Do a Google search on armor bearers, and you will get a long list of articles and blogs that spiritualize the concept. Here, I take a different approach because I am more interested in the role that armor bearers played in ancient history and how that can help contextualize the role of armor bearers in the Bible. Doing so enhances our understanding of famous Bible stories, and it clarifies the relationship between key Bible figures, specifically David and Saul.

What Is an Armor Bearer? Untangling Ancient Terminology

When researching and writing, it is always helpful to define terms, and yet, being able to do so was the greatest challenge I faced. The phrases “armor bearer” and “shield bearer” are used inconsistently in ancient warfare literature. This inconsistency is not surprising, given that armor bearers (and shield bearers) served in military forces across many different cultures and historical periods. For example, the phrases “shield bearer” and “armor bearer” are often used interchangeably, and the roles of individuals who bore that name varied significantly from army to army and era to era. At times, a shield bearer could refer to an experienced warrior who attended a member of the elite. Other times, shield bearers operated as a unit providing a shield wall for the entire formation, like the Persian “Sparabara,” during the Achaemenid Empire¹. Those are two very distinct roles, and it gives us two very different pictures of what a shield bearer meant for each army.

When looking at scripture, we are therefore left to use contextual clues to determine the true roles of armor bearers and shield bearers within specific militaries. Fortunately, in the biblical record, most mentions of armor bearers appear within the lifetimes of King David and King Saul. That allows us to narrow down the role of the armor bearer within Saul’s kingdom (and will also help us better understand David’s role as an armor bearer to Saul).

For the sake of this article, unless otherwise noted, I will use the terms armor bearer and shield bearer to reflect these differences in roles: armor bearers are personal military aides with broader responsibilities, while shield bearers have a more function-specific role, providing defensive support. However, keep in mind that overlap is common.

Before I dive into the biblical texts, I will first do a cursory review of how some ancient militaries used armor bearers and shield bearers.

Armor and Shield Bearers in the Armies of the Ancient World

The use of armor bearers and shield bearers (whether we are referring to a skilled fighter who carried the armor of an elite warrior, or a rank-and-file soldier who supported his unit by holding a shield) was the natural result of the evolution of ancient warfare and weaponry. While adopting armor and shields would better protect the individual fighter, it would also make fighting more cumbersome. No matter how good or strong a warrior was, the use of armor and a shield would impede his agility with a sword, a spear, a sling, or a bow. Incorporating armor bearers and/or shield bearers allowed warriors to fight unimpeded. It also allowed entire units to make better use of their armaments.

As discussed, ancient militaries used armor and shield bearers differently, and there was no consistency in how terms were used across nations and cultures. Neo-Assyrians, for example, had various Akkadian terms for shield bearers. These terms, literally translated as “the one with a shield,” “shield man,” and “shield-soldier,” seem to refer to a foot soldier who carried a shield along with another weapon. In essence, the basic infantryman. Three additional Akkadian terms also appear to designate types of shield bearers, but scholars have not been able to determine the precise distinctions between them. However, reliefs show that in the first millennium BCE, the Neo-Assyrians employed shield bearers in siege warfare to protect archers from defenders. Also, in chariot warfare, a “third charioteer” could serve as a shield bearer, protecting both the driver and the warrior.

Terms also changed in meaning over time within the same culture. For example, Herodotus uses the Greek word “hypaspist, literally meaning “shield bearer” to refer to an individual who attended to the Cypriot leader, Onesilus, against the Persians during the battle of Salamis (498 and 497 BC). In Herodotus 5.111, Onesilus and his “shield bearer” strategize on the best way to overtake the Persian satrap, Artybius. The “shield bearer” is described as “well skilled in war,” and Onsilus highly valued his opinion. Clearly, he was no ordinary soldier; he was an elite fighter, and a modern understanding of an armor bearer is probably a better-suited term for him as opposed to a shield bearer.²

The term “hypastis” would evolve to mean something different, however. By the time of Philip II (359-336 BCE) and Alexander the Great (336-323BCE), the word “hypaspist” had become synonymous with an elite unit. It no longer referred to an individual charge, serving an elite warrior, but rather a unit of elite warriors who had a distinct role in the Greek army.³ Despite the inconsistency in terminology, clearly, both armor bearers and shield bearers were used by ancient militaries.

In the biblical texts, we will find the same to be true. Although there are more references to armor bearers, the mention of a shield bearer appears in one of the most famous Bible stories. How the Neo-Assyrians employed their shield bearers in chariot teams might provide clarity to that biblical account. However, the biblical role of armor bearers parallels how the Cypriot leader Onesilus employed his “shield bearer.” With that said, let’s pivot and review the biblical texts.

Armor Bearers in the Biblical Record

There are four total references to armor bearers in the Bible. One of them is in the book of Judges, and the other three appear during the reigns of Saul and David. This group of three allows us to draw some conclusions on how armor bearers were employed during that era. There is only one mention of a shield bearer in the entire Bible. I have read the verse a few hundred times, and only while researching for this article did it dawn on me how he is hardly portrayed in images and artwork. If you are not already familiar with this shield bearer, I am sure I have now piqued your curiosity, so let’s look at each reference one by one.

Loyalty Unto Death: Abimelech’s Armor Bearer

A young man charged with the brutal task of killing his master, Abimelech, is the first mention of an armor bearer in the Bible. Abimelech was Gideon’s evil son who killed seventy of his brothers to cement power. In one of his military engagements to seize the city of Thebez, the city’s inhabitants had sought shelter in a tall tower. It was there that a woman took a millstone and dropped it on Abimelech, gravely injuring him. Afraid of dying at the hand of a woman, Abimelech asked his armor bearer to kill him with the sword. His charge faithfully obliged, ending Abimelech’s life.

In this biblical reference, the Hebrew words transliterated as kᵊlî (article or vessel) and nāśā (to carry or bear) are used to describe the young man’s role.

We have little information on the armor bearer’s abilities and the full extent of his responsibilities. Based on the literal translation of the Hebrew words used and the context, we know that at least he carried Abimelech’s excess weapons and/or armor. We also know that he was loyal, as he obediently obeyed Abimelech’s orders. You can read the account in Judges 9:22-57.

Heart and Soul: Jonathan and the Warrior Who Followed Him

An armor bearer who is bound to a master must follow his master’s whims, regardless of the danger or risk involved. One can only imagine what Jonathan’s armor bearer (in the Hebrew, kᵊlî nāśā) was thinking when Jonathan proposed that both of them attack a Philistine garrison without the knowledge and therefore the support of King Saul and his army. The attack was not meant to be a surprise, as I discuss in “Jonathan in the Bible: Humble Prince, Brave Warrior,” but by all calculations, it most certainly was perceived as a suicide mission. Loyal to his sire, the armor bearer responded with, “Do all that is in your heart. Do as you wish. Behold, I am with you heart and soul.” The armor bearer’s words echo Onesilus’, who told his master, “Both, my liege, or either, am I ready to undertake, and there is nothing that I will shrink from at thy bidding,” when his master asked him if he wanted to take down the horse or the rider. He was as loyal as Jonathan’s armor bearer.

Both Jonathan and the armor bearer revealed themselves to the Philistine outpost from a lower, visible position, such as the bottom of a cliff. When the Philistines saw Jonathan and his armor bearer, they summoned them up. After scaling the cliff or crag, both men reached the garrison. Upon reaching the top, both still managed to kill 20 Philistines, working symbiotically and rhythmically to subdue their enemies. Clearly, Jonathan was a skilled fighter, but his armor bearer was no pushover either.

Based on the various translations (see below) of 1 Samuel 14:13, the armor bearer either covered Jonathan’s rear, killing anyone approaching Jonathan from behind, or he finished off anyone Jonathan struck down. I am inclined to believe that it is the former, as it would have been more prudent for both to protect each other’s six. If it is indeed the former, we can conclude that the armor bearer was an elite warrior like his master, Jonathan.

“Jonathan climbed up using his hands and feet, with his armor-bearer behind him. Jonathan cut them down, and his armor-bearer followed and finished them off.” CSB

“So they climbed up using both hands and feet, and the Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armorbearer killed those who came behind them.” NLT

“Then Jonathan climbed up on his hands and feet, and his armor-bearer after him. And they fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer killed them after him.” ESV

Read the full account in 1 Samuel 14:13.

In the Service of the King: Saul’s Armor Bearers

Only two chapters after Jonathan’s victory at the Philippine garrison, we learn that King Saul made David his armor bearer (in the Hebrew, kᵊlî nāśā). Why did he do so? After an evil spirit had tormented Saul, his servants suggested that he find someone who could play the lyre for his well-being. When Saul agreed, one of the servants suggested that he employ David. According to the servant, in addition to his reputation as a skilled musician, David was also known for being “a man of valor, a man of war.”

Seeing David’s reputation as a warrior, it would have been only natural for Saul to make him both an armor-bearer and his musician. Having fighting experience as a precondition for becoming an armor bearer aligns with the role Jonathan’s armor bearer had. (See 1 Samuel 1:17-23)

David was not Saul’s only armor bearer. Later in his reign,1 Samuel 31 and I Chronicles 10:1-14 detail the last confrontation between King Saul and the Philistines. It is the battle where Saul and three of his sons, including Jonathan, lose their lives. Archers strike Saul and gravely wound him, and he pleads for his armor bearer (in the Hebrew, kᵊlî nāśā) to strike him down before the Philistines could get to him and do worse. The armor bearer refuses because he was afraid, probably of killing the king. Saul therefore fell on his own sword, and the armor bearer did the same shortly after.

There is no description of the fighting abilities of this armor bearer, but loyalty is clearly a common theme. The armor bearer could have tried to save himself, but instead chose to share the same fate as his master.

Among the Mighty: Joab’s Armor Bearer

The last armor bearer mentioned in the Bible is Naharai of Beeroth, Joab’s armor bearer (in the Hebrew, kᵊlî nāśā). His name appears among the elite warriors who served King David, known as David’s mighty men, and/or “The Thirty.” While there is no other description of Naharai’s prowess, none is needed to ascertain his level of skill. Only David’s top men, such as Benaiah and Abishai, known for amazing feats in battle, are mentioned among “The Thirty.”

His inclusion in “The Thirty” confirms that Joab’s armor bearer was among the best there was in the entire kingdom.

The Forgotten Figure in the Valley of Elah: Goliath’s Shield Bearer

In the David and Goliath story, David is often portrayed as a boy who defeats a giant. There are two inaccuracies with that portrayal. I discuss the first in detail in “King David, The Warrior King.” David was not a boy; he was likely a young man in his early twenties. The second inaccuracy is the omission of Goliath’s shield bearer, clearly mentioned in I Samuel 17:7.

The Hebrew terms kᵊlî nāśā do not appear in verse 7; rather, ṣinnâ is paired with nāśā. The former is the Hebrew word for shield, and hence the use of “shield bearer” in most Bible translations. While some literature may use armor bearer and shield bearer interchangeably, there is reason to believe that the role of Goliath’s “shield bearer” was different than Jonathan’s armor bearer, for example.

The Philistines, as confirmed in Biblical texts, used chariots in warfare, and the description of Goliath’s armor lends credence to the idea that Goliath was indeed an elite charioteer. For an in-depth discussion on the evidence for this claim, see Jefffrey Zorn’s paper, “Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior.⁴ His hypothesis is supported by I Samuel 17:4, where Goliath is described as a “champion.” The Hebrew word translated as champion is transliterated as bēnayim, and it literally means, “man of the space between.” In descriptions of chariot warfare of the Neo-Assyrians, for example, chariots were composed of three-man teams, where the position of the third man would be between the other two.

Shield bearers were also common “accessories” on a chariot team. The shield barrier would protect the driver and the other warrior. His role, therefore, would have been different than the armor bearers that Jonathan and Saul would have used. Their armor bearers would be called upon to actively fight alongside their lord or master, while a shield bearer, as the one Goliath had, would have had less of a fighting role.

The shield bearer likely stepped aside when David engaged Goliath to make it a “fair” fight. His initial role in verse 7 was more likely to protect Goliath from stray arrows and preserve the giant for the one-to-one duel. In the end, the use of the sling by a much smaller opponent was the giant’s ultimate undoing.

What This Means for David: Warrior, Armor Bearer, and Servant of Saul

The primary lesson from studying biblical armor bearers is the profound revelation it provides about David’s own role as an armor bearer and, hence, his relationship with Saul. The armor bearers used in Saul’s and David’s kingdoms were elite warriors, loyal to their sires. They may have carried armor and other weapons, but they were reliable fighters in their own right. We must therefore conclude that for Saul to choose David as his armor bearer, he must have been a proven fighter.

If Jonathan, a prince, and Joab, a general, had exceptional, proven warriors to assist them on the battlefield, it is only logical to conclude that King Saul would have had at least the same, if not better. The servant’s description of David “as a man of valor, a man of war,” only confirms my hypothesis. It would be illogical for Saul to choose an inexperienced shepherd boy for that role. He might not have been as elite as the men of “The Thirty” at that point, but he was not merely a shepherd boy either.

In addition, as Saul’s armor bearer, he would have been engaged in additional training. Even if he never joined Saul on the battlefield, he would have trained alongside his master, who was an experienced warrior. This, of course, calls into question the chronology of Chapters 16 and 17 of I Samuel. In Chapter 16, David is employed as a musician and an armor bearer. In Chapter 17, David kills Goliath, and then in Chapter 18, Saul does not seem to have any idea who he is. That would be unlikely if David did serve as his armor bearer. So either King Saul was mentally unwell and couldn’t remember (a possibility due to the demon tormenting him in I Samuel 16:14) or David became an armor bearer after he killed Goliath. Personally, I think David was an armor bearer before Goliath.

From I Samuel 17:15, we know that David traveled back and forth from Saul to attend to his sheep in Bethlehem. David engaged Goliath upon his return from Bethlehem. But I Samuel 18:2 states that right after he defeated Goliath, Saul did not allow David to return home. If Saul was employed as a musician and armor bearer afterwards, it would render I Samuel 17:15 untrue. What I believe is happening here is that David was not Saul’s full-time armor bearer. He may have been one of several serving in that role or possibly an armor bearer in training. However, his victory over Goliath would cement his reputation among the military, which is why Saul could place him in command of large units of men (see I Samuel 18:5).

If the chronology is correct, David was not a young, inexperienced boy when he faced Goliath. He was already a trained fighter, lethal with a sling (an often-used weapon of war). If Saul’s armor didn’t fit him, it was probably because Saul was exceptionally tall (see I Samuel 9:2). That does not take away from David’s accomplishment nor his faith. Goliath was not only a giant, but his experience would have been superior to David’s, and he was armored. David slaying Goliath was less of a miracle and more of God placing a skilled warrior with unshakable faith in the path of a terrifying opponent. In King David: Rise of the Warrior King, I portray it as “a Marine private volunteering to fight against a giant while Navy Seals were too scared to do so.”

Before the Crown: David the Armor Bearer

The armor bearers in the Bible played heroic roles. They were loyal, skilled, and essential warriors during Israel’s rise as a kingdom. In Scripture, they are mentioned only in connection with high-ranking officials, princes, or kings, suggesting that armor bearers were likely a privilege of the elite, much like in other ancient armies.

The most famous armor bearer in the Bible is David, yet he is rarely portrayed that way. But David truly was an armor bearer, and likely a very good one. It would have been a natural proving ground for the man who would later become one of Scripture’s greatest warriors and military commanders. Artwork of David with a sling will always have its place. But perhaps it is time to remember that before David was a giant-slayer and king, he was an armor bearer.

1. “Sparabara: shield bearers of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, June 1, 2024, https://www.historiascripta.org/classical-antiquity/sparabara-shield-bearers-of-the-achaemenid-persian-empire/

2. Herodotus 5.111, https://files.romanroadsstatic.com/materials/herodotus.pdf

3. see https://www.worldhistory.org/Hypaspist/ and https://alexander-the-great.org/warfare/hypaspists

4. Jefffrey Zorn, “Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior,” https://www.scribd.com/document/336706876/Philistine-Chariot-Warrior-Reconsidering-Goliath-pdf

The post Armor Bearers: The Forgotten Warriors of the Bible appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

While the Bible does not shy away from the brutality of war, God’s laws of exemption for military-aged men demonstrate compassion and prudence. They are by far more lenient than rules governing modern armies, including the United States. While the laws may reflect God’s love for his people, they also had practical and spiritual applications for the nation of Israel.

