INTERTEXTUALITY IN II SAMUEL 15-16

Although the best way to read and understand any passage in the Bible is to do so in the context of its immediately surrounding verses, Scripture also possesses the almost unique property of what is called intertextuality. That means that each verse is like a stone dropped into the water which sends out ripples in all direction. Thus, to thoroughly understand all the implications of a given passage it is helpful to (1) look backwards to earlier references in the Bible to the same themes, characters, or events as well as (2) forward in time to later echoes of those same themes, characters, or events.

With the above chapters as a randomly chosen example, let's start close at hand with the extended story of David's political problems with rebellions after he became king. Elsewhere I have diagrammed it as the following symmetrically disposed arrangement:

Figure 1: Organization of II Samuel 15-20

1. Absalom's rebellion (15:1-17)

    2. The people follow David out of the city (15:17-37)

        3. Mephibosheth and his servant (16:1-4)

            4. Shimei spared (16:5-14)

                5. Absalom given counsel (16:15-17:14)

                    6. Messenger to David (17:15-22)

                         7. Ahithopel hangs himself (17:23)

                            8. Preparation for battle (17:24-18:4)

                                9. David’s orders to spare Absalom (18:5)

                            8'. Judah and Israel battle (18:6-8)

                        7'. Absalom killed while hanging (18:9-18)

                    6'. Messenger to David (18:19-33)

                5'. David given counsel (19:1-15)

            4'. Shimei spared (19:16-23)

        3'. Mephibosheth and his servant (19:24-30)

    2'. The people greet David on his return (19:31-43)

1'. Sheba's rebellion (20:1-22)

So one way to look for examples of intertextuality in chapters 15-16 is to consider the symmetrically paired passages found a little later in II Samuel. The overall literary structure of chapters 15-20 shown in Figure 1 echoes the general reversal of action in which David first flees the city and then later returns to it. More specifically:

From both 1 and 1' we can see Nathan's prophecy that David would have no rest from conflict because of his sin (see II Samuel 12:10) refers both to his own family and his closest advisers. In addition, traitorous kisses are in evidence at the opening (II Samuel 15:5) and closing sections of Figure 1 at 15:5 and 20:9. Units 2 and 2' underscore the observation that true followers of David support him whether his fortunes are up or down, and the same should be true of our attitude toward our own spiritual leaders.

It is very important in considering the accusations made against Mephibosheth in section 3' to go back to section 3 and consider the possibility of slander against him by his servant in light of Mephibosheth's earlier actions.

If we only had section 4 to judge by, we might suspect that David's unwillingness to have Shimei killed was due to weakness on David's part or preoccupation with getting away from Absalom's troops as soon as possible. But when David returns in 4', it is confirmed that David's motives are pure in his relations with Shimei.

The importance of surrounding yourselves with trusted and godly advisers is seen by comparing the events in sections 5 and 5'. Notice especially how the good advice sometimes goes against the inner desires of the one being advised and the bad advice tends to cater to the other person's own wishes.

Moving further afield, an analysis of the overall book of Samuel-Kings shows that there is a parallel relationship between the two times in David's life when he was on the run:

Figure 2: Organization of I Samuel 21-II Samuel 13

        I. David Hides from Saul (I Sam. 21:10-II Sam. 1:27)

                        II. David the King (II Sam. 2-12)

        I'. David Hides from Absalom (II Sam. 13-20)

Besides the obvious correlation between situations related in I and I', there are some more specific similarities as well, as seen in Figure 3

Figure 3: Specific parallels between II Samuel 15-16 and Section I

Similarities                                     II Samuel 15-16                         Section I

50 & 100 as military units             II Sam. 15:1                               I Sam. 29:2

“Catch up/ overtake”                     II Sam. 15:14                             I Sam. 30:8

Armies that are 600-men strong    II Sam. 15:18                             I Sam. 23:13

A man with torn clothes and

dirt on his head                              II Sam. 15:32                              II Sam. 1:2

Abishai acts impulsively               II Sam. 16:9                                I Sam. 26:8

“made yourself odious to”            II Sam. 16:21                              I Sam. 27:12

Regarding the above parallels,

II Sam. 15:14//I Sam. 30:8 presents us with a dramatic reversal of fates. Earlier, consultation with the ephod had revealed that David would be able to overtake and conquer the enemy But in the parallel episode it is David who has to flee from his enemy to prevent being overtaken and conquered in turn.

II Sam. 15:18// I Sam. 23:13 – We see from these passages that David has 600 men with him as he is on the run from Saul just as the exact same number of loyal troops follow him into exile when he flees Jerusalem later on.

II Sam. 15:32//II Sam. 1:2 – These appear to be episodes with little in common. So the similarity in wording may be a coincidence. Or there may be a purposeful contrast. Thus, in 1:2 it is someone from the Israelite camp who has escaped to carry the news to David that Saul is dead and that he is the one who did him in. Unexpectedly for the soldier, that is not the news that David wanted to here, and the soldier was executed on the spot. However, in 15:32 it is a servant who has escaped from the enemy camp and wishes to to join David in exile. But, unexpectedly for that person, David tells him to return to Jerusalem and serve as a spy for him. In each case, David acts contrary to our prior expectations, but for good reasons in each case.

II Samuel 16:21 and I Samuel 26:8 both feature the person Abishai, who reminds us of impulsive Peter. Both are fiercely loyal to their leader but tend to move ahead of him rather than truly following his will. Thus, in I Samuel 26, Abishai wants to kill the sleeping Saul when he has the opportunity, and he later expresses the wish to kill Shimei when he begins to curse David. In both cases, David has to step in and restrain him from acting in violence and does so for the highest of theological motives.

