David did that which was right (2Samuel 22)

One important thing to say about 2Samuel chapter 22 is that it's out of chronological order. It's been a while since I read 2Samuel, but I seem to recall the last few chapters are a bit of a muddle, and while I don't know about the scholarly consensus on this, I've always suspected that they were added on later. This may make sense of a few issues in the text.

So this is pretty much a psalm. There's going to be some poetic license. There's a lot of flowery speech about God's nostrils and riding on cherubs. Has there ever been a righteous person? Yes, but there is some subjectivity in the term "righteous" that muddies the water here. Sometimes we're talking about being completely righteous and innocent before God, that is, a person has not personally sinned. Sometimes the word "righteous" is used to describe something that a person seeking righteousness will do. Also, the Jewish concept of being "righteous" was largely different than the Christian concept, although there is overlap. The Christian doctrine of "original Sin" suggested that being fully righteous could only be attained through a positional righteousness with respect to Christ, nonetheless Jewish understanding of righteousness was also in part about attempting to grow closer to God. That being said, there's something about being "righteous" that is largely about trying to do right in both religious traditions, although sometimes the term is used to refer to someone who is completely blameless. See? Clear as mud! So, as for the "No" verses: As I've said before, Job is not a theologian, and he's talking from a place of great despair throughout his book. Isaiah is probably talking about the current state of the people of Israel, although many people do interpret this verse to be a universal decree, which is not necessarily a problem; compared to God, humans' acts of righteousness are comparatively "filthy rags." The verse in Isaiah chapter 41 may be similar, but it's worth noting overall that Isaiah has verses on both sides here, so it's unlikely his intentions are contradictory, especially since it appears that even just earlier in chapter 41 Isaiah is talking about "the righteous man". Romans 3:10 is Paul quoting from Psalm 14, which is translated differently in the KJV, and I believe is hyperbole, but Paul is trying to make a point about the law, and the impossibility of man fulfilling it, therefore full righteousness is only truly possible through the grace of God.

Did David sin? Of course he did, but yes, this deserves some examining. Probably the number one thing to say about David is that generally, people don't consider killing people in the course of warfare to be a sin; it's pretty clear David didn't. That's not the source of the contradiction, however. Yes, David sinned in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, and he at least felt that he had sinned in performing a census, although the latter is less clear. I believe that this chapter was written before Bathsheba, so while realistically, it's unlikely David was perfect, he had no significant sins at the time this was written. On the other hand, 1Kings was definitely written after David sinned, so what can be said? Something that is very important with respect to sin in God's eyes is repentance, which David was genuinely very good at in all the instances where he was called out. In the Jewish Law, when one sins, if one then repents and gives the proper sacrifice, then one is following the Law. It's really for this reason that David is often brought up as an example of righteousness; not because he was perfect, but because he sought the will of God.

The SAB marks other matters in this psalm with a number of things that are subjective, except for violence, but once again, we're talking about warfare, and scientific issues, but as I've said many times before, in poetry, there's a lot of flowery speech that isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally.

Gibeon had made peace with Israel (2Samuel 21)

2Samuel chapter 21 is where we finally get to the famine which was somehow caused by Saul's actions. As I discussed to some extent in chapter twelve, I don't really have a good explanation for why people are being punished for Saul's sin long after he's dead, nor why the proper response was to kill some of his descendants. I'll freely admit this seems unjust and cruel, but maybe I'll check out some commentaries and leave more thoughts in the comments. (Oh, and the SAB is right that there is no record of Saul killing Gibeonites; I guess they don't list it as a "contradiction" because there's no verse that says this to contrast with. I suppose that's more of an "omission".) I also just noticed that it's a bit odd that the Gibeonites say, "...neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel..." and then request killing some men in Israel.

I answered whether all of Saul's family died with him in chapter two. I answered how many sons Michal had in chapter six, but the supposed contradiction raises another question: who was the father of these five sons, since David was Michal's husband? Did David sacrifice his own sons, or did Michal somehow have five sons in the brief time she was married to Phalti? Either answer is strange... I answered who killed Saul in 1Samuel chapter 31, with further commentary in 2Samuel chapter 1. The answer was, "It's complicated..."

Does God approve of human sacrifice? The simple answer is no, but there definitely is a lot to be clarified. Yes, God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but he never intended him to go through with it. Yes, it talks in Exodus and Leviticus about devoting firstborn sons to God, but that was never understood to mean child sacrifice, and in fact, the verse in Leviticus is in the same chapter as an explanation of how you redeem a human being that you have vowed to the Lord. I admittedly don't know what is going on in Numbers 31, but it actually doesn't specify that the women were killed, only that they were "the LORD's tribute", which could mean just about anything. (Perhaps they were destined to marry Levites?) I addressed Jephthah's supposed sacrifice of his daughter when I covered Judges eleven, where I pointed out that there's no indication God approved, and it's possible that the "sacrifice" was that she would be an eternal virgin. The killing that Josiah did was about punishing idolatry rather than giving a human sacrifice to God. Yes, Jesus was in a very real sense a human sacrifice, but in a special way that is an exception to the general rule.