Who was called to fight?

Here is where most of the laws for men drafted into military service can be found in the Bible: Deuteronomy 20:5-8 and Deuteronomy 23:9-14. I say “drafted” because, back when these laws were written, Israel was not an established nation yet – definitely no standing army to speak of. In Deuteronomy 20:5, it talks about “the people,” which, if you read “The Organization of David’s Military,” usually means the militia, aka the men drafted for a war.

It is also pretty obvious from the context that these laws aren’t aimed at women, since God didn’t typically call them to participate in military engagements. Sure, Deborah and Jael changed the course of a military campaign, but they are the exception and not the rule.

Those sent home before the sword.

Most of the laws in Deuteronomy relate to exemptions granted to draftees. Implicitly, all men of fighting age must attend muster, but then the officers (overseers) can grant exemptions based on the following criteria:

1. A man who built a house, but had not yet dedicated it (verse 5).

   • It was Jewish and Middle Eastern tradition to dedicate, through ceremony, a newly built home before inhabiting it. Presumably, any warrior who had not had the opportunity to do so would be exempt from battle and able to return home.¹

2. A man who had planted a vineyard, but not yet enjoyed its fruit (verse 6).

   • Per Leviticus 19:23-24, one could not eat from the fruit of a vineyard during its first three years. It was not until the fourth, that it was lawful to do so. Therefore, this exemption from battle could give any man a reprieve for up to four years.

3. A man who was engaged to a woman, but had not yet married her (verse 7).

   • This exemption can be understood in the context of Deuteronomy 24:5, which declares that a man is exempt from military service for the first year of marriage “to be happy with his wife” or “to make his wife happy,” depending on the translation.

4. Any man who was fearful or fainthearted (verse 9).

   • Cowardice would essentially give a man a free ticket home. While on the surface, it would seem to give an unjust pass to men who were too fearful, the same verse explains the reason why, “lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own.” Fear can be contagious, and from a strategic perspective, their presence on the battlefield would do more harm than good. Since these were draftees as opposed to hardened warriors, this exemption would help filter out those who were not mentally prepared for the battlefield.

The ties that spare the three.

The first three laws of exemption all share the same reason for their codification. The author not only wants to protect a man from losing out on the fruits of his labor, but more specifically, that another man does not enjoy the result of his work.

5 Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, 'Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. 

6 And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. 

7 And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.'

These first exemptions also curiously mirror a Bible verse that describes the consequences of disobedience in Deuteronomy 28:30.

30 You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall ravish her. You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it. You shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not enjoy its fruit.

The wife, the house, and the vineyard reflect what men would want most out of life–a family, a home, and a meaningful way to provide. God demonstrates that He does not want to rob a potential warfighter of everything good in his life. Alternatively, God warns that a man can lose everything that matters to him if he is disobedient to God’s commands.

Were the exemptions used or ignored?

I came across a commentator who argues that these laws only applied to optional wars, not wars commanded by God. An optional war would be one allowed by God, but not one that He initiated, like the wars against the Canaanites. Is he correct?

On the one hand, in Numbers 1:3 and Numbers 26:2, God commands Moses to take a census of all military-aged men (20 years and above) and uses the phrase, “all in Israel” and “all in the congregation” respectively. But a census would only dictate who was required to muster. Only at muster would Deuteronomy 20:5-8 go into effect. That being said, there is a shift in tone beginning in Deuteronomy 20:15 that does imply different rules for the wars of inheritance–the wars by which Israel would take control of Canaan. But there is not enough contextual evidence to determine if the rules also modified were the exemption laws.

We also have little evidence of these laws being applied at all. Judges 7:3 is the only example of this exemption when under Gideon’s command, 2/3 of the army were sent home for cowardice! But lack of scriptural examples does not mean it never happened. In general, the scriptures lack much detail on the specifics of various wars and battles, but I think it would be safe to assume that if they were applied, they would have been unevenly applied under the various good and evil kings.

What the exemptions whisper about God.

What we can learn about the God of the Bible from these exemptions is infinitely more important than how Israel applied these laws if at all.

God is compassionate and cares about the individual.

The exemptions protect a man’s personal investments—home, livelihood (vineyard), and family—reflecting God’s concern for individual lives, not just the collective. The repeated phrase “lest another man” enjoy these blessings (20:5-7) shows sensitivity to human emotions. This mirrors Deuteronomy 28:30’s curses, flipping them into promises of protection under obedience.

God wants his people to trust in His divine power

From a military standpoint, any king or military commander would have found it tempting to ignore these laws before a military campaign. Being faithful to God’s law would greatly reduce the number of available men to fight! As already mentioned, in Judges 7, the application of only one of these exemptions led to a 66% force reduction. Could that have been part of God’s reasoning to begin with—to force his people to trust in Him and not in military might? Reducing troop numbers forces reliance on God, not human strength. Deuteronomy 20:1-4 sets this tone: “Do not be afraid… for the Lord your God is with you.” Exemptions might intentionally shrink armies to highlight God’s might, a recurring theme (e.g., Gideon’s 300, David vs. Goliath). It’s a military disadvantage turned spiritual advantage.

A human king might maximize forces, but God’s laws defy pragmatism, showing His ways transcend ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). This challenges Israel to trust Him radically, reinforcing His sovereignty.

God wants to protect Israel

By safeguarding new marriages, homes, and economic stability, God ensures Israel’s future. He is protecting marriages and a family’s wealth (home and vineyard) and guaranteeing that Israel’s population is not decimated. What happens in the first year of marriage (when birth control was not an option)? Women get pregnant. This aligns with His covenant to make them a great nation (Genesis 12:2). Even in war, He prioritizes life and continuity, balancing justice with mercy.

These laws reveal a God who is compassionate, strategic, and committed to His people’s flourishing, individually and collectively. They underscore trust over self-reliance, aligning with His character as both protector and provider, even amidst war.

God’s grace beyond the battle.

In the shadow of ancient Israel’s battles, the exemptions of Deuteronomy 20 stand as a striking testament to a God who wields both justice and gentleness. Far from the unrelenting demands of modern militaries, these laws spared men from war’s grasp to safeguard their homes, harvests, and hearts—revealing a divine compassion that prized individual lives amid collective strife. Whether fully implemented or unevenly applied, their echoes in Gideon’s thinned ranks and their absence in Canaan’s conquest hint at a deeper intent: to forge a nation not by sheer might, but by trust in a Power beyond the sword. More than battlefield rules, these exemptions unveil a God who balances mercy with purpose, inviting us to ponder that even in war, the seeds of peace are sown through care for the smallest among us.

1. Commentary on Deuteronomy 20: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/20-5.htm

The post War Exemptions and God’s Mercy in Deuteronomy 20 appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

David and Jonathan’s friendship often overshadows Jonathan’s accomplishments as a warrior and prince. He was a leader and warrior in his own right, what is most remarkable is his humility vis-a-vis his father Saul. His response to the young, charismatic warrior coming to the scene, David, starkly contrasts Saul’s. While Saul is overtaken by jealousy, Jonathan embraces him. Unfortunately, Jonathan’s story is a tragic one. It begins at the height of his military career but ends in humiliation, cut down by the enemy as he flees.

Who was Jonathan in the Bible?

Jonathan was the first-born son of Saul who was due to inherit the throne upon his father’s passing. He was also a mighty, skilled warrior who would lead thousands of men into battle. Although he developed a strong friendship with the future King David, relinquished his claim to the throne, and saved David’s life, Jonathan remained loyal to his father Saul, dying with him at their last battle against the Philistines in Mount Gilboa.

Jonathan the Warrior

Before David came onto the scene, Jonathan was an accomplished warrior.

The Philistines were a powerful people who had been at war with Israel since the conquest of Canaan (Joshua and Judges). From the very beginning of his reign, King Saul was thrust into conflict (and it would remain so for the rest of his reign). The reader’s first introduction to Jonathan is during a military campaign against the Philistines.

Jonathan Rallies the People Against the Philistines

In I Samuel 13, Saul splits his army in two, giving Jonathan command of about one thousand men at Gibeah of Benjamin, while Saul commands two thousand (verse 2). Jonathan brazenly attacks the Philistine garrison at Geba and defeats it. The Philistines respond to this provocative move by deploying a rather large force, according to verse 5 to Michmash (30,000 chariots, 6000 horsemen, and “troops like the sand of the seashore”). [Numbers in the Bible, especially regarding the size of military forces, should not always be taken literally. It appears that numbers were used loosely, culturally, or for spiritual meaning. Their primary purpose is to convey an idea rather than provide the reader with exact facts. In this case, we can read the numbers to mean it was a much larger force vis-à-vis Israel].

The Israelites were frightened and distressed, many of whom migrated to the other side of the river Jordan to be spared from bloodshed. The fear was not unwarranted. In addition to greater numbers, the Philistines may have controlled the technology and raw materials to make and sharpen iron weapons (superior to any bronze weaponry used in the past)¹ putting the Israelites at a great disadvantage. Only Saul and Jonathan, according to the text (verse 22), had adequate weaponry.

Jonathan, however, was not dismayed by the odds. While his countrymen hid, he took his armorbearer, daringly climbed a sheer rock, and confronted the Philistines guarding the mountain pass at Michash without telling Saul. The decision to do so was not made in a vacuum. Jonathan was taking advantage of the Philistines splitting their forces at Michmash and deploying them in three different directions, North, West, and East (I Samuel 13:17-18), thinning out their numbers at the garrison in Michmash.

Jonathan’s intention was not to catch the Philistines by surprise. Convinced that God had delivered them into his hand, he made sure Philistine scouts could see him. His plan, as he tells his armor bearer, was that if the Philistines told them to go up, they would go up, and if the Philistines told them to wait, they would wait for the Philistines to approach them (I Samuel 14:8-10). Both climb after being directed to do so, and when they reach the top, they proceed to kill 20 men in about half an acre of area. He was counting on them underestimating him and his armorbearer.

Shortly after, an earthquake rattles the area, the Philistines become frightened and flee. Back at Gibeah, Saul is informed of the commotion by his watchmen. Saul takes advantage and deploys his forces to the area of battle, and other Israelites who had either sided with the Philistines or were hiding are motivated to go up against the Philistines.

Jonathan and His Armor Bearer

Jonathan’s success against the 20 Philistines would not have been possible without his armor bearer’s loyalty, courage, and skill.

The text in verse 13 demonstrates the harmonious fighting between Jonathan and his armor bearer. The reader may miss it at first, depending on the Bible version they read. Notice the three different ways the text is translated below.

“Jonathan climbed up using his hands and feet, with his armor-bearer behind him. Jonathan cut them down, and his armor-bearer followed and finished them off.” CSB

“So they climbed up using both hands and feet, and the Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armorbearer killed those who came behind them.” NLT

“Then Jonathan climbed up on his hands and feet, and his armor-bearer after him. And they fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer killed them after him.” ESV

The Hebrew from which the English Bible versions are translated is probably a bit ambiguous, leading to a slightly different interpretation in the various English translations. Either Jonathan wounded his assailants and the armorbearer finished them off, or the armorbearer killed anyone approaching from behind. Regardless, it demonstrates the symbiotic lethality of their approach.

The People Save Jonathan

As the campaign against the Philistines shifts to Beth Aven and then to Aijalon (east of Micmash)² (verse 23 and verse 31), Saul issues a ridiculous decree that almost costs Jonathan his life.

In verse 24, Saul makes a foolish vow. None of his men is to eat until that evening. For men who have been burning excess calories in the previous days of advancements and battle, it is an unnecessary burden. Jonathan, who had not heard the decree, eats honey from a forest and, not surprisingly, regains his strength. The people, probably in dismay, tell Jonathan of Saul’s decree.

Upon hearing the news, Jonathan, a clearly more astute warrior than his father, comments that the people would have fought better with food in their bellies. He rightly judges that Saul was hindering their victory, but he does not comment on his own fate. Jonathan demonstrates here that he puts the people’s welfare before his own.

Saul is initially unaware of Jonathan’s unintentional transgression, and the people are clearly not keen on ratting him out (verse 39). But by casting lots, Saul determines that Jonathan must have sinned. Jonathan confesses and accepts the consequences, but the people, who up to this point had acquiesced, drew the line in the sand. They refused to let Saul execute Jonathan.

Refusing a king’s orders comes at great risk. For the people to essentially rebel against Saul’s orders to execute Jonathan is telling of the loyalty and support Jonathan had among the people. It was a loyalty he had earned by his bravery, leading from the front, and his apparent care for them.

David and Jonathan

David and Jonathan were kindred spirits. They were two warriors driven by a love for their God and insurmountable courage. It was a bond forged in war.

Jonathan’s admiration for David began shortly after the latter killed Goliath, but it was probably not the first time they met. By the time David killed Goliath, David had already served as Saul’s armorbearer (See King David, Warrior King). Jonathan would have interacted with the young man on several occasions. But in killing Goliath, Jonathan was able to see the true courage of the young warrior. David was a man Jonathan could understand because he was a lot like him.

The Parallels in the Accounts of Jonathan and David

That the David vs Goliath duel was the beginning of David and Jonathan’s friendship is no coincidence. There is a stark parallel between the stories of Jonathan’s defeat of the Philistine encampment at Michmash and David’s defeat of Goliath. In both scenarios, the people were paralyzed with fear. Before Jonathan stormed the encampment with his armor bearer, the people were hiding in caves, and those who followed Saul were described as trembling (I Samuel 13:6-7). Compare that to how the people reacted to Goliath. The text reads that they were dismayed and greatly afraid (I Samuel 17:11).

In both cases, it took one courageous warrior to spur the people into action through one heroic act. Jonathan scaled a wall and killed 20 men with the help of his armor bearer. David killed a giant. Immediately after their feat, the scared Israelis sprang into action, pushing the Philistine lines back (see I Samuel 14:21-22 and I Samuel 17:52. respectively).

Look also at the similarities between how Jonathan and David viewed God vis-a-vis their enemies.

Jonathan said to the young man who carried his armor, “Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised. It may be that the LORD will work for us, for nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few.”

I Samuel 14:6 (ESV)

And David said to the men who stood by him, “What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?”

I Samuel 17:26 (ESV)

No doubt that when Jonathan witnessed David’s bravery and heard the conversation between him and his father (I Samuel 18:1), he saw a reflection of himself and probably a better version of himself.

A Future King Gives Up His Throne

David and Jonathan’s friendship was undergirded by a covenant. At some point early in their friendship (I Samuel 18:3), Jonathan made a binding agreement with David of astronomical proportions. He took off his robe, armor, bow, belt, and sword and gave them to David. In doing so, Jonathan relinquished the throne to David. Note that Jonathan is the one who initiated the covenant. David did not ask him to do that.

This gesture speaks less to Jonathan’s bond with David and more to Jonathan’s understanding of God’s will. The common theme among royals in the Bible (and history in general) is for a power struggle to ensue. Jealousy, power, and greed are the driving factors that led to rivals being murdered, even if they were blood relatives. Saul tried to kill David on several occasions so he would not have to give up the throne, even though God had decreed that it was no longer his. Absalom would stage a coup against his father David. Solomon’s half-brothers tried to usurp the throne even before David had died. Even children were not spared the dangers of growing up in a royal family (see Jehosheba).

As the firstborn and rightful heir (in the eyes of men) of King Saul, Jonathan’s decision to relinquish the throne stood in sharp contrast to his father Saul’s refusal to do so, and it demonstrates his utter humility before God. Jonathan knew fighting against God’s will was futile and understood that God would stand with David (I Samuel 20:15).

While Jonathan did give up the throne, he did require something of David, that David would spare his offspring. From a worldly perspective, this was not in David’s interest as Jonathan’s offspring could later be a liability– if they claimed the throne. However, David was true to his word and the covenant by providing for and sparing Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s only surviving son (II Samuel 21:7).

A Warrior’s Friendship

A lot has been insinuated about the friendship between Jonathan and David, but their friendship was nothing more than two warriors who were bound by the spilling of blood.

In some ways, their friendship was similar to the relationship between Julius Caesar and Marc Anthony, who were also both military men and elites within the republic (although this duo was driven by power, while David and Jonathan were driven by their love of God). Julius Caesar was almost two decades older than Marc Anthony, just as Jonathan was at least two decades older than David. Both friendships had a mentorship intonation, but the friendships were rooted in the uniqueness of the military experience.

