Category Archives: The Book of Samuel

Who Was Bathsheba? How Intertextuality helps

Who Was Bathsheba? How Intertextuality helps

Bathsheba
Bathsheba

Discerning Bathsheba’s character has proven to be challenging to Bible readers and scholars. Today’s Western culture has also made any evaluation of Bathsheba, an extremely sensitive issue. Note these two contrasting posts I discovered on the internet (David, Bathsheba, and Woke Exegesis, and Bathsheba Naked).  Scholars have assigned various labels to Bathsheba. She has been characterized as a clever and calculating woman by some and a naive, or foolish woman by others. Still others would characterize her as a victim of the abusive power of kingship.

What makes an evaluation of Bathsheba so difficult is that the text offers very little information about her. The following array of questions taken from my book Family Portraits, illustrates how little we know.

“Did Bathsheba position herself in a place where she knew David would be able to see her or does his vantage point on the roof of the palace allow him viewing access into the privacy of her home or courtyard? Is Bathsheba’s bath in verse 2 connected to the statement of her purifying herself in verse 4? Does the statement, “she was cleansed from her impurity” (v. 4) refer to the end of her menstrual cycle, or to bathing after having intercourse with David? Is Bathsheba a foreigner or an Israelite? Why does David send for her knowing that she is a trusted soldier’s wife? Why does Bathsheba come? Does David take her by force, or does she come willingly?” (p. 231)

Intertextuality to the Rescue

The above subtitle probably promises more than it is able to deliver, but nonetheless, intertextuality is an important resource that provides insight. In last week’s post (Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel), I noted how intertextuality (sometimes referred to as typology) can be a fruitful avenue that allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. In Bathsheba’s case, there are two important texts within the Books of Samuel that provide fertile ground for better understanding this enigmatic person. Both texts share similar themes, motifs, and words with the David and Bathsheba story in 2 Samuel 11. The two texts also involve two other women. The first, 1 Samuel 25, is the story of Abigail, another of David’s wives acquired from another man. The second, 2 Samuel 13, the story of Tamar, David’s daughter, follows immediately upon the story of David and Bathsheba.

Bathsheba Through the Eyes of Abigail (1 Sam. 25; 2 Sam. 11)

(The following paragraphs on Abigail and Tamar are excerpted from my book Family Portraits, pp. 239-243, with a few minor changes.)

Abigail intercedes with David to save the life of her household.

Many scholars have noted the connection between the stories of Abigail and Bathsheba. In some ways Abigail’s account is a mirror image of Bathsheba’s story with a few interesting twists (This observation, and some of the insights that follow, are from Adele Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives, JSOT, 23, 1982, pp. 69-85). Both are married when David meets them and both become his wife after the death of their respective husbands. Abigail’s husband is an evil man, Bathsheba’s a good one. Abigail’s words that the one who fights the Lord’s battles should not be guilty of “evil” (1 Sam. 25:28–31), anticipate David’s actions in 2 Samuel 11 (see esp. v. 27).  At the nadir of his power, a woman saves him; at the height of his power, he is imperiled by a woman (Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin, p. 152). Nabal commits a foolish act potentially leading to his death at the hands of David, but Abigail intercedes and saves him thus saving David from shedding innocent blood. Uriah is innocent, yet Bathsheba commits (or is coerced into committing) a foolish act which leads to his death. David becomes guilty of shedding innocent blood and she does nothing (perhaps can do nothing) to prevent it. When a crisis strikes, Abigail knows what to do, Bathsheba does not. Nabal refuses to take from his abundant flocks and so does David (2 Sam. 12:1-6). Both Abigail and Bathsheba are said to be beautiful women (different Hebrew words).

A survey of these stories also demonstrates that they share a host of similar vocabulary. The following list is a sample of these similarities with Scripture references to Abigail’s story occurring first (1 Sam. 25), followed by those in the Bathsheba story (2 Sam. 11–12):

David sends and inquires (25:5; 11:4, 6–7)

David sends messengers (25:14, 42; 11:4)

David takes (25:40; 11:4)

Nabal is evil in his doings; David does evil (25:3; 11:27)

evil should not be found in David; David commits evil (25:28; 11:27)

threefold use of “peace” (25:6; 11:7)

sword (25:13; 11:25; 12:9, 10)

dead or died (25:37, 38, 39; 11:15, 17, 21, 24, 26)

wash the feet (25:41; 11:8)

descend (25:23; 11:8–13)

morning (25:22, 34, 37; 11:14)

drinking and being drunk (25:36; 11:11, 13)

swearing an oath, “As the Lord lives…” (25:26, 34; 11:11)

wall (25:16; 11:20, 21, 24)

“hasten” and “tomorrow”—same letters in Hebrew (25:18, 23; 11:12)

Although words are often used in different ways between the two stories, and some occurrences may be coincidental, the similarities are striking. In particular, David’s sending messengers, the threefold use of the word “peace,” the words “sword” and “dead,” the description of Nabal and David doing “evil,” and the phrase “wash the feet” (which only occurs in these two passages in the books of Samuel), strongly suggest correspondences between these two accounts. The correlation of theme and vocabulary indicates that a comparison between Abigail and Bathsheba would be fruitful and might unveil some of the ambiguity present in Bathsheba’s character in 2 Samuel 11.

Carole Fontaine has noted “the clustering of typical wisdom motifs in vocabulary and theme” found in 2 Samuel 11–12 (The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2 Samuel 11-12, and 1 Kings 3, JSOT, 34, 1986, pp. 61-77). In a previous chapter we observed that the story of Abigail also contains vocabulary and motifs consistent with the themes of wisdom and folly (Chapter 18 of Family Portraits). This recognition creates yet another link between the stories of Abigail and Bathsheba. The most ironic contrast between the two is that Abigail’s action saves her “good-for-nothing” husband Nabal from death, while Bathsheba’s action sends her good husband Uriah to his death. This contrast highlights the wisdom motif of the woman who brings death. Fontaine notes the similarity of language in Proverbs 6:22 with the opening of the story in 2 Samuel 11. Speaking of the commandments and teachings of one’s parents (which ultimately derive from the Lord), Proverbs 6:22 states, “When you walk they will lead you; when you lie down they will watch over you” (ESV). I have highlighted the words “walk” and “lie down” because they are precisely the words that characterize David’s action in 2 Samuel 11:2, 4. The proverb goes on to warn that the commandment will “preserve you from the evil woman, from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart” (Prov. 6:24–25a). The proverb continues,

Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned?Or can one walk on hot coals and his feet not be scorched? So is he who goes into his neighbor’s wife; None who touches her will go unpunished. (Prov. 6:27–29, ESV)

The correspondences, though not exact, cannot help but make one think of the David and Bathsheba affair. While Bathsheba may not have intentionally seduced David she is, nonetheless, the woman who brings death, not to her fellow adulterer in this case, but to her husband. The counterpart of the adulteress in Proverbs 6 is “Woman Wisdom” in Proverbs 9. Similarly, Bathsheba’s act foolishly puts her husband in harm’s way while Abigail acts wisely in saving her husband. When one adds up Bathsheba’s naiveté and passivity the sum total is foolishness.

It is not just these similarities, however, that associate Bathsheba with the woman who brings death; a reference within the story of chapter 11 also suggests this equation. When Joab sends a messenger back to David with the news of Uriah’s death, he refers to the story of Abimelech in Judges 9 (2 Sam. 11:21). Uriah has just died because the Israelite army got too close to the city wall. Similarly, Abimelech, the petty tyrant king of Shechem, died when he got too close to the city wall and a woman cast a millstone on his head (Judg. 9:50–54). This may have become a proverbial story in Israel about the dangers of getting too close to an enemy’s wall and may explain why Joab anticipates David citing it. Within the context of the story, however, it takes on a deeper meaning, for it was Bathsheba’s act of lying with David that directly resulted in Uriah’s death at the foot of the wall in Rabbah. Like the other correspondences, this one is not exact. It is simply one more nail in the coffin that convicts Bathsheba of a foolish action.

Bathsheba Through the Eyes of Tamar (2 Sam. 11 and 13)

Tamar and Amnon
The terrible story of Tamar and Amnon provides a comparison for evaluating Bathsheba’s character.

The story of Amnon and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13 is the sequel to the story of David and Bathsheba. It is the beginning of the fulfillment of the Lord’s word of judgment in 2 Samuel 12:11: “Behold I will raise up evil against you from your own house” (my translation). Just as David has illicit sex in his house, so too does his son Amnon. Verbs once again draw a parallel between the actions of father and son. Just as David “sent” for Bathsheba, so he innocently “sends” his daughter Tamar to Amnon’s house (13:7). Ironically Amnon “lies down” on his “bed” (13:5), the posture David was in at the beginning of 2 Samuel 11:2. The word “lie” also describes Amnon’s sin (13:11, 14), as it does David’s (11:4). Wisdom motifs and vocabulary are once again prevalent in 2 Samuel 13, indicating a further link with chapters 11–12. These parallels once again suggest that we may profit from a comparison between Bathsheba and Tamar in order to gain a clearer understanding of her character.

Like Bathsheba, Tamar is said to be beautiful (13:1, although a different Hebrew word is used). Tamar is sent by David to Amnon’s house in order to make him some food so that he might recover from his “illness” (13:6–8). She remains unsuspecting of any ulterior motive, even when Amnon orders everyone else out of the house and tells her to come into his bedroom (13:9–10). Our portrait of Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 proposed that she was naive (not included in this post but explored earlier in my examination of 2 Sam. 11); may we suggest that the parallel with Tamar adds weight to that proposal? We also inferred the possibility that Bathsheba may not have known why she was sent for. The same is true of Tamar. She believes she was sent to minister to her sick brother; the true purpose of her visit has been concealed from her. Here, however, the similarities end. When Amnon forcefully expresses his intentions, Tamar protests (13:12–13). Her language invokes the words “fool” and “folly” as she tries to dissuade her brother from his predetermined course of action. We note an important difference here between Tamar and Bathsheba. The words describing Bathsheba’s actions in 11:4–5 gave no hint of resistance, and certainly the text records no words of protest. Tamar protests the foolish act being forced upon her; Bathsheba acquiesces. Once again a comparison of stories yields a verdict of foolishness in regard to Bathsheba.

Scripture affirms the importance of more than one witness in determining a conviction (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Although Bathsheba’s portrait in 2 Samuel 11 is ambiguous, there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest a certain understanding of her character. The witness of Abigail and Tamar seems to solidify our suggestion that Bathsheba is a naive and passive woman who does not have the wisdom or strength to extricate herself from a dangerous situation. If we were to hold court on Bathsheba’s character, based on the evidence of 2 Samuel 11 and our two witnesses, we would have to conclude she is not a cunning, manipulative, or malicious person. She is simply foolish. (end of section from Family Portraits)

As I noted parenthetically above, the chapter on Bathsheba in my book also explores the scene in 2 Samuel 11 which is not included here. The point here is to demonstrate the insights that can be gained from investigating texts with similar themes, motifs, and words. Hopefully, this post has demonstrated that a look at the stories of Abigail and Tamar can provide insight into the, otherwise, ambiguous character of Bathsheba.

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.Family Portraits

 

Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel

Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel

Meeting of Jacob and Rachel
“The Meeting of Jacob and Rachel” by William Dyce (mid-nineteenth century).

Rachel is one of the matriarchs of Israel. As such, she plays an important role in the unfolding story of the Book of Genesis. Rachel is best known as the beloved wife of Jacob (Gen. 29:18-20), and the mother of Joseph (Gen. 30:22-24). Other famous episodes in her life include the rivalry between her and her sister Leah (Gen. 30:8), her stealing the household gods of her father Laban (Gen. 31:19), and the birth of her second born son Benjamin which results in her death (Gen. 35:16-20). Many readers of 1 Samuel may be unaware of the numerous allusions to Rachel in its pages. Since Rachel lived approximately 800 years before the events recorded in 1 Samuel, what is the significance of the constant allusions to her? A brief discussion of typology, or intertextuality, as it is frequently referred to, is necessary to answer this question. Then we will look at each occurrence in 1 Samuel that alludes to Rachel and seek to understand its significance.

Typology, or Intertextuality in the Bible

I have written more extensively on the topic of typology elsewhere (see here). Peter Leithart provides a good succinct definition. He writes, “Typology means that earlier characters and events are understood as figures of later characters and events, and the text is written in a way that brings out the connection” (Peter Leithart, “A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1&2 Samuel,” p. 13). As I explained in my post on typology: “Biblical authors intentionally recall earlier stories, characters, and events as a way of commenting on the story, character, or event they are relating. The student of the Bible is being invited to compare the stories or characters in order to notice these similarities and differences. Through this comparison, the reader gains insight into what the biblical author is communicating. This is especially helpful when one is trying to understand a particular biblical character.” This practice or technique is what is meant by intertextuality. To put it simply, it is using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Texts Alluding to Rachel in 1 Samuel and Their Meaning

Hannah and Rachel

Hannah and Peninnah
The conflict between Hannah and Peninnah recalls the conflict between Rachel and Leah.

