2 Chronicles 32: Hezekiah’s Better Side

Leave a comment

Hezekiah’s Passover, which gets no mention in Kings, took up three chapters. That leaves us with only a single chapter to cover all of the content from 2 Kgs 18-20. It goes without saying that the story ends up a wee bit abbreviated. And since the Chronicler seems to have decided that the Hezekiah is a stand up kinda guy, that abbreviation frequently ends up making him look better.

We begin with the Assyrian assault on Judah, though it’s introduced rather awkwardly: “After these things and these acts of faithfulness [referring to the Passover and religious revival] Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah” (2 Chron. 32:1). With all the ado made in our readings so far about faithfulness keeping enemies at bay, I found this first – as it is constructed – rather striking.

Of course, the Chronicler does try to soften the blow when he has Sennacherib only lay siege on Judah’s cities in the hope of taking them, whereas he succeeds in taking them in 2 Kgs 18:13.

Hezekiah meets with his officers to form their strategy, and they decide to focus on defence. So they stop up the water coming to Jerusalem from springs outside the city, making an extended siege more difficult for the Assyrians. Though not mentioned until 2 Chron. 32:30, tradition and 2 Kgs 20:20 credit Hezekiah with the construction of the Siloam tunnel, which would have been a far more defensible means of getting water into the city.

He also built up the city’s defensive structures, as well as a stockpile of weapons and shields. And while he really should have done so earlier, he at least took the time now to appoint commanders for his armies.

In discussing these preparations, James Bradford Pate noted that the Chronicler seems to generally approve of building up Judah’s strength for defence or conquest, but only so long as it doesn’t involve other nations. Hiring mercenaries or forming alliances always seems to earn a punishment, ostensibly because it displays a lack of trust in God to provide protection and victory. Yet, Pate points out, aren’t Hezekiah’s preparations essentially the same thing?

For Pate, a difference is that involving other nations might lead to compromise. I would add that alliances, such as the one Kings describes between Hezekiah and Egypt, probably weren’t founded on friendship between two equal parties. In a case like that, it’s doubtful that Egypt would have needed Judah’s aid so much as Judah needed Egypt’s. That kind of arrangement, though called an alliance, might well have been something more like a vassal agreement, and therefore a show of weakness as far as the Chronicler was concerned.

Building up Judah’s own strength is the opposite of that – it is increasing strength. If the Chronicler were to wear a trucker hat, it would likely read, “Make Judah great again!”

All of these preparations are in marked contrast to 2 Kgs 18, where Hezekiah’s response to Sennacherib’s advances is to capitulate immediately. He asks Sennacherib for a price, then pays it by stripping the Temple. (Though, ultimately, the gesture appears to have been futile, as both Hezekiah’s still end up with the Assyrians at Jerusalem’s walls.)

Back to Chronicles, Hezekiah gathers all of his commanders together in the square by the city gate. Though gathering the nation’s entire leadership structure together in a confined space may not seem like a particularly inspired plan, it does allow Hezekiah to give them all a nice little pep talk about how the Assyrians are nothing to be concerned about, “for there is one greater with us than with [Sennacherib]” (2 Chron. 32:7).

The Siege

During all this, Sennacherib was busy besieging Lachish with his entire force. Unable to make it to Jerusalem himself, he sent some servants to tell the people of the city that Hezekiah was misleading them, condemning them to die by famine and thirst.

The Death of Sennacherib, by an unknown Italian master, c.1300

The Death of Sennacherib, by an unknown Italian master, c.1300

Shouting in the language of Judah so that the people inside the city could hear and understand, the Assyrians ask how Hezekiah can claim that God will stand by them when he has been dismantling so many of God’s altars. We may take this either as further evidence of the YHWH cult’s evolution, or as evidence of Sennacherib’s own ignorance of the Jerusalem religion.

The messengers go on to boast of Sennacherib’s many conquests, and of the many gods who have so been unable to protect their peoples against him: “No god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or from the hand of my fathers” (2 Chron. 32:15).

This all plays out somewhat differently in 2 Kgs 18, where representatives of Hezekiah go out to meet Sennacherib’s messengers and implore them to speak Aramaic so that the denizens of Jerusalem won’t understand their taunts (they, of course, refuse). In that account, the Assyrians make similar accusations about Hezekiah destroying God’s shrines, but also add that Egypt won’t be able to save Jerusalem either. The Chronicler makes no mention of Hezekia’s alliance with Egypt.

