Leaping Tall Buildings (Psalm 18:29)

Who by God’s help was able to jump over a wall? David (Psalm 18:29)

Psalm 18 is a lengthy psalm that can be classified as an individual royal psalm of thanksgiving (Psalm 18:1-50).

Richard J. Clifford (b. 1934) introduces:

Psalm 18 shifts the topic from the subject of the three preceding psalms, the Temple, to the king (though the king is often associated with the Temple.) It is the third longest poem in the Psalters (after Psalms 119 and 78). A nearly identical version is found in II Samuel 22 [II Samuel 22:1-51]. (Clifford, Psalms 1-72 (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 104)

The psalm’s superscription attributes its composition to King David. Geoffrey W. Grogan (1925-2011) notes:

Most scholars now see this psalm as very old, and the possibility that all or much of it is by David is quite widely (but not universally) accepted, even by some denying most other psalms to him. It is sometimes used as a yardstick for measuring whether others headed לדוד, lědāwid, are by him. (Grogan, Psalms (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary), 64-65)

William L. Holladay (b. 1926) adds:

Strikingly, this psalm [Psalm 18:1-50] is duplicated in II Samuel 22 [II Samuel 22:1-51], and there it is specifically attributed to David (II Samuel 22:1). The context given for the Psalm in II Samuel 22 might itself be unhistorical, but that this psalm, which appears to offer archaic language, is preserved in two different parts of the Old Testament suggests that the attribution to David should be taken seriously; most scholars at least date it to the tenth century B.C.E. (Holladay, The Psalms Through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses, 24)

Derek Kidner (1913-2008) defends Davidic authorship:

Although some have assumed from the final verse [Psalm 18:50] that the king in question was not David but one of his descendants, the verse does not require this, and the zest and vividness of the writing point to first-hand experiences such as David pre-eminently had. An incidental pointer to him is the allusion to fighting on foot (Psalm 18:29, 33), since later kings soon took up chariots (cf. I Kings 22:34; II Kings 9:21), which were introduced on a large scale by Solomon. (Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 90)

The psalm’s superscription states that the psalm documents “the day that the Lord delivered him [David] from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.” This heading is highly irregular.

Samuel Terrien (1911-2002) informs:

The editor of the Davidic Psalter not only attributed Psalm 18 in its totality to David but also assigned it to a concrete situation without parallel elsewhere in the completed Psalter. Instead of a specific episode in the life of the young monarch, as was the case in most of the other David superscriptions (Psalms 3, 7, 34, 51-52, 54, 56-57, 59-60, 63; cf. 142), this notice covers all the king’s victories during Saul’s pursuits (II Samuel 5:5-25, 15:1-21:22). The psalm is called “canticle” or “chant” (cf. Deuteronomy 31:30), and the poet insists on the exceptional quality of the singer, whom he names “the servant of the Lord” (cf. Psalm 36:1, 144:10; cf. also “Moses, man of God”; Deuteronomy 33:1). (Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary, Volume 1: Psalms 1-72 (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 196)

Given this context, the psalm is sung as a sigh of relief after the singer has emerged victorious following a long struggle. It functions much the same way as the 1997 ubiquitous Chumbawamba hit “Tubthumping” whose hook is preceded by, “We’ll be singing when we’re winning!”

In recounting the Lord’s assistance, the psalm transitions from defense (Psalm 18:16-19) to attack when David exclaims:

For by You I can run upon a troop;
And by my God I can leap over a wall. (Psalm 18:29 NASB)

James Limburg (b. 1935) contextualizes:

Psalm 18:25-30 consists of praise accompanied by instruction. The king speaks of what the Lord has done for his people (Psalm 18:27). Then, with striking imagery and exaggeration, the king tells what the Lord means for his own life: “Lord, you light my lamp, you give me the strength to take on an entire army, with you I can leap over a wall!” (Psalm 18:28-29 paraphrased). (Limburg, Psalms (Westminster Bible Companion), 56)

Peter C. Craigie (1938-1985) supplements:

The psalmist turns to a personal reflection (Psalm 18:28-29), in which he recalls the crisis from which he had sought deliverance, and the deliverance which came. He had almost been trapped by Death and Sheol (Psalm 18:4-5), which are symbolized by darkness, but in that darkness, God had given him light (Psalm 18:28) and had warded off the ultimate darkness of defeat in death. He had been threatened by enemies (Psalm 18:3), but had been enabled by God to attack a greater force (“a troop”) and “scale a wall” (namely the walls of enemy forts or cities, Psalm 18:29). (Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (Word Biblical Commentary), 175)

Some have seen the verse as out of place. Donald K. Berry (b. 1953) acknowledges:

Douglas K. Stuart [b. 1943] recommends that the entire verse be omitted for metrical and semantic reasons. The verse is tenuously connected to the statements which precede and follow it, but omission is somewhat drastic. (Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), 42)

David asserts that, with God’s help, he can “leap” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “scale” (NIV, NLT) or “vault” (Robert Alter [b. 1935], MSG) a wall (Psalm 18:29).

The Hebrew word for wall is shûr. Stephen D. Renn researches:

Shûr is a noun found in four places, designating a literal wall in each case (cf. Genesis 49:22; Psalm 18:29; II Samuel 22:30; Job 24:11). (Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew And Greek Texts, 1025)

Colin J. Humphreys (b. 1941) infers:

The Hebrew word translated “wall” here is shur, and clearly it means a high wall that the psalmist can climb with the help of God, not a low wall he can easily step over. (Humphreys, The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories, 210)

Because of this presumption, The Message paraphrases the word as “highest fences” (Psalm 18:29 MSG).

