DRA in the Book of Samuel

139

guilty parties against one another through the influence of an evil spirit, so that the co-

conspirators might bring about their mutual destruction.

⁶⁴

Thus, the Abimelech account

provides a second clear case of retributive, mediated DRA in the book of Judges.

⁶⁵

140

Saul, and David.

⁶⁹

Such sovereignty is perhaps most strikingly seen in three episodes within Samuel that reflect DRA, the first of which takes place within the account of the decline of the Elide priesthood.

First Samuel 2:22–25 reports how Eli confronted his sons after the news of their sinfulness reached him.

⁷⁰

Eli reproves them for their deeds and warns them that their sins against YHWH will leave them without anyone to intercede for them.

⁷¹

The narrator

69 House correctly observes that the book of Samuel continues the OT’s emphasis on divine sovereignty among other key themes (House, Old Testament Theology, 227). Gilmour identifies two dominant themes in Samuel: the rise and fall of leaders, and the election of David. See Rachelle Gilmour,

“(Hi)story Telling in the Books of Samuel,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 192. Special attention is paid to the case of David, who is elevated from his humble station to the throne of Israel, is promised a lasting kingdom, and is preserved as king even after his own fall from grace. Schreiner rightly describes the central message of Samuel when he states that “the books of 1–2 Samuel recount the story of how David became king, featuring the covenant promise that the kingdom would never be withdrawn from David’s heirs.”

Schreiner, The King in His Beauty, 136.

70 Some see a contradiction between 1 Sam 2:22–25 and 3:13, as the former passage seems to show Eli rebuking his sons while the latter is sometimes read to mean that Eli would face God’s curse because he refused to confront them. Marti J. Steussy interprets the apparent disagreement as evidence that the God of the book of Samuel is problematic. According to her reading of 3:13, YHWH misrepresents the facts of the case in order to carry out his unjust punishment on Eli. See Marti J. Steussy, “The Problematic God of Samuel,” in Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, ed. David Penchansky and Paul L. Redditt (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 143, 146. However, her interpretation of Samuel requires one to believe that a book severely critical of YHWH was somehow included within the biblical canon. Such a state of affairs seems highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, Brettler argues that these alleged discrepancies are evidence of a variety of traditions that stand behind the final form of the text; see Marc Brettler, “The Composition of 1 Samuel 1–2,” JBL 116, no. 4 (1997): 603. However, such an explanation does not help readers understand what the author/redactor intended to accomplish by allowing these so-called contradictions to remain in the text. In my judgment, Waltke resolves the problem more convincingly when he says, “Eli, however, doesn’t back up his reprimand by action or example––he himself is overweight and eats the choicest parts [of the sacrifices].”

Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 628. Thus, according to Waltke, Eli did rebuke his sons in 2:22–25, but he is liable to God because he failed to put his words into action. Perhaps Smith is also right when he argues that the verb ההכ in 1 Sam 3:13 indicates that Eli should have put his sons to death in accordance with the regulations of the Torah. See Brett W. Smith, “The Sin of Eli and Its Consequences,” BSac 170 (2013): 18–20.

71 The first half of 1 Sam 2:25 presents interpreters with challenges. I would argue that the verse provides evidence of the corruption of the Elide priesthood in that Eli no longer recognizes one central function of the priesthood: to intercede on behalf of those who have sinned against YHWH.

Nevertheless, the difficulties involved in the interpretation of 2:25a do not directly impact the issue of DRA in the second half of the verse. For a discussion of the various interpretative problems attending 1 Sam 2:25a, see Eileen F. de Ward, “Eli’s Rhetorical Question: 1 Sam. 2:25,” JJS 27 (1976): 117–37.

141

then makes the intriguing statement that “they did not listen to the voice of their father, for YHWH desired ( ץ פ ח ) to put them to death.”

⁷²

Without elaborating on precisely how the Lord influenced their response, the text clearly expresses that Hophni and Phinehas remained unmoved by their father’s words because God desired that such be the case.

⁷³

As such, readers have good reason to perceive DRA operating behind-the-scenes.

⁷⁴

Because of the stress laid upon their wickedness, YHWH’s action against Eli’s sons ought to be understood as being motivated by vengeance.