2 Chron. 32:20 has Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz praying and crying out to heaven, but leaves out all the detail (including Isaiah’s prophecy) from 2 Kgs 19:14-34.

In both accounts, God sends an angel to slaughter Sennacherib’s army, though 2 Kgs 19:35 has the angel kill 185,000 soldiers, apparently indiscriminatingly, while 2 Chron. 32:21 mentions no number and targets the commanders and “mighty warriors.” In both cases, the result is the same: the Assyrian army is forced to retreat in shame.

When Sennacherib, back in his own homeland, enters the temple of his god, he is murdered by his own sons. The Chronicler’s language (or, perhaps, his translators’) suggests that this occurred as soon as he returned from the failed conquest of Judah, and perhaps because of it (to ask for forgiveness, or perhaps to express anger at having been let down). 2 Kgs 19:36-37, however, do not seem to connect the circumstances of Sennacherib’s death to Judah.

If there really were bodies left on the field after the Assyrian retreat, I would imagine that these accounts exaggerate the damage that the defending army had been able to do to the invading army, and that Sennacherib’s sudden retreat likely had more to do with pressing matters at home (as his eventual fate suggests).

However victory was achieved, the Chronicler tells us that Hezekiah was exalted in the sight of all nations for it, and received many gifts and tributes.

In Closing

The story of Hezekiah’s illness and Isaiah’s use of a festively appropriate figgy pudding in 2 Kgs 20:1-11 is almost entirely glanced over. All we get is a little mention of Hezekiah being ill, God answering his prayers, and Hezekiah not appreciating it because he was too proud (2 Chron. 32:25).

This caused wrath to come down on both him and Judah, but Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem humbled themselves, and God stayed his hand. Hezekiah was therefore able to continue accumulating his wealth.

The Chronicler briefly mentions envoys from Babylon who come to Hezekiah, but tells us only that God kept mum to see what Hezekiah would do. This would be a very strange detail without the context from 2 Kgs 20:12-19, where Hezekiah shows off his wealth to the Babylonians. He is then rebuked by Isaiah, who tells him that all the nice stuff he’s shown them will one day be taken – along with the people of Judah – off to Babylon. Hezekiah treats this as good news because it means that it won’t happen during his own lifetime.

And thus our section on Hezekiah comes to a close. For more information, the Chronicler sends us to the writings of Isaiah the Prophet in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.

The council of funerary technicians apparently approved of Hezekiah, for he was buried among his fathers, and all of Judah and Jerusalem did him honours. He was succeeded by his son, Manasseh.

1 Chronicles 11: David’s uncomplicated rise

Leave a comment

Skipping straight from Saul’s death in the last chapter to David’s ascension as king, the Chronicler leaps right over the succession conflicts of 2 Samuel 2-4. In this narrative, David’s rise was effortless and conflict-less.

Right from the start, we see all of Israel congregating in Hebron to declare David as their new king. Repeating their speech almost verbatim from 2 Sam. 5:1-3, they reinforce David’s claim by saying that he had truly been the one leading them from the start, even while Saul was king in name. They make a covenant with David, and Samuel anoints him.

1 Chronicles 11 - Samuel anointing DavidWith all of Israel on his side, David turned toward Jerusalem. The Jebusites taunt David, saying that he will never enter his city. But then, wooops, he conquers it anyway. Parts of the story are copied word-for-word from 2 Sam. 5:6-10, except that all references to David’s hatred for people with physical disabilities are replaced by his vow to promote the first person to kill Jebusites (or perhaps to rush forward at the Jebusites) to the rank of chief and commander. This seems like a fairly awful way to pick leaders, given that leadership skills aren’t terribly correlated with “rush into battle and kill stuff” skills. I get that the point is to reward bravery, but this seems like the Peter Principle in action. The point is only more clearly made when we find out that it is Joab who goes first, earning his place as chief. And we all know how well that turned out (1 Kgs. 2:5-6).

My New Bible Commentary notes that Joab’s promotion here would seem to conflict with 2 Samuel, where Joab is already functioning as commander prior to the taking of Jerusalem. Yet, “the commander-in-chief of the king of Judah would not automatically have become commander-in-chief of the king of all Israel” (p.375). In other words, it’s possible that Joab was already commander, but had to re-earn his position in the new national government. Assuming historicity for a moment, this doesn’t seem unreasonable.

