¹ tc Heb “and he arose at night and defeated Edom, who had surrounded him, and the chariot officers.” The Hebrew text as it stands gives the impression that Jehoram was surrounded and launched a victorious nighttime counterattack. Yet v. 10 goes on to state that the Edomite revolt was successful. The translation above assumes an emendation of the Hebrew text. Adding a third masculine singular pronominal suffix to the accusative sign before Edom (reading אֹתוֹ [ʾoto, “him”] instead of just אֶת [ʾet]) and taking Edom as the subject of verbs allows one to translate the verse in a way that is more consistent with the context, which depicts an Israelite defeat, not victory. See also 2 Kgs 8:21.

² sn One does not expect Micaiah, having just vowed to speak only what the Lord tells him, to agree with the other prophets and give the king an inaccurate prophecy. Micaiah’s actions became understandable later, when we discover that the Lord desires to deceive the king and lead him to his demise. The Lord even dispatches a lying spirit to deceive Ahab’s prophets. Micaiah can lie to the king because he realizes this lie is from the Lord. It is important to note that in v. 13 Micaiah only vows to speak the word of his God; he does not necessarily say he will tell the truth. In this case the Lord’s word is deliberately deceptive. Only when the king adjures him to tell the truth (v. 15), does Micaiah do so.

¹ tn Heb “all his house.” This is probably to be understood as a general summary statement. It could include other males in Saul’s household besides his three sons, cf. 1 Sam 31:6. If it refers only to the male members of his household who would have stood in succession to the throne (cf. NLT, “bringing his dynasty to an end,”) even here there is an exception, since one of Saul’s sons, Eshbaal (or “Ishbosheth” in 2 Sam 2:8) was not killed in the battle and became king over Israel, which he ruled for two years (2 Sam 2:10) until he was assassinated by Rechab and Baanah (2 Sam 4:5-6). The tribe of Judah never acknowledged Ishbosheth as king; instead they followed David (2 Sam 2:10).

¹ sn Jezebel associates Jehu with another assassin, Zimri, who approximately 44 years before had murdered King Elah, only to meet a violent death just a few days later (1 Kgs 16:9-20). On the surface Jezebel’s actions seem contradictory. On the one hand, she beautifies herself as if to seduce Jehu, but on the other hand, she insults and indirectly threatens him with this comparison to Zimri. Upon further reflection, however, her actions reveal a clear underlying motive. She wants to retain her power, not to mention her life. By beautifying herself, she appeals to Jehu’s sexual impulses; by threatening him, she reminds him that he is in the same precarious position as Zimri. But, if he makes Jezebel his queen, he can consolidate his power. In other words through her actions and words Jezebel is saying to Jehu, “You desire me, don’t you? And you need me!”

¹ sn Elisha may be referring to the fiery chariot(s) and horses as the Lord’s spiritual army that fights on behalf of Israel (see 2 Kgs 6:15-17; 7:6). However, the juxtaposition with “my father” (clearly a reference to Elijah as Elisha’s mentor), and the parallel in 2 Kgs 13:14 (where the king addresses Elisha with these words), suggest that Elisha is referring to Elijah. In this case Elijah is viewed as a one man army, as it were. When the Lord spoke through him, his prophetic word was as powerful as an army of chariots and horses. See M. A. Beek, “The Meaning of the Expression ‘The Chariots and Horsemen of Israel’ (II Kings ii 12),” The Witness of Tradition (OTS 17), 1-10.

¹ sn “Attack! You will succeed; the Lord will hand it over to the king.” One does not expect Micaiah, having just vowed to speak only what the Lord tells him, to agree with the other prophets and give the king an inaccurate prophecy. Micaiah’s actions became understandable later, when it is revealed that the Lord desires to deceive the king and lead him to his demise. The Lord even dispatches a lying spirit to deceive Ahab’s prophets. Micaiah can lie to the king because he realizes this lie is from the Lord. It is important to note that in v. 14 Micaiah only vows to speak the word of the Lord; he does not necessarily say he will tell the truth. In this case the Lord’s word itself is deceptive. Only when the king adjures him to tell the truth (v. 16), does Micaiah do so.

¹ tn Heb “and forgive the man who sins against his neighbor when one takes up against him a curse to curse him and the curse comes before your altar in this house.” In the Hebrew text the words “and forgive” conclude v. 30, but the accusative sign at the beginning of v. 31 suggests the verb actually goes with what follows in v. 31. The parallel text in 2 Chr 6:22 begins with “and if,” rather than the accusative sign. In this case “forgive” must be taken with what precedes, and v. 31 must be taken as the protasis (“if” clause) of a conditional sentence, with v. 32 being the apodosis (“then” clause) that completes the sentence.

