Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church, Manhattan, KS, 2 Jan 2022
As we pick back up with the sermon series from 2 Samuel, remember that David has just been informed of the deaths of Saul and of Jonathan in battle with the Philistines. After mourning, and after administrating justice to the Amalekite who claimed to be Saul’s assassin, David composed a song to lament the passing of Saul and Jonathan, and that is our subject today.
David was the natural person to write an elegy for Saul and Jonathan, being Jonathan´s best friend, and a relative to Saul by marriage, as well as the successor to Saul’s throne, and an experienced Psalm-writer inspired by the Holy Spirit to write scripture. (Willett)
There seems to be some innovation going on here with David, because this is the first instance of this form of קינה poetry in the Bible. Perhaps it is something David invented or at least developed. (Perhaps it was even something he picked up from living among the Philistines. Did Philistines use bows1 instead of fingers to play their harps? I don’t know, but perhaps the word for “bow” in the introduction could indicate that David incorporated bowing into his harp technique for the first time. I don’t know, but it would be an interesting thing to study and find out.) At any rate, all other instances of this noun and verb for “lament” in the Bible occur after 1 Sam.
This lament was first published in the Book of Jasher2, which was apparently “a collection of ancient poems commemorating events of national importance,” (Goldman, Soncino Books of the Bible),
but that book has been lost in the mists of antiquity, and only a couple of quotes from it have survived, namely: this lament, and the song about the sun standing still in Joshua chapter 10, and the Septuagint form of Solomon’s poem in 1 Kings 8.
However, now that we have the history books of the Bible written by the inspired prophets of God (who told us all we need to know for life and godliness3), we don’t need the Book of Jasher,
although if, by some archaeological miracle it were to be discovered, it would probably have some other historical accounts and song lyrics, that a few people – mostly Ancient Near East scholars – would find interesting.
Read
the passage in NAW: Then David lamented this
lament over Saul and over Jonathan his son, and he said to teach the
sons of Judah “The Bow” (See it written out in the book
of Jashar.)
The glory of Israel is pierced upon your high
places.
How did the mighty men fall?
Y’all, don’t
communicate with Gath;
Don’t announce it in the streets
of Ashkelon,
Lest the daughters of the Philistines be happy,
Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.
Mountains
in Gilboa, let there be no dew and no rain upon y’all –
Or the fields of raised-offerings,
Since it was there
that the shield of mighty men was rejected,
The shield of Saul
without being anointed with the oil.
Jonathan’s bow did
not turn back to the rear
To avoid the blood of the wounded or
the best of the mighty men,
Nor did Saul’s sword swing
back without effect.
Saul and Jonathan were beloved and
enjoyable in their lives,
And in their death they were not
split up,
Swifter than eagles, mightier than lions!
Weep,
daughters of Israel, over Saul, the one who clothed y’all with
scarlet – with luxuries, Who set up ornaments of gold on your
clothing!
How did the mighty men fall in the midst of the
battle?
Jonathan is pierced upon your high places!
It is
a crisis for me concerning you, my brother Jonathan,
You were
such an enjoyment for me,
Your love for me was more
outstanding than the love of women.
How did the mighty men fall
And the instruments of war be lost?
Let me try to unpack some of the meaning of these phrases, then make a few applications.
Verse 19 expresses David’s sense of loss in terms of, “How did we manage to lose our brightest and best?” “Saul and Jonathan were our nation’s pride and joy, our champions, the best we’ve got, our most valuable players.” How does a team play without its most valuable players?
Of course, the whole book of 1 Samuel (and the book of Judges before it) tells the story of how it came to be that Israel was so compromised in its walk with God and how Saul became so stubborn in refusing to get right with God, despite the longsuffering, gracious patience of God,
but when the first blow of God’s judgment falls, it can feel like it came out of the blue. We can get so accustomed to the corruption and sin around us that it takes us by surprise when God finally intervenes, and that can lead to a feeling of helpless panic: “If our best men couldn’t make it, what hope is there for the rest of us?”
In v.24, this statement is repeated with Jonathan’s name instead of the word for “glory” “slain/pierced on the high places,” so David seems to be speaking especially of Jonathan, although this elegy also honors Saul.
In v.20, the focus is on the shame that will come from enemies who discover the knockback Israel has experienced.
It’s an all-American past-time to have favorite teams to root for, whether it’s a professional football team or a college team, or maybe it’s a patriotic feeling you have for your country (my neighbor just painted his mailbox army-green and bright red because he’s proud of the Big Red One!), or maybe it’s family members that you’re cheering for as they climb the ladder of success, and it gives you a sense of pride when they score a win, but when they try their best and lose, it’s hard-to-take hearing the folks on the other side crowing over their victory. It’s hard to take knowing that somebody is rejoicing that you lost.
And, just as our football and basketball teams have cheerleaders, it was still traditional 3,000 years ago for hometown girls to cheer when their army won a victory, just as they did for David when they sang about him “slaying his tens of thousands.” So “don’t tell it in Gath;” we don’t want their cheerleaders making up any more ditties to make fun of us!