The chapter ends with some giant killing, and the SAB asks, Who killed Goliath? and Whom did Elhanan kill? Now, both contradictions are fixed by the words in italics, which makes a good time to stop and talk about italics in the KJV. The KJV throughout its text has words in italics, and I think it's a great thing that other versions should have (and a few do); they indicate words that the translators put in for clarity that aren't technically in the original manuscripts. The words "the brother of" aren't in the Hebrew, and aren't even in the Greek of the Septuagint. They are nonetheless added to most translations because of the text at 1Chronicles 20:5 to avoid these two contradictions. It's reasonable to assume a scribal error here because of this. I find it interesting that the KJV is full of italics, but as far as I know the SAB only points them out here because setting them aside allows for two contradictions to be added to the text. Anyway, there's some interesting stuff here about giants; when it says someone is a "son of the giant", they probably mean Goliath. The man with the extra fingers and toes is odd, but this is not an unheard of mutation.

And the king left ten women, which were concubines (2Samuel 20)

While 2Samuel chapter 20 is more action-packed than the previous chapter, there's not a lot here to cover. The fallout of the argument from the end of the last chapter is that a man named Sheba blows a horn and yells to the Israelites that David is clearly king of just the tribe of Judah, and the other tribes should abandon David, so they all leave. As almost a side note, David takes the ten concubines that Absalom had sex with and puts them away somewhere separate where he never has sex with them again.

David tells Amasa to assemble the troops and go after Sheba for being a troublemaker. They go after him, but on the way, Joab kills Amasa. (Joab really has this tendency to kill people who have offended him and/or David against David's will.) When they come to the city where Sheba is, they lay siege to it, and try to break down the wall. A woman comes to the wall and asks Joab what the meaning of the attack is, and Joab says that they really just want Sheba. So the people of the city chop off Sheba's head and throw it down to Joab. Joab blows a horn, and the army goes back to Jerusalem.

They brought him to Jerusalem (2Samuel 19)

The SAB marks 2Samuel chapter 19 as "boring", and yeah, it probably is; but what do you want, more mass killing and rape?

David is still mourning Absalom, and Joab goes to find him and says essentially that it's looking bad that he's mourning someone who wanted him and his family and friends dead, and if he wants to stay king, he needs to buck up and go talk with the people. So David goes and sits by the gate of the city, a traditional place for leaders to be, and the people notice and come to him. David sends word to the tribe of Judah (his own tribe) and asks why they haven't sent for him to come back, and tells Amasa that he will be the head of the army in Joab's place. They send for David, and he goes back to cross the Jordan.

A bunch of people show up at the crossing. Shimei shows up with a thousand Benjamiites and apologizes for the way he treated David on the way out. Mephibosheth shows up and says that he has been slandered by his servant. David is not in a mood for revenge at this moment, so he forgives them. An 80-year-old man named Barzillai, who helped David when he was in exile, shows up to see David back to Jerusalem, at least part of the way. David returns to Jerusalem, and there's a bit of an argument between the men of Judah and the men of the rest of Israel over who is more loyal, which apparently leads to problems in the next chapter.

King David mourned many days for his son (2Samuel 18)

2Samuel chapter 18 opens with David finally organizing his retaliation against Absalom. He apparently still has thousands of men on his side, and he divides them into three armies. The men tell him to not fight because his life is more important than theirs, and so he stays behind. 20,000 men are killed, probably mostly by David's soldiers. I think that verse eight is really saying that the slaughter was worse just because they were fighting in the forest, not that the forest literally killed people.

Now Absalom comes riding on a mule, and he gets his head caught in some tree branches. This is supposed to be ironic, because one of the things people admired Absalom for was his huge head of hair, and it proves to be his undoing. So somehow, he's left there by himself just hanging by his hair, and a man reports this to Joab, who gets angry with the man for not taking advantage of the situationa5 and killing Absalom. The man replies that David told everyone that no matter what happens, not to hurt Absalom. Joab clearly doesn't care, and stabs Absalom in the heart with three arrows; ten men with him also attack Absalom. Joab blows a trumpet and the fight ends. They throw Absalom's body in a pit and cover him with stones. I addressed whether Absalom had children in 2Samuel chapter 14.

A man wants to run to David and tell him the news, but Joab stops him, because he knows David won't be happy (and perhaps he wants to make sure the king doesn't know who struck the killing blow), but then he tells a different man to run and tell David. In the end, both men go, David finds out, and he appears to be heartbroken.