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) titled his “Reflections on the Life of David”, Leap over a Wall because he felt that Psalm 18:29 typified the king’s entire life. Peterson characterizes:

The image of David vaulting the wall catches and holds my attention. David running, coming to a stone wall, and without hesitation leaping the wall and continuing on his way—running toward Goliath, returning from Saul, pursuing God, meeting Jonathan, rounding up stray sheep, whatever, but running. And leaping. Certainly not strolling or loitering...David’s is a most exuberant story. Earthy spirituality characterizes his life and accounts for the exuberance. (Peterson, Leap Over a Wall: Earthy Spirituality for Everyday Christians, 11)

The setting of this particular leaping is a battlefield. Craig C. Broyles (b. 1953) situates:

In this section we have the first clear reference to the psalm’s military context: With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale a wall. In contrast to the theophany, which refers only to Yahweh in the third person...this song is dominated by first and second persons (he is used, however, in Psalm 19:30-34). While the theophany gives focus to divine intervention, and a dramatic one at that, this section gives attention to Yahweh’s equipping...and training...of his agent of victory. (Broyles, Psalms (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 106)

Konrad Schaefer (b 1951) compiles:

God instructs and equips the psalmist for military triumph: a belt of strength, safe passages, fleetness of foot (“like the feet of a deer”), a stronghold out of reach, amazing strength (to “bend a bow of bronze”), and training for battle (Psalm 18:31-35). Military vocabulary and images are preferred as the situation unfolds (Psalm 18:36-42). In an attack and allied victory, the psalmist pulverizes the enemy (Psalm 18:42). (Schaefer, Psalms (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 43)

William P. Brown (b. 1958) concurs:

In Psalm 18, the king can “run over a wall” (Psalm 18:29); he is girded with “strength”; his way is “perfect” (Psalm 18:32); and his “stride” is “lengthened” (Psalm 18:36). Such qualities, among others, establish the king’s prowess in combat (see also Psalm 18:33-34). (Brown, The Psalms (Interpreting Biblical Texts))

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) analyzes:

Psalm 18:29 says, “By you I can run against a troop,” (a synecdoche, referring to all kinds of conflict in warfare). The second half of the verse may also refer to some aspect of war, although the idea is not readily clear: “I can leap over a wall” (perhaps escaping; see I Samuel 23:2). (Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 1: 1-41 (Kregel Exegetical Library), 454)

Many interpreters see the wall being leaped as reflecting David’s ability to penetrate enemy defenses.

The image depicted is that of a divinely inspired warrior. As such the Contemporary English Version paraphrases: “You help me defeat armies and capture cities” (Psalm 18:29 CEV). A more modern exemplar of Psalm 18:29 is Sergeant Alvin C. York (1887-1964), a Christian who merited the Medal of Honor during World War I for his individual exploits during an assault on October 8, 1918.

Given the indeterminate superscription, the psalm may not refer to any particular battle. Michael Wilcock (b. 1932) speculates:

The effects of grace, God’s undeserved goodness to such people, are to bring light into their life and (what is more) to keep it burning, and to provide the very resources which they lack in coping with both people (a troop) and with things (a wall). David is no doubt thinking of some of the achievements which climaxed with his accession to the throne, for instance his defeat of the Amalekite raiders in I Samuel 30:1-20 and his capture of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem in II Samuel 5:6-16. (Wilcock, The Message of Psalms, Volume 1 (The Bible Speaks Today), 66)

Whoever the opponent, David is elated. Willem A. VanGemeren (b. 1943) restates:

In his newfound deliverance, the psalmist expresses a spirit of confident joy. There is no barrier that the Lord cannot overcome, whether it be a “troop” or the wall of an enemy city (Psalm 18:29). The presence of the Lord gives confidence of victory (cf. Joshua 23:10). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Psalms: Revised Edition (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 209)

Significantly, the psalmist’s confidence does not emanate from within himself but from without in the form of his God (Psalm 18:29; Romans 8:31). John Eaton (b. 1927) elucidates:

In Psalm 18:28-29 the king pictures the effect of his deliverance, and one can easily interpret his hopes as based on the meaning of a foregoing sacrament; God has in symbol ‘saved’ him and confirmed his choice of him, and so the king looks forward to having the divine help in the struggles that lie ahead. In times of darkness God will light his ‘candle’ (the picture will be of a lamp made of a wick set in a saucer of oil). It is a picture of one who has to go through much darkness, but whose little light is sufficient because it is lit by the Lord. Through God this warrior will not fear to run at a whole troop of foes, and a mighty city wall will be no obstacle to him. (Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary with an Introduction and New Translation (Continuum Biblical Studies), 106)

The king has assurance that God will equip him with whatever skills he may need, even superhuman abilities such as Superman’s capacity to “leap tall buildings in a single bound”.

James H. Waltner (1931-2007) summarizes:

The loyal God lights my lamp (Psalm 18:28). In that God-given vitality, the king can crush a troop or scale the wall of a hostile city (Psalm 18:29). With God as enabler, he can do the unthinkable. The concluding assertion states the theme of the whole psalm: This God...is perfect (Psalm 18:30, tāmîm, “whole, integral”). God is totally reliable. (Waltner, Psalms (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 104)

After triumphing over numerous obstacles, David’s faith is soaring. The king’s assertion that he can leap over walls is a precursor to Paul’s famous declaration, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13 NASB).

What is the highest you have ever leapt? Have you ever felt as though you could “leap over a wall” with God’s assistance? What historical figures have illustrated Psalm 18:29 by exceeding their natural limitations? Who receives the credit for your successes? At what point in your life were you most confident in God’s ability to empower you? Is your life characterized by the joy inherent in Psalm 18:29?

David’s intent in penning the eighteenth psalm is not simply to document an historical victory but to inspire future communities of believers. The king’s military might is a community concern as it affects the entire nation.