“Gath and Ashkelon are chosen as representative of the Philistine cities, the former, perhaps because of David’s connection with it, the latter probably because of its importance as a religious centre.” ~Goldman, Soncino Books of the Bible
Now, as for David, he’s in an interesting situation. His followers have built ties with these Philistine cities from living in them over the last couple of years, and they might have some good reasons to speed the tidings out to them. The Philistines would be happy, not only over Saul’s death, but also over the ascendance to the throne of David, since they were on friendly terms with David. They’d rather have an ally than an enemy as king in the country next-door.
But notice David’s emphasis on the Philistines being uncircumcised. Circumcision was the sign of being in a right relationship with God at that time in redemptive history. David realizes that the main point is not what is best for himself, but what is best for God’s glory and for God’s people.
David’s calling as king of Israel is to relate to Yahweh and to govern Israel in such a way that blessing and rejoicing would come to God’s covenant people and through them to the world.
He realizes that he has to caution his followers not to take the course that will bring rejoicing to Philistines (who were not in covenant with God) at the expense of Israelites who were in covenant with God. That’s why he didn’t want anyone to go announcing this development in the Philistine cities of Gath and Ashkelon.
David probably had no delusions that his command could stop the Philistines from spreading that news themselves, but David’s use of the imperative ‘Don’t tell’ is more to express an unenforceable wish that nobody had blabbed about it. (Willett, Gill)
In v.21, David expands the projection of national grief to the world of nature, calling for the very mountains and skies to experience the impact of the loss of Saul and Jonathan.
Now, those of us who are far-removed from agricultural life may have grown up considering rain to be a nuisance, because it keeps us from being able to play outside,
but rain and dew are never portrayed as bad things in the Old Testament; they are generally portrayed as blessings from God, essential for farm crops to grow. Rain and dew meant you wouldn’t go hungry.
But here David is calling for an end to the rain and dew on the hill country around Mt. Gilboa where Saul passed away, and not only there on the mountain, but also down in the Jezreel Valley below Mt. Gilboa where the battle was fought – a valley so fertile that it is known as the “breadbasket” of Israel.
David calls it “the field of raised-offerings4” because the fields in that valley produced lots of food which was then tithed on and offered to the Lord as one of the categories of raised/heave offerings5. An end to rain in the Jezreel Valley would mean a lean year for wheat crops and a lean year for tithes at the tabernacle too.
Of course, David doesn’t actually have control over the rain6, but he is expressing his grief in pictures of nature.
In the second half of verse 21, David gives the reason that he’s calling for drought: it is “because it was in this location that the shield of mighty men” – namely the shield of Saul – or perhaps the “shield” stands for Saul himself, “was cast away/defiled/rejected.7”
That Hebrew verb is only found in the Bible before this in one place, and that’s in the covenant curses of Leviticus 26, where God said, “But if y'all don't give heed to me... and if you despise my statutes, and if your souls disdain my judgments, failing to do any of my commands such that y'all break my covenant, indeed, I myself will do the following to y'all: I will hold you accountable with dismay… I will put your corpses on top of the corpses of your idols, and my soul will disdain y'all…” (vs.14-16, 30, and 42, NAW) This clearly connects Saul’s status as a covenant-breaker with God – and his rejection by God as a covenantal curse – with Saul’s death.8
The comment about Saul’s “shield not being anointed with oil” is curious. One difficulty is deciding whether the word “anointed” refers to Saul or whether it refers to Saul’s shield. Both are grammatically possible in Hebrew.
If it refers to Saul’s shield, then perhaps it could perhaps refer to some sort of posthumous honor ,where a fallen warrior’s shield was recovered from the battleground and anointed with oil to clean and preserve it and to honor his memory. This seems to be a common position of Jewish commentators, and was also the position of Keil & Delitzsch9, but we don’t actually have any Biblical examples of that happening. The closest I’ve seen to such a thing is in war movies when a soldier visits the grave of a fallen buddy and pours out some of his whiskey over the tombstone as a sign of mourning their loss.
A more likely theory is that Saul’s shield “not being anointed” could refer to him not being prepared for battle. There is one other place in the Bible where a shield is “anointed,” and that is in Isaiah 21:5, speaking of getting ready to defend a town10. Bible scholars have postulated that shields covered with leather were smeared with oil to keep the leather from drying out and cracking, and that perhaps the oil also helped make it more slippery to glance arrows off, or perhaps the oil created a bit of a glare in the sunlight to make it harder for archers to stare at you to get their mark. The problem with that theory, however, is that Saul was not caught by surprise in this battle: he mobilized an army and marched to it, so he had at least some time to do the basics of preparing for a battle, like oiling his shield, so, if that’s what it means, then the “shield not being anointed” would have to be a figurative symbol of him not being ready enough – not having mustered a big enough army with a winning-enough strategy.
