Cracks In The Foundation: Ominous Signs In The David Narrative

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Department Chair and Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

Readers of David’s story should not become enamored with its positive side and ignore its tragic dimensions. The tragic is hard to overlook once one arrives at 2 Samuel 11, but David’s fall did not occur out of the blue. Tragedy is latent in the narrative from its beginning. Ominous signs appear throughout the story and foreshadow David’s moral demise. This article attempts to identify these “cracks in the foundation” and develop the dark side of the narrative that becomes predominant with David’s cold-blooded murder of Uriah.

Introduction

If one assesses David strictly on the basis of information presented prior to and following the David narrative in the Former Prophets (1 Samuel 16—1 Kings 2), a positive portrait of the king emerges. Before the narrator ever mentions David by name, he calls him “a man who is loyal” to God (1 Sam. 13:14, NET).[1] After the account of David’s death, the narrator holds David up as a paradigm of loyalty to God (1 Kings 3:3; 11:4, 6; 15:3, 5, 11; 2 Kings 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 22:2). Only once is this affirmation sullied by a reference to David’s crimes against Uriah (1 Kings 15:5). Even God himself refers to David as a model of allegiance (1 Kings 3:14; 9:4; 11:33-34, 38; 14:8). In these texts the focus appears to be on David’s undivided worship and cultic purity.[2]

Outside the Former Prophets, the Chronicler gives a sanitized version of David’s career and depicts him as a model leader. His account of David’s reign (1 Chron. 11-29) highlights his role as worship leader (15:1-16:43), with special emphasis on preparations for building the temple and on organization of the temple cult (22:1-26:32; 28:1-29:20). The Chronicler also gives careful attention to David’s covenant with the Lord (17:1-27) and to his military leadership (11:4-12:40; 14:8-16; 18:1-20:8; 27:1-24), with emphasis on the fact that his support came from all Israel (12:23-40). Negative incidents in David’s career, such as his sin with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, are suppressed, for the most part.[3]

Given this positive assessment of David’s career, it is tempting to view the David narrative in the Former Prophets as an essentially positive account of the king’s career, with the Bathsheba-Uriah incident as an aberration. After all, once David arrives on the scene, the narrator goes out of his way to demonstrate David’s superiority to Saul and to make it clear that David was the chosen king. Even Saul’s son Jonathan recognized this fact and swore allegiance to David (1 Sam. 20:12-17; 23:16-18). Eventually, Saul himself acknowledged David’s innocence and his God-ordained destiny (1 Sam. 24:17-21; 26:21-25). Granted, after the murder of Uriah, David’s kingdom threatened to fall apart around him, but God preserved his life and his throne, while David humbly submitted to divine discipline and prayed for mercy (2 Sam. 16:10-12).

Readers of David’s story should not become enamored with its positive side, however, and ignore its ominous and tragic dimensions. The bloody stench of tragedy rises from the pages of 2 Samuel 11—1 Kings 2 and pollutes the air, no matter how much freshener one sprays around the room. But David’s fall was not something that occurred abruptly. Even before 2 Samuel 11, ominous signs appear throughout the story and foreshadow David’s moral demise. For those who recognize these signs, David’s eventual fall comes as no surprise. Tragedy is latent in the narrative from the start. This article attempts to identify these “cracks in the foundation” and develop the dark side of the narrative that becomes predominant with David’s cold-blooded murder of Uriah.

David Takes The Stage (1 Sam. 16:1-13)

When David arrives on the scene, the narrator describes him as “ruddy, with attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (1 Sam. 16:12, NET; literally, “ruddy, with beauty of eyes and goodness of appearance”). In 1 Samuel 17:42 he is called “ruddy and handsome of appearance.” Why does the narrator draw attention to David’s physical appearance? Some suggest the description in 16:12 indicates divine favor (cf. v. 18).[4] However, this focus on David’s attractive appearance runs counter to the theme of the story. The Lord has just declared that humans “look on the outward appearance” (literally, “look to the eyes”), as opposed to the heart (v. 7). So one should not expect the narrator, of all people, to draw attention to the beauty of David’s eyes![5]

Rather than offering David’s physical attractiveness as proof of his favored status in the sight of God, the narrator may have a different purpose here. Perhaps he is assuming the human perspective just illustrated in Samuel’s reaction to Eliab’s appearance (v. 6). In contrast to the Lord, whose vision probes deeply into a person’s character (see 1 Sam. 13:14), human beings (including even the spiritually astute Samuel) focus on external appearances. Though not the most physically impressive of Jesse’s sons, David was attractive, and he would be prone to the temptations that inevitably threaten beautiful people (cf. Gen. 39:6).[6] Later the narrator, reflecting David’s point of view, will call Bathsheba “beautiful (literally, “good”) of appearance” (טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה, 2 Sam. 11:2), a phrase that mirrors “handsome (literally, “good”) of appearance” (טוֹב רֹאִי), used in 1 Samuel 16:12 of David.[7]

Walter Brueggemann notices the incongruity in the text:

We have been put on notice in 16:7: Do not look on appearance, look on the heart. But a wistful aside is offered in v. 12. This eighth son is impressive: He is ruddy, has beautiful eyes, is handsome. Of course that is not why he is chosen. But one cannot help but notice. And noticing, one cannot help but comment. Perhaps in that moment of recognition are sown some seeds of what is to come later. He was a choice made only on the grounds of fidelity. But what a man! One need not deny the power of virility. Virility just drips off of him.[8]

David Speaks For The First Time (1 Sam. 17:26-28)

Alter observes that the first recorded words of a character are “usually, in biblical narrative convention, a defining moment of characterization.”[9] David’s first words in the narrative (v. 26) reflect the ambiguity that will swirl around him throughout the story.[10] He displays self-interest, perhaps even a touch of greed (“What will be done for the man who strikes down this Philistine and frees Israel from this humiliation?”), as well as an obvious concern for God’s honor (“For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he defies the armies of the living God?”).[11] Robert Polzin notices the ambivalence: “From the moment David enters the picture, he comes across as someone who is as much self-serving as God-fearing.”[12] Marti J. Steussy observes that David “has one eye on God, but the other watches greedily for reward.”[13]

