel or avenger of blood (Josh 20:7). Joab sent messengers to bring Abner back and treacherously murdered him (3:20‑30).

David publicly lamented Abner’s death and convinced the people that he had nothing to do with the treachery. He led in Abner’s funeral and keened a lament (qinah קִינָה) as he did for Saul and Jonathan. David fasted until sundown. This evidence of his concern pleased the people. David admitted his impotency before the sons of Zeruiah, a tragic admission, but one that proved true throughout David’s reign. He left it to Solomon to bring judgment on the head of Joab, something he himself should have done earlier. Joab exercised enormous influence over David during the rest of his rule (3:31‑39).

The death of Abner signaled the end of Ishbosheth’s rule in Mahanaim. Two historical notes set the stage for following events: (a) two officers from among the Benjamites are mentioned who will assassinate Ishbosheth and (b) Mephibosheth is introduced as a son of Jonathan, who was crippled when his nurse dropped him. The two officers, Rechab and Baanah, murdered Ishbosheth and brought his head to David. (There seem to be two accounts of the murder of Ishbosheth: one says they went in and killed him in the house, and the other says they killed him in his bedroom. The second statement allows the writer to add the feature of the removal of the head, which would be brought to David. Cf. 3:22, 23; 5:1‑3 for similar accounts.) David rebuked them for their dastardly deed and had them executed (4:1‑12).⁸

3. David becomes king over all Israel and establishes his throne in the Jebusite city (5:1‑16).

a. The elders of all Israel came to make David king and acknowledged that God had chosen him (5:1‑3).

b. David’s age when he became king over Judah was 30. He reigned in Hebron seven years and over all Israel 33 years. Hence, he was 70 when he died (5:4‑5).

c. David captured the fortress of Jebus and made it his capital (5:6‑10).

The Jebusites taunted David, thinking the city was impregnable. David captured the city. The word “water tunnel” is sinnor (צִנוֹר), an obscure word which some think may refer to the Jebusite water shaft reaching up to the city. Others think it refers to a grappling hook.⁹ Jebus (Jerusalem) as David’s capital was to become perhaps the most famous city in the world.¹⁰

David set up his throne in the city and reinforced it. “Millo” apparently is from the Hebrew word male “to fill” (מָלֵא) and probably refers to the building of double walls or as Avigad says: “apparently the built‑up terraces on the eastern slope of the Eastern Hill, on which other structures were then built.”¹¹ (See also 1 Chron 11:8; 1 Kings 9:15, 24; 11:27; 2 Chron 32:5.)

David’s success as a king and a leader was because the Lord of Hosts was with him (5:10). Yahweh of Hosts Yahweh ṣ^ebaoth (יהוה צְבָאוֹת) is a powerful title for God. It indicates that he is in charge of heaven and earth. He was responsible for the fact that David was becoming ever more powerful.

d. More evidence of David’s advancement is shown by the interest of international people and by the growth of his family (5:11‑16).

Hiram the Tyrian king became a life‑long friend of David. This friendship was extended to Solomon as well. Eleven more sons (as well as unnamed daughters) were born in Jerusalem. Only Solomon became prominent.

e. David begins to act in the capacity of a military leader against the Philistines (5:17‑25).

The Lord sent him against the Philistines at Rephaim, and David defeated them at Baal-perazim (5:17‑21). The Philistines came against David again at Rephaim, and again the Lord led David to victory over them (5:22‑25).

4. David brings the ark, the symbol of God’s presence, to Jerusalem (6:1‑23).

a. The ark of the covenant was left in Kiriath-jearim after the Philistines returned it (1 Sam 7:1‑2).

Now David prepared to bring it to Jerusalem. The tabernacle was apparently rebuilt in Nob (1 Sam 21:1‑6). In Solomon’s day it was in Gibeon (1 Kings 3:3‑5 with 2 Chron 1:3). At this time, the ark seemed to have a separate existence, and David brought it to Jerusalem where it was placed in a special tent, but not the tabernacle (cf. 1 Chron 16:38‑39).

David assembled a picked group of 30,000 men and went to Baale-Judah to bring up the ark. God is referred to as “the Name” (hashem הַשֵּׁם), “the Lord of Hosts,” and the one who “is enthroned above the cherubim.” This latter refers to the fact that God dwelt over the outstretched wings of the cherubim, which were placed on the two ends of the ark of the covenant (6:1‑2).

The ark was placed on a new cart (as the Philistines had done, 1 Sam 6:7). The ark was supervised by Uzzah and Ahio who were sons of Abinadab. This was the Abinadab into whose house the ark was brought and whose son had been consecrated to keep the ark after the Philistines brought it to Beth Shemesh (1 Sam 7:1‑2). 1 Sam 7:2 says the ark was there for twenty years. Samuel and Saul occupied forty years and some ten years have elapsed of David’s rule. There would have been a period of seventy years during which the ark was at Kiriath-jearim. These men were either very old or they are grandsons of Abinadab (6:3‑4).

b. The first attempt to bring up the ark was a failure (6:5-11).

David and company were celebrating and worshipping before the Lord with all kinds of musical instruments when disaster struck. Uzzah reached out to steady the ark and was killed. God was making a point about his holiness as he did with the Beth Shemeshites. Uzzah acted in ignorant innocence, but he was violating the rules just the same. The text says that the “anger of the Lord burned against Uzzah, and God struck him.” There is no question of what happened. The only question is “why.” David became angry with the Lord and called the place “Perez-Uzzah” (“breaking forth against Uzzah”).¹² David feared the Lord and wondered whether it was possible to bring up the ark (6:5‑9).

The ark was left at the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months. Gittite could mean that he was from the Philistine city of Gath, but “gath” means a winepress and is used of a number of places. There was a Levitical city called Gath-rimmon (Pomegranate Press) in the tribe of Dan (Josh 21:24; 19:45). Obed-Edom is mentioned as a gatekeeper in 1 Chron 26:4, cf. Exod 6:21; 18:16) and from the family of Kohath and Merari. Why he was called a servant of Edom is not known. Critics want this to be a foreign deity, but there must be some other explanation.¹³ God’s blessing was evident on the house of Obed-Edom (6:10‑11).

c. The second attempt to bring up the ark was successful because David followed different procedures (6:12‑19).

David decided that God’s blessing on Obed-Edom signaled his intent to allow David to bring up the ark. The fact that they “carried” the ark (no mention of a cart) probably indicates that they were following God’s original instructions to have priests carry the ark on their shoulders with staves (Exod 25:12‑14). 1 Chron 15:1 may indicate that Levites were not involved in the first attempt. The hymn David sang on this occasion is recorded in 1 Chronicles 16. Compare it with Psalm 132, which is connected with the ark (Ephrathah would refer to a different place than around Bethlehem, and field of Jaar would be comparable to Kiriath-jearim) and with the Davidic covenant (6:12‑15).

Michal indicated her hatred of David when she despised him as he was dancing before the ark. Some would argue that Michal was only concerned with proper decorum, but it seems more likely that she was reflecting her anger at David for what he did to her and perhaps some disdain for the whole ark proceeding. Her father had some contact with the ark (1 Sam 14:18), but he apparently made no attempt to bring it up (although an argument could be made that the Philistine proximity made that impossible until David had defeated them). His complete disdain for the priests at Nob and whatever he did to the Gibeonites at the same time do not show a great spiritual sensitivity. Perhaps Michal reflected her father’s attitude. The ark was deposited, sacrifices were made, and David dismissed the people with gifts (6:16‑19).

d. David and Michal develop a permanent breach because she despises David (6:20‑23).

She vented her anger by calling David “a fool who uncovers himself before the maids.” David reminded her that God chose him over her father Saul (this must have been galling). David said that he was willing to go even further in abasing himself in order to glorify such a God. Michal was childless the rest of her life. It is probable that David had nothing more to do with her. This pericope is also to show that no descendants of Saul were to come from David. Had Michal had children by David, there could have been some complication in the succession. The author is showing us that one by one Saul’s house is being set aside: Saul, Jonathan, Abner, Ishbosheth, and now Michal. God has chosen David’s dynasty, as will be seen in the next chapter.

5. God makes a covenant with David promising him a throne and a kingdom forever (7:1‑29).

a. The Davidic covenant was a pivotal point in Israel’s history.

While a basic intent of this covenant is connected with Solomon and the building of the temple, its long-range perspective has to do with the eternality of David’s throne, and ultimately is fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:32‑33). It is paralleled in Ps. 89 and 1 Chron 17.¹⁴

b. David plans to build a temple and seeks Nathan’s approval (7:1‑3).

The conversation recorded between David and Nathan is quite short. It is likely that extended discussions had taken place regarding the possibility of building a temple. David was concerned that he was living in a beautiful home while the ark was in a tent. By now David had established Jerusalem as the political and religious center (comparable to Shiloh). It was only fitting that a permanent temple be constructed. Nathan, as a court prophet, expressed his approval of David’s plan.

c. God tells Nathan that He does not approve of David’s plan (7:4‑7).

God asked whether David is the one to build the temple, thus implying his disfavor with the idea. He rehearsed his past dealings with Israel to show that he does not need a temple. This is an important theological statement about God. He is not confined to any one spot. The tabernacle and later the temple and the ark were simply means of communication with the people, but God was not confined to any of those. It was difficult to dislodge the misconception from the minds of the people.

d. God makes His covenant with David (7:8‑17).

God states his past faithfulness to David. It is almost a formulaic word that God gave to Saul (1 Sam 15:17) and now to David. Nathan will utter the words again in the condemnation of David’s adultery and murder (2 Sam 12:7‑8). Yahweh continually reminds these men that it is by his grace that they serve. God promised to appoint a place for Israel and give them peace such as they have never had before (7:8‑11a).

God also promised David that he would give him a dynasty (so the meaning of “house”). David will die, but God will raise up a descendant (seed, zera זֶרַע). This descendant will build the temple, and his throne will be established in perpetuity. God will have a special relationship with him: Father to son. When he commits iniquity, God will discipline him; yet, God will never remove his covenant kindness (ḥesed חֶסֶד) from him. Again, God states that the shift of the kingdom from Saul to David was God’s doing. Finally, God says that David’s dynasty and throne will be established forever. (Cf. Psalm 89 for elaboration on this theme.) Summary statement: Nathan carried out his commission to relate this vision to David (7:11b‑17).

e. David extols God for his great grace and mercy (7:18‑29) (cf. Psalm 89).

David expressed his thanks for God’s dealings with him in the past. (“And this is the custom of man,” 7:19, refers to the fact that God was dealing with man [David] as God reveals in the law, viz., “love thy neighbor”) (7:18-19).

David acknowledged God’s sovereignty in choosing Israel and David. Furthermore, he stated that the choice of Israel was really for God’s own glory: (1) it was according to God’s word and his own heart, (2) there is no God like Jehovah, his choice of Israel and the miraculous deliverance from Egypt was to exalt God and bring glory to him (7:20‑24).

David humbly gave thanks for God’s choice of Him and his dynasty to carry out God’s purpose (7:25‑29).

6. God’s blessing on David is evidenced in David’s victories over the surrounding people (8:1‑18).

a. The Philistines were subdued. At long last the hated harassers of Israel are brought to their knees.

The war, begun under Samuel and continued under Saul, was finished by David. “Chief city” metheg ha’ammah miyad P^elištim (מֶתֶג הָאַמָּה מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים) means the metropolis which ruled the area (1 Sam 29:2; cf. 27:1). Chronicles says “Gath and her towns” (1 Chron 18:1).

b. The Moabites were defeated, and half of the captured men are killed (8:2).

c. The Arameans of Zobah were defeated at the Euphrates River (8:3‑4).

d. The Arameans of Damascus were defeated when they went to the assistance of those of Zobah (8:5‑8).¹⁵

The result was that David garrisoned the Aramean cities with their capital at Damascus. A side note is that by limiting the advances of the Arameans, David was providing breathing space for the Assyrians in the east. With the Arameans out of the way, Assyria could grow apace.

e. The Hittite city-state of Hamath was elated at David’s victories since they removed a dreaded enemy from its southern flank (8:9‑12).¹⁶

f. The Edomites are the subject of 8:13‑14.

This is indicated by the parallel account in Chronicles (1 Chron 18:12) where Abishai was the chief instigator, and by the morphology of the name: Edom and Aram look like this in Hebrew: ארם אדם

g. A summary statement about God’s blessing on David is given (8:15‑18).

The kingdom David inherited was operated on a very simple scale. It was not highly nor well organized. David began the organization process, which was brought to a peak by Solomon. David may well have gone to Egypt for ideas on organization, and one name in the list here may even be Egyptian.¹⁷

All of 1 Samuel moves toward the events of 2 Samuel 1-8. Here in summary form are the main achievements of David: (1) He became king over all Israel, (2) He captured Jebus and made it his capital, (3) He brought up the ark, (4) He received the Davidic covenant, (5) He conquered all his enemies. The rest of 2 Samuel will answer the question. “Who will succeed me in my new dynasty?”¹⁸

E. The Struggle for Succession—Choice of Solomon (2 Sam 9:1—12:31).

1. David demonstrates grace by showing kindness to Jonathan’s son (9:1‑13).

a. David had promised Jonathan to look after his family (1 Sam 20:12‑17).

b. David’s act of kindness encouraged the rest of Israel (cf. also David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan, taking back the king’s daughter, reception of Abner and mourning for him, and killing of the men who murdered Ishbosheth).

c. Jonathan had a son named Mephibosheth (9:1‑8).

Mephibosheth’s name is Meribbaal in 1 Chron 8:33. Meribbaal means “contending for the Lord” (cf. Jerubbaal/Gideon in Judges 6:31‑32). As indicated earlier the name has been edited to drop out the name Baal because of its idolatrous connotations and to substitute “bosheth” “shameful” in its place. The meaning of Mephibosheth is “from the mouth of the god of shame.”

David inquired about descendants of Saul. “Kindness” (ḥesed חֶסֶד) is an important Old Testament word. It pertains to “grace,” “mercy,” or “kindness.” The “saint” of the Old Testament is a ḥasid (חָסִיד), that is, one who is the recipient of God’s kindness.¹⁹

A servant of Saul’s house by the name of Ziba was brought to David. He was introduced and asked about Saul’s family. Ziba told about Mephibosheth who was crippled in both feet (cf. 4:4). He was then living in the home of Machir in Lo-debar. Machir was a descendant of Manasseh (Gen 50:23), whose descendants conquered Gilead (Num 32:39, 40). This Machir showed friendship to Saul’s house when the army came to Mahanaim, but David’s magnanimous gesture to Mephibosheth probably won him over. In any event, he extended kindness to David in his distress (2 Sam 17:27). Lo-debar is in Gilead on the northeast side of the Jordan where the house of Saul had fled, and Abner had set up a rump government (9:2‑4).

David summoned Mephibosheth and treated him generously. Mephibosheth probably expected bad treatment, but David restored to him Saul’s lands and permitted him to eat daily at the king’s table. (Ancestral lands were supposed to be restored to the original owners under Mosaic law, but kings often appropriated the lands of people). Mephibosheth showed his gratitude (9:5‑8).

David called Ziba and charged him with the care of Saul’s properties. (Cf. chap. 16 for the tragic aftermath of this wonderful beginning) (9:9‑13).

2. David demonstrates wisdom in showing grace and then justice to the Ammonites (10:1‑19). (This victory is summarized in 8:12.)²⁰

a. The death of Nahash became an occasion for a provocative act against David (casus belli) (10:1‑5).

Nahash died. He was the enemy whom Saul defeated in 1 Samuel 11. Since that time, he had become a friend of David. David’s act of kindness (ḥesed חֶסֶד) was misinterpreted, and David’s ambassadors were abused (nakedness and shaving in this way were insulting to a Semite). David told the men to stay in Jericho until their hair had regrown. Nothing is said about David becoming angry—nothing needs to be said.

b. David’s army wins the battle decisively (10:6‑19).

The Ammonites, expecting retaliation, called on Aramean allies for help. Beth-Rehob and Zoba furnished 20,000 men; Maacah, 1,000 and Tob, 12,000. David called up his army in response. The battle was set, and Joab’s generalship won the day (10:6‑14).

The Arameans decided to make a major effort to defeat David and so sent for help beyond the Euphrates. The king leading the coalition was Hadadezer (cf. 1 Kings 11:23). His name means “Hadad” (the storm god) is “help.” He was the king of Zoba. David defeated them at Helem (an unknown place on the east side of the Jordan). The Arameans became tributaries to Judah, but in later years they became the nemesis of both Israel and Judah (10:15‑19).

3. David demonstrates folly in his sin with Bathsheba (11:1—12:31).

a. Certain events set the stage for the ensuing tragedy (11:1).

It was the time of year conducive to battle, and General Joab and the army were besieging Rabbah (capital of the Ammonites who had been defeated in chap. 10). David stayed at home rather than going to the battle.²¹

b. David falls into temptation and yields to it (11:2‑5).

David was walking on the rooftop when he saw a beautiful woman bathing. Instead of resisting temptation, he sent messengers to find out who she was. The report came back that she was Bathsheba (daughter of an oath) daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah (Jehovah is light) the Hittite. The fact that Uriah was a Hittite indicates that he was a foreigner who had embraced the faith of David. Certainly now, David should have stopped. The woman was married and to one of his trusted loyal officers at that. Instead, he brought her to the palace and had sex with her. Bathsheba became pregnant, a rather embarrassing situation since her husband was away on a long campaign.

c. David tries to cover his sin and fails (11:6‑13).

David called for Uriah on the pretext of finding out how the siege was going. David sent Uriah to his house, hoping he would have sex with his wife and thus would be assumed to be the father of Bathsheba’s child. (How did David think that no one of all those who knew about the incident would ever tell on him?) Uriah slept with the king’s servants. David urged him to go home, but Uriah stated his tremendous loyalty to the army, ark, and general. David then tried to get him so drunk that he would go home without realizing it, but Uriah refuses to go.

d. David then decides to murder Uriah (11:14‑25).

David sent the letter of execution by the hand of the man who trusted him so explicitly that he would never think of looking at the letter (apart from the divine implications of this passage, this ironic action is masterful storytelling). Joab carried out the orders by putting Uriah in the front ranks and withdrawing from him. Uriah and others were killed, and Joab sent a report on the war (which was not going too well at that point) with the ameliorating statement that Uriah was dead. David accepted the report and laconically ordered the messenger to tell Joab that things happen that way at times.

e. David then takes over the estate he has robbed (11:26‑27) (cf. Naboth’s vineyard).

Bathsheba fulfilled her days of mourning, and David brought her to the palace. She bore a son, but the thing that David had done was displeasing to the Lord (Literaly, it was evil in his eyes).²²

f. God confronts David through Nathan the prophet (12:1‑15a).

Nathan, to make his point, gave a heart‑rending parable of a man with one little ewe. David became angry and averred that the man who stole the ewe lamb was worthy of death, and that the man must make four‑fold restitution. (Because he did the deed and because he had no compassion.) Nathan then applied the parable to David: God had blessed David with everything he could possibly want. David had despised the word of the Lord by this awful act, and as a consequence, Yahweh promised that the sword would never depart from David’s house. David’s own family would turn against him, and his wives would be given to another. God would humiliate David publicly because David had acted secretly.

g. David accepts the rebuke and repents (12:13‑15a).

David recognized that his sin was ultimately only against the Lord (cf. Psalm 51). God forgave David and spared him from death, but he punished him by taking away the life of the newly born boy. Because of David’s position, his sin caused the enemies of Yahweh to blaspheme.

h. David’s son dies (12:15b‑23).

The baby became sick; David inquired of God; prayed and fasted. The child died on the seventh day, and David recognized that there was nothing more to be done. He had hoped to avert the hand of God but was unable to do so. Before this was over, David lost (1) Bathsheba’s first son, (2) Amnon, (3) Absalom, and (4) Adonijah—four sons. Is this four‑fold restitution?

i. David and Bathsheba have a second child (12:24‑25).

David named him Solomon (שְׁלמה something about peace). The Lord chose Solomon, and as a result he was also called Jedidiah.²³ The historian is saying that God is going to continue his work in the theocratic kingdom through Solomon. This is the centerpiece in the frame of the Ammonite war. David’s successor will be Solomon.

j. The Ammonites are finally defeated (12:26‑31).

The siege may have lasted two years. Joab had all but won, and he sent for David to finish the battle. The “city of waters” means that it was situated on the Jabbok River. David came, defeated the city, and made the Ammonites slaves.²⁴

F. The Struggle for Succession—Rejection of Other Sons (2 Sam 13:1—20:26). See chart on p. 158.

1. The second step in God’s judgment on David is in the sordid sin of Amnon (13:1‑39).

a. David had married a certain Maacah who was the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur.

This was apparently a small kingdom on the east side of the Jordan. David raided it according to 1 Sam 27:8. (Is this when he took Maacah?). He had two physically beautiful children from this union: Absalom and Tamar.

b. Amnon, half-brother to Tamar, lusted for her to the point of total frustration (13:1-6).

He was afraid to force the issue, but he had a “slick” friend who was a first cousin by the name of Jonadab. Jonadab advised Amnon to trick his sister by playing sick and asking for Tamar. This entire incident speaks volumes about the type of life the palace “kids” lived.

c. When Tamar comes, in spite of her protestations, Amnon forces her and rapes her (13:7‑14).

d. Amnon, having sated his lust, hates her, and sends her away (13:15‑19).

He hated her as much as he had previously thought he loved her. (Hebrew uses the word love [’ah^avah אָהֲבָה] in a general way). “Love” is being used in this context to say that Amnon wanted her. We make a distinction (properly so) between lust and love. Lust gets, love gives. The New Testament distinguishes between these concepts in its language. The Old Testament distinguishes between them in its theology (13:15‑17).

Convention and Old Testament law (Deut 22:28-29) required him to marry her, but he thrust her out with no consideration. She went out mourning the fact that she was raped without recourse (13:18‑19).

e. Absalom keeps his sister in his home and plots revenge (13:20‑22).

David failed to discipline Amnon in this very serious sin and breech of ethics. Was he affected by his own sin with Bathsheba? It is truly impossible to lead and train others when your own life is not in order. LXX has an addition that gives another reason: “And he did not trouble his son Amnon’s spirit because he loved him, because he was his firstborn.” The Qumran fragment supports at least part of this reading. The addition may have come from the commentary in 1 Kings 1:5 on Adonijah’s conduct: “And his father had never crossed him at any time by asking, ‘Why have you done so?”‘

f. Absalom carries out revenge against Amnon (13:23‑39).

Absalom prepared a feast and invited David and all his brothers to come. Absalom’s servants killed Amnon, and the royal sons fled. The report came to David that all the boys had been killed. Absalom fled and the sons came home to David. Absalom escaped to his grandfather’s home on the east side of the Jordan and spent three years there. David was unwilling to forgive Absalom and bring him back.²⁵

2. The Restoration of Absalom prepares the way for Absalom’s rebellion against his father (14:1‑33).

a. Joab’s stratagem to bring Absalom back (14:1‑24).

Joab wanted Absalom brought back, perhaps because he was next in line to succeed to the throne, but he was apparently unwilling to confront David directly since David was still opposed to the idea. As Fokkelman says, Absalom’s rage had become so dangerous that Joab intercedes, not from compassion for Absalom, but for the sake of king and country (p. 145). He coached a woman to bring a complaint to the king about the threatened loss of her son (14:1‑3). The woman presented her case and David promised to adjudicate it (14:4‑11). The woman urged him further and told him that the same situation applied to David and Absalom (14:12‑17). David asked whether this plan came from Joab, and she said, “yes” (14:18‑20). David then told Joab to bring Absalom back (14:21‑24). Yet, David refused to see Absalom.

b. Absalom is very popular in Israel (14:25‑27).

Absalom was very handsome and perhaps vain. He had three sons and a daughter, Tamar, who was apparently named after his sister.

c. Absalom insists on seeing the king (14:28‑33).

Joab did not seem to be interested in helping Absalom reconcile with his father (was he concerned that he may have done too much already?). Absalom had been back for two years for a total of five years since killing Amnon. Absalom burned Joab’s field to get his attention, and Joab then brought him to David where there was at least a superficial reconciliation.

3. The third step in God’s judgment on David is the rebellion of Absa-lom (15:1—18:33).

a. Absalom wins the people from David (15:1‑6).

Absalom developed a retinue and intercepted those who were coming to David from the northern tribes to have their cases heard. He would then plant seeds of doubt in their minds about the fairness of David. The result was that he “stole away the hearts of the men of Israel” playing on the natural disaffection between Israel and Judah.

b. Absalom begins the rebellion (15:7‑12).

He feigned a spiritual reason for his absence from court.²⁶ He sent spies throughout the land to prepare the people for the signal of rebellion. He sent for Ahithophel, David’s counselor, who was apparently in on the conspiracy.

c. David is informed of the rebellion (15:13‑18).

A messenger brought the bad news of the rebellion, and David fled with his servants. He left ten concubines to keep the house.

d. Ittai from Gath expresses his loyalty (15:19‑23).

A number of Philistines had become loyal to David, probably during the time he was serving under Achish. Ittai is one of those very loyal followers. David admonished Ittai to go home. Ittai insisted on identifying with David.

David and the people crossed the Kidron valley on the way to the wilderness. It must have been a sad sight (indeed the people were weeping) to see the mighty potentate shamefully making his way up the Mount of Olives toward the Jordan River (15:23).

e. Zadok and Abiathar show their loyalty (15:24‑29).

These two priests brought the ark of the covenant. David sent the ark back, trusting his future to the Lord. Zadok was to keep in touch with the situation in Jerusalem and send David word.

f. Hushai shows his loyalty (15:30‑37).

David and his entourage crossed the Mount of Olives, weeping as they went. David heard that Ahithophel was among the conspirators and prayed for God to frustrate Ahithophel’s counsel. Hushai joined him, and David sent him back to Jerusalem to work with Zadok, Abiathar, Jonathan and Ahimaaz. Hushai and Absalom arrived at Jerusalem at the same time.

g. Ziba, a Benjamite, acts treacherously against his master Mephibosheth (16:1‑4).

Ziba, pretending loyalty, brought provisions to David. He claimed that Mephibosheth thought the kingdom would be restored to the house of Saul (a believable charge under the circumstances).

h. Shimei, a Benjamite, shows contempt for David (16:5‑14).

Shimei, from the house of Saul, cursed David as a bloody, evil man from whom the kingdom had been taken. Abishai, Joab’s brother, wanted to kill Shimei, but David insisted on taking the cursing as punishment from God. David and his people arrived at their destination, weary and in need of refreshment.

i. Absalom arrives at Jerusalem and meets Hushai (16:15‑19).

Hushai hailed Absalom as king, and Absalom was understandably suspicious. Hushai, however, convinced him of his loyalty.

j. Ahithophel shows his disloyalty to David by advising Absalom (16:20—17:4).

Ahithophel’s first advice was for Absalom to defile the con-cubines of David. This would infuriate David, make the breach permanent, and would show dominance over the kingdom (16:20‑22). This act was an unwitting fulfillment of God’s word to David that God would have his wives defiled openly (12:11). Ahithophel’s counsel was highly regarded in that day (16:23). Ahithophel’s second piece of advice was for Absalom to allow him to take 12,000 men and defeat David while he was weary (17:1‑4).

k. Ahithophel’s advice is rejected in favor of Hushai’s (17:5‑14).

Hushai pointed out the weakness of Ahithophel’s advice (17:5‑10). Hushai then advised that Absalom form a large force of men and overpower David over a period of time (17:11‑14). Hushai was thus buying time for David.

l. Hushai then sends word of all that had transpired by Jonathan and Ahimaaz who narrowly escape. En Rogel is near Jerusalem (17:15‑20).

m. Hushai’s advice allows David to escape across the Jordan (17:21‑23).

The lads were able to get the information to David. David and his people got across the Jordan. Ahithophel committed suicide because his counsel was rejected. Thus, David’s prayer was answered.

n. David comes to Mahanaim in Gilead (17:24-26).

Mahanaim was where Abner had set up the kingdom with Ish-bosheth. It was a fertile area and defensible. Absalom put Amasa, cousin of Joab, over his army and brought his troops to Gilead also (cf. 19:13 where David replaces Joab with Amasa to punish Joab and to win Absalom’s followers over).

o. Others show loyalty to David in Gilead (17:27‑29).

Shobi, son of Nahash was from Rabbah of Ammon. Is this a son or a grandson of Nahash, king of Ammon? Since Nahash is used of at least three people in the Bible, it may be a common enough name, and this person may be no relation to the king of Ammon. Machir, who had hosted Mephibosheth, came out to meet David. Barzillai from Gilead also welcomed David.

p. Absalom is defeated in the civil war (18:1‑33).

David mustered the troops and organized them into three major battalions. He placed the battalions under Joab, Abishai, and Ittai. David stayed in the city of Mahanaim at the request of the people because he was more valuable than anyone else. David charged the commanders publicly to deal gently with his son Absalom (18:1‑5).

The battle was joined in the forest of Ephraim. Since Absalom had moved his troops to Gilead, and David was already in Gilead, it is difficult to place this battle site. Some would argue for a place on the east side of the Jordan with this name (Forest of Ephraim), but that would be strange. David’s troops may have been drawn up in Gilead, and Absalom withdrew to the west side of the Jordan in Ephraim. Others argue that some Ephraimites must have settled on the East side of the Jordan. The trees were so thick that many people were killed as they ran or rode rapidly through the forest. 20,000 men were slaughtered (18:6‑8).

Absalom was caught in a tree and killed. The danger of riding through the forest is shown by what happened to Absalom. A soldier saw him and told Joab who chided him for not killing him. The man replied that he would not have killed him for a thousand shekels, since King David had admonished them not to hurt Absalom. Joab then thrust three darts or spears into Absalom’s heart, and his armor bearers finished him off. (KJV: darts; NASB: spears; Heb.: š^evatimשְׁבָטִים staves or shafts. It is probably a smaller weapon like a dart) (18:9‑15).

Joab blew the shophar and terminated the war. Absalom’s body was thrown into a pit. Absalom had set up a pillar in his own name, so this is irony: as Absalom had boasted in his life with a monument, so now a monument will celebrate his death. There is a large conical pillar in the Kidron called Absalom’s pillar, but it is closer to New Testament times in its origin (18:16‑18).

The news was brought to David who was devastated by it. Ahimaaz wanted to go, but Joab would not let him (perhaps Joab felt that the bad news of Absalom’s death should be brought by someone else. Later David assumed that Ahimaaz would only bring good news). The Cushite (Ethiopian?) was sent with the news, and Ahimaaz was allowed to follow. David sat anxiously in the gate and was told of the runners’ coming. Ahimaaz outran the Cushite but was only willing or able to tell David that Joab’s troops had won the battle. The Cushite then told David that Absalom was dead. David began to mourn Absalom, but his response was more maudlin than compassionate, affected as much by guilt as anything else. Absalom deserved to die for what he had done, and yet David would probably have spared him (18:19‑33).

4. The fourth step in God’s judgment—restoration but more rebellion against David (19:1—20:22).

a. David’s maudlin reaction to Absalom’s death almost ruined his victory (19:1‑8a).

David’s deep grief caused the people to sneak off in confusion. They thought they had done a good thing, but David’s response said the opposite. Joab rebuked David, and though David deeply resented it, he assumed his responsibility and the people were encouraged.

b. The tribes of Israel are confused now that Absalom is dead but decide to bring David back (19:8b‑10).

That centrifugal force we spoke about earlier is at work again. David’s action was not sharp and decisive as it had once been. A vacuum was created that would be hard to deal with.

c. To avoid undue influence from the northern tribes, David urges Judah to become involved in bringing him back (19:11‑15).

David again used Zadok and Abiathar as mediators to convince Judah to receive him. David’s anger against Joab for killing Absalom, rebuking David, and all his previous acts brought David to the point of confronting this powerful man and setting him aside. Consequently, he appointed Amasa as general of the army. Judah went out to welcome David.

d. David’s restoration has an impact on several people (19:16‑43).

Gilgal belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, and Shimei and Ziba had a vested interest in welcoming David back! Ziba acted as a sycophant in bringing supplies. Shimei, with a “peasant’s cunning” (Hertzberg), begged forgiveness with the same openness he had once cursed David. He counted on the fact that “being the first of the house of Joseph” to welcome David home would make it difficult for David to kill him. It probably helped his case to have Abishai want to kill him, since the Zeruahites are out of favor with David at the moment (19:16‑23).

Mephibosheth found himself in a virtually defenseless position. As Saul’s grandson he stood to gain by David’s fall; at least psychologically. Furthermore, his own servant had convinced David of Mephibosheth’s complicity. Consequently, the best he could do was throw himself on David’s mercy. David’s response was somewhat petulant: he divided the land between Mephi-bosheth and Ziba (19:24‑30).

Barzillai was a genuine friend to David. David invited him to live with him in Jerusalem, but Barzillai eloquently begged off the invitation and sent his son [?] Chimham (note Jeremiah 41:17 which seems to indicate a fiefdom in perpetuity). This is a particularly delightful scene and shows that in the midst of the flattery and perfidy, that there were honest men with no self-interest in David (19:31‑39).

An Israelite/Judahite struggle broke out because Israel was jealous that Judah had brought David back without consulting with them. Judah argued that David was their relative, to which the Israelites responded that they were larger and therefore deserved greater consideration. This hostility planted the seed for further rebellion (19:40‑43).

e. The northern tribes follow Sheba ben Bichri, a Benjamite (20:1‑22).