1 Samuel begins with an immediate allusion to Rachel. Elkanah’s marriage to Hannah and Peninnah recalls Jacob’s marriage to Rachel and Leah (1 Sam. 1:1-6). This allusion is further solidified by the fact that one woman is barren (Hannah/Rachel) and one is fertile (Leah/Peninnah), which leads to conflict between them. Robert Polzin (Samuel and the Deuteronomist), followed by Keith Bodner (1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary), suggests that the birth story of Samuel (the kingmaker) looks forward to the birth of kingship in Israel. There are a number of connections in 1 Sam. 1 with 1 Sam. 8-9. The conflict between the women leads Bodner to conclude: “The advent of kingship in Israel will also produce conflict, and at this point in the story this conflict is symbolically represented in Hannah and Peninnah” (p. 16).

Ichabod and Rachel

Rachel dies giving birth
The Birth of Benjamin and the death of Rachel by D. Chiesura.

The birth of Ichabod in 1 Samuel 4:19-22 contains the next allusion to Rachel. When the daughter-in-law of Eli hears of his death, the death of her husband (Phinehas), and the capture of the ark, she is overcome with premature labor and gives birth. The birth is difficult and results in her death. Before dying, however, she gives her son a strange name–Ichabod–which means, “the glory has departed.” These circumstances bear some resemblance to the story of Rachel giving birth to Benjamin. It should also be noted that the man who delivers the bad tidings in 1 Sam. 4 is “a man from Benjamin” (1 Sam. 4:12). When Rachel gives birth, she too dies, and in the process, she also gives her son an unusual name with a sad meaning. Benjamin’s original name as given by Rachel is Ben-Oni which means “son of my sorrow.” Apparently Jacob did not wish his son to be stuck with such a negative legacy and so changed his name to Benjamin (Gen. 35:18). In my book, Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, I suggest the following application: “The parallel between the two birth stories may lie in the contrast they provide to one another. Ben-Oni does not properly reflect the future of Jacob’s family, and so Jacob changes his son’s name to Benjamin. However, the name, Ichabod, stands because it is a true reflection of the situation—“the glory has departed” (p. 77). It should be remembered that Saul is a Benjamite. Barbara Green (How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel, p. 145) points out that the news the man from Benjamin brings leads to the mother’s death and the outcry of the people. Is this perhaps a harbinger of the problems that Saul’s kingship will bring upon Israel? It is interesting that a few of the ancient Rabbis even identified this Benjamite as the young man Saul!

Saul and Rachel

Samuel anoints Saul
When Samuel anoints Saul, he gives him 3 signs. The first concerns Rachel’s tomb.

While the previous story of Ichabod’s birth alludes to Rachel’s death, the next story expressly mentions her tomb. After Saul is anointed by Samuel, he is given three signs to confirm his appointment. The first sign involves encountering two men by Rachel’s tomb (1 Sam. 10:2). As Saul arrives at the tomb of the matriarch of his tribe, he will receive news that the donkeys he went to seek have been found, and that his father is concerned about what has happened to him. While the immediate context confirms Samuel’s word that the Lord has anointed him, some suggest that in the bigger picture of Saul’s story the mention of Rachel’s tomb and the words of his father, may sound an ominous note. A tomb quite naturally speaks of death. Peter Miscall (1 Samuel: A Literary Reading) remarks, “…’tomb’ tips the ambiguous symbol of Benjamin toward the pole of misfortune and death” (p. 55). Regarding the father’s words, Bodner comments, “…the words of Saul’s father Kish mean more than the speaker(s) may realize. Kish says, ‘What will I do about my son?, suggesting that uncertainty clouds the future of his son” (p. 94).

Michal and Rachel

Michal's idol recalls Rachel
Michal hiding an idol in David’s bed is reminiscent of Rachel hiding idols in her saddlebag.

When Saul threatens David’s life, Michal seeks to protect him. Michal helps David out through a window in the house and then does something very interesting. She takes an idol (one wonders where she gets it), puts it in David’s bed and covers the head with goat’s hair (1 Sam. 19:11-17). When Saul’s soldiers come to take him, she claims that David is sick which allows David extra time to escape. Several features of this story recall incidents in the lives of both Jacob and Rachel. Bodner sums up the similarities: “Both of these episodes feature deceptive father-in-laws (Laban and Saul), younger daughters (Rachel and Michal), fugitive husbands (Jacob and David), and hidden idols (author’s italics, p. 206). In Family Portraits, my conclusion is: “Although Rachel is one of the matriarchs of Israel, the comparison here is not flattering. It serves to confirm that Michal’s religious devotion is misplaced” (p. 127). Michal’s possession of an idol, and lying to her father that David threatened to kill her, places her in a negative light, in spite of the fact that she saved David’s life on this occasion.

Saul and David, Rachel and Leah

In the larger picture of 1&2 Samuel we learn that Saul ,the first king, is a member of the Tribe of Benjamin. David, of course, is from the Tribe of Judah. Genesis reveals that Rachel had two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. The first king of Israel is, therefore, a descendant of Rachel’s. The Tribe of Judah, however, is descended through Leah and Judah becomes the preeminent son among Leah’s progeny (Gen. 49:8-12). The conflict between David (Judah) and Saul (Benjamin) is reminiscent of the conflict between the two matriarchal mothers and sisters, Rachel and Leah. Interestingly, although Rachel was the most loved by Jacob, it was Leah who rested by him in the end, as she and Jacob were both buried in the ancestral cave at Machpelah purchased by Abraham (Gen. 49:29-31). Similarly, it was David, the descendant of Leah, persecuted by Saul, the descendant of Rachel, who triumphed in the  end.

Conclusion

Rachel is one of the revered matriarchs of Israel and deserves her place among the great women of the nation. Yet, it must be said, that her character description in Genesis, like that of her husband Jacob, is less than ideal. She is remembered for being beautiful (Gen. 29:17) and to her credit, she seeks the Lord in her barrenness and is granted a son (Gen. 30:22-24). However, she also has a fiery temper and a competitive nature driven, at least at times, by envy (Gen. 30:1-2). Rachel, like Jacob, can also be deceptive. As illustrated when she steals her father’s gods and lies about it (Gen. 31:19, 34-35).

When we turn to the allusions of Rachel in 1 Samuel, once again negativity dominates. Rachel’s comparison with Hannah is indeed a positive (both are the loved wife who is barren), but the similarity also extends to the conflict and rivalry represented in both families. The allusion between Benjamin’s birth and Ichabod’s is foreboding of difficult times ahead. If “the glory has departed” at the birth of Ichabod and he is the “new Benjamin,” then what does that forecast for the future of the tribe of Benjamin? We have already noted above that Saul’s first sign of kingship being confirmed in the vicinity of Rachel’s tomb does not seem to suggest a bright future. Finally, the similarities between Rachel and Michal are not complimentary to either, but, in the end, Rachel certainly fares better than Michal in biblical history.

Except for some aspects in the comparison with Hannah, it must be said that all of the allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel are designed to communicate a negative message. Perhaps this relates to our final point above that the kingship was ultimately not destined for a descendant of Rachel from the Tribe of Benjamin, but for a descendant of Leah from the Tribe of Judah, and this may be one of the main reasons that the inspired author draws so many allusions to her in 1 Samuel.

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.Family Portraits

 

Clothing in Samuel: You Are What You Wear

Clothing in Samuel: You Are What You Wear

Semites clothing
This ancient Egyptian pictorial from 1900 B.C. pictures Semites (this category includes Israelites) traveling to Egypt. The clothing would be typical of the time of Abraham or Jacob.

We will definitely be airing some dirty laundry in this post as we look at the clothing motif in the Books of Samuel. In daily life, clothes tell us something about the person wearing them. We might learn about their social class, or what part of the world they’re from. Formal and casual attire also communicate certain messages. One blogger writes, “On a larger scale, fashion is important because it represents our history and helps to tell the story of the world” (Why Is Fashion Important?). “Clothing, whether worn for a special occasion or not, did always convey a message, sometimes consciously and sometimes subconsciously, especially regarding social status, as there was clothing specific to gender, age, marital status, wealth, rank, modesty, place of origin, or occupation” (Barbosa, M. (2020). Women’s Fashion in the Old Testament World. In The Baker Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, p. 74).

Hebrew Words for Clothing in Samuel

Ordinary clothing
This relief is an Assyrian depiction of the conquest of Lachish. It shows the captive women of Judah dressed in plain garb.

There are six Hebrew words used a total of thirty-nine times to describe a person’s attire.  The words and their meaning are as follows:

  1. Beged is the most common word for clothing in the OT, and the most frequently occurring word in 1&2 Samuel. It occurs twelve times in eleven passages (1 Sam. 19:13, 24; 27:9; 28:8; 2 Sam. 1:2;  3:31; 13:31 [2x]; 14:2; 19:25; 20:8, 12 ) and is usually translated as “garment” or “clothing.” It has a broad range of meaning and refers to clothing in general.
  2. An ephod is mentioned ten times in nine passages (1 Sam. 2:18, 28; 14:3; 21:9;  22:18; 23:6, 9; 30:7 [2x]; 2 Sam. 6:14). An Ephod is an item of priestly apparel. It is especially associated with the High Priest, but is worn by others as well. In spite of the detailed description of it in Exodus 28 and 39, “a clear picture of what it looked like is difficult to obtain” (Meyers, C., Ephod (Object). In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 550).   Both Samuel and David are said to wear “a linen ephod” (1 Sam. 2:18; 2 Sam. 6:14).  The ephod was used to seek answers from God, so at times, it is pictured as being carried, rather than worn (e.g., 1 Sam. 23.6).
  3. Meʿîl means “robe” and is found eight times in seven passages in Samuel (1 Sam. 2:19; 15:27; 18:4; 24:5, 12 [2x]); 28:14; 2 Sam. 13:18). It is an outer garment generally worn by people of rank. It is especially associated with Samuel and Saul, although it is worn by other people of high status.
  4. Maḏ occurs five times in five passages and is always connected with military or governmental attire in Samuel (1 Sam. 4:12;  17:38, 39; 18:4; 2 Sam. 10:4).
  5. Lābaš is normally used as a verb in Samuel (4 times) and refers to “putting on” a piece of clothing. However, on one occasion it is translated as a noun referring to Joab’s military outfit (2 Sam. 20:8).
  6. Keṯōneṯ passîm is an expression only found four times in Scripture. In each instance it refers to a type of garment that suggests royalty. It appears in the Joseph story as the “coat of many colors,” (Gen. 37:3, 23), and is found in 2 Samuel 13:18-19 describing the garment that Tamar, the daughter of David, was wearing. The word keṯōneṯ  by itself is more common in Scripture (e.g., Gen. 3:21; Job 30:18) and is used to describe Hushai’s garment in 2 Samuel 15:32 which he has torn as a sign of grief. For more on biblical clothing click the link here.

Meanings Conveyed by Clothing in Samuel

Having surveyed the passages in Samuel that mention clothing, I have concluded that there are five primary meanings. These meanings include status, mourning, deception, shame, and death.

Status

Samuel rejects Saul
Both Samuel and Saul are characterized as leaders by the robes they wear.

Kings, priests, soldiers, aristocrats, and peasants all have distinctive outfits befitting their social and political rank. This is true of all societies and this feature is evident in Samuel as well. For example, all eight mentions of the robe (meʿîl) are connected with royal figures and political leaders. Hannah’s bringing the young Samuel a new robe each year (1 Sam. 2:19) foreshadows his destiny as Israel’s leader. The connection between the robe and leadership is made explicit in the story of Saul’s rejection. When Samuel turns to leave after telling Saul that God has rejected him as king, Saul grabs Samuel’s robe and it tears. Samuel sees this as a sign and responds, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you” (1 Sam. 15:28). Samuel is so closely identified with his robe that when Saul visits the medium of Endor and asks her to call up Samuel, he recognizes him immediately by the woman’s description. She states, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” Then the text tells us,  “And Saul knew that it was Samuel” (1 Sam. 28:14).

Saul’s robe represents his kingship. When David cuts off a piece of Saul’s robe, David is convicted. “Then David arose and stealthily cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. And afterward David’s heart struck him, because he had cut off a corner of Saul’s robe (1 Sam. 24:4-5). Cutting off a slice of Saul’s robe is similar to defacing his kingship. Similarly, Jonathan’s gift of his robe and weaponry to David is a symbolic way of surrendering the kingship to him (1 Sam. 18:4).

Besides his robe, Samuel wears a linen ephod which indicates his priestly status (1 Sam. 2:18). Somewhat surprisingly, David is also said to wear a linen ephod when he brings the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem, thus suggesting some kind of priestly status on his part (2 Sam. 6:14).

Mourning

Tearing clothes
Tearing clothing is a sign of grief in ancient times.

What one did to one’s clothing, or the kind of clothing worn was a common way of expressing grief in the ancient world. For example, following a defeat in battle at the hands of the Philistines, a messenger arrives at Shiloh with torn clothes to deliver the news to Eli (1 Sam. 4:12). Similarly, after being raped by her brother Amnon, Tamar tears the royal robe she is wearing as a sign of grief and outrage (2 Sam. 13:19). David goes a step farther following the murder of Abner when he tells Joab and his men to not only tear their clothes but to put on sackcloth (2 Sam. 3:31). To demonstrate his grief of David’s flight from Jerusalem during Absalom’s revolt, Mephibosheth does not take care of his feet, trim his beard, or wash his clothes (2 Sam. 19:24). Finally, in an act of deception, Joab tells a wise woman to pretend to be in mourning by putting on garments of mourning (2 Sam. 14:2).