Eliab’s response to David’s statement may have a foreshadowing function in the story. Eliab’s charge that David has evil in his heart (v. 28) is usually dismissed as the false accusation of a jealous older brother.[14] After all, Samuel chose David over Eliab (1 Sam. 16:6-13). However, Keith Bodner argues that Eliab’s statement is actually “a double-voiced utterance, meaning that in these words the distinctive accent of the Deuteronomist can be heard.”[15] Following on the heels of David’s self-serving question, Eliab may be warning David “to pay close attention to matters of the heart.” He “may well have David’s best interests in mind, and offers what he deems wise counsel.”[16] According to Bodner, the narrator intends Eliab’s statement to be a “voice of warning, implying that while this character (David) may be a hero, even a hero with a ‘heart after God’, the ensuing portrait is going to be intricate, rich in tension, and even paradox. Through the words of Eliab, the reader receives a signal that the characterization of David will not be entirely straightforward, and that his personality will be subject to rigorous scrutiny.”[17] Bodner also draws linguistic parallels between Eliab’s statement and the Uriah incident recorded in 2 Samuel 11-12, particularly Nathan’s parable.[18] Some of these may be purely coincidental, but it is striking that the narrator’s description of Eliab’s anger (v. 28) is echoed later in David’s response to the villain (actually David himself) of Nathan’s parable (2 Sam. 12:5). Indeed, in the end Eliab’s accusation ironically rings true, whether or not it was fair at the time he made it.[19]

David Marries Into The Royal Family (1 Sam. 18:20-30)

Foiled in his attempt to marry off Merab to David (1 Sam. 18:17-19), Saul was not ready to give up. When he found out that his younger daughter Michal (cf. 1 Sam. 14:49) loved David, he gave David another opportunity to marry into the family (1 Sam. 18:20-21). Saul anticipated Michal being a “snare” to David (v. 21). David would be obligated to pay a bride price, which Saul would be able to dictate. By making the acquisition of the bride price dangerous, Saul hoped to get rid of David (v. 25).

Saul commanded his servants to work on David; they told him that the king was very pleased with him and that the king’s servants loved him (v. 22). This second argument was especially devious, for it was designed to tempt David to seek power. Saul’s “servants” were his court officials (cf. 1 Sam. 16:15), whose loyalty (the sense of “loved” here) would give David “a natural base of power at court.”[20] David balked again, objecting that he was of lowly social status and not worthy to join the royal family (v. 23).

Thinking that David might have been concerned that he would have to pay an exorbitant bride price, Saul, again operating through his servants, assured David that all he wanted was the foreskins of a hundred Philistines (vv. 24-25). For David this offer was appealing because he could acquire the bride price while carrying out his military duties, without having to diminish his personal wealth.[21] But from Saul’s perspective this was an ideal opportunity to thrust David into harm’s way, where he could easily be killed.

This time David agreed to the deal. He went out with his men, killed two hundred Philistines, and brought their foreskins to Saul, giving Saul twice what he had demanded (vv. 26-27a).[22] David then received Michal as his wife (v. 27b). So Saul’s plan had backfired. His fear of David grew, making him even more hostile toward David. David’s success against the Philistines was a sign of divine favor and Michal’s love for David made her a potential ally of David (vv. 28-29; cf. 1 Sam. 19:11-17). In the meantime David’s success continued and his reputation grew (v. 30).

When David rejected Saul’s offer of Merab by appealing to his lowly social status, one senses David was using this as an excuse, due to his suspicions about Saul’s intentions. Why did he change his mind when Michal was offered? Perhaps Saul’s strategy was working and David was becoming enthralled by the royal court and its potential benefits. David had already expressed an interest in self-advancement (cf. 1 Sam. 17:26). His response when Michal was offered (in which he focused on his poor status) may have been saying, “I’ll accept if the price is right.” After all, once Saul made the bride affordable, David seems to have jumped at the opportunity.[23]

For the first time in the story, the all-knowing narrator reveals David’s thoughts: “the matter was pleasing/right in the eyes of David, to become a son-in-law to the king” (1 Sam. 18:26; literal translation). A pattern appears when comparing this to David’s first recorded words (17:26). Steussy explains: “Our first insight into David’s thoughts . . . comes in 1 S 18:26: ‘David was well pleased to be the king’s son-in-law.’ Not ‘Michal’s husband’ nor even ‘Saul’s son-in-law’ but ‘the king’s son-in-law.’ This privileged insight reinforces the implication of David’s opening words: whatever else may or may not be on his mind, David is keenly aware of political position and possibilities for his own advancement.”[24]

David On The Run (1 Sam. 21:1—22:5)

Lying to a Priest (21:1-9). Certain that Saul wanted to kill him, David fled to Nob. Ahimelech the priest was afraid when he saw David alone, apparently suspecting that he was in some kind of trouble. Perhaps David looked a bit harried. David concocted a story, saying that he was on a secret mission and that his soldiers were waiting for him elsewhere.[25] David asked if the priest had any food to spare, but he responded that he had only “holy bread” available, which was to be eaten by the priests. However, Ahimelech was willing to help David, as long as David and his men had consecrated themselves. David assured him that this was their usual practice.

Claiming that he had rushed off without grabbing a weapon, David also asked for a sword or spear. Ahimelech told him that Goliath’s sword (which had earlier been kept in David’s tent, 1 Sam. 17:54) was all that was available. David jumped at the offer, proclaiming, “There’s nothing like it! Give it to me!” (v. 9) David’s attitude toward this foreign warrior’s weapon had radically changed. Earlier he had contrasted Goliath’s weapons with the Lord (cf. 1 Sam. 17:45), but now he was eager to have the Philistine’s sword in his hand and seems to view it as his source of defense, not just a trophy.[26] As Steussy observes, “Evidently David no longer eschews the trappings of worldly military might.”[27]

Pretending to be Insane (21:10-15). David fled to Philistine territory and sought asylum with Achish, the king of Gath. When the Philistines referred to him as a king and recalled his military victories, David became afraid. He pretended to be insane; he spit on the doorposts of the royal palace and made saliva run down his beard. When Achish saw this, he sarcastically refused to give David asylum, claiming that he already had enough madmen around and did not need another one in the palace.