The other possibility is that this verse is speaking, not of Saul’s shield, but of Saul himself not being anointed with oil, and that is the way the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version interpreted it11. The parallel verb at the beginning of v. 21 would also support this idea of Saul being treated as a covenant-breaker. Some problems with this interpretation are that it requires adding the words “as though” to the verse, which are not in the original Hebrew or Greek. There is also the problem that Saul actually was anointed with oil to be king, a fact to which David repeatedly pointed over the previous years by calling Saul “Yahweh’s anointed one12,” so the only way to consider Saul “not anointed” would be a figurative interpretation of grieving that Saul’s apostasy led him to be treated by God no longer as the anointed king.
V.22 recalls to us that Jonathan was training as an archer last we met him in the field with his bow, shooting arrows with his servant-boy as a sign to David. And Jonathan was from the tribe of Benjamin, which was famous for its archers. The bow stands for Jonathan and his courage to face the blood and gore of war and match his strength against enemy warriors.
He did not “turn back” and go to the protected “rear” of the Israelite ranks when his buddies were pierced with “arrows” and bleeding out13.
The next phrase “from the fat of mighty men” could perhaps be taken literally, that even though there were mighty men with puncture wounds from which fat protruded, Jonathan didn’t retreat. But it makes more sense to me to translate the Hebrew word for “fat” according to its figurative meaning “best/finest,” as it is translated about 8% of the time in the Old Testament, thus the meaning would be that Jonathan didn’t run away from even the best of the Philistine mighty-men but was willing to defend his country against the biggest, baddest foes.
Meanwhile, Saul was swinging his sword and killing enemies left and right. David remembers Saul and Jonathan in their element as mighty warriors, nobly defending the people of God.
In v.23 David continues this portrait of Saul and Jonathan as much-loved military heroes14, who died together on the battlefield.
Jonathan had his disagreements with his Dad over his rash vows and over his treatment of David, but he fought together with his father in the war, and he died defending his father and the nation that his father led. “Ionathan was so faithfull in his loue toward his father, that he would not leaue him in death.” ~Willett, quoting Bor.
As for David, in his years of shepherding outdoors, he had actually seen “eagles” and “lions” attacking sheep, so, for him, there was vivid experience in the comparison with Saul and Jonathan. Furthermore, David had also been the subject of military attacks from Saul; he knew how quickly and decisively Saul could moved and how narrowly he (David) had escaped in the wilderness of Ziph!
v. 24 mentions the luxurious way that Saul clothed the ladies in his favor.
These “gold ornaments” were probably brooch pins used to hold in-place the edges of a piece of fabric wrapped around the body. (You may have seen images of clasps like this recovered in archaeological digs. There’s a whole display case of them from this time-period in the Museum of Oriental History at the University of Chicago – I wish now I had a photo I could show you!)
Although we don’t have a parallel record in the Bible describing any further the clothing with which Saul provided his women,
Samuel’s warnings back in 1 Samuel chapter 8, predicted the centralization of the nation’s resources into the hands of a king, so it stands to reason, that Saul could have outfitted the ladies in his circle of favor with the finest of garments and the finest of jewelry – all at the expense of the rest of the nation (a trend all-too-common today in our centralized governments).
Later on in Isaiah 3:16ff, we see how that trend played out, with the list of 25 extravagant accessories used by the wealthy ladies of Israel.
Saul had also conducted many successful military campaigns earlier in his reign (1 Sam. 14:47), so it could also have been spoils of war that Saul distributed to the ladies. (Soncino)
Another political issue that this brings up is the plight of vulnerable people whom leaders with centralized power and wealth make dependent upon themselves, and who subsequently suffer when that leader dies or passes out of power, since vulnerable people naturally tend to orient their livelihoods around making the big kahuna happy so that the benefits keep flowing their way, rather than learning to provide for themselves independently. David notes that there would be women weeping because they got caught in this position, accustomed to luxuries provided to them by the king from other people’s wealth, and not in a position to provide for themselves after Saul’s death.
In v.26, David calls Jonathan’s death a “grief/distress/crisis” because of what a close friend Jonathan had been to him. He describes the friendship in terms of:
brotherhood, calling Jonathan his brother. David had 7 natural brothers, and he knew what it was like to grow up close to other guys.
David also uses a word from v.23 again here in v.26 to describe his relationship with Jonathan in terms of how much he “enjoyed” being with Jonathan, that is, how “pleasant” (KJV) it was to be around him, and therefore how important and “dear” (NIV) this friend was.
Finally, David compares his relationship with Jonathan as “better than the love of women.”
This statement has been used to accuse David and Jonathan of a homosexual relationship, but there is no indication that their relationship was sexual. The Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate, published in the year 1598, put the following words in David’s mouth by way of commentary, “As the mother loves her only son, so did I love thee15.”
When you consider what sort of relationship David had with his several wives, his relationships with his wives probably weren’t all that close (considering, for instance, what we know about Michal), so it might not have been saying that much for David to say he felt more camaraderie with Jonathan.
Furthermore, the Hebrew word David chose to describe Jonathan’s love is a word that has a root meaning of being “separate/distinct,” solemnly set apart as “wonderful/extraordinary.” The word indicates that his friendship with Jonathan was in a different class from that of women.