Deception

Saul and the witch of Endor
Saul puts on common clothing to deceive the medium of Endor. Credit: the Smithsonian American Art Museum

Our last example above regarding the wise woman illustrates how clothing can be used in Samuel to deceive. The wise woman pretends to be mourning over a lost son so that she might gain the ear and sympathy of the king. Michal, the daughter of Saul seeks to protect David by deceiving her father’s soldiers into thinking he is sick. She does this by laying an image in a bed and covering it with goat’s hair and clothes, giving David time to escape (1 Sam. 19:11-16). Saul also uses clothing to deceive the medium at Endor. Saul does not want to be recognized so that the medium will do his bidding in calling up Samuel. In the larger story, however, Saul’s removal of his royal apparel and putting on “other garments” (1 Sam. 28:8), is a symbolic way of suggesting that Saul is losing the kingship. Joab uses his military attire to deceive Amasa (2 Sam. 20:8), but this story also has another dynamic that we will examine below.

Shame

Saul removes his clothing
Saul prophesies naked (1 Sam. 19:22-24)

In the Bible, being unclothed is considered shameful. Only Adam and Eve in their pristine state before the Fall, could be naked and unashamed (Gen. 2:25). Not only did certain kinds of clothing denote honor and wealth, all clothing hid one’s shame (e.g., Ezek. 16:8, 36-37). Thus to be found in one’s “birthday suit,” was considered humiliating. Saul is twice pictured in 1 Samuel in a compromised situation. In his pursuit of David, Saul comes to Samuel in Ramah and is seized by the Spirit of God. There he lies down all day naked and prophesies (1 Sam. 19:23-24). In other words, in his murderous rage, the Spirit renders him powerless and vulnerable, to the point of shaming him by removing his kingly garments. One might muse that Saul is performing his own version of the “Emperor’s New Clothes!” Saul is found in an even more humiliating and vulnerable position when he goes into a cave to relieve himself (1 Sam. 24:3-7). The Hebrew uses the euphemistic phrase, “to cover his feet.” In other words, Saul drops his robe around his feet in order to take care of important business. David and his men are hiding in the cave, but David refuses to harm Saul. When Saul leaves the cave, David produces the part of the robe he had cut off in order to demonstrate his innocence to Saul (1 Sam. 24:11).

On another occasion after David himself has become king,  he sends ambassadors to pay his respects to the deceased Nahash, king of Ammon, Nahash’s son Hanun humiliates the men by cutting their garments off at the buttocks (2 Sam. 10:4). This insult precipitates a war between Israel and Ammon. We should also mention that Tamar’s tearing of her royal garment not only communicates mourning (as noted above) but shame as well.

Death

Joab murders Amasa
Joab’s military garb is carefully described in anticipation of his murder of Amasa.

When garments are associated with death, it is usually in reference to those who are mourning the deceased (2 Sam. 3:31; 14:2). However, there is one passage in 2 Samuel that dwells on the military attire of Joab in anticipation of his murder of Amasa (2 Sam. 20:8). One could literally say that Joab “was dressed to kill!” On the other hand, the expression “cloak and dagger” seems apropos as well. This passage also fits under the theme of dressing to deceive noted above. Commentators are unsure of the exact manner in which Joab perpetrates this deception, but in the end, Amasa gets the point! As Amasa lies wallowing in his blood, the troops stand still in shock. But when Amasa is unceremoniously dragged off of the highway and covered with a garment, the mission continues (2 Sam. 20:12). This time a garment plays the part of concealing the horrible crime committed by Joab and acts as Amasa’s death shroud.

Conclusion: If the Shoe Fits

While some motifs, such as tallness, or dead dog (see posts here and here), have one main point to make, the motif of clothing is varied. For the most part, one could say that the clothing motif is “worse for wear” in Samuel.  Although the message of status is mostly positive, the other usages of this motif are quite negative. Context is the all-important guide when it comes to understanding what is being communicated by the clothing motif. Therefore the message(s) of this motif is not a “one size fits all,” but rather an “If the shoe fits, wear it.” In particular, the clothing motif in Samuel contributes to the main themes of honor and shame (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:30) and how appearances can be deceiving (1 Sam. 16:7).

For a more in-depth look at 1&2 Samuel see:

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits

 

Dead Dog: Motifs in Samuel

Dead Dog: Motifs in Samuel

dead dogWe live in a dog lover’s world and so it should come as no surprise that we use many idioms related to our four-legged friends. The positive use of an idiom involving dogs is usually related to puppies. We talk about having “puppy dog eyes,” or when speaking of teenagers we say they have a case of “puppy love.” Of course there’s also the colloquial expression, “What’s up dog?,” or “Yo dawg!” As much as we love our dogs, it’s surprising how often we use them in idioms with a negative meaning. “It’s a dog-eat- dog world,” “I’m sick as a dog,” “I’m dog-tired,” “You work like a dog,” and many more (see How friendly are these 29 dog idioms–disclaimer, some of these aren’t the nicest of expressions!). When a woman is called “a dog,” or worse, a female version of a dog, it’s not a compliment! If someone pranks me, I might threaten them good-naturedly by saying, “You’re a dead dog!” When someone is wasting time we might say, “You’re beating a dead dog,” although admittedly I’ve heard “horse” used in this idiom more frequently.  Although we are talking about dead dogs in this post, hopefully we won’t be beating any (i.e., I hope you think the article is worth your time)!

“Dog” in Scripture

vicious dog
Enemies in Scripture can be pictured as menacing dogs.

While current idiom’s can use “dog” positively or negatively,  dog language in Scripture is always negative. “The psalmist’s enemies are presented as menacing dogs (Ps. 22:16 [17]), and dogs represent a fool in Prov. 26:11, where the folly or sins of the fool are compared to the filth of dog vomit. Israel’s sentinels are called ‘silent dogs’ who sleep rather than bark, while Israel’s enemy is described as a voracious, devouring dog (Isa. 56:10–11)” (M.E. Taylor, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 352). “Dogs were scavengers and kept towns clean by consuming garbage and unburied corpses (Ps. 59:14–15 [MT 15–16])” (Ibid.). The NT, like the OT, considers dogs to be an unclean animal (Matt. 15:26-27). In fact, in Revelation’s picture of the heavenly city, dogs are said to be on the outside along with other unsavory characters (Rev. 22:15).

“Dog” and “Dead Dog” in Samuel

There are 5 occurrences of dog language in Samuel with a possible sixth occurrence (which will be explained below). Three verses specifically use the words “dead dog” (1 Sam. 24:14 {MT 15]; 2 Sam. 9:8; 16:9). In the other two occurrences the speakers refer to themselves as “dogs” and later end up dead (1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Sam. 3:8). So it seems that we can legitimately label these as “dead dog” passages as well. These passages use the word “dog” in one of two ways: 1) When someone is called a “dead dog,” the person using the expression is speaking disparagingly of another. 2) When a person refers to themselves as a “dead dog,” it is usually a statement of humility, unless the context makes it clear that they do not see themselves as a “dog.”

Goliath and Abner: Dogs Who End Up Dead

Goliath becomes a dead dog
Goliath denies that he is a dog, nevertheless, he winds up eating the dust like a dead dog.

When David goes out to engage Goliath in battle, Goliath says, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” (1 Sam. 17:43). Goliath’s question is clearly rhetorical. He does not believe that he is a dog, and therefore, this is a derogatory use of the word. In other words, Goliath is not expressing humility by referring to himself as a dog. Ironically, a few verses later, Goliath winds up dead, proving he is, in fact, a “dead dog!”

When Ishbosheth accuses Abner of sleeping with Rizpah, his father’s concubine, Abner angrily retorts, “Am I a dog’s head of Judah?” (2 Sam. 3:8). Once again, we have a rhetorical question. Clearly Abner does not think that he is a “dog’s head.” There are several interesting observations that can be made about this response. Anderson observes, “Since sexual promiscuity of dogs is nearly proverbial, Abner’s exclamation is fairly apposite” (A.A. Anderson, WBC, 2 Samuel, p. 56). It is also noted by some scholars that “dog’s head” may, in fact, be a euphemistic reference that actually refer’s to a dog’s backside! (See e.g., Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel–Vol. 2, p. 424). Finally, the word for dog in Hebrew is keleb. The name Caleb comes from this word. It’s possible that Abner was making a wordplay here. Recall that at this time David was reigning over Judah from Hebron (2 Sam. 2:1-4). Hebron was the city given by Joshua to Caleb (Josh. 15:13). When Abner says, “Am I a dog’s head of Judah?,” some scholars take this to mean “Am I the chief of Caleb of Judah?” “Head” here would mean “leader” (see my post on the head motif in Samuel). The reference to Caleb (which means “dog”) would be a way of referencing Hebron. Therefore, Abner would be saying, “Do you think I’m loyal to David who rules over Caleb’s territory in Hebron?” (On this interpretation see, McCarter, 2 Samuel, Yale Anchor Bible, p. 106). At the same time, the expression carries the idea of being a dog’s head and thus it would have a double meaning. If this is the case, then this would be a clever retort indeed! By the end of the chapter (2 Sam. 3:27), the man who sarcastically referred to himself as a “dog’s head,” is dead.

Shimei, the Dead Dog

Shimei, the dead dog
Shimei’s cursing of David leads to his appellation as a “dead dog” by Abishai.

The clearest case of “dead dog” having a derogatory meaning is found in 2 Samuel 16:9. The context is a report of David’s flight from Jerusalem during the revolt of Absalom. As David is fleeing, Shimei throws rocks and dirt his way, while cursing him. Abishai, one of David’s commanders, gets fed up with this insulting behavior and says, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head.” David refuses to allow him and later, following Absalom’s defeat, when Shimei begs for his life, David pardons him (2 Sam. 19:16-23). However, David never forgets Shimei’s treachery and on his death bed he tells Solomon to deal wisely with him and see that he does not go to the grave peacefully (1 Kgs. 2:8-9). Eventually, Shimei breaks an agreement that he had made with Solomon. The result is his execution (1 Kgs. 2:39-46). In the end, Shimei truly winds up as a “dead dog.”

David & Mephibosheth: Dead Dogs

David spares Saul
David spares Saul. Image courtesy of St-Takla.org

The final two occurrences of this expression in the books of Samuel are found on the lips of David and Mephibosheth respectively. On one occasion when Saul is pursuing David in the Wilderness, David spares his life. Later, David confronts Saul by showing a piece of Saul’s robe in his hand, demonstrating that he might have killed him. After pleading with Saul he states, “After whom has the king of Israel come out? After whom do you pursue? After a dead dog! After a flea! (1 Sam. 24:14). David’s reference to himself as a “dead dog” is a statement of humility. He is claiming to be insignificant. This is also backed up by his reference to himself as a “flea.”

Mephibosheth the dead dog
Mephibosheth approaches King David with humility.

When Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s crippled son, is summoned to appear before David, he comes in fear. As he approaches the king, he falls on his face in reverence. David tells him not to fear, and promises that he will restore all of Saul’s land to him and have him eat at the king’s table as one of his sons. Mephibosheth responds by saying, “What is your servant, that you should show regard for a dead dog such as I?” (2 Sam. 9:8). This statement certainly expresses Mephibosheth’s humility, but in most circumstances, these words would also be literally true. It was very common in the ancient world when a new dynasty was established, the new king would kill all of the remaining descendants of the former king.  This is why Mephibosheth was hiding out in a place called Lo-Debar (2 Sam. 9:4), and why David was unaware of whether Saul had any surviving descendants (2 Sam. 9:1). However, David proves to be true to his word to both Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:14-15) and Saul (1 Sam. 24:21-22) and does not destroy all of their descendants, but instead blesses Mephibosheth.

Is Nabal a Dog?

Is Nabal a dead dog?
Abigail pleads for David to forgive he foolish husband’s harsh words.

Having covered the 5 passages which clearly speak of a dead dog, we come to a sixth, questionable passage. The question has to do with how to translate the Hebrew. In 1 Samuel 25 we are introduced to a despicable man named Nabal, and his wise and beautiful wife, Abigail. Nabal is described in v. 3, along with his wife. Most English translations at the end of v. 3 read, “He was a Calebite.” We have already noted that the name Caleb means “dog.” Nabal, whose name means “fool” is introduced in a less than complimentary way–“the man was harsh and badly behaved.” This introduction looks especially bad when contrasted with his wife. Nabal lives in the area around Hebron. As we noted above, this is Calebite territory. The text could simply be telling us that Nabal was a descendant of Caleb. If so, he has failed to live up to his ancestor’s reputation! Some scholars, however, think that the designation, “he was a Calebite,” is meant to communicate, “he was dog-like.” This would certainly fit the negative description he is given, not to mention, the way he is depicted in the coming story.   To muddy the waters a bit, the Hebrew text, literally reads, “he was like his heart.” The difference between “he was like his heart,” and “he was a Calebite,” is one small letter. Also, although the text was written as “he was like his heart,” it was read as, “he was a Calebite.” For those who know Hebrew, this is the difference between the Kethib (what is written) and the Qere (what is read). This textual issue is why it is difficult to be sure that Nabal is being described as “dog-like.” Regardless, the rest of the story shows him to be a despised individual, and he dies in the end. Therefore, it is a strong possibility that Nabal should also be viewed as a “dead dog.”

