Category Archives: The Book of Samuel

Apologetics, Biblical names, The Book of Samuel

ELKANAH WAS AN EPHRATHITE FROM RAMAH OF BENJAMIN

Leave a comment

Note to Readers: This was an article of mine recently published in Bibliotheca Sacra  182 (April-June 2025), 163-77. It’s more technical than most of my articles on this blog, but feel free to have a read! (All footnotes have been included here as Endnotes. I’ve also noticed that the footnote notations have not appeared. Sorry for that inconvenience.)

ELKANAH WAS AN EPHRATHITE FROM RAMAH OF BENJAMIN

ABSTRACT

Much disagreement exists in the scholarly literature concerning the identity and home of Elkanah. The problem concerns the meaning of the phrase “hill country of Ephraim” and the word אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1. Also of key importance is the uncertainty over the geographical location of Ramathaim and Ramah (and whether they are different locales or one and the same), the Land of Zuph (1 Sam. 1:1; 9:5), and the burial place of Rachel (1 Sam. 10:2; cf. Gen. 35:16, 19: 48:7). 

This paper seeks to demonstrate that: 1) The “hill country of Ephraim,” includes the tribal territory of Benjamin; 2) Ramathaim and Ramah are the same town located in the tribe of Benjamin (probably modern er-Ram); 3) The grave of Rachel should be located in the tribal territory of Benjamin near Ramah; and, 4) The context of 1 Samuel 1:1 suggests אֶפְרָתִי is best understood as “Ephrathite.” If true, these four conclusions remove any contradictions and demonstrate the consistency of the Samuel narrative regarding the hometown of Elkanah and Samuel.

PROBLEM: THE IDENTITY AND HOME OF ELKANAH

The introduction of Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1:1 provides background information regarding his ancestry and place of residence. The problem, at least for the modern reader, is that several geographical details and names are open to more than one interpretation. For example, the phrase, “hill country of Ephraim,” and the word אֶפְרָתִי, can suggest that Elkanah is a member of the tribe of Ephraim. However, אֶפְרָתִי can also refer to someone who is an Ephrathite (cf., 1 Sam. 17:12). Other biblical passages also provide evidence that “the hill country of Ephraim,” encompassed more than just the tribal territory of Ephraim (e.g., Judg. 4:5). Furthermore the name of Elkanah’s hometown, Ramathaim, is found only here. Elsewhere he (and his son Samuel) are said to be from Ramah (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:11). Do two different names for Elkanah’s (and Samuel’s) hometown suggest two different places? This question is important, for if Elkanah’s home of Ramathaim is in Ephraim, it is equally clear from passages in 1 Samuel that Samuel’s hometown of Ramah is in Benjamin (e.g., 1 Sam. 7:16-17). How then, is this to be explained? 

A related problem concerns Saul’s initial encounter with Samuel in the land of Zuph (1 Sam. 9:5ff.). Is the land of Zuph in the tribal territory of Ephraim, as possibly suggested by 1 Samuel 1:1 and Saul’s travels in 1 Samuel 9, or does Saul’s encounter take place in Ramah of Benjamin? The text’s testimony regarding the home and identity of Elkanah concerns the question of whether it presents a mixed, and thus confused, geographical picture, or one that is accurate and coherent. This paper seeks to address this question. 

Miller has pointed to four contributing factors related to potential geographical confusion over biblical sites: 1) Biblical writers assume the readers are familiar with the geography of Benjamin, and, therefore, do not provide much detail; 2) A number of Benjaminite names are appellative names that would be duplicated from site to site. For example, Ramah means “the height,” and was a name given to various sites; 3) Modern development in the area of what was ancient Benjamin has made it more difficult to envision what the topography was like in ancient times; and, 4) Literary-critical analysis, which Miller believes has led to the widest divergence of opinion among scholars. Miller’s own view is that biblical stories “. . . provide authentic memory of ancient Benjaminite toponymy. [However], During the process of transmission from ancient times to the present . . . this memory has been skewed in places.” 

Each of these factors present challenges, to the modern scholar and should be given due consideration when reaching any conclusions. It is important to remain open to alternative explanations, and to the possibility of new discoveries which may clarify some issues of interpretation or geography. With that in mind, this paper will suggest the biblical data regarding Elkanah’s identity and home can be reconciled without contradiction, while certain aspects must remain tentative (e.g., the exact location of Ramah, or Rachel’s tomb). What follows is an investigation of each of the key words and phrases describing Elkanah’s identity and geographical location.

WHAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IS MEANT BY “THE HILL COUNTRY OF EPHRAIM?”

When reading the phrase, “the hill country of Ephraim,” it seems natural that a modern reader would interpret this to mean the hill country contained within the tribal territory of Ephraim. It appears that some scholars have come to a similar conclusion. If one makes this assumption, then it is natural to conclude that 1 Samuel 1:1 is stating that Elkanah’s hometown of Ramathaim, and the land of Zuph, must be in Ephraimite territory. Later passages that suggest that Elkanah’s (and Samuel’s) home is in Ramah of Benjamin would, then, be understood to be in conflict with 1 Samuel 1:1. Kyle McCarter draws this conclusion. He writes,

Apparently there is confusion in the tradition itself. The older narrative recorded Samuel’s home as Ramathaim of the land of Zuph in the Ephraimite hills. In the course of the transmission of the story, the name became associated with the much more familiar Benjaminite Ramah. The result is a mixed picture. In the present episode there is no barrier to maintaining the assumption that Ephraimite Ramathaim is intended.

Miller comes to a similar conclusion:

Note . . . the apparent confusion concerning the identity and location of Samuel’s family home. 1 Samuel 1:19; 2:11; and 7:17 associate Samuel and his father Elkanah with Ramah. Yet the story in 1 Samuel 9–10, Saul’s search for the Donkeys, associates Samuel with the “land of Zuph,” while 1 Samuel 1:1 identifies Elkanah as an Ephraimite from Ramathaim-zophim. This confusion, in my opinion, . . . is to be explained on literary-critical grounds.

