Joab
Joab was a man who dominated the reign of King David. He was capable, ruthless, deeply unpleasant and, ultimately, a coward; and David was afraid of him! But who was he? We are frequently told that he was the son of Zeruiah. However Zeruiah was his mother, David’s sister, making Joab David’s nephew. But we have no idea who is father was. We know that his father had been buried in Bethlehem (2 Samuel 2:32), and that's it! In a male dominated narrative, it is very curious that the paternal lineage is not recorded. I suppose there must have been a reason...?
Nahash – friend or enemy?
‘Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and camped against Jabesh…’ (1 Samuel 11). The Jabeshites were clearly in fear of, or unwilling to fight, Nahash as they offered to become his servants. Nahash agreed on the condition that he be allowed to bore out all of their right eyes in order to humiliate Israel. This seems a particularly cruel and unpleasant thing to propose and to suffer. The inhabitants of Jabesh were not keen on the idea, asked for seven days to find an alternative and, upon failing, they would then surrender to him. Amazingly Nahash agreed! This unsatisfactory situation came to the attention of the newly anointed king, Saul. He was naturally indignant and so he raised an army of 330,000 men, divided into three bands, and so defeated the Ammonites in Gilead. He struck them down so that no two of them were left together. Saul’s sovereignty was affirmed.
Some years later, perhaps fifty years or so, Nahash the king of the Ammonites died (2 Samuel 10). David being a decent sort of chap thought that it would be kind to offer his condolences to his son and heir, Hanun. He sent comforters, the gift was misconstrued and unpleasantness ensued.
We might be wondering, in light of earlier events, why Nahash would show loyal love to David, the king of the nation that struck down his forces so comprehensively. Indeed, is this the same Nahash? It is a curious tale and one that deserves a bit of investigation.
In turning to Insight we are told that this must have been a different Nahash, perhaps a descendant or that that name had become a title like, for instance, ‘Pharaoh’. This statement is based on the writings of Josephus (Jewish Antiquities VI) who asserts that Nahash was killed in the battle by Saul’s army. The Bible does not state this; Josephus is notoriously unreliable. Every other commentary that I have consulted agrees to the contrary, that this is the very same Nahash who was defeated by Saul.
The question that then arises in my mind – why were David and Nahash such good friends in showing loyal love towards each other? Were they enemies or not?
We are not told in what way Nahash assisted, supported or befriended David. It is likely that David had not been born at the time of that original incident. Saul had been king for around ten years at the time of David’s birth, who could not therefore have had anything to do with that battle. It seems then that the uniting entity was Saul himself. Saul was the enemy of both men. In running from Saul, David sought refuge in many places, including in the surrounding nations. Did Nahash offer David sanctuary? It is a distinct possibility.
Absalom, the son of a Geshurite
Absalom was a pain in the royal backside. He was beautiful, conceited, cold-blooded and disloyal. But who was he? He was the third named son of King David. But David loved many women and so had many wives. In 2 Samuel 3:3 we are told that the mother of Absalom was ‘Maacah, the daughter of Talmai the king of Geshur’. The questions that immediately arise are; who were the Geshurites? Why was David making marriage alliances with them? And if that was contrary to Jehovah’s direction, did he reap what he sowed?
Geshur was a nation to the north of Israel, on the eastern side of the River Jordan, although it is recorded that some Geshurites lived further south in the vicinity of the Philistines. Whether these were of the same ethnic stock or otherwise is not recorded. Anyway, the kingdom of Geshur was one of the nations that the Israelites were commanded to drive out of the land, a task in which they failed (Joshua 13:13). Not only that but David chose to marry a daughter of this enemy nation. Why? It is not stated but the most likely solution is that this was a political alliance designed to bolster David’s claim to the throne. He gained an ally in the north to reinforce his position against Ish-bosheth, a son of King Saul and heir to his dynasty. The turbulent Absalom was his bitter reward – a murderous traitor. He reaped where he sowed!
Further thoughts re Absalom and David
Absalom murdered his elder brother, the first-born. Amnon deserved it but that wasn’t the point. After this he felt that he couldn’t stay so he fled to his grandfather Talmai in Geshur and stayed there for three years.
Meanwhile, back at home, David was longing for his son. With a bit of scheming on the part of Joab and a clever woman of Tekoa, it was agreed that Absalom should return. So Joab went off to get him and he lived in Jerusalem for two years, during which time David refused to either welcome or visit him. It is unclear why. If the king was really pining for his son, this seems to be a curious situation. Even Joab refused to visit Absalom - that is until Absalom ordered that Joab’s field of barley be set ablaze. That captured Joab’s attention and the king and his son were, to outward appearances, reconciled. In the very next chapter Absalom began the campaign that would lead to civil war in the House of David.