Knowing full-well that as long as David was alive he would never succeed his father as king, Jonathan nevertheless remained a loyal friend to David. That’s a real friend! Are you demonstrating that kind of familial, extraordinary, self-giving love to your friends?
Finally, along with the third and final repetition of David’s cry of “How did the mighty men fall?” in v.27, comes the lament over the “perishing” or the “loss” of the “weapons/instruments of war.”
We know from 1 Samuel 31:10 that Saul’s weapons were not “destroyed” but were rather seized and put on display in a pagan temple. Furthermore, this word translated “perish” was translated “lost” in all the standard English versions the only other times this verb occurs in the books of Samuel, when in 1 Samuel 9, Saul’s donkeys were described as “lost.” So, if this is speaking of mere weapons, it would probably be more consistent to translate them as being “lost.”
But, since the other two verses in this elegy which contain the phrase, “How have the mighty fallen,” lament the death of Jonathan in the other half of those verses, David is actually probably referring to Jonathan and Saul16 as those mighty “instruments of war” at the end of his song. (Besides, it would seem rather odd for David to finish his song about Saul and Jonathan by expressing disappointment over the loss of some swords!)
One practical application of this passage of scripture is that we should engage in appropriate memorials for loved ones who have passed. Writing a song like David did, or, if writing music isn’t your thing, making a eulogy speech or compiling a photo album or a webpage can be a great way to respond to the loss of a loved one. Puritan commentator Andrew Willett, in his commentary on this passage suggested a couple17 things to keep in mind when you do this:
Strive for accuracy. Don’t exaggerate their strengths or sugar-coat their faults. It doesn’t help posterity to hear history that is not true. David “commendeth not Saul for his pietie, or any spirituall grace, whereof he was destitute, but for his valour and fortitude: for these beeing the gifts of God, and so good in themselues, may be commended euen in the wicked.”
Keep in mind that what you compose is “for the benefit of the living, not for the dead… [T]he dead [aren’t going to] receive any solace, benefit, or releefe, by such funerall solemnities: but such commendations, and setting forth of the praise of the dead, must altogether redound, and be referred to the praise of God, and to the vse, exhortation, and comfort of the liuing…”
A second application to this lament-song is that we should thoughtfully follow David’s example in his grief by not withdrawing into self-pity or bitterness, but rather thinking about what will bring glory to God and what will bring benefit to God’s people.
In addition to mourning his own losses (“I am distressed over you, Jonathan, my brother”), David is also deeply concerned for the welfare of his whole country (“teach the sons of Judah… The glory of Israel is slain… Weep, O daughters of Israel…”), and he is even considering how to influence the thinking of the unbelieving Philistines (“Tell it not in Gath!”). (Henry) He is keeping the big picture of God’s glory in mind.
As we go through crises in our lives, let us remember the whole church and its influence upon the whole world! For instance, as we in America feel the pinch of of the price of everything being 10% more expensive this year than last year due to inflation, let us not descend into self-pity or bitterness over what we can’t afford to buy anymore for ourselves, but let us remember that there are brothers and sisters in Christ in Uganda who have been hit far harder economically, who are reduced to eating only one meal a day – and a meager one at that, by our standards. Supporting them through the TentMaker Project or a similar church-to-church relief agency is a way of demonstrating to a watching world the love of Christ.
That’s just one example. The point is to follow David in caring for the rest of God’s people and looking out for God’s reputation in the eyes of the world even in the midst of personal losses.
A third application of this lament is this: when the judgment of God comes against a community, it is healthy to express your disorientation and feelings of helplesness to God, like David does in this lament, but, like David, don’t stop with merely expressing your grief; keep carrying through by asking the question, “How?”
I realize that most English versions translate the Hebrew word “how” as though it is an exclamation of the extent of loss, (“How tha mighty have fallen!”), and I’m not saying that there isn’t an element of that meaning there, but I’m saying nevertheless that this word is the Hebrew word for the question “How?” and that’s a question we need to ask.
“How did we get to this place? Where did we go wrong? What is the right way forward?” We need to be talking with God and asking these sorts of questions in order to get oriented to what He is doing what He wants us to do.
Asking the question puts us in position to be convicted of sin and to confess sin as we realize where we’ve gone wrong.
Our nation is currently reeling from a prolonged epidemic complicated by extreme political reactions that have disrupted the status quo. We need to be asking God the questions that will help us get our bearings in the midst of tumultuous times.
This is not the time to be escaping to secular entertainment media. This is the time to be composing the “How” prayers and songs. I like how Andrew Willet put it at the beginning of the 17th century, “It were much to be wished, that all wanton and lasciuious songs were laid downe in these daies: and that youth would exercise themselues in such sonnets as this of Dauid, which doe set forth the worthie acts and exploits of such as haue defended their countrie, and protected the Church of God.”