² tn The pronominal suffixes on the verbs “scattered” and “routed” (see the next line) refer to David’s enemies. Some argue that the suffixes refer to the arrows, in which case one might translate “shot them far and wide” and “made them move noisily,” respectively. They argue that the enemies have not been mentioned since v. 4 and are not again mentioned until v. 17. However, usage of the verbs פוּץ (puts, “scatter”) and הָמַם (hamam, “rout”) elsewhere in Holy War accounts suggests the suffixes refer to enemies. Enemies are frequently pictured in such texts as scattered and/or routed (see Exod 14:24; 23:27; Num 10:35; Josh 10:10; Judg 4:15; 1 Sam 7:10; 11:11; Ps 68:1).

¹ sn The significance of the statement it fell out here is unclear. If the dagger fell out of its sheath before Joab got to Amasa, how then did he kill him? Josephus, Ant. 7.11.7 (7.284), suggested that as Joab approached Amasa he deliberately caused the dagger to fall to the ground at an opportune moment as though by accident. When he bent over and picked it up, he then stabbed Amasa with it. Others have tried to make a case for thinking that two swords are referred to—the one that fell out and another that Joab kept concealed until the last moment. But nothing in the text clearly supports this view. Perhaps Josephus’ understanding is best, but it is by no means obvious in the text either.

² sn That David’s sons could have been priests, in light of the fact that they were not of the priestly lineage, is strange. One must assume either (1) that the word “priest” (כֹּהֵן, kohen) during this period of time could be used in a broader sense of “chief ruler” (KJV); “chief minister” (ASV, NASB), or “royal adviser” (NIV84), perhaps based on the parallel passage in 1 Chr 18:17 which has “the king’s leading officials”, or (2) that in David’s day members of the king’s family could function as a special category of “priests” (cf. NLT “priestly leaders”). The latter option seems to be the more straightforward way of understanding the word in 2 Sam 8:18.

³ tn Heb “and they went, all the Bitron.” The meaning of the Hebrew word “Bitron,” which is used only here in the OT, is disputed. The translation above follows BDB 144 s.v. בִּתְרוֹן in taking the word to be a proper name of an area east of the Jordan. A different understanding was advocated by W. R. Arnold, who took the word to refer to the forenoon or morning; a number of modern scholars and translations have adopted this view (cf. NAB, NASB, NRSV, CEV, NLT). See W. R. Arnold, “The Meaning of בתרון,” AJSL 28 (1911-1912): 274-83 and HALOT 167 s.v. In this case one could translate “and they traveled all morning long.”

³ tn The Hebrew text here is grammatically very awkward (Heb “because all still my life in me”). Whether the broken construct phrase is due to the fact that the alleged speaker is in a confused state of mind as he is on the verge of dying, or whether the MT has sustained a defect in the transmission process, is not entirely clear. The former seems likely, although P. K. McCarter understands the MT to be the result of conflation of two shorter forms of text (P. K. McCarter, II Samuel [AB], 57, n. 9). Early translators also struggled with the verse, apparently choosing to leave part of the Hebrew text untranslated. For example, the Lucianic recension of the LXX lacks “all,” while other witnesses (namely, one medieval Hebrew ms, codices A and B of the LXX, and the Syriac Peshitta) lack “still.”

² tn Heb “one who urinates against a wall” (also in v. 34); KJV “any that pisseth against the wall.” At first this may seem to be a vulgar phrase because it refers to a bodily function and David is angry. But David uses the same phrase when he speaks in a conciliatory way to Abigail in v. 34. There is no clear point to his using a vulgar phrase in that context. Similarly for the narrator in 1 Kgs 16:11 and the Lord’s oracles in 1 Kgs 14:10; 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8, any rhetorical reason for vulgarity is unclear. The phrase refers to males, is not with certainty crude, and the addition of the phrase “at a wall” does not communicate well in the modern setting. We we have chosen to simply use “male” for this phrase.