Other scholars also conclude that 1 Samuel 1:1 is stating that Elkanah’s home is in the tribal territory of Ephraim, but that other texts place his home in Ramah of Benjamin. 

There are texts, however, that suggest the hill country of Ephraim encompasses a wider geographical area. Judges 4:5 informs us that Deborah held court under a palm tree between Bethel and Ramah “in the hill country of Ephraim.” This is clearly Benjamite territory and illustrates that the hill country of Ephraim has a wider geographical reference than the tribal territory of Ephraim. Another passage which may identify the tribe of Benjamin with the hill country of Ephraim is 2 Samuel 20 concerning the rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri. Sheba is identified as a Benjamite (2 Sam. 20:1) who was from the hill country of Ephraim (2 Sam. 20:21). Rainey and Notley rightly state, “The ‘hill country of Ephraim’ is a generic geographical term for the entire block of hills that included the territory of Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh.” The tribe of Ephraim’s prominence appears to be the explanation for this designation. The hill country further south, though still part of the same range, became designated as “the hill country of Judah” (Josh. 21:11), due to the prominence of the tribe of Judah. Similarly, the hill country further north was designated as “the hill country of Naphtali” (Josh. 20:7).

A further example of a geographical feature named for the tribe of Ephraim, but not within the tribal boundary is the “forest of Ephraim,” where David’s men battled Absalom (2 Sam. 18:6). This battle most likely took place on the other side of the Jordan in the area of Gilead, not within the tribal border of Ephraim (2 Sam. 17:24).  

That the hill country of Ephraim also includes the tribe of Benjamin has been noted by several recent scholars. Context is therefore important when deciding what is meant by the “hill country of Ephraim.” Just because Elkanah lived in the hill country of Ephraim, does not automatically rule out that he lived within the tribal territory of Benjamin, nor does it mean that he must be an Ephraimite. The misidentification of Elkanah’s home with the tribe of Ephraim has ramifications for other related texts which we will examine below.

RAMATHAIM AND RAMAH: TWO CITIES, OR TWO DESIGNATIONS FOR THE SAME CITY?

The name Ramathaim has puzzled many scholars. 1 Samuel 1:1 is its only occurrence. Elsewhere, both Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11) and Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17; 15:34) are said to have lived in Ramah. Two names and seemingly, two different locations (one in Ephraim, one in Benjamin), have led to the confusion. For example, while convinced that 1 Samuel associates Samuel with Ramah of Benjamin (er-Ram), Klein notes that, based on the identification by Eusebius and Jerome, modern scholars associate Ramathaim with Rentis about 16 miles east of Tel Aviv. Klein further asserts that “Ramathaim is the same as Arimathea in the NT (Matt 27:57).” This leads him to conclude that, “. . . the first verse of the book—and possibly v 19 and 2:11—represent an alternate, Ephraimite tradition.” This conclusion, however, is based on two assumptions. First, that the “hill country of Ephraim,” must refer to a person living within the tribal boundary of Ephraim. Second, that the Hebrew term אֶפְרָתִי, refers to a person living in Ephraim. If these assumptions are removed, then it becomes possible to view Ramathaim and Ramah as two names for the same place as several scholars posit.

The dual form in the name Ramathaim should not automatically be interpreted as referring to a town other than Ramah of Benjamin. Other towns and cities in ancient Israel display the same phenomenon. The most famous of these, as noted by Driver, is Jerusalem (yerushalayim). No one would suggest that the singular and dual spellings of Jerusalem refers to two distinct cities. Another example of this phenomenon is Gittaim of Benjamin (2 Sam. 4:3; Neh. 11:33) which appears in the singular form Gath in 1 Chronicles 7:21 and 8:13. Other examples of cities using a dual form include Kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5), Shaaraim, Adithaim, and Gederothaim (Josh. 15:36), to name a few. 

Demsky notes that, “Scholars have explained this linguistic form either semantically or morphologically.”  The semantic approach interprets the dual forms literally. For example, Shaaraim (1 Sam. 17:52) means “two gates,” Naharaim (Judg. 3:8, 10) means “two rivers,” etc. Using this approach, Ramathaim would mean “two hills,” an interpretation which is frequently put forward by many commentators. Demsky, rightly in my opinion, dismisses this approach, for the most part, stating, “In general, these semantic explanations are too simplistic and somewhat fanciful, and are unable to explain most of the names in the dual form either topographically or historically.” The morphological explanation, first put forward by J. Barth, contends, “that this dual ending is an expanded long ām ending with the special meaning of a locative.”  For example, Rainey and Notley conclude, “Ramathaim is the town of Ramah in Benjamin, here with an adverbial locative or directive suffix (homophonous with the dual suffix).” Demsky also rejects the morphological explanation, maintaining that the dual ending in topographical names, “was actually an alternate form of a more common nominal ending.” For our purpose, it is not necessary to choose between Barth’s and Demsky’s explanations. It is enough to note that the use of a dual ending for towns and cities is not an unusual occurrence in ancient Israel. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon none of which necessitate that the use of the dual form must refer to a different site. The context in Samuel clearly presumes that the Ramathaim of 1 Samuel 1:1 was the same as Elkanah’s home in Ramah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11).

EPHRATHITES AND EPHRAIMITES: THE MEANING OF אֶפְרָתִי

Jan Joosten writes, “In Biblical Hebrew, gentilic adjectives can be derived from proper nouns designating a putative ancestor, a clan, a city, an area or a country.”

In the context of 1 Samuel 1:1, אֶפְרָתִי seems to designate an area that Elkanah’s ancestors came from, although a reference to a clan should not be ruled out. Area, or clan, are possible, given the four-generation genealogy in 1 Samuel 1:1. אֶפְרָתִי is an ambiguous term that may refer to someone from the tribe of Ephraim (Judg. 12:5). However, it may also refer to someone from the clan of Ephrath (1 Chron. 2:50-54; 4:4ff.). This clan settled in the northern region of Judah and gave its name to the area, especially the area associated with Bethlehem (e.g., Ruth 1:2; 1 Sam. 17:12). Context is therefore important in determining its meaning. Elkanah, and his ancestors, are designated as אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1. The mention of the hill country of Ephraim earlier in the verse causes many to assume that Elkanah must be an Ephraimite. Driver’s comments are representative of many when he writes, “This word appears to represent Elqanah not merely as resident in Ephraim (מהר אפרים), but as an Ephraimite.” 