Dog Language in the Ancient Near East

The Amarna Letters
There is a lot of “dog” language in the Amarna letters.

The discovery of ancient documents by archaeologists demonstrates that the dog language of 1&2 Samuel (as well as the rest of the OT) has a clear ancient Near Eastern (ANE) background. For example, among the Amarna letters (documents from the 14th century B.C. describing an invasion into Canaan) we find a number of expressions using dog language. The dog language is used either to speak derogatorily of an enemy, or in a self-deprecating manner evidencing humility. In other words, dog expressions in ANE literature are used the same way as they are in the books of Samuel. Here are two examples from the Amarna letters, showing the two meanings.

  1. “Who are the sons of ʿAbdi-Aširta, the servant and dog? Are they the king of Kaššu or the king of Mittani that they take the land of the king for themselves?” (EA 104:26). Moran, W. L. (1992). The Amarna letters (English-language ed., p. 177). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  2. “As I am a servant of the king and a dog of his house, I guard all Amurru for the king, my lord.” (EA 60:6-EA 60:9). Moran, W. L. (1992). The Amarna letters (English-language ed., p. 132). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Another example comes from Judah’s final days as they attempted to fight off the Babylonians. From the city of Lachish come some letters of desperation from the commander there, seeking help against the Babylonians. These letters, written on pieces of broken pottery, are known as the Lachish ostraca (see the link to the left, or my post on Tel Lachish). The dog language used in these letters is all of the humble variety since the commander is writing and addressing his superior. Because of the similarities, I have just listed one example below.

“To my lord Yaosh: May Yahweh cause my lord to hear tidings of peace this very day, this very day! Who is thy servant (but) a dog that my lord hath remembered his servant? May Yahweh afflict those who re[port] an (evil) rumor about which thou art not informed!” (Pritchard, J. B. (Ed.). (1969). The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament  (3rd ed. with Supplement, p. 322 Princeton: Princeton University Press.)

Conclusion: Dead Dogs Do Tell Tales (or is it “Tails?)

dog's tailAs we have learned in earlier posts, the purpose of a motif is to accentuate one of the messages that the inspired author is seeking to communicate. The dead dog motif contributes to the theme of humility and pride, so prominent in Samuel. We saw this theme also emphasized in the motif of tallness (see last week’s post). One who is a dog, but doesn’t know it, like Goliath and Abner, are an example of pride. Pride always results in a fall in the books of Samuel. Shimei, who is correctly identified as a “dead dog,” is eventually executed. While there is some uncertainty as to whether Nabal is described as a dog, he certainly is dog-like in his words and actions. In the end, he succumbs to the Lord’s judgment and, therefore, might be regarded as yet another “dead dog” in Samuel. On the other hand, those who confess that they are a “dead dog” are an example of humility in the books of Samuel. In David’s case he is exalted to the kingship. In Mephibosheth’s case, he is lifted up to sit at the king’s table (1 Sam. 2:8; 2 Sam. 9:11-13). In the end, every dog has his day in the books of Samuel and gets his just desserts.

If you are interested in a more in-depth look at the various characters in the Book of Samuel, like those mentioned in this study (Abner, Shimei, or Abigail), please check out my book:

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits

Tallness: Motifs in Samuel

Tallness: Motifs in Samuel

Tallness
Robert Wadlow, the tallest man on record was considered a “gentle giant.”

Tallness has its advantages and disadvantages. A tall person will have less legroom on a plane or may have to duck their head when entering a doorway. Tallness is great for reaching things in high places or for being able to see above the crowd when watching a public event. Of course, these are all trivial advantages and disadvantages. On a more serious note, a recent study suggests that taller people (over 6 feet) may be more susceptible to COVID-19 (read here). Another study suggests that taller people are more susceptible to cancer, whereas shorter people are at a greater risk for diabetes. The article states, “For several years researchers have identified strange associations between height and disease” (Why Shorter People are at Greater Risk for Diabetes). At times, tall people may be considered intimidating (Why Tall People Feel So Intimidating). On the other hand, the tallest man on record, Robert Wadlow, was considered a “gentle giant” (see photo above).

Height in the Bible

In previous posts we have noted how the Bible uses physical language in a metaphorical way to communicate spiritual truth (e.g., feet, and head). The same is true with the ideas of height or tallness. Thus height can be literal, figurative, or both. Just as in real life, biblical imagery of tallness or things that are high, has both positive and negative connotations. For example, God is pictured as “high and exalted” (Isa. 6:1 ), or as “God Most High” (e.g., Gen. 14:22–Hebrew = El Elyon). The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “Implicit in this imagery is an implied vertical hierarchy in which God and the unseen spiritual world that he inhabits are qualitatively ‘above’ earthly experience. We should not ignore the physical basis of such imagery: the ‘heavens are high above the earth,’ as the psalmist puts it (Ps 103:11), and the human imagination has always pictured heaven as being ‘up.’ God is therefore named as being ‘high’ in the Bible. This is encapsulated in the epithet ‘Most High,’ which occurs well over fifty times (NRSV). God is ‘high and lofty’ (Is 6:1; 57:7, 15), the one who is ‘high above all nations’ (Ps 113:4), and he dwells ‘in the high and holy place’ (Is 57:15)” (p. 384).

Temple Mount
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

In Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern thought, God, or the gods, often met with people on mountains or high places (Deut. 12:2). For example, God reveals Himself to Israel at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19:18-20), and later the temple is constructed on Mt. Zion (Ps. 48:1-2). Legitimate and illegitimate places of worship in the Old Testament are often described as “high places” (1 Sam. 9:12-14; 1 Kgs. 3:2-4; 11:7; 13:32). Not only is God “high” but he honors His people by lifting them up. The promise to Israel is, “. . . He will set you high above all nations which He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that you may be a holy people to the Lord your God, just as He has spoken” (Deut. 26:19).

The Hebrew Root gbh (Tallness)

While the idea of height or tallness can be positive and negative throughout the OT, in 1 Samuel the picture is wholly negative. The Hebrew word we are looking at comes from the root gbh. It can be seen in the name of Saul’s hometown, Gibeah, which means, “hill” or “height.” Besides its occurrence in the name Gibeah, the root occurs 6 more times, all in 1 Samuel (1 Sam. 2:3 [2x]; 1 Sam. 9:2; 10:23; 16:7; 17:4). We will look at these passages in a moment, but first, more needs to be said about the negative connotations of this word in Scripture.

Tallness can equal arrogance
In the Bible when height is used in conjunction with the eyes or heart, it can be a reference to arrogance. Portrait–Leon Battista Alberti

Just as we might use the term “high” to refer to an arrogant person or attitude–“get off your highhorse,” “don’t be so high and mighty”–so too does the Bible. This negative aspect to the word is often connected with various parts of the body in Scripture. For example, the heart (Ps. 131:1), the eyes (Isa. 2:11), the spirit (Prov. 16:18), and the nose (Ps. 10:4), can all be said to be “high” (gbh). In all but one case (2 Chron. 17:6), this is a negative quality, variously translated as “proud,” “arrogant,” or “haughty.” Thus, while the word tallness, in and of itself, is a neutral term, context determines whether it carries the connotations of honor or arrogance.

Tallness in Samuel

Hannah's prayer
The words of Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2:3 set the tone for the meaning of “tallness” in 1 Samuel.

The first use of the Hebrew root gbh in Samuel is found in Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2:3. It occurs twice in this verse and sets the tone for its usage in the rest of 1 Samuel. Most English versions translate the opening line of verse 3 similar to the NKJV which reads, “Talk no more so very proudly.” “Very proudly” is the English rendering of a double use of the word gebohah. When Hebrew uses a word two times in succession, it is for emphasis. Hence the use of “very” in English translations. We could translate Hannah’s words as “Talk no more proudly, proudly.” If we wanted to be very literal, however, we would translate these words as Robert Polzin does, “Do not multiply your words, ‘Tall! Tall!'” (Samuel and the Deuteronomist, p. 34). Another alternative is Keith Bodner’s translation, “Do not multiply your speech, ‘O Tall one! O Tall one!’” (1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary, p. 28). In other words, although the word here means “tall” it’s intended meaning is “proud,” thus the rendering by English translations. As noted by many, Hannah’s song enunciates many of the main themes of Samuel (see my post on the Theology of 1&2 Samuel). Therefore the allusion that tallness represents pride anticipates the introduction of certain people in 1 Samuel. To be precise, there are three people in 1 Samuel who are said to be tall–Saul, Eliab, and Goliath. Bodner sums up this same point with some clever wordplay of his own. He writes, “Even a cursory glance ahead in the story of 1 Samuel reveals that ‘tall’ is a big issue in this narrative. Physical height can be, at the very least, illusory, and breed a false sense of security. Saul’s outstanding attribute is that he is taller than all the people, and Goliath’s height instills great fear in the fighting ranks of Israel. Yet both will fall down (forward) at different times before the end of 1 Samuel” (1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary, p. 28).

Tall Saul

Tallness--Saul
Tall Saul was not all he appeared to be!

Saul is certainly the most significant figure of the above trio. From the moment we are introduced to Saul we are told, “From his shoulders upward, he was taller than any of the people” (1 Sam. 9:2). This distinguishing characteristic, seems to be the one that most impresses Samuel. When Saul is chosen by lots to be king, we are reminded that, “he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.” Samuel then continues by saying, “Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people” (1 Sam. 10:23-24). Ironically this “kingly” looking man was found “hiding among the supplies” (1 Sam. 10:22). This story already begins to hint that Saul is not all his physical appearance makes him out to be. This is confirmed later in the story in numerous ways. It is noteworthy that Saul, the tallest Israelite, cowers in fear when Goliath challenges Israel (1 Sam. 17:10-11). Saul’s lack of obedience (1 Sam. 15:11), his building of a monument for himself (1 Sam. 15:12), and his pleas for Samuel to honor him before the elders of his people (1 Sam. 15:30), all suggest a problem with pride.

Tall Eliab

David's anointing
David’s brothers, including tall Eliab are rejected in favor of him.

The next tall person we encounter in 1 Samuel is David’s brother, Eliab. After Saul’s rejection from being king, God sends Samuel to Bethlehem to anoint a new king among the sons of Jesse (1 Sam. 16:1). As Samuel approaches Jesse’s sons, he comes to Eliab the firstborn and is convinced that the Lord’s anointed is standing before him (1 Sam. 16:6). Samuel is immediately rebuked by the Lord and told “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him” (1 Sam. 16:7). Once again Samuel is impressed by physical stature, but the Lord is not and offers a rebuke. Within the context, Eliab appears to be compared to Saul. He is said to be tall and that the Lord had rejected him–two things said of Saul as well. In the next chapter, Eliab opposes David’s inquiries about fighting Goliath (1 Sam. 17:28). In a subtle way, tall Eliab’s fear of fighting Goliath, once again compares him with Saul. Thus, for the second time in the narrative, tallness is rejected as a desirable quality. No doubt, the suggestion is once again that Eliab had a problem with pride (for more on Eliab, see my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel).

Tall Goliath

Tallness--David vs Goliath
Tall Goliath did not intimidate David.

Obviously, the most famous, or infamous, tall person in 1 Samuel is Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:4-7 gives a detailed description of Goliath, including his height (see my other articles on Goliath, here, here, and here). Tallness appears in what is clearly a negative context here. Once again, the tall person doesn’t turn out to be what we thought he was. Goliath is cut down to size by the young shepherd boy David, proving he was not as intimidating as he looked. Goliath’s pride is evidenced in his defying the army of Israel and its God (1 Sam. 17:25-26). Finally, there is some irony in these stories involving David’s interaction with Saul, Eliab, and Goliath. When David is introduced in 1 Samuel 16:11 and 1 Samuel 17:14, a certain Hebrew word is used that most English versions translate as “young.” This is a correct translation, and no doubt the intended meaning. However, the Hebrew word also means “small,” and is used intentionally to create a contrast between “small” David and these other “tall” individuals.

