41

The Time of the Kings Is Established in the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 1:18:18)
Why does David kill the Amalekite?
What does the song of and lament and the song of the bow tell the implied reader?
Why does David offer the house of Saul a covenant of peace? What are the deeper
ramifications?
What does Davids lament for Abner and for Sauls son give evidence of to the house of Saul?
In chapters 14, the author has prepared the reader for Davids rise to kingship.
David is shown as being loyal to the house of Saul by honoring Saul in his death in punishing
the !alekite who killed "ahwehs anointed #vv. 1$1%&, and in his 'a!ent for (onathan and
Saul in the Song of the )ow #1*1+$,+&. David then reaches out to the house of Saul and offers
a covenant of peace with the! because they showed such courage to their king in rescuing
his body fro! the -hilistines, but bner !ade Sauls son, Ish$bosheth, king over Israel #,*1$
1.&. war between the house of David and the house of Saul ensued for the ne/t few years,
but Sauls house beca!e weaker and Davids house beca!e stronger, until bner offered to
hand over Israels kingdo! to David #,*11$0*01&. bner was un2ustly killed by (oash because
he had killed his brother earlier in a fight. Davids la!ent for bner was accepted by the
people as proof that he had nothing to do with the killing. 3hen Ish$bosheth was killed by
two of his rebel leaders, David again la!ented and killed his assassins further showing his
loyalty to the house of Saul and his innocence in taking the kingdo! by stealth and deceit
#4*1$1,&. David then !ade a covenant with all Israel and beca!e their king #4*1$4&.
4,
Why is the capture of Jerusalem significant and what Old estament Scripture does is fulfill?
Why is the final defeat of the !hilistines important here?
What do we learn about "od in this narrative that has been developing throughout the book?
Why is the mention of #ichal important here in relation to Sauls house?
David then captured (erusale! fro! the (ebusties setting up his kingdo! there,
!oving it fro! 5ebron #4*%$1%&. David ne/t defeated the -hilistines which !ade it possible
for David to refocus his attention on the proper worship of "ahweh #4*%$,4&. 6inally, David
brought the ark up to (erusale! in order to restore the nations worship of "ahweh. In the
process he had to learn that all things !ust be done properly as was co!!anded by 7oses.
"ahweh was a holy 8od who could not be treated lightly #%*1$11&. 9he narrator !entions the
reaction of 7ichal who despised Davids actions. Davids response cuts off any chance of the
household of Saul rising to power again, as she never gives birth to a child, thus stopping any
chance of an heir #%*,.$,0&.
The Davidic Covenant (2 Sam :1!2")
Why is the Davidic covenant the ideological point of view of the book?
What is the play on words for house here?
In , Sa!uel +*1$,1, we have the proposed point of view of the book of Sa!uel.
fter "ahweh had given David rest fro! his ene!ies on every side, David proposed to build
a house for "ahweh. :athan gave the word to proceed for "ahweh was with David. 9his was
occasioned by the successful con;uest of (erusale! #, Sa! 4*+& and the transporting of the
rk of the <ovenant to the new capital of Israel #, Sa! %*1,&. )ut :athan failed to consult
"ahweh who had other plans. :athan is rebuked by "ahwehs response to David by 5is
40
e/plicit instructions to :athan.
1
8od is characteri=ed by 5is rhetorical ;uestions. 5e answers
the! all. 3e are learning about "ahwehs character through his ;uestioning.
,
"ahweh had
never co!plained or even asked that Israel build 5i! a house #, Sa! +*+&. "et, the story
takes a surprising twist* "ahweh would build a house for David.
David #e$%ests to &%ild a 'o%se fo( )ah*eh (2 Sam%el :1-11a)
Why is it important the "od take the initiative in building the house and not David?
In the Davidic covenant, 8od is portrayed as sovereign in hu!an affairs* 5e
brings rest to David fro! all his ene!ies. 8od is characteri=ed as one who is with David.
0

David and the nation prosper because 8od is with the!. "ahweh is the causative agent in the
history of Israel and guarantees >ing Davids success and future dynasty. 8od is portrayed as
redirecting hu!an desires or plans, as giving rest to David? thereby, David now has the
option to build a house. 3e also learn that 8od has a special relationship with David as he is
called 5is servant, a rare honor only given to 7oses up to this point in salvation history.
4
9he
i!plication is that 8od is in charge, even though David and 7oses had i!portant roles to
play. Delegated authority is seen as when 8od first used 2udges to rule his people, and 5e
1
>eith )odner, @:athan* -rophet, -olitician and :ovelistAB Journal for the Study of the Old
estament 14 #,..1&* 4+. )odner argues that the !essage to David is a !essage to :athan as well. 9he rebuke
and corrective perspective is !eant for a wider audience than David alone. 9his will be seen in :athans later
appearances and procla!ations for "ahweh.
,
>enneth 7. <raig, (r., @9he <haracter#i=ation& of 8od in , Sa!uel +*1$1+,B Semeia %0 #1110&*
1%1.
0
Ibid., 1+1.
4
Ibid., 1%C. <raig and others see the influence of the Deuterono!ic 5istory #D9D& in the book of
Sa!uel. 9he Deuterono!ic 5istory is an interpretive theory that places the co!position of the for!er prophets
in a pre$e/ilic to post e/ilic perspective. 9his paper argues against this interpretive viewpoint. 9he literary
perspective is , Sa!uel +. >ings and <hronicles will carry this perspective on into their books. If one views the
book of Sa!uel fro! an e/ilic perspective, the !essianic pro!ise is null and void through four hundred years
of Israels !onarchy and the kings have no David or Saul to !odel their reigns after. Sa!uels !essage is
irrelevant for the generations who lived in >ings and <hronicles histories, but if the book was written near the
ti!e of :athan and 8ad then the i!portant !essage of 8ods lovingkindness to Israel and their king will give
hope to the nation and hope for an anointed redee!er king. 9he D9D also destroys the literary integrity of each
books individual !essage.
44
now will use David as a prince to shepherd the flock.
4
3hen David takes the initiative, it is
detri!ental to the unconditionality of the covenant. 8od takes charge by taking back the
initiative and telling David that "ahweh 5i!self would build David a house.
%
It is a dra!atic
effect to point out the nature of the covenant #unconditional&, not to show "ahweh is slacking
on the 2ob.
$ow would Davids name be made great? %&plain this'
In this section, we have Davids re;uest, :athans response, and then "ahwehs
response dictated to :athan. )ut beyond the narration itself, ideological points of view are
e/pressed by "ahweh. Ene of these ideological or theological points of view that arises is
braha!ic. David is pro!ised that his na!e would be !ade great #v. 1&. 9his is an
braha!ic blessing. 5ow would Davids na!e be !ade greatA It would be through a
pro!ised Davidic royal heir.
$ow are the Davidic and Abrahamic (ovenants linked?
9he author links the Davidic <ovenant to the braha!ic <ovenant* in the
@braha!ic Fgreat na!eB #cf. 8en. 1,*, and , Sa! +*1&.
+
Gnder David, finally, the two
great ai!s of the pro!ise to braha!, land and people, so far as they referred to Israel
physically, had been brought together.B
C

4
Ibid., 1+.$1+1.
%
'yle 7. Hslinger, $ouse of "od or house of David? he )hetoric of * Samuel +, (ournal for the
Study of the Eld 9esta!ent* Supple!ent 1%4 #Sheffield* Sheffield cade!ic -ress, 1114&, ,%. Hslinger argues
that David is trying to contain and control the deity through a te!ple co!ple/. )ut the unconditionality of the
covenant should be the focus here not the control of "ahweh confined in a house.
+
7ichael . 8risanti, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B he #aster Seminary Journal 1., no. , #1111&*
,4+$4C? Hugene 5. 7errill, +ingdom of !riests, A $istory of Old estament -srael #8rand Dapids* )aker, 11C+&,
1C4.
C
3. (. Du!brell, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B )eformed heological )eview #11C.&* 44. See also
Deut 1,*11. as a necessary condition for a place for "ahwehs na!e to dwell.
44
lso, note that the title and na!e donai "ahweh #hwhy ynda& is used in
8enesis 14*, and C by braha!, and here it is used seven ti!es #, Sa!. +*1C, 11 I,/J, ,.,
,,, ,C, ,1&.