Sheba was a worthless fellow (ish b^eliyyal אִישּׁ בְּלִיַּעַל), but all Israel followed him. David isolated the concubines whom Absalom had violated and ordered Amasa to muster all the troops to go after Sheba. When Amasa delayed, David sent Abishai to take his place. Joab went along with all his men, obviously determined not to relinquish control of the army. Joab deceived Amasa (as he had Abner) and killed him. The men were called upon to declare for David and for Joab. Abel Beth-Maacah (a northern city in Dan) was placed under siege because Sheba was there. Under the threat of destruction, a wise woman contacted Joab and advised the city to throw out the head of Sheba.²⁷ The rebellion was over.

5. The historian lists the officials of David’s court (20:23‑25).

Chapter 20	Office	Chapter 8
Joab	Military Commander	Joab
Benaiah	Bodyguard	Benaiah
Adoram	Supervisor forced labor	None
Jehoshaphat	Recorder	Jehoshaphat
Sheva	Scribe	Seraiah
Zadok/Abiathar	Priests	Zadok/Abiathar
Ira	Cohen/Cohens	David’s sons

Of this list Hertzberg says, “The second list is thus a second edition of the first. It forms an appropriate conclusion to the section 9‑20, just as the other list closes the previous section, and like it, shows that the kingdom of David is now set in order after the tumult surrounding the succession.”²⁸

G. A concluding section on David’s reign (2 Sam 21:1—24:25).

Chronicles has a long section devoted to David’s last days in which he prepares young Solomon for the rule and the building of the temple. That is omitted in Samuel; instead, we have two judgmental pestilences and their expiation (Gibeonites and census). The former must have taken place earlier in David’s reign and the latter toward the end. Secondly, there is a long psalm commemorating God’s deliverance of David from his enemies, then David’s last words. Finally, there is a series of vignettes from the Philistine wars celebrating David’s heroes.

1. David slays seven of Saul’s sons as punishment for Saul’s sin in breaking the Gibeonite covenant (21:1-14).

a. Sometime in David’s reign (perhaps early), there was a three-year famine (21:1‑2).

David prayed to the Lord for a reason for the drought. God told him it was because Saul had broken the Gibeonite covenant made with these non-Israelites by Joshua (Joshua 9). Saul had apparently attempted to wipe out the Gibeonites in his zeal. Josh 9:27 indicates that the Gibeonites had been made servants of the sanctuary “in the place that He would choose.” 2 Chron 1:3 indicates that the tabernacle was pitched at Gibeon. Is it possible that the Gibeonites were affected by the slaughter of the priests at Nob (1 Samuel 21); that it had some impact on them so that they were removed from the tabernacle service? When David asked, “How can I make atonement that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord,” he may have been intimating a restoration of the Gibeonites to service.²⁹

b. David allows the Gibeonites to set the punishment (21:3‑6).

David wanted to make an atonement (’^akapper אֲכַפֵּר), but the Gibeonites were not interested in money or that anyone but Saul’s family in Israel should suffer. They did want vengeance on Saul’s house. The vengeance would be against seven of Saul’s descendants. David acceded to their request. Throughout, we are reminded that Saul was God’s chosen one, yet he had rebelled against the Lord, and as a result even his sons were punished.³⁰

c. The deed is carried out; the Saulides are killed (21:7‑9).

David spared Mephibosheth because of his oath to Jonathan. Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, lost two sons, and Merab, Saul’s daughter, lost five sons. The hanging took place in the beginning of the barley harvest (they were killed and their bodies hung up).

d. Rizpah mourns her sons and keeps the birds away from their corpses for a long time (21:10‑14a).

Rizpah protected their bodies until the rains came. Their corpses were hung in mid-April. The early rains come in November, but God ended the famine (probably by rain) so her vigil ceased earlier than November. Her task was nevertheless a long one. David, moved by what she did, collected the bones of Saul and Jonathan from Jabesh-gilead and the bones of Saul’s sons and grandsons and brought them to Zela in the tribe of Benjamin for burial.

e. God was appeased, and the famine ceased (21:14b).

2. There is a list of various battles against the Philistines and the rest of Goliath’s family is killed (21:15‑22).

a. David’s last major battle was against the Philistines (21:15‑17).

David became weary in the battle, and Ishbi-Benob (a brother of Goliath?) tried to kill him. Abishai saved the day, but David was asked by his men not to return to the battlefield. David was called “the lamp of God.”

b. Three more giants were killed by David’s men (21:18‑22).

Saph, a descendant of the giant, was killed by Sibbecai, the Hushathite. Lachmi, brother to Goliath was killed by Elhanan (with 1 Chron 20:5). This is a textual problem:

1 Chron 20:5: “and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

2 Sam 21:19: “and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.”

Hertzberg argues that there are two contradictory traditions about who killed Goliath. He says that the “compiler of Samuel did not feel inconvenienced at its presence and certainly did not include the note to correct the David story!” He argues that the Chronicles text is a clumsy attempt to reconcile the passages.³¹ It would seem quite strange to me that the “compiler” would leave such a contradiction; therefore, I would accept the Chronicles passage not as an attempt to harmonize, but as the correct text.

The multi-digited giant was killed by Jonathan, son of Shimei, David’s brother (otherwise unknown).

Thus, five giants in all were killed including Goliath. These victories over the “giant family” are placed here (though they took place earlier in David’s reign) to show that David triumphed over all his enemies as he sang in chap. 22. Hertzberg: “Gutbrod’s hypothesis (II, p. 247) that the four warriors here in the service of the Philistines appear ‘as it were as the last of the strange and uncanny race of giants’ is attractive; it would in that case have been seen as ‘a sign of the stature and achievement of David that under his leadership it was possible to overcome the last of the race of giants which reached right back into the days of pre-history.’ This makes the preparation of this list of David’s victories comprehensible.”³²

3. David’s history is presented as a Psalm of praise and thanksgiving to God (22:1‑51).

a. This psalm is parallel to Psalm 18. There are very few differences.

The psalm was placed here, and the same psalm was edited (by David?) for the Psalter. (This is an example of the way a piece of literature can be edited twice or it can be prepared for one part of Scripture and reedited for another part. These should not be looked upon as recensions within the canon, but revisions of material in the earlier books to be placed in later books.) Both, of course, were done under inspiration. As Hertzberg says, other psalms of David could have been chosen to be here, but this one shows David’s military victories.³³ It also shows God’s grace throughout David’s life.

b. David speaks of his personal devotion to the Lord, and his prayer for deliverance in time of trouble (22:1‑7).

c. David uses poetic language to describe God’s deliverance (22:8‑20).

d. David speaks of his own life of obedience and God’s response to that life of obedience (22:21‑30). Note the same theology in Hannah’s psalm.

e. David extols God’s greatness and His grace (22:31‑43).

f. David recounts the way the Lord made him king (22:44‑49).

g. David concludes the Psalm with a statement on why he sings praise—God shows loving kindness (ḥesed) to David and his descendants forever (Davidic Covenant) (22:50‑51).

4. A Summary of the theology of the books of Samuel is given in David’s last words (23:1‑7).

a. David speaks of his position before God (23:1).

He was the son of a humble man, Jesse; yet he was a man raised on high. He was anointed by the God of Jacob, and the sweet singer of Israel.

b. David speaks of his prophetic office (one who speaks for God) (23:2).

c. David speaks of God’s greatness (23:3‑4).

d. David reviews the Davidic covenant (23:5).

5. A list of David’s famous soldiers is given to conclude the military summary (23:8‑39

JOAB—ARMY COMMANDER

Shammah Josheb Bashebeth Eleazar

Abishai (Chief of 30) Benaiah (chief of Guard)

1. Asahel	16. Eliahba
2. Elhanan	17. Jonathan
3. Shammah	18. Shammah
4. Elika	19. Abiam
5. Helez	20. Eliphelet
6. Ira	21. Eliam
7. Mebunnai	22. Hezro
8. Zalmon	23. Paarai
9. Maharai	24. Igal
10. Heleb	25. Bani
11. Ittai	26. Zelek
12. Benaiah	27. Naharai
13. Hiddai	28. Ira
14. Abi‑albon	29. Gareb
15. Asmaveth	30. Uriah

6. David’s sin in taking a census becomes the basis for the choice of the temple site (24:1‑25).

a. For some reason, God was angry at Israel and moved David to number them.

(1 Chron 21:1 attributes the action to Satan, who, of course, was God’s intermediary) (24:1).

b. David called Joab to number the people in spite of Joab’s remonstration.

The number was 800,000 and 500,000 for Israel and Judah respectively or 1,300,000 total fighting men (24:2‑9).

c. David’s heart was stricken by God, and he confessed his sin (24:10‑11).

d. God sent Gad, the court prophet, to confront David (24:12‑14).

David was given three choices of punishment: (a) Seven years of famine, (b) flee three months (c) three days of plague. David cast himself on God’s mercy (24:14).

e. God sent a plague in Israel that killed 70,000 Israelites (24:15‑17).

People died from Dan to Beersheba. The angel was about to smite Jerusalem when God stopped him. David confessed his sin.

f. God tells David to build an altar on the site (24:18‑25).

(1 Chron 22:1 says that David then and there chose that site for the temple.)

Excursus on the purpose of Second Samuel

The author of this book is setting out the purpose and grace of God in selecting David to be the king through whom He would bring a perpetual dynasty. As such, a good part of the book deals with who will succeed David to the throne. Much of it is devoted to who is not worthy and why. The inference may be, as Hertzberg notes,³⁴ that David originally thought to perpetuate his line through Saul’s family. This would explain his insistence on bringing Michal back. However, she was childless, perhaps so indicating as with Abraham, that the seed would come through his choice not David’s.

The thread of Saul’s rejection is woven throughout the book. His death and that of his three sons; Michal’s childlessness; the Gibeonite affair resulting in the death of seven descendants; Sheba, Ziba, and Mephibosheth all bear on this topic and show that not only Saul, but his line was rejected.

The emphasis is then placed on David’s sons. Chapter 9 through the end of the book turns on this issue of succession. The reason for placing the Ammonite war in chapter 10 is to show how David’s heinous sins resulted in the birth of Solomon. This boy was called Jedidiah (whom Yahweh loves) by the Lord Himself to show that He was electing Solomon as the next king. Chronicles develops this idea much further.

Amnon was the eldest son and in line for the throne, but his character was so awful, that obviously he could not be king. On the other hand, Absalom, who looked and acted the part of a prince could never be king because he could not wait on the Lord. The third in line was Adonijah who was pronounced a “spoiled brat” in 1 Kings. He likewise was not God’s choice. Solomon was the son of David who would build David’s house and God’s House.

¹For the theological background of Samuel and Kings, see Heater, “A Theology of Samuel and Kings.”

²McCarter agrees with this explanation, II Samuel, p. 59.

³In the “individual combat” (2:15), Benjamin is the chief tribe of the rest of Israel.

⁴Ishbosheth is a change in name what was probably made in the Hebrew text by later scribes. The name Baal was once used of Yahweh since it means “lord” or “master.” The confusion with the Canaanite deity, however, required that it be dropped. Consequently, names that once had as the divine element, Baal (e.g., Ish Baal: Man of Baal), were changed to “Man of the Shameful (bosheth) deity.” The LXX still has Ish Baal (as does 1 Chron 8:33), so the text was probably changed by the Sopherim. (Sopherim were the pre-Masoretic scribes who worked with the text. For a good discussion see McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 85‑86.)

⁵So Keil and Delitzsch, The Books of Samuel, p. 295.

⁶See Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 181, who suggests that Saul’s ancestors were the Jabesh-gileadites who were brought in to marry the few men left in Benjamin (Judges 21).

⁷See McCarter, II Samuel, loc. cit., for a good discussion of the historical parallels.

⁸Even though David knew God had given him the kingdom, he refused to come to the throne by force. Thus, he refused to kill Saul on two different occasions. He was quite willing to work out a peaceful arrangement with Abner without bloodshed. The same attitude was displayed here in that he was not willing to kill Ishbosheth to gain his territory. This is a good example of trusting God for the details instead of trying to work them out by oneself. Everything David did worked to his political advantage, but it would be wrong to charge him with crass motives. He was putting into practice the many things he learned as a youth (wisdom) and then as a fugitive in trusting Yahweh to bring about His divine will. See also, Heater, “Young David and the Practice of Wisdom,” pp. 50-61.

⁹See Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 206.

¹⁰See the diagram of the city in Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, p. 25, and a beauti-ful reconstruction of the city and recent archaeology in H. Shanks, “The City of David after Five Years of Digging,” BAR 11 (1985) 22-38. See also the URL http://archpark.org.il/intro. asp.

¹¹Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, p. 24.

¹²In 5:20 David named the place of victory Baal Perazim because the Lord “broke through against his enemies.” Here it is Perez Uzzah because the Lord “broke through” against Uzzah.

¹³Cf. McCarter, II Samuel, loc. cit.

¹⁴See J. Walvoord, “The Kingdom Promises to David,” BibSac 110 [1953]: 97‑110.

¹⁵See Unger, The Arameans of Damascus.

¹⁶See Wright, Biblical Archaeology, p. 125.

¹⁷See Wright, Biblical Archaeology, pp. 125, 126. On David’s sons being priests, cf. 1 Kings 4:5 where the parallel (1 Chron 18:17 has “chief advisors).” C. Amerding (“Were David’s Sons Really Priests?” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, pp. 75-86) argues that the sons really were priests. See also my discussion in “A Theology of Samuel and Kings,” p. 120.

¹⁸See the charts on p. 158.

¹⁹Cf. Ps. 16:10. Note that David shows this kindness to a descendant of Saul for “Jonathan’s sake” as God has shown us kindness for “Jesus’ sake” (Eph. 4:32) (9:1).

²⁰Chapters 10 and 12:26-31 are a window frame around David’s sin. The Ammonite war is summarized in chapter 8. Apparently, this unit gives details to set the stage for David’s sin, which ultimately resulted in the birth of Solomon whom God chose as the next king. See the excursus, p. 240.

²¹In 21:15-17, his men encouraged him to stay out of battle.

²²In the presentation of the history of Israel by the writer of 1 and 2 Samuel, there is the constant theme that those who obey the Lord will enjoy his blessing, and that those who disobey the Lord will be disciplined. It is being made clear that not even the messianic prototype is able to sin with impunity. David’s sin was especially egregious because of his unique position. The sin consisted of adultery and murder; both punishable by death according to the Mosaic law.

²³The name means, “Yahweh loves.” The word “love” seems to have the meaning of “choose” on occasion. When God says he loved Jacob and hated Esau, he is speaking of his choice, not of an emotional response. Jesus means the same thing when he says that children are to hate their parents. He is saying that they must choose God over their parents.

²⁴See McCarter, II Samuel, loc. cit., who shows that this is not torture of the Ammonites, but enslavement for work.

²⁵I believe Fokkelman (Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel 1:126, 452‑53) is correct in his analysis of this passage. He arrives at an opposite meaning for the context than is usually given. Two words need to be reinterpreted: “And the heart of King David longed to go out to Absalom.” (“Heart” must be supplied. It has dropped out of the text as indicated by the versions and Qumran.) The preposition “to” in Hebrew (אֶל ’el) and “upon” or “against” (עַל ’al) are semantically similar and quite often cross over in usage (this is particularly so in Jeremiah). Furthermore, two MSS have עַל ’al. Fokkelman would read (following a forthcoming article by Jongeling, “Joab and the Tekoite Woman”): “David really wanted to go out against Absalom.” The word “comforted” in the niphal can have the meaning of “to be sorry” and therefore, we should read “because David was sorry for his son Amnon because he had died.” This is supported further by the fact that David refused to see Absalom when he returned. Fokkelman argues that Joab would have gone directly to David had he been favorably disposed toward his son; that the indirect approach was only partially successful.

²⁶Note that David did a similar thing with Saul for different reasons (1 Sam 20:6). Saul plotted the murder of David who fled, pretending to go to a feast. Absalom plotted the murder of David using the same ruse.

²⁷See an excellent discussion of the wise woman in the archaeological context of Abel-Beth Maacah by Nava Panitz-Cohen and Naama Yahalom-Mack, “The Wise Woman of Beth Maacah,” BAR 45:July-September, 2019, pp. 26-33.

²⁸Hertzberg, First and Second Samuel, p. 375.

²⁹See Ibid., pp. 382‑83.

³⁰If this event took place prior to David’s elevation of Mephibosheth in chapter 9, we must assume that David had said something like: “Make sure you leave any of Jonathan’s sons alone.”

³¹Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, p 387.

³²Ibid., p. 388.

³³Ibid., p. 393.

³⁴Hertzberg, First and Second Samuel, pp. 375-79.

6. 1 Kings

Related Media

First Kings ¹

H. Solomon’s Reign (1:1—11:43).

A. The Davidic covenant is implemented in the transition from David to Solomon (1:1‑2:12).

1. David is about to die (1:1‑4).

David’s age would have been about 70 (2 Sam 5:4). He was sick and unable to keep warm. Abishag the Shunammite girl was brought in to stimulate him. I know of no other way to explain this than that in the folk medicine of the day, it was thought that sexual arousal might stimulate David’s circulation and so warm him. That this is immoral from the New Testament perspective is clear enough, but it was con-sidered an acceptable practice in Old Testament times.² It is also necessary to the narrative to introduce Abishag because of the way she figures in the later succession struggle.³

2. The struggle for succession continues (Nathan’s prophecy [2 Sam 12:10] about internecine strife comes into play again) (1:5‑53).

a. Adonijah was the fourth son of David and, therefore, considered himself to be next in line for the throne.⁴

b. Adonijah set out to become king by preparing himself as Absalom had. However, he was undisciplined as a youth, and the writer is telling us that he was unfit to be king. He allied himself with Joab and Abiathar, and excluded Zadok (priest), Benaiah (Head of Bodyguard), Nathan (prophet), and other military officers (1:8‑10).

c. Nathan worked out a plan to get God’s choice, Solomon, on the throne. Bathsheba, David’s favorite wife, was to remind David of his oath about Solomon. She was also to inform David of Adonijah’s plans. Bathsheba carried out the plan and challenged David to rise to the occasion. Nathan came after her to confirm her words (1:11‑27).

d. David responded to the information and took action to enthrone Solomon. He called Bathsheba and reaffirmed his promise to her. He called Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah and charged them to anoint Solomon at Gihon and seat him on David’s throne (1:28‑37).

e. Solomon was anointed and declared king. He rode David’s mule to Gihon where Zadok anointed him, the shophar was blown, and the people received him with rejoicing. A full account of the events was given to Adonijah by Jonathan who fled to the altar for refuge because he feared Solomon. He clung to the altar awaiting assurance from Solomon. Solomon placed him on parole (1:38‑53).⁵

3. David gives a final charge to Solomon and leaves orders to remove all other obstacles to Solomon’s rule (2:1‑9).

a. David charged Solomon to obey God (2:1‑4).

David stressed the place of the Mosaic law to Solomon in his role as king of Israel. The formula for success is obedience to that law. David reminded Solomon of the importance of the Davidic covenant as it related to the Mosaic law. Obedience to the law brings the blessings of the Davidic covenant.

b. David charges Solomon to deal with certain people (2:5‑9).

David solemnly commanded Solomon to see to it that Joab was executed. David’s relation with Joab is somewhat enigmatic. Joab was David’s nephew but shared few of David’s ideals. He was a strong, efficient military leader, but he also seemed to be without scruples. Thus, he killed Abner by treachery as he later killed Amasa because they both threatened his position as commander of the armies. He had no compunction about dispatching Absalom in spite of David’s orders to the contrary. David seemed to be somewhat in awe of Joab and his brothers (2 Sam 3:39). He complained that they were too hard for him. From the Absalom incident on, David wanted to get rid of Joab, but was apparently unable to do so. On his deathbed he charged Solomon to make sure that Joab was judged for his bloody life (2:5‑6).

Barzillai, David’s wonderful and loyal friend, was to be honored. His descendants were to be allowed to eat at the king’s table (2:7).⁶

Shimei, who cursed David, was shrewd enough to meet David and to claim to be the first of the Northerners to welcome him back. He candidly admitted his guilt and begged David’s forgiveness. Under those circumstances, David could hardly do anything else. However, he did not forget Shimei’s crime and left to Solomon the task of bringing Shimei’s life to an end (2:8‑9).

4. David dies, and Solomon secures the throne (2:10‑12).

David’s life is succinctly summarized, and it is stated that he was buried in the city of David. We now know that the city of David was the small promontory extending south of the present old city and outside the walls. The tomb of David shown to tourists is on the western hill, which was unoccupied in David’s time. In the Medieval era that section became identified with Zion, and so David’s tomb was “discovered.” However, the tombs of the Judean kings have not yet been located.

Solomon took undisputed control of the kingdom. However, this is a summarizing statement. Before it became actually true, certain loose ends had to be tied up and additional enemies or potential enemies had to be removed.

B. Solomon carries out David’s charges and removes opposition to the throne (2:13‑46).

1. Adonijah makes a foolish request and loses his life (2:13‑25).

a. Adonijah requested Abishag for a wife (2:13‑18).

Adonijah’s action is difficult to understand. A claim to a former king’s concubine was obviously a claim to the throne.⁷ Why he made the power play at this point is not clear, but it was certainly the wrong thing or the wrong time to do it.

b. Bathsheba passed on the request to Solomon who reacted predictably (2:19‑25).

Bathsheba’s role is also puzzling. She was surely sufficiently experienced in the “Harem battle” to understand the implications of Adonijah’s request, and yet she supported him in it. Is it possible that she was aware of this so as to give Solomon an excuse to get rid of Adonijah? In any event, Solomon read an evil intent into the request and ordered Adonijah’s death.

2. Abiathar is dismissed from the priesthood (2:26‑27).

Abiathar had joined the wrong faction. It is understandable that he would support the next in line only if he were ignorant of God’s promises through Nathan. Zadok stayed on the right side as did the court prophet Nathan. Solomon spared Abiathar’s life because of his relationship with David, but he sent him to Anathoth, his village.⁸ This dismissal was part of the fulfillment of God’s word to Eli (1 Sam 2:31‑36).

3. Joab is executed for his treacherous acts and because he followed Adonijah (2:28‑35).

Joab knew that his life was over. He had gambled throughout his life in the various palace intrigues that grew with the passing of time. He supported Absalom to a point but killed him when he thought it necessary. In the succession struggle, he presumably thought he could maintain his influence through Adonijah, but he gambled and lost. He fled to the altar as a place of refuge, but Solomon did not spare him. He told Benaiah to kill him as he clung to the horns. Not a very noble way for the old warrior to die! Solomon then appointed Benaiah to Joab’s position as general of the armies.

4. Shimei, who cursed David, is dispatched (2:36-46).

While David was tricked into forgiving Shimei, the cunning peasant, he never personally forgave him and ordered Solomon to find a way to kill him. Solomon set a trap which the avaricious Shimei fell into and was killed by the executioner.

C. God’s blessing on Solomon (Jedidiah) as the legitimate descendant of David is evidenced in Solomon’s commitment to Yahweh and the wisdom granted by Yahweh (3:1‑28).

1. Two introductory observations are made to explain following events (3:1‑2).

a. Solomon’s political alliances were indications of the international sophistication Israel was beginning to take on. However, 1 Kings 11 indicates that this entanglement with foreign powers brought Solomon into the deleterious practice of syncretism. It all began with the alliance with Egypt. Solomon’s bargaining strength is indicated by the fact that Pharaoh sent his daughter to Solomon’s harem. This happened early in Solomon’s reign for his great building projects had not yet begun.

b. The second thing the historian wants us to see is that the people were still using the high places because the temple was not yet built. The disapproval is evident, for he knows all the spiritual implications of the high places and how later it will be necessary to tear them down to maintain the people’s spiritual integrity.⁹

2. Yahweh reveals himself to Solomon and promises blessing on his rule (3:3‑15).

a. Solomon’s early life was characterized by obedience (3:3‑4).

The historian’s unhappiness with high places is evident in this section. Solomon was a young man who sought to obey the Lord, but he was still offering sacrifices in the high places.¹⁰ Solomon made a major sacrificial offering at the beginning of his ministry.

b. Yahweh appeared to Solomon in Gibeon (3:5‑15).

Yahweh gave Solomon the opportunity to ask for anything he wanted. Solomon rehearsed God’s goodness to David and reminded Him of the Davidic covenant (ḥesed חֶסֶד). He humbly confessed his limitations and requested wisdom (ḥokmah חָכְמָה) for service (3:5-9).

God answered in words that indicate the fulfillment of covenant promises: He will give Solomon practical wisdom (חָכְמָה), material blessing, and long life if he obeys. Solomon awoke from the dream and offered sacrifice (3:10‑15).

3. An example of Solomon’s wisdom (ḥokmah) is given (3:16-28).

Wisdom as a way of life and as literature really began with Solomon in Israel. There was certainly wisdom before that time (and Job is a type of wisdom literature), but under Solomon it reached its apex. Solomon was the example, par excellence, of the man with a gift from Yahweh to discern circumstances in such a way as to render good decisions. Books such as Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, and some Psalms discuss wisdom in both theoretical and practical ways.

The case was presented: two prostitutes had children, but one child had died. The mother of the dead child switched children. Solomon must answer the discernment question (ḥokmah): whose was the living child? (3:16‑22).

The case was solved when Solomon discerned that one of the women was the true mother. There was no way to prove it except by drastic measures. Solomon called for a sword to divide the child. The real mother wanted to spare the child. Solomon then had proof and declared her to be the mother of the living child. Everyone acknowledged that God had given ḥokmat Elohim to Solomon (חָכְמַת אֱלהִים) (3:23‑28).

D. The organization of Solomon’s kingdom (4:1‑34).

1. Solomon’s cabinet was similar to David’s (4:1‑6).¹¹

Office	David	David	Solomon
	(2 Samuel 8)	(2 Samuel 20)	(1 Kings 4)
Priest		Ira	Azariah
Secretary	Seraiah	Sheva	Elihoreph/Ahijah
Recorder	Jehoshaphat	Same	Jehoshaphat
Gen. of Army	Joab	Same	Benaiah
Priests?	Zadok/Ahimelech	Same	Zadok
Chief deputy		Azariah
Cohen	Sons		Zahud
Chief Gang	Labor	Adoram	Adoniram

2. Solomon organized the country into districts (4:7‑20).

David had probably organized the southern part of Israel, so Solomon had the task of organizing the entire country. This involved assigning sub-leaders to various sections to maintain order and provide for the king’s needs.

Each deputy had to supply a month’s provisions (4:7).

Ben-hur—Ephraim

Ben-deker—Makaz, Shaalbim, Beth Shemesh, Elon-beth-hanan.

Ben-hesed—Arabboth

Ben-abinadab—Dor

Baana—Taanach, Megiddo, Beth-Shean

Ben-geber—Ramoth-gilead

Ahinadab—Mahanaim

Ahimaaz—Naphtali

Baana—Asher and Bealoth

Jehoshaphat—Issachar

Shimei—Benjamin

Geber—Gilead (south)

3. Solomon ruled in a time of peace and prosperity (4:21-28).

The first three kings each had a unique contribution to make to Israel’s history. Saul was instrumental in beginning to drive out the Philistines. Only the dark side of Saul is seen in Scripture, but he laid a solid military groundwork for his successors. He showed that the seemingly invincible Philistines could be defeated and provided the opportunity for David to develop as a military leader against the very people whom he would later defeat completely. David brought organization and structure to the kingdom. He also provided a spiritual dimension unknown to either Saul or Solomon. As a matter of fact, David stands out over almost all of his successors. David brought military and political stability to the kingdom. It was left to Solomon to introduce culture and sophistication. For the first time the nation had the leisure, security, and money to pursue the arts and the intellect. Solomon also brought David’s organization to a peak and became the most powerful potentate of his time in that area of the world.

His kingdom extended to the Euphrates.¹² He dominated the surrounding kingdoms west of the Euphrates, and they brought him tribute. He developed chariotry and chariot cities. The number in 4:16 is 40,000. 2 Chron 9:25 has 4,000 as does one Hebrew MS for Kings. The lower number is more realistic. The deputies kept him supplied for the abundant needs of the palace.

4. Solomon’s personal ability was extensive (4:29‑34).

a. Solomon was given great wisdom (4:29).

Wisdom (ḥokmah חָכְמָה) (deciding the best course of action);

Discernment (t^ebunah תְבוּנָה) (problem solving);

Breadth of heart (rohab leb רחַב לֵב) (capacity to embrace diverse compartments of knowledge).

b. His wisdom surpassed that found in Egypt, Ethan, Heman, Calcol and Darda (4:30‑31).

There is a body of wisdom literature from the middle east that goes back beyond the time of Solomon. It is found in Babylonia and in Egypt.

c. His wisdom was in written form (4:32‑34).

He set forth wisdom in proverbs (3000) and songs (1,005) (we have only a few—Psalms 72; 127). He was something of a naturalist.¹³ Everyone wanted to meet him.

E. Solomon builds the temple and his palace (5:1—9:9)

1. Solomon makes a contract with Hiram to prepare materials (5:1‑18).

Solomon brought from Hiram not only materials and craftsmen, but surely ideas as well. It is now conceded that the temple of Solomon probably looked very much like most other temples of his day. It is a bit ironic that a pagan king and country should furnish the people and material to build the temple of Yahweh when the tabernacle was built by spirit-gifted individuals from Israel.

2. Solomon constructs the temple (6:1‑38).

a. The temple construction began in the fourth year of Solomon’s rule, which was the four hundred eightieth year after Israel had come out of Egypt. This date is the anchor for the chronology that places the exodus at 1441 BC plus or minus a few years. Those who would argue for a thirteenth century date for the exodus must treat this reference as a round number of twelve times forty.

b. The temple was built more or less on the pattern of the tabernacle. It consisted of a holy place and a holy of holies that was cubic in structure. The furniture was similar: laver, lampstand, ark of the covenant, etc., but the style was quite different. The more recent depictions of Solomon’s temple, e.g., the reconstruction in the model of Jerusalem, follow middle eastern styles in general and are probably more accurate than the older ones.

3. Solomon constructs his palace (7:1‑12).

Solomon’s palace must have been magnificent. It took thirteen years to build the palace whereas the temple took seven years. This building project necessitated expanding the city to accommodate these immense architectural additions. The city was expanded north and a huge retaining wall and platform were built. Herod expanded this platform when he rebuilt the temple.

4. A recapitulation is given of the fine work of the temple (7:13‑51).

A certain Tyrian-Israelite artisan supervised the vast amount of casting and carving done on the temple. The value of the temple would be impossible to calculate, but it must have been immense. The riches of this building would always be a temptation to kings, and more than once in the future, its walls would be stripped to buy off the latest marauder.

5. Solomon dedicates the temple (8:1‑66).

a. The priests moved the ark from the tent in the city of David and brought it to the temple. It was deposited in the holy of holies and God’s presence was manifested with the glory cloud filling the temple (8:1‑11).

b. Solomon addressed the assembly stating the reasons for the building of the temple and David’s part in it.

c. Solomon prayed to the Lord and rehearsed again the elements of the Davidic covenant. He then laid out the importance the temple would play in the lives of the covenant people: sin would be revealed, drought would be prayed for, famine would cause them to come before God, foreigners would be awed by it, Israel would pray when they went out to battle, in captivity they would turn toward the temple (8:12‑53).

d. Solomon then blessed the people and prays that all will acknowledge that there is only one God (8:54‑61).

e. For seven days Solomon offered sacrifices and peace offerings. On the eighth day he dismissed the people with happy hearts (8:62‑66).

6. God accepts the dedication (9:1‑9).

In the words of the Davidic covenant, Yahweh told Solomon that he would bless him if he walked in obedience. However, if his seed should fail to obey God, then they could only expect the judgment of God in their lives.

F. Solomon settles with Hiram (9:10‑14).

Solomon paid Hiram in cities, giving him twenty in the land of Galilee, but Hiram was not pleased with them. He called them cabul (כָּבוּל) which may mean “as nothing.”¹⁴ Verse 14 can only make sense as a pluperfect: Hiram had given Solomon 120 talents of gold. Solomon probably had borrowed this money to help in the extensive building projects, which probably cost more than even wealthy Solomon could raise. Solomon presumably had expected to repay the money with the twenty cities. Chronicles (1 Chron 8:2) indicates that Hiram refused the cities, so Solomon would have had to repay the loan with later revenue.

G. A list of activities and accomplishments is given (9:15‑28).

Like his successor, Herod, a millennium later, Solomon engaged in almost frenzied building activity. The most significant projects were the temple and the palace, but Solomon also built and refortified many cities. Excavations at Hazor (north), Megiddo (north central) and Gezer (south) have turned up similar gateways coming from the Solomonic period.¹⁵ These cities controlled the passes coming into Palestine. The stables at Megiddo once attributed to Solomon are now attributed to Ahab, but the structures would have been similar. The narrow ridge on which the Jebusites built their city was not adequate for expansion. The “millo” may be terraced walls for added construction.¹⁶

H. Solomon’s wisdom brings renown and wealth (10:1‑29).

Solomon prayed for wisdom in chapter 3, and an example of that wisdom was given when he arbitrated the dispute of the contesting mothers. God’s other promise was material prosperity. This too was illustrated with the coming of the Queen of Sheba.

1. The Queen of Sheba (10:1‑10).

a. The amazing story of the Queen of Sheba has caught the fancy of many people through the centuries. The Ethiopians argue that Sheba is to be identified with Ethiopia and that Solomon and the queen carried on a dalliance that produced the beginning of the monarchy that was still in existence in modern times in Haile Selassie (strength of the trinity). She was probably from the Arabian coast, however, and had heard of Solomon through his trading expeditions.

b. She tested him in riddles, saw his opulence and came away saying she had only heard half of the story. She gave him an appropriate gift.