James Pate notes a problematic difference between this chapter and 2 Sam. 5:6-10: Whereas in 2 Samuel, David seems to have chosen Jerusalem as his capitol because it was centrally located and because it did not belong to any particular tribe (therefore avoiding the argument of favouritism), the Chronicler gives David complete support from all Israel before he turns to Jerusalem, and in fact shows a pan-tribal attacking army. So why, then, would David have needed to take Jerusalem? Pate discusses the issue in his post.

Once David took Jerusalem, it began to be known as the city of David. He and Joab then set to work repairing the city (and presumably building it up), and thus did David become ever greater.

The Mighty Men

The rest of the chapter lists the men of David’s elite army. It is nearly identical to the list found in 2 Sam. 23:8-39, though with additional names added to the end. One theory is that the 2 Samuel version ended with Uriah to rhetorically underscore the evil that David had done to him in 2 Sam. 11, whereas the Chronicler may have been working with a more complete list.

We begin with the elite of the elite, known as the Three. The group’s leader was Jachobeam, a Hachmonite, who once killed 300 enemies with his spear at one time (the number is 800 in 2 Sam. 23:8, but the difference could be caused by confusion with another warrior, Abishai, who killed 300 in 2 Sam. 23:18 and 1 Chron. 11:20).

The other two members of the Three are mashed together here, apparently due to a scribal error. In 2 Sam. 23:9-12, we learn of two members of the group: Eleazar son of Dodo the Ahohite and Shammah son of Agee the Hararite. In the 2 Samuel version, Eleazar was with David when they defied the Philistines. The Israelite army was routed, but Eleazar kept fighting until his arm grew weary – long enough to win the battle. When the Israelites returned, it was only to strip the dead. As for Shammah, the Israelite army was again routed, but Shammah stood in a plot of lentils, defending it until the Philistines were defeated.

The Chronicler’s version, however, tells us only of Eleazar, and how he was with David at Pasdammim when the Philistines gathered against them. Even though the Israelites were routed, he stood his ground in a field of barley and defeated the Philistines. It’s rather easy to see how a scribe’s eye might skip in two such similar stories.

Before getting into the Thirty, we learn of three men from the band of Thirty (there’s no indication that they are the Three) who came to David while he was in hiding in the cave of Adullam (his stay is narrated in 1 Sam. 22:1-5) while the Philistines occupied Bethlehem.

David seems to have been feeling rather sorry for himself, and said (with much sighing, I imagine) that he wished he could have some water to drink from one of the wells of Bethlehem. These three members of the Thirty heard him (or perhaps overheard him, depending on the interpretation) and took it upon themselves to go fetch that water for David. So they snuck through the Philistine guards, into Bethlehem, and drew the water.

When they returned, however, David refused to drink it. Instead, he poured it onto the ground, saying: “Shall I drink the lifeblood of these men?” (1 Chron. 11:19). How David looks in this story depends entirely on the reader’s interpretation. If he had asked his men who fetch him the water, then his actions are just awful. But if he was just moping about, feeling sorry for himself, and they happened to overhear him and did something foolish that he hadn’t wanted them to do, then he is some degree of less awful. At least no Beckets were killed this time.

The chief of the Thirty was Abishai, Joab’s brother. Like Jachobeam, he too killed 300 enemies at one go with a spear. The other member of the Thirty whose deeds are worth mentioning is Benaiah son of Jehoiada, of Kabzeel, the captain of David’s bodyguards. He killed two whole ariels of Moab, which I’m sure is very impressive whatever an ariel is. He also killed a lion in a pit on a day when snow had fallen, the significant of which is lost on me, but I’m sure that too is very impressive. He also duelled a very large Egyptian who wielded a spear like a weaver’s beam. Benaiah lunged in with his staff and, snatching the oversized spear from the Egyptian’s hands, killed him with his own weapon.