1
9hese references to braha!ic <ovenant link the! to Davidic <ovenant.
$ow does the #osaic (ovenant compete and coincide with the Davidic (ovenant here?
What does the term .- am with you imply'/
$ow is sonship integrated into the biblical theology of the O here?
$ow is the concept of the priesthood applied to David here?
second ideological viewpoint that arises is the 7osaic <ovenant. 7osaic and
Sinaitic allusions are evident in the preceding chapters. 3hen David secures (erusale! fro!
the (ebusites, a site is established for the capital #Deut 1,*4, 11, 1C? 01*11& and when the ark
is brought to (erusale!, the glory of Israel is restored in their !idst #H/ 4.*04$04&. David
renews the focus on the 7osaic 'aw and the glory of "ahweh in the tabernacle. 9he
tabernacle is central to the i!!ediate and broader conte/t. 9hey are allusions to the H/odus
and the 7osaic <ovenant.
1.
8od had never co!plained about wandering about in a tent all
these years #vv. ,, %$+&. 9he phrase @I a! with youB is a covenantal ter! of partnership #8en
,%*0, 01*0? H/od 0*1,, 14, 4*1,, 14? Deut 01*,0? (osh 1*4, 0*+? (udg %*1%&. 9he reason David
has been successful is because 8od has been with hi! in his battles. 5e has re!e!bered 5is
people and 5is covenant, and David is an instru!ent of 5is pro!ise.
11
lso, the concept of
sonship is applied to Davids heir, si!ilar to H/odus 4*4. 9he priesthood of Israel that was
offered in H/odus 11*4 see!s also to apply to Davids heir. 5ere is where -sal! 11. could
a!plify the !eaning. 5e will be a priest according to the order of 7elchi=edek. 3e have in
1
8risanti, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B ,4+.
1.
Hslinger, $ouse of "od or $ouse of David? he )hetoric of * Samuel +, 01.
11
Ibid., 0+.
4%
David, the role of priesthood taken up, not only for his heir, but as a representative of all
Israel.
What is the ideological point of view of the 0oahic (ovenant?
What is poetic 1ustice and how does it confuse the reader?
third ideological point of view is the world view that we have seen in the book
of (udges. 8od !entions the 2udges 5e had appointed to deliver the! fro! their ene!ies #v.
11a&. 9his ideological viewpoint is the viewpoint that confuses the reader. It is this conflict
with unpunished sin, or delayed retributive 2ustice that brings doubt to the 2ustice and
sovereignty of 8od. 9he fact that 8od is longsuffering co!plicates poetic 2ustice, which is
when the perpetrator gets everything he deserves in a ti!ely fashion. In our story, the reader
does not know if choices are good or bad until he sees 8ods hand finally intervening in
hu!an affairs. So!eti!es the reader never sees it, but e/pects it in the hereafter. 9his world
view is what pro!pted the :oahic <ovenant. So we see the point of view of (udges which is
a :oahic view of longsuffering. Instead of destroying Israel for their sin, 8od was
longsuffering and sent 2udges to rescue the!.
What is the Adamic 2%denic3 ideological point of view?
fourth point of view is the da!ic viewpoint #Hdenic& where "ahweh gives
Israel @restB fro! their ene!ies #8en 4*,1? Deut 0*,.? 1,*1.? ,4*11, (osh 1*10, ,1*44, ,,*4,
,0*1& and @plantsB the! #8en ,*C, H/ 14*1+& in the @placeB 5e chooses #Deut 1,*4, 11, 14*,0,
1%*,, %, 11, ,%*,&.
1,
David and Israel are given rest fro! all their ene!ies. 9he -hilistine
threat has been re!oved and all the ene!ies of the land are defeated. 9he !!onites are still
around, but technically they are outside of the land and are not an i!!inent threat. 9his can
also be called the Deuterono!ic point of view often cited by historical critics. 9his is because
1,
9hese can also be considered H/odus, or Deuterono!ic !otifs as well. )ut there are se!inal in
Hden. 9he tabernacle is the focus of the place where "ahwehs na!e will be worshipped. 9he tabernacle is a
representation of the 8arden of Hden where !an originally had unhindered fellowship with 8od.
4+
Deuterono!y 1%,. is often alluded to in the book of Sa!uel, particularly a place that
"ahweh will choose.
10
What is the dominant point of view in this passage? Why? $ow do all of the complementary
points of view converge in this covenant?
9he fifth and do!inant ideological point of view is the Davidic <ovenant.
14
9his
viewpoint e/plains how Israel can survive as a nation by 8od providing a faithful king who
will act 2ustly as "ahwehs representative. 9his king !ust sub!it hi!self hu!bly to "ahweh
or he will be disciplined, yet 8od will not re!ove hi! as 5e did Saul. 8od will build this
house #a physical and spiritual dynasty&. 3hen David !entions building "ahweh a house, it
will steer the reader in that direction #vv. ,, 4, %$+, 11b&. ll of these viewpoints converge in
this passage, they are not necessarily dia!etrically opposed viewpoints, but co!ple!entary
as they build off of each other in Israels salvation history. 9he do!inant view point does not
suggest superiority, but rather is used as the interpretive cru/ of the narrative as a whole.
Why do competing points of view confuse the reader? "ive some e&amples'
What are polyphonic points of view? "ive some e&amples' What is irony and how is it related
to point of view?
9his single viewpoint will subordinate all others in the work.
14
9here !ay also be
!ultiple evaluative #ideological& viewpoints that are incorporated in a single te/t.
1%
@If the
various viewpoints are not subordinated, but are presented as essentially e;ual ideological
10
Deuterono!y 1%,. contains !any sub$the!es in Sa!uel* a faithful priest, divination, not
eating the blood, a place and a king that "ahweh will choose.
14
)oris Gspensky, A !oetics of (omposition, he Structure of the Artistic e&t and ypology of a
(ompositional 4or!, trans. Kalentina Lavarin and Susan 3ittig #'os ngeles* Gniversity of <alifornia -ress,
11C0&, 11.
14
Ibid., C$1.
1%
Ibid., 1.
voices, we have a polyphonic narration.B
1+
9his !ay be the confusion in Sa!uel. 3e have
co!peting or co!ple!entary points of view being heard fro! the character and the narrative
events #5annah, Hli, Sa!uel, Saul, David and the various !inor characters like bigail&.
@9he presentation of !ultiple points of view gives the narrative depth, and, to a large e/tent,
!akes it good narrative. 9wo !a2or effects of the use of !ultiple points of view are
a!biguity . . . and irony, which was !entioned in connection with , Sa! 1C*11$0,.B
1C
@Irony
occurs when we speak fro! one point of view, but !ake an evaluation fro! another point of
view? thus, for irony the nonconcurrence of point of view on the different levels is a
necessary re;uire!ent.B
11
poe!, a song, a saying, a co!!ent, or an action fro! a character
!ay also fra!e the ideological point of view.
,.
Saul is the epito!e of irony. 9he viewpoint
that is presented for Saul, is nonconcurrent with the do!inant viewpoint of the author. 9hese
four co!peting and co!ple!entary viewpoints are now shaped by a new Davidic <ovenant
point of view.
The Davidic Covenant: )ah*eh+s ,(omise to David (2 Sam%el :11b!1-)
$ow does "od make a play on the word house here?
@5ouseB is an i!portant concept in the Davidic <ovenant. It goes deeper than a
physical house. 8od is uni;ue? 5e is not like David who needs a house. 5e does not dwell in
a house, but a house will be built so that 5is na!e will dwell there. 8od turns the
conversation and uses a pun on the 5ebrew word house* David wants to build a house for
1+
Ibid., 1..
1C
dele )erlin, !oetics and -nterpretation of 5iblical 0arrative, )ible and 'iterature Series 1
#Sheffield l!ond, 11C0&, 41.
11
Gspensky, A !oetics of (omposition, he Structure of the Artistic e&t and ypology of a
(ompositional 4or!, 1.0.
,.
Ibid., 11$1%.
4C
41
8od that re;uires building !aterials? 8od wants to build a house for David that re;uires
people #dynasty&.
,1
What is phraseological point of view? $ow is it used here?