In my studies of war, at the human level, there is a common theme that endures military innovation: the band of brothers. Warriors have a special bond with other warriors. Usually, that bond is formed by serving side by side, but strong friendships can form among those who never served together, but who have the same shared experience. That bond is often stronger than the love of one’s spouse, even in the best of marriages. A teary wife begging her husband not to return to the battlefield more often than not loses to the husband’s call to protect one’s brothers in arms.

In the lament after Jonathan’s death, David exclaims,

“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.”

II Samuel 1:16

King David had had multiple wives. He probably never had the opportunity to develop a strong bond with one woman who could compete with the bond between warriors. In that context, his words about Jonathan appropriately describe the bond they had formed through the brutality of war and their shared experiences.

The text doesn’t explicitly state that David and Jonathan fought wars together, but it is implied. In Chapters 18 and 19 of I Samuel, Saul gave David command over elements of his military and sent him out to fight for Israel. Up to this point, Jonathan had been a commander of major military units and there is no reason to believe that he would have been relieved of those duties. The more likely scenario is that Jonathan and David both commanded various units during their concurrent service to Saul. And Jonathan must have been David’s superior on the battlefield, as he was in the royal court (see I Samuel 20:28).

In addition to whatever battlefield experiences they may have shared, they were cut from the same cloth. Both men loved God. Both men were heirs to the throne (Jonathan by carnal authority and David by divine authority). Both men were ridiculously courageous, and both men were the elite of the elite among their warring brothers.

Jonathan Protects David

Jonathan sought to protect David from the hand of his father, who was intent on killing David. Even so, Jonathan would remain loyal to his father.

A large portion of the biblical text about Jonathan is dedicated to the lengths Jonathan went to save David from Saul’s ire. In I Samuel 19:1-3, when Saul first gives the order to kill David, Jonathan informs him of his father’s plans. Jonathan’s actions are treasonous, and he puts himself at risk for betraying his father. But his covenant is with David.

Jonathan walks his father off the ledge, and David is welcomed back into the royal court, but his welcome is short-lived (I Samuel 19:4-8). Sometime after David returns from defeating Philistine elements, Saul is back at it again. David is forced to escape with the help of his wife, Michal. He makes contact with Jonathan, presumably for help, but Jonathan is in denial. He assures David that he has his father’s confidence and would know if Saul had given orders again for David’s head. David rightly judges that by this point, Saul knows of the strong friendship between both men and would likely hide his intentions from Jonathan (I Samuel 20:1-3).

Jonathan and David devise a plan to covertly notify David if Saul is still intent on killing David (I Samuel 20:5-23). The plan, fitting for two men of war, would involve target practice with a bow.

Unfortunately, Jonathan soon finds out just how determined Saul is to get rid of David. In a heated exchange at a feast, when Saul asks Jonathan why David was absent from the table, Saul directs his anger toward Jonathan. He utters shameful words to his firstborn son, at a public dinner, and then finishes by hurling a spear at Jonathan (I Samuel 20-24-30). Considering the close proximity at which Jonathan must have been to Saul, his ability to avoid injury speaks volumes to his fighting prowess (and reflexes).

As per their plan, Jonathan sends David the signal and communicates that he should flee (I Samuel 35-42).

Jonathan, a Loyal Son.

After David flees, Jonathan meets David again at his hiding place in the Wilderness of Ziph ( I Samuel 23:14-18). Jonathan encourages David and makes another covenant, presumably one where he would be guaranteed a seat at David’s side in the Davidic kingdom. Per the biblical text, Jonathan and David would not meet again.

Jonathan dies alongside his two brothers and father Saul in a battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines overtook the main Israeli element and then pursued the royal command. Jonathan fell while in retreat. It was a disappointing end for a valiant war hero.

David was on the run for several years, but as we know from I Samuel 23:17, Jonathan was convinced that David would one day be king of Israel. Why then would he not have left his father’s side and joined David?

It was certainly not for the lack of courage. He might have been calculating the risk to his family and children of living on the run and preferred to wait it out. But I don’t believe that fits Jonathan’s character.

Despite the ordeal between Saul and David, Saul trusted his son Jonathan. There was more to ruling a kingdom and fighting against the Philistines than the animosity Saul had for one of his military commanders. While at one point Saul realized he couldn’t trust Jonathan on the matter of David, the text implies that Jonathan was a close confidant, nonetheless. Jonathan didn’t think it was possible that his father wouldn’t tell him if his intention was to kill David. That speaks not to Saul’s character, but to Jonathan’s. He was a man of honor, and while his father had no qualms about throwing a spear at him in a rage, Jonathan still honored his father.

Jonathan was waiting for Saul to be removed from power by David (which he believed to be inevitable), but he did not want a role in dishonoring his father in that way. He would protect David, because he was innocent and God’s anointed, but he would not stab his father in the back either. He was loyal to his father to the very end, but sadly, his father did not seem to validate his efforts.

Jonathan was beloved by the people. He must have been as charismatic as he was skillful with a sword and bow. But the people would grow to love more, David. While others (like Saul), would have been eaten alive by jealousy, that was not Jonathan’s character. He was a humble prince who willfully gave up his rights to the throne to honor the chosen one of God. He was a man of valor and a man of humility.

1. Chronological Study Bible, p 308

2. Carl G Rasmussen. Zondervan Atlas of the Bible. (Grand Rapids, Mich., Zondervan: 2010): 132

The post Jonathan in the Bible: Humble Prince, Brave Warrior appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Uriah the Hittite is one of the least appreciated warriors in the Bible. He is known as the man King David murdered to cover up his affair with Bathsheba. Even though he is a central figure in the II Samuel 11 account, he is overshadowed by the renowned King David and the enormity of David’s sin. Uriah is the victim, of course, but as often happens, the victim’s story can get lost because of weightier personalities. But Uriah is a renowned warrior, a central figure who helped David establish his kingdom. That, of course, makes his story even more tragic, but it must not detract from his heroism.

(My book recommendations have affiliate links, which means I may receive a small commission if you choose to purchase through my links (at no extra cost to you). As an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

A Summary of Uriah’s Story

While his army was at war with the Ammonites, King David uncharacteristically remained in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was a rather small city then and the houses were stacked close together. The palace itself would have been located in close proximity to surrounding homes. One afternoon, from the roof of his palace, King David saw a beautiful woman bathing in one of these houses.

David asks for the woman, sleeps with her, and impregnates her. To cover up his actions, he calls Uriah back from the front lines under the guise of getting an update on the war. David urges him to go home, sure that he will sleep with his wife, but Uriah opts to sleep with the King’s servants instead. David tries again by getting him drunk, but even in that state, Uriah refuses to go.

Feeling trapped, King David sends Uriah back to the front lines with a message for his commanding general, Joab, to have Uriah killed in battle. Joab acquiesces and Uriah dies at the hands of the Ammonites.

Who Was Uriah the Hittite?

With a cursory reading of II Samuel 11, one might get the impression that Uriah was a regular soldier who happened to have a very beautiful wife. II Samuel 23:39 informs us otherwise.

Uriah was a member of David’s elite warriors known as David’s Mighty Men or David’s Mighty Warriors or just simply, “The Thirty.” God saw it fit to list these warriors by name in both II Samuel 23 and I Chronicles 11. Although there are some variations in both lists, Uriah is mentioned in both of them.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of The Mighty Men is that they helped bring David to power. I Chronicles 11:10 reads, “Now these are the chiefs of David’s mighty men, who gave him strong support in his kingdom, together with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of the LORD concerning Israel.” Since Uriah the Hittite is named among this elite group, he must have also been one of the ones who lent his military prowess to help David establish his kingdom. That gives us a hint about the relationship between David and Uriah.

David fought with his men and he came into power through war. He fought alongside them and spilled blood with them. David’s regular army had over 30,000 men and there is no way that he would have known each of them, but he would have known all of the Mighty Men by name. King David must have known Uriah and probably fought with him and had seen his courage in action.

A Band of Brothers

The brotherhood formed between fellow warriors is undeniable. It is a bond that is forged when men (or women) suffer extreme circumstances together. Often not even the wife/husband relationship can surmount this bond. It is the reason that men, who have endured war, continually volunteer to return to the battlefield instead of staying home with their families. It isn’t the love of war, it is the bond, it is the brotherhood with their fellow warriors.

Siegfried Knappe in Soldat, Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949 reflects on this bond on page 220:

“Men who share combat become brothers, and this brotherhood is so important to them that they would give their lives for one another. It is not just friendship and it is stronger than flag and country.”

William Manchester stated it best when described the reason he chose to return to the battlefield on page 12 of Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War (another book worth reading):

“It was an act of love. Those men on the line were my family, my home. They were closer to me than I can say, closer than any friends had been or ever would be. They had never let me down, and I couldn’t do it to them. I had to be with them, rather than let them die and me live with the knowledge that I might have saved them. Men, I now knew, do not fight for flag or country, for the Marine Corps or glory or any other abstraction. They fight for one another. Any man in combat who lacks comrades who will die for him, or for whom he is willing to die, is not a man at all. He is truly damned.”

William Manchester in Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War

The bond is so strong and an important motivator in helping to keep warriors fighting. Both ancient and modern militaries have recognized it. Numerous studies and papers have been written on how to exploit that bond for maintaining unit cohesion. Once the bullets (or arrows) start flying, things like patriotism and ideology may go out the window, but the bond keeps warriors going and most importantly, keeps them from retreating.

Betraying the Band of Brothers

David’s betrayal went beyond sexual sin, it betrayed the band of brothers. As part of David’s Mighty Men, Uriah would have been there with David in the Cave of Adullam living alongside David and other warriors in miserable conditions. He wandered together with David when he was a king without a home. He would have suffered thirst and hunger along with David in the Judean Wilderness, a mostly uninhabited arid place. He would have warred with David in numerous battles and given sweat, blood, and tears. David, Uriah, and the other Mighty Men would have formed a bond, the kind of bond forged only on the battlefield.

So when David inquired about Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11:3, and they told him she was the wife of Uriah, he would have known exactly who Uriah was. He may not have been one of his closest war buddies, but he would have known that Uriah was one of his band of brothers. It is probably for this reason that David panicked when Bathsheba told him she was pregnant.

To complicate matters, Bathsheba’s father, Eliam might have also been one of The Thirty. An Eliam, son of Ahithophel appears in the Thirty’s roster in II Samuel 23:34. (Note, Ahithophel is the same individual who would later side with Absalom in his coup attempt against his father David.)

That the king would have had an affair with the wife of a soldier, may have been frowned upon and would have been embarrassing for David, but as powerful as David was at the time, I don’t believe David would have been threatened enough to panic. However, to have an affair with the wife of one of The Mighty Men (and the daughter of another one) was a whole different story. It would have rattled the loyalty that this elite group had towards David and shaken the foundations of his military might. In a separate incident involving David’s son Absalom, Joab warned David on how precarious loyalty could be if his men felt betrayed (See II Samuel 19:5-7).

It is also for this reason that it would not have been unusual for David to recall someone like Uriah from the battlefield and inquire about the status of the military campaign in II Samuel 11:6-7. He would have been a trusted warrior, a suitable choice for relaying intelligence to the king.

Uriah is Loyal to the Band of Brothers

Despite David’s efforts to create a scenario that would entice Uriah to sleep with his wife to cover the affair, Uriah was faithful to God and his band of brothers. David encouraged Uriah to go home and enjoy the pleasures of being with his wife, but Uriah chose a more humble place to lay his head that night. He rested with the king’s servants instead. The word “servant” is sometimes used in the Bible to refer to a king’s warriors so this could have just meant he slept in the barracks.

Uriah’s response in II Samuel 11:11 shows his commitment to God and his fellow warriors:

Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.” 2 Samuel 11:11 ESV

Uriah’s mention of the ark shows that he understood the spiritual underpinnings of the battles he was engaged in. He likely came to accept and worship the God of Israel when he joined David, probably part of the group in I Samuel 22:2.

Hittites were a people displaced by Israel per God’s command when they entered the Promise Land (See Exodus 13:5). They were a pagan people (for a great, historical fiction on the Hittites I recommend the series, Empires of Bronze). Seeing that a Hittite showed more honor and integrity than the anointed king of Israel should have woken David up from his spiritual slumber. As is often true of the human condition, David fell deeper into the hole he was digging for himself.

Uriah’s response to David’s enticements also echoes the feelings of many warriors after him. It is a sense of guilt for enjoying the comforts of home while fellow brothers are still dying on the battlefield. For whatever reason, David sent his men to war against the Ammonites while he stayed in Jerusalem contrary to his custom of leading his men into battle. He was enjoying the comforts of his wealth while his men were still at war. The contrast between Uriah and David in this exchange is stark. David’s disregard for the band of brothers only becomes more obvious further in the text.

How Did Uriah Die?

After his plan fails, David sentences Uriah the HIttite to his death. In the ultimate betrayal of the band of brothers, Uriah carries his own execution order unawares and delivers it to David’s general, Joab. In 2 Samuel 11:15, David tells Joab to put Uriah on the front lines and then abandon him to his fate.

The glue that holds the band of brothers together is the idea that the man on your left or the right will watch your back and protect you at the risk of their own life. And in return, you will do the same for those who will die for you. The “leave no man behind” ethos runs through a warrior’s blood.

And yet, this is exactly what David is asking Joab to do. Interestingly, Joab sends Uriah to his fate but not exactly in the manner that David asked him to. Joab sent Uriah on a suicide mission where he died along other brave men. He was not alone. He did not die alone. He was not left behind.

While Joab was ruthless and up to this point, loyal to David, there must have been conflict swelling up within Joab. He was bound to obey his king but at the same time, he was asked to break that unspoken code between warriors. Now Joab was no stranger to death. He was a hardened warrior and he certainly had no qualms about killing a man in cold blood (and probably why David felt comfortable giving him that order). He had done so out of revenge against the one that killed his brother Asahel (See 2 Samuel 3:30). But asking him to send one of David’s Mighty Men to his fate is a different story altogether.

There are men with few moral standards who will still hold fast to a warrior’s code, to their band of brothers. The suicide mission was probably Joab’s best way to reconcile the turmoil within himself. Or at the very least, Joab knew that those fighting alongside Uriah would not leave him behind to die alone. (For a full analysis of Joab himself, read, “Joab: Commander of David’s Army.”)

David’s Message to Joab

The text shows that David predicted that Joab would have had difficulties with Uriah’s death. In 2 Samuel 11:25 he sends a message to Joab in an attempt to comfort him:

David said to the messenger, “Thus shall you say to Joab, ‘Do not let this matter displease you, for the sword devours now one and now another. Strengthen your attack against the city and overthrow it.’ And encourage him.”

Joab had seen countless men die and had sent countless men to their fate. Why would David want to comfort Joab in this particular situation? David’s message confirms the position of Uriah within David’s army and the long history he had fighting alongside Joab and David. Leaders in the middle of war do not have time to grieve every death, but when it is one of their own, the grief is deep and enduring. I doubt David’s message had much of an effect on Joab, however.

The message also shows how far David had fallen. David came to power by inspiring the loyalty of great warriors. That kind of leader is built by leading from the front. Why did highly successful military leaders like the Spartan King Leonidas or the great German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel inspire such loyalty? They fought and suffered alongside their men. While other German military leaders would lead from the safety of their headquarters behind the front lines, Rommel was known to stand alongside his men as bullets whizzed by. It is what made his units such formidable foes during World War II. David was that kind of military leader and much greater because he honored and served God.

The loyalty of David’s men ran deep and David cherished these men. In 2 Samuel 23:13-17 we read about a time when David was hiding from Saul and probably having spent days without much water or food. He longingly wished to drink from the waters of Bethlehem. Bethlehem at the time was under the control of the Philistines, but when his men heard David’s words, three of them snuck through the Philistine lines to get that water for David.

David’s response to their generous act showed the love and appreciation he had for their sacrifice. Instead of drinking the water, he poured the water out to God. He felt that was the only way that he could honor how they had risked their lives to get him the water in the first place. His response showed the heart of David, a man after God’s own heart, and it stands in great contrast to his callous message to Joab after Uriah’s death many years later, “for the sword devours now one and now another.”

God’s Faithful Servant

Uriah the Hittite was a seasoned warrior, so when Joab assigned him a position on the battlefield along the wall (see II Samuel 11:16-20), he would have understood it was a suicide mission. And yet he did not waiver. He followed orders even if it meant he would most likely not return. He would stand with his band of brothers;.