The rest of the Thirty are given as a simple list:

  1. Asahel brother of Joab
  2. Elhanan son of Dodo of Bethlehem
  3. Shammoth of Harod
  4. Helez the Pelonite
  5. Ira son of Ikkesh of Tekoa
  6. Abiezer of Anathoth
  7. Sibbecai the Hushathite
  8. Ilai the Ahohite
  9. Maharai of Netophah
  10. Heled son of Baanah of Netophah
  11. Ithai son of Ribai of Gibeah, of the Benjaminites
  12. Benaiah of Pirathon
  13. Hurai of the brooks of Gaash
  14. Abiel the Arbathite
  15. Azmaveth of Baharum
  16. Eliahba of Shaalbon
  17. Hashem the Gizonite
  18. Jonathan son of Shagee the Hararite
  19. Ahiam son of Sachar the Hararite
  20. Eliphal son of Ur
  21. Hepher the Mecherathite
  22. Ahijah the Pelonite
  23. Hezro of Carmel
  24. Naarai the son of Ezbai
  25. Joel the brother of Nathan
  26. Mibhar son of Hagri
  27. Zelek the Ammonite
  28. Naharai of Beeroth, the armor-bearer of Joab and son of Zeruiah
  29. Ira the Ithrite
  30. Gareb the Ithrite
  31. Uriah the Hittite
  32. Zabad son of Ahlai
  33. Adina son of Shiza, the Reubenite, who was a leader among the Reubenites and was accompanied by 30 of his brethren
  34. Hanan son of Maacah
  35. Joshaphat the Mithnite
  36. Uzzia the Ashterathite
  37. Shama son of Hotham the Aroerite
  38. Jeiel, Shama’s brother
  39. Jediael son of Shimri
  40. Joha, brother of Jediael, a Tizite
  41. Eliel the Mahavite
  42. Jeribai son of Elnaam
  43. Joshaviah, also a son of Elnaam
  44. Ithmah the Moabite
  45. Eliel
  46. Obed
  47. Jaasiel the Mezobaite

These are, of course, way more than thirty men. It seems that the name of David’s elite company was chosen for its neat roundedness (or perhaps its accuracy at some earlier date).

2 Kings 12: Infrastructure Maintenance

1 Comment

I noticed in the last chapter that Jehoash’s name is written differently in different sections of the text. There, he was called Joash in the narrative portion, but switched to Jehoash for the chronological summary. Here, it’s the reverse.

Jehoash’s reign is situated, beginning in the seventh year of Jehu’s rule in Israel. It lasted forty years. We also learn that his mother was Zibiah of Beersheba (for some reason, I fudged the genealogy and said in my last post that he was Athaliah’s son – he was, in fact, her grandson). Our author tells us that Jehoash was great because he was educated by the priests. This conflicts with the assessment in 2 Chronicles 24:17-19, where Jehoash fell into idolatry. It’s possible that we have two separate traditions, each with their own assessment of Jehoash’s time as king. Another possibility is that the author means to tell us that Jehoash was great while he was educated (read: controlled, or under the influence of) the priests. Not that he remained awesome until his death. This explanation is complicated, however, by the fact that Jehoash’s death is given some narration space, yet the reasons for it are not given here (the Chronicles account will tell us that Jehoash’s assassination was a response to his idolatry).

Construction Corruption

There are certainly hints of conflict between Jehoash and the priests, though. At some point in the first twenty-three years of his reign, he dedicated some of the money raised by the priests to be used in repairing the temple. How this was supposed to work is explained in some detail, but rather confusing, and mentions “acquaintances” from whom the priests were supposed to collect these funds.

According to my New Bible Commentary, ‘acquaintance’ was “a technical term which occurs in Ugaritic texts along with priests, temple prostitutes, and silver casters. The suggestion has been made that they were ‘assessors’, possibly to help the priests fix the cost or value of sacrificial animals and other offerings” (p.357). So it seems that they were not meant to solicit donations from their acquaintances – my first stab at understanding the passage – but rather physically collect the value from those who might exchange gifts in kind into money.

King Jehoash Collects Funds to Repair the Temple  II KIngs 12:9-14But by the twenty-third year of Jehoash’s rule, the priests still had not used any of the money collected (or failed to collect the money – a less likely but possible interpretation) to make repairs to the temple. It seems no coincidence that Jehoash would have been 30 at this time, established enough in adulthood, perhaps, to break free of the priests’ control. Reading between the lines, it seems that the priests took advantage of Jehoash’s youth and dependence on them to enrich themselves – at the expense of the temple itself. That Jehoash was then forced to rein them in puts an interesting spin on the Chronicles claim that he was given to idolatry (which, as we’ve seen with Jeroboam’s bulls, appears to be used for anyone who renounces the authority of the Jerusalem priests).