2. Solomon’s trade (10:11‑29).

Solomon’s vast international trade (maritime and overland) made him fabulously wealthy. Gold was so common it made silver insignificant. We hear that Solomon was both wealthy and wise, but his wisdom was insufficient to prevent him from falling into apostasy.¹⁷

I. Solomon falls in spite of his wisdom (11:1‑43).

1. The occasion for the fall was his international marriages (11:1‑8).

a. Solomon’s destruction began with the political alliances sealed with marriages. He was allied with Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Sidon, and the Hittites. We have discussed “loved” previously in connection with Amnon. This does not mean romantic love, but the choice of a person. Solomon chose to cement his political relations with intermarriage, so much a part of the culture of that day (11:1‑2).

b. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Each foreign wife would have brought her retinue of priests. In deference to the various countries, Solomon built shrines to their deities. He then became ensnared in them himself (11:3‑4).

c. The deities Solomon worshipped were Ashtoreth of the Sidonians; Milcom /Molech ¹⁸ of the Ammonites; and Chemosh of the Moabites. There were many more deities represented in Jerusalem, but these are the best known and seemed to have the deepest impact on the people of Israel. This was particularly true of Milcom/Molech because children were sacrificed to him (11:5‑8).

2. God judged Solomon because of this syncretism (11:9‑40).

a. The historian certainly admires Solomon for his wisdom, prosperity and in particular for building the temple. However, this does not prevent him from painting Solomon in the garish colors of his spiritual apostasy.

b. Yahweh was angry with Solomon because He had appeared to him twice and had ordered him to avoid such practices. “To whom much is given, much is required.” As a result, Yahweh promised to tear the kingdom from his son and to leave only one tribe (11:9‑13).

c. Yahweh began to raise up adversaries; the first was Hadad of Edom who had fled to Egypt in David’s time (11:14‑22).

d. The second adversary was an Aramean named Rezon. He took advantage of the vacuum left by David’s death to rule in Damascus (11:23-25).

e. The third adversary was Jeroboam who would one day become the king of the northern tribes. This young man was appointed an overseer of the forced labor used to build Millo. The prophet Ahijah from Shiloh told him through symbolic action that he would receive the majority of the kingdom. He was told that if he obeyed God, he would have an everlasting dynasty like David’s. The prophet also told him that one tribe would be left for David in accordance with the Davidic covenant (11:26‑40).

3. Solomon’s death is recorded after a forty-year reign over Israel.

The source for much of the material in this first book of kings comes from the Acts of Solomon, a non-extant book. An apparently smooth transition was accomplished with his son Rehoboam (11:41‑43).

II. Divided Kingdom—Rehoboam/Jeroboam to Jehoshaphat/Ahab (12:1—16:34). (The first eighty years—931‑850 BC)

[From here on the northern kings will be in italics.]

The centrifugal force has now overcome the centripetal force. The rupture has taken place. The northern kingdom will have a leadership that is essentially ungodly from Jeroboam I until the last king Hoshea. Only six kings in Judah will be considered godly men. The chronology of this era is very difficult because of the lack of an absolute chronology, different methods of reckoning ascension years, to say nothing of co-regencies of father and son and dual regencies.¹⁹ The attached chart is to help visualize the period of the monarchy. See p. 258.

A. The rupture of the kingdom under Rehoboam (12:1‑33).

1. The foolish decision of Rehoboam cost him the northern tribes (12:1‑15).

a. The succession seemed to be fairly smooth. Rehoboam went to Shechem to be made king.²⁰ Jeroboam had fled to Egypt (11:40) where he heard of Solomon’s death and returned. (Follow the reading in 1 Chron 10:2. The Hebrew “he was living” and “he returned” look the same without vowels) (12:1‑2).

b. The people challenged Rehoboam to change the policies of his father (remember what Samuel told them would happen, 1 Samuel 8?). Rehoboam consulted with the elders who advised him to listen to the people. Rehoboam asked his young peers what he should do, and they advised him to be hard on the people. Rehoboam told the people he would be even harsher than his father was (12:3‑14).

c. The historian tells us that all this was in accord with God’s purpose in removing part of the kingdom from Solomon as he had predicted through Ahijah the Shilonite (12:15).

2. Rehoboam’s foolish act prompted the northern tribes to break off (12:16‑20).

The Israelites in the north returned home and made Jeroboam king. The rebellion was made permanent when the chief of the gang labor was stoned to death, and Rehoboam barely escaped with his life.

3. Rehoboam was dissuaded from trying to restore the ten tribes by force (12:21‑24).

Rehoboam gathered his army, determined to prosecute the war against Israel. Shemaiah, the prophet, warned them that this rebellion was from the Lord, and they must not fight. The civil war was avoided.

4. Jeroboam instituted a religious system to keep the Israelites from going to Jerusalem (12:25‑33).

a. He rebuilt Shechem, an ancient town going back to the patriarchs, along with Penuel. Jeroboam worried about Israel being enticed to return to Jerusalem (the centripetal force) and so made two golden calves which he set up in the ancient cult center of Bethel and in the extreme north in Dan (12:25‑30).²¹

b. He built temples on the high places and ordained priests from the non-Levitical families.²² He instituted a feast in the eighth month to rival the feast in Jerusalem (did the grain ripen later in the north or was this to make the break sharper?). He was burning incense on the altar (12:31‑33).

The Period of the Monarchy

Saul (40?) (1051-1011) Samuel
David 40 (1011-971) Nathan
Solomon 40 (971-931) Gad

B. God sent an anonymous prophet to speak against the altar (13:1‑32).

1. The prophet spoke against the altar and was vindicated by God (13:1‑10).

a. He said that a king by the name of Josiah would rise up to destroy the altar (Josiah ruled from 640‑609 B.C. This prophecy was almost 300 years prior to the event. See 2 Kings 23:15‑18 for the fulfillment). He stated that God would give a sign to validate the message. King Jeroboam stretched out his hand to order the prophet arrested, and his arm was miraculously stiffened. The sign of the ruptured altar was given simultaneously (13:1‑4).

b. The king asked the prophet to pray for him which he did, and the king’s arm was restored. The king tried to persuade the prophet to go home with him, but he said that he was divinely prohibited from going anywhere but back to Judah. The prophet left to go home a different way from the way he had come (13:5‑10).

2. The prophet is enticed to go home with an old prophet in Bethel (13:11‑19).

There was an old prophet living in Bethel who heard the story from his sons and went after the prophet to invite him home. The prophet refused, saying that Yahweh had prohibited it. The old prophet then told him that Yahweh had revealed himself to him and told him to bring the prophet home with him.

3. God judged the prophet for disobeying him (13:20‑32).

God used the lying prophet to bring the message of judgment upon the prophet from Judah. A lion killed the man of God. The lying prophet brought his body back and told the boys he wanted to be buried with him because he knew God would fulfill the word spoken through him.²³

C. Jeroboam was not sufficiently affected to change spiritual directions, and his sin became a perpetual stumbling block in the history of the northern kingdom (13:33‑34).

D. God gave to Jeroboam a message of judgment through Ahijah the prophet (14:1‑20).

1. Jeroboam’s son Abijah was sick (14:1).

2. Jeroboam wanted help from Ahijah, but he was afraid to face him directly (14:2‑5).

He told his wife to disguise herself. What made these kings think they could hide from God?²⁴ Yahweh revealed to Ahijah that Jeroboam was sending his wife to him and that she would be disguised.

3. Ahijah delivered his message of judgment to Mrs. Jeroboam (14:6‑16).

Ahijah recited what God had done for Jeroboam and yet Jeroboam had rejected God. Because of that apostasy, Jeroboam’s family would be judged severely, and that judgment would begin with the son of Jeroboam. God was going to raise up a king for himself who would cut off the house of Jeroboam. Furthermore, Israel would also be judged and sent into captivity beyond the Euphrates because she followed Jeroboam

4. Jeroboam’s wife returned home, and the child died as predicted (14:17‑18).

5. Jeroboam died (14:19‑20).

This first king of the northern tribes, an Ephraimite, ruled twenty-two years, a rather long reign. His contribution to Israel nationally was fairly significant. What he did religiously was to reinforce the tendency to syncretism already found in this people so greatly influenced by the Gentiles around them. The rival worship centers, however much they might be related to Yahweh (as some scholars contend), were images of the bull, the symbol of fertility throughout the middle east, and were instrumental in leading Israel farther from Yahweh.

E. Rehoboam’s career did not exemplify godly characteristics (14:21‑31).

1. Judah’s spiritual state is abysmal during his reign (14:21‑24).

a. Rehoboam was forty-one at his ascension and he reigned seventeen years. The historian puts great stress on the fact that Yahweh chose the city of Jerusalem over all other sites for the temple. This is an editorial comment against the high places throughout Israel.

b. Judah began to decline under Solomon. That decline increased under Rehoboam. There were high places: (bamoth בָּמוֹת) sacred pillars: (maṣṣeboth מַצֵּבוֹת); Asherim (אַשֵׁרִים); and male cult prostitutes: (qodeshim קָדֵשִׁים).

2. The Egyptians under Shishak invaded Judah and robbed the temple (14:25-28).

a. Shishak was a Libyan who had risen in the ranks of the Egyptian army until he was able to become Pharaoh, bringing in the 22^nd dynasty. He invaded Judah and Israel even though he had given asylum to Jeroboam (14:25-26).²⁵

b. Rehoboam substituted bronze shields for the gold ones, which had been plundered. This was the beginning of a succession of acts of plunder of the temple (14:27-28).

3. Rehoboam died and so concluded a reign marked by mediocrity and war between him and Jeroboam. His son Abijam became king in his place (14:29-31).

F. Abijam’s (Abijah) reign was characterized by the same sinful practices of his father (15:1‑8).²⁶

1. Abijam had a short reign of three years.

His mother was Maacah the (grand)daughter of Abishalom. Assuming this man is the son of David, Maacah would have been the daughter of Absalom’s only daughter, Tamar, who in turn was married to Uriel (see 2 Chron 11:20; 13:2) (15:1‑2).

2. Abijam was as sinful as his father Rehoboam had been (15:3‑6).

a. His “heart was not wholly devoted to Yahweh” (15:3).

b. God still allowed him to be king because He was honoring the Davidic covenant. It is for David’s sake who was a godly man in spite of his great sin against Uriah the Hittite (15:4-5).

c. The wars begun by his father against Jeroboam continued under Abijam (15:6).

3. Abijam finished his reign with no notable contribution (15:7‑8).

G. Asa broke the pattern of his predecessors and sought to please Yahweh (15:9‑24).

1. Asa brought a certain amount of reform to Judah (15:9‑15).

a. He ruled forty-one years and his (grand)mother’s name was Maacah. (Maacah is mentioned because of her prominence and because she was removed from the Queen Mother’s position) (15:9‑10).

b. Asa proceeded to remove paganism. He even removed his grand-mother because of her paganism (15:11‑13).

c. Asa did not remove the high places, because they were probably not yet looked upon as being pagan even though they no doubt were in fact. He did embellish the temple (15:14‑15).

2. Asa carried on war with Baasha (Israel) (15:16‑22).

Baasha was able to control Ramah, about ten kilometers north of Jerusalem, which indicates Asa’s weakness militarily. Asa began the bad practice of hiring outside military help; in this case Ben-Hadad, the Aramean king in Damascus.²⁷ The treaty worked. Northern pressure caused Baasha to back off from Ramah. Asa tore down the fortifications and refortified other cities.

3. Asa died with foot disease, and Jehoshaphat reigned in his place (15:23‑24).

H. Nadab ruled in the north in the place of his father Jeroboam (15:25‑31).

1. Nadab ruled only two years and was an evil king (15:25‑26).

2. Baasha, an army officer, became king (15:27‑30).

It seems as though near anarchy was prevailing. While Nadab was besieging an enemy city, an army officer by the name of Baasha treacherously killed him. He then proceeded to kill all the household of Jeroboam, and thus God’s word through Ahijah was fulfilled (14:9‑10).

I. Baasha was a wicked king who incurred God’s judgment (15:32—16:7).

1. He fought against Asa in the south as we have already seen. God pronounced judgment against him through Jehu son of Hanani: God will judge Baasha as He judged Jeroboam (15:31—16:4).

2. Baasha died, and his son Elah ruled. God’s judgment came upon Baasha’s family because of his personal sin, and because he carried out God’s judgment against Jeroboam (offenses must come, but woe to the one by whom they come) (16:5‑7).

J. A period of bloody civil war follows in Israel’s history, in which God judges the house of Baasha (16:8‑28).

1. Elah reigned two years in Tirzah. While in a drunken stupor, he was killed by one his officers, Zimri (16:8‑10).

2. Zimri then wiped out the family of Elah (Baasha) as God had predicted (16:11‑14).

3. Zimri only lasted seven days because another officer was made king (in the ongoing siege against Gibbethon) (16:15‑20).

Omri and his men besieged the capital of Tirzah, and Zimri killed himself (16:19‑20).

4. Omri prevailed in the civil strife that followed (16:21‑28).

A certain Tibni took part of the people, but Omri was able to kill him. Omri ruled six years at Tirzah and then moved the capital to a new city called Samaria. Omri was a very wicked king.²⁸

K. Ahab, a powerful king, came to the throne, and the stage was set for his confrontation with the prophets of Israel (16:29‑34).

1. Ahab ruled Israel for twenty-two years in Samaria and was pro-nounced by the historian to be worse than all his predecessors. He was personally wicked (16:29-30).

2. Ahab’s crowning evil was to bring in the Sidonian princess Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, who became an aggressive missionary for Baal.²⁹ These were thoroughgoing Baal worshippers (16:31).

3. Ahab became a follower of Baal, building him a temple and erecting an altar in it. He also built Asherim as well (16:32‑33).³⁰

L. God’s curse on Jericho, given in Joshua’s day, was carried out at this time (16:34).³¹

III. Divided Kingdom—Elijah versus the dynasty of Ahab and Jezebel (17:1—2 Kings 1:18 [874‑853 BC])

Samuel, Nathan, and Isaiah were closely related to the royal court, that is, they were in almost an advisory capacity. There was never any question as to who spoke with the greater authority—that was the prophet, but there was a greater sense of cooperation than seems to be true later. That cooperation no doubt grew out of the spiritual sensitivity of the kings to whom the prophets were ministering. In any event, prophets such as the unknown man who spoke against the altar of Jeroboam, Micaiah, Jeremiah, and, most of all, Elijah carried on an adversarial relationship. Ahab will say “Have you found me, Oh my enemy?”

Elijah holds a great place in biblical history. His name is consonant with his message: Yahweh is God (אֵלִיָּהוּ). Malachi predicts that he will come before “the great and terrible day of Yahweh” (Mal 4:5). As a result, the Jews were looking for Elijah and even asked John the Baptist if perchance he were Elijah (John 1:25). The people of Jesus’ day assumed that, among other possibilities, Jesus may have been Elijah (Matt 16:14). It is Elijah who appeared with Jesus before the chosen three on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3) and prompted the disciples to ask Jesus about the coming of Elijah. Jesus’ reply was that John the Baptist, coming in the spirit and power of Elijah, was in a sense Elijah. But Elijah must yet come (Matt 17:9‑13).

This “Elijah cycle” (17:1—22:40) is unusual in that it centers on the northern kingdom. The rest of the book emphasizes Judah. These long narrative accounts involve Elijah as God’s spokesman to the wicked house of Ahab.

A. God spoke through His prophet Elijah to bring a famine on the land to punish Ahab and then protected his servant (17:1‑24).

1. The proclamation of the famine is given to King Ahab (17:1‑7).

a. Elijah was called the Tishbite (NASB does not treat this as a proper noun. “Settlers” is deriving it from the Hebrew yašab [יָשַׁב]), and his country was on the east side of the Jordan in Gilead. Elijah proclaimed that there would be neither rain nor dew for a period of time (the time is known later as three years). It is important to note that Baal is the storm god and the fertility god. He should be the one to bring rain in the time of drought. Yahweh was therefore challenging the entire religious system of Baalism (17:1).

b. Yahweh then sent Elijah to a place where he would be safe and provided for him. He showed His control over nature by sending the ravens to feed him. In the natural course of events, the brook dried up because of the drought (17:2‑7).

2. Yahweh sent him to Zarephath, a Sidonian city, to preserve him (17:8‑16).

a. Elijah was now outside the boundaries of Ahab’s control, and God also had a widow woman to take care of him there. (Her reference to “Yahweh your God” [v. 12] indicates that she at least knew about Israel’s God.) Jesus makes a point of the fact that during the famine, Elijah went to only one widow, and she was a Sidonian (Luke 4:24‑26) (17:8‑9).

b. Elijah performed a miracle, which convinced the widow of his genuineness (17:10‑16). (The miracle also provided them with food for the duration.)

3. Elijah healed the widow’s dead son and further convinced her of his position as representative of Yahweh (17:17‑24).

The widow’s only child became sick and died. She blamed Elijah because she assumed his godly presence had caused a holy God to judge her. Elijah prayed for Yahweh to heal the boy, and he answered his prayers. The woman then testified strongly that Elijah was a man of God, and that the word of Yahweh was in his mouth. This great testimony came from a Gentile of Sidon.

B. Yahweh challenged the Baal prophets through Elijah and vindicated himself (18:1‑46).

1. Yahweh sent Elijah to confront Ahab and tell him that He would bring rain (18:1‑6).

Three years had lapsed since Elijah had told Ahab there would be no rain. Elijah was to proclaim that Yahweh would bring rain on the earth (not Baal). Ahab and his steward Obadiah were looking for water (this Obadiah [servant of Yahweh] protected a hundred prophets of Yahweh when Jezebel was trying to exterminate them).

2. Elijah met Obadiah and told him to inform Ahab of his presence (18:7‑15).

Obadiah feared that Elijah would be gone when he returned with Ahab, and that he would suffer the consequences. Ahab had looked everywhere for Elijah to kill him, (apparently it was common know-ledge that the Spirit of God moved Elijah around), but Elijah assured him that no harm would come to him (18:15).

3. Elijah threw down the gauntlet to Ahab (18:16‑19).

Ahab blamed Elijah, but Elijah charged him with forsaking the commandments of Yahweh and following Baal (how easily we blame others when in reality it is our refusal to follow the Lord that is the reason for the problem). Elijah challenged Ahab to bring 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah to meet him at Mt. Carmel. These were all subsidized, professional prophets.³²

4. Elijah squared off with the 450 prophets of Baal before the people (18:20‑24).

Elijah challenged the people to choose between Yahweh and Baal. Elijah then fixed the ground rules—two oxen, two altars, two gods. The test was to see who the true god of the storm was.

5. The prophets of Baal went through all their ritual but were unable to bring rain (18:25‑29).

Their worship included dancing and self-mutilation. Elijah mocked them as they tried futilely to get Baal to answer.

6. Elijah proved that Yahweh was the God of rain and fruitfulness (18:30‑40).

a. Elijah repaired an existing altar of Yahweh, which had been torn down, emphasizing repeatedly the name Yahweh, and the covenant of Yahweh (18:30‑32).

b. He dug a trench around the altar and had the sacrifice drenched with water (from the Mediterranean Sea), then prayed in the hearing of all the people, emphasizing that Yahweh was the ancient God of the patriarchs, and that Elijah was His spokesman (18:33‑37).

c. God answered with a miraculous fire that caused the people to acknowledge that Yahweh was God (18:38‑39).

d. Elijah killed the 450 prophets of Baal (18:40).

7. Elijah predicted that Yahweh would now bring the promised rain (18:41‑46).

a. He told Ahab to eat and drink, then he went to look for the water-bearing cloud which appeared after seven trips by the servant (God seems to test people on occasion by forcing them to wait) (18:41‑44).

b. Ahab harnessed up the chariot to go to Jezreel before the rain caught him. Elijah in the power of Yahweh outran the chariot to Jezreel (18:45‑46).

C. Elijah, Yahweh’s servant, became discouraged because he thought victory had been turned into defeat (19:1‑21).

1. Jezebel sent messengers threatening Elijah’s life. She was not the slightest daunted by the great victory on Carmel nor in the death of so many of her prophets (19:1‑2).

2. Elijah fled for his life (19:3‑8).

a. The word “life,” Hebrew nepheš (נֶפֶשׁ), can mean life, but here probably means “soul” or his innermost being. Elijah was not fleeing because he was frightened (otherwise he would not have had to go as far as he did), but because he was defeated (19:3).³³

b. He traveled south in the Negeb and pleaded with God to kill him. Elijah had spent a grueling day on Mt. Carmel; he had run all the way to Jezreel; and now he had come all the way to the Negeb and taken another day’s journey into the wilderness. He was psychologically and physically worn out (19:4).

c. God encouraged His weary and defeated servant by giving him food and rest. How gracious of God to nourish and sustain before trying to discipline (19:5‑7).

d. Elijah then traveled forty days into the wilderness. The distance is not that far to Horeb, so he must have “wandered” as the Israelites did. Elijah was on a pilgrimage (19:8).

3. Yahweh confronted His servant in the same place He confronted Moses (19:9‑14).

a. Elijah came to “the” cave (hamm^e‘arah הַמְּעָרָה).³⁴ Yahweh asked Elijah what he was doing there, and Elijah complained that he alone served Yahweh (9:9‑10).

b. Yahweh told Elijah to stand on the mountain where a wind, an earthquake, and a fire occurred.³⁵ Yahweh did not manifest himself in the spectacular events. He revealed Himself as a still, small voice. Yahweh then asked the same question of Elijah and got the same answer (19:11‑14).

It seems that Elijah went back to the place Yahweh had met with Israel to make a covenant. Elijah ate divinely provided food, roamed forty days in the wilderness, he came to Mt. Horeb (Sinai), he came to “the” cave, and phenomena of nature appear similar to that in Exodus 19‑20. God was gently letting His servant know that circumstances are still in His control. The similarity between Elijah and Moses is not accidental:

Moses (Exodus 33)	Elijah (1 Kings 19)
1. People had gone after calves.	1. Israel had gone after Baal.
2. Moses interceded.	2. Elijah believed he was alone representing God.
3. Moses wanted to see God’s glory.	3. God showed His glory to Elijah.
4. God hid Moses in a niche.	4. Elijah came to the cave.
5. Israel was at Mt. Sinai.	5. Elijah came to Mt. Sinai.
6. Israel wondered forty years.	6. Elijah “wandered” forty days and nights.

4. Yahweh recommissioned Elijah and sent him back (19:15‑21).

First, God told Elijah to go to Syria and anoint Hazael to be the next king (this showed that Yahweh was in charge even in foreign countries). Secondly, He told Elijah to anoint Jehu king over Israel (this showed that He would punish the house of Ahab). Thirdly, He told Elijah to anoint Elisha to take his place (this showed that Elijah was not indispensable). Yahweh also reminded Elijah that he was not alone in the task. Elijah carried out the third part of the commission. The other two were implemented by his successors who represented him.

D. Yahweh proved His universality by giving Ahab continuous victory over the Arameans (20:1‑29).

The historian’s attitude toward the wicked house of Ahab is indicated in his treatment of his history. Chapter 16 introduces him historically with his evil wife Jezebel. His name is used six times. Chapters 17 through 19 record the confrontation between Ahab/Jezebel and Elijah. His name appears eighteen times in these three chapters (sixteen in chapter 18). Chapter 21 recounts his evil act against Naboth, and his name is used fifteen times. The 22nd chapter tells of his alliance with Jehoshaphat (condemned in Chronicles), but his name does not appear until v. 20 where God pronounces judgment on him. Later in the chapter the normal chronicle note is given of his death and his successor. Ahab’s name occurs in 2 Kings some twenty-seven times either in a straightforward chronicle statement or in a pejorative context. Chapter 20 is the only chapter that presents an account of Ahab that is favorable or at least neutral. In this chapter he is the king of Israel, God’s chosen people. A foreign king is besieging God’s people, and God delivers them. The armies of Ahab are weak, and they are being confronted with an impossible situation, but God is on their side. This chapter shows the generally capable leadership of Ahab as king of Israel, but of course we know from the other chapters that he was morally bankrupt. It is as though the historian cannot bring himself to talk about this king by name. He used his name in v. 1 when the story began and in vv. 13, 14 where the prophet came to him. Otherwise, he refers to him as “the king of Israel.” This chapter probably does not come from the “Elijah cycle.” Elijah is not mentioned, but the prophets who are featured are no doubt part of the “school of the prophets.”

1. Ben-Hadad in a coalition of thirty-two kings besieged Samaria and demanded total capitulation (20:1‑6).

Ben-Hadad ³⁶ besieged the city into which Ahab had fled because he was unable to fight the Syrian coalition in the open field. When Ben-Hadad demanded silver, gold, wives, and children, Ahab had no option but to concede.³⁷

2. Ahab refused an impossible demand (20:7‑12).

Ben-Hadad arrogantly demanded that since everything belonged to him, he should be able to search the houses for what he wanted. Ahab and the elders refused this excessive demand.³⁸

3. A prophet of Yahweh told Ahab that He would deliver the Arameans into his hand (20:13‑15).

Ahab was morally bankrupt, but because he was the king of God’s people, God sent him a prophet with a message of great encouragement.

4. Ahab won a great victory (20:16‑21).

God told Ahab to send out the “squires of the commandants.”³⁹ These men formed the vanguard that the Syrians considered harmless, but they killed those who came out to meet them. Then Ahab released the seven thousand he was holding at the gates, and there was a great victory over the drunken Syrians.

5. A prophet of Yahweh warned Ahab that there would be another war and that Yahweh would give them victory to show that He is not geographically limited (20:22‑25).

6. Ahab won another great victory the next year (20:26‑30).

The Arameans reorganized their army.⁴⁰ They argued polytheistically that Yahweh must be a God of the mountains,⁴¹ therefore, they would fight them in the plain. They mustered at Aphek and were decisively defeated. Ben-Hadad escaped to Aphek where he hid in an inner room.

7. Ahab foolishly made a covenant with Ben-Hadad and spared him (20:31‑34).

Ben-Hadad’s advisors negotiated a surrender of their king to Ahab who chose to spare him, made a covenant with him, and sent him home.

8. A prophet of Yahweh told Ahab that he would lose his life because of this indiscretion (20:35‑43).

This entire incident presumes that this Aramean battle was declared by Yahweh to be a ḥerem war. In v. 42, the phrase “devoted to destruction” (ḥerem חֶרֶם) occurs. Like Saul before him, Ahab failed to carry out the conditions of the war and incurred the judgment of God. He was told that he would die because of this disobedience.

Sometime in this era, a famous battle took place in which Ahab allied with the Arameans to fight against Assyria. It is called the Battle of Qarqar (Karkar) and was fought in 853 BC. Shalmaneser III was the King of Assyria. He says: “I departed from Argana and approached Karkara. I destroyed, tore down and burned down Karkara, his royal residence. He brought along to help him 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalrymen, 20,000 foot soldiers of Adad-’idri (i.e. Hadadezer) of Damascus, 700 chariots, 700 cavalrymen, 10,000 foot soldiers of Irhuleni from Hamath, 2,000 chariots, 10,000 foot soldiers of Ahab, the Israelite, 500 soldiers from Que, 1,000 soldiers from Musri, 10 chariots, 10,000 soldiers from Irqanata, 200 soldiers of Matinu-ba’lu from Arvad, 200 soldiers from Usanata, 30 chariots, 1[0?[,000 soldiers of Adunu-ba’lu from Shian, 1,000 camel‑(rider)s of Gindibu’, from Arabia, [. . .],000 soldiers of Ba’sa, son of Ruhubi, from Ammon—(all together) these were twelve kings. They rose against me [for a ] decisive battle. I fought with them with (the support of) the mighty forces of Ashur [god], which Ashur, my lord, has given to me, and the strong weapons which Nergal [god], my leader, has presented to me, (and) I did inflict a defeat upon them between the towns of Karkara and Gilzau.”⁴² We know from the chronology, that the year 853 BC was the year of Ahab’s death. However, he did not die in this Assyrian battle, but in the battle with the Arameans in chapter 22. These two battles, therefore, one allied with the Arameans and one against them, were fought in the same year.

E. Yahweh demanded justice of Ahab and Jezebel for the wicked acts com-mitted against Naboth in taking his inheritance and his life (21:1‑29).

1. Ahab wanted an adjacent vineyard, but its owner refused to sell it to him (21:1‑4).

Ahab’s primary residence was in Samaria, but he had a royal residence in Jezreel as well (cf. 1 Kings 18:45). Adjacent to this property was a vineyard belonging to a certain Naboth. Ahab rather petulantly tried to buy or trade for this vineyard. Naboth refused, following the old Mosaic code of the land staying in the patrimony. Ahab went home angry and pouting.

2. Jezebel took action to acquire the vineyard for her husband (21:5‑16).

Jezebel, a stubborn, selfish, but decisive woman set events in motion to acquire the vineyard for Ahab. This required that false witnesses be hired against Naboth. The letters had to be sent because she was in Samaria. Naboth was stoned to death on the thinnest of trumped-up charges. Ahab at his wife’s behest went to take the vineyard.

3. Yahweh sent Elijah to confront Ahab (21:17‑24).

Elijah predicted the death of Ahab and of Jezebel, saying that the dogs would lick his blood and eat her. His dynasty would be like that of Jeroboam and Baasha. These are the only two predecessors of Ahab of whom it could be said that they had a dynasty. Jeroboam ruled twenty-two years, and his son Nadab ruled two years. Baasha ruled twenty-four years and his son Elah ruled two years. Zimri does not count for he only ruled seven days and had no children succeed him. This was Yahweh’s judgment pronounced on this family that tried so ardently to impose the religion of Baal in Israel and to persecute those who stood true to Yahweh.

4. The historian inserted a statement indicating the extent of Ahab’s sin (21:25‑26).

Jezebel is charged with inciting Ahab to his sin. She does appear in the accounts to be the stronger person. Ahab himself withstood Elijah, and was therefore completely culpable, but at times (e.g., after the Carmel experience) he seemed somewhat willing to submit to Yahweh.

5. Ahab repented and God promised to postpone the judgment (21:27‑29).

Because of a genuine attitude of repentance in Ahab, Yahweh told Elijah that he would postpone the judgment on his house to a later day. Jehu carried it out.

F. Yahweh brought final judgment upon Ahab through the word of the prophet Micaiah (22:1‑40).

1. Ahab and Jehoshaphat formed an alliance (22:1‑4).

Jehoshaphat was essentially a godly king. However, he chose ill-advisedly to join with Ahab in a war with the Arameans. There had been a three-year lapse since the last war with the Arameans. Ramoth-gilead had been taken by the Arameans and Ahab wanted to recover it. Jehoshaphat agreed to join fully with him.

2. Jehoshaphat asked Ahab to inquire of Yahweh (22:5‑12).

a. Jehoshaphat was a thoroughgoing worshipper of Yahweh. Ahab, on the other hand, was syncretistic. He had not yet learned the lesson of Carmel. He was surrounded by a coterie of prophets who were supported by the king and therefore told him what he wanted to hear. In response to Jehoshaphat’s request to seek Yahweh’s mind in the matter, Ahab assembled the prophets. Ahab did not mention the name of Yahweh; he simply said, “Should we go up to war or not?” Their first response did not use the name Yahweh but the generic term Adonai (אֲדנָי) or Master that could be used of any deity.⁴³ It was only after Jehoshaphat’s displeasure with their prophecy became evident that they began to use the name Yahweh (22:5‑6).

b. The prophets of Baal assured Ahab he would win. Jehoshaphat, apparently becoming uneasy at this display put on by prophets, asked whether there was a prophet of Yahweh there. Ahab acknowledged Micaiah (“who is like Yahweh”), but said that he hated him (22:7-12).

3. Micaiah was brought to Ahab with the admonition not to “rock the boat” (22:13‑28).

a. Micaiah first answered with sarcasm. The ready availability of Micaiah and his return to prison at the end of the interview probably indicate that he was in prison all along. This would demonstrate Ahab’s attitude toward true prophets of Yahweh. Micaiah, knowing what the other prophets were saying, sarcastically added his vote to theirs: “Go up and succeed for Yahweh will give it into your hand.” The obvious tone of voice caused Ahab to demand a true response (22:13‑16).

b. Micaiah, in sober tones, predicted that Ahab would be killed in battle. When Ahab rejected the message, attributing it to Micaiah’s personal animosity, Micaiah told how the heavenly court had worked out the destruction of Ahab (22:17‑23).⁴⁴

c. Zedekiah, the false prophet, angered by this clear revelation of false prophecy, struck Micaiah on the cheek, and stated dramatically that the spirit of Yahweh belonged to him not Micaiah. What audacity! Micaiah was remanded to prison with the Parthian shot that if the king returned in peace, Yahweh had not spoken to him. This was an oblique way of saying, when Ahab dies everyone will know that Yahweh has spoken by me (22:24‑28).

4. The battle was lost, and Ahab was killed (22:29‑40).

a. Ahab in his foolishness tried to disguise himself so as to avoid the prophecy of Micaiah. He was shot “inadvertently” by a bowman shooting randomly. The death of the king enervated the army, and they called a retreat. When his chariot was washed out in Samaria the dogs licked his blood as Elijah had predicted (22:29‑38).

b. The succession statement is made including a brief recapitulation of Ahab’s building projects in Samaria along with the ivory house. Samaria has been excavated and the palace of Ahab was unearthed. Ahaziah succeeded his father (22:39‑40).

G. Jehoshaphat ruled in Judah as a good king (22:41‑50).

Jehoshaphat was a good king although he came in for more severe criticism in the book of Chronicles. He was noted for following his father Asa’s good example in spite of the fact that the high places were not removed. It is stated without criticism that he made peace with the king of Israel. His spiritual character was evident in his removal of the sacred male prostitutes from the land. Edom had a deputy, and Jehoshaphat carried on shipping from Ezion-Geber as Solomon had done. He refused to join with Ahaziah in a shipping alliance.

H. Ahaziah ruled in Israel as a wicked king (22:51‑53).

Ahaziah’s reputation was no different from his father’s. He worshipped Baal and otherwise did evil as his father and mother had done.