As much as David was called to be king, David’s Mighty Men were called to support him. God used these men to help establish David’s kingdom. Like David, Uriah answered his call, was faithful to the end, and played his part in bringing about God’s promise.

God Honored Uriah the Hittite

The last time that Uriah’s name is mentioned in the Bible is in Matthew Chapter 1 in the genealogy of Jesus. It is curious that in this genealogy that details the line of Jesus, Uriah is the only non-blood relation mentioned.

Matthew 1:6 says “and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,”

David was king but Jesus is the King of kings. To be mentioned in his line is an honor that will survive into eternity. The irony is that the mention of Uriah’s name in the same sentence as King David is a constant reminder of David’s fall. We know from II Samuel 12 that David paid dearly for his sin. God was displeased and David paid a high price for betraying another of His faithful servants.

But God did more than exert justice for Uriah. God placed Uriah in the genealogy for a reason. It is possible that God didn’t want His people to forget his faithful servant Uriah. God wanted to honor his faithfulness to the end.

Unlike King David and Joab, God didn’t leave Uriah the Hittite behind and He doesn’t want the reader to either.

The post Uriah the Hittite: A Faithful Warrior appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Absalom’s attempt to steal the throne from his father King David would end in a bloodbath. The battle raged in a place called the Wood of Ephraim also known as the Forest of Ephraim. This battle showcased David’s experience with irregular warfare leading to victory for his men and a disastrous defeat for Absalom.

Absalom Rebels

King David withstood many threats to his kingdom, but none was more devastating than the attempted coup by his son Absalom. Absalom’s ambitions may have started shortly after the rape of his sister Tamar and David’s hesitation to punish the perpetrator, his first-born Amnon. Through patience and brilliant political maneuvering, Absalom eventually garnered enough support within Israel to drive his father out of Jerusalem.

Absalom might have been successful if David had not planted his own double agent, Hushai (II Samuel 15:32-37). Ahithophel, Absalom’s trusted counselor, had advised him to pursue David while he was on the run, but Hushai convinced him to wait it out until Absalom could garner more military support (II Samuel 17). This decision was detrimental for Absalom as it allowed King David and his men to resupply and draw Absalom’s men to a geographic area of their choosing.

David Prepares His Army

After David fled, Hushai counseled him to cross over the Jordan River (II Samuel 17:16). Across the Jordan, he and his men found refuge in the city of Mahanaim where David’s allies provided for him and his men. It was a region King David had used as a strategic center during campaigns against the Ammonites and the Arameans and it would serve that purpose again against his son [see Yadin, Yigael. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. Volume 2. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963, pp 272.] In Mahanaim, David organized his forces into three divisions under the command of Joab, Abishai, and Ittai the Gittite in preparation to face Absalom (II Samuel 18:2).

As King David prepared his men, he did so with the knowledge that he would be facing a much larger army. I have made the case in King David, the Rise of the Warrior King, and The Organization of David’s Military that David’s military complex had both a standing army and a militia. The militia was much larger numerically and it was the militia who had mostly sided with Absalom. So as David prepared his men, he did so knowing that he was at a numerical disadvantage.

Inhospitable Terrain Favors Guerrilla Warfare

As David’s forces move out from Mahanaim (without David) to engage with Absalom’s men, the text simply reads:

So the army went out into the field against Israel, and the battle was fought in the forest of Ephraim.

II Samuel 18:6 (ESV)

The wording is a bit ambiguous as to where the fighting actually started. We know from II Samuel 18: 8-10 that the battle spanned a large geographic area and that it likely ended in the Forest of Ephraim. However, with David’s background (and his commanders’ for that matter) in irregular warfare, it would not be a far stretch to believe that David’s commanders intentionally drew Absalom’s forces into the forest (possibly under David’s direction).

Established armies would have preferred to face their opponents in open fields, especially in ancient warfare. Forested areas tend to be characterized by uneven terrain and trees obfuscate clear lines of sight, ambushes, sudden flank attacks, etc. But David and his generals were no ordinary commanders and with a significantly inferior army, they might have reverted to their roots of guerrilla-style warfare. His more highly trained force would have a much better shot at defeating Absalom’s large army in the forest than in an open field. No wonder the biblical text reads II Samuel 18:8, “The battle spread over the face of all the country, and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword.”

The Battle of the Wood of Ephraim echoes the Battle of Teutoburg Forest where Rome lost three legions and almost 10 percent of its military to Germanic tribes. In Rome’s case, the legions were highly trained and much more capable than Absalom’s citizen soldiers. In comparison, Absalom did not have a chance against his father and his men.

A Decisive Defeat in the Wood of Ephraim

Indeed, Absaloms’ men were defeated in the Wood of Ephraim. Absalom was also swallowed up by the forest in a rather unusual and embarrassing way. His long locks got caught on a tree branch and he was executed there by David’s general, Joab (against David’s orders). Along with Absalom, 20,000 of his men died during the engagement. The decisive defeat is a testament to the battlefield genius of David and his men and their ability to adapt to the changing environment.

You would probably also enjoy reading,

How Jerusalem Became the City of David

The post Wood of Ephraim: a Bloody End to a Coup appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Absalom, King David’s son who staged a coup against him, was a deeply disturbed and complicated character. While his grievances against his father were legitimate, his almost pathological response to his father’s injustice revealed his true nature. His ultimate desire was to supplant his father as king, but the search for true justice was never his intention demonstrated by the innocent victims he left in his wake. Pride was his true motivator and while he bested David time and time again, in the end, he could not compete against his father who was a true leader and warrior.

Absalom in the Bible, A Political Son

Absalom’s birth was the result of a political marriage between King David and Maacah, the daughter of the King of Geshur, Talmai (II Samuel 3:3). Geshur was an Aramean kingdom that lay east of the Sea of Galilee, within the allotted land of Manasseh. While David’s affair with Bathsheba was certainly one of passion, at least on his part, his marriage to Maacah was less romantic.

Political marriages were common in the ancient world. They were strategic methods used by kings to maintain friendly relations with allies and keep populations on friendly terms. David’s marriage to Maacah was no different, but it would certainly complicate family dynamics. Despite Absalom’s status as a son of a political marriage, David’s love for him was never in question. On the other hand, Absalom would use his position as David’s son and the grandson of the King of Geshur to his advantage to protect himself.

A Sister Scorned

Absalom is best known for his betrayal of his father King David, but that betrayal did not occur in a vacuum. It was long brewing and it was sparked by the rape of his sister, Tamar.

Amnon was David’s first-born son and he developed lust-filled affection for Tamar, his half-sister. With the help of his cousin Jonadab, he planned a ruse to lure Tamar into his bed chamber. While pretending to be sick and after convincing his father David to allow Tamar to serve him, he raped her. This was only the first evil (II Samuel 13:1-22). The second was his refusal to take responsibility for his actions. Per the law, Amnon would have been required to pay the bride price for the rape (Exodus 22:16-17), but instead, he treated his sister, a princess, as a common woman and forced her from his presence (II Samuel 13:17).

After the incident, Absalom comforted his sister and took financial responsibility for her (what Amnon should have done, but did not). He would even name his daughter after her. While he initially kept his feelings about the incident to himself, his heart was clearly calculating revenge (II Samuel 13:22).

A Brother’s Revenge

After the incident, King David was enraged (II Samuel 13:21), but did nothing to correct his son Amnon. No doubt, that only sparked a hatred towards King David, not only for failing to reprimand Amnon but for allowing Tamar to serve Amnon in the first place. As the King, he was ultimately responsible for bringing order within his household, but while decisive on the battlefield, King David was irresolute with his sons.

Since David withheld his reproof, Absalom took matters into his own hands. After two years of brewing in his anger, Absalom used the same cunning approach as his brother Amnon to lure him to his death. He convinced King David to allow all his brothers to attend the festivities of sheep shearing which was usually a time of unbridled hospitality and merriment. (The biblical accounts of Abigail and Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, also took place around the time of sheep shearing).

Absalom Uses His Warriors to Execute Amnon

During the festivities, Absalom gave orders to his “servants” to wait until Amnon was drunk and then kill him. While most of the Bible translations use the word “servants,” it could also be translated as “young men” or just “men” per the use of the Hebrew word behind the translations, naʿar (NIV and CSB both use the words “men” or “young men” instead of “servants”). The word “servants” in our modern English connotes hired help like maids or butlers, but the context paints a different picture. The use of the word here more likely refers to men with military training.

For example, in 2 Samuel 4:12, when David is ordering the execution of Ish-Bosheth’s murderers, it says “So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron.” In this case “men” is also derived from the Hebrew word naʿar. Clearly, David is ordering his trained warriors to carry out the execution. In a similar fashion, the execution of a prince of Israel like Amnon would not have been left in the hands of household servants but, would have rather been carried out by trained warriors.

After “the men” kill Amnon, Absalom’s brothers flee in fear. This detail also demonstrates the nature of the execution. These men were not running from household servants, but from a gruesome scene where trained warriors just took out David’s firstborn.

Absalom Flees to His Mother’s Land

After the incident, Absalom flees and seeks refuge from his grandfather the king of Geshur, Talmai the son of Ammihud (II Samuel 13:34-39). Being the offspring of a political marriage had its advantages. While Geshur was likely a tributary of Israel, under King David’s control, it does not seem that David demanded Talmai to hand over Absalom. Absalom was sheltered there for three years.

Absalom Returns to Jerusalem

Joab, the commander of David’s Army, convinced King David through a ruse to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem (II Samuel 14). Why did Joab intervene? The sorrow of losing Absalom was affecting the King’s demeanor, but it may have also affected his ability to govern effectively. The latter may have been the reason Joab pushed the king to bring his son back to Jerusalem. We will see Joab intervene again later when the King’s grief after Absalom’s death puts at risk the loyalty of his men.

King David allows Joab to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem but does not want him in his presence. Absalom is not satisfied with the arrangement and after two years, he summons Joab on two separate occasions. Joab ignores Absalom and in response, Absalom orders his men to burn Joab’s fields.

Absalom’s actions were brazen, considering Joab was not a man many would cross. But he probably felt secure in his father’s protection who up to this point had not pursued any kind of punishment for Absalom’s actions. The burning of the fields did indeed get Joab’s attention who subsequently arranged a meeting with the king. As a result, Absalom was welcomed back into the king’s court.

Absalom Builds a Political Alliance

In chapter 15 of II Samuel, Absalom’s true intentions are revealed. His desire to return to court was not born out of love for his father, but to pull the kingdom from right under his feet.

The first verse in II Samuel 15 shows us just how self-absorbed Absalom was. Horses and chariots were not common in King David’s army. The surrounding terrain was not conducive for chariot warfare because it lacked open plains. So for Absalom to acquire a chariot and horses was clearly more for pomp and circumstance (II Samuel 15:1). It could have also been part of his plan to gain favor among the people. A handsome prince (II Samuel 14:25) riding on a chariot might have helped to elevate people’s perception of Absalom. (The Bible specifically mentions Absalom’s good looks in II Samuel 14:25).

At the center of his political maneuvering, was building popular support by directly engaging with the people. The growth of the kingdom and David’s preoccupation with other matters likely led to a degradation in the daily administration of justice. Absalom seems to take advantage of the lack of justice at the gates, the defacto town hall in ancient Israel.

Through these daily interactions, he could feel the pulse of discontent among the common people, sow distrust of the king and his administration, and build alliances with tribe elders. The presence of the king, or at least his loyal subjects, would have been expected at the gates. For Absalom to have been politically successful means that David and his men were regularly absent. At worst, David was aware but thought his son was working in the best interest of his kingdom and his reign. Regardless, Absalom was successful.

So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

II Samuel 15:6b

Absalom Moves His Base of Operations to Hebron

While Absalom was able to build political alliances right under the nose of David in Jerusalem, building a formidable army from Jerusalem would have been more difficult. He would have had to contend not only with David, but with David’s loyal mighty men, particularly Joab and Benaiah. This is probably why Absalom, after building his political network for four years, decides to move operations to Hebron, the location where David began his reign.

Under the guise of fulfilling a vow, Absalom obtains permission from King David to go to Hebron (II Samuel 15:7-9). While doing so, he sends secret messages to key figures throughout the tribes of Israel, people he hand-picked during his political maneuvering in Jerusalem. They were to proclaim his kingship in Hebron at the appointed time.

In addition to the secret messages, Absalom makes two strategic decisions. The first was to invite 200 men to Hebron, which we can only assume were men of importance within David’s kingdom. The men innocently accept the invitation. With this move, Absalom is further isolating David by stripping him of key players. He is also isolating these men so that at the point of rebellion, they are unable to help David, and likely forced to help Absalom for fear of their own lives.

The second decision was to call for Ahithophel from his home city Giloh. Ahithophel had been a trusted counselor to David and would have had an insider’s view of how David and his men operated. For him to join Absalom means he had ultimately betrayed his friend and king, David.

Absalom Gathers the Militia and David Flees Jerusalem

When David was briefed on the level of support Absalom had throughout Israel, he fled from Jerusalem. Absalom took Jerusalem without bloodshed which is almost unbelievable considering the loyalty David garnered from the Army (II Samuel 15:13-14). Also, Joab, the army commander, remainedl loyal to David. So how exactly was Absalom able to achieve such a feat?

The clue may lie in II Samuel 16:15.

Now Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him.

II Samuel 16:15

The phrase, “all the people,” is used a few times in the records about David. Based on the evidence we have on how David’s military was organized, “all the people,” may be referring to the militia (See The Organization of David’s Military and David, The Rise of the Warrior King for further clarification). This would have been David’s reserve force. It was not centrally controlled like the regular army under Joab. The militia was trained at the tribal level and their allegiance (See The Organization of David’s Military) would have been to their local commanders.

When Absalom was making allies at the gates, these local commanders and tribal leaders would have been natural targets for his political campaign. If Absalom had gained the support of the militia, a much larger force than the regular Army, it is easier to see how it was not in David’s favor to stand and fight within the walls of Jerusalem.

Absalom and David’s Concubines

The level of Absalom’s depravity reached its peak when he not only slept with (or rather raped) David’s concubines, but he did it in a very public manner. On the same rooftop where David had lusted after Bathsheba, Absalom pitched a tent and violated David’s concubines. In doing so and by violating Torah law, he guaranteed a permanent rift between himself and David. (II Samuel 16:15-23)

But the one who advised Absalom to commit such a heinous act was Ahithophel. What would have caused David’s trusted advisor Ahithophel to turn so viciously against David? Biblical evidence suggests that Ahithophel might have been Bethsheba’s grandfather (See II Samuel 23:34 and II Samuel 11:3).

In the end, Absalom and Ahithophel were two men wronged by David. Ahithophel’s grandaughter, Bethsheba, was violated by David, and Absalom’s sister was violated by David’s first-born son who was never held accountable by his father.

David Outwits His Son

Absalom’s defeat begins at the hand of David his father. While Absalom had obtained Ahithophel’s allegiance as counselor, David sent his friend Hushai to infiltrate Absalom’s inner circle (II Samuel 15:32-37). Absalom did initially question Hushai, yet his over-confidence in his ability to turn so many against his father probably blinded him to Hushai’s true intentions (II Samuel 16:16-19). This error, in an otherwise brilliant political maneuver, would cost Absalom the war and his life.

When Absalom asks Ahithophel for next steps, he advises Absalom to pursue King David and his men at once. Ahithophel wanted to take 12,000 men to overtake David. It was a sound strategy as David and his men would be weary, weakened, with little access to provisions (II Samuel 17:1-4). They were on the run and Absalom had the initiative, but Absalom insisted on hearing Hushai’s counsel as well.

Hushai naturally countered Ahithophel’s advice. He played on the reputation of David and his mighty men’s experience living and fighting on the run. He convinces Absalom that if he would send men, they would be on a fool’s errand searching aimlessly for men who knew how to run and hide. And at the first moment that Absalom’s men would fall to a surprise attack, it would demoralize his forces (II Samuel 17:9-10). Instead, he suggests that Absalom build up his forces and hit David with overwhelming power. Absalom played right into his hand.

How did Absalom die? A Gruesome End

While Absalom gathered his forces as advised by Hushai, King David was able to obtain provisions, refresh and organize his men (II Samuel 17: 25-18:2). They were also able to choose the place of battle, the forest of Ephraim, an ideal location when going up against a larger force. The rough terrain was not suited for shoulder-to-shoulder fighting (such as the phalanx) common in ancient warfare. The scripture itself says, “and the forest devoured more people that day than the forest.” But it would have played in the favor of David’s more experienced men.