:athan reports to David "ahwehs pro!ise of a house. :athan shifts fro! a third
person narration to a first person narration. 5e starts by saying "ahweh will !ake a house for
you, then shifts to direct speech* @I will raise up your descendants after you.B 9his narration
gives the i!pression that either 8od is speaking through :athan or 8od is speaking directly
to David. 9his is an e/a!ple of phraseological point of view. 9his happens in a na!e shift or
in direct speech* he said, she said. In this case, pronouns are used* 9hus says the 'ord or the
use of the pronoun @IB as 8od speaks through :athan. -hraseological point of view tells the
reader who @has the floorB or whose point of view is represented. 9he te/t tells us :athan
spoke all these words in accordance with all this vision. Is is :athan speaking or "ahwehA
9his is forceful either way, because "ahweh is seen speaking directly to David in a revelatory
!anner. 9his gives incredible authority to the pro!ise. It is not :athan speaking any!ore,
@8o, do all that is in your !ind, for the 'EDD is with youB #v. 0&. Dather we have an even
stronger authoritative word, @9hus says the 'EDDB #v. 4, C, 11b&.
What kind of house is this? $ow is this a figure of speech? Why is the concept of sonship
here significant? Why is hesed important here? Why would man fail without hesed? $ow is
this a paradigm shift in regards to ideological point of view? Why would "od include the
name of Saul in so important of a covenant?
9his is no ordinary house though, this is a dynasty. 5ouse is used as a figure of
speech for Davids future dynasty.
,,
Davids heir would build the physical house for "ahwehs
na!e, but "ahweh would establish the enduring throne of Davids kingdo! forever #vv. 1,$
,1
<raig, @9he <haracter#i=ation& of 8od in , Sa!uel +*1$1+,B 1+,.
,,
8risanti, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B ,01.
4.
10&. 7oreover, "ahweh says, @I will be a father to hi! and he will be a son to 7e.B 9he
perspective is divine* a divine Son. David is thinking physical house, 8od is speaking of a
spiritually established house. 9he point of view here is epic in nature. 9his is no ordinary
pro!ise? this is a paradig! shift fro! a revelatory perspective. link is !ade to the 7osaic
covenant in the ter! lovingkindness #h 6 esed&, @3hen he co!!its ini;uity, I will correct hi!
with the rod of !en and the strokes of the sons of !en, but 7y lovingkindness shall not
depart fro! hi!, as I took it away fro! Saul, who! I re!oved fro! before youB #vv.14b$
14&. 3ithout the covenant kindness #h 6 esed& of "ahweh, !an would utterly fail. I!!ediately,
the reader begins to see why Saul failed !iserably. 5e did not have the lovingkindness of
"ahweh to fall back on. 'ovingkindness #h 6 esed& is the key covenantal ter! that triggers
re!e!brance of the 7osaic covenant. 9he Davidic covenant, as presented here, will also be
defined by "ahwehs lovingkindness. It is a!a=ing that in this earth shaking covenant, the
na!e of Saul should be !entioned. 3hy would 8od or Israel want such an e/a!ple of
kingly failure to be forever etched into the !e!ory of such a blessed national pro!ise of
eternal hopeA It highlights the difference between Saul and David* 8ods h 6 esed partnership
with David. 9he focus is not on !an #David&, but on 8od #5is attribute of covenant
kindness&.
What are the Abrahamic and #osaic elements that are present in the covenant? What are
some new elements? -s this covenant unconditional or conditional?
:otice the braha!ic and 7osaic ele!ents that are present in this pro!ise #a
great na!e, !y people, plant the! #land&, give the! rest, offspring, !y son&. 9his Davidic
pro!ise also has new ele!ents #Davids seed will build a house for 8ods :a!e, 8od will be
his father, and Davids heir will be "ahwehs son, and Davids dynasty will endure forever&.
lso, notice the unilateral wording of the covenant #@I willB&.
41
$ow is this a paradigm shift in regard to the progress of revelation and theological point of
view? Why must the implied reader now view the book from this perspective?
3e now have a new and different ideological or theological point of view in the
progress of revelation. It is the Davidic <ovenant. 8od will guarantee a royal heir to Davids
throne forever. nd because of "ahwehs lovingkindness he will not end up like Saul. 9he
narrative !ust be read with this new point of view in !ind. 9he Davidic <ovenant tru!ps all
the other perspectives. Davids success or failure is due to 8ods covenant kindness. If the
reader had trouble understanding the story up to this point, it was because this point of view
is new in the progress of salvation history. 9he reader now has a new fra!ework fro! which
to interpret the narrative. 9he key word in this new perspective is h 6 esed'
Why is hesed the key term here?
In the conte/t of the Davidic covenant, the word h 6 esed cannot be treated lightly. It
is to be associated with the 7osaic covenant as a key ter! of national preservation, and a key
link to the 7osaic <ovenant, and now it is the one word that separates David fro! Saul.
Davids heirs will be preserved because of this special covenantal relationship that they have
with "ahweh.
$ow does the David (ovenant represent the nation as a whole and not 1ust an individual?
$ow does David represent -srael as a #ediato7!reserver?
9he Davidic covenant appears at first glance to be a covenant pro!ised to an
individual. )ut in conte/t of the braha!ic and 7osaic <ovenants, David as king, who sits
on "ahwehs throne, represents the nation that he rules over it.
,0
9herefore, the Davidic
pro!ise, although pro!ised to David and his seed, is applied to the nation of Israel as well.
,4

,0
Du!brell, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B 4%$+.
,4
7ark >. 8eorge, @6luid Stability in Second Sa!uel +,B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly %4 #,..,&*
04.
4,
David as king represents Israel as their !ediator preserver to the 7osaic <ovenant and
braha!ic blessing.
$ow does the king fulfill his role as a mediator preserver? $ow can the covenant be
unconditional and have conditions on the king?
9he king is pro!ised an unconditional covenant, but he will have to obey the
7osaic <ovenant as a representative of Israel to stay in the land and to be blessed. If he fails,
he will be punished, but the unconditional royal pro!ise stands. @9he proper role of the
Davidic king was to lead his people in keeping 9orah. 5erein lies an i!portant convergence
between the 7osaic and Davidic covenants. 9he Davidic ruler should epito!i=e the
standards of the 7osaic <ovenant, even though his confor!ity or lack of confor!ity to those
standards does not deter!ine whether or not "ahweh will one day bring to reali=ation the
provisions of the Davidic <ovenant.B
,4
@9here is no conflict here, but a distinction is being drawn between the generality
of the pro!ises to the line and their particularity to David. In general ter!s, the line would
not fail. "et in particular ter!s its benefits !ight be withdrawn fro! individuals.B
,%
3hen
David sins with )athsheba and !urders Griah, 8od de!onstrates that 5is pro!ise is
effective. David does not die, his son does, and the sword does not depart fro! his house. )ut
"ahweh does not re!ove his lovingkindness as he did fro! Saul.
,+

Why didnt David wind up like Saul?
Saul is a living e/a!ple of what h 6 esed does not !ean. In the 7osaic covenant,
h 6 esed was the word that e/e!plified Israels partnership with 8od. It was because of
"ahwehs covenant kindness #h 6 esed& that 5e allowed the partnership to continue. 9he golden
calf rebellion was a de!onstration of 8ods h 6 esed toward Israel as he renewed the covenant,
,4
8risanti, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B ,41.
,%
Du!brell, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B 44.
,+
8risanti, @9he Davidic <ovenant,B ,40.
40
even though, 5e could have destroyed the!. 3e saw 5is divine attributes of !ercy portrayed
to the world through 5is covenant kindness #h 6 esed&. 9he sa!e scenario is happening here.