To interfere with this corruption, Jehoash forbids the priests from taking the money directly. Rather, a donation box is built and placed in the temple. When a donation is made, the priests who guard the temple’s threshold must put it into the box, where it is kept until it can be weighed and placed in bags by another party (controlled by the king?) and then delivered to the workmen tasked with making repairs.

Guilt and sin offerings would not go into the box, as these properly belonged to the priests. The money collected isn’t to be used for special furnishings (such as trumpets, vessels, basins, etc). The detail isn’t explained, though my study Bible speculates that it may have had to do with the funds available – enough for structural repairs, but not enough for furnishings. Having been in many Catholic churches growing up, I wondered if this might not be evidence of more corruption. Perhaps Jehoash feared that the priests would spend the money on things like gold or silver bowls, things that look very fancy and increase prestige in the short term, yet continue to neglect the less spectacular maintenance of the building’s structure.

Yet despite the fact that Jehoash’s collections box appears to be a response to corruption, the text specifically tells us that the men who delivered the money to the workmen performing the repairs were not to be made to account for the funds, “for they dealt honestly” (2 Kings 12:15). How can they be known to deal honestly if they aren’t accounting for the funds? This could be an indication of the distrust between the religious and “secular” (to the extent that the Jerusalem monarchy could be said to be secular at this time) authorities. If the men who are acting as intermediaries between the temple and the workmen are the king’s, not holding them accountable might be a power play.

Mention of Jehoash’s repairs to the temple are mentioned in an artifact known as the Jehoash Inscription. Whether or not the inscription is authentic appears to be a matter of debate, with consensus seeming to fall on the opinion that it is a modern forgery.

Syria’s Advances and the End of Jehoash

Around this time, King Hazael of Syria has been busy. After conquering Gath, he sets his sights on Jerusalem. To hold him at bay, Jehoash loots both palace and temple, paying Hazael to turn back. This arrangement seems like vassalage, but without the ongoing nature of such agreements.

At this point, Jehoash’s name switches back to Joash as, at the end of his reign, some of his subjects begin to conspire against him. His term ends when two of his subjects, Jozacar son of Shimeath and Jehozabad son of Shomer, murder him. He is succeeded by his son, Amaziah.

1 Kings 11: Mistakes were made

1 Comment

When it comes to women, Solomon has gotta catch them all – or at least a multi-national representative sample. Over his lifetime, he manages to accumulate 700 wives and 300 concubines (almost certainly hyperbole, though such numbers – and higher – are not unheard of for kings), brought in from many nations, including some that God specifically forbade (a reference to passages like Deut. 7:1-4).

The passage is clearly meant to be a shock, an indication of just how far Solomon had fallen, though it’s the sin seems more to be the foreignness of the women than their number.

Solomon led astray, by Giovanni Battista Venanzi, 1668

Solomon led astray, by Giovanni Battista Venanzi, 1668

As Solomon ages, we are told that his wives began to steer him toward their foreign gods, even though God had specifically told Solomon not to stray! Solomon builds a “high place” dedicated to Chemosh (the Moabite god) and Molech (the Ammonite god), and his wives build some high places of their own.

At first reading, I assumed that this meant that Solomon was a polytheist (or at least taking Pascal’s Wager to its logical conclusion), but now I’m wondering if accommodating his wives’ faiths might not simply have been part of the marriage deal. The women are described as princesses, and the marriages are diplomatic. Dogmatically cutting off the women from something as deeply meaningful as the worship of their natal lands could have caused trouble. It’s entirely possible, then, that Solomon remained personally faithful to YHWH, but provided accommodations for the other faiths in his household.

Regardless, God is a jealous god, and he decides that he will give Israel to Solomon’s “servant” (1 Kgs 11:11). Only, for David’s sake, he will wait until after Solomon has died before doing it. The use of Israel here refers to the northern tribes, as will be made clear later on. Once again, it seems rather clear that Deut. 17:14-20 was written specifically with Solomon in mind.

Adversaries

As punishment for Solomon tolerating other gods, God raises up three adversaries to make trouble for David’s dynasty.