And Ahithophel said unto Absalom (2Samuel 17)

So, there's not much in 2Samuel chapter 17 so I'll make it short. Ahithophel suggests a battle plan to take down David. Absalom wants to hear what Hushai thinks, and Hushai suggests a different plan. Everyone likes Hushai's plan better, supposedly because it's God's will for Ahithophel to be a failure. Hushai sends word to David to plan accordingly, and David successfully hides. Ahithophel commits suicide. The SAB marks this suicide as injustice, but I don't know what's unjust about suicide, as one does it to oneself. In my opinion, this is more absurd than unjust; I mean, Ahithophel gets rejected a total of one time, and he ends his life over it? What the heck? Who was Amasa'a father? I notice that in this chapter, Amasa's father is said to be Ithra, while in other places, it's Jether, but Ithra and Jether are just alternate spellings of the same Hebrew name. I don't think there's an easy answer, it's just an error in one place or the other.

Now Absalom had commanded his servants (2Samuel 15)

2Samuel chapter 15 opens with Absalom hatching a plot against David. He stands by the gate of the city and implies to people that he would be a better judge than his father is, and people believe him. When did Absalom rebel against David? I think there are a couple things that could be said in response to this supposed contradiction. One is that when it says David reigned 40 years, it may mean that David reigned 40 years until Absalom took over, although I think that's unlikely. What is more likely is that "after forty years" is rather unclear. "After forty years" of what? After David had been king forty years? After Absalom stood at the gate for forty years? After Absalom was forty years old? I suggested the first was a possibility, but unlikely; the second one is extremely unlikely, although it's what it sounds like in context; the third is a real possibility, but once again, it's unclear. I think you can't base a contradiction on such a vague statement.(See the comments for possible explanation.)

So Absalom goes to Hebron with the excuse that he made a vow of some sort, and David lets him go. However, this is the time that Absalom sets his rebellion in motion, and David hears about it in time to flee Jerusalem. He brings most of his household except for notably a few concubines to look after the house. Also, after some distance, he sends back the Levites and the Ark. There's an exchange in which David is told that Ahithophel, one of David's counselors, is with Absalom, and David prays that God would turn his counsel into foolishness. At about this time, a man named Hushai shows up, and David tells him he can serve him better by staying behind and making trouble for Ahithophel, and communicating stealthily with David through the priests.

And they made reconciliation (2Samuel 14)

2Samuel chapter 14 opens with an interesting story that's in many ways similar to the opening of chapter 12. Joab gets a woman to come to David and tell a made-up story of one of her sons murdering the other. She expresses that if the remaining son is put to death for his crime, her deceased husband will have no heirs. David assures the woman that he will protect her son. Then the woman asks why David hasn't given similar protection to Absolom. David realizes this is a setup. He calls Joab and has him retrieve Absolom to Jerusalem, but requests not to see Absalom in person.

Now there's some stuff about Absalom and how popular he is, partially because he's so handsome. There's a note about how Absolom has an immense amount of hair on his head, which ends up being significant later in the story. How many sons did Absalom have? It seems clear that Absalom had (at least) three sons, as stated here. What appears to be a contradiction with the chapter 18 passage has at least a couple of possibilities. One is that Absalom's children died at some point, maybe during the battle. Another one, and one I think more likely, is to note that the chapter 18 passage is clearly not in chronological order, as it comes after Absslom's death. Perhaps Absalom created the monument before he had any children.

The chapter ends with a strange story where Absalom has been living in Jerusalem for two years and still hasn't seen his father. He sends word to Joab twice to fix this, and when Joab doesn't answer, Absalom sends his servants to burn up Joab's barley. Joab finally comes, and Absalom insists that he wants to see David even if it means dying. Joab brings Absolom to David, Absalom bows before him, and David kisses him. Is everything okay now? We'll see.

One daughter, whose name was Tamar (2Samuel 13)

2Samuel chapter 13 is a very sad chapter for many reasons. I know Greek has several words for "love" but I'm not sure where Hebrew stands. The word "love" is used several times here for the way Amnon felt towards Absalom's sister Tamar (who was his half sister, of course), but it's very clear that what's being talked about is lust. I've known men who have this sort of attitude towards women; they're crazy about them, until they actually get them in bed, and then they're suddenly trash. Of course anyone rational knows it's the man who is truly trash.

It's interesting that Tamar actually tries to reason with Amnon. She suggests that they should ask David for permission to marry. (I don't know whether it's reasonable to think David would approve, or if she's just looking for a way out.) Once Amnon has taken advantage of her, she pleads to not be sent away, because--just in case you didn't know--she's now no longer a virgin, and therefore essentially a ruined woman in her culture, and her only hope is that Amnon might marry her after the fact. But she is kicked out.