To Moab and Back Again (22:1-5). David went to Adullam, where his brothers and parents joined him. Four hundred malcontents also gathered to him and made him their leader (cf. Judg. 11:1-3). David took his parents and his private army to Moab, on the other side of the Dead Sea. Perhaps the king of Moab felt allegiance to David, due to David’s ancestry (recall that Ruth the Moabite was an ancestress of David). However, the prophet Gad, who was apparently part of David’s entourage, instructed him to return to Judah. David’s departure from Judah had been a denial of God’s plan for him. God was getting his attention.

In this story a desperate David’s faith was wavering. Though still aware of God’s control over his life (cf. 1 Sam. 22:3), he seems to trust in a fallen enemy’s sword (21:9) and the asylum offered by foreign kings (21:10; 22:3-4), one of whom was an archenemy. But the Lord forced him to face up to his destiny (22:5).

David And Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20-23)

When Abiathar told him about the slaughter at Nob, David took responsibility for the murder of the priests. To his credit, he did what he could in the aftermath of the tragedy and committed himself to care for the lone survivor of the bloodbath (1 Sam. 22:22-23). Was David really guilty? His confession indicates that he knew what Doeg would do. If so, perhaps he could have protected Ahimelech. This places David in a negative light, for it suggests that David, when pressed, was willing to give priority to his own safety, at the expense of others. The incident foreshadows what would happen to Uriah—another innocent man, loyal to David, who would die as a result of a scheme designed to protect David. When one compares the two accounts, David’s sensitivity in the case of Ahimelech contrasts with his callous disregard for Uriah.[28]

David Marries Abigail (1 Sam. 25)

Following the death of Samuel (1 Sam. 25:1), David and his men moved southward to Maon. They encountered the servants of a rich man named Nabal who were shearing their master’s sheep. David’s men could have robbed Nabal, but instead they protected Nabal’s servants (cf. vv. 15-16). David then contacted Nabal and requested provisions, pointing out that he and his men had not harmed Nabal’s workers. Though David’s words were polite enough, they could be taken as a not-so-subtle attempt at extorting food and money from Nabal.[29] Nabal’s reply was insulting and prompted an angry David to threaten hostile action. David invoked a self-imprecation as he vowed to wipe out Nabal and his sons! (v. 22; see NET Bible, which follows the Septuagint here). His response probably reflects the code of the day.[30]

The subsequent story line does not condemn David for his expectation, though it does suggest that a violent response to Nabal’s angry reply would have been wrong (vv. 31, 39). The story presents Nabal in a negative light and suggests that he should have responded favorably to David’s request. The testimony against him is unanimous as the narrator (v. 3), Nabal’s servant (v. 17), and Nabal’s wife (v. 25) all denounce his wickedness. By contrast, his wise (cf. v. 3) wife knew of David’s destiny (vv. 28-30). Like his wife, Nabal should have helped David, the Lord’s chosen king and the protector of Israel.[31] He should have shown David compassion, out of gratitude for what he had accomplished for Israel.

When Abigail heard the servant’s report of what had happened and his urgent warning, she gathered provisions and went to meet David. She arrived on the scene, humbly fell before David, accepted personal responsibility for what had happened, and acknowledged that her husband was a fool (as suggested by his name Nabal). She suggested that the Lord had kept David from taking matters into his own hands, and she appealed to the Lord to vindicate David. She presented David with a gift (literally, a blessing—the provisions he had requested) and asked for his forgiveness. She reminded David of his destiny, suggesting it would be inappropriate for the Lord’s chosen leader to stain his reputation and jeopardize his future by shedding blood without sufficient cause. David responded positively, viewing Abigail as a literal godsend, praising her discernment, and blessing her.

When David heard that Nabal had died, he praised God for vindicating him and for preventing him from sinning. He then asked Abigail to be his wife. (The narrator mentions that David now had two wives—Ahinoam and Abigail. Michal had been taken from David and given to another man.)

In this chapter the voice of wisdom, embodied in Abigail (vv. 3, 33), reiterates what Saul himself confessed earlier (24:16-21)—David was destined to be king. Only a fool (like Nabal—and Saul?) would resist God’s purposes.[32] David, though tempted to commit murder motivated by a desire for vengeance, listened to Abigail’s voice of wisdom. Such restraint and reliance on God’s intervention were fitting for one who would rule Israel. Once more David stands in contrast to Saul, who had been on a mission to take an innocent life (David’s; cf. 1 Sam. 19:5) and had already killed the innocent priests of Nob and their families (cf. 1 Sam. 22).[33]

David’s marriage to Abigail may have a positive function literarily, for he embraced the voice of wisdom and received a blessing that a fool like Nabal never deserved. It is also noteworthy that Abigail’s son (Kileab = Daniel; 2 Sam. 3:3; 1 Chron. 3:1) does not appear later in a negative light as a contender for the throne.[34]

On the other hand, there may be cause for concern. Taking a second wife may seem harmless enough, but it had the potential to start a harmful trend. Indeed when David was reigning in Hebron (2 Sam. 3:2-5), he had six wives. While still in Hebron, he demanded that Michal be returned to him (3:14-16), and later he married Bathsheba (11:27). Furthermore, he took Saul’s wives as his own when he became king (12:8).

David is also portrayed as susceptible to violence and rash behavior. As Biddle observes, he “is too shortsighted to recognize the risk to his future posed by rash vengeance.” Furthermore, “as the narrative insists by repeated declarations of David’s murderous intention toward Nabal, David is violent.”[35]

There may be another subtle but ominous signal in this text. There are five references to David “sending” (שָׁלַח). He sent messengers to propose a deal with Nabal (1 Sam. 25:5, 14, 25) and to secure Abigail as his wife (vv. 39-40). This same verb is prominent in 2 Samuel 11, where it epitomizes David’s abuse of power (vv. 3-4, 6, 12, 14, 27). Since this verb is used several times in the intervening chapters with David as subject, perhaps one should not make too much of it. However, the statements in 1 Samuel 25:39 (literally, “David sent and spoke with Abigail to take [לָקַח] her”) and 25:40 (literally, “David sent us to you to take [לָקַח] you”) do echo in 2 Samuel 11:4, where (literally) “David sent messengers and took [לָקַח] her”).[36] After 1 Samuel 25:39-40, the verbs “send” (שָׁלַח) and “take” (לָקַח) are associated with David as subject or instigator only three times (2 Sam. 3:14-15; 9:5; 11:4). Two of these have a feminine object (2 Sam. 9:5 is the exception), and in both texts sending for and taking a woman (Michal, Bathsheba) is presented negatively (on 2 Sam. 3:15, see below). While David’s sending for and taking Abigail seems innocent enough, it foreshadows the callous, greedy actions described in these later texts.