In the fog of war, the handsome and prideful Absalom met a humiliating end. While riding his donkey, probably on the run from David’s men, his hair got caught on the branches of a great oak tree (II Samuel 18:9). The donkey fled, leaving Absalom hanging from his locks.

Now, David had given orders that his son was to be spared. However, Joab, probably knowing full well David’s inability to see things clearly when it came to his children, disregarded David’s orders. It was not the first time (and it wouldn’t be the last). He speared Absalom three times where he hung. (II Samuel 18:10-15)

Absalom, a Better Politician than a Warrior

Few men are both great politicians and great warriors. King David was one of those men, and Absalom aspired to be one as well. Absalom, through political schemes and deceit, was able to pull the kingdom from right under his father’s feet. It is difficult to ascertain if his initial success was because he was the better politician or because David was blinded by his sons. Regardless, in the end, King David proved to be the more cunning leader, outwitting his son in the end, and thoroughly defeating his forces in battle.

Absalom learned a hard lesson. A politician cannot win a war without exceptional warriors to lead men into battle. But his pride blinded him from seeing his own shortcomings. Poetically, Absalom’s hair, a visible representation of his vanity, was also his undoing. As he hung from that oak tree, the uselessness of his pride was on full display. With no mercy, Joab speared the helpless Absalom. With the same callousness that Absalom used to kill Amnon and rape innocent women, he too was cut down. Justice found him in the thick woods of Ephraim.

Other content that might interest you:

• King David, The Rise of the Warrior King

• Benaiah, Commander of David’s Guard

• Joab, Commander of David’s Army

If you like this content, please share on…

The post Absalom: Expert Politician, Failed Warrior appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Asahel in the Bible is better known for his swiftness on foot. However, there is more to this young military hero. He was considered an elite warrior and a leader of men. His bull-headed persistence cost him his life early in his military career, but he is named among some of King David’s mightiest men. And for this reason alone, he is a warrior worth knowing.

A Brother Among Warriors

Asahel was King David’s nephew and the younger brother of Joab and Abishai (elite warriors in their own right). David’s sister Zeruiah was the mother of this elite trio. Asahel was very much loved and regarded by his brothers. So much so that his death would lead both Joab and Abishai to murder his killer.

Abner Kills Asahel

Abner was commander of the northern kingdom of Israel under Ish-bosheth during the time that David was the King of Judah. Saul was dead and Abner propped up Saul’s son Ish-bosheth to take his place as king. This, of course, would put him in direct conflict with King David.

At one point, Abner and his men found themselves at the Gibeon pool opposite Joab’s men. Joab was Asahel’s brother but at the time, also the de-facto leader of David’s military (He won the formal title during the capture of Jerusalem). Among Joab’s men were his brothers Abishai and Asahel. By this time, all three brothers were proven to be experienced warriors.

At the pool, Abner challenges Joab to a duel. Twelve of his men against twelve of Joab’s (II Samuel 2:12-32). After a stalemate, a full-out battle ensues. In the chaos and clear defeat, Abner retreats but Asahel pursues after him. The Bible calls Asahel “swift of foot as a wild gazelle” (II Samuel 2:18). He was the Usain Bolt of biblical times and there was no doubt he could catch up to Abner. Abner probably knew that as well.

In the exchange between the two men, Abner was reluctant to engage Asahel out of respect or fear of Joab. There was probably an element of respect for Asahel as well. By this point, Asahel was a well-known warrior and a leader within David’s military. Unfortunately, Asahel does not heed Abner’s advice to withdraw and is subsequently killed by Abner in self-defense by striking him in the stomach with the blunt end of his spear.

One of David’s Mighty Men

Asahel had the distinction of being named one of The Thirty aka David’s mighty men. The Thirty were an elite group of warriors who were the nucleus of David’s military. Based on the descriptions of these men, only the most elite and trusted warriors got such a distinction. Asahel was one of them along with his brother Abishai (Joab does not make the cut) (see II Samuel 2:24 and I Chronicles 11:26).

It is probably for this reason that his death was shocking. The Bible says,

And all who came to the place where Asahel had fallen and died, stood still.

II Samuel 2:23

The loss of any warrior is tragic, especially to those who stood on his left and right. However, the death of an elite fighter can reverberate across an entire army. So at the place where Asahel fell, men stood to honor their fallen brother.

Asahel Was a Leader of the Militia

What is not well known about Asahel, is that he is listed as one of the leaders of the militia. He was the division commander of the 4th month –that is of 24,000 men (see I Chronicles 27:7). The militia was not part of the regular army that Joab commanded, but a separate group likely called up during times of prolonged war. In addition to being a skilled fighter, Asahel was seen as a capable leader. (For more information on the militia, see “The Organization of David’s Military.”

Asahel, Bloodthirsty Like His Brothers

All three of Zeruiah’s sons were fierce not only in their skill but in character. They were not men easily frightened but all three had trouble controlling their passions. While Joab was the more notorious of the three, Asahel shared in his brother’s lack of self-control.

The words of David, after Abner’s death at the hands of Joab and Abishai, reflect this sentiment.

And I was gentle today, though anointed king. These men, the sons of Zeruiah, are more severe than I. The LORD repay the evildoer according to his wickedness!”

II Samuel 3:39 (ESV)

The sons of Zeruiah, including Asahel, had trouble controlling their blood thirst. It was that uncontrolled passion that blinded him from reason in his pursuit of Abner. He was unable to see the wisdom in Abner’s words and paid the price with his life.

A Hero Nonetheless

In spite of his character flaws, Asahel was still a hero and a key figure in helping David establish his kingdom. All of The Thirty were given that distinction (See I Chronicles 11:10). They were in the will of God in their loyal support of David and using their skills as warriors for that purpose. Asahel may have died in recklessness, but he still lives on as a biblical hero.

Learn more about Zeruiah’s other two sons:

• Abishai: Fearless Warrior

• Joab: Commander of David’s Army

The post Asahel: David’s Fastest Warrior appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Abishai, the little-known warrior who saved David’s life, was an instrumental commander in David’s military. He is not as well known as his notorious brother, Joab, but he was just as capable and just as fearless. Abishai held two prominent positions within David’s military. He typically commanded a division in the army and was a member of the exclusive military club known as “The Thirty” (David’s mighty men). No doubt his military skills contributed greatly to the growth of David’s empire and squashing rebellions.

(My book recommendations have affiliate links, which means I may receive a small commission if you choose to purchase through my links (at no extra cost to you). As an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

Nephew to a King, Brother to a General

Abishai was one of three warrior brothers who served under King David. But he was also David’s nephew, the son of his sister Zeruiah. His brothers were Joab, the commander of the Army, and Asahel, a commander in the militia.

Impulsive and Fearless

Abishai’s impulsiveness, with little fear of consequences, is one of his marking traits. His impetuous nature led to extreme acts of courage at times but would invite David’s ire at others.

Abishai Volunteers for a Suicide Mission

When Saul was pursuing David in the wilderness of Ziph, Abishai fearlessly volunteers to accompany King David on a suicidal mission. Through scouts, David learns of Saul’s location and asks both a Hittite warrior and Abishai if either will follow him into the enemy’s lair. Abishai volunteers and he and David sneak into the camp undetected. With impressive stealth, both men reach a sleeping Saul and steal his sword (and a jug of water). (I Samuel 26).

That same impulsiveness that drove Abishai to so quickly volunteer, would also drive him to ask David the unthinkable, a chance to spear Saul. By this point, Abishai should have known David was unwilling to execute the Israeli king. David previously had the opportunity to kill Saul himself but refused to. Upon hearing Abishai’s request, David corrected him, telling him it was improper to kill God’s anointed king. The lesson, however, did not seem to make an impression on Abishai.

Abishai and Joab Murder Abner

A few years later, Abishai’s brother Asahel is killed in self-defense by the commander of Israel’s army, Abner, during the battle of Gibeon (II Samuel 2:12-32). David ruled only Judah at this time, but Abner would later make peace with David. The agreement between David and Abner was strategic in nature because Abner planned to use his influence to bring the whole of Israel under David’s control (II Samuel 3:1-25). However, Joab conspires with Abishai, and both kill Abner in revenge for their brother’s death (II Samuel 3:26-30). In this act, he was insubordinate, driven by passion, and stood in direct contrast to David’s gracious treatment of Saul.

Abishai asks to execute Shimei.

There is at least one other record illustrating Abishai’s impetuous nature. While David fled from Jerusalem during his son Absalom’s coup, David and his entourage came across a noble from Saul’s family named Shimei (II Samuel 16:5-14). Shimei threw stones at David and his party and insulted David. It was a bold, but foolish move. Abishai wanted to strike him dead right there and there for insulting his king, but David stayed his hand once again, responding with, “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?” (II Samuel 16:10). Clearly, Abishai was not the only impulsive, bloodthirsty brother.

Division Commander

Although impulsive, Abishai was a capable leader and military commander. Based on the textual evidence, Abishai commanded one of two or three divisions in David’s army under his brother Joab. There are three separate accounts confirming this role. (For more on the organization of the military, read, “The Organization of David’s Military.“)

Abishai in Command Against the Ammonites

Abishai and his brother Joab were able to defeat a two-front engagement against the Ammonites and their Syrian mercenaries. In this account, Joab divided his forces into two divisions, placing Abishai in command of the forces engaging the Ammonites while he faced the Syrians (II Samuel 10). The battle turned in Israel’s favor causing both the Syrian and Ammonite forces to flee.

Abishai Prevails Against the Edomites

There are three separate scriptures referencing the defeat of the Edomites. On the surface, the three verses appear to contradict each other. II Samuel 8:13 attributes the defeat to David, II Chronicles 18:12 attributes the defeat to Abishai, and Psalm 60:1 attributes the defeat to Joab. However, it is common for anyone in the chain of command to be given credit for a military victory achieved by his subordinates. That is clearly what happens here.

Knowing that Joab was the commander of the Army, the victory could be more directly attributed to Abishai. The mention of Abishai in the scriptures during the war against the Edomites highlights his effectiveness as a military leader and tactician.

Abishai Commands a Division to Defeat Absalom

In the battle to reclaim his throne during Absalom’s coup, David divides his military forces into three divisions (II Samuel 18:2). He places Abishai in command of one of them and Joab and Ittai the Gittite in command of the other two. The battle is fought mostly in the woods of Ephraim where the rough terrain contributed to a large number of casualties. King David’s forces, however, emerge victorious.

Abishai in Pursuit of Sheba

Not too long after Absalom’s coup, Sheba rallies the men of Israel to follow him and rebel against David. By this point, David had replaced Joab as the commander of his army with Amasa. Amasa was instructed by David to call up the men of Judah (probably militia reserves to reinforce its depleted force from the Absalom coup). Amasa tarries, so David places his existing force under the command of Abishai to pursue Sheba. David’s choice illustrates his confidence in Abishai’s abilities as a commander (II Samuel 20).

Unfortunately, while en route, Joab murders Amasa and takes control of the military. While the text does not implicate Abishai in the plot against Amasa, it appears he might have relinquished control to his brother Joab. (II Samuel 20:10)

Leader of the Thirty

Abishai was a member of the elite group, “The Thirty,” also known as David’s Mighty Men. This was an honor shared by his brother Asahel, but not Joab. Per II Samuel 23:18 and I Chronicles 11:20, Abishai might have commanded the group at one point. The translation of this verse is difficult so there is a disagreement among scholars about whether he was chief of the three or chief of the thirty. Considering his position within the army, he was likely the commander of the larger group.

Regardless of his position among The Thirty, Abishai was a warrior’s warrior. The biblical text chronicles Abishai’s most incredible feat, killing three hundred men with a spear.

Abishai Saves David’s Life

When David was in his 60s, Israel was again at war with the Philistines. By this point, most giants had been killed, but four remained who fought with the Philistines. One of them, Ishbi-benob, sought David in the field of battle and almost killed him. David was no longer that young, vibrant warrior who slew Goliath with a sling. Age had taken its toll and it showed on the battlefield.

Abishai reached David in time to save him from the giant no doubt using his superb skills as a warrior to best Ishbi-benob (II Samuel 21:16-17). However, this incident effectively ends David’s military career. David’s men told him he was no longer able and capable of joining his forces in the heat of battle.

Loyal to His Brother and to His King

King David clearly trusted Abishai to command his forces throughout the wars of expansion and the wars to secure his kingdom. Abishai proved his loyalty to David on several occasions, the most notable one was toward the end of David’s reign when he saved his life. However, it is also clear that Abishai was easily influenced by his brother Joab, engaging in insubordination against his King when they killed Abner and then when he presumably relinquished command to Joab while in pursuit of Sheba. It is telling, though, that when Joab commits treason against King David and the heir to the throne, Solomon, Abishai’s name is absent from the record. That might have been a bridge too far for Abishai. This mighty warrior might have been ultimately loyal to David after all.

Other articles that might interest you:

• Asahel: David’s Fastest Warrior

• Joab: Commander of David’s Army

• The Thirty: David’s Mighty Men

The post Abishai in the Bible: Fearless Warrior appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Three main branches made up King David’s military, the Army, the Militia, and the Royal Guard. The Thirty (David’s Mighty Men) was a smaller, but unique group within this military structure comprised of David’s most elite warriors.

In the Biblical text, the existence of an army and royal guard during the Davidic Kingdom is abundantly clear. The exact role of The Thirty is a bit more speculative, but the Bible clearly lays out its existence in two separate books (II Samuel 23 and I Chronicles 11). However, the casual reader may miss the references to a militia, but the accounts of David’s war against the Ammonites give a strong indication of its existence.

The Army vs the Militia: War Against the Ammonites:

During the war against the Ammonites, II Samuel 10:7 says David initially “sent Joab and all the host of the mighty men.” Joab defeats the Ammonites and their Syrian mercenaries. In response, the Syrians attack Israel with a much larger force, and then the text reads in II Samuel 10:17, “And when it was told David, he gathered all Israel together.” With this force, David defeats the Syrians and they become a vassal state. I Chronicles 19 recounts the same event and uses the same phrasing. See I Chronicles 19:8 and I Chronicles 19:17.

After the initial defeat of the Ammonites and later the Syrians, Joab moves to take siege of the Ammonite city Rabbah.

“Joab led out the army and ravaged the country of the Ammonites and came and besieged Rabbah.” (I Chronicles 20:1)

He is successful in securing the city’s water supply, and then David “gathered all the people together and went to Rabbah and fought against it and took it.” (I Samuel 12:29)

In these two events, there is consistent language and differentiation between “the army” and “the people” or “all of Israel.” The army participated in the initial assault and a much larger supporting force joins the fight later. The wording hints at the use of a regular army that can quickly deploy and a reserve force or militia that would take longer to levy but provide greater numbers of fighting men. This account, along with the detailed structure provided in I Chronicles 27, provides the basis for my analysis of both a standing army and a militia.

David’s Army

In ancient warfare, leaders found it difficult to maintain standing armies. Armies require manpower and they, therefore, compete for the same labor force needed to tend the fields and keep the economy thriving. When military service was relegated to just a few months a year, it would affect the quality and professionalism of the force. A warrior culture, like the Spartans, used slave labor to relieve the tension between the need for a military and the needs of the local economy.

With both a regular army and a militia, King David was able to balance these competing requirements. The militia were not professional soldiers, but rather citizen-soldiers with reserve duties.

Career soldiers made up his army and were able to deploy rather quickly. This army, led by his nephew, the notorious, but very capable Joab, would become crucial in the wars of expansion that helped grow David’s empire.

The Size of David’s Army

The Bible does not provide an exact number, but there is enough information in the text to extrapolate the army’s size.

In the battle against the Ammonites, the regular army fought against at least 33,000 men per II Samuel 10:6. Joab, the commander of the army, would have to present forces of a similar size in order to successfully defeat the Ammonites. It was not an easy victory for Joab, so we know he did not have an overwhelming advantage. We assume then, that the force he deployed was probably between 20,000 to 30,000 men. We can compare that number to the size specified of men marching during a military procession.