Gibeah, Ramah, and Tallness

As noted above, Gibeah was the hometown of Saul, while Samuel’s hometown was Ramah (1 Sam. 15:34). We have pointed out that the word Gibeah comes from the Hebrew root gbh and thus means “height,” or “tall.” Since Gibeah means “height,” it is not unusual that this name could be used to refer to different cities in Israel that were on a hill. This, indeed, was the case. The Gibeahs mentioned in Joshua 15:57, Joshua 18:28, and Joshua 24:33, are all different places and none are to be equated with Saul’s Gibeah. Ramah is a word that also means “height” or “hill.” Just as there were a number of Gibeahs in ancient Israel, so there were also a number of places called Ramah. The verbal form of Ramah ִis rûm (pronounced “room”), and means “high” or “exalted.” It is obvious that rûm and gbh are synonyms. It is interesting that the verbal form rûm occurs 7 times in 1&2 Samuel and always has a positive meaning (1 Sam. 2:1, 7, 8, 10; 9:24; 2 Sam. 47, 49). Notice that it occurs 4 times in Hannah’s opening song. In fact, in its first appearance in 1 Samuel 2:1, it actually takes the form “ramah.” The point of this is that, although these words are synonyms, the root for the word Ramah, always has positive connotations, while the root for Gibeah always has negative connotations in the books of Samuel. Not only does the root word for Gibeah have negative connotations in Samuel, Gibeah itself is remembered as a place where a terrible crime took place that turned into a civil war in Israel (Judg. 19-21). In fact, the story of Saul chopping his oxen into 12 pieces and sending them throughout Israel (1 Sam. 11:7) is an echo of the story of the Levite chopping his concubine into 12 pieces in Judges 19:29. All of this seems to be a subtle way of communicating that godly Samuel comes from Ramah (a word referring to a good use of “height,” meaning “exalt”), while ungodly Saul comes from Gibeah (a word associated with a negative use of “height,” meaning “pride”).

Conclusion: The Motif of Tallness Brings a Heightened Awareness in Samuel

Tallness--Naram-Sin
The King of Akkad, Naram-Sin is depicted as towering over his enemies.

Once again by following a motif in the books of Samuel, we are given insight into the inspired author’s message. In her song, Hannah says that God will bring down the proud but lift up the humble (1 Sam. 2:6-8). The motif of tallness plays into this important theme of the book. Ancient people were smaller in stature and so a tall person would be impressive. Indeed, many of the portraits of ancient kings depict them as being taller than their subjects and enemies (the stele of Naram-Sin above is one example among others). The motif in Samuel turns this expectation on its head by stating that appearances can be deceiving (1 Sam. 16:7). Tallness becomes symptomatic of pride and arrogance. The books of Samuel teach, if you raise yourself up, be sure God will cut you down to size! But if you are lowly and humble, be encouraged for God will lift you up!

Sword and Spear Part 2: Motifs in Samuel

Sword and Spear Part 2: Motifs in Samuel

sword and spear
The motif of the spear is mostly negative, suggesting a trust in weapons and human strength.

In my previous post I introduced the sword and spear motif in Samuel (see here for Part 1). There I noted that this motif “…ranges from a proclamation of trust in God’s power to deliver, to a rejection of that trust.” In 2 places where the words “sword and spear” appear together, the motif is a neutral one, speaking of powerlessness (1 Sam. 13:19, 22). It is the stories that follow which define whether these verses are interpreted positively or negatively (see below). In two other occurrences the motif is positive suggesting trust in the Lord (1 Sam. 17:45, 47). In the fifth occurrence, the motif is negative, suggesting David’s lack of faith (1 Sam. 21:8). In Part 1 we noticed that when the word “sword” appears by itself, the motif has a mixture of positive and negative associations. As we examine the usages of the spear motif, we will see a similar mixture, but the negative aspects are more prevalent. Including the 5 passages that mention both sword and spear, the spear motif occurs a total of 29 times in the books of Samuel (20 in 1 Samuel and 9 in 2 Samuel). Perhaps the best, and most insightful way to examine the spear motif is to notice who it is associated with. The breakdown is as follows:

  1. Goliath (5 occurrences–1 Sam. 17:7 [2x], 45, 47; 2 Sam. 21:19)
  2. Saul (16 occurrences–1 Sam. 13:19, 22; 18:10, 11; 19:9, 10 [2x}; 20:33; 22:6; 26:7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22; 2 Sam. 1:6)
  3. David (1 occurrence–1 Sam. 21:8–this passage was considered in Part 1 and so will not be covered here)
  4. Abner (2 occurrences, both in 2 Sam. 2:23)
  5. David’s mighty men (4 occurrences)
    • Abishai (2 Sam. 23:18)
    • Benaiah (2 Sam. 23:21 [3x])
  6. Unrighteous ruler(s) (1 occurrence–2 Sam. 23:7)

This breakdown demonstrates that the overwhelming number of occurrences of the spear motif (16 out of 29) are related to Saul. Below we will examine the significance of this, as well as its occurrence with other individuals.

Goliath’s Spear

sword and spear
Goliath’s trust is in his sword and spear. David’s is in the Lord.

One of the intimidating features of Goliath’s description in 1 Samuel 17:4-7 is his spear. The writer spends time describing its shaft (like a weaver’s beam), and the weight of its head (600 shekels = 15 lbs. or 6.8 kg.). As noted in the previous post, one of the points of the story is Goliath’s trust in his weaponry, while David’s trust is in the Lord. This point is driven home when Goliath’s spear is mentioned two more times in the account (1 Sam. 17:45, 47). Goliath’s spear is mentioned one final time in the perplexing passage which speaks of Elhanan killing him (2 Sam. 21:19). Its size, noted again in this passage, was clearly one of its distinguishing and well-remembered features. Yet it did Goliath no good, proving the truth of Hannah’s words in 1 Samuel 2:9 when she stated, “not by might shall a man prevail.”

Saul’s Spear

sword and spear
Saul’s spear is always at hand!

As noted above, the overwhelming number of occurrences of the spear motif in Samuel are associated with Saul. This association is sometimes seen as a symbol of his kingship (David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT, p. 479). If this means to communicate that Saul is a king like the nations (1 Sam. 8:5), then this observation is correct. The point is that Saul, like any worldly king, trusts in his spear more than he does in the Lord. This is emphasized in at least two ways. First, in the narrative immediately following the Goliath story, Saul hurls his spear twice at David (1 Sam. 18:10-11). Not only has the previous story declared that “the Lord does not save with sword and spear” (1 Sam. 17:47), but it is Saul’s jealousy concerning David’s victory over Goliath that prompts him to use it! Therefore, Saul shows himself to be cut out of the same cloth as Goliath. A second way in which this is demonstrated is that following the story of Goliath, Saul is never seen without his spear in hand or nearby. In fact, the next 5 verses that mention the spear involve Saul throwing it either at David (1 Sam. 18:10-11, 19:9-10) or his own son Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:33)!

sword and spear
David spares Saul’s life a second time.

Saul’s use of such weaponry also contrasts him with his son Jonathan. Recalling 1 Samuel 13:19, and 22 which introduces this motif, we are told there that only Jonathan and Saul had sword and spear. In our previous post, however, we have noted that Jonathan uses his sword in the context of trust in the Lord (1 Sam. 14:6-14). Furthermore, following the Goliath episode, Jonathan presents his sword to David as a gift (1 Sam. 18:4), whereas Saul presents his spear to David in a less supportive and friendly way (1 Sam. 18:10-11)! When Saul complains to his men that they are more loyal to David than to him, he does it with his spear in his hand (1 Sam. 22:6). This incident leads to the slaughter of Ahimelech and the priests of Nob. On one of the occasions when David has the opportunity to kill Saul, he chooses instead to take his water jug and spear (1 Sam. 26). With a sort of poetic justice, Abishai insists on using it to “pin” Saul to the ground (1 Sam. 26:8), the way Saul had attempted earlier to “pin” David to the wall (1 Sam. 18:11; 19:10). David refuses and insists only on taking it as evidence that they had been in the midst of the Saul’s camp. Saul’s spear is a major motif in this chapter, occurring six times (1 Sam. 26:7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 22). It reminds us that, given the chance, he would have used it against David, although David refuses to use it against him. It also demonstrates that, in spite of its presence by his head, it brings no protection for Saul, for the Lord is with David (1 Sam. 26:12). Once again we are reminded that “the Lord does not save with sword or spear.”

Given the prevalence of this motif in Saul’s story, one would almost expect Saul to die by the spear. If this were merely an imaginary story, this is surely what would have happened. But this is not what happened historically and so the inspired author records how he fell on his own sword (1 Sam. 31:4). This does not mean, however, that Saul’s spear is absent from the account of his death. In the retelling of Saul’s death by the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1, he states that when he came upon Saul, Saul was “leaning on his spear” (2 Sam. 1:6). It can be demonstrated that the Amalekite’s account of Saul’s death is fabricated as it conflicts with the author’s version recorded in 1 Samuel 31:1-5. Nevertheless, the mention of both sword and spear in the accounts of Saul’s death are an ironic reminder to the reader that the man who trusted in his weapons, ultimately died by one of them. When we consider the negative connotations of Saul’s spear in the narrative, it is no wonder that in David’s eulogy of Saul and Jonathan, it is Saul’s sword which is mentioned in a favorable light (2 Sam. 1:22). After all, how could David praise the spear of Saul that had been lifted against him on so many occasions?!

The Motif’s Mixed Reviews in 2 Samuel

sword and spear
Abner kills Asahel

Having already commented on 2 Samuel 1:6 and 2 Samuel 21:19, we will consider the other 7 references to the spear in 2 Samuel. Two of these references occur in the story of Asahel’s pursuit of Abner. In fact, they are both found in the same verse (2 Sam. 2:23). During the battle between Judah and Israel, Asahel pursues Abner in an attempt to kill him (2 Sam. 2:18-23). Although the spear motif has been largely negative up to this point, and Abner himself is an unsavory character, the motif is more tragic than evil here. It is clear from the story that Abner does not wish to kill Asahel. He warns him several times. However, as the hot breath of Asahel breathes down Abner’s neck, he is forced to defend himself. But rather than use the tip of his spear, as would be customary, with a backward thrust, using the butt end of his spear, Abner brings Asahel’s pursuit to a deadly halt. Abner’s persistent warnings, and the use of the backend of his spear, protest his desire to use it against Asahel. Nonetheless, whether back end or front end, the spear proves just as deadly. Unfortunately for Abner, his reluctant use of the spear results in his death by the sword at the hands of Asahel’s brothers, Joab and Abishai (2 Sam. 3:27, 30). For more on this incident see my post, “Asahel Running Into Trouble” (see also my book Family Portraits for this story and an evaluation of Abner’s character–see link below).

David's mighty men
David’s mighty men

There are other ambiguous uses of the spear in 2 Samuel. These concern David’s mighty men. In 2 Samuel 23:18, the aforementioned Abishai is praised for wielding his spear against three hundred men and killing them. Although the context is definitely positive, we should recall that this is the same Abishai who wanted to “pin” Saul to the ground with his own spear (1 Sam. 26:8). Furthermore, this is the same man who contributed to the death of Abner and was ready and willing to kill whenever he thought the occasion called for it (e.g., 2 Sam. 16:9). Therefore, although we have a positive reference to the spear, it is wielded by yet another unsavory character (see Abner above). Another one of David’s mighty men, Benaiah, fights an Egyptian with a spear (2 Sam. 23:21). In the Egyptian’s hand, the spear is clearly a negative motif, but Benaiah is able to wrest it from the Egyptian and kill him. This heroic deed turns a negative situation into a positive one.

We conclude our examination of this motif by looking at David’s last words recorded in 2 Samuel 23:1-7. This poem is a bit obscure and hard to translate in places. However, one thing that is clear is that David is contrasting the just ruler (himself), with an unjust ruler/rulers. In the concluding line (v. 7) he says of such a one that he “arms himself with iron and the shaft of a spear.” One can’t help but think that within the larger context of Samuel this contrast recalls Saul.

Concluding Summary

An examination of the spear motif leads to the conclusion that it is largely a negative commentary of the use and abuse of human power. This negative picture is largely associated with Goliath and Saul, who are the primary personages of this motif. While this negative picture is tempered somewhat in 2 Samuel, its association with unsavory characters still casts a shadow over it.

When we step back and sum up the overall motif of sword and spear in Samuel, we must conclude that the main function of the motif is to warn people about trusting in their own strength and the severe consequences that oftentimes follow. Trusting in weaponry and military might is a mistake made throughout the ages including down to the present time. There are many examples throughout history that show the undermanned and the under-equipped sometimes come out on top. This motif is not about the underdog coming out on top, however. It is a declaration that trust in God is superior to any human power or weapon. However, using sword and spear is the way that nations always have and always will conduct business. That is until the words of the prophet Isaiah are finally realized: “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore (Isa. 4:2).

Until that day, the question for God’s people is to ask what this motif in Samuel teaches us. How should we respond to our enemies based on the teaching of Scripture? Jesus’s answer was to “turn the other cheek,” and to “do good to those who persecute you.” Sadly, the first reaction of some Christians today is to physically arm themselves against their foes. We forget that the weapons of our warfare are spiritual (Eph. 6:10-18; 2 Cor. 10:4). We don’t give God the chance to defeat whatever Goliaths may come our way because we are too busy arming ourselves with “sword and spear.” This is a tough message to hear and the conclusion is not always a popular one even with believers. Shouldn’t the innocent be protected? We should certainly do everything in our power, short of violence, to protect the innocent. The fact remains that the New Testament nowhere sanctions a believer taking up the sword and spear for personal protection, and certainly never for revenge. The government is the one who bears the sword (Rom. 13:4). A Christian serving in the military, or serving in a local police force is a different matter, since they are serving the government whose job it is to protect its citizens and administer justice.  As individual believers, it is easy to overlook this teaching in the books of Samuel, not to mention the clear teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Jesus may well have been referencing this motif in Samuel when he rebuked Peter in the garden and said, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Christians do their best fighting on their knees, by returning good for evil, and by remembering that the real enemy is not flesh and blood.