Again, when these assumptions are suspended and one posits that Elkanah’s home was in the tribal territory of Benjamin (which is a part of the hill country of Ephraim), אֶפְרָתִי naturally takes on the meaning Ephrathite (i.e., a person from the district of, and/or descended from the clan of, Ephrath). Other scholars also recognize Ephrathite as the correct rendering in 1 Samuel 1:1. 

There are even scholars who equate the hill country of Ephraim with the tribal territory of Ephraim but maintain that אֶפְרָתִי could be rendered as “Ephrathite” in 1 Samuel 1:1. Tsumura, notes that “. . . the gentilic ’eprātî denotes either a member of the tribe of Ephraim (Judg. 12:5; 1 K. 11:26) or an inhabitant of Bethlehem (1 Sam. 17:12; Ruth 1:2). Elkanah might have been of Bethlehemite stock rather than being an ‘Ephraimite,’ even though he dwelt in the hill country of Ephraim.” 

Again, while supposing that Elkanah lived within the tribal territory of Ephraim, Leuchter makes the following observation: “The verse tells us that Samuel’s father Elkanah has settled in the hill country of Ephraim; the appearance of אפרתי as a reference to Ephraim in the same verse would be redundant.” He continues, 

Other traditions point to sacral figures hailing from Bethlehem and later taking up posts in the Ephraimite hinterland (Judg 17:7–8); Elkanah as an Ephratite sojourning in Ephraim is not an anomaly. We thus have grounds to retain the term אפרתי in 1 Sam 1:1 without emendation, suggesting a strong connection between the religious circles of Ephratah-Bethlehem in Judah and the Shilonites of the Ephraimite hinterland.

While this writer contends it is incorrect to locate Elkanah’s home in Ephraim, the above comments demonstrate that even scholars who do, recognize that אֶפְרָתִי should be read as “Ephrathite.” One reason, similar to Leuchter’s argument above, is that it strengthens the literary tie between the end of the Book of Judges (which ends with two stories about Levites who have connections with Bethlehem and the hill country of Ephraim) and the beginning of 1 Samuel. An Ephrathite origin could also hint at Elkanah’s levitical lineage (along with his descent from Zuph, cf. 1 Chron. 6:33-38), thus, justifying Samuel’s service in the tabernacle and later acting as priest. Furthermore, if Ramathaim is the same as Ramah and is to be located in Benjamin, as is being argued here, then אֶפְרָתִי must be read as “Ephrathite” because Ephraimite would make little sense in the context.

An important related question is, “What exactly is an Ephrathite and does this designation denote someone from Bethlehem?” 1 Chronicles 2:19, 50-54 gives a genealogy of a certain Caleb the son of Hezron of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:18). After the death of his first wife, Caleb married a woman named Ephrath. Ephrath became the matriarch of a clan that bore her name. Ephrath’s descendants are listed in both 1 Chronicles 2:50-54 and 4:1-10. Ephrath gave birth to various sons who became the ancestors of those who lived in various towns in northern Judah. These towns included Bethlehem, Kirjath Jearim, and Tekoa, among others. According to Demsky’s detailed study of this genealogy, 

Bethlehem . . . was the primary city of the Ephrathites, whose area of settlement extended at first along the mountain range from Kiriath-jearim to Gedor. Secondary expansion went to proximate villages to the west – Manahath, Hushah and probably Bether and Giloh – and to the east around Tekoa. Tertiary expansion moved down to the Shephelah, to sites such as Zorah, Eshtaol and perhaps Sha’araim. Bethlehem was therefore the epicentre for the larger territory of Ephrath.

Ephrath was, therefore, a large area which encompassed a number of cities, but chief among them was Bethlehem. Identifying Elkanah as an Ephrathite could mean that his ancestors came from any area within the Ephrathite domain. The connection with the stories at the end of Judges suggests that Bethlehem might be in mind. Furthermore, there are only two occurrences of אֶפְרָתִי in the books of Samuel and there is no doubt that it should be rendered as “Ephrathite” in the second passage. In 1 Samuel 17:12 David is described as the son of Jesse “that Ephrathite from Bethlehem.” The fact that the only other occurrence of אֶפְרָתִי is in 1 Samuel 1:1 suggests these two passages should be compared. The use of the word to describe only these two individuals (and their families), suggests a possible link between the two. This is borne out literarily. Elkanah parallels Jesse, as both are fathers of sons who will bring deliverance to Israel. Samuel and David are not only parallel as deliverers, but are directly connected through Samuel’s anointing of David as king.  

THE LAND OF ZUPH AND THE TOMB OF RACHEL: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!

Two other passages that bear on the location of Samuel’s Ramah occur in the introductory story of Saul. When Saul went looking for his father’s lost donkeys, he traveled through the hill country of Ephraim, eventually coming to the land of Zuph and the city of Samuel (1 Sam. 9:4-6). Following his anointing by Samuel, he was given three signs to confirm his anointing. One of those signs involved going by the tomb of Rachel which is described as being “in the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah” (ESV, 1 Sam. 10:2). The mention of the “land of Zuph” automatically recalls 1 Samuel 1:1. Understanding the land of Zuph to be in the tribal territory of Ephraim has led some scholars to suggest a contradiction with 1 Samuel 9:4-5 which places Zuph in the territory of Benjamin. 

Similarly, certain passages in Genesis (35:16-20; 48:7) may be interpreted as locating Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem (which aligns with the current tradition in Israel). These call into question 1 Samuel 10:2, which places Rachel’s tomb in the territory of Benjamin, near Ramah. In this section these passages will be examined and it will be demonstrated that Ramah of Benjamin is once again the best choice when all the data is considered. If it is allowed that ancient Israelite authors knew their history and geography well, then a solution that solves any apparent contradictions should be considered superior to an interpretation that suggests irreconcilable differences.