David Adds To His Harem (2 Sam. 3:2-5)

Following Saul’s death, David’s power expanded (2 Sam. 3:1). However, before continuing the story of David’s rise to the throne of Israel (2 Sam. 3:6—5:5), the narrator pauses to say that David fathered six sons from six different wives during the seven and a half years he was ruling in Hebron (2 Sam. 3:2-5; cf. 2:11; 5:6). Earlier David had just two wives (Ahinoam and Abigail; 1 Sam. 25:43; 30:5; 2 Sam. 2:2-3), excluding Michal, whom Saul had given to Paltiel (1 Sam. 25:44). Now there are suddenly four more wives.[37] At least one of these marriages was apparently contracted for purposes of solidifying a political alliance. Maacah was the daughter of King Talmai of Geshur, which was located east of the Jordan River north of Mahanaim. Ish-bosheth actually claimed sovereignty over the Geshurites (2 Sam. 2:9). David’s alliance with Talmai, like his offer to Jabesh Gilead (2 Sam. 2:4b–7), was politically shrewd in that it placed an ally of David in Ish-bosheth’s backyard.

Anderson sees in the list of sons “an indication of divine blessing and approval.”[38] Cartledge similarly states: “The most obvious function of the list . . . is to illustrate David’s growing strength by demonstrating his ability to build a sizable harem and sire children by multiple wives. In the ancient world, the size of a king’s harem—and the evidence of his sexual prowess as exhibited through regular pregnancies—was an accepted symbol of royal power. The sons being born to David prove that he is growing ‘stronger and stronger’”[39]

But the report is alarming in the light of Deuteronomy 17:17, which prohibits the king of Israel from multiplying wives. Problems will emerge within this crowded royal court, especially between the half-brothers Amnon (son of Ahinoam) and Absalom (son of Maacah). David’s harem building suggests that he was modeling his royal court after the surrounding nations and ignoring God’s blueprint for kingship.[40]

David Reclaims Michal (2 Sam. 3:12-16)

Abner could see the handwriting on the wall. He contacted David and informed him of his willingness to support his kingship. David welcomed Abner’s support, but on one condition. He demanded that Abner bring him Michal, whom he had purchased with Philistine foreskins (1 Sam. 18:22-27).[41] David sent a formal demand to Ish-bosheth, who apparently recognized David’s legal right in the matter and took Michal from her husband, Paltiel. When the weeping Paltiel followed behind her, Abner ordered him to go home.

What assessment does this incident call for? On the one hand, David’s demand seems only fair; he had risked his life to marry Michal, and Saul had no right to take her away from him. Ish-bosheth even complied with the demand, which suggests that David’s demand was fair. On the other hand, one detects political ambition. By demanding Michal, David reminded everyone that he was Saul’s son-in-law and had a legitimate place in Saul’s royal court. With Michal as his wife, David would be in a better position to negotiate with the Benjaminites.[42]

At the macro-plot level of the story, David’s demand for Michal should be seen in a negative light. His reference to the original bride price recalls 1 Samuel 18 and how Saul offered his daughters to David as part of a plot to kill him. When David rejected Saul’s offer of Merab by appealing to his lowly social status, one sensed David was using this as an excuse due to his suspicions about Saul’s intentions. Saul then had his servants butter David up by telling him he had many supporters in Saul’s royal court. When Saul made Michal affordable, David took the bait. Perhaps David succumbed to Saul’s strategy because he was becoming enamored with the royal court and the possibilities it presented. Success, fueled by the assurance he had supporters in the royal court, started to go to David’s head, and he made a politically astute move to place himself closer to the throne that he knew he was destined to occupy. In other words, Michal symbolizes David’s quest for the throne using his own wits and schemes. When he reclaimed her, he was once again in such a mode—forming alliances and trying to force the issue, rather than trusting in God’s providence to deliver what was rightfully his.

This incident has an even darker, more sinister dimension to it. Kessler observes that the placement of this account after the harem report of verses 2-5 is strategic. He writes, “Thus, the audience approaches David’s demand for Michal in 2 Sam 3:12-13 with the freshly acquired knowledge that the man who will deprive Paltiel of his one cherished wife already has six other women.”[43] He certainly did not need Michal in his harem.

Kessler thoroughly examines the language of 2 Samuel 3:12-16 and concludes that the narrator casts Paltiel in a sympathetic light in order to highlight David’s self-serving treatment of Michal. David called Michal “my wife” in his message to Ish-bosheth (v. 14), but the narrator calls Paltiel “her husband” (v. 16), as if to challenge David’s perspective. Kessler observes, “The narrator appears to be creating a deliberate contrast between two perspectives, betraying sympathy for one of them.”[44] Kessler adds, “In contrast to Nabal, who is vilified, Paltiel is humiliated. He is deeply bonded to his wife. His humiliation is the consequence of his falling victim to forces beyond his control.”[45]

This victimization of Paltiel foreshadows what would happen to Uriah. As Kessler points out, Nathan’s parable (2 Sam. 12:1-4) suggests that Uriah, like Paltiel, deeply cherished his wife.[46] Yet David grabbed her, just as he did Michal, with no regard for her status as Uriah’s wife. Indeed, it is likely that Nathan’s parable is double-barreled; the poor man obviously represents Uriah, but one also detects the presence of Paltiel lurking behind the image. In fact, language used to describe the taking of Michal echoes in the Bathsheba account. In both stories David “sent messengers” (3:14; 11:4) and in both he took (לָקַח) the desired object (3:15; 11:4). (In Michal’s case, David took her through the instrumentality of Ish-bosheth, while in Bathsheba’s case he operated through his messengers.)

David Lets Joab Get Away with Murder (2 Sam. 3:22-39)

When Joab heard the news of Abner’s visit, he went ballistic. He accused David of being naïve and charged Abner with spying. Behind David’s back, Joab sent a message to Abner, asking him to return. When Abner arrived, Joab murdered him in cold blood. The text indicates Joab’s motive was vengeance (cf. v. 30), though one wonders if Joab, at least subconsciously, was also worried that David might give his job as general to Abner.

