II SAMUEL 23:1-7

 In considering the particular poetic forms employed below, it should be noted that both verses 1 and 2-3a consist of what is called identical parallelism in which each separate line of poetry basically repeats the same idea. But this form is replaced with what is called progressive parallelism in verses 3b-4 in which the closing thought of one line begins the next line. Then both 23:5 and 23:6-7 bring the series of poems to a sort of conclusion through their concentric ABBA formats.

    “The last words of     David

    The oracle of             David, son of Jesse

    the oracle of              the man whom God exalted

    the anointed of                             the God            of  Jacob

    the favorite of                               the Strong One of Israel.” (23:1)

Freedman weighs in on the authenticity of this psalm by saying, “There is no reason to doubt either the date of the poem or its attribution to the royal court...The central claims and affirmations of the monarchy and specifically the Davidic dynasty are made succinctly but emphatically. David is the anointed of the God of Jacob, the beloved of Israel's protector (v. 1). Both Mosaic and patriarchal traditions are tied to David and his house.”

And J.J.M. Roberts confirms, “It is clearly monarchic probably pre-Deuteronomistic, and perhaps even Davidic as its designation claims.”

As Porter notes, “The last words of David follow the royal psalm just as the blessing of Moses follows the song of Moses, and the texts have evidently been put together thus on purpose.”

Merrill sees a clear progression here in that David is first described only as “the humble son of a Bethlehamite commoner” but ends up as “the poetically gifted king of Israel, a development which David attributed to his having been chosen and anointed by the Lord.”

There is a possible translation issue in the final line of 23:1. As Propp says, “'Israel's sweet singer'[as in KJV] is not impossible” though he personally prefers “favorite of the Strong One.”

    “The spirit of the LORD speaks through me

    His word                         is upon my tongue

    The God of Israel           has said to me.” (23:2-3a)

“David claims that Yahweh has spoken with him and therefore David's tongue will be uttering Yahweh's word (v. 2). What David will pass on is nothing but what the God and Rock of Israel has declared (v. 3a)...We should pick up on David's insistent repetition. He wants us to understand unmistakably that what he announces is not David's guess but Yahweh's dogma, not a piece of human insight but a clip of divine decree. And if it is God's word, then it is a sure word and can be depended upon.” (Davis)

Tsumura: “The sentence [i.e. v. 2a], which is in parallel with his word is on my tongue, shows that David represents himself as a prophet (see Matt. 22:43; Acts 1:16; 2:30; 4:25, Heb. 4:7) rather than simply as a poet who was thought to be divinely inspired.”

    “One who rules over people justly

                    ruling in the fear of God

                                    is like the light of                            morning

                                       like the sun rising on a cloudless morning

                                                          gleaming from the rain on the grassy land.”

                                                         (23:3b-4)

J. Baldwin “Such a ruler, says the Lord, is to be compared with three lovely experiences common to mankind everywhere: the early morning, when light dawns, the warmth of the sun on a cloudless morning, and rain that enables grass to sprout even after long drought (cf. Ps. 72:6). All three elements are necessary for healthy growth of plants, without which all life would cease; and for society the righteous ruler has an equally vital part to play...”

“The meaning of the metaphor. as I understand it...is that a just king, ruling in accordance with religious principles, is like the sun on a cloudless morning, which by its light causes the rain-drenched earth to turn green. There is an implicit connection between the grass (dese', 'verdure'), which sprouts in response to the sun's rays, and the loyal subjects of the king who flourish under his rule. This is shown by the contrasting example of the disloyal subjects of vv. 5-7, who will not 'sprout' and 'grow'; for them the sun, i.e., the king, will bring death rather than life when in the 'fire,' the blaze of the sun, 'they will be burned up' (cf. Mal 4:1]....” (McCarter)

    Is not my house like this with God?

            For he has made with me an everlasting covenant

            ordered and in all things secure.

    Will he not cause to prosper all my help and my desire? (23:5)

“David says that his house is 'certainly legitimate (l' ken) with God' (II Sam 23:5). As an attribute of royalty, ken connotes reliability as well as validity.” (Andersen and Freedman)

“The text pays less attention to the content of the contract between God and David than to the claim that the contract was legally binding because it was thoroughly executed and officially filed, but the reference to David's house and the characterization of the covenant as being eternal suggests that the covenant formalized the elevation of David as the anointed king of the God of Jacob as an enduring appointment that would be passed on in perpetuity to David's descendants.” (Roberts)

Schnittjer wraps up the thought in verses 3-5 with the following comparison: “Jeremiah uses the permanence of creational structures to signify the enduring election of God's people...(Jer 31:35-36). David likewise uses dependable cosmic events to speak of the fidelity of God to uphold his covenantal word (2 Sam 23:3-5).”

    But the godless are like thorns that are thrown away

            for they cannot be picked up with the hand.

            To touch them one uses an iron bar or spear

    and they            are                               consumed in fire. (23:6-7)

Payne summarizes the meaning of these two verses as follows: “Dangerous men require very careful handling, but there are nevertheless ways of dealing with them and destroying them.”

And Baldwin writes that “just as the farmer had to clear his land of thorn bushes, and contrive, without injuring himself, to make a fire of them, so David saw the implications of judgment for those who opposed God's cause. Like thorns, they were not only useless but dangerous, choking the growth of all that was good (Mt. 13:7, 22; cf. Is. 33:12; Heb. 6:8). In the light of God's word to him, David saw clearly in his old age how people's destiny becomes polarized either for or against God. This poem is David's 'last word', his final legacy.”

One could alternatively combine verses 5-7 as a single poem taking the form of antithetical parallelism in which David's fate in v. 5 is purposely contrasted with that of the godless in verses 6-7. For example, see McCarter's comments above.