The first is Hadad of Edom. We’re told that David campaigned in Edom, and that Joab slaughtered every male Edomite (it’s not clear whether this was at David’s command or just another example of Joab being Joab). Either way, it’s clearly hyperbole.

Hadad was only a child (or perhaps a young man) when this happened, and he fled with a small retinue to Egypt, where he was given shelter and the Pharaoh’s sister-in-law for a wife. He seems to have had a fairly close relationship with the Pharaoh, as his son, Genubath, was weaned by the queen and raised alongside the princes. He asked to return to Israel once he hears that David has died.

Incidentally, the queen is named Tahpenes. My New Bible Commentary claims that this is “believed to be an Egyptian title meaning ‘the wife of the king'” (p.336), making it the equivalent of “Pharaoh,” rather than a personal name. However, I didn’t find very much support for this online. Instead, sources like this one seem to agree that Tahpenes seems related to the name of a city, and that both mean “Head of the Age.”

The second adversary is Rezon, the son of Eliada. The grammar is a little fuddled, but either Rezon or Eliada fled from King Hadadezer of Zobah, and Rezon became a bandit leader. With his band, he returned to Damascus and was made the king of Syria. The trajectory of fleeing a court, raising an army, and returning to take power is eerily similar to David’s own rise. Incidentally, it seems that we may have some independent attestations for King Hadadezer.

The final adversary is internal, and this one has God’s backing. Jeroboam, son of Nebat and Zeruah, was an Ephraimite and a servant of Solomon. Remember back in 1 Kgs 11:11, where God said he would give Israel to one of Solomon’s servants? Yeah, the author just stuck a big neon sign pointing directly at Jeroboam.

Jeroboam was put in charge of the forced labour raised from “the house of Joseph” (1 Kgs 11:29), meaning from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, during the construction of the Millo. One day, he left Jerusalem and met the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite. It seems that Shiloh was not destroyed as implied by 1 Samuel 6, and was still a location of sufficient cultic significance to still be producing prophets.

Ahijah tore his robe (which we are told was new, so we can know that he really meant it) into twelve pieces in some rather obvious symbolism. He handed Jeroboam ten of those pieces, indicating that God would grant Jeroboam leadership of ten tribes (the northern tribes). One piece of the robe is to belong to Solomon, for David’s sake. The twelfth piece is never mentioned – there are several theories circulating for why this might be the case, but nothing seems particularly definitive.

If he is faithful, Jeroboam will get his dynasty (albeit only a temporary one) once Solomon has died.

It seems that Jeroboam was not quite willing to wait that long, or perhaps had thought to get a head start at winning the support of the northern tribes, because Solomon tried to kill him. In a story that feels rather similar to David’s escape from Saul to the court of a foreign king, Jeroboam flees to Egypt and the court of King Shishak – the first Pharaoh to be mentioned by name. He remains there until Solomon’s death.

King Shishak is thought to be Sheshonk I, the founder of the Kushite dynasty in Egypt. He is known to have lead a campaign into Canaan, which might explain why two out of our three adversaries found protection and support in Egypt. A great strategy for winning military campaigns is to destabilize a country by stirring up and supporting internal dissent.

Finishing up the chapter, we are directed to the book of the acts of Solomon if we’d like to know more details about Solomon’s reign. But for text itself, the author is content to simply tell us that he reigned forty years, died, and was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam.

1 Kings 9: Hints of trouble

Leave a comment

God last phoned home in 1 Kings 3, where he gifted Solomon some wisdom (among other things). Like an absent father who does try to keep in touch sometimes, God calls in to congratulate Solomon for having build “all that Solomon desired to build” (1 Kgs 9:1), what with the temple and the palace, and a bunch of fortifications, and the palace for his Egyptian queen, and whatnot.

The conversation is fairly typical Deuteronomist fair: Follow the rules and all will be well, disobey and I’ll exile you. This time, he has a temple to point to and can tell Solomon that “this house will become a heap of ruins” (1 Kgs 9:8) if he’s disobeyed. Interestingly, he points again to David as both a religious exemplar and as an example of the rewards for faithfulness. You know, the David who lost a child and then his throne at least once (possibly twice) because God was angry with him. But now the gears have shifted and he is the paragon king. It’s the privilege of the dead, I suppose.