The text exonerates David, who did not know about Joab’s message or the murder until after the fact. When he did find out, he (1) protested his innocence, (2) called a curse down on Joab and Abishai, (3) ordered everyone, including Joab, to mourn Abner’s death, (4) led a state sponsored funeral procession, (5) chanted a lament, and (6) fasted. Impressed by David’s response to Abner’s death, the people were convinced of David’s innocence in the matter. Finally, David complained to his servants about Joab and Abishai and called another curse down upon Joab.[47]

However, David did not bring Joab to justice, forcing one to ask: Why did he allow the perpetrator of such a crime to go unpunished? David’s curse upon Joab placed the matter in God’s hands. However, did not David, in his capacity as king, have the authority to be God’s instrument of justice? After all, on his deathbed he told his son Solomon to bring Joab to justice—a command that Solomon obeyed (see 1 Kings 2:5-6, 28-34).[48] David disapproved of Joab’s deeds, but maybe he decided that it was convenient to keep Joab around.[49] David’s failure to act reflects a character flaw that becomes even more apparent as the story continues. David was unable to deal justly with those closest to him. He will be angry over

Amnon’s rape of Tamar, but he will do nothing to Amnon (2 Sam. 13:21).[50] He will let Absalom get away with murdering Amnon, and he will fail to discipline the greedy Adonijah (1 Kings 1:6).[51]

Anderson suggests that David did not bring Joab to justice because Joab was operating within the boundaries of the ancient rules of blood vengeance, which the Old Testament allowed but regulated (cf. Num. 35:9-34).[52] However, if this were true, David’s curses would be unjustified. Furthermore, David called Joab’s deed “evil” (2 Sam. 3:39). Perhaps Joab’s deed could be justified as an act of war, but David ruled this option out in his deathbed speech to Solomon, when he accused Joab of killing Abner in a time of peace (1 Kings 2:5).[53]

Of course, David was fully capable of implementing swift justice when he so desired, as 2 Samuel 4 illustrates. Realizing that David would soon supplant Ish-bosheth, two military leaders from the tribe of Benjamin decided to seek David’s favor.[54] While Ish-bosheth was resting in his house, they murdered him and cut off his head. They took their trophy to David, thinking that he would reward them for their loyalty to his cause. (Apparently they had not heard about the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul! See 2 Samuel 1.) David had them executed on the spot for murdering an innocent man. The assassins’ hands and feet (or perhaps their mutilated bodies)[55] were hung near the pool in Hebron, where all who came to draw water would be reminded of David’s justice and of his innocence in the death of Ish-bosheth. But one is left to wonder why David carried out such swift justice against these assassins, yet failed to punish Joab.

David Adds To His Harem—Again (2 Sam. 5:13-16)

David’s power continued to grow, because the Lord was with him (2 Sam. 5:10, 12). But then the narrator notes that David continued to expand his harem, adding concubines and wives, who produced at least eleven more sons (vv. 13-16).[56] As in 2 Samuel 3:1-5, an observation about David’s growing strength is followed by a harem report (vv. 13-16). What then is the significance of the report?[57]

Since verses 10 and 12 view David positively, the expanding harem could signal David’s growing status and picture him as one who was blessed by God with numerous offspring, who in turn made his royal house stronger.[58] Verse 10 even says that the Lord was with David.

But readers need to look beyond the surface and not allow the positive aspects of David’s career to color interpretation of every detail.[59] Deuteronomy 17:17 prohibited Israel’s king from multiplying wives for fear that his affections would be turned away from the Lord. David’s harem did not turn his heart from the Lord, yet his acquisition of more and more wives suggests he was influenced by the surrounding culture to some degree. Worse yet, it set a bad precedent and pattern for his successor, Solomon. Though God was with David (v. 10), this does not mean that all of David’s actions must be interpreted positively. For example, Judges 1:19 observes that the Lord was with the men of Judah, but it then says that they were not able to defeat the Canaanites; the reference to the Lord’s presence contributes to the tragic irony of the report. The same may be true in 2 Samuel 5. Despite God’s enabling presence (v. 10), David continued to operate according to the cultural pattern, in violation of the kingship ideal expressed in Deuteronomy.

David Tries To Bring The Ark To Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:1-8)

By multiplying wives, David violated God’s law. This same disregard for the law is evident in the story of David’s initial attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem. Several years before, the Philistines had captured the ark of the covenant (1 Sam. 4), but they eventually sent the ark back to Israelite territory. It remained in Kiriath-jearim for many years (7:1-2). When David conquered Jerusalem and built his palace there, he decided to make the city the religious center of Israel and bring the ark, symbolizing God’s presence among his people, to the city.

David and several specially chosen men traveled to Kiriath-jearim (also known as Baalah, cf. Josh. 15:9; 1 Chron. 13:6) to retrieve the ark from the house of Abinadab. They loaded it on a new cart and Abinadab’s sons, Ahio and Uzzah, guided the cart as it moved. David and the Israelites sang songs and played a variety of stringed and percussion instruments. But the party quickly turned sour. The oxen stumbled and Uzzah, thinking the ark would fall off the cart, reached out to steady it. The Lord angrily struck Uzzah dead. David responded to this outburst of divine anger with some anger of his own and decided not to bring the ark to Jerusalem. Instead he left it in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite.

Why did the Lord strike down Uzzah? After all, people were praising God and Uzzah’s intentions seem to have been good—he wanted to protect the ark. But by loading the ark on a cart, David violated the instructions of God’s law (Exod. 25:12-14; Num. 4:5-6, 15).

The ark was to be carried by the Levites with poles. David did not consult the Lord on how to carry the ark and violated these regulations (cf. 1 Chron. 15:1-15).