When David was taking the ark to Jerusalem, only a few years prior to the war against the Ammonites, it says in II Samuel 6:1 that “David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand.” The phrase “chosen men” usually appears in relation to men of war. Since the transport of the ark was such an important event, it is safe to assume that David required the greater part of his standing army to take part in the procession (leaving a small part of his force at garrison). The number 30,000 coincides nicely with the number we guestimated fought against the Ammonites.

Therefore, a good estimate of the size of David’s regular, standing army was approximately 30,000-35,000 men.

The Militia (David’s Reserve Force)

Some scholars have mistaken I Chronicles 27:1-15 to be a description of David’s army and its organization. The organization as it appears in the text would make little sense for a standing army from a military perspective. At least it would not be a very efficient one. However, if we attribute these sets of passages to a militia, a much clearer picture emerges.

The militia was David’s reserve force and divided in such a way that each citizen soldier would be required to serve one month out of the year. 24,000 citizen soldiers would be called up each month and serve under experienced, veteran commanders. The Bible lists Banaiah (who was also the head of David’s Royal Guard) and Asahel as commanders within this militia structure. Both men were veteran fighters and both were also part of the elite group, The Thirty.

Did each month also correspond with each tribe?

Likely not. Each tribe appears to have had areas of specialization. Benjamites were excellent slingers, for example, and those from the tribe of Issachar were experts in intelligence gathering. (See Judges 20:16, I Chronicles 12:2, I Chronicles 12:32). It would make little administrative and operational sense to use those specializations only one month out of the year. Also, the tribes, which varied in size and population, would not have been keen on the requirement to all provide the same number of fighting-age men each month. As we have seen, King David was very sensitive to tribal rivalries (see King David, The Rise of the Warrior King), and would have avoided stirring the pot with such a seemingly unjust system.

Instead, each tribe would have to organize its own units of reserves to feed into the monthly requirements. Tribal leaders likely managed these units. In other words, every tribe provided units each month that would equal a total of 24,000 men overall. In this way, each division of 24,000 would benefit from the experience and specialization of each tribe.

The militia allowed King David to swell his forces when needed as he did with the Ammonites, but avoid draining the Israeli economy from much-needed labor during times of peace.

The Royal Guard

The primary function of David’s Royal Guard was the security of the empire. In addition to protecting King David, they squashed rebellions, at their source if necessary. Foreigners known as the Cherethites and Pelethites made up this force. By using mercenary type force, David could assure himself allegiance and avoiding tribal rivalries.

The leader of this group was an Israeli from the tribe of Levi, Benaiah, and they operated independently of the Army. Sadly, it was the Royal Guard under Benaiah who was tasked with executing Joab for treason after King David’s death. You can access a complete analysis of the Royal Guard in my article The Cherethites and Pelethites: David’s Royal Guard.

The Thirty (David’s Mighty Men)

The Thirty (also known as David’s Mighty Men) was a group of elite warriors whose role likely evolved through David’s reign into a highly trusted military council.

During David’s evasion of Saul, the wilderness forged many of the men who would take their place as part of The Thirty. They were known for their stunning feats detailed in the records found in the Bible. King David filled key positions across his military from this group as was the case with Benaiah, Abishai, and Asahel.

• Benaiah was the commander of the Royal Guard (and a division of the militia).

• Asahel was commander of a division within the militia.

• Abishai led a division within the standing army and reported directly to Joab.

These men and the tales of their feats would have inspired the rank and file. It was akin to the boost in morale the Greeks experienced when Achilles finally joined the fight against the legendary Troy.

I cannot overstate the importance of this group during David’s reign. The Bible clearly records that these mighty men helped establish David’s kingdom. The awe they inspired and their unparalleled leadership within David’s military were instrumental in helping maintain a cohesive military for the majority of his reign. For more detailed information on this distinct group, please read, “Who Were David’s Mighty Men (The Thirty)?”

The Brilliance Behind the Organization of David’s Military

While David might have inherited certain elements of the military structure from his predecessors, other key elements appear to be unique to David. Such was the case of a Royal Guard comprised of foreigners and The Thirty. Both of these played a crucial role in keeping a tribal system united and helping David maintain power throughout his reign despite attempted coups and betrayal. One branch would serve as a check on the others.

King David was no doubt a strategic genius. Under his leadership, Israel grew into an empire. The organization of his military is a testament to his brilliance.

The post The Organization of David’s Military appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Cherethites and Pelethites made up King David’s royal guard and they had one very gruesome job, they were the nation’s chief executioners. These were not Israeli men, but mercenaries instrumental in helping David maintain his throne and establish Solomon’s. Who were these mercenaries and why would David use them instead of using his own people?

(My book recommendations have affiliate links, which means I may receive a small commission if you choose to purchase through my links (at no extra cost to you). As an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

How We Know the Cherethites and Pelethites Were David’s Royal Guards

We can deduce that the Cherethites and Pelethites were part of David’s royal guard mostly from context. II Samuel 20:23 makes it clear, by establishing a difference in leadership, that they were separate from the army. Joab commanded the army, while Benaiah commanded the Cherethites and Pelethites.

Now Joab was in command of all the army of Israel; and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was in command of the Cherethites and the Pelethites;

II Samuel 20:23

This verse appears in a section of the Bible that lists various officials who held important positions within David’s kingdom. The Cherethites and Pelethites were clearly significant military elements within the kingdom.

The Bible describes the activities of the Cherethites and Pelethites in the context of protecting royalty and/or squashing rebellions.

1. They remained at David’s side during Absalom’s coup (II Samuel 15:18)

2. They joined the army to pursue Sheba during his rebellion (II Samuel 20:7)

3. They provided military protection for Solomon’s anointing and coronation (I Kings 1).

It is also telling that the Bible does not name either one during the wars of expansion. The army and militia seem to play a more important role then.

Therefore, the Cherethites and Pelethites were a type of royal guard. Their primary role, as we will learn was to execute enemies of the nation of Israel.

For a full discussion on the organization of David’s forces see, “The Organization of David’s Military.”

The Cherethites and Pelethites Were Foreigners

A mercenary’s allegiance is to their paycheck. While it is likely that King David compensated the Cherethites and Pelethites from the royal purse, there are some indications that these warriors’ allegiance might have been motivated by more than just money. So although they might not have been mercenaries in the true essence of the word, they were most certainly foreigners.

From Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5, we can surmise that the Cherethites were possibly a Philistine clan. Some scholars also believe the Cherethites may have been originally from Crete because of the similarity in the name, but their true origins are unknown.¹

The Bible also references the Cherethites in I Samuel 30:14 when the Amalekites raided the “Negeb of the Cherethites” before David became king and was still on the run. So we at least know that the Cherethites had established themselves as a people in the Negev Desert during the time of David.

Why Use Mercenaries as Royal Guards?

Why would David choose foreign mercenaries to be his royal guards? Wouldn’t men from Israel be more loyal? Or even men from his own tribe of Judah?

David was not the first in history to use mercenaries as royal guards. David’s use of Cherethites and Pelethites is akin to Byzantine emperors using Norsemen as part of the Varangian Guard. David probably saw in the Cherethites and Pelethites what the Byzantine emperors saw in the Norsemen — a lack of political affiliation. That is an important virtue when choosing the men who will protect you.

The history of David’s reign shows us that he was not incorrect. There were a lot of betrayals including two coup attempts by his own sons, treason by Joab his nephew and commander of his army, and treason by trusted priests, and other officials.

An additional consideration for David was the tribal nature of the nation of Israel. David always ran the risk of men holding on to tribal allegiances. Instead of mercenaries, if he had only employed men from Judah, he would run the risk of upsetting the other tribes. Mercenaries just made sense in the political climate in which he reigned.

How They Came To Be In David’s Employment

The Bible does not explicitly tell us, but one Bible verse does give us a clue.

When David was not yet king and living under the protection of the Philistines, he and his men and their families resided in a town named Ziklag. While David and his men had been away on an expedition, a band of Amalekites had raided Ziklag and taken the women and children captive. David and his men pursued the Amalekites and they came across an Egyptian servant/slave whom the Amalekites had abandoned. In their interrogation, their servant said the following:

“We had made a raid against the Negeb of the Cherethites and against that which belongs to Judah and against the Negeb of Caleb, and we burned Ziklag with fire.”

I Samuel 30:14

This same band of Amalekites who had raided David’s camp and taken his wives and children captive had also raided the Cherethites. It seems possible that during this time period David gained the admiration, if not allegiance of the Cherethites who had also suffered at the hands of the Amalekites. This is conjecture, of course, but it is consistent with the strong allegiances David built during this time period not only with his mighty men, but also with other foreign nations.

Commanded by an Israeli Warrior

Even though the Cherethites and the Pelethites were foreigners, the person with overall command of their activities was an Israeli from the tribe of Levi. His name was Benaiah. He was a skilled fighter and I consider him to be one of the Bible’s greatest warriors.

David’s choice to keep the command under Israeli control was prudent and his choice for the position was excellent. Benaiah was loyal throughout David’s reign and into Solomon’s. That kind of loyalty was necessary for the one commanding the royal guard.

Did the Cherethites Serve Other Israeli Kings?

There is reason to believe that the Cherethites (and possibly the Pelethites) continued as royal guardsmen through subsequent kings. This observation is not apparent in a cursory reading of the Bible, but the connection is found in the Hebrew word behind the word translated as Cherethites.

According to Strong’s Lexicon, that Hebrew word in its unconjugated form is transliterated as kᵊrēṯî The lexicon notes that kᵊrēṯî might be derived from the root word kāraṯ. So although kᵊrēṯî doesn’t appear again in conjunction with any other king, the word kāraṯ does.

The word kāraṯ appears in II Kings 11:4 and II Kings 11:19. In this part of scripture, during the divided kingdom, the evil Queen Athaliah was consolidating power in Judah. She had the royal family murdered to eliminate anyone who could have a claim to the throne. Princess Jehosheba rescued her nephew, a baby boy named Joash, and the priest Jehoiada hid him in the temple until he was seven years old.

Here is where the kāraṯ comes in. Jehoiada, the priest, brought the captains of the kāraṯ (in English “Carites”) and others to protect the young boy in preparation for his coronation. Athaliah was executed and the boy became king.

There is an uncanny parallel between the coronation of Solomon and the coronation of Joash. Both kings were in danger because someone else had laid claims to the throne. Both kings were anointed and crowned by outwitting the unlawful monarch. And both were crowned under the protection of the Cherethites (in Solomon’s case) and Carites (in Joash’s case). The connection between the two Hebrew words with the contextual parallels between the account of Solomon and Joash indeed renders the possibility that the Cherethites and Carites were one and the same.

The Relationship Between the Cherethites and the Priesthood

The two accounts also highlight an interesting relationship between these royal guards and the priesthood. In the case of the Cherethites during the reigns of David and Solomon, their leader was Benaiah who belonged to a priestly line. He was a descendant of Aaron.

In the account of Joash, Jehoiada the priest is the one who leads the Carites to protect the king. In II Chronicles 23 we learn that the Levites also protected the Joash presumably along with the Carites.

The Levites, biblically have been seen as protectors of God’s will, the symbiotic relationship between the priesthood and the royal guard may have emanated from the need to protect the line of David. Biblically, the protection of this line supersedes any human motivation to preserve a dynasty or family. The primary purpose behind it would have been to guarantee the birth of the king of Kings.

Executioners and Couriers

We have established that the Cherethites and Pelethites were foreigners. However, their names also give us a clue into their specific roles within the royal guard.

The name Cherethites comes from a root word, which we discussed above, that literally means “to cut off.” According to Strong’s Lexicon/Concordance, the implied meaning is that of an executioner. That is consistent with Benaiah’s role as chief executioner. Even though he was neither a Cherethite nor a Pelethite, he was their commander.

The name Pelethites only appears in the Bible in conjunction with the Cherethites. The root Hebrew word behind Pelethites literally means “swift” and Strong’s Lexicon/Concordance defines Pelethites as couriers.

Just as each tribe in Israel had a military specialty, other tribal groups could also have their own unique skill. For example, the people group from the Balearic Islands off the Coast of Spain produced some of the world’s best slingers in ancient warfare. So it would be possible that within the royal guard, the Cherethites and Pelethites each had their own military specialty.

Foreigners Executing God’s Will

The Cherethites and the Pelethites clearly played an important role in David’s kingdom. Their foreign roots, on the surface, may seem problematic considering the objections God had made to intermixing with foreign nations. While foreigners like Ruth and Rahab, who were welcomed into the fold, left their pagan gods to worship the one true God, we have no evidence that the Cherethites (at least the ones employed by David) did the same.

I have made the case in Who Were David’s Mighty Men (The Thirty), that some foreigners who gave their service to David, like Uriah, had likely given up their pagan practices, we cannot be sure about the Cherethites and Pelethites. Certainly, as a people group, they had not. Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5 make that clear.

And yet, David’s practice of using the service of foreigners does not seem to be condemned. It is probably because even if they had retained their pagan worship, they were not intermarrying with Israelis. But one thing is certain, they were executioners of God’s will and along with Benaiah, key figures in the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom.

Other Articles You Might Enjoy:

Benaiah, Commander of David’s Royal Guard

King David, The Rise of the Warrior King

Joab, Commander of David’s Army

1. Current scholarship has determined that the Philistines were likely from southern Europe. Crete is one of the possible places of origin for the Philistines making Crete a very possible origin for the Cherethite clan.

The post David’s Royal Guard: The Cherethites and Pelethites appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

You have heard of “David and Goliath” and “Daniel in the Lion’s Den,” but have you heard of “Benaiah and the Egyptian” or “Benaiah and the Ariels of Moab”? If you have not, you are not alone. He is not a well-known figure in Christian circles, but he should be. David was a skilled warrior, charismatic leader, and brilliant strategist who ruled Israel during her glory days. But David’s success was highly dependent on the support of other great men. The Bible explicitly tells us so in I Chronicles 11:10. Benaiah was the greatest of those men and this is his story.

(My book recommendations have affiliate links, which means I may receive a small commission if you choose to purchase through my links (at no extra cost to you). As an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

The Makings of A Levite Warrior

After Saul died and David arrived in Hebron to take the crown, several mighty men from the tribes of Israel, arrayed in their battle gear, stood ready to help him finally take his place as king (I Chronicles 12:23). Yes, Saul was already dead, but there was no way of knowing if his supporters (or opportunists) would raise opposition (the armed kind). These warriors who supported David provided a show of force and it included several thousand Levites.

If this small detail has you scratching your head, it is probably because of the connection between the Levites and the priesthood. While not all Levites were priests, they were all entrusted with caring for the Tabernacle and later the temple (Numbers 3:5-10). Generally, we don’t like to associate violence with church workers (especially in modern culture), but things in the Old Testament were a bit different. The history of the Levites was actually more violent than one would think (but I’ll save those details for another blog).

What is surprising about the account in Hebron, was that Biblically the Levites were not required to provide military service (Numbers 1) and hence why they were not to be included in a census. However, the law does not seem to forbid them from doing so if they chose to. And Jehoiada, a high priest, chose to (I Chronicles 12:27) and brought 3700 men with him. And who was Jehoiada? He was Benaiah’s father.

Warring Was a Family Affair

Was it in Hebron that Benaiah first saw David? Was Benaiah one of the mighty Levite warriors brought by Jehoida? Or was he just a tween boy in awe of the warrior king? Probably the latter.

The Bible does not tell us when exactly Benaiah joined David’s ranks, but chronologically he had to be at least 15 to 20 years younger than David (since Benaiah also served under King Solomon). Following that chronology, Benaiah would not have been of fighting age at the time of the coronation in Hebron. There is no doubt, however, that the crowning of King David and the role his father played in that monumental event made a significant impact on Benaiah. Jehoiada passed on that legacy to his son and raised one of the fiercest warriors in Bible history.

But Benaiah’s dad may not have been the only one who influenced him. His grandfather could have played a role as well per II Samuel 23:20 and I Chronicles 11:22. There appears to be a bit of uncertainty on the exact translation of these two verses based on the incongruent translations. However, the KJV and NASB95 translations imply that Benaiah’s grandfather was also a valiant man. It would certainly be consistent with the warring nature of Jehoiada and Benaiah.

Benaiah would continue that tradition and pass it on to the next generation. I Chronicles 27:6 informs us that Benaiah had a son who held a high command within a division under Benaiah’s control. We don’t know much else about Benaiah’s family, but there is a lot more to learn about this fearsome warrior.