LXX |
Brenton
LXX |
Douay |
KJV |
NAW |
MT |
17 Καὶ ἐθρήνησεν Δαυιδ τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον ἐπὶ Σαουλ καὶ ἐπὶ Ιωναθαν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ |
17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son. |
17 And David made this kind of lamentation over Saul, and over Jonathan his son. |
17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son: |
17 Then David lamented this lament over Saul and over Jonathan his son, |
17 וַיְקֹנֵןB דָּוִד אֶת-הַקִּינָה הַזֹּאת עַל-שָׁאוּל וְעַל- יְהוֹנָתָן בְּנוֹ: |
18 καὶ εἶπεν τοῦ διδάξαι τοὺς υἱοὺς Ιουδα X--ἰδοὺ γέγραπται ἐπὶ βιβλίου τοῦ εὐθοῦσ-- |
18
And he |
18
(Also he |
18
(Also he |
18 and he said to teach the sons of Judah “The Bow” (See it written out in the book of Jashar.) |
18 וַיֹּאמֶר לְלַמֵּד בְּנֵי-יְהוּדָה קָשֶׁת הִנֵּה כְתוּבָה עַל-סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁרE: |
19
|
19
|
19 The illustrious of Israel are slain upon thy mountains: how are the valiant fallen? |
19 The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen! |
19 The glory of Israel is pierced upon your high places. How did the mighty men fall? |
19 הַצְּבִיF יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל- בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָלG אֵיךְH נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים: |
20 μὴ ἀναγγείλητε ἐν Γεθ καὶ μὴ εὐαγγελίσησθε ἐν ταῖς ἐξόδοις Ἀσκαλῶνος, μήποτε εὐφρανθῶσιν θυγατέρες ἀλλοφύλων, μήποτε ἀγαλλιάσωνται θυγατέρες τῶν ἀπεριτμήτων. |
20 Tell it not in Geth, and tell it not as glad tidings in the streets of Ascalon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. |
20 Tell it not in Geth, publish it not in the streets of Ascalon: lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. |
20 Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. |
20 Y’all, don’t communicate with Gath; don’t announce it in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines be happy, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice. |
20 אַל-תַּגִּידוּ בְגַת אַל-תְּבַשְּׂרוּ בְּחוּצֹת אַשְׁקְלוֹן פֶּן-תִּשְׂמַחְנָה בְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים פֶּן-תַּעֲלֹזְנָה בְּנוֹת הָעֲרֵלִים: |
21 ὄρη τὰ ἐν Γελβουε, μὴ καταβῇ δρόσος καὶ μὴ ὑετὸς ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς καὶ ἀγροὶ ἀπαρχῶν, ὅτι ἐκεῖ προσωχθίσθη θυρεὸς δυνατῶν, θυρεὸς Σαουλ οὐκ ἐχρίσθη ἐν ἐλαίῳ. |
21 Ye mountains of Gelbue, let not dew no rain descend upon you, nor fields of first-fruits be upon you, for there the shield of the mighty ones has been grievously assailed; the shield of Saul was not anointed with oil. |
21 Ye mountains of Gelboe, let neither dew, nor rain come upon you, neither be they fields of firstfruits: for there was cast away the shield of the valiant, the shield of Saul [as though] he had not been anointed with oil. |
21 Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings: for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil. |
21 Mountains in Gilboa, let there be no dew and no rain upon y’all - or the fields of raised-offerings, since it was there that the shield of mighty men was rejected, the shield of Saul without being anointed with the oil. |
21 הָרֵי בַגִּלְבֹּעַ אַל-טַל וְאַל-מָטָר עֲלֵיכֶם וּשְׂדֵי תְרוּמֹת כִּי שָׁם נִגְעַלI מָגֵן גִּבּוֹרִים מָגֵן שָׁאוּל בְּלִי מָשִׁיחַ בַּשָּׁמֶן: |
22 ἀφ᾿ αἵματος τραυματιῶν, ἀπὸ στέατος δυνατῶν τόξον Ιωναθαν οὐκ ἀπεστράφη [κενὸν] εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, καὶ ῥομφαία Σαουλ οὐκ ἀνέκαμψεν κενή. |
22 From the blood of the slain, [andJ] from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan returned not [empty]; and the sword of Saul turned not back empty. |
22
From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the valiant,
the |
22 From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty. |
22 Jonathan’s bow did not turn back to the rear to avoid the blood of the wounded or the best of the mighty men, nor did Saul’s sword swing back without effect. |
22 מִדַּם חֲלָלִים מֵחֵלֶבK גִּבּוֹרִים קֶשֶׁת יְהוֹנָתָן לֹא נָשׂוֹג אָחוֹרL וְחֶרֶב שָׁאוּל לֹא תָשׁוּב רֵיקָם: |
23 Σαουλ καὶ Ιωναθαν, οἱ ἠγαπημένοι καὶ ὡραῖοι, [οὐ διακεχωρισμένοι, εὐπρεπεῖς] ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτῶν οὐ διεχωρίσθησαν, ὑπὲρ ἀετοὺς κοῦφοι [καὶ] ὑπὲρ λέοντας ἐκραταιώθησαν. |
23 Saul and Jonathan, the beloved and the beautiful, [were not divided: comely were they] in their lifeX, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, [and] they were stronger than lions. |
23 Saul and Jonathan, lovely, and comely in their lifeX, even in X death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, stronger than lions. |
23 Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. |
23 Saul and Jonathan were beloved and enjoyable in their lives, and in their death they were not split up, swifter than eagles, mightier than lions! |
23 שָׁאוּל וִיהוֹנָתָן הַנֶּאֱהָבִים וְהַנְּעִימִם בְּחַיֵּיהֶם וּבְמוֹתָם לֹא נִפְרָדוּ מִנְּשָׁרִים קַלּוּ מֵאֲרָיוֹת גָּבֵרוּ: |