However, there may be more to the story than this. Steussy points out that David was aware of the Lord’s support (cf. 2 Sam. 5:12). He had won battles over the Philistines after consulting the Lord’s will and following the Lord’s instructions (2 Sam. 5:17-25). But here in 2 Samuel 6, “he decides, with no reported consultation, that the ark, an ancient and awesome symbol of divine power, should reside in the capital with him.” Steussy suggests that David “had interpreted kingship, fertility, and victory over the Philistines as evidence of God’s unconditional support.” She adds, “The outburst against Uzzah seems, to David, like a violation of God’s contract with him. Anger turns to fear as David realizes that he was mistaken in his assumption about God’s support.”[60] If Steussy is right, then it would be incorrect to say, as Bergen does, that David “had acted with noble intentions in the matter of the ark.”[61] In fact, David’s statement in verse 9 (“How will the ark of the Lord ever come to me?”) may betray a selfish motive.[62]

A Final Ominous Sign: David’s Military Successes (2 Sam. 8:1-15 And 10:1-19)

David’s royal power continued to grow as he expanded his empire. He defeated the Philistines to the west and several states to the east. While this is impressive, it is also ominous. Twice before the narrator spoke specifically of David’s expanding power. On the second occasion, he attributed David’s success directly to God’s enabling presence. But in both cases, the narrator then included a harem report, drawing attention to the fact that David was pursuing, at least in this regard, a cultural model of kingship, contrary to the Deuteronomic ideal. So in reading of David’s great success in empire building, one almost expects to read about further additions to the harem. That expectation, of course, is realized with Bathsheba’s entry into the harem. David’s abuse of power in taking Uriah’s wife and life is consistent with the pattern. David’s royal position had clearly gone to his head. He acted accordingly and brought his kingdom crashing down around his still intact (by the mercy of God) throne.

Summary

David’s murderous crime, which led to the tragic disintegration of his kingdom, is foreshadowed from the very beginning of the narrative in the following ways:

1. Though God chose him because of intangible, inner spiritual qualities, David nevertheless possessed physical qualities that would attract people to him for the wrong reasons and make him vulnerable to the lure of power (1 Sam. 16:1-13). Ironically, his physical attractiveness is described in terms that are used of Bathsheba, whose physical beauty would prove to be too much for a power-laden David to resist.
2. From the outset David displayed self-interest (1 Sam. 17:26), and, tantalized by the widespread support he received from Saul’s servants, he pursued status by marrying into the royal family (18:20-30). As he became more enamored with the trappings of royalty, he became susceptible to the lure of power, which, by the time of the Uriah incident, had so intoxicated him that he thought nothing of violating another man’s wife, even though he had more than enough women available in his ever-growing harem to satisfy his physical desires during a sleepless night.
3. When David’s life was threatened by Saul, he panicked and, whether innocently or not, jeopardized the lives of others to save his own skin (1 Sam. 21-22). Ironically, he even placed his trust in the weapon of the man he had defeated in battle (21:8-9), rather than in the God who had enabled him to win that battle. This foreshadows the Uriah incident, where the life of another innocent man (as well as several other soldiers) was lost as part of one of David’s self-protection schemes. On this second occasion, David also trusted in the weapon of a foreign enemy for deliverance from the crisis in which he found himself. Indeed, Nathan stated, “You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and you have taken his wife as your own. You have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites” (2 Sam. 12:9).
4. As evidenced by his vow to kill Nabal, David had the capacity to act violently, rashly, and in ways that were ultimately self-destructive (1 Sam. 25:21-22). This, of course, foreshadows his actions in the Bathsheba-Uriah incident.
5. As evidenced by his treatment of Michal, David could resort to political maneuvering in order to consolidate power and he sometimes thought nothing of using people to further his own interests (2 Sam. 3:12-16). His callous treatment of Michal and Paltiel foreshadows the disregard he would show for Bathsheba and Uriah, as the verbal links between the two accounts indicate.
6. David did not display a fully developed sense of justice; apparently members of the royal court were not subject to the same standards as others (2 Sam. 3:22-39). Therefore, one is hardly surprised to see David act as if he were above the law.
7. David had a tendency to ignore God’s law, perhaps because he also presumed at times that God would unconditionally support him in all that he attempted to do (2 Sam. 6:1-8).
8. David expanded his harem and royal court simultaneously with his God-given successes. This appears to start innocently enough with the addition of the widowed Abigail (1 Sam. 25:39-42). However, before long David’s harem grew to six wives (2 Sam. 3:2-5) and then to several more, as well as numerous concubines (5:13-16). In each case, a harem report follows an account of David’s success. In light of this incongruity, it should not be a surprise to read of an additional member joining the harem in 2 Samuel 11, right after a report of military successes (2 Sam. 10).

In short, prior to David’s sin with Bathsheba, the narrator depicts David as one who was capable of acting in self-interest. At times he could panic and act rashly. He had a tendency to presume that God supported him unconditionally and to exempt family members from his otherwise swift brand of justice. He was enamored with the trappings of the royal court, especially the idea of accumulating wives and producing offspring.

It should come as no surprise, then, that this one who was “good of appearance” (1 Sam. 16:12) rashly decided to grab for himself a bathing beauty who was “exceedingly good of appearance” (2 Sam. 11:2). Nor should it surprise anyone that he then sacrificed the life of one of his men to cover his tracks, so that he might solidify the power that he apparently assumed had been granted to him unconditionally. After all, those in the royal court were above the law and exempt from the principles of justice, weren’t they?

Postscript: Final Reflections

The focus here has been the dark, tragic side of David’s story. The “man after God’s own heart” was human and therefore vulnerable to sin and its tragic consequences. His story is a reminder that all are vulnerable and must be constantly vigilant. But the story has a silver lining. Following David’s sin and the death of his infant son, the Lord gave David another son, Solomon, whom the Lord named Jedidiah, “loved by the Lord.” Through this son God assured David of his continuing love. And then in 1-2 Kings God holds David up as a model of loyalty. Having disciplined David, God moves on and chooses to focus on David’s positives. David’s forgiveness was complete.