The Location of the Land of Zuph. One of the challenges in understanding Saul’s journey in looking for his father’s lost donkeys is that several of the place names have not been confidently identified geographically. As Gilmour notes, “Many scholars have attempted to locate these place names but no consensus has yet been reached.” Diana Edelman has also observed that, 

1 Sam. 9:1-10:16 has been the subject of many diverse investigations over the past 135 years. No single route and series of identifications has gained acceptance, however, and some scholars have despaired that it is impossible to reconstruct the journey on the basis of the scanty evidence available.” 

The mention of “the hill country of Ephraim,” leads many scholars to assume that Saul’s search carried him into the tribe of Ephraim. This seems doubtful for, as already noted, the hill country of Ephraim can apply to the tribe of Benjamin as well. In reading the passage it seems that “the hill country of Ephraim” is a summary statement of the area traversed by Saul and his servant. 

Equating the hill country of Ephraim with the tribal territory of Ephraim leads Edelman to suggest that Saul began his search outside of the tribe of Benjamin.  The basis of this contention is that the text does not name his hometown and therefore the point of his departure is unknown. While true, the most natural reading of the context suggests that Saul left from his family home and that after three days he was concerned to return there knowing his father would be worried about him (1 Sam. 9:3, 5). It makes little sense for Saul’s search to have begun in Ephraim, rather than starting near his home. As McCarter notes, “Saul began his search, as we might expect, ‘in his own backyard.’” 

If Saul began his search from Gibeah of Benjamin, then the lands of Shalishah, Shaalim, Yamin, and finally, Zuph would suggest an ever-widening search for the donkeys in these districts. Cogan and Tadmor state that these names represent family districts in the territory of Benjamin. This certainly fits the designation of the land of Zuph which echoes the ancestral area Elkanah is from (1 Sam. 1:1). It is in the land of Zuph that Saul encountered Samuel at Ramah. This appears to be the northern limit of his search. After three days of wandering all over the territory between Gibeah and Ramah (cf. 1 Sam. 9:20), Saul was ready to return home. 

A three day journey, or period of time, is very common in Scripture (e.g., Gen. 22:4; 30:36; Exod. 5:3; 15:22; Num. 33:8; Josh. 1:11; 1 Sam. 20:19; 2 Sam. 20:4; 1Kgs. 12:5; 2 Kgs. 2:17; 1 Chron. 12:39; Jonah 1:17; 3:3). “In the biblical world, three days was a typical period of preparation for something important.” This observation is appropriate to the context here where Saul’s three-day search for the donkeys ended with a sacred meal (1 Sam. 9:19-24) and his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1). Context appears to determine whether the three days represents a short or long period of time. For example, the description of Nineveh being a city that takes three days to traverse, suggests a very large city (Jonah 3:3). However, Moses’s request to Pharaoh that the Israelites make a three-day journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, suggests a short journey (Exod. 5:3).

While it is not impossible, it seems a stretch to suggest, as a number of scholars do, that Saul’s search encompassed an area of sixty miles in these three days. This sixty-mile distance is based on the assumption that Saul’s journey took him into the tribal territory of Ephraim. While identification of the geographical regions remains in doubt, it seems that such an area is too large for a three-day search. It is more realistic to suppose that the donkeys would not have wandered that far away and that a thorough search of the area between Gibeah and Ramah would easily take three (or parts of three) days. We are not talking a search in a direct line between Gibeah (modern Tel el-Ful) and Ramah (modern er-Ram), only a distance of about 2 miles or 3 kilometers, but a slow, methodical, ever widening search, traversing east and west in mountainous terrain between these two cities. It also makes more sense for Saul’s father to be worried about him being gone three days if the distance was short, than if a wider area had been canvassed. One would assume that a search of sixty miles would take some significant time, whereas a search in the vicinity of one’s home should be concluded more quickly. Based on the report by the men at Rachel’s tomb (if the tomb is near Ramah), it does appear that the donkeys did not wander far. Therefore, unless further geographical evidence is produced in the future that proves otherwise, nothing suggests that Saul’s search took him beyond the tribal limits of Benjamin.

The Location of Rachel’s Tomb. Another geographical uncertainty of the early chapters of 1 Samuel is the location of Rachel’s tomb. Although 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15, firmly locate it in the territory of Benjamin, other scholars point to Genesis 35:16-20 and 48:7 which mention Ephrath, further identifying the area as near Bethlehem. To complicate matters a traditional tomb located near Bethlehem today is identified as Rachel’s tomb. While most scholars maintain that the original site of Rachel’s tomb is in Benjamin, there are a few who prefer the Bethlehem location. 

Na’aman has presented the most thorough case for defending the Bethlehem location. He argues that the Bethlehem tradition is older, going back to the Ephrathites who moved into the area from the tribe of Ephraim. Na’aman also believes that the tradition of Rachel’s tomb in Benjamin goes back to a wrong identification which equates the tomb of Deborah (Rachel’s nurse) with Rachel’s tomb (see Gen. 35:8). 

When read carefully, however, the Genesis texts do not locate Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem. Genesis 35:16 states that Rachel gave birth after leaving Bethel while “still some distance from Ephrath” (ESV, NASB). Genesis 35:19 similarly states that Rachel was buried “on the way to Ephrath” (ESV, NASB). When Jacob retells the story (Gen. 48:7), he uses the same expressions found in Genesis 35:16 and 19. Demsky writes, 

The idea that Rachel dies near Ephrat (or Bethlehem), just before they got there, is based on a misunderstanding of the phase דרך ‘the road to’ or לבוא ‘the way of/approaching.’ In the Bible, and in general, a road is named after the destination, so it is called ‘the way of Ephrat’ because that is where they were going, but it does not mean they were anywhere near there.” 