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits

 

Sword and Spear Part 1: Motifs in Samuel

Sword and Spear: Motifs in Samuel

sword and spear
Sword and spear is an important motif in 1&2 Samuel.

The sword and spear motif in Samuel emphasizes a key theological teaching of this book. The use of this motif in Samuel ranges from a proclamation of trust in God’s power to deliver, to a rejection of that trust. Since Samuel is about the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, this idea is at the heart of the book. Will people trust in God’s ability or in their own? What is the source of true power? Is it found in human strength and ingenuity, or in trusting in a power (i.e., God) greater than one’s own?

Occurrences of Sword or Spear in Samuel

The use of both words together, as in the expression, “sword and spear,” occurs only 5 times in Samuel (1 Sam. 13:19, 22; 17:45, 47; 21:8). However, by themselves, these words are prevalent throughout the book. Including the five passages where they occur together, the word “sword” occurs 38 times (24 in 1 Samuel and 14 in 2 Samuel), while the word “spear” occurs 29 times (20 in 1 Samuel and 9 in 2 Samuel). Because of the significance of this motif, and the number of occurrences, I will divide my treatment into two posts. In this post we will look at those passages in 1&2 Samuel that speak of the sword. In the next post, we will look at the motif of the spear.

Sword and Spear: David’s Confrontation with Goliath

sword and spear
Using Goliath’s own sword, David finishes the victory achieved by a sling and a stone.

The theological significance of these weapons is highlighted in David’s battle with Goliath. The story emphasizes how well Goliath is prepared for battle, at least humanly speaking, by giving an inventory of his armor and weaponry (1 Sam. 17:4-7–see my posts here and here). Saul attempts to clothe David similarly by giving him his armor and his “sword” (1 Sam. 17:38-39). David rejects these items and chooses instead a sling and 5 smooth stones. When Goliath sees David, he disdains him as an unworthy competitor. David’s response, which is now classic, highlights our motif. He replies to Goliath, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel whom you have defied” (1 Sam. 17:45). In this first statement, David highlights the weaponry of Goliath. As he concludes his speech, David again uses our key words: “…the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hand” (1 Sam. 17:47).

David’s victory demonstrates the truth of his words. The point is unmistakeable. No amount of human technology or strength can overcome one who allows the Lord to do his/her fighting for him/her. This same theology is announced in Psalm 20:7 when the psalmist (David) says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” This is an important theme in the warfare of the Old Testament. It is emphasized in such stories as the parting of the Reed (or Red) Sea and the tumbling down of the walls of Jericho. David’s statement in 1 Samuel 17:47 sets the standard by which every other occurrence of the words sword and spear should be measured in 1&2 Samuel.

Use of “Sword”: The Big Picture in Samuel

When surveying the overall usage of these words in Samuel, there are several ways in which they could be categorized (the same is true of other motifs in this series). I have broken the use of the sword into 6 categories below. The number of occurrences are in parentheses. There is, of necessity, some overlap of categories.

  1. People’s relationship to the sword–Samuel (1), Jonathan (2), Saul (4), Saul’s armor-bearer (2), Doeg (2), David (15), Joab (1), and Absalom (1).
  2. Israelites killing enemies–Philistines, and Amalekites (5 occurrences)
  3. Enemies killing Israelites–Philistines, Doeg, David/Ammonites, Absalom (5 occurrences–the last 3 would, also fit category 1 as well).
  4. Israelites killing Israelites–(8 occurrences–more overlap here).
  5. Being powerless, trusting in the Lord, or a lack of trusting in the Lord (5 occurrences).
  6. A reference to the military (1 occurrence–“men who draw the sword”).

I will take up each of these categories below. Group 1 involves the most lengthy treatment. I will then group together categories 2-4. Since there is only 1 occurrence of category 6 and since it has an obvious meaning, I will not discuss it. That leaves category 5 as the final category I will examine.

sword and spear
Ancient Near Eastern sword.

People’s Relationship to the Sword

David

King David
David is associated with the sword more than any other person in Samuel.

By viewing the occurrences in this way, one thing which is immediately clear is that David is associated with the sword more than any other person in Samuel–a total of 15 times! Not all of these occurrences, however, are negative. For example, when David says, “the Lord doesn’t save by sword or spear,” or when the text says, “there was not a sword in David’s hand” (1 Sam. 17:50), these are obviously positive statements about David’s relationship to the sword. Of the 15 times David is associated with the sword, however, only 4 are in a positive context (all are in 1 Sam. 17–see vv. 45, 47, 50, 51). When David fled from Saul, he went to the high priest Ahimelech and asked, “Then have you not here a spear or a sword at hand?” (1 Sam. 21:8). Ironically he is given the sword of Goliath (1 Sam. 21:9)! This request for a “spear or sword,” along with the slaughter of the priests in the next chapter (1 Sam. 22), demonstrates that David has allowed his fear, rather than his faith to guide him. Later when David is insulted by the no-good Nabal, it is revenge that associates him with the sword. In fact, we find this association 3 times in one verse: “And David said to his men, ‘Every man strap on his sword!’ And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword” (1 Sam. 25:13). Although the wise Abigail prevents him from shedding innocent blood on this occasion, the opposite is true in his murder of Uriah the Hittite. When the prophet Nathan unveils David’s sin, he states, “You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house” (2 Sam. 12:9-10). This is a sad ending for the man who declared, “The Lord saves not with sword and spear.”

Saul

Saul falls on sword
Saul’s own sword brings his life to an end.

Sometimes the sword has a positive association in spite of the fact that people are killed. For example, Saul is commanded to destroy the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:3). Therefore, when we are informed that he “devoted to destruction all of the people with the edge of the sword” (1 Sam. 15:8), this is in fulfillment to the Lord’s command. Of course, Saul wasn’t totally obedient, so in the same story we have Samuel hacking king Agag to pieces with the sword (1 Sam. 15:33). As chilling as this scene is to us, not only is it in fulfillment of God’s command (although perhaps excessive on Samuel’s part!), Samuel’s words demonstrate that Agag had been guilty of using his sword in a similar manner. David also eulogizes Saul and his sword when he sings, “From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty” (2 Sam. 1:22). This too is presented in the positive light of Saul killing the enemies of Israel. Unfortunately, Saul didn’t trust that the Lord could use him to defeat Goliath. His trust in weaponry rather than in God is made clear when he attempts to clothe David in his armor and give him his sword (1 Sam. 17:39).  The final appearance of Saul’s sword is ironically in his death scene.  With the Philistines following hard after him, Saul meets his ultimate demise at his own hand by falling on his sword (1 Sam. 31:4). This is fitting for one who trusted in sword and spear more than in the Lord. It is also a fitting end for one who used his servant Doeg the Edomite to slaughter the priests of the Lord with the sword (1 Sam. 22:19). In one sense, Saul’s sin is similar to David’s who used the sword of the Ammonites to kill Uriah. The difference–and it’s a major one–is that Saul slaughters a whole town of faithful followers who were holy to the Lord!

Joab and Absalom

Joab and Absalom
Joab and Absalom

It is surprising that the motif of sword and spear is not connected more frequently with Joab and Absalom, the worst villains in 2 Samuel (see my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel for an evaluation of their character. See links below.). Only in the murder of Amasa, is Joab’s sword mentioned (2 Sam. 20:8). It is clear that Joab uses the same method on the unsuspecting Abner (2 Sam. 3:27), but his sword is not mentioned. David’s reaction, however, involves a curse on the house of Joab that includes those who “fall by the sword” (2 Sam. 3:29). As for Absalom, the only mention of a sword is connected to David’s fear that if he stays in Jerusalem, Absalom will strike the city with the edge of the sword (2 Sam. 15:14). Perhaps the lack of connection between Absalom and the sword is because he is all show and no substance.

Saul’s Armor-Bearer and Jonathan

Sword and spear--Jonathan
Jonathan and his armor-bearer defeat the Philistines.

There are two more individuals connected with the sword. Both are in 1 Samuel and both are, for the most part, positive associations. I will mention the last first. Saul’s armor-bearer is commanded by Saul to draw his sword and kill him. To the armor-bearer’s credit, he is afraid to lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed. As a result, Saul falls on his own sword (1 Sam. 31:4). Once the amor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell on his own sword. We might view this action negatively, as a suicide, but I believe the intent of the text is to demonstrate the loyalty of Saul’s armor-bearer. He was afraid to lift his sword and kill his master, but he was not afraid of death itself. Finally, there are two passages that associate Jonathan with the sword. The first is 1 Samuel 13:22. After noting that none of the people of Israel had sword or spear (1 Sam. 13:19), the text tells us that both Saul and Jonathan did. In light of the later text in 1 Samuel 17:45, 47, this could be viewed as a negative statement. Indeed, regarding Saul’s sword, 1 Samuel 17:39, does imply that Saul trusts his weapon more than God. The same, however, is not true of Jonathan. After noting that Jonathan had both sword and spear, the story continues by showing that Jonathan demonstrated great faith in God by going against the enemy even though he was greatly outnumbered (1 Sam. 14:6-14). Therefore, although Jonathan possessed sword and spear, his faith was in the Lord. The other occurrence of the sword in connection with Jonathan is when he surrenders his sword as a gift to David (1 Sam. 18:4). Jonathan’s surrender of his sword, as well as other royal items, is a sign of his friendship and covenant with David. Within the larger context of Samuel, it is also a sign of Jonathan’s acknowledgement of David’s future kingship (see 1 Sam. 23:17).

Israel and Its Enemies

An obvious usage of the sword motif involves Israel and its enemies. There are 5 occurrences of Israel’s enemies being struck with the sword. Some of these instances involve individuals we have already looked at above. These include Samuel striking Agag (1 Sam. 15:33), and David eulogizing the sword of Saul which did not return empty against his enemies (2 Sam. 1:22). A third occurrence involves one of David’s mighty men, Eleazar, striking the Philistines. The text says he fought so long and so hard that his hand clung to the sword (2 Sam. 23:10)! When Saul is commanded to utterly destroy the Amalekites, we are told that he (and the people) utterly destroyed Amalek with the edge of the sword (1 Sam. 15:8). In an unusual twist (although this phenomenon is seen elsewhere in Scripture), the Philistines turn their swords upon themselves in the panic and confusion of battle (1 Sam. 14:20). Although other battles and wars against other enemies are recorded in Samuel (e.g., 2 Sam. 8), the sword, as a weapon that defeats Israel’s enemies, is only mentioned in battles against the Philistines and Amalekites.

sword and spear
Saul defeats Amalek

Of course the books of Samuel also mention enemies slaying Israelites with the sword. Twice we are told that Doeg the Edomite slaughtered the priests of the Lord and the town of Nob with the edge of the sword (1 Sam. 22:19). 2 Samuel 1:12 reports the mourning of David and his men because Saul, his sons, and Israel had fallen by the sword at the hands of the Philistines. A fourth occurrence is a bit obscure. This involves David’s curse on the house of Joab that there would be those who would fall by the sword (2 Sam. 3:29). Presumably David means by an enemy’s sword, although this is not specified. Finally, David’s killing of Uriah by the sword, can also be put into this category. Nathan points out that he did it with “the sword of the Ammonites” (2 Sam. 12:9).

The saddest use of this motif are those passages which speak of fellow Israelites killing one another by the sword. The most prevalent occurrences of this motif  (4 out of 8) are found in the stories of the two civil wars recorded in 2 Samuel. In 2 Samuel 2:16 we have the infamous contest in which 12 from Israel are pitted against 12 from Judah and all fall dead as each stabs the other with their sword. This precipitates a battle which leads to Abner’s pleas to Joab at the end of the day, “Shall the sword devour forever?” (2 Sam. 2:26). In the battle triggered by Absalom’s rebellion, the narrator tells us that “the forest devoured more people that day than the sword” (2 Sam. 18:8). It is also within the context of Absalom’s rebellion that David flees Jerusalem because he fears Absalom will strike it with the edge of the sword (2 Sam. 15:14–see comments above). A particular expression used in 3 instances where Israelites kill Israelites is “the sword devours.” We have already looked at 2 of these (2 Sam. 2:26; 18:8). The third instance is, perhaps, the most disturbing of all. After David is informed of Uriah’s death, he callously replies, “The sword devours one as well as another” (2 Sam. 11:25).

When we look back over this survey of the sword motif of Israel versus its enemies, it seems that Israel comes out the worst. There are only 5 passages which speak of Israelites striking their enemy with the sword, whereas there are 13 passages which speak of Israel’s enemies striking them (5 times), or fellow-Israelites striking each other with the sword (8 times). Israel actually uses the sword against itself more (8 times), than against its enemies (5 times). A sad commentary indeed!

Sword and Spear: Powerlessness and Trusting in the Lord

Sword and spear
David obtains the sword of Goliath from Ahimelech, the High Priest.