Robert Davidson (1927-2012) connects:

On the king’s relationship with God and on his God-given vitality depends the well-being of the whole nation. As a warrior, the king can, with God’s help, successfully lead his army into battle. He can storm ramparts...and, taking his enemies by surprise, leap over a defensive wall. (Davidson, The Vitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 68)

J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (b. 1951) interprets:

If Psalm 18 is viewed simply as a royal psalm of thanksgiving used by David or one of his descendants upon the occasion of military victory, then it must be viewed essentially as a literary artifact—an interesting museum piece, but not something for contemporary handling and use. Taking a clue from Erhard S. Gerstenberger [b. 1932], however, the interpreter may move in a different direction. Gerstenberger’s proposal that Psalm 18 was intended “to keep hope alive in hard-pressed Jewish communities” is all the more likely when we consider that, in some post-exilic circles, the promises attached to the Davidic monarchy were applied to the whole community...The circumstances and faith of the psalmist, as well as the intent of Psalm 18 to keep hope alive, are captured in Jesus’ parting words to his disciples: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid...I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” (John 14:27, 16:33 NRSV). (1 & 2 Maccabees, Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, Job, Psalms (New Interpreter’s Bible), 749)

Many have been encouraged by David’s experience. Herbert Lockyer, Sr. (1886-1934) documents:

This portion of Scripture was the constant source of inspiration of the Scottish Covenanters...Walter Scott [1771-1832] has embodied in his novels the influence of the Psalms in their lives. It was a Psalm that nerved Manse Headrigg to leap her horse over a wall, Psalm 18:29. (Lockyer, Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, 65)

It continues to provide hope for modern believers. Robert L. Alden (1937-1996) confesses:

Psalm 18:29b is one of this writer’s favorite testimony verses. It comes to mind whenever a human impossibility is faced. “By my God I can leap over a wall!” Joshua and the people of Israel did it literally at Jericho. David and his army did it at Jerusalem. Why can’t we? (Alden, Psalms, Volume 1: Songs of Devotion (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 47-48)

William R. Taylor (1882-1951) generalizes:

Our possibilities, both of mind and body, are far greater than we realize. It is recorded of an athlete that when he was fifteen, he jumped over a five-barreled gate—a feat he never afterward equaled—because he was then chased by a bull. Fear drew out his latent power. If fear can be so great an incentive, how much more may love be? The stories of the martyrs and heroes provide the answers. (George A. Buttrick [1892-1980], Psalms, Proverbs (The Interpreter’s Bible), 99)

It is worth noting that God assists the believer as opposed to eliminating the obstacle. Even David, God’s anointed, does not claim that the wall is flattened, only that God has empowered him to move past it.

When have you been inspired by the triumphs of believers that have preceded you? What is the greatest thing you have accomplished “by” God? What walls do you need to leap over? When you pray, do you pray for your walls to be flattened or the ability to hurdle them? As God did not remove the wall before David, does this imply that there is value in our trials?

“It is not by my own strength but in my God that I shall leap over the wall which sins have built between humankind and the heavenly Jerusalem.” - Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Expositions of the Psalms 1-32 (Works of Saint Augustine, Vol. III, No. 15), p. 194

Restoring Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4)

How old was Mephibosheth when the nurse dropped him and he became lame? Five years (II Samuel 4:4)

Much like Russia’s Romanov dynasty was collectively expunged in 1917, Israel’s royal family is largely eradicated in one day when King Saul and three of his sons are killed in battle on Mount Gilboa (I Samuel 31:1-2). After their deaths, the kingdom is temporarily divided as David and Saul’s remaining son, Ishbosheth, make competing claims on the vacant throne (II Samuel 2:1-11). The resulting civil war ends when Ishbosheth is assassinated by two of his own commanders, Rekab and Baanah (II Samuel 4:1-7).

While recounting Ishbosheth’s murder, the text adds in passing that there was another tragic consequence of the battle at Mount Gilboa: the crippling of Jonathan’s son (and Saul’s grandson) Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4).

Now Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son crippled in his feet. He was five years old when the report of Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel, and his nurse took him up and fled. And it happened that in her hurry to flee, he fell and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth. (II Samuel 4:4 NASB)

Though the narrative aside introduces the recurring character of Mephibosheth (II Samuel 4:4, 9:1-13, 16:1-4, 19:24-30, 21:7-8), it reads as a non sequitur.

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) acknowledges:

The description of how this—evidently the only—son of Jonathan became lame has no connection with this narrative. It would be in place in chapter 9, to which some commentators would transfer it. Perhaps it is meant to say here, ‘that after the death of Ishbaal there was no suitable claimant to the throne from the house of Saul’ (Friedrich Nötscher [1890-1966]). This is, of course, uncertain (cf. II Samuel 21), but not impossible. The marginal note would have been incorporated into the text with other gloss. The narrative proper has II Samuel 4:5 immediately after II Samuel 4:2. (Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 264)

Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) speculates:

Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth is introduced parenthetically to demonstrate this his youth and physical handicap disqualify him for rule in the north. Symon Patrick [1606-1707]...provides another possible reason: “to show, what it was that emboldened these Captains [Banaaj and Recab] to do what follows: Because he, who was the next Avenger of Blood, was very young; and besides was lame and unable to pursue them.” (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 337)

Whatever the reason for his inclusion at this point, as soon as Mephibosheth is mentioned, the subject is immediately dropped (pun intended).

Mephibosheth is also known as Merib-baal (I Chronicles 8:34, 9:40). It has been speculated that the name has been bowdlerized.

A.A. Anderson (b. 1924) surmises:

“Mephibosheth” may be a deliberate distortion of the original name by substituting one element of the compound proper name by “bosheth” (בחת) meaning “shame”...However, some scholars regard “bosheth” as a divine epithet...The former alternative is more likely because in the Books of Chronicles we find what appears to be the original form of the proper name. There are two variants: Meribaal (בעל ’מר) in I Chronicles 9:40 and Meribbaal (בעל ב’מר) in I Chronicles 8:34, 9:40. The former variant may be derived from the latter (so Matitiahu Tsevat [1913-2010]) meaning, perhaps, “Baal contends.” (Anderson, 2 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Peter R. Ackroyd (1917-2005) asserts:

The name has undergone a double change. The first part was altered so as to suggest the meaning ‘exterminator or Baal,’ and the second part to avoid uttering the detested name of Baal. (Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New English Bible), 49)

Mephibosheth’s fate is tragic. In the aftermath of the defeat at Gilboa, the fear of reprisals sets off panic within Saul’s household and they flee. Five year old Mephibosheth is crippled during the escape when his nurse, who has presumably scooped up the child in an effort to save time, drops him (II Samuel 4:4). This misfortune would plague Mephibosheth for the remainder of his life (II Samuel 9:3, 19:26). Unable to walk, Mephibosheth would never ascend the throne.