II Samuel 16:21//I Samuel 27:12 – The interesting Hebrew idiom shown in Figure 3 above is used in exactly the same way in each of these two passages. It indicates that the person in question has taken his actions so far that there is no way he can turn back. First, it refers to the fact that the Philistines trust David since he is reported to have attacked the Israelites (which was not true) and therefore he could not go back to them ever again. The later incident chronologically involves Absalom being advised to lie with David's abandoned concubines in a rather public manner so that the people of Jerusalem will accept the fact that he is the new leader who will never be able to return to his father again after committing such a decisive break with him.

So far, almost all of the similar incidents have clear indications that they were purposefully parallel or contrasting from one another. But there are many more such cross-references occurring between II Samuel 15-16 and other portions of the Bible. To start with, here are three possibilities within Samuel-Kings:

Incidents at the gates of a city (II Sam. 15:1-4; II Kings 7:1)

    The great importance of the city gates during OT times is underscored by these two passages. Since it was the natural place for inhabitant to meet and greet strangers coming to town, Absalom takes advantage of that fact to “campaign” for the office of king and oust his father. It serves a more positive happening in II Kings 7:1, however. In that case, the then king of Israel is informed by Elisha that the siege that has been crippling the city will be miraculously lifted, and food for sale will soon be readily available at the city gates, another usual activity taking place there.

Servants switch allegiances (II Sam. 15:34; II Kings 10:5)

    God's will is accomplished in both these cases by a servant truly or falsely claiming allegiance to a Jewish leader. The earlier incident tells of David's plan to send his servant Hushai back to Saul and work against him as a spy. And the story in II Kings concerns the cowardly servants of King Ahab switching sides to Jehu to save their skin.

Derogatory use of the term “dog” (II Sam. 16:9; II Kings 8:13)

    This was one of the lowest terms a person could use to describe someone. Abishai applies this word to Shimei, the one who cursed David. And in II Kings 8, Hazael uses the term for himself to express his humility when Elisha informs him that he will eventually become king of Aram. But before that happens, Hazael must lie to the present king regarding the king's poor health. So we do have the similarity in both passages of a person betraying their rightful king.

But there are also references found in chapters 15-16 which go further afield backward and forward in the Bible. Some involve common Hebrew phrases such as the use of “go in peace” after a request is granted, which appears in I Samuel 1:17; 20:42; 25:35; II Kings 5:19; and Luke 7:50 as well as its appearance in II Samuel 15:9.

Also, Schnittjer compares II Samuel 15 with Psalm 144:5-7 and feels that in the latter “excerpts of thanks for past deliverance in prayer of David [has been] repackaged as a new prayer for deliverance.” One can also point to Psalm 3, which according to the superscription refers to events in II Samuel 16:14.

Pao and Schnabel say regarding the parable of the fig tree in Luke 21:29-33, “If the parable utilizes a play on the Hebrew words qes ('end') and qayis ('summer[fruit]'), it should be noted that the same pun is present in Amos 8:1-2, with further reference to Mic. 7:1; 2 Sam. 16:1; Isa. 28:4).”

As an additional insight from these scholars, they point out that there are only two places in the entire Old Testament where the Mount of Olives is mentioned: Zechariah 14:4 and II Samuel 15:30. And they don't feel that Luke 19:28-40 refers to the former passage.

Similarly, France notes the possible echo of II Samuel 15:30 and 16:12 in the parallel Gospel account of Matthew 21:1.

Kostenberger says, “The language of [John] 2:4, 'Why do you involve me?' is reminiscent of OT parallels that convey distance between two parties and frequently carries a reproachful connotation.” Among the OT passages cited is II Samuel 16:10.

Just as Absalom “got himself a chariot and horses, and 50 men to run ahead of him (II Samuel 15:1),” so his younger brother Adonijah will do in I Kings 5 as a way of declaring his wish David.

The same idiom “stole the hearts of” in II Samuel 15:6 appears in Genesis 31:20 referring to the way Jacob “stole the heart of” his father-in-law by deceiving him. (S.L. McKenzie)

The importance of Absalom going to Hebron is not to worship, as Absalom tells David (II Samuel 15:7), but to return to the very place where David was earlier declared king (see II Samuel 5:1-7)

The reader must keep in mind when reading II Samuel 15:12 that Ahithophel was actually David's trusted counselor prior to this betrayal, as we will find out later in 16:15-23.

It has been proposed that Jesus' prediction of Peter turning back in Luke 22:32 echoes II Samuel 15:20. However, “Since the verb epistrepho in the latter passage is used in a geographical sense, while Peter's “turning' is moral or religious, this is an unlikely possibility.” (Pao and Schnabel)

Kostenberger contrasts Zechariah 9:9 and John 12:15 where the king enters Jerusalem on a donkey and is called “humble” with Absalom's entrance on a horse-drawn chariot. (II Samuel 15:1). Also note that II Samuel 16:1-3 has David fleeing from Jerusalem at the same time on a donkey.

Marshall states that Stephen in his speech at Acts 7:46 alludes to the fact that David had had found favor in God's eyes, possible referring to II Samuel 15:25.

The reader is meant to be reminded when coming across the story of Absalom openly having sexual relations with his father's concubines of the earlier prophecy by Nathan given in II Samuel 12:12.

II Samuel 15