Why did Absalom harbour such animosity towards his father? With the death of Amnon, he was the eldest surviving son of David and thus, in the normal course of events, next in line for the throne. Did he know that Solomon had been chosen by Jehovah to succeed his father? During three years of ‘bad association’ what thoughts had his grandfather fed him? It all stemmed from the events in Amnon’s bedroom. Tamar was the full sister of Absalom, Amnon just a half-brother. Having humiliated Tamar, Amnon seems to have got away scot-free. There is no record of censure or punishment. That irked Absalom. David was very weak-willed when it came to family matters and personal relationships: culpable leniency. Had he handled matters justly a whole load of trouble may well have been avoided.
Nevertheless, the whole narrative seems unsatisfactory. If David really longed for his son, he could have seen him at any time during those five years. Some commentators (Ellicott et al.) suggest that the verb translated ‘longed’ should be translated ‘ceased’ or ‘desisted’, This has support in the Septuagint. In other words, he ceased from going after Absalom in order to punish him for murder and treason, probably due to reasons of difficulty and practicality. He just gave up and decided to let sleeping dogs lie. Joab’s interfering stirred it all up and brought to fruition events that may or may not have happened anyway.
Ephod or Ark?
This is one I have already commented upon. I still cannot get my head around why the translators of NWT have neither corrected nor noted this glaring error.
A couple of other typos that have been recognised in footnotes:
2 Samuel 19:25 'when he [Mephibosheth] came to Jerusalem...' This should be 'from'. Mephibosheth remained in Jerusalem. David was crossing the Jordan returning to Jerusalem.
2 Samuel 21:8 'the five sons of Michal'. We have already been told that Michal remained childless (6:23). The footnote says 'possibly Merab'. As an abandoned wife and childless aunt, was she being dutiful in caring for her nephews for an unspecified reason?
Were the Philistines Enemies or Not?
In reading the histories of Saul and David we get the strong impression that the Philistines were implacable enemies of Israel. They put up giants to taunt Jehovah. They stole the Ark of the Covenant. They restricted Israelite activity (13:19 ‘there was not a smith to be found in all the land’ - tragic!). They killed Saul and Jonathan in battle, hacked off their heads and generally humiliated God's people.
In return, Saul defeated them on various occasions. Jonathan single-handedly defeated a Philistine garrison at Michmash. David killed their big man with a single stone. The power and impetus between them ebbed and flowed in parallel with Israel’s obedience to Jehovah. So they were enemies, yes?
David’s relationship with Saul was turbulent and he frequently needed sanctuary from the king, who at times was determined that David must die. At one point David escaped to the Philistine city of Gath. He arrived as a lone fugitive but he was recognised by Achish the king and escaped by feigning insanity.
Some while later David returned to Gath, along with his men, wives, children, the lot. Achish welcomed them and gave them the town of Ziklag in which to live. They stayed there for 16 months during which time David amused himself by making raids on the neighbours, generally pillaging and slaughtering, after which he would go back to Achish and discuss the day’s activities, as if Achish was a great mate. It even got to the point that, in preparing for his next war with Saul, Achish invited David along to share in the battle! Some other Philistines were rightly dubious about this proposal so it came not to pass. It was this campaign that led Saul to the door of the witch of Endor and subsequent death on the slopes of Mount Gilboa and so, in hindsight, it is just as well that David did not attend.
Consequently hostilities between the two nations seem to have abated whilst Israel descended into civil war. After David had secured the throne of the, eventually, united kingdom, normal service resumed. Beginning at Baal-perazim David returned to his favourite pastime of massacring Philistines. It just seemed to me to be a very curious interlude where enemies came together for mutual benefit.
Elkanah
Irrespective of his impressive genealogy, this first chapter belongs to Hannah. Elkanah is mentioned solely to provide the necessary details and context for the narrative. After verse 23 he is mentioned just the one more time informing us that he went home (2:11). So who is the ‘he’ in verse 28? The footnote in NWT says that it is Elkanah, but is it? There are two alternatives: Eli and Samuel. The role of Eli is entirely passive, however the whole passage is about Hannah and the gift of her son, Samuel. A five-year-old boy, raised by diligent, God-fearing parents, is fully capable of being polite and dutiful towards persons in authority and in knowing how to worship God in, at least, a formalistic manner. However different commentators make an argument for each of the three, so take your pick. I like to think that it was Samuel willingly accepting his new role at the Tabernacle.
Was it a three-year-old bull or three bulls that Hannah (probably Elkanah) took with her? Both the Hebrew and KJV at verse 24 says ‘three bulls’. The bull slaughtered in verse 25 was clearly part of the gift of young Samuel to Jehovah. But what about the annual sacrifices? The one bull mentioned was part of this remarkable story; the other two were required for purposes unremarkable and so left out of the story. There is nothing to suggest that Elkanah was anything but well-off. Verse 21 tells us that he was not in the habit of appearing empty-handed before Jehovah.
Back