⁷⁵

In addition, there is no textual

72 Grys helpfully points out that modern interpreters often stumble over this passage (and others like it) because of their own theological and philosophical pre-commitments. As he states, “The

‘problem’ with texts like 1 Samuel 2.25 lies not so much in the narrative but in the interpretative

assumptions brought by the reader; dissonance is created between the narrative model of a vindictive God and the therapeutic God of more recent Christian discourse.” Alan Le Grys, “Difficult Texts: 1 Samuel 2.25,” Theology 117, no. 2 (2014): 117–18.

73 Several scholars have reached a similar conclusion. Brettler notes that v. 25 reveals a kind of

“divine coercion” (see Brettler, “Composition of 1 Samuel 1–2,” 608). Hertzberg says of this phenomenon,

“Even the guilt of the sons of Eli is taken up into the omnipotence of God.” Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 36. McCarter puts matters bluntly when he says,

“Yahweh, as controller of destinies, would not permit Eli’s sons to heed their father’s good advice because it was his (Yahweh’s) intention that they sin and die.” P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel, AB (New York:

Doubleday, 1980), 84. See also Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Death of the Sons of Eli,” in The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies: Essays on the Literature and Religion of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Ktav, 1980), 149–50.

74 Tsevat wrongly argues that passages like 1 Sam 2:25 reflect a rationalistic approach to sin that does away with human responsibility and responsiveness (see Tsevat, “Death of the Sons,” 149–53; see also Steussy, “Problematic God,” 144). On the contrary, the evaluation of the sons in 2:12–13 and the specific indictments against them in 2:17, 2:22, and 2:29 show that v.25 should not be understood as a denial of human responsibility. So also Hamilton, God’s Glory, 162–63; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:426n5; David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 161–62. Nevertheless, some commentators wrongly overemphasize human responsibility in 2:25 so as to mute the text’s teaching regarding the decisiveness of God’s influence on the sons of Eli; see for example Bill T. Arnold, 1 and 2 Samuel, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 75–76; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, 2nd ed., WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 26.

75 So also Hamilton, God’s Glory, 162; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:426;

Heikki Räisänen, The Idea of Divine Hardening: A Comparative Study of the Notion of Divine Hardening, Leading Astray and Inciting to Evil in the Bible and the Qur’ān, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 25 (Helsinki, Finland: Kirjapaino Oy Savo, 1972), 58; Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC (Nashville: B & H, 1996), 78–79; Francesca Aran Murphy, 1 Samuel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010), 71; David G. Firth, 1 and 2 Samuel, ApOTC (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2009), 72.

142

warrant for assuming that the author of Samuel had eternal destinies in mind. Thus, Hophni and Phinehas are depicted as rebuffing their father’s pleas on account of retributive, non-eternal DRA.

⁷⁶

The book of Samuel provides a second example of DRA in its narration of the beginning stages of Absalom’s downfall.

⁷⁷

In 2 Samuel 17, Absalom received conflicting advice from two of his advisors. Ahithophel suggested that he be allowed to attack David immediately so as to take advantage of the king’s present weakness (2 Sam 17:1–2).

⁷⁸

At first, Absalom and all Israel’s elders received Ahithophel’s counsel with enthusiasm (2 Sam 17:4). Such esteem for Ahithophel’s suggestion is precisely what readers would expect given the narrator’s previous comment that “the counsel of Ahithophel which he gave in those days was regarded as highly as if one was inquiring of the word of God” (2 Sam 16:23).

⁷⁹

But instead of following Ahithophel, Absalom requested that Hushai (who unbeknownst to him was David’s ally) provide a second opinion (2 Sam 17:5–6; cf. 2 Sam 15:32–37). Hushai then rebuts Ahithophel’s proposal (2 Sam 17:7) and intentionally provides Absalom with directions that would be beneficial for David (cf. 2 Sam 17:15–

16). Employing a variety of rhetorical techniques to render his speech persuasive,

⁸⁰

76 Not enough information is provided to more precisely determine the nature of God’s influence upon Eli’s sons. Thus, though he rightly discerns its retributive sense, Eichrodt overinterprets the text when he claims that an evil spirit moved upon the two sons’ hearts. See Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, vol. 1, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 262n3.

77 Schreiner rightly notes that 2 Sam 17 functions as a turning point in the story of Absalom’s rebellion. See Schreiner, The King in His Beauty, 160.