Steven J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) review:

Mephibosheth...was lame in both feet due to a tragic accident during his early childhood. At the time of his father’s death (I Samuel 31:2) there was a very real fear that the Philistines would continue their advances southward from Mount Gilboa to Israel’s then-capital city of Gibeah. Members of the royal family were evacuated from the area to preserve an heir to the throne. As Mephibosheth’s nurse picked him up and fled she fell, with the result that he became crippled. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 214-15)

The family’s fear was understandable. Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) explains:

According to some ancient customs, when the king died and a new dynasty began to rule, all of the descendants of the old king were annihilated. So when Mephibosheth’s nurse heard that both Saul and Jonathan, Mephibosheth’s father, had been killed, she took matters into her own hands. (Swindoll, The Mystery of God’s Will, 126)

Mephibosheth is dropped by his “nurse” (ASV, CEV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Jo Ann Hackett (b. 1949) defines:

The nurse (Hebrew ’ōmenet) of Mephibosheth...is not necessarily a wet nurse (Hebrew mēneqet), but rather simply someone who takes care of him. The same root is used for female and male caretakers elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible...In this case the caregiver is made responsible for the lameness of her five-year old charge. The child falls as the nurse whisks him away from danger. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Ross S. Kraemer [b. 1948], Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, 260)

Regardless of what her position entailed, a person enlisted to help the child is responsible for his greatest wound. Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos (b. 1940) observes:

In the episode of Ishobshet’s murder, two...women appear, both in some way falling short in their responsibilities. First, a nurse appears, who fled in the aftermath of the defeat at Gilboa with one of Jonathan’s sons, Mephibosheth...“In her haste to flee,” the narrator reports, “he fell and was lame” (II Samuel 4:4). A change of subject in the sentence avoids a direct mention of the nurse’s failure—i.e., that she dropped the child—but the inference is clear enough. Finally, at the time the two killers enter their master’s quarters, a female guardian at the door may have been derelict in her duty: “And look, the woman who kept the gate, had been gleaning wheat and nodded and fell asleep” (II Samuel 4:6 in the reading of the Septuagint). Two women, even if they do not engage in outright criminal behavior, certainly participate in the demise of the house of Saul, one leaving the sole descendant lame, symbolic for a crippled house, the other unable to warn her master of his impending doom, futile though it might have been. (Wijk-Bos, Reading Samuel: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 170)

Mephibosheth’s injury is severe. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) diagnoses:

That...Mephibosheth...is described as lame in both feet may suggest a spinal cord injury. It is also possible that he received (compound) fractures that either were not or could not be set properly...Medicine designed to treat illness and injury was practiced in the ancient Near East from early times. An Egyptian medical papyrus copied by scribes from older texts (ca. 1700 B.C.), for example, provides systematic instructions for the diagnosis and treatment of a host of injuries, beginning with the head and moving downward (the text is discontinued and reaches no further than the upper arm and ribs). One section describes a serious spinal cord injury. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 427)

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

The term used for Mephibosheth’s inability to walk (vayîpāsēah) is etymologically similar to the term that refers to the “Passover” (pesah) in Jewish tradition. Ironically, whereas the slaughter of a lamb commemorated a series of events that led to the Israelites’ freedom from bondage in the Exodus tradition, in this setting, the crippling of a child’s feet is connected with the opportunity for David to take control of Saul’s kingdom. As much as the text anticipates David’s role as ruler over Israel it also looks forward to Mephibosheth’s future relationship with David. When David rules as king from Jerusalem, he had Mephibosheth stay with him and “eat at [his] table” (II Samuel 9:7-13). (Mellish, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 193)

The injury is life changing, even more so than it would be today. Elias Yemane evaluates:

The term “crippled in both feet” implies four characteristics: (1) economic vulnerability; (2) physical vulnerability; (3) permanent immobility; and (4) religious alienation. (Yemane, Mephibosheth: Transformation by a Covenant Love, 27)

Mephibosheth’s disability shapes his future and he allows it to largely define him. He will later refer to himself as a “dead dog” (II Samuel 9:8).

Jeremy Schipper (b. 1975) reflects:

The David Story mentions his “lameness” almost every time his character appears in II Samuel (II Samuel 4:4, 9:3, 13, 19:27). While the royal ideal in the ancient Near East was a strong body with every physical feature properly placed (e.g. the depiction of Naram-Sîn), Mephibosheth is represented as “lame in both feet” (II Samuel 9:13)...By mentioning his disability in chapter 9, some suggest that the David Story contrasts Mephibosheth’s entrance into Jerusalem with David’s in chapter 6. In II Samuel 19:27, Mephibosheth’s disability marks him as one who has difficulty going out to war. When David asks him why he did not flee Jerusalem with the king, he cites his need for a donkey to ride because of his disability...A “lame” person who must ride a donkey hardly fits the ideal of the ancient Near Eastern king leading successful military campaigns. The representation of the last Saulide suggests to the reader that he lacks the properly portioned physique and military prowess of an ideal king. (Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, 96)

The injury effectively disqualifies Mephibosheth from the throne. James E. Smith (b. 1939) deduces:

The Beerothites felt confident that the assassination of Ish-Bosheth would lead directly to David’s succession. Only one other direct descendant of Saul remained alive, but he was not a viable candidate for the throne. Jonathan had a son named Mephibosheth who was lame in both feet, (literally, “smitten of feet”). Before the fateful battle of Gilboa, the Israelite army had been camped at Jezreel (I Samuel 29:1). When news came from Jezreel of the death of Saul and Jonathan, the nurse (nanny) fled with the child. Unfortunately she had dropped the child. This caused permanent lameness. The text does not relate where Mephibosheth and his nurse were when they heard the news; they could have been in Gibeah, Saul’s hometown. Both his youth (he was twelve at this time) and his disability made Mephibosheth unwilling or unable to press his claim to the throne. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (The College Press NIV Commentary), 368)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) summarizes:

The notice is inserted here to make clear that after the murder of Ish-bosheth, there will be no fit heir left from the house of Saul, for Saul’s one surviving grandson is crippled. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 218)

Through one unintentional slip, one unfortunate moment, a child who was born to be king instantaneously became a “dead dog” who moved from the forefront to the background of history.