8od is de!onstrating 5is h 6 esed to David and Israel through the e/a!ple of Saul. 8od did
not have to e/tend 5is !ercy to David. 5e did not have to guarantee Davids lineage. 5e did
not have to !ake a covenant with David, but 5e did. It is de!onstrated through Saul. David
should have gone the sa!e way as Saul, if it were not for the covenant faithfulness #h 6 esed& of
"ahweh. 8ods act of h 6 esed in the book of Sa!uel gives the reader a better understanding of
h 6 esed in the 7osaic covenant. Hslinger states, @7ore than transgressor, Saul is victi!. 5e
was in the right place at the wrong ti!e. 5e was the king that Israel i!posed on "ahweh and
thus the king that "ahweh eli!inates at first opportunity.B
,C
I !ight add, he was at the right
place, but the wrong tribe #8en 41*1.&. Davids successor will not find hi!self in the sa!e
position as @Saul, the co!pro!ise king,B but Saul defines the punish!ent as a @co!parative
point of referenceB with everything e/cept the re!oval of the successor.
,1

$ow is the Davidic (ovenant the resolution of the conflict of Samuel?
9here is !ore to glea! fro! this passage about the characteri=ation of "ahweh.
"ahweh has established a divine relationship with David and his sons. 3e find that "ahweh
will be a heavenly father to Davids heir. 9his heir will be divine. "ahweh will penetrate
hu!an history in a son of David and son of 8od. 3e also learn about the co!passionate
nature of "ahweh as 5e takes control of hu!an history in a !essianic son, because sinful
!an could not save hi!self as is shown in Saul. 8od re!oved his h 6 esed fro! Saul, therefore
he failed? but, 5e pro!ised to never re!ove 5is h 6 esed fro! Davids son, because of this
uni;ue covenant relationship.
,C
Hslinger, $ouse of "od or house of David? he )hetoric of * Samuel +, %..
,1
Ibid., %,.
44
David #es.onds to )ah*eh+s ,(omise: 2 Sam%el :1!2"
$ow does Davids reaction to the covenant show its significance? $ow does the
phraseological use of Adonai 9ahweh link this with Abrahamic promise? Why is it messianic
in nature? Where was there a clue in the book where a messianic figure is first hinted at?
3e can appreciate this divine pro!ise by e/a!ining Davids response to it. It is
!onu!ental. David was stunned when he reali=ed the i!portance of the divine pro!ise.
David reali=ed that this was no ordinary house #tyB&, but that this pro!ise of a house or
dynasty would be fulfilled in the distant future #v. 11&. >aiser states that the phrase @the
custo! of !anB that David used here is i!portant. It refers to a @charter with hu!anityB
#~dah trAT tazw>&.
0.
David reali=es that this @charter, law or torah of !anB is
universal in blessing #8en 1,*0&. 9he rest of the chapter is devoted to this thought. 9his
charter with hu!anity is what we call the Davidic <ovenant. David conte!plates this offer
by 8od, repeats it, accepts it, and blesses "ahweh for 5is gracious offer. Hle!ents of the
braha!ic and 7osaic covenants are enco!passed in this pro!ise. It is essentially a uni;ue
covenant in 8ods progress of revelation that will stand with the braha!ic and 7osaic
<ovenant. David see!s to recogni=e the braha!ic ;ualities of this offer and uses the ter!
@donai "ahwehB seven ti!es linking it with braha!ic pro!ise.
01
It is the na!e that
braha! used when he asked 8od for a proof of a son.
0,
It is also !essianic in nature. 8od
has revealed and pro!ised to David a !essianic heir. If the point of view is this specific, then
the reader needs to look for these clues in the narrative #1 Sa! ,*1.&.
0.
3alter <. >aiser, he #essiah in the Old estament #8rand Dapids, 7ich* Londervan
-ublishing 5ouse, 1114&, +1$C1.
01
Ibid., C..
0,
D. . <arlson, David: the (hosen +ing, A raditio7$istorical Approach to the Second 5ook of
Samuel, trans. Hric (. Sharpe and Stanley Dud!an #Stockhol!* l!;vist M 3iksell, 11%4&, 1,+.
44
$ow is the term covenant implied even though it is not mentioned? %&plain the covenant
terms used'
lthough the ter! covenant is not used in the conte/t, it is obviously i!plied. 3e
see this directly in Davids farewell speech, where he does !ention covenant #, Sa! ,0*4?
see also -ss C1*04, 10,*1,&. David also used legal covenantal ter!s because he was aware of
the significance of this unconditional pro!ise that was being !ade right before his very eyes
#know Iv. ,.$,1, [dyJ, good things Iv. ,C, hbAjJ, redee! Iv. ,0, hdPJ, establish Iv. ,4,
,%, !WKJ&. 9he e/pression @good wordsB or @good thingsB #bAj& is in reference to treaty
!aking.
00
5e cites , Sa!uel +*,C in reference to the covenant with the Davidic dynasty* @. . .
"our words are truth, and you have pro!ised this good thing to your servant.B David is
speaking in regards to covenant treaty here. 9he word good #bAj& has been identified as a
covenant or treaty ter!.
04
9he ter! has been found in treaties in the ancient :ear Hast and
translated as @a!ity established by treaty.B
04
9here are two clear e/a!ples of its treaty usage*
@Do not seek a treaty of friendship #bAj& with the! as long as you liveB #Deuterono!y ,0*%,
:IK&.
0%
5e is speaking in regards to the 7oabites and !!onites who opposed the! in their
!arch to the -ro!ised 'and. 9he second usage is when David offers the valiant !en of
(abesh$gilead an offer of @goodnessB because of the h 6 esed they showed to Saul. David sent
!essengers to the !en of (abesh$gilead, and said to the!, @7ay you be blessed of "ahweh
because you have shown this kindness to Saul your lord, and have buried hi!. :ow !ay
"ahweh show lovingkindness and truth to you? and I also will show this @goodnessB #bAj& to
00
braha! 7ala!at, @Ergans of Statecraft in the Isrealite 7onarchy,B 5iblical Archeologist
NNKIII, no. , #11%4&* %4.
04
7ichael 6o/, @9ob as <ovenant 9er!inology,B 5ulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
)esearch ,.1 #11+0&* 41$4,? Dilbert D. 5illers, @ :ote on So!e 9reaty 9er!inology in the Eld 9esta!ent,B
5ulletin of the American Schools of Oriental )esearch 1+% #11%4&* 4%$+? 3. '. 7oran, @ :ote on the 9reaty
9er!inology of the SefOre Stelas,B Journal of 0ear %astern Studies ,, #11%0&* 1+0$%.
04
7oran, @ :ote on the 9reaty 9er!inology of the SefOre Stelas,B 1+4? 5illers, @ :ote on So!e
9reaty 9er!inology in the Eld 9esta!ent,B 4%.
0%
5illers, @ :ote on So!e 9reaty 9er!inology in the Eld 9esta!ent,B 4%.
4%
you, because you have done this thing. :ow therefore, let your hands be strong and be
valiant? for Saul your lord is dead, and also the house of (udah has anointed !e king over
the!B #, Sa! ,*4$+&. David is offering the! a friendship treaty #bAj& here. Saul is dead,
David is now >ing of (udah, and he e/tends the sa!e h 6 esed they showed Saul. 9hey would
have been loyal followers of Saul #(udg ,1*C$14? 1 Sa! 11*1$14&.

5ere @goodnessB #bAj&
represents a treaty of friendship.
0+
In the sa!e conte/t, bner asks David to set up the
covenant with hi! instead and he would intervene with Israel and (udah to !ake it happen #,
Sa! 0*1,, 10, ,1&. 9his action of bner further illustrates that Davids offer of @goodnessB
was indeed a covenant offer. lthough the ter! covenant is not !entioned here, David
recogni=es the legal ter!s associated with "ahwehs speech. 9his is the reason David is
shocked.
:owhere in the te/t is David told to do anything in regards to his part in the
!aking of the covenant? although David and his heirs would be disciplined with the rod of
!en if they co!!itted ini;uity, "ahweh is to build the eternal dynasty, not David. 9his is
clearly an unconditional covenant.
0C

9he !agnitude of the Davidic <ovenant is too i!portant not to affect the point of
view of the entire narrative. It is e;ual to the braha!ic and the 7osaic <ovenant in their
influence on their respective narratives. It enco!passes and e/pands the pro!ises to the
patriarchs. 9he weight of this literary point of view tips the scales so !uch that one cannot
effectively read the narrative without this perspective weighing heavily on the interpretation
of each sub$plot.
The Time of the Kings Is Tested in the Davidic Covenant (":12/:2-)
:ow that David has been established as king and secured by the Davidic
<ovenant, the author will show that even Davids grievous sins could not separate hi! fro!