Dream of Solomon, by Luca Giordano, 1693

Dream of Solomon, by Luca Giordano, 1693

The rest of the chapter hints at Solomon’s mismanagement of Israel as he focused on his grandiose building projects. We’re told that he gave twenty cities to King Hiram of Tyre, who had previously sold him the wood for use in construction. It would be an odd thank you gift, since Solomon paid for the wood, and is made odder still when we learn that King Hiram sent Solomon 120 talents of gold. This suggests that Solomon sold parts of the country to Tyre. But Solomon seems to be a jerk to his friends as well as his subjects, as Hiram was quite disappointed in the cities when he visited them. So disappointed, in fact, that “they are called the land of Cabul to this day” (1 Kgs 9:13). The meaning of Cabul is unknown, but seems related to “like nothing.”

This is followed by a list of Solomon’s building projects, which required forced labour to build. The list includes something called “the Millo,” which is mentioned as already existing in 2 Sam. 5:9, so either Solomon improved it, rebuilt it, or one of the sources was in error. The list also includes Gezer, which we are told was conquered from the Canaanite inhabitants by Pharaoh. Despite burning the city down and slaughtering its inhabitants, Pharaoh thought it was still a suitable dowry, and gave it to Solomon along with his daughter. Solomon then rebuilt it.

Apparently contradicting 1 Kgs 5:13, we’re here told that the forced labour Solomon used was of the non-Israelite variety. Instead, he forcibly enslaved all the other ethnic groups left in the country, such as the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Unlike the Israelite levy, these other enslaved groups remained enslaved “to this day” (1 Kgs 9:21). It’s possible that the distinction is in the type of forced labour, that when the text reads that “of the Israelites Solomon made no slaves” (1 Kgs 9:22), what is meant is that they are merely forced to work for the government for a defined period of time, but that their status is not changed to slave. It could also be that the brute labour was to be done by the non-Israelites, whereas the Israelite levy was to work as overseers and such (which appears to be supported by this chapter).

There’s a very brief mention of Solomon’s cultic activities, telling us that he made offerings three times a year at the temple. Knowledge of the context is assumed, unfortunately, but it seemed to me that Solomon was acting as a Priest King, leading the sacrifices at three major festivals per year. If that’s correct, then we see something of a continuation of the Mosaic tradition, with the strict division between king and priest not being introduced until later on. This would all be supported by 2 Samuel 8:18, where David’s sons were made priests despite being Judahites, not Levites. It seems that, at the time of the early monarchy, the royal family was still intimately involved in the ritual life of the nation.

There’s a final note about one of Solomon’s trade ventures. Despite the disappointment of the twenty cities, King Hiram continues to be on Team Israel and helps Solomon build a bunch of ships for a trade mission to Ophir so that Solomon can get gold.

2 Samuel 5: Up the water shaft

Leave a comment

With all of Saul’s heirs either dead or crippled, the way is cleared for David to finally fulfil the promise God made way back in 1 Sam. 16. All the tribes of Israel gather at Hebron, saying that David was always the real military leader even while Saul was king. They also reiterate that God had said that David would become king of Israel. So David’s kingship is explained in two parts: the first being his personal actions (as a leader in the war against the Philistines), and the second being God’s will. It’s an interesting break from the Deuteronomist idea that leaders are leaders through God’s will only (though distanced a little by the claim being placed into the mouths of the Israelites, and therefore possibility made in ignorance).

Once the Israelites are done stroking David’s ego, he makes a covenant with them and the deal is sealed. Unless I’m mistaken, it is in this chapter that the narrator first refers to David as “the king” (2 Sam. 5:8).

The narrator then summarizes his reign, saying that he was 30 years old when he became king, and ruled 40 more (7.5 of them in Hebron ruling only over Judah, and 33 of them over all of Israel from Jerusalem).

Taking Jerusalem

Now that we know that David will spend most of his reign in Jerusalem, we must find out how he gets there.

The story is a little confusing, but what I get from it is that David first sets his eyes on Jerusalem and moves toward it. Believing themselves sufficiently safe behind their walls, the Jebusites living in Jerusalem taunt David, saying, “the blind and the lame will ward you off” (2 Sam. 5:6). The implication seems to be that they believe their defences to be so strong that they would hold even if manned only by the disabled.

In response, David takes the stronghold of Zion and commands his men to go “attack the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul” (2 Sam. 5:8). Yikes.