When you meet someone who is injured, are you curious as to how they arrived at their condition? Why? Why is a nurse carrying a five-year old; could Mephibosheth have had a preexisting medical condition? What royals have been maimed in more modern times? Would you be less accepting of an injured leader? What national leaders have had significant disabilities, e.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt [1882-1945]? Who do you know who has been irrevocably affected by an incident from childhood?

Despite the tragedy, there is still hope for Mephibosheth and his family. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) contextualizes:

The most important event of II Samuel 4 is the death of Ish-Bosheth. But in order to dispel the notion that might arise in the reader’s mind that Ish-Bosheth’s death meant the final destruction of the Saulide family, the writer inserts here a note concerning Mephibosheth, son of “Jonathan son of Saul.” (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 316)

Whereas the nurse drops Mephibosheth, his father’s friend, King David will pick him up. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) comments:

This is an exceedingly curious note inserted in the middle of the Ishbosheth narrative. It disrupts the story line but does pertain to Ishbosheth’s fate. Ishbosheth is destined for death, whereas his nephew Mephibosheth is headed for mercy. In terms of the total David plot, this verse stands midway between I Samuel 20:14-17 and II Samuel 9:1-8. The subject of these two passages is the kindness (hesed) of David toward Jonathan. In the former, David promised Jonathan that he would not cut off his “loyalty” to the house and name of Jonathan. In the latter, David now keeps that promise by asking if there is anyone left of the house of Saul to whom the king may show kindness. David promises hesed and fulfills that promise. Mephibosheth is the channel for the fulfillment of the promise. Thus this verse sets the stage for the affirmation that David is a man of hesed who keeps vows, honors friends, and shows mercy to those with whom he is bound...The name of Mephibosheth is intended to remind the listener of David’s hesed. This peculiar verse, then, is a device for asserting that David would not do damage to Ishbosheth, who also comes under the vow made to Jonathan in I Samuel 20:14-17. II Samuel 4:4 reminds us of hesed in a chapter otherwise devoid of any dimension of mercy, fidelity, or generosity. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 234)

In allowing Mephibosheth to routinely dine at his table (II Samuel 9:13), David violates his own royal decree forbidding “the blind or the lame from entering Jerusalem (II Samuel 5:6-8).

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) notes:

David will deal with an actual individual who is lame—Mephibosheth (II Samuel 9). David will bring him into the city and into his home with honor, treating him with the utmost respect. David’s actions are better than his words. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 159)

It is harder to discriminate against someone that is standing in front of you with their humanity on full display and David does not reject his friend’s son. After reaping the benefits of David’s kindness, Mephibosheth is a royal who is maimed but restored.

Max Lucado (b. 1955) correlates:

Mephibosheth is bracketed into the Bible. The verse doesn’t tell us much, just his name (Mephibosheth), his calamity (dropped by his nurse), his deformity (crippled), and then it moves on...But that’s enough to raise a few questions...If his story is beginning to sound familiar, it should. You and he have a lot in common. Weren’t you also born of royalty? And don’t you carry the wounds of a fall? And hasn’t each of us lived in fear of a king we have never seen? (Lucado, Cast of Characters: Common People in the Hands of an Uncommon God, 33-34)

Can you identify with Mephibosheth, a character presented largely as a victim? Why? Why not? What in your life is in need of restoration? Do you have hope that God will restore you?

“I am conscious of a soul-sense that lifts me above the narrow, cramping circumstances of my life. My physical limitations are forgotten- my world lies upward, the length and the breadth and the sweep of the heavens are mine!” - Helen Keller (1880-1968), The Story Of My Life: With Her Letters (1887--1901) And A Supplementary Account Of Her Education, Including Passages From The Reports And Letters Of Her Teacher, Anne Mansfield Sullivan, p. 111

The Six-Fingered Giant (II Samuel 21:20)

How many fingers and toes did Goliath have? 24 (II Samuel 21:20)

II Samuel includes a list of four Israelite warriors who defeated Philistine giants during David’s reign (II Samuel 21:15-22). At the outset, the king is said to be “weary” (II Samuel 21:15 NASB) so it is perhaps not surprising that the Bible’s most famous giant killer does not square off against these giants. Instead, the king’s men, Abishai (II Samuel 21:15-17), Sibbecai (II Samuel 21:18), Elhanan (II Samuel 21:19) and David’s nephew Jonathan (II Samuel 21:20-21) are each credited with felling Philistines.

Giants were rare even in biblical times. The word translated “giant” is rapha. It is used only eight times in the Bible, seven appearing in this chapter and its parallel in I Chronicles (II Samuel 21:16, 18, 20, 22; I Chronicles 20:4, 6, 8). The last occurrence is a proper name (I Chronicles 8:2).

The passage is merely a recap and as such details of the battles are scarce. Though hailing from Gath, the last giant is most likely not Goliath as the question and some tradition presumes. The final adversary, defeated by David’s nephew Jonathan, does, however, stand out, even amongst giants. Unlike the first three giants, he is unnamed and is instead identified by a curious digital structure.