² tc The MT poses as a question “Did I actually reveal myself…?” The LXX records as a statement “I revealed myself…” The syntax of the Hebrew can either ask for information that is not known or be used as a rhetorical question which expects the answer “no.” In this context the expected answer would be “yes.” One approach is to leave the question as in the Hebrew, probably expecting the reader to still think the answer should be “yes,” even though it is the not the syntax for it (ESV, KJV). Another is to add a missing negative “did I not reveal myself…” so that the question expects the answer “yes” (NIV, NAS, NKJV). More likely the interrogative הֲ (ha) is a case of dittography, as the previous word ends with the same letter ה (he) (NRSV, NLT).

² tc The present translation follows the Qere, many medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Vulgate in reading the plural (“his adversaries,” similarly many other English versions) rather than the singular (“his adversary”) of the Kethib. The LXX adds material very similar to Jer 9:23-24. “the Lord is holy. Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, and let not let the strong boast in his strength, and let not let the rich boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this: to understand and know the Lord, and to practice justice and righteousness in the midst of the land.” The Greek text of Jeremiah uses different words for “wise” and “strong” and closes by referring to the Lord as one who performs justice, etc. and whose will is in these things.

³ tn This concludes the background material of what used to happen. The next two verbs are preterites, which resume the main action line of the story from verse 4. Preterite verbs (also called vayyiqtol, or waw consecutive with imperfect) move the main line of actions forward in a story. The verbs in the main clauses from “he used to give” in vs. 4 to this point are perfect consecutives (also called veqatal or waw consecutive plus perfect) and second position imperfects used for past habitual actions. This is confirmed by the modifiers “year after year” and “as often as.” The story must at some point switch from telling what would happen on many occasions to what did happen on one occasion. Though the background statement is lengthy, it seems best to divide the habitual pattern from the particular occasion based on the known values of the verb forms.

¹ tn The exact sense of the Hebrew word אַפָּיִם (ʾappayim, “two nostrils” or “face”) is not certain here. The form is dual and is most likely used with the preceding expression (“one portion of two faces”) to mean a portion double than normally received. Although evidence for this use of the word derives primarily from Aramaic rather than from Hebrew usage, it provides an understanding that fits the context here better than other suggestions for the word do. The meaning “double” is therefore adopted in the present translation. Other possibilities for the meaning of the word include the following: “heavily” (cf. Vulg., tristis) and “worthy” or “choice” (cf. KJV and Targum). Some scholars have followed the LXX here, emending the word to אֶפֶס (ʾefes) and translating it as “but” or “however.” This seems unnecessary. The translators of the LXX may simply have been struggling to make sense of the word rather than following a Hebrew text that was different from the MT here.

¹ sn We do not know how Elkanah came to have two wives. A man whose brother had died without leaving children had, by custom, to marry his sister-in-law to raise up a son in his brother’s name (Deut 25:5). Childlessness, more than one wife, and rivalry are recurrent themes in the stories of Genesis. Sarai gave her servant Hagar to Abraham in an arrangement that would consider the child to be Sarai’s (Gen 16:2). Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah, but then also married Rachel, who initially could not have children (Gen 29:23-25; 30:1). This situation recalls the stories from Genesis and the dysfunction of the Patriarchs’ families.

³ tc Heb “and call a name.” This statement appears to be elliptical. Usually the person named and the name itself follow this expression. Perhaps וּקְרָא־שֵׁם (uq^eraʾ shem) should be emended to וְיִקָּרֵא־שֵׁם (v^eyiqqareʾ shem), “and your name will be called out,” that is, “perpetuated” (see Gen 48:16, cf. also Ruth 4:14b). The omission of the suffix with “name” could be explained as virtual haplography (note the letter ב (bet), which is similar to כ (kaf), at the beginning of the next word). The same explanation could account for the omission of the prefixed י (yod) on the verb “call,” as י (yod) and ו (vav) are similar in appearance. Whether one reads the imperative (the form in the MT) or the jussive (the emended form), the construction indicates purpose or result following the earlier jussive “may he make.”

³ tn Heb “and she gripped it tightly and he measured out six of barley and placed upon her.” The unit of measure is not indicated in the Hebrew text, although it would probably have been clear to the original hearers of the account. Six ephahs, the equivalent of 180-300 pounds, is clearly too heavy, especially if carried in a garment. Six omers (an omer being a tenth of an ephah) seems too little, since this would have amounted to six-tenths of an ephah, less than Ruth had gleaned in a single day (cf. 2:17). Thus a seah (one third of an ephah) may be in view here; six seahs would amount to two ephahs, about 60 pounds (27 kg). See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 222, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 178.