78 Bodner makes the intriguing suggestion that Ahithophel’s advice reflects a personal vendetta held against David for his treatment of Bathsheba and Uriah. See Keith Bodner, “Motives for Defection:

Ahithophel’s Agenda in 2 Samuel 15–17,” SR 31, no. 1 (2002): 69–71. For a similar interpretation, see David Daube, “Absalom and the Ideal King,” VT 48, no. 3 (1998): 320–22.

79 Bodner correctly notes that the placement of this comment in 16:23 sets “the subsequent expectation” that “in the future his sage advice will certainly be observed.” Bodner, “Motives for Defection,” 69.

80 For examinations of the rhetorical qualities of Hushai’s speech, see Song-Mi Suzie Park,

“The Frustration of Wisdom: Wisdom, Counsel, and Divine Will in 2 Samuel 17:1–23,” JBL 128, no. 3

143

Hushai argues that David and his men are strong, fierce, battle-hardened men who would be ready to repulse an assault hastily sent (2 Sam 17:8–9). Such a defeat would only serve to discourage those loyal to Absalom, as it would remind them of David’s great might (2 Sam 17:9–10). Instead of prioritizing speed, Hushai recommends that Absalom respond with force: he tells the would-be king to gather together all his troops and to personally lead his vast army to battle against David (2 Sam 17:11). According to Hushai, such a powerful army would certainly overwhelm David and his men, thus securing the kingdom for Absalom (2 Sam 17:12–13). Surprisingly (cf. 2 Sam 16:23), Absalom and the elders are won over by Hushai’s plan despite the fact that Ahithophel provided a more strategic recommendation (2 Sam 17:14).

⁸¹

But rather than this being a simple case of poor judgment on Absalom’s part, the narrator explains that his decision to follow Hushai was ultimately due to YHWH’s agency: “For YHWH decreed to frustrate the good

counsel of Ahithophel” (2 Sam 17:14c).

⁸²

Moreover, the reason God exercised such

(2009): 455–60; Ronald T. Hyman, “Power of Persuasion: Judah, Abigail, and Hushai,” JBQ 23, no. 1 (1995): 12–16; Bodner, “Motives for Defection,” 71–72.

81 Steinmann rightly notes that there is an implied comparison with Hushai’s advice when the narrator states that Ahithophel’s counsel was good in 17:14. See Andrew E. Steinmann, 2 Samuel, ConcC (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2017), 320.

82 Contrary to most commentators, Brueggemann suggests that YHWH does not personally act in thwarting Ahithophel’s counsel; in fact, Brueggemann claims that the Lord does not act at all throughout the (so-called) succession narrative. Instead, he contends that the God of the succession narrative creates the context for human freedom without disrupting events through intrusive actions. See Walter

Brueggemann, “On Trust and Freedom: A Study of Faith in the Succession Narrative,” Int 26, no. 1 (1972):

3–19). While provocative, Bruegemman’s argument fails to persuade. First of all, his claims are based on Whybray’s hypothesis that the succession narrative reflects wisdom traditions. However, Whybray’s thesis has been rightly criticized by James Crenshaw, “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon

‘Historical’ Literature,” JBL 88, no. 2 (1969): 137–40. Moreover, the independent existence of a

“succession narrative” has been forcefully challenged as well; to provide a single example, see Serge Frolov, “Succession Narrative: A ‘Document’ or a Phantom?” JBL 121, no. 1 (2002): 83. Second, Brueggemann’s deistic reading flies in the face of the many references to God’s personal actions

throughout 2 Sam 9–20. These references are made both by characters within the story (cf. 2 Sam 12:7–12;

12:13; 14:14; 15:25–26; 15:31; 16:8; 16:10–12; 16:18, etc.) and by the narrator himself (cf. 2 Sam 12:1;

12:15; 12:24–25; 17:14). Third, his claim that the verb הוצ was carefully chosen to eliminate any expectation of action on God’s part is not substantiated with argumentation; thus, Brueggemann simply asserts that the verb “to decree” should not be understood as a personal action on God’s part. More problematic still, Brueggemann simply ignores the other actions assigned to God in the same verse: God

144

influence over Absalom was clearly destructive, as he undermined Ahithophel’s counsel

“so that [he] might bring calamity upon Absalom” (2 Sam 17:14d). Since Hushai’s advice leads Absalom to continue his sinful quest to kill his father and usurp the throne,

⁸³

it seems warranted to view God’s involvement in this episode to be a case of DRA.