Our final category of the sword motif involves all of the passages that mention sword and spear. As noted above, there are 5 verses that use both words. These passages communicate one of two themes. 1) The theme of powerlessness; or 2) the theme of trusting/not trusting in the Lord. These two themes are not necessarily at odds with each other, although they can be.

The first occurrence of the sword and spear motif occurs in 1 Samuel 13:19, 22. The purpose in this passage is to emphasize the powerlessness of Israel. Humanly speaking, they are outmatched by their foes the Philistines who have a monopoly on blacksmiths and weapons. Only Saul and Jonathan are said to have sword and spear. The people have only farming implements, and they must even go to the Philistines to have them sharpened! Although the verses emphasize the powerlessness of Israel militarily (also emphasized by the fact that they are outnumbered and surrounded), the verses set us up for the Israelite victory that occurs in 1 Samuel 14. This victory is achieved by the Lord acting through the faith of Jonathan and his armor-bearer. The point of the story then, is to emphasize that Israel (and the reader) should not trust in physical weapons, or fear the technological and numerical advantages of the enemy. Rather, trust in the Lord can overcome any disadvantage. This is a common theme in Scripture and a very common theme in the battles recorded in the Old Testament (see comments above).

The next occurrence of the sword and spear motif is found in 1 Samuel 17:45, 47, in the story of David’s defeat of Goliath. We have already looked at these verses above. Here, I will simply note again that these verses establish the meaning of the motif. David’s words teach that the bottom line is trust in the Lord. This brings us to the final passage that uses both of these words. In 1 Samuel 21:8, David is fleeing from Saul. He comes to the High Priest, Ahimelech, at Nob, requesting food and weapons. I have already noted above that David’s request for a “spear or a sword,” and his taking of the sword of Goliath demonstrate a lack of faith in this context. The man who boldly faced Goliath without a sword or spear, now feels the need to take the sword of Goliath to protect himself in his flight from Saul. In one sense, no one can condemn David for his desire to have a sword for protection. If any of us were in a similar circumstance, we would probably want the same. The point, however, is that the inspired author is clearly making the point that David’s faith has wavered and he is headed in a precarious direction. This is further confirmed by his flight to Achish King of Gath, where David’s life is endangered (1 Sam. 21:10-15).

In our next post, we will continue our look at the sword and spear motif in Samuel by focusing on the use of the spear. Until then, try not to cross swords with anyone!

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits

 

Head in a Book: Motifs in Samuel

Head in a Book: Motifs in Samuel

Head in a bookSomeone who has their “head in a book” is usually considered a studious person. Hopefully you have your head in various books of the Bible, including 1&2 Samuel. This post, however, is not about having your head in a book, but rather, the HEAD-motif in the BOOKS of Samuel. In our previous post, we looked at the significance of the motif of feet (see here). So now we’re moving from the bottom to the top. You could say we’re “headed in the right direction!”

The Use of Head in Modern Idioms

Like “feet,” “head” can be found in various expressions. We might have our “head in the clouds,” or have “a big head.” We could be a “hot head,” but hopefully “cooler heads will prevail.” How many phrases can you think of that use the word “head?” Before you “scratch your head,” trying to think of examples, let me give you a “heads up” and suggest you check out other idiomatic usages at The Free Dictionary. Because we use various idioms without “giving them a second thought,” it can be surprising how frequently we use words like, “head” or “feet” when communicating. The same is true in our reading of Scripture. We can easily pass over a motif being used by the inspired author because it seems so common-place to us. So let’s “put our heads together,” and see what we can learn by looking at the head motif in the books of Samuel.

R’osh in Samuel

heads
Two heads are better than one! Gloria and me in the English countryside.

The Hebrew word for “head” is r’osh. This word, or a word derived from this root, occurs sixty times in Samuel. There are twenty-seven occurrences in 1 Samuel and thirty-three in 2 Samuel. These occurrences are usually obvious in our English translations, but there are a few places where the word r’osh, or its derivatives, go undetected in our English Bibles. As was true of the foot motif, there is not just one meaning behind the usage of the head motif. I have discovered the use of r’osh in at least eight different ways in Samuel. I have used bold print to highlight the basic meaning in each usage. Here they are, in no particular order except for number 1.

  1. David and the Deuteronomist
    Polzin’s book is available at Amazon USA / UK.

    The most prevalent usage of the head motif in Samuel involves those who lose their head, or whose head is involved in their death. Out of the 60 uses of r’osh, 16 of them (27%) fall into this category. Notice the following quote by Robert Polzin in his book David and the Deuteronomist: ” …from the beginning of his career to the end, David’s character zone is intimately connected with the head as a locus of guilt and death. For one thing, David either wittingly or unwittingly, is constantly associated with the contemplated or actual beheading of his enemies” (p. 34). This includes Goliath (1 Sam. 17:46, 51, 54, 57), Saul (1 Sam. 31:9), Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 4:7, 8[2x], 12), Shimei (2 Sam. 16:9), and Sheba (2 Sam. 20:21-22). Not all of these are David’s doing (Saul and Ishbosheth), and in one instance (Shimei), he even prevents a beheading. Still Polzin’s conclusion is arresting as he states, “…blood flows upon and from the heads of David’s enemies more often than with any other character in the Bible” (p. 34). We should also point out that God does some beheading of his own. When the ark of God is placed in front of Dagon, the Philistines find their idol on the ground with his hands and head severed (1 Sam. 5:4)! Besides these instances, the Philistines worry about losing their heads if David and his men go to battle with them (1 Sam. 29:4–not obvious in the English translation), and twelve warriors of both Israel and Judah (24 in total), grab one another by the head and fall down dead together when each stabs the other in the side (2 Sam. 2:16). Finally, there is the story of Absalom whose head gets caught in a tree as he attempts to flee the battle against David’s men (2 Sam. 18:9). At least part of the answer to the significance of all of these beheadings and “head” problems can be answered by looking at the next usage of our motif.

  2. On seven occasions, the word r’osh is connected with kingship or leadership (1 Sam. 15:17; 19:20; 2 Sam. 10:16; 22:44; 23:8, 13, 18). It is quite natural for us to speak of a leader as the head of the government or of an organization. Polzin once again points out the significance of this language as he connects it to the usage in number 1 above. When commenting on the military contest of the 24 warriors who seize each others’ heads (2 Sam. 2:16), Polzin states, “This contest is about seizing headship over the tribes of Israel” (p. 34). This insight applies to Saul and Ishbosheth as well, who both lose their heads because they are not the legitimate head of Israel. The same can be said for Absalom who tries to usurp the throne of his father David and become head of Israel, but instead his head gets caught in a tree (2 Sam. 18:9).
  3. The books of Samuel also give voice to the familiar biblical theme of retribution found in the expression “return on your own head.” There are three occurrences of this phrase. When David hears of Nabal’s death, he says, “The Lord has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head” (1 Sam. 25:39). Similarly, when David executes the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul, he says, “Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you…” (2 Sam. 1:16). Finally, in his curse against Joab, David speaks of the blood of Abner and states, “May it fall upon the head of Joab…” (2 Sam. 3:29).
  4. Next I will look at what I will call the “literal” use of head, as referring to the physical body. This is a loose category because, technically all of the beheadings are literal and fit here as well. Furthermore, some of the literal uses also have other significances as we will see. Describing armament, we are told that Goliath had a helmet of bronze on his head (1 Sam. 17:5). The same story points out that Saul also possessed such protective gear (1 Sam. 17:38). The correspondence between Goliath’s and Saul’s helmet is important. It shows they both trust in their weapons and armor, rather than in God. When Michal deceives the troops of her father Saul in order to protect David, we are told twice that she takes an image and puts goat’s hair on its head and covers it up to make it look like David is lying in the bed (1 Sam. 19:13, 16). When David and Abishai sneak into Saul’s camp, we are told four times that the spear and the water jug they steal are by Saul’s head (1 Sam. 26:7, 11, 12, 16). The reference here is clearly to Saul’s vulnerability. Finally, we have the mention of the hair on Absalom’s head (2 Sam. 14:26 [2x]). This passage is designed to impress the reader with Absalom’s good looks and military prowess (see my article “Absalom’s Hair, or, Give Me a Head with Hair“).
  5. When someone wants to show honor, the head, or language about it, is common (see the episode on my podcast entitled: Honor & Shame for more details). In Samuel this is noted by Saul being placed at the “head” of the table (1 Sam. 9:22), or his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1). Hannah’s request for a son includes her vow of consecration stating that “no razor shall touch his head” (1 Sam. 1:11). David conquers the king of Ammon and has his crown placed on his head (2 Sam. 12:30[2x]). The importance of giving the best part of an offering to the Lord is expressed in the phrase, “the head of the offering” (1 Sam. 2:29; 15:21). This one is easily missed in English translations which usually use a word like “best.” Finally, the Philistine king Achish says that he will make David, “the keeper of his head” (1 Sam. 28:2). This one is also easily missed in English and translates to being the king’s bodyguard, a position of honor and leadership.
  6. Ishbosheth loses his head
    When kings lose their head in the books of Samuel, it demonstrates that they are not the legitimate ruler!

    The opposite of honor, thus a reference to shame or mourning is intended in the passage about David’s flight from Absalom. There we are told that both David and the people with him “covered their heads” (2 Sam. 15:30 [2x], 32). The same is true in stories which speak of a person putting dust on their head. This is what messengers do when they are carrying a report of defeat from the battlefield (1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2). Saul’s loss of his crown in battle is also a symbol of dishonor (2 Sam. 1:10). Tamar’s act of putting ashes and her hand on her head, also speaks of her shame at what has happened to her (2 Sam. 13:19 [2x]). Beheading is the ultimate act of shaming a person. Thus, the passages in number 1 above also fit in this category.

  7. The Hebrew word r’osh is also missed in English translations which refer to the “top” of the spear (1 Sam. 17:7), the “top” of trees (2 Sam. 5:24), or the “top” of a mountain (1 Sam. 26:13; 2 Sam. 2:25; 15:32; 16:1). This might seem like an incidental use of the word, and indeed, it can be. However, our friend Polzin points out that its usage in 2 Sam. 15:32 and 16:1 contributes to the prevalence of this motif throughout 2 Samuel chapters 15-16 (pp. 161-163).
  8. The final way in which r’osh is used is in two idiomatic expressions. One of which is still in use today. When Saul threatens to kill Jonathan, the people rescue him and say, “There shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground” (1 Sam. 14:45). In a different context, Abner says that he is not a “dog’s head” of Judah (2 Sam. 3:8). Clearly this is a derogatory expression and Abner is chiding Ishbosheth for treating him this way.

Headed Toward a Conclusion

As I noted in the conclusion of the foot motif, the categories I have suggested above are not set in stone. They merely point to ways in which this motif is used in the books of Samuel. The categories have a certain amount of fluidity as I have noted above. While this motif occurs in various ways and in different contexts, it is clear that one of its primary uses is in regard to kingship. After all, these are books about the establishment of the monarchy. All of the beheadings that surround David are one way of suggesting that he is Israel’s rightful king. It also suggests that, when it comes to power, people have a way of losing their heads! This motif also contributes to the theme of honor and shame which I have identified elsewhere as a significant theme in the books of Samuel (see The Theology of 1&2 Samuel, or my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel–see the link below). Finally, the biblical theme of “reaping what you sow,” also known as retribution (see #3 above), is emphasized through the use of this motif in Samuel. There are many motifs remaining in the books of Samuel. We will look at more in the future. Until then, keep your head up!

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits

 

Getting Our Feet Wet: Motifs in Samuel

Getting Our Feet Wet: Motifs in Samuel

Getting one's feet wet
Accordind to Vappingo, getting one’s feet wet is an idiom that comes from the Book of Joshua. Picture taken from Vappingo.com

“Getting one’s feet wet,” according to The Free Dictionary means “a first-time experience with something,” or, “to venture into new territory.” According to vappingo.com, this idiom actually comes from the Book of Joshua where the priests were commanded to put their feet in the Jordan River and then it would part (Joshua 3:13-16). In this post I’m attempting to get our feet wet by looking at the use of “feet/foot/legs” as a recurring motif in the books of Samuel. For some reading this article the idea of motifs in Books of the Bible may be a new concept (see my posts here and here). Others, perhaps may have never noticed this prominent motif in Samuel, or never taken the time to consider what messages are being communicated through its usage.

The Use of “Feet” and Related Words in Modern Idioms

Feet
How many modern idioms about feet can you think of?

How many modern idioms can you think of that use the word “feet,” “foot” or “leg/legs?” On my own I can think of a few such as “you’re pulling my leg,” or “I really put my foot in my mouth on that one.” How about, “I just want to get my foot in the door,” or “stop dragging your feet?”How’s that for “thinking on my feet?” I recently Googled idioms using feet and here are a few others:

  1. To have “itchy feet”
  2. To have “two left feet”
  3. To have “one foot in the grave”
  4. To be “swift of foot” (we’ll actually see this one in Samuel!)
  5. To “pull the rug out from under one’s feet”
  6. To “put one’s feet up”

For these and a lot more, see 50 Idioms About Leg, Feet, and Toes. In the following examination of this motif in Samuel, I will try to put my best foot forward in order to keep you on your toes when looking for  other motifs in the books of Samuel.