(The SAB makes a side note on her garment, comparing it to Joseph's coat of many colors. I didn't discuss it there, but yes, Joseph's coat was gender nonconforming, and it's not often talked about by Biblical scholars as far as I know. It is interesting speculation that perhaps Joseph was transgender in some fashion, and the issue is at least tangentially touched on in the Bible.)

Absalom finds his sister distraught, and takes her into his house, where she stays for the rest of her life. He doesn't really say much to comfort her, but he plots revenge on Amnon. David hears about what happened, and he's very angry, but it doesn't seem that he does anything about it. The SAB has a strange note for them, in that while they usually stick with the text of the KJV, here they take a detour into the NRSV, where there is added text about Amnon being David's favorite son. I looked and hardly any English translations have this text, although it apparently comes from the Septuagint (an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). I'm not really sure why this apparently rare variant text is needed to supply us with something to complain about. The simple fact that David does nothing about Amnon seems enough of an injustice without a spurious reason why.

Anyway, after waiting two years, Absalom has Amnon killed. Absalom and his men flee from David, apparently assuming they will be in trouble. Someone tells David that Absalom has killed all his brothers, and David mourns. Someone else corrects the story and tells David that just Amnon is dead, and it's likely in retribution for Tamar's rape. Eventually, David is sad and misses Absalom. Nowhere in this story is it said what David, God, or Tamar thinks about Amnon's killing. However, Deuteronomy 22 in most cases sentences a rapist to death.

[Edited to add: The SAB says, "This chapter, which includes incest, rape, murder, should be rated NC-17." I agree, and I think the point being made is appropriate; that there are certain parts of the Bible that are not appropriate for children, and should be shocking to adults. A lot of Christians don't recognize this fact.]

How much then is a man better than a sheep? (2Samuel 12)

2Samuel chapter 12 is the fallout from David's actions in the previous chapter, and while I shared there someone's explanation of why David did nothing wrong, it's hard to reconcile with Nathan's statements in verse nine here. Anyway, Nathan comes to David with a story about sheep theft, and David is enraged by the story; then Nathan reveals that the story was a parable of what David himself had done. David realizes he royally messed up.

Is polygamy OK? Well, it's not a sin, but it's not ideal, and most of modern society frowns on it. I've often wondered, if a Muslim man with four wives converted to Christianity, would the church tell him he needed to divorce three of his wives? I wouldn't think it was necessary, but I wonder... Anyway, let me address the verses on that page. First of all, like so many things in the Bible, just because it's there doesn't mean God is okay with it. As noted, the Torah says that a king shouldn't have too many wives, and I think a lot of these kings were likely over that unspecified limit; certainly Solomon was. The story Jesus tells of the ten virgins is not about a man marrying ten women, but a man whose wedding has ten bridesmaids. Talking about Adam and Eve as a monogamous relationship is not inherently a condemnation of polygamy, and neither is any verse that speaks of a man and his wife. Oh, and as a final note on this subject, if you ever meet a polygamist, ask him how he would feel about one of his wives getting a second husband; I assure you from experience that the reaction will be comical.

Are we punished for the sins of others? I'm just going to answer this directly and then address individual verses. Yes, we are punished for the sins of others, not because God wants to punish us, but because sin tends to affect the people around the person committing the sin. If I sin as a parent, it affects my spouse and children, maybe even grandchildren and other relatives. This is just a natural consequence, and has nothing to do with justice. Now, the first thing I should address is this chapter, and the fact that God seems to be punishing David's child for David's sin. I'm going to have to say first of all that death isn't a punishment for a child, because they simply go to the afterlife, so the question remains of how much the child suffered from his sickness. I don't know how to answer that, but I think that it can be said that a parent greatly suffers when their child is sick, and it certainly may be that David's emotional anguish was the worst suffering that anyone felt at this time; the story certainly seems to support that it was extreme. I know that may ring hollow for many reading this story, but that's what I have.