0+
Ibid., 4+.
0C
>aiser, he #essiah in the Old estament, C,$C0.
4+
"ahwehs lovingkindness. )ut as a result of this sin, David will be punished severely for it in
the sin, death and rebellion of his sons. 9hese are the ra!ifications of his sin.
he !reservation of +ing David after the (ovenant
Why is there a shift in the narrative here? Why does David fall so rapidly and so far down?
Why is David punished fourfold? $ow does David fulfill the rule of a Despotic king here?
fter Davids heroic rise, we also see his tragic downfall. (ust as it appears that
David has arisen and could do no wrong, he falls into adultery, pre!editated !urder, and
abuse of his kingly power. It appears that David falls lower than Saul. "et the
characteri=ation that is portrayed by the i!plied author is that David is an endearing hero.
5ow could anybody hate DavidA 5e has beco!e our hero. 3e as readers can identify with
hi!. 3e i!agine ourselves falling into the sa!e sins as David. 3hat will prevent David fro!
falling and being replaced by another kingA 5ere we will see for the first ti!e the application
of the Davidic <ovenant on Davids life. :athan says that 8od will not take his life, but his
sons life. )ut the ra!ifications of Davids sin will carry fourfold to his whole household*
@9he sword shall not depart fro! Davids house all of his daysB #, Sa! 1,*1.&. 6our of
Davids sons are killed who are in line for the throne. 6irst the illegiti!ate child dies
#1,*10&.
01
fter the rape of 9a!ar, Davids son !!on is killed by bsalo!. nother
possible heir to the throne is dead, and al!ost the whole royal line #, Sa! 10*,C$00&. 9hen in
bsalo!s atte!pted coup, he is killed hanging fro! a tree #, Sa! 1C*1$1.&. gain another
son dies because of Davids sin. Did David know deep down that he was indirectly
responsible for their deathsA Is that why he was passive in his discipline as a fatherA David is
characteri=ed as an inconsolable grieving father. father that has lost control of his
household, yet rules the nation. In the adulterous act with )athsheba, the author is portraying
01
>athryn Doberts, @3ho >nowsA "ahweh 7ay )e 8racious* 3hy 3e -ray,B in David and ;ion,
5iblical Studies in $onor of J' J' #' )oberts, ed. )ernard 6. )atto and >athryn '. Doberts #3inona 'ake, I:*
Hisenbrauns, ,..4&, 1.%$.+. Doberts suggests that the child was a propitiatory death, thus 8od passed over
Davids sin.
4C
the way of a king #1 Sa! C*11&. David is headed in the e/act sa!e direction as Saul and is
portrayed as Sa!uels prophetic description of a despotic king #1 Sa! C*1.$1C&.
$ow is David portrayed in the analogy with Abimelech? Why do we as readers forget the
grave sins David had committed?
In fact David beco!es !ore Saul$like co!pared to the faithful Griah the 5ittite.
4.

3hen David has Griah killed in the )attle of !!on, (oab !akes a direct link to bi!elech,
Israels first renegade king.
41
(oab says, @nd if it happens that the kings wrath rises and he
says to you, F3hy did you go so near to the city to fightA Did you not know that they would
shoot fro! the wallA 3ho struck down bi!elech the son of (erubbeshethA Did not a wo!an
throw an upper !illstone on hi! fro! the wall so that he died at 9hebe=A 3hy did you go so
near the wallA 9hen you shall say, F"our servant Griah the 5ittite is dead alsoB #, Sa!uel
11*,.$,1&. David is characteri=ed as a despot 2ust like bi!elech and >ing Saul. David could
not be portrayed any lower than this. David is portrayed as the e!bodi!ent of deceit and self
interest.
4,

9he narrator applies the disobedience of a degenerate leader in what is called the
rule of law which connects a leaders conduct with his fate and the fate of his house* @
degenerate leader, whether it is hi!self who has sinned or his sons, will ulti!ately be
deposed #see the story of Sa!uel and his sons& or co!e to a tragic end, 2ust as Hli and his
sons die on the sa!e day, and so do Saul and his son. 9his law holds true of David also? he is
4.
-igott, @3ives, 3itches, and 3ise 3o!en* -rophetic 5eralds of >ingship in 1 and , Sa!uel,B
14+.
41
8arsiel, he 4irst 5ook of Samuel, A <iterary Study of (omparative Structures: Analogies and
!arallels, 11.
4,
>essler, @Se/uality and -olitics* 9he 7otif of the Displaced 5usband in the )ooks of Sa!uel,B
4,..
41
bereaved of his sons for his grave sin over )ath$sheba #II Sa!. 1,&.B
40
3hat will prevent
Davids heirs fro! doing the sa!e thingA 9hey will need divine intervention.
David is purposefully portrayed as the best of !en and the worst of sinners. 5e is
the epito!e of the tragic hero. 5ow could David let us downA Eften as readers, we forget
about )athsheba and Griah. 3hen we are espousing the godly character ;ualities of David,
we divorce the! fro! our !ind. )ut we need to have a balanced view of the narrative. David
is 2ust as !uch a saint as a sinner. 9he only thing that separates hi! fro! Saul is 8ods
lovingkindness.
0..endi1: The Time of the Kings Is 0..lied in ,(ese(ving Is(ael (2 Sam%el 21!22)
9he author artfully wove the appendi/ as a highly reflective and theological
interpretation of Davids history and !essianic hope.
44
9hese chapters can be argued as
original because the envelope @they !a2or the!es and !ove!ents of the narrative corpus.B
44

What is the chiastic structure presented in the appendi&? What is at the center of this
chiasm? What is the main point or lesson to be learned?
9he do!inant point of view of the author also is evident in the epilogue in ,
Sa!uel ,1,4, where there is a chiastic structure. 9he arrange!ent is non$chronological and
contains two fa!ine$pestilence narratives, two lists of !ilitary heroes and two of Davids
poe!s at the center.
4%
9he Davidic <ovenant is !entioned in Davids last song #1 Sa! ,0*1$
+& and the ra!ifications of the kings actions are highlighted. 9he the!e of the epilogue
centers on the king and the conse;uences of his actions for the civil, !ilitary, and religious
well being of his nation. David is pictured here as a !ediator$preserver of the covenant.
40
8arsiel, he 4irst 5ook of Samuel, A <iterary Study of (omparative Structures: Analogies and
!arallels, 1.%.
44
)revard S. <hilds, -ntroduction to the Old estament as Scripture #'ondon* S<7 -ress, 11+1&,
,+4.
44
Dosenberg, @1 and , Sa!uel,B 14..
4%
<hilds, -ntroduction to the Old estament as Scripture, ,+0.
%.
What is the chiastic structure found in * Sam =>??
9here is a si!ilar chiastic structure in , Sa!uel 4C, solidifying the royal
ideology which includes two lists, two battle narratives and two narratives of @legiti!ationB
of ark and oracle.
4+
9his connects the epilogue with , Sa!uel 4C.
4C
<hapters 4C build up
the royal institution, whereas chapter ,1,4 bring the king back down to reality.
41
David is
portrayed as a righteous king, but one who !ust follow "ahwehs laws and who would be
held accountable if he does not. 9he king ulti!ately beco!es like 5annah, who co!es to
"ahweh with nothing to offer, e/cept her hu!ility in prayer.
4.
David is seen in the sa!e light
in chapter ,4, when he sins in the census and repents and stands before "ahweh with nothing,
e/cept to hope for the !ercy of "ahweh.
$ow are chapters *@A*B integrally connected with all of @7* Samuel?
<hapters ,1,4 are integrally connected with all of 1 and , Sa!uel.