¹See my God Rules among Men for an integrated harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.

²But see Bähr in Lange’s Commentary. He argues that it is strictly medicinal and quotes Galen.

³The evident co-regency of David and Solomon in Chronicles indicates that David must have improved.

⁴See 2 Sam 3:2‑5; Chiliab (called Daniel in 1 Chron 3:1) does not figure at all in the history: did he die?

⁵The succession narrative comprising most of Second Samuel is continued into Kings. One more son of David must be declared ineligible so that God’s choice, Solomon, might rule in peace and with success. Saul’s descendants have been dispatched, Amnon and Absalom are dead; Adonijah is put out of commission, but as long as he lived, he was a threat. Consequently, he will be killed in the succeeding chapters along with Joab the most potent anti‑Solomon personage of all. Abiathar (descendant of Eli) will be “put out to pasture” to render him ineffective.

⁶Cf. Jer 41:17 where Chimcham (Barzillai’s son?) seems to have a piece of property as a “fiefdom.”

⁷So, we must understand Abner and Rizpah and Absalom and David’s concubines, cf. also Reuben and Jacob’s concubine.

⁸Jeremiah, a priest, also lived in this village.

⁹For a discussion on high places, see my Samuel notes, p. 174.

¹⁰The temple was not finished, and the tabernacle was at Gibeon according to the parallel account in Chronicles.

¹¹See DeVries, 1 Kings, loc. cit., for a discussion of the various offices.

¹²This should be understood in the sense of garrisons such as David had already stationed in Damascus. This is indirect control not direct and should not be considered a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

¹³Cf. Ecclesiastes 2.

¹⁴See Zvi Gal, “Cabul a Royal Gift Found,” BAR 19 Mar/Apr (1993) 38-44, 84. Gal excavated a site he believes is Galilean Cabul.

¹⁵See G. J. Wightman (“The Myth of Solomon,” BASOR 227/28[1990] 5-22) who argues that these gates must be dated later. He does not deny a flourishing period under Solomon, only the archaeological dating. See Dever’s response in the same issue, “Of Myths and Methods,” pp. 121-30.

¹⁶See Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem.

¹⁷Alan Millard, “Does the Bible Exaggerate King Solomon’s Golden Wealth?” BAR 15 (1989): 20-34.

¹⁸Albright (Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, p. 236) says that Moloch is a term for human sacrifice and not a deity. The word Topheth, he says, refers to cremation pits for child sacrifice. However, more recent scholarship is swinging back to the biblical position that Moloch is really a deity. See works on the Phoenicians for more information on Topheth and child sacrifice.

¹⁹See Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.

²⁰Shechem was an ancient religious center for the northern tribes in Ephraim. Jeroboam was from Ephraim. It would appear that Rehoboam was being forced to come to northern territory to defend himself, cf. Judg. 9:1‑2.

²¹See A. Mazar, “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ from the Time of the Judges,” BAR 9 [1983] 34-40.

²²See 2 Chron 11:13-17 where Levites and priests from all the tribes moved to Judah. See also Magen Broshi and Israel Finkelstein, “The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II,” BASOR 287 (1992): 47-60.

²³Who was this old prophet, and why did he lie to the prophet from Judah? He certainly seems to be a prophet of Yahweh because of his constant allusions to him. The only thing I can conclude is that he was so desirous of associating with this man that he lied to get him to come to his home. Was the old prophet compromised to the point that he was ineffective as a prophet and yet sensitive enough to want to be identified with the truth? It may seem unfair that Yahweh would kill the Judean prophet since the old prophet professed to be speaking from Yahweh, but God expects his prophets to obey him, and his orders were quite explicit and clear on the issue. Those who are closest to the Lord are expected to obey him best.

²⁴Take note of Gehazi, Elisha’s servant (2 Kings 5), and Ahab (1 Kings 22) who dis-guised himself in battle.

²⁵For a list of cities Shishak claims to have conquered, see ANET, pp. 242-243. A fragment of a monumental stela was found at Megiddo which may indicate that he really conquered that city.

²⁶Kings uses Abijam which means my father is the sea. This sounds much like the Ugarit material where jam or yam means “the sea.” The Chronicler uses a more orthodox name, Abijah, “my father is Yahweh.”

²⁷See God’s rebuke through Hanani in 2 Chron 16:7‑9.

²⁸Note: Assyria will hereafter refer to Israel as Bit Omri, i.e., the dynasty and land of Omri.

²⁹Jezebel may mean “without cohabitation” indicating her connection with the fertility cult. Ethbaal means “man of Baal.”

³⁰The Bible does not speak much of the Assyrians at this time, but they were beginning to make themselves felt. Contact came in the ninth century when a coalition of kings (Arameans and others) which Ahab joined fought Assyria. This coalition was an effort to assert independence in the west from the Assyrian over lordship. The account of this battle is found in Shalmaneser III’s annals and is dated at 853 B.C. The Assyrians claimed victory, but they did not return for some time, and it took several battles before they were completely triumphant. This happened in 841 B.C. and Jehu, king of Israel, and other kings were forced to come to Nahr el-Kelb to pay tribute. This event was recorded on Shalmaneser’s black obelisk (CAH, 3:13‑14).

³¹See DeVries, 1 Kings, for a discussion of the paganism involved.

³²Only the 450 prophets of Baal are referred to later. Perhaps the Asherah prophets decided not to come.

³³Furthermore, the Hebrew words, “to see” and “to fear” in this construction, without vowels, look exactly alike. I would opt for the first meaning, “When he saw . . .” [as in the MT]. Even if the translation should be “and he was afraid,” fear was not the only reason for fleeing.

³⁴Is this the cleft of the rock in which Yahweh hid Moses when he passed by (Exod. 33:22)? The Hebrew says “The” cave.

³⁵Is this representative of what happened when Yahweh revealed himself to Israel?

³⁶Son of the storm god Hadad. See ANET p. 655 for a brief inscription of this king from the time of Ahab.

³⁷An Aramaic inscription written by a certain Zakir comes from the eighth century and is a generation later than the context of 1 Kings 20. It represents the petty-state wars in this era.

A stela set up by Zakir, king of Hamat and Lu’ath, for Ilu-Wer, [his god].

I am Zakir, king of Hamat and Lu’ath. A humble man I am. Be’elshamayn [helped me] and stood by me. Be’elshamayn made me king over Hatarikka [Hadrach—see Zech. 9:1].

Barhadad, [Aramaic has Bar for the Hebrew Ben] the son of Hazael, king of Aram, united [seven of] a group of ten kings against me: Barhadad and his army; Bargush and his army; the king of Cilicia and his army; the king of ‘Umq and his army; the king of Gurgum and his army; the king of Sam’al and his army; the king of Milidh and his army. [All these kings whom Barhadad united against me] were seven kings and their armies. All these kings laid siege to Hatarikka. They made a wall higher than the wall of Hatarikka. They made a moat deeper than its moat. But I lifted up my hand to Be’elshamayn, and Be’elshamayn heard me. Be’elshamayn [spoke] to me through seers and through diviners. Be’elshamayn [said to me]: Do not fear, for I made you king, and I shall stand by you and deliver you from all [these kings who] set up a siege against you. [Be’elshamayn] said to me: [I shall destroy] all these kings who set up [a siege against you and made this moat] and this wall which . . . .

[. . . charioteer and horseman [. . .] its king in its midst [. . .]. I [enlarged] Hatarikka and added [to it] the entire district of [. . .] and I made him ki[ng . . .] all these strongholds everywhere within the bor[ders].

I build houses for the gods everywhere in my country. I built [. . .] and Apish [. . .] and the house of [. . .

I set up this stele before Ilu-Wer, and I wrote upon it my achievements [. . .]. Whoever shall remove (this record of) the achievements of Zakir, king of Hamat and Lu’ath, from this stele and whoever shall remove this stele from before Ilu-Wer and banish it from its [place] or whoever shall stretch forth his hand [to . . .], [may] Be’elshamayn and I[lu‑Wer and . . .] and Shamash and Sahr [and . . .] and the Gods of Heaven [and the Gods] of Earth and Be’el‑ ‘[. . . deprive him of h]ead and [. . . and] his root and [. . ., and may] the name of Zakir and the name of [his house endure forever]! ANET pp. 655, 56.

³⁸Hezekiah paid similar tribute to Sennacherib when he capitulated but did not sur-render. Sennacherib adds to the tribute paid: “daughters and women of the palace.” ANET, p. 288.

³⁹So J. A. Montgomery, The Books of Kings, loc. cit. This translation assumes that the word “young men” (n^e’arim נְעָרִים) is a military term referring to the officers of the provincial rulers under the king.

⁴⁰Is this a centralization of power in Damascus?

⁴¹See Montgomery, The Books of Kings, loc. cit., for examples of this language else-where.

⁴²ANET, pp. 278‑79.

⁴³Several Hebrew MSS and the Targum have Yahweh, but I suspect the text should stand as it is.

⁴⁴We have already seen an evil spirit “from Yahweh” coming upon Saul as God’s judgment for his disobedience. This passage in Kings tells us that even false prophecy is under the control of God. (See Josephus, Antiquities, viii, §4-5 for his discussion of this issue.) These false prophets are being used to fulfill the divine purpose of bringing Ahab to his death. The only real question concerns the identity of the spirit in the heavenly court. The ethical question is Does God do evil? Since it is His spirit that caused the lying, God was in some way responsible for the lying. I am not sure that we can satisfactorily solve this dilemma. God is sovereign and controls evil as well as good. Our efforts to explain these situations sometimes result more in casuistic reasoning than solutions. The prophets were false before the spirit came; they were therefore lying before he came. It seems that the spirit in some way used these prophets to lie in the “right” way so as to bring about Ahab’s death.

7. 2 Kings

Related Media

Second Kings ¹

Since 1 and 2 Kings are really one book, the outline will continue.²

[The names of northern kings are italicized in these notes, when outside of a heading.]

H. Elijah opposed Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:1‑18).

1. Moab threw off the Israelite yoke (1:1).³

2. Ahaziah was injured and inquired of a pagan god (1:2‑4).

a. He sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zebub (Zebul) of Ekron.⁴ There is intended irony that a king of Israel inquired of a pagan god, “will I recover from this sickness?” In 8:8 a pagan king inquired of Yahweh with the very same words (1:2).⁵

b. Elijah intercepted the messengers at Yahweh’s direction and challenged Ahaziah. Elijah told the messengers that Ahaziah would die (1:3‑4).

3. Ahaziah ascertained that the man was Elijah and sent army men to capture him (1:5‑14).

a. The prophet Elijah was distinctive in appearance: he was hairy and wore a leather belt. This sounds much like John the Baptist (1:7‑8).

b. Ahaziah sent a squad of fifty soldiers, but they were killed by fire. He sent a second squad, and they were killed. He sent a third squad, and the officer pled with Elijah (1:9‑14).⁶

4. At God’s encouragement, Elijah went down to Ahaziah and repeated the message about his death (1:15‑18).

The purpose of this unit is to show that Yahweh is the God of Israel. Kings should submit to him and not go to foreign gods for their messages.

IV. Elisha and Jehu against Baal—2 Kings 2:1—10:36 (841‑814 B.C.).

A. The mantle of the prophetic leadership passes from Elijah to Elisha (2:1‑25.)

We have already discussed the relationship between Elijah’s flight to Sinai and Moses’ activity in the wilderness. We should also see similarities in this account and that of Moses and Joshua as well. Hobbs says: “Within the stories of Elisha (chaps. 2‑8; 13) there are also a number of items of style that warrant brief notice. As with the kings, one model dominates the traditions concerning Elijah and Elisha. That model is Moses. This is nowhere more evident than in the transition from the ministry of Elijah to Elisha in chaps. 1‑2. The narrative is so constructed as to present a smooth transition from one to the other, but the narrative is also dominated by allusions to incidents from the career of Moses, and indeed Joshua. This is especially clear in the location of the ascension of Elijah and the actions which accompany that ascension.”⁷

1. Elijah and Elisha went to Bethel (2:1‑4).

The “schools of prophets” (b^ene hann^evi’im בְּנֵי הַנְּבִיאִים) had their beginning apparently under Samuel’s ministry. The precise nature and composition of the bands is not clear, but they did apparently live in groups; there was much poverty (vow of poverty?); they had “heads” (Samuel, Elijah, Elisha) and special disciples (Elisha to Elijah and Gehazi to Elisha); they carried prophetic statements to the kings (often negative in content). In this chapter there are groups in Bethel and Jericho (at least fifty in Jericho and one hundred at Gilgal in 4:38-44) as well as at Naioth in Ramah (1 Samuel 19).⁸ Both Gilgal and Bethel have ancient spiritual connotations. Because of the role they played in the invasion under Joshua, so does Jericho. As a matter of fact, the incident of dividing of the waters (Red Sea: Moses, Jordan: Joshua), this incident is being tied into the pristine past.

2. Elijah and Elisha went to Jericho (2:5‑6).

There was a community awareness that Elijah was going to be removed from the prophets. They kept telling Elisha about it, but he essentially ignored them.

3. Elijah was transported to heaven and Elisha received a double portion of his spirit (2:7‑14).

While the Jericho band was watching, Elijah divided the Jordan, and he and Elisha crossed it. Elisha asked for a double portion of the spirit, and Elijah said he would have it if he saw his departure. Elijah was translated before over fifty watching people, and Elisha tore his garments into two (double portion), took Elijah’s mantle, smote the Jordan River and it parted. The allusion to the double portion for the first‑born (Deut. 21:17) is not accidental. Truly Elisha had succeeded Elijah.

4. The prophets accepted Elisha’s leadership (2:15‑18).

Apparently, it was customary for Elijah to disappear under the influence of the Spirit (Obadiah was afraid this would happen in 1 Kings 18). The prophets sent fifty men to search for him, but they did not find him as Elisha had predicted.

5. Elisha purified the water at Jericho (2:19‑22).

The following series of miraculous acts by Elisha are not to be considered mere anecdotes of his life and ministry. These are confirmatory acts. The “sons of the prophets” saw the transfer of authority, but they now see the concomitant ability attached to it.⁹

The Hebrew word “unfruitful” in v. 19 (m^ešaccalet מְשַׁכָּלֶת) is otherwise used of miscarriage. It may be that the families were having difficulty carrying pregnancies to term. Salt had a very important place in the ancient medicinal process. This fountain is identified with the spring near modern Jericho, ‘Ain es-Sultan, or Elisha’s spring.

6. Elisha called judgment on the young people who mocked him (2:23‑25).

This miraculous act is quite troubling on the surface. It seems more the petulant act of an irritated man than a godly response of a prophet of Yahweh. Two issues have led some to argue that there is more than meets the eye: the bald head is said not to be typical for those who live outdoors a lot in the middle east.¹⁰ Therefore, some would argue that it represented some kind of priestly tonsure. The second issue is the locale of the event. Bethel was where some of the prophets were located as we are told in 2:3 (Jeroboam’s cult was centered here as well). Consequently, some would argue, these children (they are little youths, [n^e’arim q^etannym נְעַרִים קְתַנִּים]) were offspring of some of the prophets who were rejecting the authority of the prophetic office of Elisha. However, this kind of speculative reconstruction needs to be viewed with caution. The least that can be said is that God does not take lightly the mocking of his holiness (as with touching the ark and burning up the fifties that came against Elijah).

B. Elisha guided Jehoram and Jehoshaphat in their war against Moab (3:1‑27).

1. Jehoram succeeded Ahab and was as wicked (3:1‑3).

Jehoram was the second son of Ahab who ruled after his brother Ahaziah from 852 to 841 B.C. He also was wicked, but the statement against him is ameliorated by the fact that he removed the Baal pillar his father had made. These pillars (maṣebboth מַצֵבּוֹת) were objects of veneration.¹¹ Therefore, some would argue that it represented some kind of priestly tonsure. The second issue is the

2. Jehoshaphat allied with Jehoram as he had with Jehoram’s father, Ahab. He seemed determined to maintain this non-spiritual relation-ship (3:4‑8).

a. There were friendly relations between the Davidic dynasty and the Omride family in the north. This culminated in the marriage alliance of Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter, Athaliah, to Jehoshaphat’s son. This proved to be a disaster, for Athaliah inherited all her mother’s devious skill.

b. There are two accounts of the rebellion of Moab against Israel. One is the biblical reference of chapter 3 that speaks of a punitive expedition against Moab by Israel and Judah, joined by Edom.¹² This ended in a bloody defeat for Moab, but the long-term results were indecisive. Moab was not returned to “the fold.” The other account comes from the King of Moab himself.¹³

“I am Mesha, son of Chemosh [. . . ], king of Moab, the Dibonite—my father had reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father,—(who) made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh [. . . ] because he saved me from all the kings and caused me to triumph over all my adversaries. As for Omri, (5) king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years (lit., days), for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.’ In my time he spoke (thus), but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished forever! (Now) Omri had occupied the land of Medeba, and [Israel] had dwelt there in his time and half the time of his son [Ahab], forty years; but Chemosh dwelt there in my time.”¹⁴ Either the subjugation began when Omri was still an officer or 40 represents a round number (testing?) since total rule of all Omri is 44-48 years. “Son” must mean grandson. (Nine lines out of twenty-two). The Moabite stone was discovered in 1878.

3. When they were in distress, Jehoshaphat called for a true prophet as he had done before, and Elisha appeared (3:9‑12).

The logistics of moving a large number of troops through the wilderness of Edom are considerable, and they ran out of water. Elisha was near enough for them to make personal contact with him.

4. Elisha rebuked Jehoram as Elijah had rebuked Ahab, but then promised help for the sake of Jehoshaphat (3:13‑20).

Elisha scathingly denounced Jehoram and demanded to know why he did not consult his own deity. Jehoram rather humbly replied that it looked as though these three kings had come together for defeat. Elisha promised provision and victory for the sake of Jehoshaphat.

On the harp playing and prophecy, Hobbs says: “This incident is unique in the stories of the prophets and provides one of the very few glimpses at the mechanics of prophetic inspiration. To generalize from this lone incident to a theory of prophetic inspiration, even for this early period of prophecy, would be unwise.¹⁵ Music and musicians play a role in the activity of the band of prophets descending from the high place in 1 Sam 10:1-16, but other means of inspiration such as vision and audition are also found in the OT (Jer 1:11-15, etc.). That this was typical, or that one can appeal to the analogy of the dervish guilds of a much later age for parallels (so W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel, 2^nd. Ed. [London: A. C. Black, 1895] 391-92, are unwarranted conclusions. Cf. also J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, 59.”¹⁶

5. The Moabites were defeated, and the king committed a horrible act in sacrificing his eldest son (3:21‑27).

“Anger against Israel” is a problem. The word translated “anger” (qeṣep קֶצֶף) means just that in Hebrew, but in Syriac, it means to be “sad” or “anxious.” The word “against” can also mean “upon” or “on.” Perhaps the Israelites became so upset over this horrible deed that they withdrew. “There was great sadness on Israel.” Surely, we cannot assume that God’s anger was against them for the deed of the Moabite king. Margolit agrees. He cites Ugaritic for the practice of offering the first born.¹⁷

C. Elisha performed several local miracles (4:1‑44).

1. Elisha provided for the financial needs of one of the prophet’s widows (4:1‑7).

This is a touching story of God’s provision for the needs of his servants. This woman does not seem to be living with a group, which might argue against the idea that the prophets lived communally. It probably does reflect a general situation of virtual poverty among the prophets. With so much venal prophecy going on, the only way they could protect their spiritual integrity was not to take money for their ministry.

2. Elisha prophesied that the Shunammite woman would become pregnant (4:8‑17).

The story of the gracious lady of Shunem has caught the fancy of people for generations. She was generous with this man who probably lived on just such provisions. (Our phrase “prophet’s chamber” comes from this story.) She had no material needs, but she desperately wanted a child which he promised her.

3. Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s dead son (4:18‑37).

Doubly bitter is the sorrow of a woman who had been given a child after years of hopelessness only to have it taken in death. Small wonder that she spoke so bitterly to Elisha about frustrated hope.

Gehazi was unable to raise the boy as Jesus’ disciples had been unable to cast out the demon. When Jesus raised the only son of a widow lady (Luke 7), people concluded that a great prophet had arisen in their midst.

4. Elisha purified the poison stew (4:38‑41).

Elisha’s ministry was confirmed also in the miracle of the stew. There was a famine in the land, and the prophets were eating whatever they could get their hands on. As a result, there was poisoned food. Elisha purified it.

5. Elisha fed a hundred men with twenty loaves (4:42‑44).

Like Jesus feeding the five thousand, Elisha multiplied the meager food to feed an impossible number of people. No wonder the people said of Jesus, “He is Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets” (Matt 16:14).

D. Elisha performed a miracle of international dimensions (5:1‑27).

1. Naaman came to the king of Israel for healing (5:1‑7).

We have already seen the continuous warfare between the Syrians and the Israelites. In this story, a Syrian army general came to the king of Israel and demanded healing. This was an important man who had come with credentials from the Syrian king. Small wonder the king of Israel was in great consternation and could only assume that Syria was looking for a chance to start another war.

The purpose of this section is the same as 2 Kings 1, that the Syrians might know that there is a God in Israel (cf. 2 Kings 5:8).

2. Elisha sent for Naaman and told him to wash in the Jordan (5:8‑14).

Elisha’s intent was to let this foreign general know that there was a prophet (of Yahweh) in Israel. As a foreigner, worshipping foreign gods, Elisha wanted him to come to know the reality of Yahweh God of Israel. This indeed happened. Elisha, acting the part of a prophet above king or general, disdained even to greet Naaman. The latter almost lost his opportunity to be healed because of his pride. He did as he was told and came back healed.

3. Naaman acknowledged Yahweh as God and wanted to pay Elisha (5:15‑19).

This is a marvelous account of a man in Old Testament times who became intellectually convinced of the truth of the existence of one God named Yahweh. It is almost amusing to see Naaman struggle with the issue of compromise as a subordinate officer. He prays for Elisha’s forgiveness if he has to go to the temple of the Syrian gods with his master. Elisha concedes the situation.

4. Gehazi’s greed led him to lie to become rich (5:20‑27).

The historian is not only revealing God’s word to us, he is also a masterful storyteller. The account of the naive Gehazi, struggling with greed in the midst of poverty yet surrounded by Naaman’s wealth is as true to life as it is pathetic. His lust led him to lie to the one man who would always know whether he were lying and from that to the leprosy of Naaman. Elisha, like Paul, knew that an effective ministry to a corrupt society depended on being free from the taint of purchased ministry. There was no place in Elisha’s work for a man who would sell his ministry for money.

E. Elisha performed another miracle with the prophet band (6:1‑7).

Elisha caused an iron axe head to float. Intriguing questions are raised by this pericope: what kind of a building were they constructing? Did they live as in a commune? Does the borrowed axe represent poverty? The story is given to add to the weight of confirmation of Elisha’s ministry. This miracle shows God’s control over nature.

F. Elisha performed miracles against the Aramean king (6:8‑23).

1. He warned the king of Israel of the Arameans’ location (6:8‑14).

2. The Aramean king sent a small army to capture Elisha (6:15‑19).

3. (If an Aramean king could move with impunity into Israelite territory to try to capture Elisha, what must this say about the impotence of the king of Israel?)

4. Elisha led them blinded to the king of Israel who released them at Elisha’s orders (6:20‑23).

This miracle shows God’s control over Syria.

G. Elisha spoke for God in delivering the city of Samaria from the Arameans (6:24—7:20).

1. The siege caused tragic circumstances (6:24‑31).

Food had become so scarce that mothers were eating their babies. The king was asked to judge between two women who were quarreling over the fact that one mother would not produce the baby she had promised for food. The king blamed Elisha for the problem and threatened to kill him.

2. Elisha responded to the king’s threat with a scathing remark and a promise of deliverance (6:32—7:2).

The king had sent a messenger, and he came later. Elisha knew they were coming and told the elders with whom he was sitting. The king told him that there was no point in waiting on Yahweh anymore. Elisha promised that food would be in abundance on the next day. A royal advisor mocked the promise, and Elisha predicted his death.

3. God gave a great victory without any human help, and four lepers discovered the abandoned camp (7:3‑8).

The account of four discards from society discovering the abandoned Syrian camp is a delightful and ironic story. The powerful army of the Syrians, such a dire threat to Israel, was routed by a sound the Lord caused them to hear.

4. The lepers brought the news to the gate (7:9‑15).

The lepers collected items until they were sated and became uneasy for not telling those in the city. The people are skeptical at first, but the king reconnoitered and discovered that it was true.

5. Elisha’s prophecy proved to be true in all the details (7:16‑20).

This miracle is more typical of the prophetic actions than most of the others in the Elisha section. God had apparently brought judgment on Samaria in the form of the siege. The King was religiously wearing sackcloth but was unrepentant in heart. The desperate circumstances of the siege finally drove him to challenge Elisha and Yahweh. God vindicated himself and his prophet by bringing great deliverance apart from human ability. The disdainful advisor was killed as Elisha had predicted (you will see it, but you will not eat it).

H. Elisha warned the Shunammite woman of a coming famine, and she fled. When she returned, the king was told of Elisha’s miracle with her (8:1‑6).

Since Gehazi is presented here with the king, it is probable that this event took place before chapter 5 (Gehazi was a leper after that). This story is told to show the ability of Elisha to prophesy and to indicate the influence he had even on the king.

I. Elisha anointed Hazael to be king over Syria (8:7‑15).

1. Elijah had received, as part of his recommissioning, the respon-sibility of appointing three people whom God would use in the battle against Baal: Elisha, Jehu and Hazael. God’s involvement through his prophets in Syria is almost the same as his work among the people of Israel. During this time there seems to have been a fair amount of contact between the prophets and Syria. The time has now come to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria (1 Kings 19:15‑18). That assignment was carried out by his disciple.

2. Elisha told Hazael, Ben-Hadad’s messenger, that the king would recover from his sickness (this sickness was probably a battle wound), but in an aside, he told Hazael the king would die. The man was perplexed until Elisha told him that he would be the next king. Presumably, Ben-Hadad began to get well the next day, but Hazael killed him and became king in his place. Shalmaneser III says of these two kings: “I defeated Hadadezer of Damascus together with twelve princes, his allies. I stretched upon the ground 20,900 of his strong warriors like su-bi, the remnants of his troops I pushed into the Orontes river and they dispersed to save their lives; Hadadezer (himself) perished [N. B. he does not say how he perished]. Hazael, a commoner (lit.: son of nobody), seized the throne, called up a numerous army and rose against me. I fought with him and defeated him, taking the chariots of his camp. He disappeared to save his life. I marched as far as Damascus, his royal residence [and cut down his] gardens.”¹⁸

J. Jehoram began to reign in Judah (8:16‑24).

Jehoram was allied by marriage with the house of Ahab (8:16‑24).

1. The bad blood of the Ahab/Jezebel family was transferred to Judah when their daughter, Athaliah, married Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram. She later became queen of Judah. The impact of this alliance on Jehoram was devastating. The south was as ripe for judgment as the north, but God postponed judgment because of the Davidic covenant (8:16‑19).

2. The only act of Jehoram recorded in Kings is his attack on Edom. Edom revolted, and though Jehoram won a battle against them, he was unable to restore them to vassal status. Libnah is otherwise unknown but was probably a border Judean town. This rebellion shows the general state of chaos beginning to develop in Judah and is given here to show the beginning of God’s judgment on Judah for her sins (8:20‑24).

K. Ahaziah began to reign in Judah (8:25‑29).

There are so many similar names in this section, we will need a chart to keep them sorted out.

1. NASB’s “granddaughter” in v. 26 is a correct translation, but it is really “daughter” in Hebrew. “Son” and “daughter” can be used of any descendant or even of a successor (as in Daniel). The translation “son-in-law” of the house of Ahab is not a good translation. This Hebrew word ḥ^athan חֲתַן) means to be related by marriage. In this context, it is referring to the fact that the Davidide dynasty has become intermarried with the Omride dynasty (8:25‑26).

2. Ahaziah acted like the house of Ahab (as was to be expected under the circumstances) and, like his father, became entangled with an alliance with Israel to fight the Arameans at Ramoth-gilead. Jehoram of Israel was wounded in the battle. When he was recuperating in Jezreel, Ahaziah, his nephew, came to visit him (8:27‑29).

L. Elisha and Jehu began to exterminate Baal worship in Israel (9:1‑36).

1. Elisha sent a prophet to anoint Jehu, an officer in Jehoram’s army (9:1‑13).

Jehu was an older, experienced officer, having fought with Ahab. Elisha sent one of the prophets to anoint Jehu over Israel to avenge the blood of Naboth and the prophets of Yahweh whom Jezebel had slain. He interrupted the meeting, anointed Jehu, and fled. Jehu’s fellow officers then proclaimed him king, and he began his extermi-nation of the dynasty of Ahab.

2. Jehu killed Jehoram and Ahaziah (9:14‑29).

Jehu rode furiously to Jezreel, the royal house, where he killed both Jehoram and his nephew Ahaziah. There is an apparent discrepancy in the accounts of Kings and Chronicles on the place and manner of Ahaziah’s death. Chronicles is a very abbreviated account because it is not concerned with the northern dynasty. Keil shows how some of it can be harmonized but says that the details are too sparse to allow for complete understanding. We will have to leave it at that.

3. Jehu killed Jezebel (9:30‑37).

This is the account of the clash of two proud, callous people. Jezebel showed her character by painting herself to look nice in death and defying Jehu to kill her. She called him Zimri, because Zimri killed Elah and in turn only lived seven days. Jehu showed his character by sitting down to a full meal after the grisly death of Jezebel. In fulfillment of Elijah’s prophecy, the dogs ate much of her body and carried most of it off.

4. Jehu had seventy sons of Ahab killed (10:1‑11).

Jehu’s bold ruthlessness intimidated the elders of Samaria into killing seventy of Ahab’s sons and sending their heads to Jehu who told the people that he had nothing to do with their deaths.

5. Jehu killed forty-two relatives of Ahaziah (10:12‑14).

Jehu in a very bloody manner killed these relatives of Ahaziah who were coming up to visit him.

6. Jehu allied with Jonadab the Rechabite (10:15‑17).

Jonadab was a member of the semi-nomadic Rechabites who had little sympathy with the soft living of the royal house. He linked hands with Jehu to further the purge of Ahab’s house. (For Jeremiah’s use of the descendants of Jonadab three hundred years later as examples of obedience, see Jeremiah 35.)

7. Jehu killed Baal adherents in Baal’s temple (10:18‑28).

Through an ingenious subterfuge, Jehu trapped a large number of adherents in the temple of Baal and killed them. They destroyed the sacred pillars and the temple of Baal. This action of Jehu was a major blow at the official cult of Baal. Two kings, the original promoter of Baalism (Jezebel), and many adherents were dead. The temple was destroyed, and the new king was an ardent advocate of Yahweh. Therefore, the historian can say that Baal had been eradicated. Baalism continued to be a significant force in Israel, but officially it was struck a mighty blow.

The prophet Hosea was ministering during the reign of Jeroboam II, a great‑grandson of Jehu. The times are corrupt as is the house of Jeroboam. Hosea predicts judgment on that dynasty and says: “for yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:4). Something about Jehu’s acts did not please the Lord. Was it his attitude?

8. Jehu continued to pursue religious policies of the Jeroboam cult (10:29‑31).

Three major reform movements began and failed in Israel. Jehu’s reform was fairly superficial and short-lived, partly because Jehu’s spirituality was questionable. Hezekiah’s reform and Josiah’s were more significant in the south and also came from men who were far more committed to Yahweh. Yet they failed. Hezekiah still faced an Assyrian invasion and Josiah was killed at Megiddo, and his movement ceased. In all this the inevitability of judgment because of the sins of the people seems to be in the foreground of the historian’s mind. These efforts at reform, as important and valuable as they were, were insufficient to turn around this rebellious and sinful people. (There were other reform movements of less significance such as Asa’s and Jehoshaphat’s).

9. God began to cut off Israel piece by piece (10:32‑36).

God’s judgment, culminating in the Assyrian deportation of 722 B.C., began here. This encroachment on Israel’s property by others is an indication of God’s displeasure with Israel.

V. The divided kingdom to the fall of Samaria (841‑722 B.C.)—2 Kings 11:1—17:41.

A. God protected the Davidic line through Joash (11:1‑21).

1. Athaliah took the throne and tried to kill all the royal seed (11:1‑3).

Ahaziah was killed by Jehu and Athaliah, his mother, took the throne. She murdered the royal seed, but her daughter (or stepdaughter), Jehosheba, rescued Joash and kept him alive (her husband was Jehoiada the priest). Joash was protected for six years in the temple while Athaliah ruled.

2. Jehoiada organized a coup d’état (11:4‑16).

Jehoiada carefully organized the troops, brought out the king and crowned him. Athaliah was murdered, and the Ahab/Jezebel family finally came to an end.

3. Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people to return to him (11:17‑21).

B. Joash (Jehoash) began to rule in Judah (12:1‑21).

1. Joash followed Yahweh under the tutelage of Jehoiada (12:1‑3).

2. Joash set about to repair the temple which had been damaged by Athaliah and her sons (2 Chron 24:7) (12:4‑5).

3. The Priests apparently used the money for their own maintenance and had none left over for the repair (12:6‑7).

4. The king took the project out of their hands and collected the money separately (12:8‑16).

5. Hazael, king of Syria, captured Gath and besieged Jerusalem. Joash bought him off (12:17‑18).

6. Joash’s later years were characterized by apostasy. He re‑instituted Baalism and even killed Jehoiada’s son Zechariah for speaking out against him (2 Chron 24:15‑24).