There was war at Gath again, where there was a man of great stature who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also had been born to the giant. When he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimei, David’s brother, struck him down. (II Samuel 21:20-21 NASB)

Like a pulp villain, the final foe is a six-fingered giant (II Samuel 21:20; I Chronicles 20:6).

Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) summarizes:

The fourth Philistine was killed in “another battle, which took place at Gath” (II Samuel 21:20), in the heart of Philistine territory. At that location David’s nephew, “Jonathan son of Shimea” (II Samuel 21:21) slew “a hug man with sin fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot” (II Samuel 21:20). This individual, who had the unusual condition known as hexadigitation, was killed when “he taunted Israel.” He too was one of the descendants of Rapha. (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary: Vol. 7), 450)

Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) adds:

The last-named giant, whose name is unknown, is described as an abnormal and therefore uncanny man who is also apparently particularly large. His conqueror is a nephew of David’s, unknown elsewhere (II Samuel 13:3, 32). It is hardly possible to identify him with Jonathan the son of Shammah from the list of the thirty in II Samuel 23:33, as the latter is not a Bethlehemite. It is remarkable that all those named here should come from Bethlehem (or its neighbourhood), so that the whole passage seems to be a page from the honours list of Bethlehem, which is added here to give higher praise to David of Bethlehem. (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 388)

The giant has sexdactyly (also known hexadactyly or more generically as polydactyly), a genetic condition in which a person has six fingers on one or both hands or six toes on one or both feet. Possessing a supernumerary finger or toe is not particularly uncommon, occurring one in every 500 to 1000 births. In fact, this genetically inheritable condition is actually autosomal-dominant though the trait has obviously not become predominant. Some populations feature a larger proportion of six-fingered people. In most cases, the extra digit has limited or no mobility and is therefore surgically removed shortly after birth. Having 24 working digits is extremely rare. Former Major League pitcher Antonio Alfonseca (b. 1972) is one such case, though he asserted that his extra fingers had little affect on his pitching as they seldom contacted the ball. In 2011, the New York Daily News profiled a Cuban named Yoandri Hernandez Garrido, nicknamed “Twenty-four”, who parlayed his extra digits into cash by using his enhanced grip to easily scale palm trees to acquire coconuts and posing for photographs with tourists in Baracoa.

Have you ever met a giant? Has someone ever fought a battle for you when you were too weary to fight yourself? What is your most distinguishing physical feature? Would having additional digits be a benefit or a detriment? Why was this detail about the giant included? How would the original audience have perceived the adversary’s appearance?

Superstitiously, polydactyly has been associated with proof of good (kings, divine blessing, quasi-divine attributes), evil (witches, the offspring of the watchers in I Enoch) and more recently inbreeding (some Appalachian towns are known “Six Finger [insert town here]”).

The original audience likely saw the giant polydactyly as the ultimate in intimidation. Stephen J. Andrews (b. 1954) explains, “A person with four extra digits was very unusual, and this would have made him seem especially formidable (Andrews, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 348).”

Renowned composer Dennis Jernigan (b. 1959) adds:

The..last giant, unlike his kinsmen Goliath, Ishbi-Benob, Saph, and Lahmi, is given no name in the Bible. Instead, he is identified by an unusual physical characteristic that today is known as polydactyly: Rather than having five fingers or five toes, he had six. This trait must have made him seem more extraordinary and more fearsome to others of his day than even his great height did. (Jernigan, Giant Killers: Crushing Strongholds, Securing Freedom in Your Life)

Peter R. Ackroyd (1917-2005) writes bluntly, “The giant mentioned here is also a monster in having excess fingers and toes (Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New English Bible), 203).”

Though writing in the days before political correctness, Ackroyd hits the nail on the head - to his enemies, the man was perceived as a monster. And yet somehow, presumably through divine intervention, the monster was defeated.

What was more intimidating: the man’s size or his extra fingers and toes? (In Princess Bride terms, would you rather battle Fezzik or Count Rugen?) Why is the giant unnamed? Can you name your most imposing adversary? What is the fight of your life? Do you have faith that ,with God’s help, you can defeat it?

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Beyond Good and Evil, p. 146

Hushai: First Friend (I Chronicles 27:33)

In David’s time, what was Hushai the Archite called? The king’s friend (I Chronicles 27:33)

I Chronicles 27 catalogs the leading Israelites of David’s era (I Chronicles 27:1-34). The chapter inventories military officers (I Chronicles 27:1-14), tribal leaders (I Chronicles 27:16-24) and the king’s court (I Chronicles 27:25-34). The final list offers a retrospective glimpse into David’s royal cabinet (I Chronicles 27:25-34).

The names at the end of the index are familiar to readers of II Samuel ( I Chronicles 27:33-34). Two officials who figured prominently in Absalom’s revolt are listed side by side in David’s court (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Athithophel, the royal counselor who sided with David’s son in his failed coup d’état, is listed with Hushai, an advisor who remained loyal to David. Traitorous Athithophel is described as a “counselor” while Hushai is remembered simply as “the king’s friend” (I Chronicles 27:33).

Ahithophel was counselor to the king; and Hushai the Archite was the king’s friend. (I Chronicles 27:33 NASB)

The term “Archite” connects Hushai with a clan that settled near Ataroth, on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin (Joshua 16:2-3). It is presumed that “Hushai” is a diminutive form of Ahishai (also Ahushai).

Hushai’s designation is conspicuous amidst the compendium of official titles. He is labeled by the Hebrew word rea`. The word is common but this marks the only time it is used in I Chronicles. It means “friend, companion, fellow, another person” and as such is translated “friend” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “companion” (KJV, NKJV), “advisor” (CEV) and “confidant” (NIV). There are certainly worse descriptors.

The epithet, however, is not merely descriptive. Sara Japhet (b. 1934) relays, “Athithophel and Hushai are mentioned together, the first as counsellor and the second as ‘friend’. The last term for some time has been interpreted as a title, rather than a simple noun (Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 479).”

Simon John De Vries (b. 1921) relays the position as “a kind of chief executive (De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Volume XI), 214).”