Sarna points out that a Bethlehem location for Rachel’s tomb is unlikely because Genesis 35:21 states that after burying Rachel, Jacob moved on to Migdal Eder which is identified with a section of Jerusalem (cf. Mic. 4:8). If Rachel was buried near Bethlehem, Jacob would have had to reverse his direction. Instead, Sarna supports Kiriath Jearim as the most likely place for Rachel’s tomb (it being on the Benjamin/Judah border in an area identified with Ephrath). Sarna is not alone in this conclusion. However, there is no ancient or modern tradition connecting Rachel’s tomb with Keriath Jearim. Based on the biblical texts, Ramah of Benjamin remains the best option. 

One objection to Ramah as the site of Rachel’s tomb is that Jeremiah 31:15 does not use the Hebrew article he (ה). Normally, when referencing the city of Samuel, Ramah does include the Hebrew article. Thus, some suggest that Jeremiah 31:15 is using the word in its natural Hebrew meaning of “height.” However, Jeremiah 40:1 makes it clear that Ramah was the place from which the exiles were carried away to Babylon and Jeremiah 31:15 is referring to this same event. 

Based on a study by Ernst Vogt, Wenham notes that the Hebrew word כִּבְרַת (used in Gen. 35:16; 48:7, and translated as “still some distance”) “. . . equates Hebrew ברה with Akk. bēru, the distance traveled in two hours, roughly eleven kilometers or seven miles.” The distance from Ramah (er-Ram) to Bethlehem is slightly farther, being ten miles or 16 kilometers. If כִּבְרַת is being used in an approximate way, as seems likely from the context in Genesis, then a location near Ramah is reasonable. In fact, Vogt states that the distance communicated by כִּבְרַת is not exact but depends on the time and the gait of a person. Based on the Genesis texts (and 1 Samuel 10:2), Vogt argues that the distance being specified by כִּבְרַת is the distance between Rachel’s tomb (near Ramah) and Ephrath. Thus, there is no need to conclude that a discrepancy exists between the Genesis accounts of Rachel’s tomb and the accounts in 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

It has been demonstrated that the “hill country of Ephraim,” also encompasses the tribal territory of Benjamin and that Ramathaim is another name for Ramah, the dual form being a characteristic of other ancient city names. If then, Ramah of Benjamin is the location of Elkanah’s hometown, אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1 should be understood as “Ephrathite.” The connection with the end of the Book of Judges (Judg. 17:7-8; 19:1) as well as the connection with Jesse the father of David (1 Sam. 17:12), further strengthens this interpretation. 

We have also noted that Saul’s search for his father’s lost donkeys need not have taken him beyond the border of Benjamin. In fact, it seems more likely that his search was in a relatively smaller area (between Gibeah and Ramah) than what some scholars suggest, given the three-day time frame of his search and what is realistically known about the complexities and time element involved in such a search. Thus, when Saul met Samuel in 1 Samuel 9:10-14, the city was Ramah of Benjamin and not a Ramah or Ramathaim in the tribal territory of Ephraim as some assert. 

We have also demonstrated that there is no conflict between the texts in Genesis and 1 Samuel 10:2. The Genesis texts are more vague in their location of Rachel’s tomb, giving only the general area, which plausibly includes the southern part of the tribal territory of Benjamin. In contrast, 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15 clearly locate Rachel’s tomb in Ramah of Benjamin. Vogt, followed by Wenham, has argued that the word כִּבְרַת can reasonably refer to the distance between Ramah and Ephrath.

All scholars are in agreement that the text of 1 Samuel locates the home of Samuel in Ramah of Benjamin (most concluding it is the modern er-Ram). When all of the evidence is considered, it is not only clear that Samuel lived in Ramah of Benjamin, but that his father Elkanah and mother Hannah did as well and that there is no contradiction between the statements of 1 Samuel 1:1, 9:4-5; 10:2, or any other passages in 1 Samuel relating to the identification of his hometown. Thus, the proper understanding of 1 Samuel 1:1 is that Elkanah was an Ephrathite from Ramah of Benjamin.

End Note

  1. All Scripture quotations are from the ESV unless otherwise noted

2 Max Miller, “Notes on Benjaminite Place Names,” JNSL 25.1 (1999): 61–62.

3 Miller, 62.

4 P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel, AB 8 (Doubleday, 1980), 61–62.

5 Miller, “Benjaminite Place Names,” 63.

6 For example, Henry Preserved Smith states, “The genealogy given seems to leave no doubt that Elkanah was an Ephraimite by blood.” A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, ICC (T&T Clark, 1992), 5. See also, Tony W. Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, SHBC (Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 27; and A. Graeme Auld, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, OTL (Westminster John Knox, 2011), 27.

7 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, vol. 2 of Commentary on the Old Testament (Hendrickson, 1996), 372–73. Conversely, Miller contends that the Benjaminites were southern Ephraim clans that settled in the southern hill country of Ephraim. He believes that Benjamin’s tribal status was a literary rather than a historical development. “Benjaminite Place Names,” 62. While there is no solid evidence for this conjecture, Miller’s theory does not negate the suggestion that the hill country of Ephraim encompassed the tribe of Benjamin.

8 Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, 2nd ed. (Carta, 2014), 137.

9 For a fuller discussion, see Henry O. Thompson, “Ephraim, Forest of,” in ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 2:557.

10 Jack M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, AB 6D (Yale University Press, 2014), 188; and Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judges 1: A Commentary on Judges 1:1–10:5, Hermeneia (Fortress, 2021), 259–60.

11 According to Diana Edelman, “Ramathaim of the Zuphites should not be equated with Ramah of Benjamin, which almost certainly is to be identified with er-Rām. The latter lay within Benjamin, just south of the probable geographical border between the central Ephraimite land masse and the territory of Benjamin.” “Saul’s Journey Through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel’s Ramah (1 Sam. 9:4–5; 10:2–5),” ZDPV 104 (1988): 56. Edelman’s statement illustrates that er-Ram is the presumed site of many scholars were it not for the assumption that the Ramathaim of 1 Samuel 1:1 must be located in Ephraim.

12 Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Word, 1983), 5.

13 David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Eerdmans, 2006), 124–25; John B. Song, “Rathamin,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Lexham, 2016), ebook; and Brandon Ridley, “Ramah of Benjamin,” in Barry, Lexham Bible Dictionary, ebook.