⁸⁴

Though the narrator does not expand on the nature of God’s influence in 2 Samuel 17, his description allows for at least two inferences to be made.

⁸⁵

First, the DRA in this instance is most likely retributive. Readers are primed to interpret the Lord’s actions in 2 Samuel 17:14 as punitive because of the way Absalom has been characterized in the narrative.

⁸⁶

Many of Absalom’s actions throughout the story are depicted as being wicked. For instance, as Absalom worked to turn the nation’s political support away from

decreed to thwart (רפהל) Ahithophel’s counsel and to bring (איבה) calamity upon Absalom. Lastly, even granting the prior existence of an independent succession narrative, the task of interpreting these chapters within their canonical context remains. Thus, those who take seriously the final form of the text cannot isolate the theology of 2 Sam 9–20 from the theology of the rest of the book. For all these reasons, Brueggemann’s reading of God’s alleged inactivity in 2 Sam 17:14 should be rejected.

83 Schreiner correctly notes that Absalom’s actions show him to be among the proud and the wicked denounced in Hannah’s song (1 Sam 2:1–10). See Schreiner, The King in His Beauty, 160–61.

Hamilton also describes the situation rightly when he says, “Absalom is an agent of God’s justice against David, but at the same time Absalom is a rebel against Yahweh’s anointed king.” Hamilton, God’s Glory, 174.

84 On the basis of 2 Sam 12:11, some might interpret Absalom’s rebellion itself as an example of DRA. While it is true that Absalom’s career fulfills God’s announced intention to raise up calamity/evil (הער) from David’s own house to punish the latter for his transgressions (2 Sam 12:11), the author of Samuel does not indicate that God incited Absalom towards sin for the purpose of also condemning him. In my judgment, this omission distinguishes 2 Sam 12:11 from instances of DRA wherein the Lord uses adversaries to punish his people (cf. Deut 32; Isa 10). Of course, on the basis of theological reasoning, one may (and probably should) come to the conclusion that God predetermined both to use and to punish Absalom. Nevertheless, if one’s aim is to explore the biblical author’s intention, it would be unwarranted to describe the entirety of Absalom’s rebellion as being due to DRA.

85 Perhaps readers should also view 2 Sam 17:14 as an example of active, non-eternal DRA.

Since the verbs used to describe God’s influence seem to indicate positive activity on his part (הוצ in the piel and ררפ in the hiphil), one should probably describe DRA in 2 Sam 17:14 as active. In addition, given that Absalom meets mortal death as his end (2 Sam 18:14–15), it seems unlikely that the author intends to describe eternal DRA.

86 For an exploration of the sins of Absalom, see Michael Avioz, “Divine Intervention and Human Error in the Absalom Narrative,” JSOT 37, no. 3 (2013): 343–46.

145

David and onto himself, the narrator describes his actions by saying that he “stole ( ב נ ג וי ) the heart of the men of Israel” (2 Sam 15:6). By using the language of thievery, the narrator paints Absalom’s political maneuvering in a negative light.

⁸⁷

Moreover, though Amnon deserved to be put to death for his rape of Tamar, the author of Samuel seems to characterize Absalom’s actions against his brother to be evil.

⁸⁸

So for instance, rather than immediately demanding justice for Tamar, Absalom harbors hatred ( א נ ש ) for Amnon and waits for an opportune time to put him to death (2 Sam 13:20–23).

⁸⁹

Absalom refrains from taking action openly; instead, he carefully plots against Amnon and has his men kill his brother while drunk during a sheep-shearing celebration (2 Sam 13:23–29). Moreover, instead of defending his decision as a just penalty for Amnon’s sexual sin, Absalom flees the scene once the deed is done (2 Sam 13:34, 37–38). Narrative details such as these suggest that the author intended to depict the killing of Amnon as an act of murder rather than an act of justice.

⁹⁰

In addition, Absalom’s hostility towards David contrasts poorly

87 Similarly, Keith Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom (New York: Routledge, 2014), 59–60;

Steven T. Mann, Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20), Siphrut (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 79; Steinmann, 2 Samuel, 281. Alter insightfully comments regarding 2 Sam 15:2–5: “This whole tableau of Absalom standing at the gate to the city . . . is a stylized representation of the operation of a demagogue.” Robert Alter, Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2013), 513.