24 θυγατέρες Ισραηλ, ἐπὶ Σαουλ κλαύσατε τὸν ἐνδιδύσκοντα ὑμᾶς κόκκινα μετὰ κόσμου [ὑμῶν], τὸν ἀναφέροντα κόσμον χρυσοῦν ἐπὶ τὰ ἐνδύματα ὑμῶν. |
24
Daughters of Israel, weep for Saul, who clothed you with scarlet
together
with [your]
adorning,
who |
24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you with scarlet in delights, who gave ornaments of gold for your attire. |
24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel. |
24 Weep, daughters of Israel, over Saul, the one who clothed y’all with scarlet - with luxuries, who set up ornaments of gold on your clothing! |
24 בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-שָׁאוּל בְּכֶינָה הַמַּלְבִּשְׁכֶםN שָׁנִי עִם-עֲדָנִיםO הַמַּעֲלֶה עֲדִי זָהָב עַל לְבוּשְׁכֶן: |
25 πῶς ἔπεσαν δυνατοὶ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πολέμου· Ιωναθαν ἐπὶ τὰ ὕψη σου τραυματίας. |
25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, [even] the slain one[sP] upon thy high places! |
25 How are the valiant fallen in X X battle? Jonathan slain in the high places? |
25 How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. |
25 How did the mighty men fall in the midst of the battle? Jonathan is pierced upon your high places! |
25 אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבֹּרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַמִּלְחָמָה יְהוֹנָתָן עַל-בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל: |
26 ἀλγῶ ἐπὶ σοί, ἄδελφέ μου Ιωναθαν· ὡραιώθης μοι σφόδρα, ἐθαυμαστώθη ἡ ἀγάπησίς σου ἐμοὶ ὑπὲρ ἀγάπησιν γυναικῶν. |
26 I am grieved for thee, my brother Jonathan; thou wast very lovely to me; thy love to me was wonderful beyond the love of women. |
26 I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. [As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee.] |
26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderfulQ, passing the love of women. |
26 It is a crisis for me concerning you, my brother Jonathan, you were such an enjoyment for me, your love for me was more outstanding than the love of women. |
26 צַר-לִי עָלֶיךָ אָחִי יְהוֹנָתָן נָעַמְתָּ לִּי מְאֹד נִפְלְאַתָה אַהֲבָתְךָ לִי מֵאַהֲבַתR נָשִׁים: |
27 πῶς ἔπεσαν δυνατοὶ καὶ ἀπώλοντο σκεύη πολεμικά. |
27 How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished! |
27 How are the valiant fallen, and the weapons of war perished? |
27 How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished! |
27 How did the mighty men fall and the instruments of war be lost? |
27 אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים וַיֹּאבְדוּS כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה: פ |
1Matthew Henry also picked up on this possibility, although he didn’t advocate for it.
2Gill noted, “Jarchi and Ben Gersom restrain it to the book of Genesis... but Kimchi, extending it to all the five books of Moses... In the Arabic version it is ... interpreted ‘the book of songs’... Jerome interprets it of ... ‘the book of the righteous prophets, Samuel, Gad, and Nathan’...”
32 Pet. 1:3
4Tsumura alone offered a different interpretation that this location be translated “fields of heights,” as a parallel phrase meaning the same thing as “mountains in Gilboa.” It’s hard to know what to do with a plausible interpretation which apparently no other commentator in the last three thousand years has came up with.
5Numbers 15:17-21 … “When you come into the land to which I bring you, then it will be, when you eat of the bread of the land, that you shall offer up a heave offering to the LORD. You shall offer up a cake of the first of your ground meal as a heave offering; as a heave offering of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it up. Of the first of your ground meal you shall give to the LORD a heave offering throughout your generations.” (NKJV) Other categories of the raised-offering were the right thigh of sacrificial animals (Lev. 7:14-34) and voluntary contributions of precious metals or materials (Ex. 25, 30, 35).
6Willett (citing Martyr for support, and citing Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree) asserted the contrary, that as a prophet, David did have such supernatural power. Henry argued against Willis, saying, “Not as if David wished that any part of the land of Israel might be barren, but, to express his sorrow for the thing, he speaks with a seeming indignation at the place. Observe... the curse Christ pronounced on the fig-tree, ‘Never fruit grow on thee...’ took effect - the fig-tree withered away: this, on the mountains of Gilboa, did not.” Jameison argued back that, “The curse seems still to lie upon them; for the mountains of Gilboa are naked and sterile.” Gill retorted, “[N]ot to be understood as a real imprecation; for David would never curse any part of the land of Israel... but only as a poetical figure... much less did this in reality take place, as some have feigned... which has been refuted by travellers, particularly Borchard, who, speaking of this mountain, says, that as he was upon it, there was such a violent shower fell, that he was wet through his clothes; and in the year 1273, laying all night upon this hill, there was a great dew fell upon him.”