7. Joash was assassinated by his servants (12:19‑21).

C. Jehoahaz and Joash ruled in Samaria (13:1‑25).

1. Jehoahaz ruled seventeen years (13:1‑9).

He was an evil king, and God delivered him over to Hazael. At Jehoahaz’s entreaty, Yahweh gave Israel some relief from Hazael. Israel did not turn away from their sins, however, and Yahweh allowed them to be reduced to a virtually non‑existent army. Jehoahaz died.

2. Joash ruled sixteen years (13:10‑13).

Joash like his father was a wicked king. He fought against Amaziah, king of Judah. Joash died.

3. A vignette about Elisha is given at the conclusion of the Joash chronicle that took place before Joash had died. Elisha was about to die, and Joash came down to weep for him. Elisha showed him through shooting an arrow that he would have victory over Aram. Elisha showed him by having him hit the arrows on the floor that he would have three victories (but only three since he only hit three times) (13:14-19).

4. Elisha’s body was the cause of a dead man being revived. Joash had the three promised victories over Aram (13:20-25).

D. Amaziah ruled twenty-nine years in Judah (14:1‑22).

1. He was generally a good king (14:1‑4).

He is faulted, as are so many kings, for not removing the high places. Again, this reflects the later judgment on the high places when they were totally compromised with Baalism.

2. He killed those who had assassinated his father (14:5‑6).

Amaziah’s desire to keep the law of Moses was evidenced in the refusal to kill the children of the Assassins.

3. He had a great victory over Edom (14:7).

God gave him a great victory, but it caused him to become proud and led him to an ill-advised war with Israel. The Chronicler adds a unit on his apostasy (2 Chron 25:14-16).

4. He then picked a fight with Israel (14:8‑14).

Joash (king of Israel) warned him against the provocation, but he refused to pay attention. Israel won the battle. (A parable is given in which the thorn bush tries to form a marriage alliance with the cedar. This may indicate that a real attempt had been made by Amaziah to forge a marriage alliance with Joash. Amaziah was taken hostage and Azariah served as co-regent.)

5. A side note is given on Joash (14:15‑16).

Information on the reign of the northern king is given here because he was mentioned in this context.

6. Amaziah was assassinated in Lachish (14:17‑22).

The people became dissatisfied with King Amaziah for some reason, and he was forced to flee to Lachish, but they pursued him there and killed him. Then his son Azariah (Uzziah) became king at age sixteen. Azariah (Uzziah) rebuilt the port city of Elath.

E. Jeroboam II ruled forty-one years in Samaria (14:23‑29).

1. He was an evil king (14:23‑24).

Jeroboam was the last significant king in the Jehu dynasty (his son ruled six months). During his rule the northern kingdom regained some of its former glory. Hosea and Amos both prophesied during his reign and excoriated king and people for an opulent life style that resulted in further departure from Yahweh and oppression of the poor.

2. He restored the borders of Israel (14:25‑27).

a. The borders were pushed to Hamath in the north and to the Dead Sea in the south as prophesied by Jonah (14:25‑26).

Cohen says, “Assyria lay nearly prostrate before its northern foe; it was impoverished and dispirited. Well might a prophet be believed who would proclaim: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!’”¹⁹

b. The historian gives God’s reasons for preserving Israel in spite of their wickedness (14:27).

3. He restored territory that had once belonged to Judah under David. It was as far north as Hamath (but not including it) and Damascus (included); hence he had conquered the kingdom of Damascus (14:28).

4. He died and Zechariah, his son ruled in his place (14:29).

F. Azariah (Uzziah) ruled fifty-two years in Judah (15:1‑7).

1. Azariah was essentially a good king (15:1‑4).

It is good when a king rules well and long. He is charged in the matter of the high places, but otherwise he followed the Lord.

2. He was punished for entering the priestly office (15:5).

The office of the priest was historically carefully separated from that of the king. David was involved to some extent in a priestly function (e.g., when he brought up the ark), but that was the exception. The intrusion into the priests’ office was dealt with by God to show that it was improper (cf. 2 Chron 26:19).²⁰

3. He was a very successful king (2 Chronicles 26).

2 Chron 26:6 speaks of the expansion of the kingdom under him.

4. He died and Jotham took his place (15:6‑7).

G. Five kings ruled in Samaria, reflecting a time of insecurity (15:8‑31).

1. Zechariah son of Jeroboam ruled six months (15:8‑12).

He was a wicked king who only lasted a short time. He was assassinated by his successor, bringing an end to the dynasty of Jehu in the fourth generation as God had promised (15:12).

2. Shallum, Zechariah’s murderer, ruled one month (15:13-16).

The anarchy continued when Menahem murdered Shallum after the latter had ruled for only one month. (This was not a good time to be king!) Menahem took over.

3. Menahem, Shallum’s murderer, ruled ten years (15:17‑22).

He was an evil king. He bribed Pul (Tiglath-Pileser) to confirm and support his reign. Assyria now began to meddle in the west more and more. Tiglath-Pileser says: “[As for Menahem I ov]erwhelmed him [like a snowstorm] and he . . . fled like a bird, alone, [and bowed to my feet(?)]. I returned him to his place [and imposed tribute upon him, to wit:] gold, silver, linen garments with multicolored trimmings . . . great . . . [I re]ceived from him. Israel (lit.: “Omri‑Land” Bit Humria) . . . all its inhabitants (and) their possession I led to Assyria.”²¹ Menahem died.

4. Pekahiah, Menahem’s son, ruled two years (15:23‑26).

He was an evil king, and he was assassinated by his successor, Pekah.

5. Pekah, Pekahiah’s murderer, ruled twenty years (15:27‑31).

The long stable rule of Uzziah in the south is in stark contrast to the chaos of the time during which five different kings ruled in the north. Pekah assassinated Pekahiah. He was an evil king. Assyria captured cities from him and carried away captives. He was assassinated. Tiglath-Pileser says: “They overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000(?) talents of silver as their [tri]bute and brought them to Assyria”²²

H. Jotham, Uzziah’s son, ruled sixteen years in Judah (15:32‑38).

1. He was a good king (15:32‑35).

A series of good kings ruled in the south. Jotham is pronounced a good man except for the perennial matter of the high places.

2. Pekah and Rezin of Syria came against him (15:36‑37).

This diabolical combination will still be in existence in the days of Ahaz when they make a devastating attack on Jerusalem and bring forth the great prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 7.

3. Jotham died and was succeeded by his son Ahaz (15:38).

I. Ahaz, Jotham’s son, ruled sixteen years in Judah (16:1‑20).

1. Ahaz was a wicked king (16:1‑4).

He even passed his son through the fire (the consummate sin) and practiced the Canaanite religion (16:4).²³

2. Israel and the Arameans conspired against him (16:5‑6).

They attacked Jerusalem. For the prophetic view on this entire incident, see Isaiah 7. There Isaiah met Ahaz and challenged him to trust in Yahweh rather than in human help. He offered Ahaz any sign in heaven or earth to confirm his faith, but he refused. Out of that incident grew the great virgin prophecy.

The Arameans’ strength is indicated when they take the port city of Elath from Ahaz, deport the Jews and resettle it with their own people. When we remember that Elath is at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba, this is a remarkable statement of Judean weakness.

3. Ahaz sent to Tiglath-Pileser (16:7‑9).

In spite of Isaiah’s exhortation, Ahaz bribed Tiglath-Pileser with money from the temple to put pressure on Syria and Israel. Tiglath-Pileser attacked Syria, and they withdrew from Judah (Assyria would have come west to suppress the rebellion of Pekah and Rezin without Ahaz’s encouragement.)

4. Ahaz copied a pagan altar (16:10‑16).

Ahaz’ syncretism is evidenced in that he was enamored of an altar he saw when he went up to visit Tiglath-Pileser. Consequently, he had plans drawn of the altar, copied it and set it up in the temple precincts. His vassalage to Assyria probably involved some religious sub-servience as well.

5. Ahaz removed much of the temple furniture “because of the king of Assyria” (perhaps to keep him from getting them) (16:17‑18).

6. Ahaz died leaving only the marks of his apostasy (16:19‑20).

J. The judgment of God came upon the kingdom of Israel (17:1‑41).

1. Hoshea ruled nine years, but Assyria defeated him and deported Israel because he conspired against Assyria (17:1‑6).

Sargon II says: “At the begi[nning of my royal rule, I . . . the town of the Sama]rians [I besieged, conquered] (2 lines destroyed) [for the god . . . who le]t me achieve (this) my triumph. . . . I led away as prisoners [27,290 inhabitants of it (and) [equipped] from among [them (soldiers to man)] 50 chariots for my royal corps . . . [The town I] re[built] better than (it was) before and [settled] therein people from countries which [I] myself [had con]quered. I placed an officer of mine as governor over them and imposed upon them tribute as (is customary) for Assyrian citizens”²⁴

2. The historian explains why all this happened (17:7‑23).

This extended sermon is given by the historian, writing from the perspective of early in the Judean exile, to explain the deep apostasy into which Israel had fallen. He begins with their deliverance from Egypt and shows that throughout their history they had followed pagan religious practices until they reached the point of no return. Judgment, long promised by the prophets, came.

The historian explains that Judah sinned also following the practices of the north, but their time had not yet come.

3. The mixed population asked for an Israelite priest since they were not doing well in the land (17:24‑33).

A priest was brought back who taught them about Yahweh. In light of the northern history, one has to wonder what this priest taught them. In spite of this teaching about Yahweh, each ethnic group carried on its own religious practice, and chaos ensued. This is the beginning of the “Samaritan” sect.²⁵

4. The historian gives a final word explaining historically the problem of rejecting Yahweh (17:34‑41).

At the time this book was composed, these polytheistic practices were still going on. Ezra and Nehemiah should be read to gain insight into the practices of these syncretistic Jews in the north and those left in the south after the debacle of 586 B.C. The final word of the historian is telling: “So while these nations feared the Lord, they also served their idols; their children likewise and their grandchildren, as their fathers did, so they do to this day” (17:41)

VI. Judah to the captivity (716‑586 B.C.) (2 Kings 18:1—25:30).

A. Hezekiah’s good reign over Judah (2 Kings 18—20).

1. Hezekiah was 25 years old when he became king and he reigned 29 years (18:1‑2).

2. Hezekiah was a good king in spite of the spiritual apostasy of his father (18:3‑8).

He was pleasing to Yahweh. He destroyed much of the idolatry including the bronze serpent Moses had made (n^eḥash hann^eḥosheth נְחַשׁ הַנְּחשֶׁת). The historian says that there was no king prior to Hezekiah who trusted Yahweh as he did (hence, he trusted him more than David) nor was there any like him afterward. 2 Kings 25:24‑25 says almost the same thing about Josiah. The difference between the two men was apparently a matter of emphasis: Hezekiah trusted Yahweh while Josiah was carrying out the directions of the newly discovered law book. Both were outstanding, godly kings. (This statement may be simply a strong way of saying they were very good kings.) Because of his trust in Yahweh, Hezekiah received the blessing of Yahweh. He successfully rebelled against the Assyrian overlord and defeated the Philistines.

3. Hezekiah was the king when Israel was deported (18:9‑12).

Shalmaneser is credited with the deportation, but Sargon claims credit in his annals. 722 is the year for the death of Shalmaneser and the beginning of Sargon’s rule. Therefore, they were probably both involved in the act. This section of the synchronization between the northern and southern kingdoms and external dates is fraught with great difficulty.²⁶

The reason for the deportation is stated here succinctly (a longer sermon is given in chap. 17) (18:12).

4. Hezekiah had his troubles with Assyria after he rebelled against them (18:13‑17).

Sennacherib says: “In the continuation of my [third] campaign I besieged Beth‑Dagon, Joppa, Banai‑Barqa, Azuru, cities belonging to Sidqia who did not bow to my feet quickly (enough); I conquered (them) and carried their spoils away. The officials, the patricians and the (common) people of Ekron—who had thrown Padi, their king, into fetters (because he was) loyal to (his) solemn oath (sworn) by the god Ashur, and had handed him over to Hezekiah, the Jew . . . (and) he (Hezekiah) held him in prison, unlawfully, as if he (Padi) be an enemy—had become afraid and had called (for help) upon the kings of Egypt. . . As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well stamped (earth‑)ramps, and battering‑rams brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers, (using) mines, breeches as well as sapper work. I drove out (of them) 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered (them) booty. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were leaving his city’s gate. His towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and I still increased the tribute and the katru‑presents (due) to me (as his) overlord which I imposed (later) upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, whom the terror-inspiring splendor of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, . . . In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his (personal) messenger.”²⁷

a. Sennacherib came west to suppress the rebellion begun by Hezekiah (18:13).²⁸

b. Hezekiah capitulated and paid the required tribute (18:14‑16).

5. A suggested sequence for this difficult chronology is as follows: ²⁹

a. Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria (18:7).

b. In the fourteenth year, Sennacherib came west, and Hezekiah promised to submit (18:13‑16).

c. Sennacherib sent messengers to challenge Hezekiah (18:17‑37).

d. Isaiah promised deliverance through a rumor (19:7).

e. Rabshakeh pulled back after hearing of Tirhakah (19:9).

f. He sent more letters to Hezekiah (19:10).

g. Hezekiah prayed and Isaiah promised deliverance (19:14‑34).

h. Sennacherib’s army was struck and 185,000 were killed (19:35).

i. Sennacherib was assassinated by his sons (19:37).

6. Sennacherib decided to punish Hezekiah (18:17‑37).

a. His representatives came to Jerusalem and stood at the very spot Isaiah had met Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz (Isa 7:1-3), and admo-nished him to trust Yahweh rather than go to Assyria for help (18:17).

b. Rabshakeh challenged Hezekiah’s officials as to their ability to withstand the great force of Assyria. He asked them whom they could rely on: Egypt? Yahweh? (saying that Hezekiah had offended him by removing his high places). He asked them whether they could mount horses with soldiers if he gave them the horses (a real insult). Finally, he told them that Yahweh himself had sent Sennacherib to destroy the land (18:18‑25).

c. The Rabshakeh then addressed the people directly. The officials tried to get the Rabshakeh to speak in Aramaic, the trade language of that era, rather than in Hebrew. The Rabshakeh refused and redoubled his efforts to convince the people to surrender and let him deport them to another land. In the process he blasphemed Yahweh by considering him to be as any other god. The people did not respond (18:26‑36).

d. The officials brought this report to Hezekiah with clothes torn as a sign of mourning (18:37).

7. Yahweh responded to Hezekiah’s trust and delivered Judah from Sennacherib (19:1‑37).

a. Hezekiah sent to Isaiah the prophet for spiritual help (19:1‑5).

The godly character of Hezekiah is shown in this time of crisis. He recognized that all his political acumen would not deliver him from this dilemma. Consequently, he went to the prophet Isaiah to ask him for prayer. The contrast between Hezekiah and Ahaz is sharp.

b. Isaiah responded that God would answer his prayer and deliver Judah (19:6‑7).

c. The Rabshakeh lifted the siege because of confusion about the location of Sennacherib (19:8‑9).

d. He sent a threatening letter to Hezekiah (19:10‑13).

e. Hezekiah took the letter to the Lord and prayed for deliverance (19:14‑19).

f. Isaiah brought a message from the Lord stating his sovereignty and promising to judge the Assyrian (19:20‑28).

g. Yahweh even gave a sign to Hezekiah (19:29‑34). (Note the Davidic covenant again in 19:34).

h. Yahweh sent a plague killing 185,000, and Sennacherib returned home and was assassinated by his sons (19:35‑37). (Compare Isaiah 36‑39, a parallel account used by the author of Kings. See f.n. on p. 308).

8. Hezekiah became sick, and his life was prolonged by Yahweh (20:1‑21).

a. Hezekiah became sick and was told by Isaiah that he would die. Hezekiah prayed for healing, and Yahweh answered his prayer and gave him fifteen more years. He gave him a sign (backward movement of the sundial or of the shadow on the stairs—same miracle) (20:1‑11).

b. The newly emerging power, Babylon, sent ambassadors to inquire of Hezekiah’s health (ostensibly) and to promote western resistance to Assyria (20:12‑19).

The Arameans who had infiltrated the southern end of the Meso-potamian valley and insinuated themselves into the government of Babylon were trying to break away from a weakening Assyria. Berodach or Merodach sent messengers west to foment trouble (20:12).

Hezekiah followed the new policy of supporting anyone but Assyria that would prove fatal to the Judean kingdom (20:13).

Isaiah rebuked him for this indiscretion and promised judgment on Judah through Babylonia (20:14‑19).³⁰

c. Hezekiah died. Mention is made of the pool and the conduit he built (20:20‑21).

The inscription found on the wall of Hezekiah’s tunnel reads as follows: “[. . . when] (the tunnel) was driven through. And this was the way in which it was cut through:—While [. . . ] (were) still [. . . ] axe(s), each man toward his fellow, and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellow, for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the quarrymen hewed (the rock), each man toward his fellow, axe against axe; and the water flowed from the spring toward the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the head(s) of the quarrymen was 100 cubits.”³¹

B. Manasseh became king at the age of 12 and had a long, wicked rule of fifty-five years (21:1‑18).

1. Manasseh had a very negative impact on Judah (21:1‑9).

He restored the idolatry Hezekiah had destroyed. He built pagan altars in the temple. (Note the astral religion of the Assyrians.) He sacrificed his son in the fire and practiced sorcery and witchcraft. He put a carved image of Asherah in the temple. The historian reminds us of the sacredness of the temple and of Yahweh’s promised blessing for obedience.

2. Yahweh spoke a message of judgment against Manasseh through the prophets (21:10‑15).

He ascribed the reason for the judgment to Manasseh’s perfidy which he said was worse than all the Amorites before him. He promised an “ear tingling” judgment on Judah and Manasseh. Furthermore, Jerusalem and Manasseh would suffer the same kind of judgment brought against Samaria and Ahab.

3. The historian recorded further evil deeds of Manasseh (21:16‑18).

Manasseh was also a cruel murderer. Chronicles records that Man-asseh was carried to Babylon in fetters where he repented and was returned to Jerusalem. However, his repentance was too late, and the results of his evil too entrenched to allay the judgment (2 Chron 33:10‑13.) The later Jews, curious about the content of Manasseh’s prayer, wrote one—”The Prayer of Manasseh.”

C. Amon became king at age 22 and ruled only two years (21:19‑26).

1. Amon was also wicked, walking in all the ways of his father and forsaking the Lord (21:19‑22).

2. Amon was assassinated by his servants and the people of the land made Josiah king (21:23‑26).

D. Josiah became king at age eight and ruled thirty-one good years (22:1—23:30).

1. Josiah came to the throne as a minor, and under the tutelage of someone like Jehoiada, was a spiritual boy and later a spiritual man (22:1‑2).

2. Historical survey of the last days of Judah.

640‑608	Josiah reigned in Judah. He began reform in his 12th year (628‑7) and extended it further in his 18th year (623‑2) after weakness of Assyria became apparent when they were driven from Babylon by Nabopolassar (626‑5). Hogarth, CAH, III, 146, thinks the Scythians may have broken Assyrian power in the west. Egypt also felt free to begin to move. Jeremiah began his ministry in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer 1:2).
627	Jeremiah was called to the prophetic ministry at a young age.
624	At age sixteen, Josiah began to seek the Lord.
622	At age 18, he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of idolatry.
626‑623	Tablet #25127 (British Museum).³²
	Nabopolassar defeated the Assyrian army at the gates of Babylon and was crowned king of Babylon—November 23, 626. Nabo-polassar was not strong enough to attack Nineveh.
616‑608	Tablet #21901 (British Museum).
	A gap covering 622‑617 exists.
	Medes were the head of an anti-Assyrian group. Egypt had allied herself with Assyria.
614	The Medes defeated Asshur in 614. Nabopolassar joined them and defeated Nineveh in 612 B.C. The Book of the Law was found in the temple, bringing further reform. The waning power of the Assyrians allowed Josiah to take the reform movement into the northern area that was formerly Israel. These people were still Jewish, however mixed with foreigners. They were basically apostate, and Josiah tried to influence them spiritually.
612	A remnant of the Assyrian army fled to Haran under Assuruballit II who tried to reconstitute the kingdom. They were forced out of Haran by Babylon in spite of extensive Egyptian help in 610. The Egyptians joined Assyria in an effort to retake the garrison in 609 but failed. Josiah tried to interdict the Egyptian army at Megiddo and was killed. (2 Kings 23:28-30; 2 Chron 35:20-27. Chronicles referred to the battle area as Carchemish.) The Egyptians at this point take over control of Syria after the defeat of the Assyrians. Pharaoh-Necho on his way back, deposed Jehoahaz who had ruled only three months after the death of Josiah, his father, and puts Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah, on the throne.
607‑696	Tablet #22047.
	Babylonian armies under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar battle against mountain people and try to control Egyptians in Syria. The latter were entrenched at Carchemish. Nabopolassar returned to Babylon in 606‑5 where he died.
605‑594	Tablet #21946.
	Nebuchadnezzar in sole command of the army, marched against the Egyptians at Carchemish and defeated them. Jer 46:2 places this in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. (cf. also Jer 25:1, who relates the fourth year of Jehoiakim to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.)
605	Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and Jehoiakim became his vassal. (2 Kings 24:1) (Dan 1:1 says that in Jehoiakim’s third year Nebuchadnezzar carried off captives. Daniel must be using the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar which was not counted as his first year.) Cf. also 2 Chron 36:6 where Jehoiakim is bound but apparently not carried off, or perhaps he was taken to Babylon in a victory parade and then returned to Jerusalem.
601‑600	In December Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt. Judah was probably still a vassal of Babylon. (He would not likely have left his rear exposed to a hostile army.) The battle was fierce and Babylon suffered heavy losses. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to regroup his army. (ANET sup. p. 564). It was probably at this time that Jehoiakim rebelled (2 Kings 24:2).
600‑599	While Nebuchadnezzar was refurbishing his troops, Judah en-joyed a measure of independence, but Nebuchadnezzar probably was involved in encouraging other of his vassals against Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:2).
598	In December Nebuchadnezzar came west again to put an end to the rebellion. Jehoiachin, son of the now dead Jehoiakim, was on the throne. On March 16, 597, Jerusalem was defeated, Jehoia-chin and others were deported to Babylon, and Zedekiah, another son of Josiah, was put on the throne.
595‑4	A local rebellion in Babylon led Zedekiah’s advisors to believe they could throw off Babylon’s yoke. This was in direct oppose-tion to the word of the Lord (cf. Jer 28:1ff).
586	In spite of Jeremiah’s constant urging to submit to the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar as God’s servant, Zedekiah entered into alli-ances to revolt against Babylonia. Nebuchadnezzar came west and besieged the city of Jerusalem in 588. After one and a half years, the walls were breached. Zedekiah tried to escape but was captured and sent to Babylon. The city was destroyed, the temple was razed, and many people were taken into captivity. The final destruction of the city and temple are absent from the Babylonian Chronicle due to a gap. The data for that final destruction and deportation are found in 2 Kings 25 and 2 Chronicles 36.
	Gedaliah, a member of the royal family, was appointed governor by the Babylonians. Just three months after the fall of the city, he was assassinated, and the remnant fled to Egypt. Jeremiah and Baruch were also taken to Egypt, where Jeremiah continued to prophesy to an unrepentant people.
582	Jer 52:30 speaks of a deportation of 745 people in this year. Was this a punitive raid to deal with the assassination of Gedaliah?
560	Thirty-seven years after the first attack on Jerusalem, Jehoiachin was elevated by Evil-Merodach (Ewal-Marduk) 2 Kings 25:27‑30. He seemed to be regarded as the official king even in exile (cf. Ezek 1:2).³³

3. Josiah began to repair the temple as had Joash (22:3‑7).

4. The priest, Hilkiah, found the book of the law (22‑8‑13).

a. This may be the book of Deuteronomy, or it could be the entire Pentateuch. Probably it is the former since it was read in what appears to be a rather short time. Additionally, it is the Palestinian covenant to which Yahweh seems to refer (22:8‑9).

b. Shaphan reported to Josiah that the repairs had been made and that they had found the law book (22:10).

c. Josiah was dismayed when he read the book because its contents had not been obeyed by the fathers (22:11‑13).³⁴

5. Yahweh, through Huldah, the prophetess, told Josiah that He was going to bring the judgments mentioned in the book of the law upon Judah, but that Josiah would be spared because he had humbled himself (22:14‑20).

6. Josiah and the people entered a covenant to keep the contents of the book (23:1‑3).

7. Josiah then began to purge the temple (23:4‑14).

He removed the vessels dedicated to pagan deities and got rid of the idolatrous priests. He destroyed the idols and the houses of the male prostitutes. He tried to bring the Levitical priests from the various high places to the religious center at Jerusalem, but not all came. He defiled Topheth in the valley of Hinnom to prevent any more dedication of children to the god Molech. He got rid of the horses and chariots dedicated to the sun. He got rid of altars on the roof of the palace and the altars in the two courts and tore down the high places Solomon had erected to various foreign gods.

8. Josiah then began to purge the northern kingdom (23:15‑20).

a. The ability to move into the area ruled by Assyria shows that Assyrian power had weakened considerably. Whether Josiah had political aims in the north as well can only be conjectured.

b. He tore down the altar at Bethel and so fulfilled the prediction of the prophet in 1 Kings 13. He acknowledged the tomb of the prophet who had predicted that Josiah would destroy the altar. He destroyed temples in Samaria and killed the priests who were serving them.

9. Josiah then celebrated the Passover (23:21‑23).

10. Josiah extended the reform (23:24‑25).

He got rid of the mediums and spiritists to conform to the word of God in the law. He received the highest encomium possible in that day.³⁵

11. All Josiah’s good work did not atone for the sins of Judah. Yahweh had determined judgment, and it would be carried out in time (23:26‑27).

12. Josiah was killed trying to support the ill-advised policies instituted by his great-grandfather, Hezekiah, viz., to support the Babylonians against Assyria. Pharaoh Necho was going to the support of a weakened Assyria, and Josiah was killed trying to intercept him (23:28‑30).

E. Josiah’s son Jehoahaz, an evil young man, was put on the throne by the people, but he was deposed by Pharaoh Necho after only three months (23:31‑33).

F. Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah, was put on the throne by Pharaoh Necho as a vassal to Egypt (23:34—24:7).

Jehoiakim was wicked also. Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem in 606/5 and Jehoiakim became a vassal to Babylonia. These judgments, says the historian, were God’s punishment for disobedience. Jehoiakim died after eleven years of rule (age 36). He was probably killed in a palace coup.³⁶

G. Jehoiachin, Josiah’s grandson, ruled only long enough to surrender the city to Nebuchadnezzar the second time (24:8‑17).

There had been a rebellion against Babylonia. The vessels of the temple were deported as well as the choice artisans of the city (Ezekiel was in this group). Jehoiachin was also deported.

H. Zedekiah, a third son of Josiah, became king at the age of twenty-one and ruled eleven years (24:18—25:21)

Scope of the deportation: “Casual readers of the Bible generally assume that virtually the entire population of Judah was carried off to Babylon at this time with only the most derelict remaining behind. This picture may not be accurate. H.M. Barstad, for instance, while agreeing that Nebuchadnezzar did serious damage in the capital and crippled the national leadership, interprets the archaeological and textual evidence as indicating that the basic structure of society stayed substantially intact.”³⁷ For an opposing view, see Yigal Levin, “Ancient Israel Through a Social Scientific Lens,” BAR 40, no. 5 (2014): 43–47, 66. He quotes Faust extensively who argues that the land was empty.

1. Zedekiah was a wicked king who also rebelled against Babylonia (24:18‑20).

2. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city again (25:1‑7).

The city was under siege for over two years. The Babylonians broke into the city. The king and his family were taken to Riblah to be judged by Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah’s sons were slaughtered before his eyes, and he was blinded.

3. Officers returned to Jerusalem to destroy the temple and the houses and to deport more people and more temple treasure (25:8‑17).

4. Key Jewish rulers were executed (25:18‑21).

I. Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah as governor of the people to be left in the land (25:22‑26).

1. Gedaliah promised the people they would be all right if they would obey the king of Babylon (25:22‑24).

2. Gedaliah was assassinated, and the people fled to Egypt (25:25‑26).³⁸

J. Jehoiachin was elevated in captivity and given a daily allowance (25:27‑30).

We have now come to the end of an era. The kingdom is defeated, there is no king, and the temple as the visible symbol of God’s presence (and blessing) is destroyed. During the exile there must be a reevaluation of the spiritual perspective of the people. There must be an explanation of the events that happened. There must be a regrouping with a new approach to Scripture, synagogue and separation. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah will contribute much to that practice and theology.

¹See my God Rules among Men, for an integrated harmony with Chronicles.

²For an excellent discussion of the literary composition of Second Kings, see T. R. Hobbs, Second Kings, pp. xvii-xxx. He represents a school of thought that refuses to accept the fragmentation caused by form-criticism and seeks to explain divergences and tensions on a literary basis rather than on a form-critical basis. This is a welcome movement, although their work will not be accepted by many. See his commentary for literature on the subject.

³See the discussion at 3:4 for the inscription of the Moabite king who rebelled.

⁴This name means “Lord of the fly” which is a Jewish pun on “Exalted Lord.”

⁵See Hobbs, Second Kings, p. xix.

⁶On this three‑fold repetition see Hobbs: “In chap. 1 the judgment on Ahaziah is found three times, but within this story is another which tells of three attempts to arrest the prophet. In chap. 2, Elisha is reminded three times that his master will leave him and he is also instructed to leave his master. . . . In chap. 4 three attempts are made to raise the dead boy, and in chap. 9 three scouts are sent out to the approaching rebels headed by Jehu. Such threefold repetition is not accidental, but deliberate, and is a common feature of folk literature, offering a rhythm to such stories. Always, on the third ‘beat,’ the story comes to some kind of conclusion” Second Kings, p. xxix.

⁷Hobbs, Second Kings, p. xxix.

⁸For an excellent brief discussion on the issue of the sons of the prophets, see Hobbs (Second Kings, pp. 25‑27). He opts for a minimal interpretation of the phenomena of the prophetic movement, I believe too much so, but he is correct in showing that much flesh has been manufactured to cover the bare bones (and many missing at that) in these accounts.

⁹Note in another context Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 12:12: “The signs of an apostle were wrought by me.”

¹⁰Montgomery, Kings loc. cit.

¹¹See pictures of the excavations of Hazor in ANEP for examples.

¹²The anomaly of Edom joining Judah/Israel is explained by Haran (IEJ 18) by the fact that Edomite king is only a Judean viceroy who joins the battle automatically.

¹³See S. H. Horn, “Why the Moabite Stone was Blown to Pieces,” BAR, 12:3 (1986): 50‑61 for an excellent popular discussion of this important inscription. See also Hobbs, Second Kings, pp. 39‑40.

¹⁴ANET, p. 320.

¹⁵Cf. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:59.

¹⁶Hobbs, Second Kings, p. 36.

¹⁷Margolit, “Why King Mesha of Moab Sacrificed His Oldest Son,” BAR 12 (1986): 62-63.

¹⁸ANET, p. 280.

¹⁹S. Cohen, “The Political Background of the Words of Amos,” HUCA 36 (1965) 53-160. He goes on to say in f.n. 13, “Although the book is a piece of didactic fiction, it is based on a sound historical reminiscence, for the prophet Jonah ben Amittai (II Kings 14:25) could very well have lived about the time when Nineveh was threatened with capture and destruction.”

²⁰Assyria declined somewhat at the end of the ninth century, but the mighty Tiglath-Pileser III (744‑727) brought his country back to great heights. He campaigned in the west from 743‑738. There he encountered a certain Azariah of Judah in Syria, defeated him and destroyed much of his territory (ANET, p. 282). Some scholars have a problem accepting Azariah as the biblical one, but Bright (History of Israel, p. 252) is surely correct in saying that it would be exceptional to have two kings and two territories with the same name in the same period of time. (See also Tadmor “Azriyau of Yaudi” in Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 [1961] 232-271 for a thoroughgoing defense of the identity.) The devastation spoken of in Isaiah 1 is therefore probably the result of this attack from Assyria, and so, early on Judah came under the shadow of this eastern scourge. Kitchen, OROT, p. 18 says it is unlikely.

²¹ANET, p. 283.

²²ANET, p. 284. For a discussion of the idea that Pekah ruled in Gilead for twelve of his twenty year, overlapping Menahem and Pekahiah, see Thiele, MNHK, p. 63. He cites Hosea 5:5: “Therefore, shall Israel and Ephraim . . . Judah also.”

²³See L. E. Stager and S. R. Wolff, “Child Sacrifice at Carthage—Religious rite or Population Control?” BAR 10:1(1984): 31‑51 for an excellent discussion of the Canaanite practice of child sacrifice as carried on at Carthage.

²⁴ANET, p. 284.

²⁵See Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, p. 29. “The later prophets do not refer to the Samaritans, but to Israel, and assume that they are in the plan of God rather than a ‘mongrel’ race. He believes that the Judean account of the origins of the Samaritans is suspect, but this does not mean that the Samaritan account is reliable.”

“Each had polemic reasons to bend history to their own dogmas. Any claim for Samaritan borrowing from Judaism is nonsense, as anyone who has read all the available literary material must judge. What is true beyond doubt is that both Samaritanism and Judaism developed from a common matrix. Both possessed the Law, albeit they were at variance over points of difference in their respective texts of it, and both were evolving in an atmosphere wherein many ideas and ideals were being nurtured.” See also I. Koch, et al. “Forced resettlement and immigration at Tel Hadid,” BAR 46:3, pp. 28-33, for archae-ological evidence of this action by Assyria.

²⁶See Thiele Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, and Stigers, “The Inter-phased Chronology of Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah and Hoshea,” JETS 9 (1966) 81-90. (Note that the chart on p. 261 shows Hezekiah beginning his rule after the northern captivity took place. Hezekiah must have been co-regent with his father in 722). See also p. 308.