88 As McCarter comments, “The incestuous rape reported in the first part of the chapter precipitates, and is compounded by, fratricide.” P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 2 Samuel, AB (New York:

Doubleday, 1984), 333–34. Also see Avioz, “Divine Intervention,” 343; Arnold, 1 and 2 Samuel, 565;

Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 102.

89 Hertzberg rightly remarks, “Absalom’s revenge is no impulsive act, but the result of a long period of waiting and cool consideration.” Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, 326. See also Robert Barron, 2 Samuel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2015), 128–29; Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 45; Daube, “Absalom,” 317.

90 Some commentators also suggest that Absalom may have harbored ulterior motives in killing Amnon; rather than desiring to avenge his sister’s honor, some believe that the would-be king made use of the rape as the occasion to murder the man who stood ahead of him in the line of royal succession.

See Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 36–38; Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 290; Barron, 2 Samuel, 128–30; Arnold, 1 and 2 Samuel, 565.

146

with his father’s refusal to do any harm to YHWH’s anointed one (cf. 1 Sam 24:6; 26:9–

11). Other features of Absalom’s portrayal give the same impression

⁹¹

: he is a scheming, bloodthirsty, power-hungry tyrant-in-the-making who deserves the fate that he meets.

⁹²

Given the absence of authorial comments to suggest otherwise, the characterization of Absalom as an evil man seems to provide the backdrop for understanding God’s desire to bring calamity upon Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14.

⁹³

Second, in addition to being retributive, the DRA in 2 Samuel 17 should be understood as having been mediated. In this case, it seems as though Hushai plays a crucial role as God’s instrument for influencing Absalom towards his doom.

⁹⁴

This

91 Schücking-Jungblut argues that the narrator presents Absalom as a pagan king when he takes a chariot for himself in 2 Sam 15; see Friederike Schücking-Jungblut, “Political Reasons for the Success and Failure of Absalom’s Rebellion (2 Sam 15–19),” VT 68 (2018): 470. Brueggemann seems to compare Absalom to Samson when he says that the would-be king resorts to a “Samson-like trick” by burning down Joab’s field (see Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 297). Waltke notes that Absalom uses YHWH’s name in vain repeatedly in the narrative (Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 669). Avioz argues that

Absalom’s treatment of David’s harem makes him guilty of both adultery and of breaking the command not to violate one’s father’s wife (cf. Deut 23:1; see Avioz, “Divine Intervention,” 343–44).

92 Several commentators agree that Absalom is depicted in a strongly negative manner.

McCarter characterizes Absalom as “a rancorous and scheming young man, brooding and sullen . . . yet capable of displays of extraordinary personal charm and persuasiveness in the pursuit of his own ends.”

McCarter, 2 Samuel, 352. Barron describes him as “vain, ambitious, and hotheaded.” Barron, 2 Samuel, 128. Bodner notes that the Absalom’s fondness for his own hair suggests that “the prince may suffer from a lethal case of excessive self-interest.” Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 57.

93 Avioz has rightly argued that the author of Samuel depicts Absalom as fully responsible for his sins even as he also portrays Absalom’s rebellion as God’s punishment upon David (cf. 2 Sam 12:11).

As he states, “Absalom’s misdeeds help to show that the punishment eventually imposed upon Absalom was not only due to Nathan’s oracle in 2 Samuel 12, but was also the outcome of Absalom’s own deeds. . . . Nathan’s oracle will be fulfilled according to the divine plan, but this does not contradict divine retribution punishing Absalom as responsible for his own errors.” Avioz, “Divine Intervention, 347. Grossman makes a complementary argument when he posits that the narrator deliberately made use of ambiguous syntax in order to emphasize the principle of dual causality; see Jonathan Grossman, “The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle in the Narrative of Absalom’s Rebellion,” Bib 88, no. 4 (2007): 565–66. For other affirmations of both human responsibility and divine sovereignty in the Absalom story, see Park,

“Frustration of Wisdom,” 465–66; Schücking-Jungblut, “Political Reasons,” 472–73; Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 32.

94 Schücking-Jungblut seems to take a similar position when he says, “Hushai’s rhetorical skill was only a means to an end. The defeat of Ahithophel’s counsel and, thus, of Absalom’s rebellion had already been determined at the divine level (17:14b).” Schücking-Jungblut, “Political Reasons,” 468. See