As for the rest? I'm going to say that many if not all of the verses in which God says he will punish children for the sins of their parents, it's indicating what I said above. I don't know why God sets limits on bastard children and their descendants, but it's interesting to note that David is supposedly the tenth generation descendant of Judah and Tamar, who were not married. The verse in Isaiah is probably another instance of God wanting to wippe out a people group who were particularly steeped in sin to end the cycle of violence; and yes, I know violence to end violence is somewhat ironic, but it's not evident that the Babylonians were completely destroyed unlike some other people. The nature of the curse of Canaan is mysterious, and I pondered it at length in Genesis chapter nine and the comments, unfortunately without concrete conclusion. The curse on King Abimelech's family was temporary, and God told him how to end it if I recall correctly, so I don't think it's particularly serious. Coming back to David and the whole upcoming business with Absolom, I think it's possible once again that this is a partially natural consequence of what David did here; he killed someone and stole his wife, and then declared his new wife's son to be his heir, all the while Absolom was almost certainly alive and a witness to all of what unfolded in these two chapters. That certainly could have had a negative influence on Absolom. The famine which was a punishment for the slaughter of the Gibeonites is a mystery to me, and I admit I can't make sense of it, nor can I fully make sense of the justice required by the Gibeonites later in that story, which God seems to be okay with, since the story seems to say that God ended the famine as a result of it. The matter of David's census is a curious one, as God seems to make David do something and then punishes him for doing it. (Yes, 1Chronicles 21 says Satan tempted David, but this is not a contradiction in itself if you understand the Hebrew concept of Satan as a servant of God.) There may have been something else God was mad at David for, and God was testing David with the census idea. (As for why taking a census was bad, I've heard it explained that it showed a lack of faith, in that David doesn't trust God to provide strength for him in battle, but needs to figure out how many fighting men he has.) As for God punishing Solomon by taking away the kingdom under his son, I think that's a punishment for both. Also in the case of Ahab, giving punishment to his son Ahaziah is arguably a punishment for his own evil. The punishment of Gehazi's descendants is probably just a natural consequence of Gehazi having leprosy, but yeah, it's still iffy since arguably it didn't have to be that way. I think it can be argued that the punishment of Shemaiah's children can be chalked up to Shemaiah's influence.

It's actually really great that the SAB includes the Romans five passage on this page, because there is a real sense in which it belongs, and is the ultimate question in this category. Why does the entire human race get cursed for the sin of one man? Why does an innocent man have to be killed to fix that curse? And while the SAB doesn't bring it up specifically here, why does the fix in some ways seem to be almost a half measure, since people still die after Jesus's death? These are actually huge theological questions, and they have to do with our relationship with God. Somehow Adam broke the relationship between mankind and God in a way that was so profound, it essentially broke the world. Theologians argue that in some way, all the evil in the world traces back to the fall in the garden. I don't know that I'm really qualified to answer this question, but I started attempting a discussion back in Genesis chapter three.

Was Solomon David's second or fourth son by Bathsheba? Second; the fact that Solomon is listed fourth doesn't mean he was the fourth child. The SAB notes that the crown David takes would have been very heavy; it's worth noting that Biblical measures are often rounded, but it was probably pretty close to a talent if they called it that, so yeah. And the chapter ends with more cruelty against the Ammonites.

And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah (2Samuel 10)

2Samuel chapter ten has a story that the SAB marks as absurd that I can see absurdity on multiple levels. David decides to send some emissaries to king Hanun because he apparently had a good relationship with his father. Hanun is told by his advisors that the men are spies, so he shaves half their beards and cuts off half of their clothes (although it's not really clear which half, probably the bottom). This of course sounds pretty absurd on the face of it, but there's something strange even if you understand that this was intended to embarrass the men. If Hanun really thought they were spies, why not kill them or imprison them rather than shame them? There's a lot of weird going on here.

So the Ammonites realize that David doesn't like them anymore, and they get some help from Syria to fight against the Israelites. It ends up being a very confusing battle, where the Israelite fighters show up, and the Syrians run away, so the Ammonites run away, too, and then somehow David comes face to face with the Syrians and they fight, with David being victorious.

How many men did David kill? You know, not only is this clearly an error, but the numbers in either case are pretty questionable. Didn't it say earlier in the chapter that there were 33,000 Syrians? Where did the extra ones come from? I guess they came with this guy Hadarezer in verse 16? Oh, Chronicles says Hadarezer is the king of Zoba, so who knows if these are new soldiers? I've got nothing here, honestly.

So, the battle ends, and Hadarezer's people serve Israel while the rest of the Syrians are too scared to fight anymore.

And his name was Mephibosheth (2Samuel 9)

2Samuel 9 is much easier than the last chapter. In fact, the SAB only really has one note, and it's absurdity, which I usually don't bother to address, since it's incredibly subjective.

David feels bad about the death of Saul and Jonathan, so he starts looking into whether Saul has any living descendants that he can show kindness to. He finds out Jonathan's son Mephibosheth is still alive, so he has him brought to him. When Mephibosheth arrives, he falls on his face, which is the "absurdity" the SAB notes. This is just Mephibosheth showing reverence to the king, not just because he's the king, but because he may be afraid of what David may do to him. David tells him not to be afraid, and informs him that he is going to see to it that he will give him everything that belonged to Saul, and furthermore, Mephibosheth is going to be a dinner guest of David forever.

See, David has a good side! (So much better than last chapter...)

Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (2Samuel 8)

So, back to 2Samuel chapter eight, which was clearly a trap because the SAB sees a lot of violence and injustice, which is hard to deny here. You do have to realize that Israel is at war with all these nations, and nobody has invented the Geneva Convention yet. It's ugly. David is killing two-thirds of the Moabites (it seems reasonable to assume these are POWs) and enslaving the other third; which is a better fate? Hopefully the slaves were treated well, but we can only guess. Why does David hough the chariot horses? I don't know, as it seems pointless and cruel, although a bit of research suggests this doesn't kill the horse, but makes it unsuitable for war use. How many horsemen did David take? This may be a scribal error, or perhaps the writer of Chronicles felt that since there were thousands of footmen, there ought more likely have been thousands of horsemen; who knows?

Yes, God is giving David all of these violent victories, but in the end, it's about preserving Israel against violent enemies who probably would have done the same or worse to them. I don't know that there is anything else I can say about it.

Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech? I did some research, and there are actually two different Ahimelechs in the Bible, but this doesn't clear up the problem as Ahimelech the Hittite doesn't have a genealogy given, and is clearly nothing to do with this. It seems pretty evident that Ahimelech is the father of Abiathar, and this verse is in error; perhaps the verse in 1Chronicles 24 copied the error, as it was written later. However, the verse 1Chronicles 18:16 says, "Abimelech the son of Abiathar" which may not be a scribal error; Ahimelech may have had a grandson named Abimelech. In the Hebrew alphabet h and b don't look as much like each other as they do in the Latin alphabet.

Is not this the son of David? (2Sam 7)

Chapter 7 is extremely significant, and the reason it is significant is also the reason that the SAB is wrong about failed prophecy in this particular case.

David comes to be speaking to the prophet Nathan one day, and he says that he feels bad that the ark is kept in a tent while he lives in a palace, hinting that he would like to build a temple. Nathan thinks this is a great idea, and encourages David. It's worth noting that Nathan says "for the LORD is with thee", because later, God seems to speak to him in a dream and correct him; since the idea sounded good, Nathan assumed that God would agree. Although the SAB did not mark it as such, some might be tempted to think of this as failed prophecy, but it's rather a failed prophet.

God gives a message to David that he is not to build a temple, but that a descendant of David's would instead build a temple, and God would establish the kingdom of that descendant for ever. The SAB says of this passage, "God says that Solomon's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt." This is only half right.

Yes, Solomon's kingdom only lasted about 400 years after Solomon, but that's not the point. The prophecy concerns a descendant of David, but it doesn't say which descendant. The assumption that it's talking about Solomon may seem reasonable, since he inherited the throne of David, but there is something deeper here, and while you may have already guessed where I'm going with this as a Christian, I do think that even Jews accept this interpretation with the exception of the specific fact that I claim here: this prophecy is concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

Matthew 1:32-33 says of Jesus, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Acts 2:30 says of David, "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" Sound familiar? This prophecy is not of Solomon, but of the eternal kingdom of the Messiah that is to come some day, Christians of course believing that person to be Christ Jesus.

The SAB asks, "Does God lie?" Well, the issue is not so pressing in this case, as David is not necessarily making a blanket theological statement so much as affirming that he believes in this prophecy. I'll leave the larger issue of God's willingness/ability to lie for a another time.

The LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD (2Sam 6)

In chapter 6, David decides that it's time to send for the ark and bring it to Jerusalem. This prompts a question of timing of this event, about which I have already given an opinion.

Now, the manner in which this happens is important. As the Philistines did when they had the ark and wanted to get rid of it, the Israelites get a new cart, load it up, and bring it along. This is a problem. When the ark is to be moved, the proper method of transport is supposed to be having it carried on foot by Levites. The Philistines, between the fact of their being (relatively) ignorant pagans and perhaps the more important fact of them not having Levites were able to get away with loading the thing on a cart. For the Israelites, handling the ark of God in such a cavalier manner led to God's wrath striking down Uzzah.

Where exactly was it that Uzzah was struck down? I don't see this as a problem the way the SAB does. While we are given two names for the location of this event, the fact that this account and the one in 1Chronicles 13 were written far apart in time may mean that the place was known differently at the later date. Childon was probably a descendant of Nachon, and both of them at various times owned a threshing floor at the place called Perezuzzah. (Edited to add that the name "Perezuzzah" was clearly a name given to the place because Uzzah was struck down there, so the name came after the incident.)

So eventually, they seem to get it figured out, and they transport the ark on foot, making sacrifices to God along the way. David comes along with the procession, dancing as it goes. Now, I'll admit that what's going on here is not completely clear, but I don't agree with the SAB's reading, neither that there might have been something wrong with David dancing, nor that David was somehow nude. Note that it does not say that David was naked, but rather that he was clothed in an ephod, which was a priestly garment. I think Michal was simply, for some reason, feeling that David was making a fool of himself by the way he was acting, which she felt was improper for a king. David's reply is that he doesn't care what people think, he just loves God.