²⁷ANET, pp. 287, 288.

²⁸See ANEP for the siege of Lachish.

²⁹The chronology at the time of Hezekiah is very difficult. In the parallel account of Isaiah, Isaiah takes priority. I owe to Dr. Todd Beall the following argument: 1) Isaiah 36:2 ties in with Isaiah 7:3 (where God tells Isaiah to meet Ahaz). This is important in Isaiah, but not in Kings. 2) “the Holy One of Israel” is used 25 times in Isaiah, elsewhere in the Old Testament only six times. One time in 2 Kings 19:22 (=Isaiah 37:23). So, it would seem to follow that Kings is simply following the Isaiah account, using both the place name in 36:2 that makes sense in Isaiah and the Holy One of Israel name used almost exclusively in Isaiah. 3) The whole mess with the chronology of 2 Kings 18 is solved when one realizes that Kings changes sources in 2 Kings 18:13. But the previous references to Hezekiah’s reign in 2 Kings 18 (vv. 1, 9, and 10) refer to the beginning of his coregency with Ahaz. Why the switch? Well, because in 2 Kings 18:13 the writer of 2 Kings switches to Isaiah’s narrative.

³⁰The structure of the book of Isaiah places chapters 38-39 covering this same situation just before the second section of the book dealing with the Babylonian exile so as to tie together the prophecy of Isaiah with its fulfillment in the exile.

³¹ANET, p. 321.

³²D. J. Wiseman, The Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.).

³³For more historical details of this important era, see my notes to the book of Jeremiah in Old Testament Prophets.

³⁴The present prevailing opinion in critical circles is that the history of Israel found in the Bible was written by a school or movement whose theology is reflected in the book of Deuteronomy. These people during and/or after the exile took existing materials and constructed them in such a way as to reflect their interpretation of God’s working in His people. The earlier critical view was that the book of Deuteronomy was concocted out of whole cloth to force upon the people the idea that Yahweh could only be worshipped in the temple at Jerusalem. More recent opinion believes that much of Deuteronomy is old, but that it was put together in the seventh century to bring about religious reform. For a good discussion of this issue, see D. J. Wiseman, “Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testament,” pp. 1‑24. See also my comments on p. 176.

³⁵See the comment relative to Hezekiah, loc. cit.

³⁶See Jeremiah 36 for an intimate look at Jeremiah’s relation to this impious king.

³⁷H. M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the ‘Exilic’ Period, p. 281. I cannot find the author of the original quote.

³⁸See Jeremiah for many more details as well as the prophetic point of view.

8. 1 and 2 Chronicles

Related Media

First And Second Chronicles ¹

I. Historical background.

A ray of hope appeared in 560 B.C. with the elevation of Jehoiachin, former king of Israel, by Ewal Marduk, King of Babylon. A brighter ray came in 539 B.C. with the invasion of Babylon by Cyrus who then issued his famous decree allowing captive peoples and religions to return home: “. . . I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought into Babylon to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their (former) chapels, the places which make them happy.”² Isa 45:1 speaks of Cyrus as the anointed of the Lord. Cyrus had already conquered most of the territory controlled by the Medes and was now conquering that controlled by Babylon.

The band of Jews that returned to the homeland faced a long up‑hill battle. Myers says, “Almost everything detrimental to the purity and vigor of religious devotion is to be found there [in the book of Malachi].”³ The economic situation was most difficult, and many of the returning Jews married into the surrounding peoples. The temple was begun in 536 B.C. but not finished for another twenty years. The golah (exile) was under constant threat from the Samaritans and the Edomites who had moved into the Negev after the defeat of Jerusalem and under pressure from the Arabs. Myers says again, “Strict cult orthodoxy, exclusivism and the support of a more broadly based cult personnel were of the utmost importance if the community was to succeed in its efforts.”⁴

The Chronicler, writing at least a century after that initial return, is presenting to the Jewish community an outline of the plan of God in history that centers first on David and then the returning community of Jews as the faithful remnant in God’s eternal program. Even the genealogies, beginning with Adam and ending in the golah, are written from the perspective of God’s grace in delivering a people through their apostasy, judgment and restoration.

The Chronicler deals with the faithful remnant and either ignores or speaks judgmentally of northern Israel. As a result, he omits virtually all the history of the northern kingdom, even the great prophetic sections of Elijah and Elisha, because that part of Israel apostatized and were forever judged for their sin.

The Chronicler is aware of the necessity of purity of worship. All the sources from which he is working show both Israel and Judah steeped in idolatrous practice that pulled them away from Yahweh. Consequently, much of the emphasis of this history is on the establishment of proper worship in the temple. Large passages in the Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah narratives deal with the keeping of the Passover, the liturgical order of worship, the officers and servants of the temple, and the music and the musicians.

The person of David increasingly becomes a type of the ideal king—the Messiah. Much stress is put on the Davidic genealogy. A large section is devoted to David’s preparation for the temple which Solomon built. The Chronicler continues this emphasis by stressing that Solomon built the temple and developed the services connected with it. It may be that the stress on David as the messianic ideal leads the chronicler to omit portions of David’s life that reflect negatively on him. This was not to suppress the information, (it was already in the public domain through Kings), but simply to use David as a picture of the king God is going to raise up who will fulfill the Davidic ideal.

II. The major sections that differ with Kings, illustrating the Chronicler’s methodology.

A. Genealogies (1 Chronicles 1‑9).

These lists are incomplete and fragmentary. See Keil for a discussion of their emphasis and composition. He says, on the importance of these genealogies:

“The Chronicler’s supposed predilection for genealogical lists arose also from the circumstances of his time. From Ezra ii. 60 ff. we learn that some of the sons of priests who returned with Zerubbabel sought their family registers, but could not find them, and were consequently removed from the priesthood; besides this, the inheritance of the land was bound up with the families of Israel. On this account the family registers had, for those who had returned from the exile, an increased importance, as the means of again obtaining possession of the heritage of their fathers; and perhaps it was the value thus given to the genealogical lists which induced the author of the Chronicle to include in his book all the old registers of this sort which had been received from antiquity.”⁵

1. Early history from the creation of man to Israel for whom the nation is named (1:1‑54).

a. The line of Adam (1:1‑4).

b. The line of Japheth (1:5‑7).

c. The line of Ham (1:8‑12).

d. The line of Canaan (1:13‑16).

e. The line of Shem (1:17‑27).

f. The line of Abraham (1:28‑34).

g. The line of Esau (1:35‑42).

h. A list of the Edomite kings (1:43‑54).

2. Genealogies from the twelve clans of Israel with the focus on Judah down to David (2:1‑55).

a. A summary of the sons of Israel (2:1‑2).

b. The genealogy from Judah to David (2:3‑17).

c. Alternate lines of Hezron (2:18‑24).

d. The line of Jerahmeel (2:25‑41).

e. The line of Caleb (2:42‑55).

3. The kingly line from David (3:1‑24).

a. David’s immediate family (3:1‑9).

David’s line born in Hebron (3:1‑4).

David’s line born in Jerusalem (3:5‑9).

b. The kingly line to Zedekiah (3:10‑16).

(Athaliah not mentioned.)

c. David’s line in the exilic and post-exilic periods (3:17‑24).

4. Genealogies of the twelve tribes (4:1—8:40).

a. The line of Judah (4:1‑23). (Fourth born.)

b. The line of Simeon (4:24‑43). (Second born.)

c. The line of Reuben (5:1‑10). (First born.)

d. The line of Gad (5:11‑22). (Seventh born.)

e. The line of the half tribe of Manasseh in the east side of the Jordan (5:23‑26). (Son of eleventh born Joseph.)

f. The line of Levi (6:1‑81). (Third born.)

The amount of space devoted to the descendants of Levi, and only three families at that, indicates the emphasis the Chronicler is placing on the Levitical work in the temple.

g. The line of Issachar (7:1‑5). (Ninth born.)

h. The line of Benjamin (7:6‑12). (Twelfth born.)

i. The line of Naphtali and the rest of Manasseh (7:13‑19). (Sixth born.)

j. The line of Ephraim (7:20‑29). (Son of the eleventh born Joseph.)

k. The line of Asher (7:30‑40). (Eighth born.)

l. The line of Benjamin (8:1‑40). (Twelfth born.)

This second (and different) list of Benjamin is placed here because of the importance of the tribe and its first king. The direct ancestry of Saul is given a second time in 9:35‑44. Dan and Zebulon are not even mentioned.

5. The record of the remnant back in the land (9:1‑44).

a. Introduction—the southern kingdom was taken into exile (9:1).

b. A listing of the important people inhabiting Jerusalem in the post-exilic period (9:2‑34). (They are identified with the jobs their predecessors had before the exile.)

Introduction—the people are divided into four groups—Israel (the people), priests, Levites, and the temple servants (9:2).

A list of the important people in the city (9:3‑9).

A list of the important priests in the city (9:10-13).

A list of the important Levites in the city (9:14-16).

The gatekeepers (9:17‑27).

A list of the temple servants in the city (9:28-34.)

The singers (9:33‑34).

c. Saul’s family (9:35‑44).

This list is similar to that in 8:29‑40.

B. The Chronicler’s perspective on Saul (10:1‑14).

1. All of First Samuel is compressed into one chapter.

2. Saul’s death is recorded (10:1‑10).

3. The deed of the Jabesh-gileadites is recorded (10:11‑12).

4. Saul’s rejection and the reason for it are recorded (10:13‑14).

a. He did not carry out the Herem war against Amalek (10:13a).

b. He consulted the witch of En Dor (10:13b‑14).

It was necessary to mention Saul to get him out of the picture and to bring in David, the messianic ideal.

C. The Chronicler’s perspective on David (11:1—29:30).

1. All David’s early years, his seven-year rule at Hebron, and the Ish-bosheth rule in the north are ignored by the Chronicler because he is interested in the established David.

2. David is made king in Hebron by all Israel (11:1‑3).

3. David captures Jebus (11:4‑9).

4. The special soldiers are listed as in Kings (11:10‑47).

5. A list is given of men who joined David at Ziklag before he became king (12:1‑22). (Benjamin, Gad, More Benjamin, Judah, and Manas-seh.)

6. A numbers list of men who joined David at Hebron is given (12:23‑40).

7. David brings up the ark (correctly) and appoints Levites to places of ministry (15:1—16:6).

8. Asaph, et al., write the first Psalm for the new dwelling of the ark (16:7‑36).

9. A list of servants to the ark/tent is given (16:37‑43).

10. Significantly omitted are the accounts of Amnon, Bathsheba, and Absalom.

11. The plague on Israel because of David’s sin in numbering the people is recorded because the site of the temple is determined by the termination of the plague and subsequent sacrifice (21:1—22:1).

12. A long section detailing David’s preparation for the temple (which he was prohibited to build) is given including the recognition of Solomon not only as the temple builder, but also as the next king (22:6‑13; 23:1; 28:5‑10; 29:1), but 29:22b‑25 reflect a later period when Solomon was anointed by Nathan at Gihon (22:1—29:30). (The rebellion of Absalom no doubt took place after the events of Solomon’s recognition as the next king and so overshadowed him that he was bypassed in the attempt of Adonijah to become king. It is also possible that David lived longer than anticipated in 1 Kings 1-2 and established Solomon.)

D. The Chronicler’s perspective on Solomon (2 Chronicles 1‑9).

1. The transitional struggle is omitted by the Chronicler because, as with David, he wants to deal with an “established” Solomon.

2. The construction of the temple is recorded, but there is more in the Kings account than in Chronicles, because this activity of Solomon’s was as important to the prophetic writer of Kings as to the Chronicler (2 Chronicles 1‑7).

a. Solomon is established (1:1‑17).

b. Singers and priests are established (5:11-14).

c. Fire comes down from heaven at the dedication (7:1‑3).

3. The appointment of Jeroboam by God and the promised division of the kingdom is passed over.

4. The Chronicler passes over the fact that Solomon’s pagan wives influenced him away from the Lord (1 Kings 4:29‑34).

E. The divided kingdom to the exile (2 Chron 10:1—36:23).

1. The northern kingdom is passed over as though it had never existed except to note that Jeroboam impiously began the calf cult and whenever the two kingdoms impinge on one another. The movement of the Levites from Israel to Judah is given in Chronicles but not in Kings (11:13‑17).

2. He gives the message of Shemaiah the prophet in the days of Rehoboam when Shishak invaded (11:5‑8).

3. The Chronicler records a scathing message about the rebellion of the northern tribes when Abijah, of Judah, fought Jeroboam (13:1‑20).

4. The Chronicler records more on Asa and his reform and his battle against the Ethiopians (Egypt) (14:2‑15). The message of Azariah the prophet to encourage Asa and Asa’s response is found in 15:1‑19.

5. The Chronicler records a warning against Asa by Hanani and Asa’s wicked response (16:7‑10).

6. The Chronicler devotes four chapters to Jehoshaphat because he was a good king (17:1—21:3).

a. He sent teachers throughout Judah (17:7‑9).

b. The Chronicler records the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab as in 1 Kings 22, but he adds a section of the stinging rebuke of Jehoshaphat by Jehu (19:1‑3).

c. Jehoshaphat extends reform (19:4‑11).

d. Jehoshaphat is delivered from Edom (20:1‑30).

e. Jehoshaphat’s navy sinks before it sails because it was an alliance with the northern kingdom as Eliezer prophesied (20:35‑37). (Cf. 1 Kings 22:47‑49.)

7. Only one chapter is devoted to Joram because he is wicked (21:4‑20).

a. He kills his brothers (21:4).

b. God preserves him because of his covenant with David (21:5‑7).

c. A posthumous letter from Elijah rebukes him for his sinfulness like the house of Ahab. Jehoram was married into the Ahab dynasty. Elijah probably wrote the letter to be sent at the appropriate time (21:8‑15).

8. The Chronicler records the destruction of the last of Ahab’s dynasty (22:1‑12).

a. Ahab’s influence, as Ahaziah’s grandfather, is extended to Judah (22:1‑5).

b. He was killed by Jehu at the Lord’s behest (22:6‑9).

(There is no way to reconcile this statement about the death of Ahaziah with Kings, because of its summary nature. See my notes at the Kings passage.)

9. The Chronicler records the earlier good days of Joash as well as his departure from the faith (22:10—24:27).

a. Jehoiada the priest establishes more offices for the Levites (23:16‑21).

b. The sins of Joash and his stoning of Zechariah are recorded (24:15‑22).

c. The Syrian defeat of Gath and the putting of Judah under tribute are recorded (24:23‑24).

10. The Chronicler records Amaziah’s expedition against Edom as well as other material in Kings (25:1‑28).

a. He hires Israelite mercenaries and is rebuked by a man of God (25:7‑10, 13).

b. b. He worships the gods of the Edomites (25:14‑16).

11. The Chronicler records some additional items about Uzziah’s successes and defeats (26:1‑23).

a. Zechariah the seer apparently influenced Uzziah for a time (26:5).

b. Uzziah had success in building and battles (26:6‑15).

c. The Chronicler gives more details about the way Uzziah contracted leprosy (26:16‑23).

12. The Chronicler records that Jotham was a good king. He also records his victory over the Ammonites (27:1‑9).

13. The Chronicler records more information on the Syro-Ephraimite war and other attacks against Ahaz (28:5‑19).

a. He records a great captivity of Judah (28:5‑8).

b. The captives were released through the intercession of a prophet named Oded (28:9‑15).

c. Judah suffers from other invasions (28:16‑19).

14. The Chronicler devotes four chapters to Hezekiah because he is basically a good king (29:3—32:31).

a. He records in a long section the cleansing of the temple (29:3‑36).

b. Hezekiah celebrates the Passover, even trying to take it north (30:1—31:1).

c. He establishes proper order in the temple services (31:2‑21).

d. He builds the wall and digs the Siloam tunnel in preparation for Sennacherib’s invasion (32:1‑8).

15. Some additional material is recorded about Manasseh (33:11‑20).

a. He is carried captive to Babylon where he repents and is returned to Jerusalem (33:11‑13).

b. He effects some reform and rebuilds walls, but he has already done great spiritual damage (33:14‑20).

16. Not much is said about wicked Amon (33:21‑25).

17. The Chronicler devotes two chapters to perhaps the best of all the southern kings, Josiah (34:1—35:27).

a. He begins to seek the Lord at age 16 (34:3‑7).

b. The Levites are mentioned in connection with the repair of the temple (34:11‑13).

c. The long listing of iconoclastic activity in 2 Kings 23:4‑14 is omitted.

d. The celebration of the Passover is recorded in great detail (35:1‑19).

e. The Chronicler records the Egyptian Pharaoh’s speech telling Josiah not to meddle since the Lord has sent the Pharaoh against the Babylonians (35:21‑25).

18. The Chronicler says that Zedekiah “stiffened his neck” and was carried into captivity (36:13‑16).

F. The closing note in the Chronicler’s account is that Cyrus the Persian in 536 B.C. allowed the Jews to return to their homeland in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (This is also the only place where the seventy years are tied into the Sabbath rest of the land. The land had not lain fallow for 490 years which would also help explain Daniel’s 490 years in the future) (36:22‑23).

¹For a running comparison of Chronicles and Kings, see Heater, God Rules Among men.

²ANET, p. 316.

³Myers, First Chronicles, p. XXXVII.

⁴Ibid., p. XXIX.

⁵Keil, I and II Chronicles, p. 22.

9. Ezra and Nehemiah

Related Media

I. Persian Period (550-330) and Background of Ezra/Nehemiah

“When Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C., the world was old. More significant, it knew its antiquity.”¹

“The story of the ancient Orient is drawing to its close. And yet, by a strange contrast, on the very eve of the final crisis it achieves its maximum extension, unification and power. Up to and beyond its boundaries, from India to Libya, a single empire is built up from diverse peoples, and the synthesis which had existed momentarily under the Assyrians now becomes a stable condition, reinforced by an enlightened policy of liberality and tolerance.”²

The chief actors in this new phase of history are Indo-Europeans, known to be present long since on the Iranian plateau, but who form strong political organisms only during the first millennium.

The prologue to the new chapter of history is provided by the empire of the Medes, who are of Iranian stock and closely related to the Persians. In the seventh century B.C., they established a powerful state and, under king Cyaxares, defeated Assyria and penetrated into Armenia and Anatolia, checked only at the river Halys by the resistance of the Lydians (along with Nabopolassar,³). The empire disappeared soon after its rise. In the middle of the following century, Cyrus’ Persians threw off its yoke, took over the power and set out along the open road of expansion (note maps for Median expansion alongside the Neo-Babylonian empire). The ancient name Hakhamanish or Achaemenes becomes the dynastic title and the Persian rulers are henceforth known as the Achaemenids.

A. Cyrus II (550-529)

The story of Astyages, king of the Medes who married his daughter to an unimportant Persian (Cambyses I a king but under Median thumb) is recounted by Herodotus.⁴ Of this marriage was born Cyrus who was destined to death by Astyages (because of a dream that his daughter gave birth to water which flooded the world) but was kept alive by a herdsman. Harpagus had been assigned the task of killing the child, and when Cyrus grew up, Astyages discovered him and cooked Harpagus’ son and fed him to him.

Cyrus became king of Anshan in 560 or 559 B.C.⁵ and made his move against the Medes in 550 B.C., and Harpagus deserted to his side. “Ecbatana was captured, and its wealth of gold, silver, and precious objects was carried off to Anshan.”⁶ Cyrus became the ruler of the Medes and the Persians and conquered an empire that stretched to India in the East and to the western edge of Anatolia. This vast empire, with its disparate peoples could only have come about through a policy of the Persians that differed immensely from their predecessors. Cyrus allowed a measure of local autonomy and allowed the return of various gods, the rebuilding of temples, and the recognition of local cultures. Isaiah (40-45) tells us that God raised him up as his anointed (Isa 45:1-2). The Jews benefited from the policy in that they were allowed to return to their land, rebuild their temple, and restore their worship system.⁷ The decree of Cyrus, found on the Cyrus Cylinder is on p. 348. in a foot-note.⁸

Three major military expeditions (in addition to the many minor ones) were necessary to bring this about (note the three ribs in the Bear in Daniel’s vision ch. 7). The Lydian campaign began in 547 B.C. when Croesus moved to take over the part of the empire left by the now defunct Medes. Cyrus moved west to interrupt this action and forced the old Assyrian/Median groupings to submit to him. He defeated Croesus in the winter of 547 even though he had called on his allies the Babylonians and the Egyptians to help him. Cyrus also began the process of forcing the Ionian Greeks to submit to him as well.⁹

The capture of Babylon took place some eight years later.9 ¹⁰ The reason for the delay is not clear. Since the Greek sources talk about his developing a number of canals north of Babylon (with which Herodotus says he diverted the Euphrates River to allow him to invade Babylon), some argue that he was developing irrigation projects while waiting for Babylon to fall into his hands.¹¹ Sippar fell on 10 October and Nabonidus fled to Babylon where he was captured when the Persian forces entered the city. Cyrus himself entered on 29 October, 539 B.C., and the Babylonian territories became Persian thereafter. These territories included the “Abar Nahara” satrap, encompassing Syria and Palestine and thus the Jews. Cyrus’ son Cambyses was appointed the king of Babylon. Cyrus was killed in a campaign of 530 B.C., and his son Cambyses became king in his place.

B. Cambyses II (529-522 B.C.).

Some identify him with Darius the Mede (Dan 5:31ff), since he ruled Babylon under his father, but that is not likely.¹² Cambyses as the King’s son “took the hands of Marduk” in 538 B.C. and was called king of Babylon.¹³ Cook believes that Cambyses irritated the priests at Babylon and that he was not king again until 530 when his father went to the battle in which he was killed.¹⁴ But Olmstead says he ruled as governor the entire time.¹⁵

Cambyses began the Egypt campaign in 526 B.C. (the third major thrust) and conquered all Egypt in 525 B.C. Darius was a spear bearer in Cambyses’ army, and Cook argues that he may have been moving in the highest circles at that time.¹⁶ Amasis the resourceful pharaoh died as Cambyses began his campaigns and the Greek mercenaries deserted to Cambyses. The new pharaoh was defeated in the delta and at Memphis. Cambyses became the king of upper and lower Egypt. He campaigned further south, but it is difficult to sort out malicious rumor and legend from the truth.

C. Gaumata (522-521 B.C.)

In Cambyses’ long absence, there was a usurpation back home. The details are conflicting and confused. Cambyses’ manner of death is disputed. He died in Syria in 522, some of the Greek sources say due to a wound suffered when he fell on his dagger. There is confusion in the empire during this time, and the details are hard to determine. Darius, whose vested interested in the story clouds his reliability, claims that a usurper had pretended to be Cambyses’ brother, Bardyia (the Greeks pronounced it Smerdis), had taken over the throne and was killed by Darius and/or the nobles. It may be that Bardyia had indeed taken over the throne in the extended absence of Cambyses and was killed by Darius who was an officer in the army.¹⁷

D. Darius I (Hystaspes, 521-486 B.C.).

Darius the Great was the great imperialist, noted for the Behistun inscription.¹⁸ He is mentioned by Ezra (he was not a direct descendant of Cyrus but of royal blood). Darius immediately faced rebellion in the empire. After much bloody fighting, he succeeded in establishing his rule. This was accomplished by 520 B.C. He claims that he fought nineteen battles and took captive nine kings in one and the same year.¹⁹ It was in this year that Zechariah began his ministry (Zech 1:1). All the world was at peace, but Israel was unhappy. Work on the temple was resumed in 520 B.C., and the Cyrus decree was found in Ecbatana (they first looked in Babylon, Ezra 6:1-2), the temple was finished in 516 B.C. twenty years after it had been started. The Persian wars against the Greeks began in 492 and continued under Xerxes. Darius was defeated by the Greeks at Marathon in 490 B.C. Egypt revolted four years later, and Darius died as he was setting out to put down the revolt.

E. Xerxes I (Ahasuerus, 486-465 B.C.).

This is the mad king who in a mighty combined operation sought to avenge Marathon, and whom the Greeks defeated at Salamis (480 B.C.) and Plataea (479 B.C.). The feast and assembly of Esth 1:3 is plausibly equated with Herodotus 7:8 (the king pays attention to his harem), while Esth 2:16 may be a reference to the events of Herodotus 9:108, 109, according to Blaiklock.²⁰ [Xerxes wanted the wife of a friend but refrained from taking her. He brought her daughter to the palace and married her to his son but took liberties with her himself. Through a series of events, his wife learned of it and mutilated the mother of the girl (Herodotus).]

F. Artaxerxes I (Longimanus, 464-424 B.C.).

It was this monarch who permitted Ezra to go to Jerusalem to restore the affairs of the Jewish community (Ezra 7, 8—458 B.C.) and who promoted the mission of his cup-bearer Nehemiah thirteen years later (445 B.C.).²¹ Malachi is usually dated through internal evidence to the first half of the fifth century (c. 450 B.C.).

G. Later Persian Kings, 424-330 B.C.

Xerxes II (Promptly murdered by half-brother, Sogdianus)

Sogdianus (Murdered after a few months by half-brother, Ochus)

Ochus known as Darius II (423-404)

Arsaces known as Artaxerxes II (404-358)

Ochus known as Artaxerxes III (358-338)

Arses (338-336) murdered by Darius III

Darius III (336-330)

The last one hundred years of Persian rule were chaotic. The kings tended to weaknesses, were often dominated by their women, and were filled with cruelty. The Satraps often revolted and declared indepen-dence.

II. The Political Structure of Judah under the Persians.

The Assyrians had effectively destroyed independent entities in Syria-Palestine except for Tyre, Sidon, and Judah. The native dynasts were re-placed by Assyrian governors. Judah also lost her independence to Babylon. When Cyrus took over the Babylonian territory these provinces submitted to Persia and were incorporated into the structure of the empire.²²

“For the government of this wide-extending territory, he [Cyrus] adopted in principle the organization first devised by the Assyrians, who replaced the states they had conquered by formal provinces. Each was ruled by a governor with a full staff of subordinates, and all kept in close touch with the central power through frequent exchange of orders and reports.”²³ The word Satrap means “protector of the Kingdom.” The hereditary position of the Satrap created problems of loyalty which were handled by making the military directly responsible to the King.

Palestine was part of the very large satrap called Abar Nahara (Ezra 4:10, 11, 16, 17, 20; 8:36). This word means the “Cross River” area. Stern says that the term was already in use as early as the Assyrian period.²⁴ Abar Nahara was combined by Cyrus with the whole of the territory captured from Babylonia.²⁵ The Satrap seat was in Damascus. Therefore, when Nehemiah and Ezra returned, that Satrap was already in existence.

The many changes in the satrap of Abar Nahara that took place over the years, obviously affected Judah as well. Presumably, the divisions and subdivisions of Palestine were already in effect under the Babylonians. Two of the more significant units were Samaria and Palestine (see map, p. 365). The information on this era is sparse indeed, but more information is coming to light. Cross shows that there were a series of Sanballats who ruled as governor of Samaria.²⁶As for Judah as a province, the Bible speaks of Sheshbazzar as “prince of Judah” and Zerubbabel as “the governor of Judah” as it does also of Nehemiah. The Elephantine papyri speak of a certain Bagohi as a governor after Nehemiah. Stern also refers to a group of coins from the end of the Persian period that bear the legend: “Jehezekiah the governor.”²⁷ As a summery, Avi-Yonah lists six known governors of Judah during the two hundred years of Persian rule (there may even have been times when there was no governor): Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Bigoai or Bagohi, Yehoezer, Ahio.²⁸ He also argues for the separate Jewish province in spite of the interference of the Samaritans in the Book of Ezra. He says that the loose Persian rule lent itself to disputes among the provinces.²⁹

“In summary, Palestine in the Persian period was apparently organized into a number of provinces or ‘states’ (medinoth). Each unit was ruled by a dynasty of governors, generally of a local family: Samaritans in Samaria (according to the wadi Daliyeh papyri) and Arabs in the south (according to the Tell el-Maskhuta inscriptions), and possibly also in Judah (as is suggested by stamp impressions, bullae, and coins of Jehezekiah). These governors had small courts, imitating those of the satraps, and they stood at the head of small administrative organizations. They were probably in charge of small military garrisons and were allowed to keep official stamps of the ‘state’ in their possession, one of the most frequent finds of that period at sites excavated in the province. The governors also seem to have been permitted to strike the small silver coins, which are now known as ‘Palestinian’ coins. Thus far the inscriptions of four of the provinces are clearly legible: Samaria, Judah, Ashdod, and Gaza. The provinces were subdivided into ‘parts’ (pelek; Neh 3:9, 17).”³⁰

III. Introduction to the books.

A. The relation of the two books.

The evidence in all the versions and ancient records points to the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah were once one account of the “new exodus” from Babylon to rebuild the temple, walls and community. “We may therefore conclude by affirming that there is good reason to approach Ezra and Nehemiah as two parts of a single work and that this work is to be regarded as complete as it stands.”³¹

B. Authorship and composition of the books.

There is much controversy over the dates, chronology and inter-relationship of the books. For background information see the most recent studies in Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah in Word Biblical Commentary; and Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah in Anchor Bible. The trend in the past was to see Ezra-Nehemiah as part of the overall “Chronicler’s” work (1‑2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah) and Albright argued for the Chronicler to be Ezra.³² Williamson denies that Ezra wrote the Chronicles.³³

Fensham suggests five major sources for the books: (1) Ezra 1‑6 describing the history prior to the arrival of Ezra.³⁴ (2) Ezra 7‑10 constituting the first part of the memoirs of Ezra. (3) Neh. 1:1—7:72a comprising part of the Nehemiah memoir. (4) Nehemiah 8‑10 continuing the Ezra memoir (5) Neh. 11:1—13:31 continuing the Nehemiah memoir.

C. Broad outline of the books.

1. Return under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel to build the temple (538 B.C.) (Ezra 1-6).

2. Return of Ezra for spiritual reform (458 B.C.) (Ezra 7-10).

3. Return of Nehemiah to rebuild the walls (445-433 B.C.) (Neh. 1-7).

4. Revival of the people (Nehemiah 8-12).

5. Nehemiah’s second return (Nehemiah 13).

D. The chronological sequence of the books.

1. Events under Cyrus, first king of Persia (539‑529 B. C).

a. Edict issued returning people and temple contents (538 B.C.).

b. Temple foundation laid (536 B.C.).

2. Events under Cambyses, Cyrus’ son (529‑522 B. C).

No biblical events. Cambyses conquered Egypt (referred to in the Elephantine papyri).

3. Events under Darius, the great, Persian general (522‑486 B. C).

a. Darius defeats usurper to throne (Gaumata) and struggles to put down rebellions (done by 518).

b. Zechariah begins his ministry in second year of Darius.

c. The temple was completed in 516.

d. Darius was defeated at Marathon by Greeks in 490.

4. Events under Xerxes (Ahasuerus) (486‑465 B. C).

a. Xerxes was defeated at Salamis in 480.

b. b. The events of Esther may have taken place after his return.

5. Events under Artaxerxes I (465‑424 B.C.).

a. Accusations against the Jews (Ezra 4:6).

b. Ezra’s return to promote religious reform (458 B.C.)

Fensham says the Egypt Satrap revolted in 460 B.C., and the revolt was suppressed in 456 B.C. Artaxerxes needed loyal people in Judah and may have sent Ezra for this purpose (Ezra 7:8).³⁵

c. Nehemiah’s first return (445 B.C. Neh 5:14).

IV. The work of Ezra the Priest.

“To judge from the Ezra material, it appears fairly clear that the great religious leader was concerned primarily with the reorganization of the cult on the basis of the Pentateuchal legislation . . . it is becoming increasingly certain that Ezra did not function as governor. What he came to do was more significant in the long run—laying the foundations of Judaism that was to make an incalculable impact upon the world in the following centuries. . . It is perhaps not too much to say that what Nehemiah did for the body of Judaism, Ezra did for its soul.”³⁶

The idea of a scribe is an old one, but the only early biblical reference to the word (sopher) is in the poetic section of Judges 5. Under the monarchy they served as court secretaries. Baruch was a scribe to Jeremiah. However, it is with Ezra that the New Testament type of scribe emerges. He is one who is trained in the law of Moses to copy it and to interpret it. (KJV has “ready scribe”; NASB has “a scribe skilled.”) The Hebrew phrase sopher maher means first a fast writer and then a skilled writer and then a competent person. As Samuel was to the prophetic movement, so Ezra was to the scribal movement.³⁷

Ezra’s purpose was to study the law, to practice it, and to teach the statutes and ordinances to Israel (7:10). Williamson says, “The scribe, we should note, was not only a student of Scripture, but explicitly a practitioner and especially a teacher of its requirements. And these qualities we find exemplified in Ezra’s ministry.”³⁸

Artaxerxes had sent a special decree with Ezra (7:11‑26). Fensham says that the “Jewishness” of the letter is to be explained by the fact that Ezra probably drafted the letter that went out in the name of the king.³⁹ He permitted people to go with Ezra and permitted him to collect money for the undertaking. Ezra was to take utensils to be used in the temple back with him. Artaxerxes gave him an expense voucher and freed certain temple workers from taxes. He commissioned Ezra to appoint officers to enforce the Mosaic law.⁴⁰

Williamson says, “It has been widely accepted since Schaeder’s work that ‘the scribe of the law of the God of heaven’ was an official Persian title, so that some have gone so far as to translate ‘minister/secretary of state for Jewish affairs.’”⁴¹

Ezra’s purpose in coming to Jerusalem was two‑fold: (1) He was to “inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of your God which is in your hand” (7:14). Williamson suggests that this facet of the commission took three directions. First it would investigate how closely the temple worship related to the Mosaic law. Second, the concern with mixed marriages may have in part been concerned with who legitimately came under this law. Third, it may have involved checking up on the use of state aid for the temple worship.⁴² (2) The second purpose is more difficult to understand (7:25). He was to appoint “magistrates and judges” (shaph^etin w^edayyanin שָׁפְטִין וְדַיָּנִין). This was no doubt designed to regulate the lives of those in the Abar Naharna Satrap who considered themselves to be Jews.