14 S. R. Driver does not believe the dual forms of city names are original but reflect a later artificial expansion of the original. He points out that the Tel el-Amarna letters point to -im as being the original ending for Jerusalem. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Clarendon, 1913), 1–2.

15 Wesley I. Toews, “Gittaim,” in Freedman, ABD, 2:1030. This Gath should not be confused with the more famous Gath of Judah.

16 Aaron Demsky, “Hebrew Names in the Dual Form and the Toponym Yerushalayim,” in These Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, ed. Aaron Demsky, vol. 3 (Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 11–20.

17 Demsky, 12.

18 Demsky, 12.

19 Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 143. See also Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2nd ed., trans. and ed. A. F. Rainey (Westminster, 1979), 120.

20 Demsky, “Hebrew Names,” 13. Demsky’s reasons for his assertion are beyond the scope of this paper.

21 Jan Joosten, “Construct-Phrase Gentilics: A Distinctive Feature of Classical Biblical Hebrew,” Orientalia Suecana 73 (2024): 61.

22 Some scholars suggest that this is an etymological coincidence. John Mauchline, for example, states, “Ephrathah is derived from a Hebrew verb which means ‘to be fruitful’ (pārāh). Its use for more than one area is intelligible.” 1 and 2 Samuel, NCB (Oliphants, 1971), 42. See also, Lamontte M. Luker, “Ephrathah (Place),” in Freedman, ABD, 2:557-58. On the other hand, Nadav Na’aman contends that ephrati originally referred to Ephraimites who migrated southward into northern Judah, and the area of Ephrath received its name from these Ephraimite immigrants. “The Settlement of the Ephrathites in Bethlehem and the Location of Rachel’s Tomb,” RB 29–516 :)2014 (121.4)

23 Folker Willesen, however, argues that even in Judges 12 the word should be translated “Ephrathite.” “The יתרפא of the Shibboleth Incident,” VT 8.1 (1958): 97–98. Mark Leuchter also argues that the designation יִתָרְפֶא has a theopolitical importance “in presenting Jeroboam as a legitimate Davidic type.” “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” JBL 125.1 (2006): 60.

24 Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg states, “Elkanah . . . is described as an Ephrathite. Here the word is meant to indicate the Ephraimite descent of the family and not, as in Ruth 1:2 (cf. Micah 5:2), to describe a clan of Bethlehem.” 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (Westminster, 1964), 22–23. Hertzberg’s differentiation appears to be based on his assumption that “the hill country of Ephraim” must mean the tribal territory of Ephraim.

25 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 4 (emphasis original).

26 David G. Firth, 1 and 2 Samuel, ApOTC 8 (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 49; and Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 1 and 2 Samuel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Lexham, 2015), 1 Samuel 1:1, ebook.

27 Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, 107 (emphasis original).

28 Leuchter, “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” 60.

29 Leuchter, 61

30 Many scholars note the connection between the end of the Book of Judges and the beginning of 1 Samuel. For example, J. P. Fokkelman states, “In Hebrew narrative art a geographical name is often more than a neutral spatial co-ordinate. This phenomenon is well-illustrated by the end of Judges and the beginning of Samuel.”Vow and Desire, trans. L. Waaning-Wardle, vol. 4 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, SSN 31 (Van Gorcum, 1993), 6. See also Robert Polzin, 1 Samuel, part 2 of Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (Indiana University Press, 1989), 23–24, 29–30; and Johanna W. H. van Wijk-Bos, The Road to Kingship: 1–2 Samuel, A People and a Land 2 (Eerdmans, 2020), 16-17.

31 Hoffner makes a similar observation. 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Sam 1:1, ebook.

32 Aaron Demsky demonstrates that there is a chiastic layout to these chapters, and he provides a helpful map detailing the area of the Ephrathites. “The Clans of Ephrath: Their Territory and History,” TA 13.1 (1986): 46–59.

33 Demsky, 51 (emphasis suppressed)

34 McCarter, for example, takes exception with the reading of the Masoretic Text, since he is convinced that Zuph must be in Ephraim. He writes, “As generally agreed MT ʾereṣ yĕmînî, “the land of Benjamin” (!), cannot be correct. Saul, who has been traveling for some time, is about to reach the land of Zuph. To assume that he has somehow doubled back to Benjamin leaves any reconstruction of the itinerary in shambles.” 1 Samuel, 174.

35 Not all will agree with this presupposition of course, but it seems more reasonable to trust the accuracy of the ancient authors (or redactors), who were closer to the events and geography, than to trust modern interpretations, which are farther removed. The fact that many modern interpreters equate “the hill country of Ephraim” with only the tribal territory of Ephraim is a case in point.

36 Rachelle Gilmour, “Suspense and Anticipation in 1 Samuel 9:1–14,” JHebS 9 (2009): 9, https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a10.

37 Edelman, “Saul’s Journey,” 44. For a detailed summary of the various itineraries suggested by scholars, see 44–48.

38 Edelman notes that K. Budde observed this in 1881. Because Edelman supposes that “the hill country of Ephraim,” must refer to Ephraimite territory, she contends that Budde contradicts himself because he locates the various areas mentioned in 1 Samuel 9:4 within the tribal territory of Benjamin (48).

39 Edelman, 50.

40 McCarter, 1 Samuel, 174.

41 Yamin is often translated as “Benjamin,” which is a possible meaning. Tsumura states, “The term seems to be a designation of a district like Shalishah and Shaalim rather than of the tribal group.” First Book of Samuel, 264n10.

42 Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, 2 Kings, AB 11 (Yale University Press, 1988), 59.

43 Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan, 2001), 307.