His response could easily be seen simply as a one-liner response to the Jebusite taunt – they say they could hold him off with only disabled people, so David says “so let’s go kill the disabled.” Slightly less charitably, it could be that he’s turning their insult around to claim that all Jebusites are disabled (which makes sense in context, but is certainly not PC).

Water Shaft, from Friends and Heroes

Water Shaft, from Friends and Heroes

And if that were the end of it, it could be marked off as just some macho man posturing. Unfortunately, the narrator then says that David’s expressed hatred for the disabled is the reason why “the blind and the lame shall not come into the house” (2 Sam. 5:8), presumably meaning the Temple and referencing rules like those found in Leviticus 21-22. While coming from the pen of a narrator writing long after David’s death, this addition changes David’s statement from a mere (if ill-conceived) one-liner in response to a taunt, to an expression of actual hatred for the disabled. Major yeeesh.

While the account is somewhat glossed over, it seems that David’s men were able to get around Jerusalem’s defences and infiltrate the city by exploiting a weakness in the city’s water supply (he has them climb up the “water shaft,” which I can only imagine refers to either a well or a sewer).

Once David takes Zion, he calls it the City of David, which sounds just a tough egotistical. But at least he seems to treat it well, as we learn that he builds up the city around it.

We’re also told that he receives some wood, carpenters, and masons from King Hiram of Tyre (suggesting that David is being taken seriously by neighbouring rulers), and they build him a palace.

We also get another summary of his family’s growth. This time, the mothers of his children are not named. We learn only that he has increased his concubine store, and that he has several more sons and daughters (daughters are specifically mentioned this time), named Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet.

Why Jerusalem?

Jerusalem has a bit of a confusing history. We were told in Judges 1:8 that the city was conquered by Judah and burned, and it’s implied in 1 Sam. 17:54 that it’s in Israelite hands. Yet in Judges 1:21, we’re told that Benjamin failed to take the city, and it is clearly in the hands of the Jebusites in Judges 19:11 and 2 Samuel 5.

Despite the discrepancy, we see a hint at why David may have chosen Jerusalem – it was clearly claimed by both Judah in Judges 1:8 (his tribe) and Benjamin in Judges 1:21 (Saul’s tribe).

Being Jebusite, the city was not currently owned by any Israelite tribe. As Victor Matthews points out in Manners & Customs of the Bible, the choice would perhaps “remove the hint of favoratism towards his own tribe” (p.84), while still being well-defensible (once that water shaft issue is addressed) and fairly centrally located.

Basically, Jerusalem was the Israelite version of Ottawa.

Philistines incoming

We’re not privy to the break between David and the Philistines, and here David’s former alliance goes entirely unmentioned. But it seems that the Philistines figured out that David was no longer on their side once he became king of the their enemies, because they move out against him.

The narrative is sparing in details, but it seems that David had some warning of the Philistine advance and had time to hide himself in a stronghold.

There are two battles between the Israelites and the Philistines narrated, both taking place in the valley of the Rephaim (remember the Rephaim?). In both cases, David first asks God if he should move against the Philistines.

In the first battle, God says yes and David defeats the Philistines, naming the place Baalperazim – meaning “the Lord of breaking through” and referring to the way that “the Lord has broken through my enemies before me, like a bursting flood” (2 Sam. 5:20). There’s no indication here that it’s anything other than a poetic expression giving God credit for the victory, rather than God literally taking an active part in the battle.

The second time, God tells David to sneak around the Philistines and hide among the balsam trees. They are then to wait until they hear the sound of marching in the tops of the trees (presumably the sound of the wind rustling the leaves), at which time they will know that God has gone ahead to kill the Philistines for them. This time, God’s role is seen to be literal.

It seems that both stories may simply be origin stories for the location’s name.

At the end of the first battle, we’re told that the routed Philistines leave behind their idols, and that David and his men carry them off. This could be seen as retribution for the Philistine theft of the ark in 1 Sam. 4, or as another example of the same concept – stealing gods as a way of decreasing the enemy’s morale.

In the beginning of the chapter, the Israelites credited David’s right to the crown in part to his leadership in battle. Here, the author(s) seems to be trying to reclaim the “God first, God only” view, having David very explicitly seeking out God’s counsel and following his instructions, and giving God a role (a very major role in the second case) in the military victory.