V. The work of Nehemiah.

Hanani (shortened form for Hananiah) is referred to as Nehemiah’s brother. This reference should be understood in a literal sense because of 7:2. There is another Hananiah connected with the Elephantine community, but whether they are the same man is not clear. The breaking down of the walls is debated. Sometime during the first 20 years of Artaxerxes, an attempt was made to rebuild the city and walls (Ezra 4:7-22). The attempt was thwarted, and the present state of the walls was worse than in 586 B.C. The walls continued to lie in ruins even though the temple had been built. The people were vulnerable to attacks from all those around them.

Sanballat the Horonite is known from the Elephantine Papyri as the governor of Samaria. The date of that papyrus is 408 B.C. There he was older, and his sons were representing him. The Nehemiah context is over thirty years earlier. The reference to him as a Horonite is not clear. It may refer to the town of lower Beth Horon or it may refer to a deity.

Tobiah the Ammonite is an obscure figure. Quite a bit is known about the Tobiads of the third century. Josephus tells us that they played an important part in the events leading up to the Maccabean revolt. “The great man of the family was Joseph, the son of Tobiah, who was active under Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 B.C.).”⁴³ A tomb inscription, Tobiah, is dated by Mazar in the sixth or fifth centuries. He concludes that, “This Tobiah [in Nehemiah] was not only a Jew (not half-Ammonite and half-Jew, or even pure Ammonite, as some scholars hold to this day), but one of the heads of the Jews and a relative of the high priest, exactly like Tobiah the father of Joseph a hundred and fifty years later. Nehemiah states expressly (vi, 18) that ‘there were many in Judah sworn unto him.’”⁴⁴ The use of the phrase in Nehemiah “the Ammonite servant” is for Mazar to be equated with “servant of the king,” i.e., of the king of Persia, and thus concludes that Tobiah may have been the governor of Ammon.⁴⁵ Williamson argues that he was probably an associate of Sanballat and may have had some temporary responsibility in Judah in the absence of a governor.⁴⁶ “Ammonite” is certainly a pejorative term. Nehemiah recorded a past event in which Eliashib had become related by marriage to Tobiah. Eliashib had prepared a special room for him in the temple when he visited (Neh 13:5). Fensham argues that this is not the same Eliashib as the high priest since this one is over the chamber.⁴⁷

An additional adversary appears in 2:19 by the name of Geshem the Arab. This man is well-known as a powerful Arabian operating within the Persian empire with a fair amount of independence. There is no way of knowing why he is hostile to Nehemiah, who could have posed little threat to him, unless he simply does not want any strengthening of the Persian influence in a neighboring province.⁴⁸

Fensham says the Persian general who defeated Egypt became angry at Artaxerxes and revolted against him. Later he declared loyalty and was restored, but again Artaxerxes would want loyal leaders in the west and so may have sent Nehemiah.⁴⁹

⁵⁰

A. Ezra apparently came back a second time early in Nehemiah’s period (Neh 8‑10; 12:36).

B. Nehemiah returns a second time (after 432 B.C. Neh 13:6).

VI. Outline notes on Ezra-Nehemiah.

A. The return under Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel to build the temple (from the first year of Cyrus to the second year of Darius: 538 B.C. to 516 B.C.) (Ezra 1:1—6:22).

1. The return from Babylon (1:1—2:70).

The edict was issued to return.⁵¹ Most people will argue that the reference to Jeremiah is to the seventy-year prediction (ch. 25, 29). Williamson argues that it should be related to Jeremiah 51, tied in with Isaiah 41, 44, and 45, but I would still go with the seventy-year element as the Chronicler does. The leaders were chosen, and the material of the temple returned. Sheshbazzar (1 Chron 3:18) is either another name for Zerubbabel or another person who must have died before the edict was carried out.⁵² The list of the people returning is given (2:1‑70).

Zerubbabel	Levites
Jeshua
Nehemiah	Jeshua and Kadmiel
Seraiah	Hodaviah
Reelaiah
Mordecai	Singers
Bilshan
Mispar	Asaph
Bigvai
Rehum	Gatekeepers
Baanah
	Shallum
Men of the people	Ater
Talmon
Parosh	Akkub
Shephatiah	Hatita
Arah	Shoba
Pahath‑moab
Jeshua and Joab	Temple servants
Elam
Zattu	Ziha
Zaccai	Hasupha
Bani	Tabbaoth
Bebai	Keros
Azgad	Siaha
Adonikam	Padon
Bigvai	Lebanah
Adin	Hagabah
Ater of Hezekiah	Akkub
Bezai	Hagab
Jorah	Shalmai
Hashum	Hanan
Gibbar	Giddel
Bethlehem	Gahar
Netophah	Reaiah
Anathoth	Rezin
Azmaveth	Nekoda
Kiriath‑arim	Gazzam
Chephirah	Uzza
Beeroth	Paseah
Ramah	Besai
Geba	Asnah
Michmas	Meunim
Bethel	Nephisim
Ai	Bakbuk
Nebo	Hakupha
Magbish	Harhur
Elam	Bazluth
Harim	Mehida
Lod	Harsha
Hadid	Barkos
Ono	Sisera
Jericho	Temah
Senaah	Neziah
	Hatipha
Priests
Jedaiah of house of Jeshua
Immer
Pashhur
Harim

2. The Beginning of the temple construction (3:1‑14).

a. Jeshua and Zerubbabel led in building the altar (3:1‑6).

Jeshua was the grandson of the last officiating high priest before the exile (cf. 2 Kings 25:18 and 1 Chron 6:15). Jeshua himself soon assumed that office and was prominent in Zechariah 1‑8. Zerubbabel was a descendant of the Davidic family. 1 Chron 3:19 lists him as a son of Pedaiah, a younger son of Jeconiah rather than Shealtiel. Shealtiel could have had a levirate adoption of this son, but the text does not explain what happened. The altar of burnt offering was erected and offerings began to be made.

b. They began the temple construction (3:7‑13).

5:16 indicates that Sheshbazzar was the one who laid the original foundation whereas this passage indicates that it was Zerubbabel. Either the two are to be equated or Sheshbazzar was the real governor while Zerubbabel worked under him. Williamson argues that 3:7—4:5 are a “recapitulation” of the events that actually only began under Darius. This, however, assumes chronological inaccuracies in ch. 3 which is unacceptable.

3. There was continued opposition to the work of the Lord by enemies of the returning Jews (4:1‑24).

The native Jews and Samaritans (as they will later be called) were refused when they offered assistance. Mention is made of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and a letter ⁵³ to Artaxerxes I is given to show that there was opposition to the returning Jews for about 100 years.⁵⁴ The opposition was successful in having the temple construction halted.

4. Work was resumed on the temple under the urging of Zechariah and Haggai (5:1—6:22).

a. The work was resumed, and the Governor of the Satrap of Abar Nahara (including Jerusalem) investigated the work (5:1‑5).

b. A letter was sent to the court of Darius asking if this permission had ever been granted (5:6‑17).

c. Darius replied favorably since the original document authorizing the return was found (6:1‑12).

d. The governor carried out the orders, and the temple was com-pleted in 516 B.C. The temple was dedicated, and the Passover was observed (6:13‑22).

B. The return of Ezra for spiritual reform (in the seventh year of Artaxerxes: 458 B.C.) (7:1—10:44).

Fifty-eight years have elapsed between chapters 6 and 7.

1. Ezra prepared the people and made the trip (7:1—8:36).

a. Ezra was a priest descended through Phinehas and Zadok (Num. 25:7, 11; 2 Sam 8:17ff) (7: 1‑5).⁵⁵

Ezra’s theology of the priesthood:

Ezra listed Aaron as the first High Priest, followed by seven Priests.

He omitted the next six priests, followed by Azariah who was High Priest when Solomon dedicated the temple.

He then listed seven other priests and concluded with himself.

Jehozadok would have been in that slot, but since he was identified with the captivity, Ezra wants us to know that he is identified with the return, and then, in a sense, supplants Jehozadok.⁵⁶

b. Ezra was a competent scribe (7:6).⁵⁷

c. Ezra brought more temple servants with him (7:7‑9).

The Nethinims (Heb: nethinim נְתִינִים = given ones) are considered by many to be temple slaves as were the Gibeonites. The trip to Jerusalem took four months (a distance of eight or nine hundred miles). He attributed his success to the “good hand of God on him” (see 7:6, 9, 28; 8:18, 22, 31; Neh. 2:8, 18 for this expression).

d. Ezra’s purpose was to study the law (derosh דְּרוֹשׁ), to practice it (‘^aśoth עֲשׂת) and to teach (limmed לִמֵּד) the statutes and ordinances to Israel (7:10).

Williamson ⁵⁸ says, “The scribe, we should note, was not only a student of Scripture, but explicitly a practitioner and especially a teacher of its requirements. And these qualities we find exemplified in Ezra’s ministry.”

e. Artaxerxes had sent a special decree with Ezra (7:11‑26).

Fensham says that the “Jewishness” of the letter is to be explained by the fact that Ezra probably drafted the letter that went out in the name of the king.⁵⁹ He permitted people to go with Ezra, and permitted him to collect money for the undertaking. Ezra was to take utensils to be used in the temple back with him. Artaxerxes gave him an expense voucher and freed certain temple workers from taxes. He commissioned Ezra to appoint officers to enforce the Mosaic law.

On Persian interest in local religions, Porten says, “Darius’ effect on religious matters in his empire is also worth noting. In Asia Minor he ordered the satrap Gadates to respect certain rights and privileges of the sacred gardeners of Apollo. In Judah he ordered the pehah Tattenai to supply whatever material was necessary for the building of the Temple there to provide sacrifices to be offered in the name of the royal family (Ez. 5:17‑6:12). In Egypt he restored the House of Life of the goddess Neith at Sais, contributed to temples at Edfu and Abusir, and displayed his liberality toward other sanctuaries as well. It was probably he who constructed the temple to Amon‑Re in the oasis of Kargeh.”⁶⁰

See p. 344, for the idea of a Minister of state for Jewish Affairs.

f. Ezra praised God for this provision (7:27‑28).

The narrative moves from third to first person through the device of the prayer of Ezra. In like manner, it goes from first to third through prayer in 9:15.

g. Ezra has a genealogical list with some names like those in chapter 2, but with significant differences (8:1‑14).

Some of the same twelve family names occur in both chapters. This indicates only that some of the same families contributed immigrants to both returns.⁶¹ The list is somewhat stylized (that is, only selected names are given). The priesthood is mentioned first, then the royal house (Hattush), and finally twelve families are listed. There would have been probably about 5,000 people returning with Ezra.

h. Ezra needed more Levites and rounded some up (8:15‑20).

There were already Levites at Jerusalem, and apparently there was not a great deal of enthusiasm to return in the second wave. That thirty‑eight came on such short notice caused Ezra to recognize the “good hand of God” on him.

i. Ezra fasted and prayed for God’s protection (8:21‑23).

The long journey was fraught with danger, and they needed God’s care, but Ezra wanted to preserve his testimony that he trusted in God. God heard his prayer.

j. Ezra consigned the gold and silver to certain priests (8:24‑30).

He gave them all the collected money (8:24‑25). It was a large sum of money.⁶² He reminds them of the sacredness of the trust (8:28‑30).

k. The wealth was delivered to the temple in Jerusalem (8:31‑34).

They completed the journey safely but waited three days to deliver the money to the temple (perhaps they arrived just before the Sabbath). They delivered the money.

l. The people carried out their task (8:35‑36).

They made their offerings and delivered the king’s commissions. The shift from first to third person for these last two verses probably indicates that Ezra added them to the account later.

2. Ezra dealt with spiritual problems (9:1—10:44).

We learn in 10:9 that chapter 9 took place in the ninth month or four months after Ezra’s return. He must have been carrying out the king’s decrees for four months and only now was free to deal with the problem.⁶³

Why did Ezra not know about the mixed marriages for four months, and why does he act so strongly at this point if he did know? Williamson ⁶⁴ argues that he did know about it and had already given advice that it be dealt with. He derives this from 10:3 where the crucial word is “my Lord.” The MT has pointed this word to mean “the Lord.” There are some MSS that even have Yahweh. One MS has “my Lord” as in NASB. Since the reference is to the “counsel” it sounds more like human advice than divine revelation. I suspect Williamson is correct.

If Ezra knew about it, why does he conduct himself in such a violent way here as if he were learning about it for the first time? It is important to note that Ezra shows his frustration, anger and rage in front of the temple where people could see him. This is a public display of spiritual grief. Even though Ezra knew of the problem, he waited for the elders and the people to react themselves. Now he could identify with them in their confession of culpability.

a. The problem was presented: intermarriage with unbelievers (9:1‑2).

This issue was not racial but religious. Foreign wives were not unknown to the patriarchs and many of the people of Israel. Some foreign wives (Rahab, Ruth) are extolled. The problem is intermarriage with Canaanites who would take the people away from Yahweh. The text does not tell us whether they had con-verted to Yahwism.

From Ezra’s point of view, the purest people were those who had returned from the exile (the golah). These had been purged from idolatry. On the other hand, the vast majority of Jews had not gone into exile (Jeremiah indicates 4,600 to Babylon while Kings indicates 10,000). Only some 50,000 returned with Zerubbabel. It is likely that those who remained in the land continued in semi-paganism. Is it possible that Ezra referred to these as “foreigners”? Williamson thinks not. Below is a chart of the three groups of people.⁶⁵

b. Ezra reacted with confession (9:3‑15).

Ezra pulled out his hair as a sign of mourning, and others joined him in the confession. After a day of fasting, he arose to pray: (1) he spoke of the sins of the fathers; (2) he spoke of God’s grace in bringing them back from captivity;⁶⁶ (3) He lamented the sin of intermarriage (Exod 23:32; Deut 7:3) and (4) he prayed for mercy.

c. The elders suggested that the foreign wives be divorced (10:1‑8).

The people gathered contritely. The elders suggested divorce and promised to stand with Ezra. Ezra adjured them to carry out this suggestion. He then called a general assembly of the people.

d. The assembly came confessing and agreed on a method to implement this covenant (10:9‑17).

The people agreed that what had happened was sin, and they confessed it. They agreed to divorce the wives but asked that the implementation be handed over to local leaders since the weather was too bad to do anything at that time. Some opposition was expressed (10:15) by some who may have wanted to proceed forthwith.

e. A list of the priests who were compromised in the matter is given (10:18‑44).⁶⁷

Nehemiah

C. The return under Nehemiah to build the wall (Neh 1:1—7:73).

Much debate surrounds the chronological relationship between Ezra and Nehemiah. Some will argue that Ezra actually came to Jerusalem after Nehemiah in spite of the statements to the contrary in the books themselves. Some will rearrange the material between the two books.⁶⁸

1. The person involved is Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah (1:1).

Nehemiah means “Yahweh comforts.” Hacaliah is otherwise un-known. The setting is Susa, the winter palace of the Persian kings.

2. Nehemiah’s brother brings a report about Jerusalem (1:2‑3).⁶⁹

3. Nehemiah responds in prayer (1:4‑11).

Weeping, mourning, fasting, and prayer were part of Nehemiah’s worship. He addressed God in covenantal terms and identified with his people as he confessed. He reminded God of the Deuteronomic covenant and closed with an entreaty for God to hear his prayer and grant him an open door with the king.

4. Nehemiah approached King Artaxerxes with a bold petition (1:1b—2:8).

a. Nehemiah was in a strategic position (1:11b—2:1).

He was the king’s cupbearer.⁷⁰ For a Jew to arrive at this position speaks well of Nehemiah and of God’s providence. Some would argue that he was a eunuch because of the tendency in the Persian empire to make eunuchs of those who served the king and came into contact with the harem. What a contrast this would be with Ezra who was a priest. Nehemiah does not make his move until he had had extended prayer and until a propitious moment arrived. This was not a sign of weakness (we know from his later action that he is a resolute man), but because he recognized the priority of seeking God before acting. It was the 20th year of Artaxerxes I (445 B.C.) in Nisan (March/April). He had a sad countenance. Williamson argues that the month Nisan may have been a time when Persian kings granted favors. Thus, Nehemiah waited until this moment to let his emotions show through.

b. Nehemiah used his strategic position (2:2‑8).

The king asked about Nehemiah’s countenance. Given the capriciousness of Persian kings, Nehemiah was in a precarious position (cf. the book of Esther). Nehemiah explained that he was sad because of the desolation of Jerusalem. The king gave him an opportunity to make a request, and he asked for leave to go and rebuild Jerusalem. The king asked for a time frame. Nehemiah gave him one and boldly asked for papers and a voucher.

5. Nehemiah went to Jerusalem and began the work (2:9‑20).

a. He presented his letters to the governors of the provinces of the Satrap of Abar Nahara (Beyond the river) (2:9). (He was accompanied by Persian troops.)

b. The governors were not happy to see him (2:10).

Myers ⁷¹ says there were four provinces around Judah: Samaria, Ammon, Ashdod, and Arabia.⁷²

c. Nehemiah made a night survey (2:11‑16).

He spent three days in Jerusalem, during which time, he went with a few of his men at night to reconnoiter the broken walls.

He went out the valley gate

Dragon’s well
Refuse gate
Fountain gate
King’s pool
Ravine—valley gate

He kept all this quiet.

The locations of these sites as well as the extent of the city traversed and rebuilt by Nehemiah are all debated.⁷³

d. Nehemiah presented his plan to the Jews, priests, nobles, and officials (2:17‑20).

The situation required immediate action. Nehemiah argued that the circumstances were conducive to building the walls (he cited the way God had worked to this point). The three enemies mocked them, but Nehemiah gave a testimony to God.

6. Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem (3:1‑32).

a. The Sheep Gate and onward (3:1‑5).

Eliashib the high priest began the work with the construction of the Sheep Gate (this gate would probably have been north of the city to admit sheep to the sheep pool and to the temple area). The men of Jericho/son of Imri built the wall, and then more of the wall was built.

b. The Old Gate and onward (3:6‑27).

Joiada and Meshullam repaired the Old Gate. More of the wall was built.⁷⁴

The Valley Gate (3:13).
The Refuse Gate and onward (3:14).
The Fountain Gate and onward (3:15‑27).

The Water Gate is included (this gate is probably the access gate to the Gihon spring).

c. The Horse Gate and onward (3:28‑31).

The Inspection Gate is included in this section.

d. Back to the Sheep Gate (3:32).

Provinces Around Judah ⁷⁵

7. Opposition to the building intensified (4:1‑23).

a. Sanballat and Tobiah tried mockery, but Nehemiah committed them to the Lord’s justice and kept on working (4:1-6).

b. Sanballat & Co. planned to kill the Jews but were frustrated (4:7‑14).

Representatives from the provinces planned to attack the Jews. Nehemiah prayed for protection and set up a guard against them. Nehemiah was informed of their plan on ten different occasions (this may have been done intentionally to discourage him). “They will come up against us from every place where you may turn” is difficult (4:12). Literally, the Hebrew says, “from all the places which you will return upon us.” Williamson translates, “Thus it was that ‘time and again’ groups of concerned relatives and fellow villagers were coming to Jerusalem to implore their menfolk: ‘you must return to us.’” The people were so frightened that Nehemiah had to encourage them.

c. The work continued with much watchfulness (4:15‑23).

Nehemiah’s action is a good pattern to follow when one is trying to accomplish something worthwhile but is receiving opposition. Nehemiah trusted the Lord, armed the people, organized them well, and kept up the work until it was finished.

8. Problems arose within the community in the matter of usury (5:1‑19).

The events of this chapter apparently came about because the absence of the men to work on the wall exacerbated an already difficult agrarian situation.⁷⁶ The concluding verses indicate that the writing of the chapter took place at the end of Nehemiah’s twelve-year stint as governor. It is placed at this point to show that not only were there external problems faced by the Jewish community, there were also serious internal problems.

a. A shortage of food and money caused some poorer Jews to mortgage their property, borrow money to pay taxes and to make slaves of their children to richer Jews (5:1‑5).

b. Nehemiah demanded that the situation be rectified because this bondage was wrong. He had been loaning money and goods as well, but this candid admission may have helped win the people to his side. He asked them to return what had been taken as usury. He graphically illustrated (shaking out the garment) what would happen to those who did not comply (5:6-13).

c. Nehemiah spoke of his own unselfish work (5:14‑19).

He had not taken the normal governor’s allowance from the people (previous governors had). He dedicated himself to the wall, not even buying land and had fed 150 Jews and others who showed up. He called on God to remember him. One is reminded of Paul’s “boasting” on his own behalf to the Corinthians.

This unit (5:14‑19) gives us some important historical data: (1) Nehemiah was appointed governor by Artaxerxes (2) his first term lasted twelve years (445‑433 B.C.) (3) provincial governors were entitled to take certain taxes and (4) previous governors (most of them unknown to us) had taken full advantage of their perquisites.

9. The opposition took a different tack (6:1‑19).

a. The wall was finished although all the doors had not been set up (6:1).

b. Sanballat and Geshem tried to lure Nehemiah into a trap (6:2‑9).

Nehemiah refused their invitation to come to the plain of Ono. They sent five different letters and finally threatened to tell the king of Persia that Nehemiah was leading a revolt with himself as king. Nehemiah denied their charge.

c. Shemaiah tried to lure Nehemiah into the temple so that he could be charged with improper activity (6:10‑14).

Shemaiah told him he would be safe in the temple. Nehemiah refused to go, perceiving that subterfuge was involved. Nehemiah prayed, committing himself to the Lord. (If Nehemiah were a eunuch, he would have been banned from the temple. Was Shemaiah trying to trick him so that he would be charged with improper conduct?)

Shemaiah was not the only prophet trying to mislead Nehemiah. A certain Noadiah the prophetess and the rest of the prophets were trying to frighten him as well.

d. The task was completed in spite of the fifth column in the city (6:15‑19).

The wall was finished in 52 days. This was a phenomenal achievement! It may be that the walls were not entirely destroyed by the Babylonians, or that the quality of his work was not of the highest nature, but even so Nehemiah accomplished a gigantic task. As a result, the enemies were discouraged. Communication had been going on between the enemies and certain Jews in the city. As a matter of fact, Jehohanan was the offspring of Tobiah who had married a Jewish girl. Tobiah is a Jewish name, but he seems to be excluded from the Jewish community by Nehemiah, so he may in actuality be a foreigner. This would be another case of mixed marriage and would explain the hesitancy of some Jews to follow Nehemiah.⁷⁷

10. Nehemiah organized the city and reviewed the genealogy (7:1‑73).

a. He organized a watch for the city (7:1‑4).

The gates were installed, and Nehemiah appointed his brother and another man in charge of the city. The number of people in the city was small and the entire area was therefore quite vulnerable.

b. He reviewed the genealogy as found in Ezra 2 (7:5-73a).

The completion of the walls of the city was viewed by Nehemiah as a milestone in their history. Consequently, he reviewed the genealogies as they came from Babylon almost a century before. Myers (Ezra, Nehemiah) argues that Nehemiah may have used this list to encourage people to move into Jerusalem. The list, with a few exceptions, probably due to textual transmission, is the same as that in Ezra 2.

Ezra 2:70—3:1

Now the priests and the Levites, some of the people, the singers, the gate keepers, and the temple servants lived in their cities, and all Israel in their cities. Now when the seventh month came, and the sons of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered to-gether as one man to Jerusalem. Then Jeshua the son of Josadak and his brothers the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brothers arose and built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses, the man of God.

Nehemiah 7:73—8:1

Now the priests, the Levites, the gatekeepers, the singers, some of the people, the temple servants, and all Israel, lived in their cities. And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel.

c. The people returned home in the seventh month (7:73b).

The genealogical list of Ezra 2 concluded with the people coming together under Zerubbabel and Jeshua to build the altar and to resume their worship in the land. Nehemiah used the same list and concluded with the people coming together to read the law under Ezra. This is a deliberate effort to link the two events: the altar was finished (Ezra 3) and the wall was finished (Nehemiah 7).

D. Revival of the people under Ezra and Nehemiah (8:1—12:47).

1. The reading of the Law of Moses began to play a very significant part in the lives of the people (8:1‑18).

Because of the sudden introduction for the first time in Nehemiah of Ezra, and because of the emphasis Ezra placed on the law in his own “memoirs” (Ezra 8), many scholars believe this chapter should follow Ezra 8 (or some such configuration). To do this, they must reject the mention of Nehemiah (8:9) as a later addition by the redactor.⁷⁸ Fensham (The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah) argues for chap. 8 in its present location.

a. The reading of the law (8:1‑8).

The people called for Ezra the Interpreter (scribe) to bring the Book of the Law of Moses. Ezra brought the law before the people: (1) It was the first day of the seventh month, (2) he read to men and women who could understand (mebin lismo‘a מֵבִין לִשְׁמעַ = “discerning to hear”), (3) he read in the “wide place” before the water gate which probably gave access to the Gihon Spring, (4) he read it from early morning until noon. (Lit.: “from the light to the middle of the day.”) Ezra was surrounded by thirteen men as he spoke. The people stood when the law was about to be read, and Ezra led an invocation to which the people replied, “Amen, Amen” and bowed to the ground. The law was explained and translated to give the sense by thirteen men in addition to the Levites: (1) The word “explained” is מְבִינִים (m^ebinim) as in v. 2. It means to give understanding, discernment, i.e., to explain. (2) The word “translating” is מְפרָשׁ (m^eporash) and may mean “to translate” (from Hebrew to Aramaic) or “to interpret.” A literary device was created after the exile to handle the language problem called the “Targum.” This was an Aramaic paraphrase so that the people, whose Hebrew was rusty, could understand. That may be what is going on here.

b. The people responded favorably to the reading of the law (8:9‑18).

The leaders encouraged the people (8:9‑12).

Ezra, Nehemiah and the Levites told the people not to weep since this was a holy day. He (probably Ezra) told them to enjoy food and to rejoice in the Lord. The Levites quieted the people who then went away rejoicing. They sent gifts to one another and kept a great feast because they had understood the word of the Lord.

The assembly kept the feast of weeks or Succoth (Lev 23:39‑44) (8:13‑18).

The reading in the Law brought more information which they proceeded to carry out. The feast of booths was to remind them of the exodus from Egypt and was celebrated on the 15th of the seventh month. They built booths and lived in them. Ezra read from the book of the law of God for the seven days of the feast.

How do we understand 8:17 (“The sons of Israel had indeed not done so from the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day”) in light of Ezra 3:4 that says Zerubbabel (in 538/7) led them in the celebration of Succoth? It is said of Josiah’s Passover: “Surely such a Passover had not been celebrated from the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel and of the kings of Judah” (2 Kings 23:22). This verse uses the word “like,” but the sentiment is similar. Nehemiah must be referring to the circumstances or the spirit of the celebration rather than to the celebration itself. However, Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah) says, “They were enacting the ‘exodus’ from Babylon in Jerusalem (hence, the reference to Joshua) whereas previous booths may have been those used in the fields as part of the harvest.”

A logical question is why the Day of Atonement is not men-tioned here since it was to be observed on the tenth day of this same month between Trumpets and Succoth. Williamson argues that Succoth was more tied in with the reading of the law, and Atonement was now primarily a priestly matter. I assume he means that it was observed, but quietly, and by the priests.

2. Another day was set aside to read Scripture and worship the Lord (9:1‑38).

a. The people gathered on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month with fasting (9:1‑4).

They were fasting and humbling themselves. They separated themselves from foreigners. They read from the law for one fourth of the day and confessed their sins for another fourth. The Levites were leading the worship from a platform.

b. The Levites led in a psalm of confession and praise (9:5‑38).

(This “recital of the acts of God” will become a stock form in the future presentations [cf. Stephen in Acts 7]). Yahweh is the creator God who made a covenant with Abraham (9:5‑8). Yahweh brought Israel from Egypt and made a covenant with them (9:9‑15). In spite of Israel’s arrogant disobedience, God was gracious to them for forty years and brought them into the promised land (9:16‑25). In spite of Israel’s sin in the land, God was continuously gracious until he sent them into captivity (9:26-31). The Levites called upon God to be gracious to them in their present distress and vowed to put their names in writing to separate themselves from the people of the land and to keep the covenant with God (9:32‑38).

3. The list of names and the vow were presented (10:1‑39).

a. The list contains the names of Nehemiah the governor, Zedekiah, and twenty-one priests; seventeen Levites and forty-four leaders of the people (10:1‑27).

b. They committed themselves to obey the Law of Moses (10:28‑31).

They promised to avoid mixed marriages (10:28‑30). (Some of those involved later in mixed marriages may not have taken this vow.)

They promised to keep the Sabbath holy and not to sell to Gen-tiles on that day (10:31a).

They promised to forego the crop of the seventh year (Sabbath year) and every loan made on pledge (release of debt, slaves) (10:31b).

c. They committed themselves to an annual temple tax (10:32-33).

There was no specific provision in the law for temple support on an ongoing basis, but some precedent was established in the half shekel of Exod 30:11‑16 and 38:25‑26.

d. They committed themselves to bring wood, first fruits, and tithes to the temple. In fine, they agreed to support the temple (10:34‑39).

4. The problem of the occupancy of the newly fortified city of Jerusalem was confronted and a name list was given (11:1—12:26).

The problem of the occupation of the city of Jerusalem was first addressed at 7:4. From that problem came the review of the census list with the end in mind of bringing people into the city. The solution to the problem is given in this chapter.

a. The leaders were already living in Jerusalem, but they cast lots to see which people would move in (11:1‑2).

b. The religious leaders moved to the city even though they owned property in the country (11:3).

c. The names of the Judahites and Benjamites who lived in the city are given (11:4‑9).

d. The names of the priests are given (11:10‑14).

e. The names of the Levites are given (total 284) (11:15‑18).

f. Other names are given. Gatekeepers are listed (total 172). Other people (priests, Levites and others) were living in their various cities. The temple servants were living in Ophel (11:19-21).

g. The Levitical leadership was controlled indirectly by the king of Persia (11:22‑24).

h. A list of various areas outside of Jerusalem is given (11:25‑36).

Verse 36 indicates that some of the Levites assigned to Judah were given to Benjamin.

i. The priests and Levites who came up with Zerubbabel (12:1‑7).

j. The Levites who were in charge of worship (12:8‑11).

Jeshua (538), Joiakim (?), Eliashib (458), Joiada (417, 40 years), Jonathan (377, Johanan? 40 years), Jaddua (337, 40 years).⁷⁹ Williamson says (1) this list could be incomplete (another Johanan is known to have served, but is not in this list), (2) Josephus is wrong to date Jaddua as late as Alexander, or (3) there were two Jaddua’s.⁸⁰ Cross says that Jaddua had to take office before 404.⁸¹

k. A list of priests is given (12:12‑21).

l. A list of Levites is given (12:22‑26) (who served in the period of Joiakim, Ezra and Nehemiah).

5. The wall of the city was dedicated (12:27‑43).

a. The Levites were summoned (12:27‑30).

b. Nehemiah appointed two choirs (12:31‑43).

One choir went south toward the refuse gate with Ezra. From there they went up to the fountain gate, up the stairs to David’s city and to the water gate on the east (12:31‑37).

The second choir lined up from the Broad wall to the Sheep gate and the Gate of the Guard (12:38‑43).

They sang and sacrificed. They seem to be somewhat opposite one another.

c. Men were appointed to be in charge of the stores, tithes, etc., to carry on the tradition begun by David (12:44‑47).

E. Nehemiah returned a second time (13:1-31).

1. Nehemiah enforced the law of Moses further (13:1‑9).

a. At the completion of the dedication, a reading of the law reminded them of the exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites (Deut 23:4‑7). As a result, they forced out all foreigners (13:1‑3).

b. Nehemiah recorded a past event in which Eliashib had become related by marriage to Tobiah (see the discussion at 2:17ff) (13:4‑9).

Tobiah may have been in charge of the Transjordan area which was called Ammon. He is probably being linked with the Ammonites here though he has a Jewish name.

Eliashib had prepared a special room for him in the temple when he visited (13:5).

Fensham (The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah) argues that this is not the same Eliashib as the high priest since this one is over the chamber.

Nehemiah speaks for the first time of the fact that he had been gone from Jerusalem for much of this time (Keil says several years) (13:6).

When he returned to Jerusalem, he threw Tobiah’s stuff out and cleansed the room (13:7‑9).

2. Nehemiah corrected the neglect of the Levites (13:10‑14).

In Nehemiah’s absence the temple servants had been neglected because the people did not pay the tithe. They were forced to go their farms for support. Nehemiah rebuked the leaders and rectified the situation.

3. Nehemiah corrected Sabbath abuses (13:15‑22).

The native Jews were not observing the Sabbath by continuing their normal daily work. Furthermore, Gentile merchants were selling stuff on the Sabbath. Nehemiah corrected this situation by closing the gates to prevent people from going in and out on the Sabbath. When the merchants tried to spend the night outside the walls, he threatened them with force.

4. Nehemiah corrected the problem of intermarriage that had cropped up again (13:23-29).

The perennial problem of intermarriage with pagans had to be dealt with again. The children of these marriages were barely able to speak Hebrew. Nehemiah took forthright action to stop the practice.

5. Nehemiah purified the Levites (13:30‑31).

Nehemiah summarizes his work and calls upon God again to rem-ember him for his work.

¹Olmstead, The History of Persia, p. 1.

²Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 285.

³ANET, 304-305.

⁴The History of Herodotus, Clio I, paragraphs 108-119. See also de Sélencourt, The World of Herodotus, pp. 207-10.