Notes

1. The Hebrew text reads, “a man according to his heart.” This stands in contrast to Saul’s disobedience. See V. Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 91. As such the phrase probably means “like-minded,” that is, “committed to obey Yahweh’s commands.” Note the use of the phrase “according to your heart” in 1 Samuel 14:7, where Jonathan’s armor-bearer replies to his master’s proposal by saying, “Look I am with you according to your heart” (literal translation; cf. “I’m with you all the way,” NET). See Robert B. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 83. P. Kyle McCarter argues that the phrase pertains to the Lord’s will, not to a character quality possessed by David. See his I Samuel, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 229. But this is a false dichotomy, for one chosen in accordance with God’s “heart” would likely reflect his character. See Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 316.
2. See especially 1 Kings 3:3; 9:4 (cf. v. 9); 11:4-6, 33; 14:8-9; 15:3 (cf. 14:23-24), 11-13; 2 Kings 14:3-4; 16:2-4; 18:3-4; 22:2 (cf. 2 Kings 23).
3. Uzzah’s unfortunate death is recorded (1 Chron. 13:1-14), but David wisely recognized that cultic violations caused the disaster, and he made the necessary corrections to ensure that the ark was treated with due respect as it was transported to Jerusalem (15:1—16:6). The plague incident is recorded as well (cf. 2 Sam. 24), but David repented and interceded on behalf of the nation (1 Chron. 21-22). While 2 Samuel 24:1 attributes David’s numbering the people (24:10) directly to the Lord’s anger and deception, the Chronicler attributes it to “an adversary” (1 Chron. 21:1). For further discussion, see Robert B. Chisholm, Interpreting the Historical Books: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 119, note 12.
4. See, for example, McCarter, I Samuel, 277; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 161; Robert P. Gordon, I and II Samuel: A Commentary, Library of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 151. David Toshio Tsumura observes that a ninth-century BC tablet from Sippar uses similar language to describe “a happy king with a bright face.” See his The First Book of Samuel, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 423. J. P. Fokkelman sees the description as correcting a faulty notion (based on v. 7) that looks do not matter. Just because God does not look on the outward appearance does not imply “that ugliness is a proof of ability.” David’s outward beauty is a sign of divine favor. See Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (4 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 2:131. Robert D. Bergen rightly questions the typical explanation that the reference to David’s appearance is to be interpreted in a positive light. He states that “these physical assets were no proof that David was God’s choice; at best they were irrelevant.” See 1, 2 Samuel, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 179. Yet he does not develop this thought further, nor does he offer an explanation for why the narrator would draw attention to David’s physical appearance, especially if it was irrelevant. See as well Tony W. Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 202. He notices the incongruity and observes, “After making it clear that God looks on the heart and cares not for outward appearances, the narrator ebulliently reports that David had fair skin, beautiful eyes, and was altogether handsome.” Yet his explanation for this is inadequate: “Apparently, the author was such an admirer of David—or the David traditions were so rich with praise—that he could not help but admire David’s (unimportant) appearance.” Michael Avioz notes the problem and then concludes that the reference has a positive connotation. When viewed beside David’s admirable traits, it “indicates that in the case of David there is a correlation between external ‘good’ and success in the role as leader.” See “The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings,” Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 350. Likewise, Lyle Eslinger notes the incongruity but seems content to leave it at that (“‘A Change of Heart’: 1 Samuel 16, ” in Ascribe to the Lord, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor [Sheffield: JSOT, 1988], 355-58). Stuart Macwilliam wrestles with the problem and suggests the description of David is meant to contrast with the earlier depiction of Saul and the later portrait of Goliath. See “Ideologies of Male Beauty and the Hebrew Bible,” Biblical Interpretation 17 (2009): 276-79. Roy L. Heller proposes that the description of David, when compared with the Lord’s statement in verse 7, is designed to reveal “the superficial characteristics of the boy, characteristics that seem to highlight his limited or ephemeral nature.” When one reads the description, it is tempting to assume that David, given the Lord’s standards (v. 7), “is not the one chosen by YHWH,” yet, he argues, in the end David’s appearance does not indicate the Lord’s disfavor. See Power, Politics, and Prophecy (New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 135. These observations are helpful so far as they go, but Heller does not develop fully the narrator’s strategy.
5. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 115.
6. Ibid. See also Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987), 356-57; and Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1-2 Samuel (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), 97.
7. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 115. See also Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 357.
8. Walter Brueggemann, David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 20, italics his.
9. Alter, The David Story, 105.
10. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 119.
11. The soldiers’ response (v. 27, cf. v. 25) shows that the question “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine?” should be understood in the sense of “In what way will the man who kills this Philistine . . . be rewarded?” For other examples where the preposition -לְ indicates advantage after עָשָׂה in an interrogative sentence introduced by מָה, see 2 Samuel 21:3; 2 Kings 2:9; 4:2, 13-14; Hosea 10:3.
12. Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: 2 Samuel (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993), 91.
13. Marti J. Steussy, David: Biblical Portraits of Power (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), 4.
14. See, for example, Fokkelman, who goes so far as to accuse Eliab of “projecting” his own moral deficiency upon David. See Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel, 2:163.
15. Keith Bodner, “Eliab and the Deuteronomist,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2003): 67. For a critique of Bodner’s argument, see David G. Firth, 1 and 2 Samuel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 198.
16. Ibid., 66.
17. Ibid., 67.
18. Ibid., 70.
19. Eslinger also views Eliab’s remark positively; see “‘A Change of Heart’: 1 Samuel 16, ” 357.
20. McCarter, I Samuel, 317.
21. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 124.
22. According to the Hebrew text, David brought two hundred foreskins to Saul, but the Greek version reads “one hundred” here, the figure given by Saul (v. 25). Some prefer this reading because in 2 Samuel 3:14 David refers to the bride price as a hundred foreskins. But his statement there is technically correct—the price was one hundred foreskins. He simply decided to bring one hundred more, perhaps because of pride. By bringing more, he was essentially saying: “I may be poor, but I’m an asset to have around!” See ibid., 317.
23. Ibid., 127.
24. Steussy, David: Biblical Portraits of Power, 54. Steven L. McKenzie also identifies David’s motive as a desire for status and power. After remarking that Saul took a risk in offering his daughter to David, he states: “But David also took an awful risk. He placed his life on the line. What could motivate him to take such a gamble? The answer was entry into the royal family, by which he moved a giant step closer to the power he craved.” He points out that Michal was not the attraction for David. Indeed, “both Saul and David speak not of marrying Michal but of his becoming the king’s son-in-law.” He adds: “David is driven not by feelings for her but by ambition. To be raised to a position proximate to the throne is worth risking his life for. His ambition is obvious.” See his King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 87. Adele Berlin argues that David never loved Michal and used her for political purposes. See her Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 24-25. See also Robert B. Lawton, “1 Samuel 18: David, Merob, and Michal,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 425, and Keith Bodner, 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 200.