41
9he si/
songs in the book of Sa!uel are placed strategically with co!!on sub$the!es throughout*
@9he si/ songs of the book of Sa!uel were seen to be related to each other. 9he interruption
of the progress of the narrative by the poetic te/ts in each case gave a particular e!phasis. 9o
disengage the! fro! the conte/t as te/ts which do not belong there is to fail to recogni=e
their internal dovetailing with conte/t and their significance for the interpretation and
theological evaluation of the narrative conte/t.B
4,
6or e/a!ple, the -sal! in , Sa!uel ,, is
strikingly si!ilar to the portrayal of David bringing in the ark to (erusale!, and the last song
4+
3alter )ruegge!ann, @, Sa!uel ,1,4* n ppendi/ of DeconstructionA,B (atholic 5iblical
8uarterly 4. #11CC&* 0C4? (a!es 3. 6lanagan, @Social 9ransfor!ation and Ditual in , Sa!uel %,B in he Word
of the <ord Shall "o 4orth, %ssays in $onor of 0oel 4reedman in (elebration of $is Si&tieth 5irthday, ed.
<arol '. 7eyers and 7. EP <onnor, Special Kolu!e Series #SED& 1 #3inona 'ake, I:* Hisenbrauns, 11C0&.
4C
)ruegge!ann, @, Sa!uel ,1,4* n ppendi/ of DeconstructionAB 0C4.
41
Ibid., 0C4$1+.
4.
Ibid., 01+.
41
>le!ent, -- Samuel *@>*B, (onte&t: Structure and #eaning in the Samuel (onclusion, %1. 5e
also calls these chias!s* @three double listsB. See also rnold, @ and * Samuel, the 0-C Application
(ommentary from 5iblical e&t7to (ontemporary <ife, %1%$1+.
%1
of David in chapter ,0*1$+ is also un!istakably si!ilar to :athans oracle in , Sa!uel +.
40

9he song of the wo!en #1 Sa! 1C*+& is crucial to the plot as it triggers Sauls 2ealousy of
David.
44
It is connected with Davids song of victory in , Sa!uel ,,*1$4+ where all of
Davids ene!ies are defeated including Saul. )oth na!es are !entioned providing another
link, e/cept this ti!e Saul is an ene!y. 9here is a the!atic connection with these songs in the
narrative as a genre switch e!phasi=ing one aspect of the narrative.
44
9hese songs can be
grouped into three the!atic pairs in the beginning, !iddle, and end of the book. >le!ent
co!!ents on the songs* @9heir location in the te/ts see!s to have been carefully chosen. 9he
three pairs, each consisting of one long and one short te/t, are shown to be connected to one
another by for! and content. 9he first song of the final pair is a song of victory, and thus
connected with the first pair. s death$bed prophecy the last words of David correspond with
the dirges of the second pair. 9his internal dovetailing in the placing of the poetic te/ts
through the whole of Sa!uel !akes it likely that it is not accidental.B
4%

9he author connects 5annahs prayer with the royal house of David* @If 5annahs
song pro!pted thoughts of a kind of new creation, then this new thing is to be found in the
royal house of David. 9his the!e links together the three fra!ing psal!s at the beginning
and ending of Sa!uel. In the structure of the books of Sa!uel which was worked out, the
chapter with :athans prophecy was placed conspicuously in the center. 9herefore :athans
prophecy concerning "ahwehs faithfulness to the Davidic dynasty !ust be seen as
4,
>le!ent, -- Samuel *@>*B, (onte&t: Structure and #eaning in the Samuel (onclusion, 11C. 9he
si/ songs are 1 Sa! ,*1$1., 5annahs prayer, long? 1 Sa! 1C*+, wo!en sing the praises of Saul and David,
short? , Sa! ,*1*11$,+, Davids la!ent of Saul and (onathan, long? , Sa! 0*00$04, David la!ents the death of
bner, short? , Sa! ,,*1$4+, Davids -sal! of 9hanksgiving, long? , Sa! ,0*1$+, Davids last words #Ibid.,
1.%&.
40
Ibid., C4. See also (. -. 6okkel!an, 0arrative Art and !oetry in the 5ooks of Samuel, A 4ull
-nterpretation 5ased on Stylistic And Structural Analyses' hrone and (ity 2-- Sam *>? D *@>*B&, trans. '.
3aaning$3ardle, vol. 0 #ssen, 9he :etherlands* Kan 8orcu!, 111.&, 040$044.
44
>le!ent, -- Samuel *@>*B, (onte&t: Structure and #eaning in the Samuel (onclusion, 114.
44
Ibid., 11+.
4%
Ibid., 111.
%,
deter!ining the structure of the book.B
4+
9hese chiastic analogies are flanked by
announce!ents of victory and the lists of victorious warriors.
4C
9hese chiastic analogies with
the connections of the songs, strengthen how point of view affects the interpretation of the
narrative. 9he author has structurally arranged the narrative to reflect his ideological world
view on kingship.
4+
Ibid., ,,+.
4C
Ibid., C4.
%0
)ibliography
cker!an, Susan. @9he personal is political* covenantal and affectionate love #aheb, ahab& in the
5ebrew )ible.B Cetus testamentum 4, #,..,&* 40+$44C.
hlstro!, 8asta 3. @9he 9ravels of the rk* Deligio$-olitical <o!position.B Journal of 0ear
%astern Studies BE2@F?B3@B@7@BF' #11C4&.
rnold, )ill 9. @ and * Samuel, the 0-C application commentary from biblical te&t7to
contemporary life. 8rand Dapids* Londervan, ,..0.
rnold, )ill 9. @:ecro!ancy and clero!ancy in 1 and , Sa!uel.B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly %%
#,..4&* 111$,10.
ster, Shawn Lelig. @3hat was Doeg the Hdo!itePs titleA te/tual e!endation versus a
co!parative approach to 1 Sa!uel ,1*C.B Journal of 5iblical <iterature 1,, #,..0&* 040$
0%1.
uld, . 8rae!e. @1 Sa!uel.B Journal for the Study of the Old estament ,C #,..4&* ++$+C.
uld, . 8rae!e. @3hat If the <hronicler Did Gse the Deuterono!istic 5istoryAB. 5iblical
-nterpretation C #,...&* 10+$14..
uld, . 8rae!e, and <raig ".S. 5o. @9he 7aking of David and 8oliath.B Journal for the Study
of the Old estament 4% #111,&* 11$01.
)eck, (ohn . @9he narrative$geographical shaping of 1 Sa!uel +*4$10.B 5ibliotheca sacra 1%,
#,..4&* ,11$0.1.
)eent2es, -ancratius <. @9ransfor!ations of Space and 9i!e* :athanPs Eracle and DavidPs -rayer
in 1 <hronicles 1+.B In Sanctity of ime and Space in radition and #odernity, ,+$44
)oston* )rill, 111C.
)egg, <. @DavidPs Double Hscape ccording to (osephus.B Journal of !rogressive Judaism 1.
#111C&* ,C$44.
)egg, <. 9. @9he Dynastic -ro!ise according to (osephus.B Sacris %rudiri 01 #,...&* 4$11.
)egg, <hristopher 9. @ Study of the 'iterary 6unction of , Sa!uel + in the Deuterono!istic
5istory.B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly 44 #11C0&* 110$111.
)erlin, dele. !oetics and -nterpretation of 5iblical 0arrative. )ible and 'iterature Series 1.
Sheffield l!ond, 11C0.
)odner, >eith. @:athan* -rophet, -olitician and :ovelistAB. Journal for the Study of the Old
estament 14 #,..1&* 40$44.
)rashler, (a!es . , )rown 3illia! -., and )risson H. <arson. @6riendship.B -nterpretation 4C
#,..4&* 114$1C4.
)rea!, 5oward :. 5ei! Dalph D. 7oore <arey . A light unto my path , Old estament studies
in honor of Jacob # #yers. -hiladelphia* 9e!ple Gniv -res, 11+4.
)ruegge!ann, 3alter. @, Sa!uel ,1,4* n ppendi/ of DeconstructionAB. (atholic 5iblical
8uarterly 4. #11CC&* 0C0$1+.
%4
%4
)ruegge!ann, 3alter. -chabod oward $ome, he Journey of "odGs "lory. 8rand Dapids*
Herd!ans, ,..,.
<alderone, -hilip (. Dynastic Oracle and SuHerainty reaty: * Samuel I: ?7@J. IS.l.J* teneo De
7anila Gniv 'oyola 5ouse of Studies, 11%%.
<a!bell, nthony 6. . @"ahweh and the rk* <ase Study in :arrative.B Journal of 5iblical
<iterature 11, no. 1 #11+1&* 01$40.