The Motif of Feet and Legs in Samuel

Swift feet
Asahel, whom 2 Samuel 2:18 describes as “swift of foot as a wild gazelle,” pursues Abner.

In my search for this motif in Samuel I found 36 passages which use the Hebrew root rgl (the noun form of this root is written as regel),the basic meaning of which is “feet” or “legs.”  There are twelve occurrences of this root in 1 Samuel and twenty-four in 2 Samuel.  Although it should be remembered that 1&2 Samuel were originally one book, this breakdown illustrates that this Hebrew root occurs with greater frequency in the second half of the book. One of the functions of a motif is how it links various stories together. For example, the use of “foot” or “leg” should recall other stories where the word was recently utilized. This is especially true when it occurs many times so as to be an obvious motif.

One final point should be made regarding the use of motifs before proceeding: We are examining motifs in their literary setting, but they may also have served to link stories together when they were first told orally. It’s possible that any or all of the motifs in Samuel were originally part of the oral telling of the story. Whether they originated orally or when the stories were first committed to writing, these motifs would serve to keep the listener engaged while acting as devices that both entertain and teach.

A Survey of Rgl in Samuel

Because of the different ways in which English must translate various Hebrew words, it’s important when studying a motif to look at the original language. As this post will demonstrate, if only the English is consulted, other uses of a Hebrew root may be overlooked This is easily illustrated by the fact that rgl can be translated as feet or legs in English–two different, though related words. This also means, that the motif has its most profound affect in the original language since word plays are sometimes made which cannot be noticed in translation.

Deer feet
In 2 Samuel 22:34 David writes, “He made my feet like the feet of a deer and set me secure on the heights.”

But what about the meaning of this motif? Is there a singular theme that is highlighted or is it used in various ways? As the survey below demonstrates the Hebrew root rgl has various meanings. The meaning is dependent on whether the noun or verbal form of the word is used, whether it occurs in a proper name, and whether it is used figuratively or literally. Besides a literal meaning, context may also indicate an additional meaning to the word (or phrase in which the word is used). I have discovered roughly twelve different ways in which the Hebrew root rgl is used (I have highlighted in bold the meanings or usages). In no particular order, here they are:

  1. As noted above, the root is used in two different place names, which appear to have special significance. Jonathan and Ahimaaz, the sons of the high priests Abiathar and Zadok, were staying at a place known as En-Rogel (2 Sam. 17:17). En-Rogel (notice the Hebrew root rgl in the word) is located where the three valleys of ancient Jerusalem (the Kidron, Tyropoeon, and Hinnom) come together. Ironically the place means, “Well of the Spy.” These young men were hiding out there so that they might deliver intelligence information to David during Absalom’s revolt. We are also told that during Absalom’s revolt a man named Barzillai came from Rogelim (plural form of rgl) to bring much needed supplies to David and his people (2 Sam. 17:27; 19:31).
  2. Since we have noted that En-Rogel means “Well of the Spy,” we should also note that the root rgl is used several times in Samuel to refer to a spy or spies (1 Sam. 26:4; 2 Sam. 10:3; 15:10). It is also used once in its verbal form meaning “to slander.” Mephibosheth, the man who is lame in his “feet,” ironically accuses his servant Ziba of “slandering” him to King David (2 Sam. 19:27). Ziba had earlier claimed that Mephibosheth wanted to reclaim the throne of his grandfather Saul (2 Sam. 16:1-4), and therefore had stayed behind in Jerusalem and not gone with David during Absalom’s revolt. The meaning of “spy” and “slander” is thought to come from the idea of a person who moves their feet too much! In other words, in the case of a spy, the movement of their feet suggests “shiftiness,” while the movement of a slanderer suggests a “busybody.”
  3. Speaking of Mephibosheth, it is noted on several occasions that he is “lame in his feet” (2 Sam 4:4; 9:3, 13). While this is, of course, a reference to his literal feet, there is also a meaning of weakness, or helplessness. David’s generosity of allowing Mephibosheth to come eat at his table as one of the king’s sons is a demonstration of how David imitates God by caring for those who are less fortunate (e.g., Micah 4:6-7; Zeph. 3:19). It may also be a way of suggesting that Mephibosheth is no threat to take the throne of his grandfather Saul. The context in 2 Samuel 4 (see v. 4 particularly) seems to suggest that with the death of Ishbosheth and the lameness of Mephibosheth the dynasty of Saul literally “doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”
  4. When Mephibosheth appears before David, he exclaims “Here is your servant (2 Sam. 9:6). The concept of feet is also suggestive of servanthood and humility. When David marches with 400 men to destroy Nabal’s house, it is the action of Abigail who “falls at his feet” (1 Sam. 25:24), along with her wise words that dissuades David from his vengeful plan. Later when Nabal dies, David requests Abigail to become his wife. Her reply shows great humility as she says, “Behold your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord” (1 Sam. 25:41). Since feet were exposed to the dirt and filth of the streets, they were considered an unclean part of the body. Washing the feet was an action of a lowly slave. In this expression, Abigail once again demonstrates true humility.
  5. In contrast to weakness or humility, feet could also be a symbol of stability and power. The image of God making the king’s enemies a footstool (e.g., Ps. 110:1), or the conqueror placing his foot on the necks of his enemies (Josh. 10:24) evokes this meaning. Since 1&2 Samuel are books about power, it is surprising that we don’t see this meaning more often. Nevertheless, this image occurs twice in David’s psalm in 2 Samuel 22. In 2 Sam. 22:10 it refers to God as David says, “He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet.” David uses it of himself when, speaking of his enemies he says, “they fell under my feet” (2 Sam. 22:39). Once again the image of feet is a concrete one (referring to God’s and David’s), but the symbolism behind these expressions conveys a deeper, meaning.
  6. Speaking of a reference to a physical part of the body, Goliath is said to wear bronze grieves on his “legs” (1 Sam. 17:6). This statement, along with the rest of the description of Goliath, is clearly intended to intimidate and inspire fear. Absalom is said to be handsome, “from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head” (2 Sam. 14:25). This kind of expression is known as a “merism” where the words “foot” and “head” are a reference to the entire body. We still use this expression today.
  7. On a more mundane note, the root rgl is used to refer to infantry, or foot-soldiers on four occasions in Samuel (1 Sam. 4:10; 15:4; 2 Sam. 8:4; 10:6).
  8. “Following after one’s legs” is an idiom which communicates loyalty or faithfulness to the one being followed. The idea is following in someone’s footsteps. This expression is used of those who follow David (1 Sam. 25:27; 2 Sam. 15:15, 17, 18), and of the servants that follow Abigail (1 Sam. 25:42).
  9. Security, or protection is often the result of following after someone powerful. This is the idea in 1 Samuel 2:9 when Hannah says that God will “guard the feet of his faithful ones.”  In 2 Samuel 22:34, David voices the security he finds in God by comparing himself to a deer whose footing is sure on rocky heights (see the photo and caption above).
  10. Feet can take a person where they shouldn’t go  (e.g., Prov. 1:16; 4:26; 5:5). Asahel’s swiftness of foot should have been an asset to him, but instead it brought about his destruction (2 Sam. 2:18-23–see my expanded treatment of this here, or in my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel). The brothers who killed Ishbosheth allowed their feet to take them where they shouldn’t have gone. As a result, David had their hands and feet cut off when he executed them (2 Sam. 4:12).
  11. There is one example where the physical exertion of using one’s hands and feet point to stepping out (no pun intended) in faith. In 1 Samuel 14:13, Jonathan and his armor-bearer climb up a side of a mountain to defeat the Philistines.
  12. I will lump the final uses of rgl under the category of figurative usage. Among these are two euphemistic phrases. When David and his men are hiding from Saul in a cave, Saul is said to go in and “cover his feet,” which means he was using the toilet (1 Sam. 24:3). David wants Uriah to go down to his house and “wash his feet,” by which he means “have sex with your wife” (2 Sam. 11:8, see Uriah’s response in v. 11). We have here the same idiom of washing feet as we saw in the Abigail story above, but with a very different meaning! Another figurative usage is found in David’s lament of Abner’s death where he says, “your feet were not fettered” (2 Sam. 3:34). In other words, Abner wasn’t helpless and yet died a sad and foolish way. The idea of vulnerability is attached to this expression, as it is also in the story of Saul relieving himself in the cave. A final figurative use describes David’s hiding place when he is fleeing from Saul. Saul is told by the Ziphites that David is in their territory to which he replies, “know and see the place where his foot is” (1 Sam. 23:22).

A Footing…Uh, I Mean, Fitting Conclusion

The twelve categories above are a starting point. They are suggestive and not meant to be exhaustive. Furthermore, the use of rgl can, in certain instances, fit in several of the above categories. This survey demonstrates the pervasive nature of the foot motif in Samuel. It also demonstrates that this motif does not carry a single message. Context is the determining factor. The foot motif adds spice to the narrative of Samuel. In one sense, it is a running pun throughout the story. Once it is recognized, the reader might become intrigued on how the inspired author will use it next. Through its various shades of meaning it helps elucidate a given event, personality, or action. It is part of the glue that connects many of the stories together, particularly in the last half of Samuel. The foot motif is one of many that enriches, amuses, and informs God’s inspired message in the books of Samuel. We will look at another motif next time. Until then, keep your feet on the ground!

For a more in depth study of the books of Samuel, purchase a copy of my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.Family Portraits

Motifs in Samuel: Meaning and Significance

Motifs in Samuel: Meaning and Significance

Motifs in Samuel. Samuel anointing David
Join me for a study of motifs in Samuel and see how following a motif can help with the interpretation of a biblical passage.

A number of years ago I wrote a post that pointed out how the recognition and study of motifs within a biblical narrative can contribute to its understanding (see here). In that post I surveyed motifs found in Genesis (the Jacob story), Judges (the Samson story), and Samuel (Saul’s story). I also noted a number of other motifs in Samuel with the promise of one day writing about them further. It’s been a long time coming but that day has finally arrived. This post is an introduction to the topic. I will briefly discuss what a motif is and then note various motifs in Samuel that will be the subject of future posts.

What is a Motif?

If you google a definition of what a motif is you will find this useful definition: “A motif is a recurring symbol which takes on a figurative meaning. … In fact, almost every text commonly uses the literary device of the motif. A motif can be almost anything: an idea, an object, a concept, a character archetype, the weather, a color, or even a statement” (study.com). Bernard Aubert defines a motif very simply as a “recognizable pattern or unit” (The Shepherd-flock Motif in the Miletus Discourse, p. 16–for an online version of this book click here).

Using rope to illustrate a motif
A motif is like different strands of a rope.

Brian A. Verrett points out that “A motif is to be distinguished from a theme. A motif is a thread, and a theme is the rope made of different threads” (The Serpent in Samuel, p. 8, n.54). Rachelle Gilmour states, “In each case the motif is a concrete image that points to an abstract meaning, even if this meaning changes over time or across types of literature. This is typical of the biblical narrative, which in general avoids explicit statements of abstract meaning, using instead a concrete image to represent it” (Gilmour, “Reading a Biblical Motif” p, 32). An example of what Gilmour is saying would be the use of “hand” in the biblical text. Hand is a very concrete image but it points to the abstract meaning of “power.” For example, when the Bible states that Israel was delivered into the hand of the Philistines, this means they were defeated by them and came under their control or power. “Hand” is, in fact, a motif in Samuel that we will be examining.

Motifs in Samuel

Bathsheba
Beauty is one example of a motif in Samuel.

Motifs Addressed by Biblical Scholars

Bible scholars have long recognized the use of motifs in Samuel. In my previous post I reviewed a book by Brian A. Verrett entitled, The Serpent in Samuel: A Messianic Motif (see my review here). In his book Verrett seeks to demonstrate that the Samuel narrative repeatedly casts characters as serpents (p. 8). Other motifs in Samuel that have been discussed by scholars include, the exodus, beauty, displaced husbands, food provision lists, and allusions to the patriarchal stories in Genesis. Several, or perhaps all of these motifs, have probably never occurred to a casual reader of the books of Samuel. The value of beginning to recognize these, and other motifs, is the way they enrich the meaning of the narrative. Being sensitive to motifs will also cause the reader to slow down and ask why a certain motif continues to recur. Thus creating a learning opportunity. Searching for motifs also increases the pleasure in reading.

Other Motifs in Samuel

There are many other motifs in Samuel. Here I offer a list which is not meant to be complete by any means. In future posts, I will be examining some of these motifs.

  1. Sword and spear
  2. Heads
  3. Hands
  4. Feet
  5. Eating and not eating
  6. Clothing, especially robes
  7. Dead dog
  8. Angel of God
  9. Seeking and (not) finding
  10. Asking (inquiring)
  11. Shepherd
  12. Rebellious sons

Some motifs found in the books of Samuel also occur in other books of the Bible. My purpose is to narrow the focus to only 1&2 Samuel. I will identify some of these motifs and ask how they function in Samuel. How is our reading of the text enhanced by noticing these motifs and inquiring about their significance? In my next post, we will start from the bottom up. I will be looking at the significance of the motif of “feet” in Samuel.