Andrew E. Hill (b. 1952) concurs:

Hushai remained loyal to David as a political adviser, and he is here called “the king’s friend” (I Chronicles 27:33; cf. II Samuel 15:37, 16:16). This expression is probably a formal title for a trusted sage; the position has parallels in the Egyptian royal court. (Hill, 1 & 2 Chronicles (The NIV Application Commentary), 321)

It is fitting that Hushai is juxtaposed with Athithophel. The two were on opposite sides of the most significant threat to David’s monarchy, the revolt from the king’s son, Absalom (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Athithophel joined Absalom but Hushai remained loyal to David. The Archite attempted to join the deposed king in exile but at David’s request, Hushai remained in Jerusalem and offered himself to Abasalom as an advisor (II Samuel 15:32-37). Though both Athtithophel and Hushai appeared to be aiding Absalom’s uprising, Hushai was actually working as a double agent. In addition to relaying information to David, Hushai countered Athtithophel’s counsel with intentionally bad advice (II Samuel 17:5-29). The dueling counselors functioned in much the way a competing angel and devil do in cartoon bubbles. Fortunately for David, Absalom listened to the wrong voice. When Ahithophel proposed an attack, Hushai convinced Abasalom to delay, buying David time to escape (II Samuel 17:1-16, 22).

Steven Shawn Tuell (b. 1956) analyzes:

The revolt fails in large measure because Hushai...pretending to go over to Absalom’s side, counters Athithophel’s wise counsel with bad advice (II Samuel 15:32-37, 17:5-14). Athithophel, seeing his counsel rejected and knowing Absalom’s case is doomed, commits suicide (II Samuel 17:23). (Tuell, First and Second Chronicles (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 106)

Despite being a notorious traitor, Chronicles makes no mention of Athithophel’s disloyalty. Paul K. Hooker (b. 1953) writes:

Because he omits all discussion of the revolt of David’s son Absalom, the Chronicler masks the roles played by these two characters in those events (II Samuel 15:32-37, 17:5-14). In the present list, Athithophel and Hushai are listed alongside one another, as if none of the events of Absalom’s revolt had occurred and both had rendered valuable service to David. (Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Westminster Bible Companion), 106)

John Mark Hicks (b. 1957) counters:

The Chronicler assumes a knowledge of political intrigues without commenting on them. His only hint is that Athithophel was succeeded by Jehoiada son of Benaiah and by Abiathar. He does not say why Athithophel was replaced, but he assumes his readers know the story. (Hicks, 1 & 2 Chronicles (The College Press NIV Commentary), 237-38)

Were you offered any position in the royal court, what would you choose? What is the worst advice someone has ever given you? When two equally credible advisors offer conflicting guidance, how do you decide which you will follow? Why does the chronicler omit Athithophel’s betrayal? Who has betrayed you? Did his loyalty during David’s time of need merit Hushai the moniker “the king’s friend”?

Hushai is known as “David’s friend” prior to Absalom’s revolt (II Samuel 15:37, 16:17) but his relationship with the king likely deepened during the crisis (II Samuel 15:1-18:15). Although Hushai is never mentioned again in Scripture, one of the Solomon’s prefects, Baana son of Hushai, is likely his son (I Kings 4:16).

Hushai was not only a royal advisor but also a friend of the monarch himself. In addition to their formal Cabinets, many United States presidents have had friends who served as informal advisors. Most famously, Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) listened to his crew of cronies and newspaper men so frequently that his opponents dubbed them his “kitchen cabinet”. Their importance was elevated when Jackson dismissed five of his eight Cabinet officials in the middle of his first term.

In contrast, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) filled some of his Cabinet positions with “enemies”. This revolutionary strategy is chronicled in Doris Kearns Goodwin (b. 1943)’s New York Times Best Seller Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.

Who has remained loyal to you through the worst times of your life? Were you a monarch, who would you designate to be your “friend”? Would you prefer to be advised by your friends or a team of rivals? Why?

“The antidote for fifty enemies is one friend.” - Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

Something For Nothing (I Chronicles 21:15)

Where did David see an angel with an unsheathed sword? By the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (I Chronicles 21:15)

Shortly after a pestilence in Jerusalem resulted in the deaths of 70,000 Israelites (I Chronicles 21:15), David saw an angel suspended over the city with its sword drawn ready to strike (I Chronicles 21:15-16). David successfully interceded for the people and God, through the priest Gad, instructed David to purchase the land beneath the angel to build an altar (I Chronicles 21:17-18). The land was the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, known in II Samuel as Araunah (II Samuel 24:16; I Chronicles 21:15).

The Jebusites were to Jerusalem what Native Americans are to the United States - they were the previous occupants prior to David taking the city (II Samuel 5:6-9). Evidently, David respected their property rights as he did not displace them, or as in the case of Ornan, exercise eminent domain when he wanted their property.

When Ornan realized the king desired his holdings, Ornan offered not only his land but also the implements needed for the offering (I Chronicles 21:23). David insisted he purchase the land stating, “I will surely buy it for the full price; for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing (I Chronicles 21:24 NASB).”

According to Samuel, David paid 50 silver shekels (II Samuel 24:24) while Chronicles names the selling price as 600 gold shekels (I Chronicles 21:25). The discrepancy has been explained by claiming that Samuel names the price for only the threshing floor while Chronicles adds the entire property and/or the materials for the sacrifice. Some Rabbinical sources reconcile the discrepancy by suggesting that David collected 50 silver shekels from all 12 tribes (600 total) and that the amount equated with 50 gold shekels (The Talmud on Zevahim 116b).

From either account, it is clear that David paid Ornan more than fair market value as he procured the land as God had instructed (I Chronicles 21:25). This land purchase would prove highly significant as Ornan’s threshing floor would be the future site of the temple (II Chronicles 3:1). As such, the land for the temple had been secured without bloodshed and the location had been selected by God.