Benaiah Was a Warrior’s Warrior

Benaiah was the stuff of legends. He was particularly skilled in hand-to-hand combat with speed and reflexes to subdue the best of the best. II Samuel 23:20-22 and I Chronicles 11:22-23 give us a taste of just how savage he was in the face of his enemies. He is praised for three mighty feats: striking down two Ariels of Moab, killing a lion in a pit, and defeating an Egyptian giant.

Killing the Ariels of Moab (II Samuel 23:20, I Chronicles 11:22)

While the biblical record tells us Benaiah killed “two ariels of Moab”, scholars are a bit confused about what exactly that means. The true definition of the Hebrew word behind “ariels” is unknown. Because the Hebrew is derived from two root words meaning “lion” and “god,” scholars surmise that it could mean “lion-like men.”

Does that mean these were men who were as fierce as lions? Or a hybrid species of men like the giants that existed back then? We don’t know for sure. What we do know, is that these men were ferocious fighters, or otherwise what is the point of telling the story in a chapter full of stories of men accomplishing great feats? These Ariels were not mere men. They were the kind of fighters that would make a foot soldier shake in his sandals. And Benaiah killed two of them.

Killing the Lion in the Pit (II Samuel 23:20, I Chronicles 11:22)

On a cold snowy day, Benaiah was strolling along and found a lion in a pit. And he thought, “Why not?” and hurled himself in to face off with the trapped creature. Okay, his reason for killing the lion might have been more than just male bravado. The more likely scenario, especially based on Benaiah’s character, was that the lion posed a danger to dwellers nearby. However, the text is scant on the details, but killing a lion is no small achievement, especially if you decide to join him in the pit and limit your options for escape.

Unlike Luke Skywalker who could use the force to assist him in the defeat of the Rancor, Benaiah probably only had a sword and/or a spear. Yet, with no special powers other than his good reflexes and vast experience as a fighter, Benaiah bested that lion. And that “little” incident would certainly further his reputation.

Killing of an Egyptian Giant (II Samuel 23:21, I Chronicles 11:23)

The Bible provides us a little more detail of Benaiah’s final feat and it would make any expert in hand-to-hand combat drool. Benaiah came face to face with a “spectacular” Egyptian (some translations render him handsome although I get the impression Benaiah wouldn’t have cared much for his good looks). But this Egyptian was not like the rest. He was 5 cubits tall. Not quite as tall as Goliath but if a cubit is indeed about 18 inches long that would put the Egyptian at about 7.5 feet.

Aside from the Egyptian’s height, Benaiah was out-armed. While the Egyptian held a spear, Benaiah was stuck with only a staff (or a club according to some translations). My guess is that the Egyptian grossly underestimated his chances against Benaiah. He was bigger and had a better weapon. But speed was clearly Benaiah’s greatest asset (it had to be if he killed a lion) and you wouldn’t know it until it was upon you. Well, Benaiah, outmaneuvered the Egyptian, wrestled the spear out of his hand, and proceeded to kill him with it. Ouch!

Benaiah was a warrior’s warrior. His reputation as a fighter and as we shall see, a leader, landed him various commands within David’s military apparatus.

Benaiah’s Commands During David’s Reign

David’s military was divided into three primary elements. The army (commanded by Joab), the militia (a reserve force), and the royal bodyguard. Benaiah at various points of his career would hold command in all three.

Commander of the Thirty

Within the army, there was an important group called “The Thirty.” It appeared to make up the nucleus of David’s military and it played an essential role in establishing David’s kingdom (For a full analysis, see my article, “Who Were David’s Mighty Men (The Thirty)?” ). All the men who belonged to The Thirty were elite fighters and at one point, Benaiah was the commander of them all (See I Chronicles 27:6).

Inclusion into The Thirty was no small accomplishment and it spoke to Benaiahs prowess as a warrior but also his character. He was highly honored within the group according to II Samuel 23:23. The best of the best thought he was pretty legit. Few men in history have held such an honor.

Commander of the Militia

Benaiah also was responsible for overseeing the militia during the third month. From I Chronicles 27, we can surmise that the militia was organized into twelve divisions to account for each month of the year. In other words, these reserved units would be called up to serve once a year for a month. Each month had a different commander and Benaiah was responsible for the division assigned to the third month.

As we already briefly discussed, Benaiah’s son also had a command within the division. From the way the text is written, I get the impression that Benaiah had administrative control but his son ran day-to-day operations. That would make sense considering that Banaiah had his hands full as the Commander of David’s Royal Guard.

Commander of David’s Royal Guard

Benaiah’s spent the majority of his military career in this role. This was a unique position as the guard was made up of foreign fighters, the Cherthites and the Pelethites (II Samuel 8:18) (presumably from Philistine origins). Commentators identify them as mercenaries, but were the Cherethites and Pelethites true mercenaries?

I am inclined to think that they were not. Most mercenaries have allegiance to one idol and that is their paycheck. When the money runs out so does their allegiance. However, David had a history of earning loyalty from foreigners (See II Samuel 15:19-22). This group’s paychecks certainly came from the royal purse, but I would venture to say their decision to stay was also fueled by other motives.

Nevertheless, they were still foreigners in the land of Israel. Who could earn the respect of foreign fighters, especially ones from a Philistine background? David chose Benaiah which is a testament to his character, likability, and most important of all, his loyalty.

The men in David’s Royal Guard were more than secret service agents. Yes, they protected the king but they also fought in battles and we get the impression from the text that it was not a small force. While the army and the militia were key players in the expansion of David’s empire, the Royal Guard helped him maintain it. They are distinctly named as key figures during three rebellions:

1. The Cherethites and Perethites remained at David’s side during Absalom’s coup (II Samuel 15:18)

2. The Cherethites and Perethites joined the army to pursue Sheba during his rebellion (II Samuel 20:7)

3. Benaiah is distinctly named as one of the few high-level officials to support David during Adonijah’s coup. Also, the Cherethites and Perethites provided military protection for Solomon’s anointing and coronation presumably under Benaiah’s direction (I Kings 1).

Benaiah Helps Establish a New Kingdom

Benaiah was pivotal in transferring the kingdom from David to Solomon.

Final Coup at the End of David’s Life

As if one coup attempt from one son (Absalom) was not enough, David would endure yet another one towards the end of his life. In I Kings 1:5-10, we learn about how his son Adonijah tried to proclaim himself king taking advantage of his father’s fragile state. Adonijah was able to win support from high-ranking military officials, one of the chief priests, and most of his brothers.

Adonijah Strategically Excludes Benaiah From His Plans

While Adonijah was colluding with these individuals, he intentionally left several people in the dark. Those included David’s mighty men (probably “The Thirty”), Solomon, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah. Benaiah’s unshakeable loyalty to David must have been a well-known fact. While Adonijah had been able to sway both Joab (the commander of David’s army,) and Abiathar the priest, both of whom had remained loyal to David up to that point, (I King 1:1-10), it is evident that he dared not even ask Benaiah for help. And he didn’t think he would need it, but he was gravely mistaken.

Adonijah Garners Support From Three Key Figures

Several conditions had to be met for Adonijah to gain public support and establish himself as king. 1) Military support was imperative to quell any opposition. With Joab’s backing, Adonijah would have control of the army. 2) He would need a priestly covering to give him “divine” legitimacy. With Abiathar at his side, he would be able to make that case for legitimacy. 3) Adonijah would also need to limit opposition from the royal family and he was able to win the support of most of his brothers except for Solomon, the intended heir to the throne.

Benaiah Helps David Thwart Adonijah’s Plans

Adonijah licked his chops. He was sure the throne was his and invited his supporters to a banquet to celebrate his success. However, his father David proved to be the more astute, strategic thinker. Even in his diminished state, David was able to beat Adonijah to the punch by gaining public support for his son Solomon before Adonijah was able to make his final move. Benaiah was a key figure in making that happen.

While Adonijah wined and dined with his supporters, David arranged to have Solomon anointed as king at the Gihon springs by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet (I King 1:34). To successfully do so, Solomon would need military support not only for protection but to provide legitimacy to the anointing. Benaiah provided protection for Solomon via the Cherethites and the Pelethites, who he commanded.

His loyalty would later be rewarded by Solomon. Things would not go so well for Joab who chose to side with Adonijah.

Benaiah Executes Judgment

While Benaiah was a central figure in David’s kingdom, he rose to a more prominent position under Solomon. No doubt, Solomon knew Benaiah was fiercely loyal and could be trusted. He, therefore, charged him with executing key figures who had evaded punishment under David and who also posed a threat to his reign.

Adonijah

Adonijah was originally spared his life despite his coup attempt. However, when he later made an inappropriate request of Solomon via Solomon’s mother Bethsheba, he sealed his fate. It was a dumb move for a guy who had already been granted clemency. Benaiah was ordered to execute him and he did (I Kings 2:25).

Joab

While Benaiah appears to be the quiet, loyal military leader who stayed clear of politics, Joab was the exact opposite. Joab was impulsive and ruthless. Benaiah was tempered and gracious. His cool, respectful demeanor shines through in the interaction between him and Joab prior to Joab’s execution.

When David died, Joab knew his days were numbered and he fled to the Tabernacle seeking refuge and took hold of the “horns of the altar.” This is the bronze altar before the Tabernacle where priests would sacrifice to the Lord. Sacrifices were for atonement so when a person took hold of the horns, they were pleading for mercy.

Solomon did indeed order Benaiah to execute him. When Benaiah approached Joab, he ordered him to leave. Joab refused, hoping he would receive clemency because of the sanctity of the location. However, Biblical law did not prevent Benaiah from executing justice right there and then. Instead of barging forward (as Joab would have done in his shoes), Benaiah sought further guidance from the King. When King Solomon told him to proceed nonetheless, Benaiah did not hesitate and followed orders, killing Joab where he stood. (I Kings 2:28-35)

The symbolic nature of this execution cannot be overstated. As a Levite and a descendant of Aaron, Benaiah had the God-given authority to protect the Tabernacle (See Numbers 3:5-10). When he killed Joab, he executed judgment not just as a warrior under the king’s command, but also as a Levite with the authority to do so on God’s behalf.

Shimei

Shimei was from the house of Saul. He cursed and insulted David when David escaped Jerusalem during Absalom’s coup. It wasn’t like he muttered disgust under his breath. The dude threw stones at David, the king, and his valiant men as they walked by. Abishai, one of “The Thirty” and Joab’s brother, offered to permanently eliminate him, but David stayed his hand, sparing Shimei (II Samuel 16:5-13). Only their loyalty to David restrained his men.

On David’s return to Jerusalem, Shimei begged for his life. David, always merciful, promised to let him live (II Samuel 18: 19-23). Solomon would not be so patient.

Under Solomon, Shimei still had certain privileges but he was instructed to never leave Jerusalem. Apparently, Shimei had a hard time following directions because he saddled a donkey to chase after two runaway servants (I Kings 2:36-46). That was the only thing Solomon needed to avenge his father. Benaiah was once again instructed to execute judgment.

The words in I Kings 2:46 illuminate the significance of this final act.

Then the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he went out and struck him down, and he died. So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

I Kings 2:46 (ESV)

Benaiah’s Command During Solomon’s Reign

Benaiah was instrumental in establishing the kingdom on Solomon’s behalf. He was clearly the one individual whom Solomon could trust unconditionally and he rewarded him for it. Solomon, therefore, made him commander of the army instead of Joab. This is the last we hear of Benaiah in the biblical record, but that in itself is probably a testament to Benaiah’s leadership. Solomon’s rule was rather peaceful in comparison to David’s, and I would venture to say that Benaiah’s leadership might have played a role in keeping it that way.

Benaiah, A Type and Shadow of Jesus Christ

On the surface, people would not associate Benaiah as a type or shadow of the Messiah. We like our Jesus with his pristine white robes, long hair, and calm demeanor. Modern culture often portrays Jesus very differently than the Jesus in the Bible. And this is one of those cases where we can easily miss the parallels if we let our ideas of Jesus cloud reality.

The primary theme behind Benaiah’s story is the execution of judgment. I could not help but think of John 5:27 when I came to that realization.

And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.

John 5:27 (ESV)

The day when Jesus executes judgment is not yet upon us, but the imagery is not very pretty. Psalm 110, fittingly a Psalm of David, paints a very gruesome picture.

⁴ The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” ⁵ The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. ⁶ He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. ⁷ He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

Psalm 110:4-7 (ESV)

A few things stand out when I read this Psalm.

• Jesus will execute Judgement. Benaiah executed judgment.

• Jesus will shatter kings and chiefs. Benaiah shattered a “king” (Adonijah) and a chief (Joab).

• Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Benaiah came from a priestly line after the order of Aaron.

And there are a few more similarities.

Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. Although Benaiah was not of the tribe of Judah, he was from Judah by geographical location. Benaiah was from Kabzeel, a town within the outer edges of Judah (II Samuel 23:20).¹

Jesus was without reproach. Benaiah was without reproach. Of course, Benaiah was not sinless, but the Bible paints him only in a good light.

By definition types and shadows are not perfect representations, they just point to the true figure. That figure is, of course, Jesus Christ. And while we can all ooh and aah at the mighty Benaiah for his great combat skills, we should all take pause, and maybe shudder a bit at what he represents, judgment. We’d all happily eat the popcorn and gulp down our soda watching a live-action blockbuster about Benaiah, but I have a feeling that is not what we will be doing when the King returns. It is a somber thought. For those of us who have accepted Christ, our end will not be like Joab’s, but we will take no joy in watching those whom we love succumb to that fate.

Other articles that might interest you:

How Jerusalem Became the City of David

Joab: Commander of David’s Army

Who Were David’s Mighty Men?

1. Levites, by God’s decree, were not given land. Instead, they were scattered among the Tribes of Israel, and given certain towns and areas within the tribes’ territory

The post Benaiah: David’s Elite Warrior and Executioner appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

The most famous slinger in ancient history was King David, but few truly appreciate David’s prowess in the art of sling throwing. Traditional storytelling relegates the David and Goliath sling to a child’s toy. It was anything but. The sling weapon was common in ancient warfare, and those who wielded it were pretty darn good.

What did a sling weapon look like?

A sling in ancient times resembled an eye patch with two cords tied to the opposite ends of a small piece of cloth or leather. This piece of cloth served as the pouch for the stone missile. The pouch could also be made by braiding material like flax, hemp, or wool together.

How was a sling employed?

A slinger would place a rock or other similar projectile in the pouch and pull the cords tight. The warrior would then spin the sling until he built enough momentum to release the missile. These missiles could travel up to 62 miles per hour (100 km per hour) and reach 1300 feet (400 meters) based on estimates (see “Sling (Weapon),” Wikipedia)). That would give a sling an advantage over the bow and arrow. Although making a sling and finding the missiles was rather easy, learning to use one effectively required extensive training and practice.

In warfare, slingers would often be placed alongside archers. Because they could be employed from any type of terrain, they were rather useful against the upward slopes of fortified cities. The reverse is true as well. Slings could be effectively used to defend a fortified city.

How popular were slings in ancient warfare?

Slings were used by armies worldwide from the Incas in Peru to the Greeks in the Mediterranean to ancient Chinese armies. Experts are unsure if slings were independently developed by different cultures or if their use spread from one particular source.(“Sling (Weapon),” Wikipedia) Some armies used them more than others, and for some people groups, slings were endemic to their culture, as it was for the Balearic Islanders. Other armies, like the Romans, were more likely to employ mercenary experts in sling-throwing than to train their own warriors in the art.

How effective were slings in ancient warfare?

Expert sling throwers were incredibly accurate and could cause real damage when the projectile reached its target. The stone missile could cause blunt force trauma, shattering bone and damaging organs, and could hit an opponent with sufficient force to kill him.

Hannibal Barca, one of the greatest commanders in military history, successfully used slingers against the Romans. In the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC, a Balearic slinger, one of the 2000 slingers employed by Hannibal, hit his mark. The Roman general Lucius Aemilius Paullus received a mortal wound from the sling missile.¹ He was one of over 55,000 Roman casualties during that battle. The Battle of Cannae was a disastrous defeat for the Romans and a testament to the effectiveness of slings in battle.

The Balearic Slingers

Balearic Slingers (from the Balearic Islands off the coast of Spain) were some of the most famous slingers in ancient warfare. Legend has it that Balearic mothers wouldn’t allow their children to eat until they were able to hit a piece of food with a stone.