25. One gets the impression that David’s reference to companions is just a fabricated detail to make his story sound authentic. It is not until David goes to Adullam that companions gather around him (1 Sam. 22:1-2).
26. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 142. Bodner (1 Samuel, 228) argues that the presence of Doeg (v. 7) explains David’s attitude.
27. Steussy, David: Biblical Portraits of Power, 72. See also Samuel A. Meier, “The Sword: From Saul to David,” in Saul in Story and Tradition, ed. C. S. Ehrlich and M. C. White (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 160-61. Robert Polzin sees the incident positively, arguing that it symbolizes the “transfer of royal power from Saul to David.” See his Samuel and the Deuteronomist: 1 Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 196-97. See also Diana Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, JSOTSup 121 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 167-68.
28. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 148.
29. Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 22; and McKenzie, King David: A Biography, 97. For a defense of David’s actions, see Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 165.
30. John Kessler states, “David’s response to Nabal is rooted in the categories of shame and honor. To defend one’s honor would be seen by the audience as an action qualitatively different from the adultery and murder of 2 Samuel 11.” See “Sexuality and Politics: The Motif of the Displaced Husband in the Books of Samuel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 413.
31. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 166.
32. On the literary parallels between Nabal and Saul, see Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 205-15; and Mark E. Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization,” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 626.
33. For a positive assessment of David’s actions in 1 Samuel 25, see Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 79-95.
34. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 167.
35. Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs,” 635.
36. Peter D. Miscall notes the parallel and sees the language as reflecting David’s authority (1 Samuel: A Literary Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986), 156.
37. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 202.
38. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1989), 50. Bergen also sees this in a positive light: “Through the use of a genealogical table, the writer demonstrated David’s obedience to the Torah mandate to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (cf. Gen 1:28).” He adds: “The Torah implicitly permitted kings to possess more than one wife, though they were not to have ‘many wives’ (cf. Deut 17:17). Since David was not explicitly condemned for this number of wives, the writer may have considered David to be in compliance with the letter of the Torah in this matter” (1, 2 Samuel, 305). This proposal, however, seems highly unlikely. The narrator did not need to explicitly condemn David, since his harem building was in direct violation of the Law. See Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 202.
39. Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, 384.
40. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 202.
41. David’s demand does not violate Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which addresses a situation where a man divorces a woman, who then marries a second husband. If the second husband divorces her or dies, the first husband may not remarry the woman. This law does not apply in David’s case because there is no evidence that David agreed to a divorce from Michal. Apparently while David was a fugitive, Saul gave Michal to Paltiel. On the legal background of this passage, see P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 115; and Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, 390.
42. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 203.
43. Kessler, “Sexuality and Politics,” 416.
44. Ibid. See as well Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 122.
45. Kessler, “Sexuality and Politics,” 418-19.
46. Ibid., 420, 422.
47. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 202.
48. Ibid., 205.
49. Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, 394.
50. Is it any wonder that Absalom later casts his father in the role of an unjust king and presents himself to the people as one who will implement justice in the land (2 Sam. 15:3-6)?
51. Steussy casts David in a more sinister role. She states, “We find ourselves skeptical of David’s self-alleged powerlessness vis-à-vis Joab (3:39). If the anointed—responsible for justice and civil order—cannot restrain his own officers from violence, what use is it to have a king? But if David is not powerless against Joab (who exerts considerable effort in David’s behalf), then he is playing a callous public relations game: he reaps the benefit of Joab’s realpolitik while Joab bears popular and sacred blame for it” (David: Biblical Portraits of Power, 58, italics hers).
52. See, for example, Anderson, 2 Samuel, 64. Anderson states, “The fact that Joab was not punished during David’s lifetime seems to support” the hypothesis that Joab’s killing of Abner was a “justifiable homicide, belonging to a legal gray idea” (italics his). He adds, “During Solomon’s early reign Joab’s killing was, apparently, conveniently reinterpreted, and Joab was put to death on this pretext.” On the contrary, Joab’s murder of Abner was not justified, and David, realizing this, tried to make amends on his deathbed. In this regard see Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 312.
53. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 205. Joab, of course, may have viewed the situation in a different light. See David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (Sheffield: JSOT, 1978), 96. For a defense of Joab that challenges David’s deathbed assessment of Joab’s actions, see Michael A. Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David? A Literary Study of the Importance of Joab’s Character in Relation to David (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 63-64.
54. The reference to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 4:4) seems premature (cf. 2 Sam. 9:1-13) and at first glance seems to contribute nothing to the context. But the information may be included to explain the assassins’ actions and their decision to go over to David’s side. Ish-bosheth was weak and incapable of resisting David (cf. 2 Sam. 4:1). If there had been another descendant of Saul fit to rule, perhaps one of Jonathan’s sons, they might have turned to him, but there was only the underage, lame Mephibosheth.
55. The Hebrew text reads literally, “and they cut off their hands and their feet and they hung [them] near the pool in Hebron.” Without a stated object for “hung,” it is unclear whether the hands/feet were displayed or the mutilated corpses.
56. The first four of these, whose names appear in verse 14, were sons of Bathsheba (cf. 1 Chron. 3:5); so the narrative is proleptic at this point. 1 Chronicles 3:6-9 gives two additional names—Elpelet and Nogah—and says that additional sons were born to the concubines. Bergen sees “the large number of children” as an indication “that the Lord blessed David richly in this location and that the divine blessings bestowed at Jerusalem exceeded those given at Hebron.” He adds, “This is in keeping with the Torah teaching that productive wombs are a blessing resulting from obedience to the Lord’s commands (cf. Lev. 26:9; Deut. 28:11)” (1, 2 Samuel, 324). Bergen, however, has missed the irony present in the text. As David’s success grew, he became more and more enamored with the cultural model of kingship, paving the way for his tragic demise.
57. Steussy sees “ambivalence” here and observes, “David’s palace, wives, and offspring . . . could be signs of divine favor or evidence of abused royal privilege.” She asks, “Do David’s acquisitions climax his ascent or foreshadow his coming fall?” She answers, “The question refuses resolution” (David: Biblical Portraits of Power, 59).
58. See Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, 416, 420.
59. Chisholm, 1 and 2 Samuel, 209.
60. Steussy, David: Biblical Portraits of Power, 60.
61. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 330.
62. Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17—7.29) (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 128-29.