Now the final note of this chapter says that Michal "had no child unto the day of her death." The SAB makes a surprising evaluation of this fact, calling it a contradiction (which I don't think it is, more in a moment) but not marking it with "Injustice" or "Women", which I probably would have. The Bible seems to be suggesting that Michal was made infertile as a punishment for arguing with her husband, which seems a bit extreme to me, but maybe there's something to this story I'm missing. (It might be that David simply never had sex with her again.) As for the contradiction, I assume that the children that Michal is reported to have had were all born before this incident.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself (2Sam 5)

Finally in chapter 5, David becomes king over all of Israel, and remains king for 40 years. This prompts the SAB to see a possible contradiction in certain events that occur in the reign of David, particularly the eventual rebellion of Absalom. I don't think I buy the logic here; if anything, it almost seems worse than the SAB is insinuating. 2Sam. 15:7 says "And it came to pass after forty years..." I say, counting from when? In the immediate context, it sounds like Absalom spent 40 years kissing up to the people, which could have happened starting before David became king, or a long time afterwards, as one might wonder how he could be doing the stuff described in that chapter while his father was on the run from Saul. On the other hand, the 40 years in the context in this chapter could mean that David was king for 40 years until he was deposed temporarily by Absalom. In any case, I don't see any of this dating to be clear enough to base a contradiction on.

Apparently, one of the first things that David has to deal with as king is some sort of challenge on his authority by the Jebusites. On the face of it, it does sound fairly cruel, but I'm not sure what's going on here at all. Are the Jebusites telling David he has to kill his own people? Are they using their own disabled population as human shields? I don't know, so I'm not sure how to comment on it. The SAB calls it violent and unjust, and I'm inclined to agree that far.

David builds himself some sort of palace, and takes more women, neither action being commented upon here, but I believe the latter being condemned elsewhere. With more women come more children, and a list is given here; the SAB points out this list doesn't match other lists, and once again, what can I say but they sure don't match. It may be that none of the lists is meant to be exhaustive, but then one might ask why, and why the particular names on each list? I certainly don't know.

So the Philistines come up and move in on David, and David inquires of the Lord if he should respond. God says yes, and vows to help, exactly as the SAB says. As I've said before, if the land is being invaded, why shouldn't they defend themselves and why shouldn't God help them do so? And when they find the Philistines' idols left behind, why shouldn't they burn them?

The Philistines come back, and this time God gives David some tactical advice, which for some reason the SAB finds absurd, but who would be better at giving tactical advice than an omniscient being?

Smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died (2Sam 4)

In chapter 4, we learn of the odd story of how Ishbosheth becomes worried and weakened when he hears that Abner is dead, and so two of his captains come into his house when he's resting in the middle of the day, and they kill him. They take his head and bring it to David, which really seems like an obviously stupid thing to do given the way David has reacted so far to people who take it in their heads to commit violence to help him. Indeed, David reminds these guys of the fate of the Amelekite who killed Saul, and then orders them killed and their bodies mutilated. As I said before, David is probably in part motivated by setting a precedent that regicide will not go unpunished in Israel.

So long as I didn't already comment on it, and this post is so small, the phrase "under the fifth rib" is, I imagine, a Bible-ism for "in the heart".

Now these were the sons of David (2Sam 3)

In chapter 3, David gets busy being king and having lots of kids. David has six sons, each by a different wife, and for some reason the retelling of David's family in 1Chronicles 3 gives one name different. It might be a nickname or something like that, but I really have no idea what the story is here.

A really strange story here is the story of Abner and his turning his allegiances to David. Apparently, Abner sleeps with one of Saul's concubines, which worries Ishbosheth (as I think I mentioned elsewhere, it was apparently a custom of the day for a king who conquered another to sleep with the defeated king's concubines to show he is taking the old king's place), and Ishbosheth asks what's going on. Abner flips out and goes over to David's side. (One might wonder if Abner sensed he was on the losing side, and wanted to switch to keep what power he had as a military leader.)

David tells Ishbosheth that he wants his wife Michal back, and Ishbosheth retrieves her. Her new husband Phaltiel is clearly very unhappy about this, but is unable to do anything about it. We're never told whether David did this out of love or out of a sort of display of authority, but we were told earlier that Michal did love David, and perhaps she still does. Something that the SAB does not note here is the fact that a man whose ex-wife has remarried is not allowed to take her back (Deuteronomy 24:4). Since there doesn't seem to have been a formal divorce in this case, it's not clear whether David might be breaking the law in this case.

