D. The Davidic Kingship: Retrospect and Prospect (chs. 21-24)

2Sam 21-24 have long been regarded as an appendix. However, in their present canonical form, they play a strategic literary and theological role. The section is bracketed by two stories (21:1-14; 24:1-25); a list of heroes and their exploits follows the first and precedes the second (21:15-22; 23:8-39); and these halves are joined at the center by two poems (22:1-51; 23:1-7) (Childs, Introduction, 273).

The first story tells of a three-year famine that God inflicted on Israel for Saul’s [unrecorded] violence against the Gibeonites (2Sam 21:1). This violation of an ancient agreement (v.2; cf. Jos 9) underscored Saul’s failure by showing that he spared those he was ordered to destroy (1Sa 15) and destroyed those he should have spared. David therefore gave the Gibeonite survivors an opportunity for redress. Diffident at first, the Gibeonites eventually requested the execution of two of Saul’s sons and five of his grandsons. Though somewhat out of character, given David’s solicitous stance toward Saul and his family (2Sam 1:1-15; 4:1-12; 9:1-13; 1Sa 24; 26), but because the Lord had been clear about the reason for the famine (2Sam 21:1), David complied. His only concession to his prior attitude was the respect he accorded the remains. Afterward, God once more answered Israel’s prayers (21:3-14).

The story takes pains to show that David was not responsible for Saul’s fate, whose sins were to blame (cf. Nu 35:33; Childs, Introduction, 274).

When the narrative resumes, a note about another confrontation with the Philistines cites David’s exhaustion (2Sam 21:15), an embarrassing contrast to his prior prowess. Abishai even had to save David from a Philistine warrior, after which his men patronizingly insisted that the king remain home (vv.16-17). Other Philistine champions emerged, all to be killed by soldiers other than David. Indeed, as though to qualify David’s famous victory over Goliath (1Sa 17), we are told that David’s warrior Elhanan slew him (cf. 1Ch 20:5). The only concession to David’s previous reputation is the remark that the Philistines “fell at the hands of David and his men” (vv.18-22). David’s decline mirrored his rise.

But the poetic sections sound another note. David’s praise to God (2Sam 22:1-51) is juxtaposed to the account of his weakness. The text moves from the king’s deglorification (21:15-22) to God’s glorification. Since the doxology is sung after all (v.1) the enemies have been defeated, David’s review of his career emphasizes God’s promises (cf. 7:10-11). This theocentric perspective, now seen in retrospect, is also underscored by the connections between David’s and Hannah’s song (e.g., 1Sa 2:2=2Sa 23:3; 1Sa 2:6-8=2Sa 22:17, 28; 1Sa 2:10=2Sa 22:8, 51; Childs, Introduction, 274).

David’s considerable talent notwithstanding, his true greatness is reflected in the hymn’s themes: The Lord is the king’s refuge and source of help (2Sam 22:1-7, 17-20, 31-37); the Lord’s appearance is awesome (vv.8-16); the anointed one’s righteousness is central (vv.21-25); a sovereign God “inverts” the ways of humankind (vv.26-30); victory is ultimately God’s (vv. 38-46); the only future for the Davidic dynasty is the one God envisions and secures (vv.47-51). David’s retrospective hymn dovetails with Hannah’s prospective hymn.

David’s last words—symbolically, not literally (cf. 2Sam 24; 1Ki 1-2)—function as a blessing and establish the program for the future of the chosen dynasty (2Sam 23:1-7; cf. Ge 27:27-29, 39-40; 49:1-27; Dt 32:1-43; 33:1-29; Hertzberg, 399). Divinely inspired, David stressed the anointed’s righteousness, when he would truly shine (23:1-4). Further, in spite of everything that had transpired, the future was as secure as the God who had made the everlasting covenant, evil detractors notwithstanding (vv.5-7; cf. 7:5-16).

To show that this glorious future transcended the historical David, after David’s final oracle a second list of heroes and their accomplishments is presented. David’s exploits are ignored here, as though one should no longer rehearse them. Also, he is contrasted unfavorably to his compatriots. During a battle he alone became thirsty (2 Sam 23:15; cf. 21:15) and was supplied with water by men who risked their lives to get it. Shamed by their selfless courage, he poured the water on the ground. More conspicuously, the final hero mentioned was none other than Uriah the Hittite (v.39). It can hardly be accidental that the last mentioned of David’s mighty men compels us to recall how the king treacherously murdered a loyal, principled, and honorable servant (vv.8-39).

The final story in this section (and 1-2Sa) concerns judgment and restoration. It parallels ch. 21, and in addition sets forth how the future messianic blessing will be retained in spite of the anointed one’s sinfulness (cf. 1Sa 2:10; Childs, Introduction, 275-76).

Becoming angry with Israel again, God incited David to take a general census (2Sam 24:1), perhaps to isolate a particular segment of the population for punishment (cf. Nu 26). Why was Israel’s sin not specified? Was it immaterial? Is it to be inferred from the context, especially in light of formal connections with ch. 21 (McCarter, II Samuel, 509; Gordon, 317)? Is the sin unmentioned to highlight Yahweh’s exasperation for Israel’s unfaithfulness and obstinacy in demanding the kingship in the first place? Does the vocabulary (“Yahweh’s nose/forehead ['p] burned hot”) allude to the encompassing nature of Israel’s sin since its formation as God’s people (cf. Ex 32:12; Nu 25:4; 32:14; Dt 13:17 [Heb. v. 18]; 29:24 [Heb. v. 23], 27 [Heb. v. 26]; Jos 7:26; 1Sa 28:18 [against the Amalekites])?

Regardless, David exacerbated matters by commanding Joab to count fighting men ('m can mean “troops”), which prompted even the officer’s objection (2Sam 24:2-4; cf. v.1: “Israel and Judah”). The count indicated 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah who could handle a sword, a far cry from the days when Saul had 3000 troops and two swords (1Sa 13:2, 22)! Unfortunately, the monarchy’s military might had outpaced its moral might.

When David’s conscience pricked him (cf. 1Sa 24:5), he confessed: “I have done a very foolish thing” (2Sam 24:10). This is the term (śkl) that Samuel had used to accuse Saul and that Saul had used of himself when he was chasing David (1Sa 13:13; 26:21), which intimates that David had stooped to Saul’s level. When the verdict was announced, Yahweh through the prophet Gad (cf. 1Sa 22:5) gave David three options: (1) three years of famine (cf. 21:1), (2) three months of fleeing enemies (cf. 1Sa 20-31), or (3) three days of plague. Confident that Yahweh would be more merciful than his enemies, David opted for plague. After terrible carnage, a grieving Lord demanded that the destroying angel desist just before inflicting Jerusalem (2Sam 24:11-16).

But David also played a role in averting the plague. Chagrined that Israel suffered for his sins, he asked God to limit the punishment to him and his family. So God had the prophet tell David to present offerings. After purchasing a site and the material for an offering—David refused to present something that had cost him nothing—he built an altar (cf. 1Sa 14:35) and made sacrifices. The Lord responded by answering prayer and stopping the plague (2Sam 24:17-25; cf. 21:14).

David’s last act in 1-2Sa was a priestly and repentant one. He and his family had been under a curse since the Bathsheba/Uriah incident. Yet, in spite of these human failings, God did not withdraw the ultimate promise to David, the anointed one (cf. ch. 7).