7This was Abarbinel’s position.
8In this I take issue with Jamieson and Gill, who interpreted this as the mighty men of Israel “casting away” their shields and running away from the battle. Keil & Delitzsch had this to say, “גָּעַל does not mean ‘to throw away...’ but ‘to soil or defile’ (as in the Chaldee), then ‘to abhor.’”
9“‘Not anointed with oil,’ i.e., not cleansed and polished with oil, so that the marks of Saul's blood still adhered to it.”
10Isaiah 21 has some other similarities as a lament poem over unbelievers as well. Nowhere in the Bible besides 2 Sam. 2 is shemen olive oil described as being on a migan handheld-shield.
11Also Willis. Gill was ambivalent on this point, but cited another position articulated by Gersom: “Saul's shield being in continual use, needed not to be anointed, as those did which for a time had been laid aside.”
12Which fact led Tsumura to emphatically state, “The phrase not anointed does not refer to Saul...”
13John Gill (and Keil & Delitzsch and Tsumura) interpreted “bow” as though it meant “arrow” and achieved a meaning parallel to the one I found in the efficacy of Saul’s sword, namely that Jonathan’s arrows pierced through fat and drew blood from enemies. Gill mentioned, however, that Abarbinel supported the alternate interpretation I found, “though Saul and Jonathan saw many of these fall before their eyes, yet ‘for’ or ‘because’ of their blood, they were not intimidated and restrained from fighting; the bow of the one, and the shield of the other, turned not back on that account.”
14“The light motion or swiftness of an eagle (cf. Hab. 1:8), and the strength of a lion (vid., 2Sam. 17:10), were the leading characteristics of the great heroes of antiquity. “ ~Keil & Delitzsch
15Sicut mater unicum amat filium suum, ita ego te diligebam.
16“Most
commentators... interpret the words as referring figuratively to
Saul and Jonathan…” ~Goldman
“‘The
instruments of war’ are not the weapons; but the expression is
a figurative one, referring to the heroes by whom war was carried on
(vid., Isa. 13:5). Luther has adopted this rendering (die
Streitbaren).” ~Keil & Delitzsch
The lone
exception I found was Tsumura, who interpreted it as a prepositional
phrase (“...the warriors fallen and perished by the
weapons of war”), even though there is no prepositional
indicator in the Hebrew or Greek, and even though “weapons”
is in the position of the subject relative to “perished”
in the Hebrew and Greek.
17To these couple of points from Andrew Willett, I can’t help adding a couple more quotables from Matthew Henry exactly a century later: “Charity teaches us to make the best we can of every body and to say nothing of those of whom we can say no good, especially when they are gone... Let the corrupt part of the memory be buried with the corrupt part of the man – earth to earth, ashes to ashes…” and, “The more we love, the more we grieve.”
AMy
original chart includes the NASB and NIV, but their copyright
restrictions have forced me to remove them from the
publicly-available edition of this chart. I have included the ESV in
footnotes when it employs a word not already used by the KJV, NASB,
or NIV. (NAW is my translation.) When a translation adds words not
in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use
of italics (or greyed-out text), I put the added words in [square
brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different
from all the other translations, I underline it. When a
version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs
too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far
from the grammar form of the original text, I use strikeout.
And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I
insert an X. (I also place an X at the end of a word if the original
word is plural but the English translation is singular.) I
occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between
the various editions and versions when there are more than two
different translations of a given word. The only known Dead Sea
Scroll containing any part of 2 Samuel 1 is 4Q51 Samuela,
which is dated around 50BC and contains fragments of vs. 4-13. Where
the DSS is legible and agrees with the MT, the MT text is colored
purple. Where the DSS or Vulgate supports the LXX with omissions or
text not in the MT, I have highlighted
with yellow the LXX
and its translation into English, and where I have accepted that
into my NAW translation, I have marked it with {pointed brackets}.
BThe verb is only found 5 other places in the Hebrew O.T. (2 Sam. 3:33; 2 Chron. 35:25; Jer. 9:17; Ezek. 27:32; 32:16). This is the first instance of this form of poetry in the Bible. Perhaps it is something David invented or at least developed. (Perhaps even picked up from Philistine culture? Did Philistines use bows instead of fingers to play their harps, and could David have incorporated bowing into his harp technique as a result of his sojourn in Philistia? That would be an interesting thing to study and find out.) At any rate, all other instances of this noun and verb in the Bible occur after after 1 Sam.