<arlson, D. . David: the (hosen +ing, A raditio7$istorical Approach to the Second 5ook of
Samuel. 9ranslated by Hric (. Sharpe and Stanley Dud!an. Stockhol!* l!;vist M
3iksell, 11%4.
<havel, Si!eon. @<o!positry and creativity in , Sa!uel ,1*1$14.B Journal of 5iblical
<iterature 1,, #,..0&* ,0$4,.
<heung, 7ei$7ei. @9he <haracteri=ation and Significance of 5annah.B 9h. 7. 9hesis, Dallas
9heological Se!inary, ,....
<hilds, )revard S. -ntroduction to the Old estament as Scripture. 'ondon* S<7 -ress, 11+1.
<le!ents, Donald H. @9he 7essianic 5ope in the Eld 9esta!ent.B Journal for the Study of the
Old estament 40 #11C1&* 0$11.
<lines, D. (. . @3hat De!ains of the 5ebrew )ibleA Its 9e/t and 'anguage in a -ost!odern
ge.B Studia heologica 4% #,..,&* +%$14.
<raig, >enneth 7., (r. @9he <haracter#i=ation& of 8od in , Sa!uel +*1$1+.B Semeia %0 #1110&*
141$1+%.
Du!brell, 3. (. @9he Davidic <ovenant.B )eformed heological )eview #11C.&* 4.$4+.
Dutcher$3alls, -atricia. @5ow the !ighty are fallenA a dialogical study of >ing Saul in 1
Sa!uel.B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly %+ #,..4&* 11C$1,..
Hsler, -hilip 6. @9he 7adness of Saul* <ultural Deading of 1 Sa!uel C$01.B In 5iblical
StudiesK (ultural Studies, ed. (. <heryl H/u!. (ournal for the Study of the Eld 9esta!ent
Supple!ent Series ,%%* 8ender, <ulture, 9heory +, ed. David (. . <lines and -hilip D.
Davies. Sheffield* Sheffield cade!ic -ress, 111C.
Hslinger, 'yle. $ouse of "od or $ouse of David, he )hetoric of * Samuel I. (SE9 Supple!ent
1%4. Sheffield* (SE9 1114.
Hslinger, 'yle 7. $ouse of "od or house of David? the rhetoric of * Samuel I. (ournal for the
study of the Eld 9esta!ent supple!ent 1%4. Sheffield* Sheffield cade!ic -ress, 1114.
6lanagan, (a!es 3. @Social 9ransfor!ation and Ditual in , Sa!uel %.B In he Word of the <ord
Shall "o 4orth, %ssays in $onor of 0oel 4reedman in (elebration of $is Si&tieth
5irthday, ed. <arol '. 7eyers and 7. EP <onnor. Special Kolu!e Series #SED& 1, 0%1$
0+1. 3inona 'ake, I:* Hisenbrauns, 11C0.
6okkel!an, (. -. 0arrative Art and !oetry in the 5ooks of Samuel, A full -nterpretation 5ased on
Stylistic And Structural Analyses' hrone and (ity 2-- Sam *>? D *@>*B3. 9ranslated by
'. 3aaning$3ardle. Kol. 0. ssen, 9he :etherlands* Kan 8orcu!, 111..
6o/, 7ichael. @9ob as <ovenant 9er!inology.B 5ulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
)esearch ,.1 #11+0&* 41$4,.
6risch, !os. @Pnd David perceivedP #, Sa!uel 4,,&* a direct insight into DavidPs soul and its
!eaning in conte/t.B Scandinavian Journal of the Old estament 1C #,..4&* ++$1,.
6risch, !os. @Qnd David perceivedQ #, Sa!uel 4,,&* a direct insight into DavidPs soul and its
!eaning in conte/t.B S1ot 1C #,..4&* ++$1,.
8arsiel, 7oshe. he 4irst 5ook of Samuel, A <iterary Study of (omparative Structures:
Analogies and !arallels. Da!at$8an, Israel* Devivi! -ublishing 5ouse, 11C4.
%%
8elston, nthony. @:ote on , Sa!uel +*1..B ;eitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft C4
#11+,&* 1,$14.
8eorge, 7ark >. @<onstructing Identity in 1 Sa!uel 1+.B 5iblical -nterpretation +, no. 4 #1111&*
0C1$41,.
8eorge, 7ark >. @6luid Stability in Second Sa!uel +.B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly %4 #,..,&*
1+$0%.
8eorge, 7ark >. @"hwhPs Ewn 5eart.B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly %4 #,..,&* 44,$441.
8evaryahu, <hai!. @9he -ro!ise of Hternal >ingship to David.B 5eit #ikra 0+ #1111&* 1$,0.
8olds!ith, Dale. @cts 10*00$0+* a pesher on , Sa!uel +.B Journal of 5iblical <iterature C+
#11%C&* 0,1$0,4.
8rant, (. (ere!y 7. @, Sa!uel ,0*1$+.B -nterpretation 41 #111+&* 414$41C.
8reen, )arbara. @Hnacting i!aginatively the unthinkable* 1 Sa!uel ,4 and the story of Saul.B
5iblical -nterpretation 11 #,..0&* 1$,0.
8risanti, 7ichael . @9he Davidic <ovenant.B he #aster Seminary Journal 1., no. , #1111&*
,00$4..
5auser, lan (. @5ouse of 8od or house of DavidA the rhetoric of , Sa!uel +.B Journal of
5iblical <iterature 114 #1114&* 104$10%.
5illers, Dilbert D. @ :ote on So!e 9reaty 9er!inology in the Eld 9esta!ent.B 5ulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental )esearch 1+% #11%4&* 4%$4+.
5ughes, Dobert )., and (. <arl 'aney. 0ew 5ible (ompanion. 3heaton* 9yndale, 111..
(obbling, David. 5erit Olam, @ Samuel. Studies in 5ebrew :arrative M -oetry, ed. David 3.
<otter. <ollegeville, 7:* 9he 'iturgical -ress, 111C.
(obbling, David. he Sense of 5iblical 0arrative 2- Samuel @E >E@: 0umbers @@>@*: - +ings @I>
@?3. (ournal for the Study of the Eld 9esta!ent Supple!ent Series +, ed. David (. .
<lines, -hilip D. Davies, and David 7. 8unn. Sheffield* Gniversity of Sheffield, 11+C.
(ones, )arry . @1 Sa!uel ,.*1$1+.B -nterpretation 4C #,..4&* 1+,$1+4.
>aiser, 3alter <. he #essiah in the Old estament. 8rand Dapids, 7ich* Londervan -ublishing
5ouse, 1114.
>aiser, 3alter <., (r. @9he Gnfailing >indnesses -ro!ised to David* Isaiah 44.0.B Journal for
the Study of the Old estament 44 #11C1&* 11$1C.
>essler, (ohn. @Se/uality and -olitics* 9he 7otif of the Displaced 5usband in the )ooks of
Sa!uel.B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly %, #,...&* 4.1$4,0.
>le!ent, 5erbert 5. -- Samuel *@>*B, (onte&t: Structure and #eaning in the Samuel
(onclusion. Huropean Gniversity Studies Series NNIII 9heology Kol. %,. :ew "ork*
-eter 'ang.
>noppers, 8ary :. @DavidPs Delation to 7oses* 9he <onte/ts, <ontent and <onditions of the
Davidic -ro!ises.B In +ing and #essiah, 11$11C Sheffield* Sheffield cade!ic -ress,
111C.
'aato, ntti. @Second Sa!uel + and ncient :ear Hastern Doyal Ideology.B (atholic 5iblical
8uarterly 41 #111+&* ,44$,%1.
'affey, lice '. A Study of the <iterary 4unction of * Samuel I in the Deuteronomistic $istory.
Do!e* )iblical Inst -ress, 11C1.
'e!che, :iels -eter. @DavidPs Dise.B Journal for the Study of the Old estament 1. #11+C&* ,$,4.
'ipton, Diana. @5ouse of 8od or house of DavidA the rhetoric of , Sa!uel +.B Cetus
testamentum 4, #,..,&* 104$10%.
%+
'ong, -hillips K. he Art of 5iblical $istory. 6oundations of <onte!porary Interpretation 4, ed.
7oisRs Silva. 8rand Dapids* Londervan, 1114.