Now, when David tries to make peace with Abner, Joab hears about it and is very displeased. He goes behind David's back and kills Abner in revenge for the killing of his brother Asahel. David denounces Joab's actions and pronounces a curse on Joab's house. Now whether or not David was right to give this curse (and whether it was really meaningful) is a matter of opinion, but I think I can see David's motivation for being angry with Joab. After all, Abner was offering a chance at peace and a (relatively) bloodless uniting of the kingdom of Israel under David, and Joab messed it up.

And all his house died together (2Sam 2)

So in chapter 2, David finally becomes king officially. However, at apparently around the same time, Abner decides to declare Saul's son Ishbosheth the king. No doubt Abner, being a close relative of Saul, would prefer to keep the monarchy in the family.

This does present a problem for the SAB though, in that according to 1Chronicles 10, "all [Saul's] house died together" during the battle that saw the death of Saul. One of the things that can be said in reply to this is that it may not be clear what comprises Saul's "house". It's well established elsewhere that at least one of Saul's grandchildren is alive, and as I just said above, Abner is a relative of Saul. One might consider the idea that his "house" is his royal line, but even that is problematic, as Ishbosheth not only survives, but briefly sits on the throne. It might also be that Saul's "house" refers to men in his family of the proper age to fight in wars, but since Ishbosheth is somewhere around forty years old when Saul dies, this seems highly unlikely. While one can also sometimes find some ambiguity in the word "together", I don't think that's going to suffice here either, as clearly Isbosheth lives at least two years after Saul's death. The only real room for ambiguity in the language here that I can see is in the word "son", which as has been mentioned several times is a much more fluid word in Hebrew, capable of referring to any descendant. If Ishbosheth was Saul's grandson, perhaps there is no contradiction, but there's really no indicator of such an idea other than the fact that it might solve this issue, and that Ishbosheth doesn't seem to ever be mentioned until this point. In short, I don't know what to make of the claim of 1Chronicles 10:6.

A strange story follows. The armies of David and Ishbosheth meet together in Gibeon, and Abner suggests "Let the young men now arise, and play before us." The play turns out to be lethal, and in short order, twenty-four men are dead. Is this a "cruel game" as the SAB says? Maybe. The way it sounds to me is that the idea was to have a relatively non-violent wrestling match, and it turned sour, as every single one of the men was set on treachery against their opponent. Indeed, this is a violent event, and one that doesn't make much sense, especially since there are no formally declared hostilities between these two armies.

The next notable event in the plot is Abner's killing of Asahel, the brother of Joab. This seems to be clearly a case of self-defense, as well as a killing in the midst of battle, and yet Joab later seeks revenge for this act. Once all the fighting is done on this particular day, Ishbosheth's soldiers lose 360 men, while David loses only 20.

Saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings (2Sam 1)

As 2Samuel (which, as I think I said earlier, was not really a separate book originally) begins, we have yet another story about Amalekites. An Amalekite comes to David and claims that he has killed Saul, prompting the SAB to ask how it could be possible for an Amalekite to exist, given the history of various attempts throughout the reign of Saul to obliterate them. Note however that right here in this chapter, the very first verse mentions David's "slaughter of the Amalekites". I think it would be quite a stretch to claim that the author of this passage didn't notice this juxtaposition as he wrote it. That being the case, I take it as my understanding that all these military attempts at wiping out the Amalekites keep managing to miss a few. David has clearly missed at least one.

Although I already addressed the issue of how Saul died, there's some interesting language here that may further shed light on the matter. If this is a true story, (and once again, with no corroborating witnesses, this may be a fabrication) then Saul's last words were, "Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me." This indicates to me that Saul wanted to be dead, but wasn't, which may fall in line with my suggestion of a failed suicide. Furthermore, the Amalekite says, "So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen:" which indicates to me that Saul had sustained mortal wounds before the Amalekite got there. Actually, if we assume that the story from the last chapter is true, then this story meshes with it pretty well, and for that fact I'm inclined to believe the Amalekite's tale.

The Amalekite delivers the crown and bracelet that Saul was wearing to David, apparently knowing that these royal things now belong to him, and perhaps hoping to be treated favorably for being the one who killed Saul. David is not pleased, even with it supposedly being a mercy killing, and orders one of his men to kill the Amalekite. I don't really know why David would do this. It may link back to the reasons I formerly discussed as to why David himself refused to lay a finger on Saul. Violent? Definitely. Unjust? I personally agree with that assessment. Intolerant? Maybe if we're assuming that David's killing him at least in part for being an Amalekite.

David composes a little poem as a eulogy for Saul and Jonathan, talking about what great warriors they were, and how Saul made Israel into a great nation. Also, he speaks of the great love he had for Jonathan, which need not be interpreted as sexual love.