CNASB = “told,” NIV = “ordered,” ESV uses the most central meaning of the Hebrew word with “said”
DThe Hebrew word qeshet means “bow,” RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB = “[song of the] bow,” NIV = “[this lament of the] bow,” Vulgate = arcum,” Wycliffe = “weilyng,” Geneva = “to shoote,” LXX (except for the Alexandrian edition) & ESV omit the word altogether.
E“Mentioned
only here and in Josh. 10:13… a collection of ancient poems
commemorating events of national importance.” ~Goldman
(Soncino Books of the Bible)
“a prebiblical
written source that also included Josh. 10:12-13, and according to
the Septuagint text, Solomon’s poem in 1 K. 8:12-13.”
~Tsumura
Willett: “Iasher signifieth, the iust or
righteous: so called as some thinke of the persons whereof that
booke intreated, namely of the acts of the Patriarchs and iust men.
Some of the matter, because it contained a true narration of such
things as were written therein. But it is more like to beare the
name of Ieshurun, which is the name of Israel, Deut. 32.15. and the
Prophet Isai calleth Israel by the same name, c. 44. v. 2. which
word also signifieth, the righteous people: this booke was called
Iasher, because it was as a publike chronicle and record of Israel…
which was continued from time to time by the Prophets, which is now
wanting [missing], as many such historicall bookes are.”
FEvery other time this word is used in the Torah, the Historical books, and the Wisdom books, it means “gazelle,” so the 2011 edition of the NIV opts for “gazelle.” Only in the prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel (plus one citation in Jer.) does it mean “beauty/glory.” Tsumura noted, “Designating notable people as cattle can be seen also in expressions such as Ug[aritic] ‘gazelle’ (zby) // “bull’ (tr) in the Keret Epic…” but Tsumura proposed that it be translated “the prince” here and interpreted as Saul. The NLT captures the meaning well with the English phrase “pride and joy.” Luther rendered die Edelsten (“the noblest”).
GThis adjective literally means “pierced,” but I have also translated it “wounded” in nearby context.
HThis Hebrew word is not listed among the Interjections in Jouon/Muraoka or Gesenius. Waltke/O’Connor claim that it is a form of the interjection איכה, but cite no other place in scripture where it is so. I am taking it in its normal sense as an interrogative. BDB does cite other places where it can be considered an exclamation: “of lamentation 2 S 1:19, Je 2:21, 9:18, Mi 2:4; or of satisfaction Is 14:4, 14:12, Je 48:39, 51:41, Ob 5 al.; with intensive force = how gladly! Je 3:19, how terribly! 9:6”
IThis is a word about breaking covenant, used only in Lev. 26 before this, and also in Job 21:10 (of cows aborting, the only non-covenantal context); Jer. 14:19, and Ezek. 16:45.
JAlthough there is no conjunction here in the MT or Rahlf’s edition of the LXX, there is a και here in the Vaticanus.
KIn addition to denoting “fat,” this Hebrew word is also translated “callous/dull” (Ps. 17:10) and “finest/best” (Numbers 18:12-32; Psalms 81:16 & 147:14.) in other Hebrew poetry. If a literal interpretation is preferred, perhaps the meaning is that even though there were mighty men wounded all around him bleeding to death with puncture wounds from which subcutaneous fat layers protruded, Jonathan didn’t retreat. Tsumura offered the alternate interpretation of “without” for the mem preposition, rendering, “Without the blood of the slain, without the fat of the warriors, Jonathan’s bow turned not back and Saul’s sword returned not empty.”
LExcept in one case in Micah, every time the verb sug appears in the Hebrew O.T. in a passive form (Niphal or Hophal, there is no Pual), it is accompanied by the word achar “after/behind.” There is an anomaly in the MT in that “bow” is feminine whereas this verb is masculine. Various explanations have been suggested, including “bow” could be considered masculine here (BDB), or this is a “colloquialism,” or this verb is actually an infinitive absolute with no gender designation (Tsumura).
MThe Greek word in the LXX literally means “carried up” which is also the sense of the Hebrew word in the MT.
NThis word has a MASCULINE plural ending, whereas the last word in this verse has a FEMININE plural ending. Perhaps “daughters” could be considered gender-inclusively to refer to all the children of Israel. Alternately, Tsumura noted that this is “an example of ‘gender neutralization,’ which is a characteristic of th spoken Hebrew dialect,” citing Gesenius (section 135.o) and Rendsburg’s Diaglossia in Ancient Hebrew, p.44.
OThis is a rare word, only used here and Ps. 36:9 and Jer. 51:34. It is plural and the preposition “with” is attached to it rather than to the singular “scarlet,” so the NASB and ESV translations are not entirely accurate.
PThis participle is plural in the Vaticanus, but singular (referring to Jonathan, as per the MT) in Ralf’s edition of the LXX
QESV = “extraordinary”
RTargum inserted the word “two,” suggesting that David compared Jonathan against his 2 wives, an unlikely supposition.
SThe only other places in Samuel that this verb occurs is in 1 Sam. 9:3 & 20, and there it is translated “were lost.” Swords would not have “perished/been destroyed” but would rather be seized by the enemy, as Saul’s weapons were (1 Sam. 31:10).