44 Scholars can be found who support both positions. For example, D. E. Garland states, “ ‘The Third Day’ is a Semitic idiom referring to an unexpectedly short period of time.” “Third Day,” in ISBE, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1977–88), 4:840. On the other hand, Rhiannon Graybill, John Kaltner, and Steven L. McKenzie reference two earlier scholars (Bauer 1958; Eynikel 2005) when they maintain that “three days as a measure of time is frequently a topos for a relatively long period.” Jonah, AB 24H (Yale University Press, 2023), 224 (emphasis original)

45 McCarter, 1 Samuel, 163, has a map of Saul’s travels that suggests a wide area covered while looking for the lost donkeys. V. Philips Long states that if the areas mentioned in 1 Samuel 9:4 are in Ephraimite territory, then Saul’s search covered some sixty miles over its three-day duration. “1 Samuel,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, ed. John H. Walton (Zondervan, 2009), 2:312. Driver states that to cover this distance in three days “does not seem very probable.” Notes on the Hebrew Text, 70.

46 There is nearly unanimous agreement among scholars that modern Tel el-Ful should be equated with ancient Gibeah. For a summary of the evidence and various identifications of Gibeah, see S. Shalom Brooks, “Gibeah, Geba,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson (Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), 330–32.

47 There is still some question as to the location of Ramah of Benjamin. Most scholars suggest modern er-Ram, which correlates well with the biblical data (e.g., Judg 19:13; Isa 10:29; Hos 5:8). See Patrick M. Arnold, “Ramah,” in Freedman, ABD, 5:613–14. The vicinity of present-day Ramallah is also suggested by some, such as Aaron Demsky, based on the assumption that 1 Samuel 1:1 locates Elkanah’s home near the border of Ephraim and Benjamin. “Where Was Rachel Buried?,” TheTorah.com, updated 2023, https://www.thetorah.com/article/where-was-rachel-buried.

48 The Manasseh Hill Country Survey begun by the late Adam Zertal in 1978 is still in process. The survey consists of a small team meeting each Friday and traversing the country on foot searching for ancient sites. This survey, a little farther north than where Saul and his servant would have been searching for the lost donkeys, illustrates what a painstaking task it is to search for something in the central hill country and the length of time involved in such a search. Serge Frolov, while assuming a larger search area, makes the same point: “All reconstructions of Saul’s journey, including my own . . . represent his route as a line. It is obvious, however, that simply pushing forward would be an ineffective way of looking for the lost animals. If Saul and his servant ever cared about finding their livestock, they had no other choice but to comb one area after another; this is why it took them three days (9.20) to reach the city of anointing that could hardly be more than a dozen miles away.” “The Semiotics of Covert Action in 1 Samuel 9–10,” JSOT 31.4 (2007): 435n10

49 The current structure dates to the Crusades. However, Matitiahu Tsevat points out that the location of Rachel’s tomb (whether in Benjamin or Judah) was already confusing rabbis in the early centuries AD. “Studies in the Book of Samuel: Interpretation of 1 Samuel 10:2: Saul at Rachel’s Tomb,” HUCA 33 (1962): 107n1.

50 E.g., R. Riesner, “Archeology and Geography,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 34.

51 Na’aman, “Settlement of the Ephrathites,” 516–29. See also, Serge Frolov and Vladimir E. Orel, “A Nameless City,” JBQ 23.4 (1995): 252-56.

52 Demsky, “Where Was Rachel Buried?”

53 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Jewish Publication Society, (1989), 408.

54 See e.g., Tsevat, “Studies in the Book of Samuel,” 112.

55 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Eerdmans, (1995), 386.

56 Ernst Vogt, “Benjamin geboren ‘eine Meile’ von Ephrata,” Bib 56.1 (1975): 30–36.

57 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2 (Word, 1994), 32

58 Vogt, “Benjamin geboren,” 34.

 

Character Studies, The Book of Samuel

Was King Saul a Victim or a Sinner?

6 Comments

Was King Saul a Victim or a Sinner?

King Saul: Victim or Sinner?
Part of the modern debate concerning King Saul is whether he was a victim or a sinner.

The story of King Saul in the books of 1&2 Samuel is certainly tragic. When Saul dies on the battlefield against the Philistines (1 Sam. 31), it is hard not to feel that a life of great potential has been wasted. As a reader of Saul’s story, I do not celebrate his demise but feel a sense of sadness and grief. Interestingly, David is portrayed as having the same feelings in spite of Saul’s tireless pursuit to destroy him (2 Sam. 1). Some modern commentators have an even stronger reaction to Saul’s story, suggesting that the cards were stacked against him from the beginning. Saul becomes a victim of Yahweh, or Samuel, or the pro-Davidic author. Thus, a modern debate has emerged as to whether King Saul was a victim or a sinner? In other words, were the choices that Saul made responsible for his downfall, or was there a more sinister plan at work? Was there a divine plan that spelled doom for Saul from the very beginning no matter he did? Was he merely a pawn in the Divine game plan of kingship?

Saul Was a Victim: Gunn and Brueggemann

Gunn’s View

Saul as victimAlthough one can find ancient Rabbis who extolled Saul as one of Israel’s heroes, the modern debate was fueled by two scholars in particular. The first of these, David M. Gunn, published a work entitled: The fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story in 1989, arguing for the victimization of Saul by Israel’s God. In examining the sin of Saul described in 1 Samuel 13 and 15, Gunn concludes: “. . . there is essentially no failure on Saul’s part to be accounted for, no failure, that is to say, for which he can be held seriously culpable” (p. 56). Furthermore, he states, “From the moment of his anointing the future is loaded against him (in the form of the fatally ambiguous instruction of 10:8) and from his establishment as king in chapter 11 it is as though fate has become his active antagonist, thwarting and twisting his every move” (p. 115). For Gunn, this stacking of the deck against Saul, must ultimately be blamed on Israel’s God, Yahweh. Gunn takes a very low view of God, or at least, as he sees how the story presents God. He writes, “Expressed in terms of a story of character and action, however, Saul falls victim to Yahweh’s resentment at an imagined insult (the “sin”) and becomes the pawn (or scapegoat) in a process (the “expiation”) whereby Yahweh vindicates his shift of attitude towards the monarchy and buttresses his shaken self-esteem” (p. 128). That’s about the nicest thing that Gunn has to say about Yahweh’s portrayal in the books of Samuel. He goes further when he writes, “Yahweh manipulates Saul mercilessly, and he does so for what, on most people’s terms, must count as less than honourable motives. He is insulted, feels jealous, is anxious to justify himself. It is tempting to say that this is the human face of God—but to say that would be perhaps to denigrate humankind, which is not something this Old Testament story does; rather we might say that here we see the dark side of God” (p. 129). Gunn’s Star Wars terminology (theology?) is found again in the final lines of his book where he notes that while the David story does show a “light side” to God, when it comes to Saul, the story shows that “God does have a dark side” (author’s emphasis, p. 131).