What are some of the most important land acquisitions in history? Have you ever purchased a lot to build a house? Can the story of Ornan be used as a Biblical case study regarding eminent domain?

David’s eagerness to pay for the land and not simply take it demonstrates that he understood sacrifice. The king was correct to pay for Ornan’s land and not impose his will on his subject. Still, David’s claim accentuates how difficult it is to accept something one feels they have not deserved. As Americans say, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

This is worth remembering as Christianity is predicated upon accepting grace. As David illustrates, it is our inclination to want to feel as though we have earned what we have. The grace of Christ is not something that can be merited. Consequently, grace is often difficult to accept.

Have you accepted grace? Why? Why not?

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” - Ephesians 2:8, NASB

Uzzah: Can’t Touch This (I Chronicles 13:10)

What happened when Uzzah tried to keep the Ark from falling off the cart on which it was being carried? He died (I Chronicles 13:10).

Tragedy struck when King David finally had the opportunity to give the Ark of the Covenant, Israel’s most holy relic and the very symbol of God’s presence, a permanent residence in his capital city (II Samuel 6:1-11; I Chronicles 13:5-14). The procession from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem was an event with great fanfare that included music and 30,000 witnesses (II Samuel 6:1; I Chronicles 13:8). The Ark had been stored at Abinadab’s house and a new cart driven by Abinadad’s sons, Uzzah and Ahio, was enlisted to transport the sacred ark (II Samuel 6:3; I Chronicles 13:7). The cavalcade ran smoothly until the oxen stumbled at Nacon’s threshing floor and Uzzah instinctively acted to steady the cart, touching the holy vessel and dying on impact (II Samuel 6:6-7; I Chronicles 13:9-10). The procession stopped dead in its tracks with Uzzah. Stunned and angered, David stored the ark with Obed-Edom the Gittite and the project was shelved for three months (II Samuel 6:10-11; I Chronicles 13:13-14).

It appears the ox stumbling was not an accident as the misstep came on a threshing floor. A threshing floor is a region of hard packed soil used to separate grain from the chaff. By definition a threshing floor is hard and level. The oxen stumbled on nothing. This is further evidenced by the fact that the ambiguous Hebrew could just easily read that the oxen shook as if the animals sensed that it was wrong for them to carry the ark. The text suggests that God stopped the procession.

The festivities’ sudden turn from triumph to tragedy and the finality of God’s action take the reader by surprise and many are left with the same reaction as David - becoming shocked, disturbed and even angry (II Samuel 6:8; I Chronicles 13:11). Was Uzzah killed for a reflexive reaction trying to protect God’s own treasure? What did Uzzah do to deserve death? What should Uzzah have done? Should he have allowed the sacred object to fall from the cart to be covered in filth or potentially shattered?

When the ark of the covenant was built, God designed very specific rules as to its transportation David must not have read the directions as none were followed on the day in question. Two significant breaches of protocol occurred in transporting the ark. First, the ark was carried by an ox cart. The ark was to be covered (Numbers 4:5-6, 15), carried only by members of a branch of Levites known as the Kohathites (Numbers 3:30-31, 4:15, 7:9), and even then only on their shoulders (Numbers 7:9) and only using poles (Exodus 25:13-16, 37:5). In fact, the Kohathites were the only chapter of Levites not to be bequeathed with carts (Numbers 7:9). Secondly, Uzzah touched the Ark, a violation punishable by death (Numbers 4:15).

Though the parallel account in II Samuel does not explain the incident, I Chronicles reports that David realized that he had not followed proper protocol (I Chronicles 15:12-15). He admits “we did not seek Him [God] according to the ordinance (I Chronicles 15:13, NASB).” Decorum seems to be a factor as when etiquette was followed, the ark was moved safely to Jerusalem without incident (II Samuel 6:13-16; I Chronicles 15:25-26).

The alternative plan David utilized appears to have been copied from the last time the ark was moved, by the Philistines. They had captured the ark in battle and after it had caused them no small trouble, returned it via cart (I Samuel 6:1-12). Like the Philistines, David employed a new cart (I Samuel 6:7; II Samuel 6:3; I Chronicles 13:7). It had been over 400 years since the law had been written. Whether David was ignorant of the law or he noticed that this method worked for his rivals and saw it as an improvement over the prescribed mode is unknown. What is clear is that David ignored God’s instructions and transported the ark in a manner that seemed right to him without seeking God’s approval. The party was for God but David did not consult God first and God crashed the party.

Many have viewed this passage as indicative that divine judgment is executed even against technical violations and that God engages in ritualistic perfectionism. The rules are nonnegotiable. The underlying assumption to this interpretation is that Uzzah’s intentions are pure.

The charge against Uzzah is “irreverence” (II Samuel 6:7 NASB). Since the ark had been housed at his home for twenty years (I Samuel 7:2; II Samuel 6:3) many believe that an over familiarity with the ark precipitated the incident. He may have become accustomed to its presence leading to an attitude of casualness that minimized its sanctity in his own mind.

Whether this is accurate or not, Uzzah instinctively touched the ark. Uzzah felt it was his responsibility to save the integrity of God and he assumed he was qualified to do so. The purpose of the laws regarding the ark were not to protect it from contact with mud but rather to insulate it from contact with sinful human hands. It was not the filth of the ground that would defile the ark but the contamination of human sin. In short, Uzzah thought that his fingers were cleaner than the dirt the ark might fall into. His misjudgement demonstrates that he either held a high view of himself or a low view of God’s holiness.

At a conference in 2007, R.C. Sproul (b. 1939) summarized, “Uzzah believed that mud would desecrate the ark, but mud is just dirt and water obeying God. Mud is not evil. God’s law was not meant to keep the ark pure from the earth, but from the dirty touch of a human hand. Uzzah presumed his hands were cleaner than the dirt. God said no.”

The tragedy did served to re-instill the fear (or holy awe) of God in King David (II Samuel 6:9; I Chronicles 13:12).

Have you become so familiar with God that you have little to no fear of the divine?