'uther, 7artin. %cclesiastes: Song of Solomon: * Samuel *E,@7I. 'uther, 7artin. 3orks 14. St
'ouis* <oncordia -ub 5ouse, 11+,.
7ala!at, braha!. @Ergans of Statecraft in the Isrealite 7onarchy.B 5iblical Archeologist
NNKIII, no. , #11%4&* 04$%4.
7albon, Hli=abeth Struthers )erlin dele. @<haracteri=ation in )iblical literature.B Semeia %0
#1110&* 0$,,+.
7arch, 3. Hugene. @, Sa!uel +*1$1+.B -nterpretation 04 #11C1&* 01+$4.1.
7astin, ). . @9he !i;neh of 1 Sa!uel NNIII 4.B Cetus testamentum 40 #,..0&* 0+1$01%.
7c<arter (r., -. >yle - Samuel, A 0ew ranslation with -ntroduction: 0otes D (ommentary.
nchor )ible, ed. 3illia! 6o/well lbright and David :oel 6reed!an. :ew "ork*
Doubleday, 11C..
7c<arthy, Dennis (. @, Sa!uel + and the structure of the Deuterono!ic history.B Journal of
5iblical <iterature C4 #11%4&* 101$10C.
7c<arthy, Dennis (. @Dynastic Eracle and Su=erainty 9reaty, , Sa!uel +, C$1%.B (atholic
5iblical 8uarterly ,1 #11%+&* %.%$%.1.
7c>en=ie, Steven '. @Society and the pro!ise to David* the reception history of , Sa!uel +*1$
1+.B Journal of 5iblical <iterature 1,. #,..1&* 40+$401.
7c>en=ie, Steven '. @3hy DidnPt David )uild the 9e!pleA* 9he 5istory of a )iblical
9radition.B In Worship in the $ebrew 5ible, ,.4$,,4. Sheffield Sheffield cade!ic -ress,
1111.
7errill, Hugene 5. +ingdom of priests, a history of Old estament -srael. 8rand Dapids* )aker,
11C+.
7iscall, -eter D. @ Samuel, A <iterary )eading. Indiana Studies in )iblical 'iterature, ed.
5erbert 7arks and Dobert -ol=in. )loo!ington* Indiana Gniversity -ress, 11C%.
7iscall, -eter D. @'iterary Gnity in Eld 9esta!ent :arrative.B Semeia 14 #11+1&* ,+$44.
7oenikes, . @7essianis!us i! lten 9esta!ent.B ;eitschrift fur )eligions7 und
"eistesgeschichte 4. #11CC&* ,C1$0.%.
7oran, 3. '. @ :ote on the 9reaty 9er!inology of the SefOre Stelas.B Journal of 0ear %astern
Studies ,, #11%0&* 1+0$+%.
7ul=ac, >enneth D. @5annah* 9he Deceiver and 8iver of a 8reat 8ift.B Andrews Lniversity
Seminary Studies 4. #,..,&* ,.+$,1+.
7urray, D. 6. @7;w! and the future of Israel in , Sa!uel +*1..B Cetus testamentum 4. #111.&*
,1C$0,..
7urray, Donald D. @Dynasty, -eople, and the 6uture* 9he 7essage of <hronicles.B Journal for
the Study of the Old estament 4C #1110&* +1$1,.
:ihan, <hristophe '. @1 Sa!uel ,C and the <onde!nation of :ecro!ancy in -ersian "ehud.B In
#agic in the 5iblical World, 4rom the )od of Aaron to the )ing of Solomon, ed. 9odd H.
>lut=. (ournal for the Study of the :ew 9esta!ent Supple!ent Series ,44, ed. Stanley H.
-orter. :ew "ork* 9 M 9 <lark, ,..0.
:utkowic=, 5STlSUne. @-ropos autour de la !ort dPun enfant* , Sa!uel /i,,$/ii,,4.B Cetus
testamentum 44, no. 1 #,..4&* 1.4$11C.
El!o 'ete, 8regorio del. @DavidPs 6arewell Eracle #, Sa!uel //iii 1$+&* 'iterary nalysis.B
Cetus testamentum 04 #11C4&* 414$40+.
%C
Eta, 7ichiko. @ note on , Sa!uel +.B In <ight unto my path, 4.0$4.+. -hiladelphia* 9e!ple
Gniv -ress, 11+4.
-igott, Susan 7. @3ives, 3itches, and 3ise 3o!en* -rophetic 5eralds of >ingship in 1 and ,
Sa!uel.B )eview D %&positor 11 #,..,&* 144$1+4.
-reston, 9ho!as D. @9he 5erois! of Saul* -atterns of 7eaning in the :arrative of the Harly
>ingship.B Journal for the Study of the Old estament ,4 #11C,&* ,+$4%.
-rouser, Era 5orn. @Suited to the 9hrone* 9he Sy!bolic Gse of <lothing in the David and Saul
:arratives.B Journal for the Study of the Old estament +1 #111%&* ,+$0+.
Deid, -atrick K. @Sbty in , Sa!uel +*+.B (atholic 5iblical 8uarterly 0+ #11+4&* 1+$,..
Dichardson, 5. :eil. @'ast words of David * so!e notes on , Sa!uel ,0*1$+.B Journal of
5iblical <iterature 1. #11+1&* ,4+$,%%.
Doberts, >athryn. @3ho >nowsA "ahweh 7ay )e 8racious* 3hy 3e -ray.B In David and ;ion,
5iblical Studies in $onor of J' J' #' )oberts, ed. )ernard 6. )atto and >athryn '.
Doberts, 1+$11.. 3inona 'ake, I:* Hisenbrauns, ,..4.
Dosenberg, (oel. @1 and , Sa!uel.B In he <iterary "uide to the 5ible, ed. Dobert lter and
6rank >er!ode. <a!bridge* 9he )elknap -ress of 5arvard Gniversity, 11C+.
Dud!an, D. @9he <o!!issioning Stories of Saul and David as 9heological llegory.B Cetus
testamentum 4. #,...&* 411$40..
Schniedewind, 3illia! 7. Society and the promise to David, the reception history of * Samuel
I,@7@I. :ew "ork* E/ford Gniversity -ress, 1111.
9aggar$<ohen, da. @-olitical loyalty in the biblical account of 1 Sa!uel NN$NNII in the light
of 5ittite te/ts.B Cetus testamentum 44 #,..4&* ,41$,%C.
9ho!pson, 9ho!as. @If David 5ad not <li!bed the 7ount of Elives.B 5iblical -nterpretation C
#,...&* 4,$4C.
9ull, -atricia >. @(onathanPs 8ift of 6riendship.B -nterpretation 4C, no. , #,..4&* 10.$140.
Gspensky, )oris. A !oetics of (omposition, he Structure of the Artistic e&t and ypology of a
(ompositional 4orm. 9ranslated by Kalentina Lavarin and Susan 3ittig. 'os ngeles*
Gniversity of <alifornia -ress, 11C0.
Kanderhooft, David. @Dwelling )eneath the Sacred -lace* -roposal for Deading , Sa!uel
+*1..B Journal of 5iblical <iterature 11C #1111&* %,4$%00.
Kanderhooft, David S. @Dwelling )eneath the Sacred -lace* -roposal for Deading , Sa!uel
+*1..B Journal of 5iblical <iterature 11C #1111&* %,4$%00.
3aschke, Hrnst$(oachi!. @Des KerhSVltnis alttesta!entlicher SWberlieferungen i! Schnittpunkt
der Dynastie=usage und die Dynastie=usage i! Spiegel alttesta!entlicher
SWberlieferungen.B ;eitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft FF2@F?I3@=I7@IF'
#11C+&.
3enha!, 8ordon (. Story as orah, )eading Old estament 0arrative %thically. 8rand Dapids*
)aker cade!ic, ,....
3hitsett, <. 8. @Son of 8od, Seed of David * -aulPs 7essianic H/egesis in Do!ans I1J*0$4.B
Journal of 5iblical <iterature 111 #,...&* %%1$%C1.
3olde, H. (. van. @In words and pictures* the sun in , Sa!uel 1,*+$1,.B 5iblical -nterpretation
11 #,..0&* ,41$,+C.