Brueggemann’s View

Saul was a victimA year following the appearance of Gunn’s work, Walter Brueggemann produced a commentary in the Interpretation series on First and Second Samuel (Brueggemann, W. (1990). First and Second Samuel. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press). Brueggemann also argued that Saul’s fate was predetermined. Although the responsibility for this ultimately must be laid at God’s feet, Brueggemann spends a lot of time villainizing the prophet Samuel. Regarding Samuel’s rebuke of Saul in 1 Samuel 13 he writes, “On all these grounds it appears that Samuel plays a daring, brutal game with Saul’s faith, Saul’s career, and eventually Saul’s sanity. We do not know if Samuel had the oracle in hand and withheld it from Saul or if there never was in fact such a promise. Is the statement only a fabrication designed to torture Saul? We do not know” (p. 101). Brueggemann suggests that Samuel’s antagonistic nature toward Saul might be partially responsible for Saul’s later instability. Brueggemann also casts blame on both the inspired author and God when he states, “If so, Saul’s argument and justification were irrelevant and he never had a chance—because the narrative has stacked the cards in the favor of David; because Samuel is so partisan; because the literature is deeply committed to David, even before David explicitly appears in the literature; because Yahweh had committed to David before the literature was ever cast” (p. 101). Once again Saul is cast as a victim, which leads Brueggemann to conclude: “The outcome is that Saul is defeated by the combination of Yahweh-Samuel-David before he ever joins the struggle” (pp. 101-102).

Saul Was Not a Victim, He was a Sinner

Saul was not a victimMost evangelical commentators take the more traditional interpretation that Saul was rejected because of his own disobedient choices. Robert Vannoy notes the controversy over whether Saul was victim or sinner and states, “While it is clear that Saul faced great difficulties in assuming the responsibilities of his office, it is not so clear that his behavior is properly understood as that of a pawn moved about on the chessboard of life by a malevolent deity” (Vannoy, J. R. (2009). Cornerstone Biblical Commentarya: 1-2 Samuel (Vol. 4, p. 94). Tyndale House Publishers). In a recent commentary, V. Philips Long summarizes Saul’s problem this way: “The heart of his failure is his neglect of the word of Yahweh. Saul obeys up to a point, but that is the problem. He obeys only up to the point at which other concerns begin to carry more weight” (Long, V. P. (2020). 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary (D. G. Firth, Ed.; Vol. 8, p. 168). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.).

Conclusion: Victim or Sinner?

Saul was not a victimThe words “victim” and “sinner” are laden with emotion in today’s society. One is a popular term used to derive pity (and at times to manipulate!), while the other is an unpopular, seemingly judgmental term rarely used. Vannoy notes the power of the term “victim” when he writes, “This approach {i.e., Gunn’s and Brueggemann’s] agrees not only with the opinion that Saul had of himself but also with the contemporary tendency to account for many human failures by appealing to victimization” (p. 94). In spite of the popular “victim mentality,” so prevalent in western society, there are a number of good reasons why 1&2 Samuel picture Saul as a sinner, not a victim.

  1. One of the primary messages of 1&2 Samuel is first enunciated in 1 Samuel 2:30 when God states, “Those who honor me, I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” This statement explains the basis on which God raises up some and brings down others (see my article on the theology of Samuel). V. Philips Long  notes this as well (p. 168).
  2. In the Hebrew canon, the books of Samuel fall among the division known as The Prophets. Specifically, 1&2 Samuel are among the Former Prophets (Joshua-2 Kings). Each of these books highlight the importance of the prophetic word. As such, Saul’s continual violation of God’s word demonstrates a disobedient nature. As king, Saul is God’s representative. Therefore, when Saul continues to misrepresent God through his disobedience, his kingship is terminated. The importance of this truth is emphasized in Samuel’s speech in 1 Samuel 12:14-15, 24-25), which immediately precedes the accounts of Saul’s disobedience.
  3. The narrative goes to great lengths to demonstrate that God does everything in his power to set Saul on the right path toward godly kingship. A) God gives Saul 3 confirming signs through Samuel that he has been chosen as king (1 Sam. 10:1-7); B) God changes Saul’s heart (1 Sam. 10:9); C) God fills Saul with his Spirit, Saul prophesies, and people who know Saul are amazed at the change in him (1 Sam. 10:10-13); D) God touches the hearts of valiant men to join Saul and support his kingdom (1 Sam. 10:26); E) God gives prophetic guidance to Saul through Samuel; F) God gives Saul multiple opportunities to demonstrate his obedience.

When all of the above factors are taken into consideration, it becomes apparent that 1&2 Samuel are demonstrating that Saul’s rejection is his own fault. In spite of God’s (and Samuel’s) best efforts, Saul willfully disobeys. Thus, Saul is not a victim; he is a sinner.

I do not mean to minimize the circumstances of those who truly are victims today. There are some, through no fault of their own, who are victimized by evil people. We can even find this in Scripture (e.g., the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19). Saul, however, is not a victim. His story stands as an example for those who choose the path of disobedience and experience its consequences. As unpopular as the term today might be, Saul is a sinner and sin and sinner are words we would do well to add back into our modern vocabulary. Today many are considered victims and few are considered sinners. In reality, however, it is most likely the other way around.

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Who Was Bathsheba? How Intertextuality helps

1 Comment

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

 

Character Studies, The Book of Samuel

Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel

Leave a comment

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

 

Motifs in Samuel, The Book of Samuel

Clothing in Samuel: You Are What You Wear

3 Comments

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