⁵Cook, The Persian Empire, p. 24.

⁶Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, p. 37.

⁷Cyrus’ famous decree allowing people to return to their homelands (Ezra 1:1-4) was issued in 538 B.C This allowed the Jews to return to their homeland, but only a relatively small group of them actually returned under Sheshbazzar/Zerubbabel.

⁸ANET, p 316.

⁹See Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 39-40.

¹⁰When Babylon fell to him in 539 B.C., “Persia was raised to the position of a world empire, which encompassed the whole Near East.” (Stern, “The Archaeology of Persian Palestine,” 1:70).

¹¹Ibid., p. 31.

¹²Wiseman, et al., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel.

¹³So Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 86-87, and Cook, The Persian Empire, pp. 32,37. But Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems, says that Cambyses was never called “king.”

¹⁴Cook, The Persian Empire, p. 32.

¹⁵Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 86-87.

¹⁶Cook, The Persian Empire, p. 46.

¹⁷See Ibid., pp. 50-55.

¹⁸The Behistun inscription in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian, is an “auto-biography” of Darius. For a discussion on the inscription and bibliography, see Olm-stead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 116-18.

¹⁹Cook, The Persian Empire, p 56.

²⁰E.M. Blaiklock, “Persia” in ZPBD.

²¹Ibid.

²²Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land: From the Persia to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640); a Historical Geography, p. 11.

²³Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, p. 59.

²⁴Stern, The New Encyclopedia, 78.

²⁵Ibid.

²⁶Cross, “Papyri from the Fourth Century B.C From Daliyeh,” 41-62.

²⁷Stern, The New Encyclopedia, p. 80.

²⁸Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, pp. 13-14.

²⁹Ibid., p. 13.

³⁰Stern, The New Encyclopedia, p 81. See Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land from the Persian Period to the Arab Conquest, p. 367, for a map of the provinces.

³¹H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. xxiii.

³²W. F. Albright, JBL 40 (1921) 104‑24; more recently, Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, lxviii-lxx.

³³Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. xxxi.

³⁴Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. xxiv, argues that seven sources underlie Ezra 1‑6: (a) the decree of Cyrus (1:2‑4); (b) the inventory of temple vessels (1:9‑11); (c) the list of those returning (chap. 2, a compilation of those who returned during the first twenty years or so of Achaemenid rule); (d) two letters which the editor summarizes at 4:6 and his writing of 4:1‑3; (e) a letter in Aramaic from Rehum and others to Artaxerxes (4:8‑16) and (f) Artaxerxes’ reply (4:17‑22); (g) a letter from Tattenai to Darius (5:6‑17) and (h) Darius’ reply.

³⁵See also Porten, Archives of Elephantine, p. 26.

³⁶Myers, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. lxii.

³⁷Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. lvii-lxii.

³⁸Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 93.

³⁹Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 103. See also Myers, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 62.

⁴⁰On Persian interest in local religions, see p. 355.

⁴¹Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 100.

⁴²Ibid., p. 101.

⁴³B. Mazar, “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7 (1957): 137-145; 229-238.

⁴⁴Ibid., p. 144.

⁴⁵Ibid.

⁴⁶Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 182-183.

⁴⁷Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 260.

⁴⁸See Naveh, “Hebrew Texts in Aramaic Script in the Persian Period?” BASOR 203 (1971): 27-32, for Aramaic script.

⁴⁹Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 149-50.

⁵⁰ M. Throntveit (“Ezra-Nehemiah” in Interpretation, p. 37) says: “In the per-spective of these books, the salient theological moments of the restoration period cohere in three parallel returns—under Zerubbabel (Ezra 1-6), Ezra (Ezra 7-10), and Nehemiah (Neh 1:1—7:3)—each of which resulted in a different project of reconstruction, namely, the temple, the community, and the walls.”

⁵¹All the kings of the entire world from the Upper to the Lower Sea, those who are seated in throne rooms, (those who) live in other [types of buildings as well as] all the kings of the West land living in tents, brought their heavy tributes and kissed my feet in Babylon (Su.an.na). (As to the region) from . . . as far as Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought into Babylon (Su.an.na^ki) to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their (former) chapels, the places which make them happy.

May all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities ask daily Bel and Nebo for a long life for me and may they recommend me (to him); to Marduk, my lord, they may say this: Cyrus, the king who worships you, and Cambyses, his son, . . . all of them I settled in a peaceful place . . . ducks and doves, . . . I endeavoured to fortify/repair their dwelling places. . . . ANET, 316-17, supplement with Berger, ZAW 64 [1975]:192‑234).

⁵²Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, argues that they are two different men; so Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 49‑50. J. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 28, suggests that Sheshbazzar would have been old (55-60) and Zerubbabel about 40. As his deputy, he was the active leader.

⁵³The language of 4:8 through 6:18 is Aramaic. This is because so many of the transactions regarding the rebuilding of the temple involved official correspondence with the Persian government. The language of government and commerce was Aramaic. Even the transition verses (4:17, 23‑24; 5:1‑6; 6:1‑2, 13‑16;) are in Aramaic. The concluding verses (6:19‑22) are in Hebrew which as Williamson says (Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 73), are probably written in the Jewish language as a fitting conclusion to this section. The use of “King of Assyria” in this passage is a loose construction. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, says that Herodotus and Xenophon refer to Babylon as the capital of Assyria.

⁵⁴A number of historical problems exist in the identification of this letter.

The older commentaries link Ahasuerus with Cambyses (this would then place the letter in 529 B. C). They also link Artaxerxes with Gaumata (as Darius called him) who struggled for the throne after the death of Cambyses in 522 B.C. Working from A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, and J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, Cambyses ruled from 529 to 522 and left for Egypt in 526 never to return to Mesopotamia (he died near Mt. Carmel). If he is indeed Ahasuerus, he would also be the Persian king of Esther. This is not impossible but Cook says that Cambyses was in Babylonia at Abanu near Uruk in 528. The setting for Esther is Susa in the Satrap of Elam. He could have returned to Susa for the events of Esther during the two years before he left for Egypt.

(2) The Artaxerxes/Gaumata/Smerdis/Bardiya equation is more difficult since it is made nowhere else that I know of, and it would require the introduction of an otherwise unknown Artaxerxes. Furthermore, this was a time of great disturbance with Bardiya (Cambyses’ brother) taking over the throne. He only ruled about six months. It is more difficult to suppose that the leaders of Samaria would write to Bardiya/Gaumata while Cambyses was in their area or that the time would permit a letter and a response as in Ezra 4.

(3) The letter does not speak of the temple (the situation in question), but it does speak of the walls—a situation apropos to Nehemiah’s time (the historical situation underlying the accusation in Ahasuerus’ [Xerxes’] time, and the aborted attempt to build a wall in Artaxerxes’ time are otherwise unknown).

(4) The temple was completed according to the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes (6:14). The order is important. It is not Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius as in Chapter 4, but Cyrus, Darius Artaxerxes. Ezra, the writer of this book, is functioning under the decree of Artaxerxes (458 B.C.). That decree mentions the temple in 7:11, 15, 16, 23 and even says the temple is to be adorned in 7:27. Ezra, therefore, views Artaxerxes’ decree as having a vital function in relation to the temple.

(5) Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 59) citing others, argues that 4:5 and 4:24 are literary markers (referring to Darius) that indicate the insertion of material in between.

I therefore would concur with Keil and now Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, that this chapter contains a collage of letter writing used to illustrate the continuous opposition the Jews encountered.

⁵⁵See p. 343, for a discussion of Ezra’s work.

⁵⁶Throntveit, “Ezra and Nehemiah,” p. 41 indicates that there are seven priests after Aaron, seven after Azariah, and finally Ezra the priest (in Ezra; in Chronicles it is Jehozadok).

⁵⁷See p. 344, for a description of a scribe.

⁵⁸Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 93.

⁵⁹Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 103, see also Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 62.

⁶⁰Porten, Archives from Elephantine, p. 23.

⁶¹See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, for a defense of the authenticity of this list.

⁶²See Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 67, who says, “six hundred and fifty talents. Slightly over 24.5 tons. . . . On the value of these contributions, cf. Pavlovsky, Biblica 38 (1957), 297-301.”

⁶³Note the stress on separation (nivdal נִבְדַּל). The Pharisee sect apparently took their name from the Hebrew word “paraš” (פָּרַשׁ, to separate).

⁶⁴Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, loc. cit.

⁶⁵Throntveit (Ezra-Nehemiah) says on p. 36, “The theme of exclusivity, which first arose in the careful investigation of lineage in chapter 2 and formed the basis of the community’s refusal of the assistance offered in 4:1, is furthered in the application of the term ‘Israel’ to the ‘returned exiles’ (v. 16. These, and these alone, who understand themselves as the purified remnant of Israel of old, can lay claim to being the people of God.”

⁶⁶See Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, for a discussion of the wall. Some have used this verse to argue that Ezra came back after Nehemiah, but the word “wall” is geder (גֶּדֶר) not the normal word for city wall (ḥomah חוֹמָה). He argues for a metaphorical usage of a vineyard wall.

⁶⁷See Ibid., for an excellent discussion of the difficulties associated with this list and the chronology of Ezra-Nehemiah.

⁶⁸E.g., Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah. See Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, for a good current discussion that is also somewhat conservative.

⁶⁹See p. 345, for a fuller discussion of Hanani.

⁷⁰See Fensham, The Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, for a discussion of the important place the cupbearer held in the palace.

⁷¹Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah.

⁷²See p. 346, for a discussion of the enemies of Nehemiah.

⁷³For a popular discussion, see Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem. For a discussion of the province of Judah in general, see M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A. D. 640); a Historical Geography, pp. 11-31.

⁷⁴See Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, for a discussion of the broad wall.

⁷⁵M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640) A Historical Geography, p. 30.

⁷⁶See Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, for a defense of the chronological sequence of chapters 4 and 5.

⁷⁷For a discussion on the Tobiad family, see B. Mazar, “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7 (1957) 137-45; 229-38.

⁷⁸See for example, Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah.

⁷⁹See Keil & Delitzsch, p. 150, for a defense of the idea that Nehemiah lived long enough to see Jaddua at age 25.

⁸⁰Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 363.

⁸¹F. M. Cross, “Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C. from Daliyeh,” p. 56.

10. Esther

Related Media

I. Introduction.

LaSor, et al., say: “Esther is a remarkably different biblical book: neither the word for God nor the name Yahweh occurs in the Hebrew text; the scene is Susa, winter capital of Persia, not Israel; the book concerns the marriage of its Jewish heroine with a gentile king; it solves the problem of an incipient anti-Semitism (actually, anti-Jewish action) by a bloody self-defense, which—even worse—is so enjoyable that it is repeated by Esther’s request on the following day! Nevertheless, the scroll belongs in the canon, as Jewish scholars recognized after long discussion, and commands consideration.”¹

Actually, LaSor’s assessment is too negative. The story of Esther shows God’s providential protection of His people in exile and explains the origin of the feast of Purim. Esther is presented in story form whereas the material we have covered so far is more historical narrative. More than story, it is drama and can almost be divided into scenes as we will do.²

The Ahasuerus of 1:1 is usually linked with Xerxes (485‑465 B.C.). Ahasu-erus is also mentioned in Ezra 4:6. Xerxes was defeated by the Greeks at Salamis and Plataea in 480 B.C. The events of Esther 2 and following are usually linked with those events. Vashti is linked by Wright with Amestris, Xerxes’ wife and the situation of Esther 2 is linked with Herodotus’ story of Amestris’ vengeance on her husband by mutilating the mother of a girl with whom he had a dalliance.

II. Outline of Esther.

A. Scene 1: The Great Banquet (Preparation for the Greek War?) (1:1‑22).

1. The historical background for the book is given (1:1‑2).

India to Ethiopia is the vast Persian territory known from the Greek sources. The 127 provinces are not to be confused with the Satrapies. Judah was a province under the Satrap of Abar Nahara. (Herodotus says there were 20 Satrapies.) The setting is in the capital of Susa (one of three).

2. The king throws a party for all his important invited guests (1:3‑9) (N. B. his third year).

The first one lasts for 180 days (1:3‑4). The second one for even more people lasts seven days (1:5‑8). Vashti/Amestris has a banquet for the women (1:9).

3. The king demands an appearance of Vashti (1:10‑22).

The king, in a drunken stupor, decides to show off his wife (1:10‑11). Vashti refuses (perhaps he wanted some lewd performance from her; Wright thinks she might have been pregnant) (1:12). The king consults with his counselors to determine the proper punishment for his wife (1:13‑15). They advise the king to depose his wife and to inform all the people of his provinces of his act so that every man may be master in his house (1:16‑22).

B. Scene 2: Four years later—the introduction of Esther and Mordecai (2:1‑23).

1. The lapse of four years (1:1 with 2:16) is probably to be accounted for by the years of preparation for the Greek war and the war itself.

Wright links the replacement of Vashti/Amestris with Xerxes’ desire to get rid of his wife after she had mutilated the wife of Xerxes’ brother. He says the vow at the banquet now becomes an excuse for him to replace her.

2. The king is advised to seek out young virgins and to choose a new queen from among them (2:1-4).

3. Mordecai and Esther are now introduced to the story (2:5‑7).

a. Mordecai is probably a corruption of Babylonian Marduk, a Babylonian deity.

Kish was Saul’s father; Shimei was the one who cursed David when he fled. These may be presented as ancestors, not immediate relatives. The question arises about the age of Mordecai: if he were carried away even as a baby, he would be over 120 years old. The answer may be that the “who” of v. 6 refers to Kish (assuming this is not Saul’s father, but a later man who was Mordecai’s actual father).

Wright equates him with a Martakas, a eunuch who was very close to the king in his campaign against the Greeks and with a Marduka, a high official at Susa during the early years of Xerxes. He may have had a political set‑back (did he side with Vashti/Amestris and lose ground?). He had to have some political clout to get Esther introduced and to ignore Haman’s demands to bow to him.³

b. Esther (her Hebrew name was Hadassah or “Myrtle”) has a Persian name related to the Greek word aster or “Star.” Mordecai, her cousin, reared her after the death of her parents.

4. Esther is chosen as the new queen (2:8‑18).

a. Esther gains favor with the eunuch in charge (2:8‑9).⁴ She does not reveal her Jewish identity as Mordecai had instructed her (2:10). Mordecai keeps in touch (2:11). Esther greatly pleases the king and he chooses her as his new queen (2:12‑18).

b. The reality of this situation must be faced. Esther is competing with other young women to become the queen and a part of the harem. She had sex with the king and was then selected to become the queen. This is hardly the Old Testament picture of virtue, but God uses the situation in spite of the “non-ideal” setting.

5. Mordecai shows loyalty to the king which will grant him favor in the days to come (2:19‑23).

The pace quickens as Mordecai is allowed to overhear a plot against the king’s life.⁵ Mordecai passed the word on to Esther who informed the king in Mordecai’s name and it became a part of court chronicles. This is important for the later situation. The plot was frustrated and the conspirators hanged.

C. Scene 3: Introduction of the enemy Haman (3:1‑15).

1. Haman the Agagite wants to destroy all Jews (3:1‑6).

a. Agag is the name of the Amalekite Saul spared (1 Samuel 15); is this intended irony that a descendent of Saul is pitted against a descendent of Agag? There is no way to prove any connection (3:1).

b. Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman (because of implications of deity or other reasons?), and Haman is infuriated and decides to attack all Jews (3:2‑6).

2. Haman makes plans to destroy the Jews (3:7‑15).

He casts lots to find a lucky day. In the twelfth year of the king (451 B.C.) he convinces the king to kill the Jews in the various provinces and take their money (3:8‑11).⁶ The official letters are drawn up and sent out (3:12‑15).

D. Scene 4: Haman is defeated by Mordecai and Esther (4:1—7:10).

1. Mordecai forces Esther’s hand to help the Jews (4:1‑17).

Mordecai fasts and wails in the midst of the city, and there is mourning in all the provinces (4:1‑3). Esther tries to comfort him, but he tells her of the imminent threat and asks her to appeal to the king (4:4‑8). Esther tells him there is nothing she can do, but Mordecai warns her she will not escape. She agrees to approach the king if the Jewish community will fast for her (4:9‑17).

2. Esther approaches the king with prudence and sets her trap (5:1‑14).

a. She is received by the king, and at his bidding requests a banquet with Haman present (5:1‑4).⁷

b. Haman comes to this feast, and the queen asks that he come again the next day to another feast (5:5‑8).

c. Haman is thrilled and recounts all his good fortune to his family. However, his enthusiasm is dampened by the fact that Mordecai refuses to honor him (notice the irony building up). His wife and friends suggest that he prepare a high gallows on which to hang Mordecai (5:9‑15).⁸

3. The first step in Haman’s downfall is the elevation of Mordecai (6:1‑14).

a. The king’s insomnia leads him to promote Mordecai (6:1‑9).

The chronicles are read to put him to sleep, and he is reminded of Mordecai’s act that saved his life (6:1‑2). The king wants to honor him and calls for the first person in the court who happens to be Haman (6:3‑4). (He had come to ask about having Mordecai hanged.) Haman is asked for suggestions to honor someone, and he happily complies, thinking he is the someone (6:5‑9). (Notice more irony building up.)

b. Haman is humiliated by having to carry out the honor he hoped would be his but is given to Mordecai (6:10‑14).

He leads an ornately attired Mordecai on a horse proclaiming his honor (6:10‑11). He goes home completely embarrassed and receives his summons to appear at the banquet (6:12‑14). (When it rains, it pours.)

4. The final step in Haman’s downfall comes at the banquet (7:1‑10).

The king asks Esther to make her request. Esther tells him of an enemy of her people, and when the king asks who, she tells him it is Haman (7:1‑6). The king walks away in his anger, and Haman falls on Esther’s couch to plead mercy. The king orders his execution, and he is hanged on the tree designed for Mordecai (7:7‑10).

E. Scene 5: Disaster is averted by Mordecai and Esther’s action (8:1—9:19).

1. The king’s original edict cannot be rescinded, but it is negated (8:1‑17).

Esther tells the king she is Mordecai’s cousin, and Mordecai is given Haman’s job (8:1‑2). Esther pleads for her people (8:3‑6). The king allows Mordecai to write the Jews allowing them to defend themselves (8:7‑14).⁹ The Jews in Susa and all the provinces rejoice (8:15‑17).

2. The Jews gain the victory over the enemies (9:1‑19).

The Jews defend themselves and kill 500 people in Susa alone in addition to Haman’s ten sons (9:1‑10). Esther requests an extension of one day to allow the Jews to take further vengeance (9:11‑15). (This seems quite vindictive.) The Jews in the other provinces have equal success (9:16‑19).

F. Scene 6: Mordecai and Esther establish the feast of Purim (9:20‑32).

1. Mordecai records these events (is he the author of the book of Esther, and did he avoid the mention of Yahweh to avoid offending Xerxes who was a worshipper of Ahurrmazda?) (9:20‑29). Since Haman was looking for a lucky day by casting lots (pur), they called these days Purim.

2. Mordecai and Esther sent out letters establishing this feast officially (9:30‑32).

G. Scene 7: Mordecai is exalted (10:1‑3).

1. The Persian chronicles are being quoted which close this section with a mention of tribute imposed by the king (10:1).

2. The next section of the chronicles mentions the greatness of Mordecai (10:2‑3).

He was second to the king, esteemed among the Jews, and in favor with the multitude of his kinsmen.

¹LaSor, et al., Old Testament Survey, p. 624.

²The historicity of Esther is questioned by critical scholars, but see Wright, “The Historicity of Esther.” pp. 37‑47.

³See Wright, “The Historicity of the Book of Esther.”

⁴Cf. Daniel in Daniel 3.

⁵Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative,” JBL 95 (1976): 183, says that Esther immediately had Mordecai promoted to a minor magistrate.

⁶This would have been seven years after Ezra returned to Jerusalem—how would it have affected the group in Judah?

⁷Cf. the request of the daughter of Xerxes’ brother’s wife for his robe. Herodotus, Histories, Book IX.

⁸Fifty cubits—75 feet—may just mean very high gallows.

⁹Gordis, “Studies in the Esther Narrative,” pp. 43-48. He is probably correct when he argues that 8:11 uses the phrase “women and children” as part of the direct object of “attack.” The Jews thus were not enjoined to kill women and children but to protect them from their attackers.

11. Works Cited In Notes And Abbreviations

Related Media

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Albright, W. F. From Stone age to Christianity. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1957.

_____. “King Jehoiachin in Exile.” Biblical Archaeologist Reader #1.

_____. “Debir,” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study. D. W. Thomas, Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

_____. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. NY: Doubleday, 1968.

_____. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. NY: Doubleday, 1969.

Amerding, C. “Were David’s Sons Really Priests.” In Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. G. F. Hawthorne, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. In Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1989.

ANEP Ancient Near East in Pictures. J. B. Pritchard, ed. Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1969.

ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts. As above.

Archer, G. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody, 1964.

Avigad, N. Discovering Jerusalem. Shikmona Pub. Co., 1980.

Avi-Yonah, M. The Holy Land: From Persia to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640); a Historical Geography, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966.

Bähr, K. C. “The Books of the Kings.” In Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. By J. P. Lange. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960. Reprint.

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review.

Barstad, H. M. The Myth of the Empty Land. Oslo: Scandinavian Univ. Press, 1996.

BDB Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon.

BHS Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

BKC Bible Knowledge Commentary.

BibSac Bibliotheca Sacra.

Blaiklock, E. M. “Persia.” In Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary.

Block, D. I. Judges, Ruth. In New American Commentary. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 1999.

Boling, R. G. Joshua. In the Anchor Bible Commentary. NY: Doubleday, 1982.

Bright, J. History of Israel. Phila: Westminster, 1959.

Bruce, F. F. Israel and the Nations, from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Butler, T. C. Judges. In Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

CAH Cambridge Ancient History.

Campbell, E. F. Ruth. In Anchor Bible Commentary. NY: Doubleday, 1975.

Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Phila: Fortress, 1979.

Chisholm, R. B. Judges and Ruth. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013.

Cline, E. The Battles of Megiddo. Ann Arbor: University Press, 2000.

Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. NY: Schocken, 1983.

Craige, P. C. Deuteronomy. In New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Cross, F. M. “Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C. from Daliyeh” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, eds. D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969.

Dahood, M. Psalms. In Anchor Bible Commentary. NY: 3 Vols. Doubleday, 1965.

Deere, J. Deuteronomy, in BHK.

Delitzsch, F. Joshua and Judges. In Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Reprint.

DeVries, S. J. First Kings. In Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985.

Dillow, J. C. Solomon on Sex. New York: Nelson, 1977.

ESV. English Standard Version.

Fensham, F. Ezra/Nehemiah in New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

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

Freedman, D. N. “The Babylonian Chronicle.” Biblical Archaeologist Reader #1.

Garstang, John. Joshua Judges, Grand Rapids: Kregel, reprint, 1978.

_____. The Story of Jericho. Rev. Ed. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1948.

HALOT Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

Hanson, V. D The Case for Trump. NY: Basic Books, 2019.

Hawthorne, G., Ed. Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Heater, Homer. God Rules Among Men. Easley, SC: Hesed Publications, 2019.

_____. “Young David and the Practice of Wisdom,” in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands. Eds., Dyer and Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

_____. Bible History and Archaeology. Easley SC: Hesed Publications, 2016.

_____. “A Theology of Samuel and Kings.” In Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody, 1991.

_____. Tr. of Joüon, P. Ruth, a Philological and Exegetical Commentary. Easley SC: Hesed Publications, 2013.

_____. “Jeremiah.” In The Old Testament Prophets, an Outline. Easley, SC: Hesed Publications, 2015.

Hertzberg, First and Second Samuel in the Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Hobbs, T. R. Second Kings. In Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1985.

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual.

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review.

Joüon, P. Ruth, a Philological and Exegetical Commentary. Tr. Homer Heater. Easley SC: Hesed Publications, 2013.

Keil, C. F. Joshua and Judges. In Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Reprint.

_____. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. In Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Reprint.

_____ and F. Delitzsch. The Books of Samuel. In Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Reprint.

_____. I and II Chronicles. In Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Reprint.

Kenyon, K. “Jericho” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study. D. W. Thomas, Ed. Clarendon Press, 1967.

Kidner, D. Proverbs, An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: IVP, 1964.

Kitchen, Kenneth. On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003.

_____. “Ancient Orient, “Deuteronism,’ and the Old Testament.” New Perspectives on the Old Testament. J. B. Payne, Ed. Waco: Word, 1970.

KJV King James Version.

LaSor, et al. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

LXX Septuagint.

Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press 1962.

Machlin, Milt. Joshua’s Altar. NY: Morrow and Co., 1991.

Mazar, A. Archaeology and the Land of the Bible. NY: Doubleday, 1990.

McCarter, Kyle. I Samuel in Anchor Bible. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1980.

Macdonald, J. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1964.

_____. II Samuel in Anchor Bible. Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1984.

Merrill, E. A Kingdom of Priests, a History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Montgomery, J. A. Kings. In International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951.

Moran, W. L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Moscati, S. The Face of the Ancient Orient. NY: Doubleday, 1962.

MS, MSS Manuscript, Manuscripts.

Myers, J. M. Chronicles. 2 Vols. In Anchor Bible Commentary. NY: Doubleday, 1965.

_____. Ezra and Nehemiah in the Anchor Bible Commentary. NY: Doubleday, 1965.

NASB New American Standard Bible.

NIV New International Version.

NJB New Jerusalem Bible.

Noth, M. History of Israel. Trans. S. Godman. New York: Harper, 1958.

_____. Old Testament World. Fortress, 1966.

_____. Das System der Zwölf Stämme Israels. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1930.

Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948.

OROT On the Reliability of the Old Testament.

Pope, M. H. Job. In Anchor Bible Commentary. NY: Doubleday, 1965.

Porten. Archives of Elephantine. Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1968.

Pritchard, J. B. Gibeon, where the Sun Stood Still. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962.

Provan, Ian, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Reed, W. L. “Gibeon,” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study. D. W. Thomas, Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

Schedl, History of the Old Testament. Vol. 1-5. NY: Alba House, 1972.

Scott, R. B. Y. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. In Anchor Bible Commentary. NY: Doubleday, 1965.

Segal, M. H. The Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

Sélincourt, Aubrey de. The World of Herodotus. Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1962.

Shanks, H. The Rise of Ancient Israel. Wash. D. C.: The Biblical Archaeology Society, 2004.

Smith, W. R. The Prophets of Israel. 2nd ed. London: A. C. Black, 1895.

Stern, E. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeology Excavations in the Holy Land. Ed. Negev and Gipson.

_____. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol. 2, The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–332 BCE. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

_____. (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Simon & Schuster, 1993.

_____. “The Archaeology of Persian Palestine,” W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, eds, 1:70).

Thiele, E. Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Throntveit, M. “Ezra-Nehemiah.” In Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992,

Unger, M. F. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954.

_____. Israel and the Arameans of Damascus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957.

Von Rad. Old Testament Theology. New York: Harper, 1962-65.

Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. In the Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Publisher, 1985.

Wiseman, D. J. The Babylonian Chronicle. London: British Museum, 1956.

_____. et al. Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965.

Wood, L. A Survey of Israel’s History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Woudstra, M.H. The Book of Joshua. In New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Wright, G. E. Biblical Archaeology. Phila: Westminster, 1957.

_____. “Introduction.” In R. G. Boling. Joshua. In the Anchor Bible Commentary. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982.

Wright, J. S. “The Historicity of Esther.” In New Perspectives on the Old Testament. J. B. Payne, Ed. Waco: Word, 1970.

Würthwein, E. The Text of the OT. Tr. P. Ackroyd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957.

Yadin, Y. The Finds from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1963.

Young, E. J. My Servants the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

ZPBD Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary.

The Old Testament Historical Books (Joshua Through Esther): An Outline

Related Media

Preface

The Old Testament historical books (Joshua to Esther) represent the development of the people of Israel from their entrance to Canaan to their exile to Babylon. They are essential for understanding the history and faith of God’s people.

It has been my pleasure and delight to serve the Lord both as pastor and professor for over 60 years. Most of those years have been spent in the classroom. These outline notes are the product of that labor and, even though they are designed for everyone, some linguistic aspects are more usable by seminary graduates.

Most of my time at Capital Bible Seminary was invested in Hebrew grammar and exegesis. My years at Dallas were primarily in the Bible Exposition Department where I taught Historical Books for eight years.

We live in strange days. W. F. Albright, almost single handedly, in the middle of the last century, moved the Old Testament theological needle from radical liberal to moderately conservative. He believed there was an Abraham, that Moses was monotheistic, that there was an exodus, and that archaeology and Bible study went hand in hand. He had such towering scholarship that many became his followers, and few were his critics.

Now, however, that needle has swung back. The so-called minimalists believe in very little biblical history. There was virtually nothing in the David/Solomon era, and, of course, no patriarchal history, no exodus, and no conquering of the land.

These notes represent an attempt to interact with the critical issues and still maintain a conservative view of Scripture. My prayer is that they will be helpful to those who use them

Suggestions and corrections are always welcome.

Homer Heater, Jr.

Capital Bible Seminary

For a print version of this resource, it may be purchased here on Amazon.

You are here

From the series: The Old Testament Historical Books (Joshua Through Esther): An Outline PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

3. Ruth

A. The third appendix, a godly line established (Ruth 1:1—4:22).

1. Struggling in Bethlehem (1:1).

2. Struggling in Moab (1:2-5).

3. Returning to Bethlehem (1:6-18).

4. Coming home after a ten-year absence (1:19-22).

5. The kinsman redeemer (goel) (2:1-3).11

6. The kinsman redeemer notices (2:4-7).

7. The kinsman redeemer gives special attention (2:8-16).

8. The kinsman redeemer revealed (2:17-23).

9. Naomi’s plan of attack (3:1-5).24

10. The encounter on the threshing floor (3:6-13).

11. The kinsman redeemer ensnared (3:14-18).

12. The kinsman redeemer checkmates the closer kinsman (4:1-6).

13. The kinsman redeemer’s triumph (4:7-12).

14. The marriage made in heaven (4:13-17).

15. The main purpose of the book of Ruth (4:18-22).

From the series: The Old Testament Historical Books (Joshua Through Esther): An Outline PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: The Old Testament Historical Books (Joshua Through Esther): An Outline PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

4. 1 Samuel

I. Historical background to the Books of Samuel.2

II. The place of 1 and 2 Samuel in Israel’s history.

III. The authorship and composition of the Books of Samuel.

IV. The text of Samuel.

V. The purpose of Samuel.

VI. Synthesis of Samuel.

VII. Notes on First Samuel.

A. Samuel, Prophet, Priest and Judge (1 Sam 1:1—7:17).

1. The Birth of Samuel (1:1—2:10).

a. Samuel’s tribal origins (1:1).

b. Elkanah’s family struggle (1:2‑8).

c. Hannah’s prayer and vow (1:9‑11).

d. Eli’s misunderstanding of Hannah (1:12‑18).

e. Hannah’s prayer answered (1:19‑20).

f. Dedication of Samuel (1:21‑28).

g. Hannah’s psalm of thanksgiving and praise (2:1‑10).

2. The Family of Eli (2:11—4:22).

a. The writer’s purpose.

b. The practice of Eli’s sons (2:12‑17).

c. The contrast of the boy Samuel (2:18‑21).

d. More on the wickedness of Eli’s sons (2:22‑26).

e. Prediction of judgment on Eli’s house through a prophet (2:27‑36).

f. Prediction of judgment on Eli’s house through faithful Samuel (3:1-21).

g. The Judgment of God against the house of Eli begins (4:1‑22).

3. The evidence of God’s continued grace in the protection of the ark of the covenant (5:1—7:2).

a. The vicissitudes of the ark are recounted in chapters 5 and 6.

b. Confrontation between paganism and Jehovah (5:1‑12).

c. The restoration of the ark with recognition of the position of the God of Israel (6:1‑20).

d. Defeat of the Philistines (7:3‑17) (The right approach to battle).

B. Samuel and Saul, a time of transition (8:1—15:35B.Samuel and Saul, a time of transition (8:1‑15:35).

1. The people’s choice: a monarchy rather than a theocracy (8:1‑22).

a. The Problem—Samuel’s sons (8:1‑3).

b. The request of the people (8:4‑18).

c. The response of the people (8:19‑22).

2. The selection of Saul as King (9:1—10:27).

a. Background of the story (9:1‑4).

b. The circumstances for the encounter with Samuel (9:5‑10).

c. The arrival of Samuel at the city (9:11‑14).

d. The amazing encounter with Samuel (9:15‑21).

e. Samuel and Saul at the sacrificial meal (9:22‑24).

f. Preparation for the anointing of Saul (9:25‑27).

g. The private anointing of Saul (10:1‑8).

h. The fulfillment of the signs (10:9‑13).

i. Saul’s reception at home (10:14‑16).

j. The public anointing of Saul (10:17‑27).

3. The first test of the new king (11:1‑15).

a. The provocation (11:1‑5).

b. The response of Saul (11:6‑11).

c. The new respect for Saul (11:12‑14).

4. Samuel’s testimonial (12:1‑25).

a. Samuel calls for a testimony of his pure life (12:1‑5).

b. Samuel’s farewell message (12:6‑18).

c. Samuel prays for the people (12:19‑25).

5. Saul battles the Philistines (13:1—14:52).

6. Saul’s second rejection comes with his failure in the ḥerem war against the Amalekites (15:1‑35).

a. God calls for a “total destruction” war (15:1‑3).

b. Saul wins the battle but loses the “war” (15:4‑9).

c. God confronts Saul with his sin through Samuel (15:10‑33).

5. The kinsman redeemer (goel) (2:1-3).¹¹

9. Naomi’s plan of attack (3:1-5).²⁴

I. Historical background to the Books of Samuel.²

B. Samuel and Saul, a time of transition (8:1—15:35

Second Samuel ¹