The Balearic Slingers became very effective mercenaries employed by various armies to include the Carthaginians and later the Romans. Their versatility as a light infantry unit gave them an advantage over heavier infantry allowing armies to use the Balearic mercenaries in a variety of ways. Armies would often use sling units to make first contact and soften the enemy before employing the main army or in ambushes, where the slingers would hide in the brush and strike the enemy’s flank.

The Use of Sling Weapons in the Bible

There is evidence in the Bible that slingers were frequently employed by Israel, from the time of the Judges into the divided kingdom. The Bible also references the sling in poetic language (I Samuel 25:29 and Jeremiah 10:18), which is a testament to its commonplace in the culture. These references, of course, coincide with the widespread use of the sling in ancient warfare.

The Tribe of Benjamin Were Expert Slingers

In Judges 20, during the de facto civil war between the tribe of Benjamin and all the other tribes of Israel, the record indicates that 700 Benjamites, experts sling throwers, were part of the forces drawn up for the engagement.

Among all these were 700 chosen men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.

Judges 20:16 (ESV)

At a first glance, there appears to be a sense of hyperbole in the text. However, in the context of how accurate slingers were in ancient warfare, it is not that off the mark (no pun intended!).

I think we can infer from the above text in conjunction with I Chronicles 12:1-2 that sling throwing for the Benjamites was possibly endemic to their tribal culture, as it was for the Balearic slingers. In I Chronicles 12:1-2, approximately 60 years later after the above-referenced event, we learn of the Benjamites who joined David’s forces. These individuals are again described as highly skillful, ambidextrous sling throwers. They are also described as archers. Since ancient slingers were often deployed with archers, training to do both would just seem prudent.

The David and Goliath Sling

Understanding how the sling was employed in ancient warfare gives us a better context to interpret the account of David and Goliath. Goliath’s defeat becomes less “miraculous,” and David’s prowess with a sling becomes more evident. In other words, this is not a “parting the red sea” moment, but God using people’s talents (in this case David’s) to achieve His purposes.

Traditional stories often paint David as a shepherd boy, but as I have made the case in “King David: The Rise of the Warrior King,” the traditional stories do not quite line up with the Biblical text. By the time David engaged Goliath, he already had a reputation for being a warrior and was employed as Saul’s armor-bearer. Based on various Davidic timelines, David was likely in his early twenties.² If he had begun his training with a sling as a young boy, by the time he faced off with Goliath he would have already been deadly proficient (as the slinger who killed the Roman general Lucius Aemilius Paullus would have been).

The irony in the David and Goliath account is that David defeated Goliath with the very same weapon Saul should have been proficient in. Saul was, after all, a Benjamite. The symbolism here should not escape us. The David and Goliath sling foreshadows David’s eventual replacement of Saul by accomplishing everything Saul was unable to do.

Abigail’s Wise Words to an Expert Slinger

While David was fleeing from Saul, he and his men were embarrassingly snubbed by a wealthy man named Nabal. David, in a rage and with the help of 400 of his men, prepares to destroy Nabal and his household. However, Nabal’s beautiful and incredibly wise wife Abigail, manages to disarm David with carefully chosen words.

In her plea to David to spare her household, Abigail uses a reference to a sling.

If men rise up to pursue you and to seek your life, the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living in the care of the LORD your God. And the lives of your enemies he shall sling out as from the hollow of a sling.

I Samuel 25:29 (ESV)

As an expert slinger, the allusion would have appealed to David. Her use of the reference is also probably an indication of David’s fame as the great slinger who slew a Giant.

Sling Weapons Used to Defeat the Moabites

A couple of hundred years after the reign of David, sling weapons were clearly still employed during the reigns of King Jehoshaphat in Judah and King Jehoram of Israel. During the reign of the Israeli king Ahab, Moab was a tributary to Israel. However, upon the king’s death, Moab rebelled. King Jehoram, in alliance with the King of Judah, sought to quell the rebellion. It is in this context that the text reads,

And they overthrew the cities, and on every good piece of land every man threw a stone until it was covered. They stopped every spring of water and felled all the good trees, till only its stones were left in Kir-hareseth, and the slingers surrounded and attacked it.

[2Kings 3:25 (ESV)

The initial attack against the Moabite forces was an ambush. The use of slings in the initial volley would have been tactically sound, and from the text, they continued to use them in the pursuit of the Moabites.

The use of slings against the Moabites is the last reference in the Bible of a sling in an actual battle, but slings were certainly employed throughout ancient Israeli military history. Slings were easy to make, and projectiles were easy to find. It was a common weapon, undoubtedly incorporated into their military formations.

Slings, an Underrated Weapon in Ancient Warfare

By looking at the history of sling weapons and their effectiveness in ancient warfare, it is unfortunate that it has been overshadowed by the bow and arrow. Even the traditional recounting of the most famous “sling” story, David and Goliath, obfuscates the effectiveness of such a simple but deadly weapon. It certainly has been underrated. But in recognizing the true nature of the sling weapon, we can better understand and interpret important Biblical texts like the David and Goliath narrative.

1. Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 22, Chapter 49, translated by Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., Ed.

2. The timelines I used for reference include this compilation of three timelines which can be found here.

The post The Sling Weapon in Ancient Warfare appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

King David is the second most mentioned individual in the Bible; Jesus is the first. Much of the text dedicated to David details his military exploits. He was not only a king but a fierce warrior. He would exert the necessary violence to expand and maintain his empire, and yet had a deep sense of fairness, honor, and compassion, uncharacteristic of his time. Of course, his reign would be marred by his betrayal of one of The Thirty, Uriah, and other personal failings, but his reputation as a warrior king has inspired awe from both faithful Christians and military historians.

(My book recommendations have affiliate links, which means I may receive a small commission if you choose to purchase through my links (at no extra cost to you). As an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

David, Not Quite the Little Shepherd Boy

David’s military experience began years before he was officially crowned king. What might surprise some readers is that he gained that experience even before he faced Goliath. The traditional image we have of him as a humble shepherd boy facing a giant is not necessarily accurate. Per I Samuel 17, he did face Goliath, but in I Samuel 16:14-23 we learn that David was first employed as Saul’s armor bearer (and harpist).

When Saul was looking to employ a harpist, a servant recommended David.

“One of the young men answered, ‘Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the LORD is with him (vs 18)’.”

David had built a reputation for himself as a musician but also as a warrior.

Initially, Saul was just seeking a man to play the harp, but David’s reputation as a good fighter landed him the position of armor bearer as well. Armor bearing for a king was not taken lightly. In ancient times, armor bearers had to be able, capable fighters. So when David faced Goliath, he was already a skilled warrior and proficient with a sling, a common weapon in ancient armies (not a toy of a young boy).

This is not to diminish David’s accomplishment. David was talented but did not have the level of experience of battle-hardened fighters. This lack of experience (and not necessarily talent) is what prompted Saul to tell David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him, for you are but a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth (I Samuel 17:33).” It would have been the equivalent of a Marine private volunteering to fight against a giant while Navy Seals were too scared to do so.

David’s confidence against Goliath, which his brothers interpreted as bravado, was rooted in his complete trust in his God. He would carry this courage into his reign and throughout his life. And it is that courage and subsequent defeat of Goliath that propelled his military career forward, leaving the shepherding behind for good.

A Commander in Saul’s Army

With the defeat of Goliath, David proved himself to be a lethal fighter (I Samuel 18:5), so Saul rewarded him with a command in his army. The text is unclear as to how David progressed within the ranks, but we do know that at some point he commanded units of at least 1000 men¹, the equivalent of a modern-day battalion (vs 13).

David led many successful military campaigns, and this ingratiated him with the people and with Saul’s servants, which included other military leaders. But not everyone grew to love David. This successful, charismatic figure incited the ire of Saul. Yet, despite the clear animosity that Saul had towards David, David managed to maintain his integrity and his professionalism. Twice, in I Samuel 18, the Biblical text says that “David behaved wisely.” David was more than just a skillful commander capable of defeating his enemy. He understood the intricacies of his position, and his behavior was honorable, but it would not be enough to restrain King Saul.

David Flees From Saul

Saul made several unsuccessful attempts to kill David, both overtly and covertly. In what appears to be a fit of rage, Saul tried to pin David to a wall with a spear a few times (I Samuel 18:10-11, I Samuel 19:10). He also devised a plan to have David killed in a battle (vs 18:25), unsuccessfully, of course. Finally, Saul just commanded his men to kill David, but with the help of both his wife, Michal (Saul’s daughter), and Jonathan (Saul’s son), David managed to escape.

David would spend years on the run, but his time in the wilderness would prove useful in building a strong military following, skills, and experience.

David’s Experience in The Wilderness

David’s time on the run was difficult but greatly beneficial to the future king in three ways. 1. He developed a band of loyal men who would support him throughout his reign. 2. He gained first-hand knowledge of the terrain, learning how to use it to his advantage in military operations. 3. He became intimately aware of guerrilla warfare tactics – how to use them and defend against them.

Building a Strong Foundation for a Loyal Military

Initially, David fled to the cave of Adullam (I Samuel 22:1). It was there that his family and 400 disgruntled men joined him (a number that would later grow to 600). His three nephews, Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, also likely joined him at this time. The former two would be central figures in David’s military for most of his reign.

David’s popularity while serving in Saul’s army was likely the pull factor that led these men to align themselves with David. The push factor was clearly their difficult circumstance (debt, distress, etc). But what would cause these men to remain with David in the harshness of the Judean Wilderness and share in his troubles for so many years?

Times were indeed difficult, and David gives us a glimpse of the conditions they endured in Psalm 63.

A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water.

Psalm 63:1 (ESV)

The Judean wilderness was inhospitable, and David and his men often suffered from thirst and hunger. His men’s willingness to stay and suffer with David was influenced by the care and loyalty David showed them. Three instances give us a glimpse of his character as a leader of men.

— David almost killed the wealthy man Nabal and his entire household when he refused to give provisions to David and his band of outlaws. David’s ire, whether right or wrong, was no doubt rooted in his deep desire to provide for his men. (I Samuel 25:2-42)

–A thirsty David poured out the water as an act of sacrifice because he felt unworthy of the risks his men took in obtaining that water. (II Samuel 23:13-17)

–In I Samuel 30:21-25, he made certain that the men in the rear would receive as much provision as those on the front lines.

From this band of loyal men, The Thirty was formed. David’s Mighty Men (as they are also known) would be key figures in his military that would help maintain loyalty among the ranks for the duration of David’s life.

David Develops Unconventional Tactics (Guerrilla Warfare)

David’s struggle in the wilderness would allow him and his men to gain useful and unconventional experience in military warfare. Prior to the wilderness, David’s military knowledge was limited to his role in an organized, national army. However, the wilderness would push him to develop different tactics. With limited resources and limited men, his operations would be more akin to guerrilla warfare.

For example, intimate knowledge of the terrain is essential in guerrilla warfare. David’s experience navigating caves and identifying sources of water would later prove useful in the capture of the future capital of Israel. I make the case in “How Jerusalem Became the City of David” that David’s experience in En Gedi was beneficial in capturing Jerusalem. En Gedi has many karst hydrological systems (tunnels of water), the same kind of system found in Jerusalem. It was probably their acquaintance with these kinds of tunnels that allowed David and his men to use that knowledge to their advantage in Jerusalem and catch that highly fortified city quite off guard.

That was not the only guerrilla-like experience he gained. While in the wilderness, David and his men operated like nomadic tribes. They moved from location to location, became knowledgeable of the land and its resources, and conducted raids (lightning strikes) when necessary. This experience living as a nomad would prove useful not only in his encounters with raiding nomads while on the run but also in developing adequate defenses against future threats from desert raiders in his established kingdom. This is an experience he would put to good use even before Judah crowned him king.

David Lives Among the Enemy (I Samuel 27: 1-12)

David, weary from the wilderness and the cat-and-mouse game with Saul, fled to Gath, a Philistine city, under the protection of its King Achish. Although not explicitly stated in the text, one can surmise that David offered his services and those of his men in exchange for protection. Theologians may question David’s move from a moral standpoint, but from a military and strategic one, it was brilliant.

David at Ziklag

David wisely perceived that it would be disadvantageous to remain at Gath. From the viewpoint of the Philistines who served Achish, David was a capable leader of dangerous men who came from enemy territory. It would only be natural for his presence to incite distrust in Achish’s court (a perception proven true in I Samuel 29). He did kill the Philistine Goliath after all. David, therefore, requested permission to live on the outskirts, outside the city walls. Achish agreed and offered David the town of Ziklag, on the southern border of Philistine territory. Although generous on the surface, his true intention was to use David’s military prowess and his small army to defend the Philistine southern flank.

Achish’s trust in David was rooted in the mistaken impression that the enemy of his enemy was his friend. David would play on that belief using deception to win the trust and support of Achish. While at Ziklag, David and his men were able to use Ziklag as a base of operations to attack nomadic tribes in the Negev. At the end of each raid, David would return to Achish, presumably with the spoils of his campaigns. However, he led Achish to believe that he was raiding areas within Judah.

And Achish trusted David, thinking, “He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”

I Samuel 27:12

Clearly, Achish thought David was a trustworthy ally. It was a mistake he would eventually regret.

At Ziklag, David used genius political and military maneuvering to pave the way for his rule in Judah and the eventual expansion of his empire. Here are four examples:

1. By winning Achish’s trust, David would be able to take over the crown in Judah with little opposition from the Philistine King. Once on the throne, Achish considered David a vassal king and had little reason to object to the move.

2. By raiding and destroying key nomadic tribes of the Negev, David greatly weakened the southern threat to Judah.

3. David shared the spoils of the Amalekite raid with key towns and elders in Judah.

4. By gaining the trust of the Philistines, David would be able to study the strengths and weaknesses of his future enemy.

The Establishment of King David’s Kingdom

After David left the Philistines, his first step in consolidating power was establishing his reign over the southern tribes, where he had natural alliances. He then would establish a new capital on neutral territory before turning his attention to the surrounding kingdoms.

David Crowned King of Judah

While David engaged Amalekite raiders who had attacked Ziklag, the Philistines defeated the Israeli army, killing King Saul and his sons, including Jonathan (I Samuel 31:1-13). In the resulting power vacuum, David was able to take advantage of his friendly relations with the people of Judah. He was from the tribe of Judah after all, but he also strategically strengthened those relations in two ways we have already mentioned above.

1. David weakened a threat to Judah’s southern flank by destroying nomadic raiders from the Negev.

2. David sent the elders of Judah the fruit of some of his spoils.

The result of his efforts proved fruitful. Shortly after Saul’s death, the people of Judah anointed David King when David arrived at Hebron. The remainder of the tribes of Israel were not so keen on accepting David. The commander of King Saul’s army, Abner, quickly placed Saul’s son Ishbosheth on the throne (II Samuel 2:1-11). The northern tribes and Judah would remain at war while David ruled Judah from Hebron.

Judah Grows Strong Under King David While Israel Falters

……And David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul became weaker and weaker.

II Samuel 3:1b

King David would rule over Judah from Hebron for seven and a half years. He was drawn into a protracted war with the northern tribes, but during that time, David consolidated his rule while Ishbosheth grew weaker. Ishbosheth was no doubt a puppet of Abner and lacked the charisma and leadership of David.

David was able to maintain the loyalty of his military, even during times of disagreement, a loyalty hard-won during his time in the wilderness. Ishbosheth’s kingdom, on the other hand, was fracturing. A false, insulting accusation by Ishbosheth alienated Abner and provoked him to ally himself with David (II Samuel 3:6-21). Shortly after, Joab murdered Abner, and without Abner’s protection, Ishbosheth was left vulnerable. Two of his own military officers assassinated him (II Samuel 4:1-8).

King David Unites Israel

After Ishbosheth’s death, King David was able to win the acceptance of the northern tribes through his honorable treatment of both Abner and Ishbosheth.

Joab murdered Abner behind David’s back. This betrayal could have had major political repercussions for David. Instead, David’s response to the murder of both men helped to build bridges between himself and the northern tribes.

At a time when it was common to humiliate one’s defeated opponent through gruesome acts (displaying decapitated foes on posts, for example)– David chose a more honorable path. He arranged a state funeral for Abner in Hebron and executed Ishbosheth’s assassins. A deep sense of honor, grief, and justice vice political expediency, drove King David’s actions. Nonetheless, the effect resulted in large political gains for King David. These two acts were instrumental in persuading the elders of the northern tribes to join forces with David and accept him as King.

Shortly after, David established a new capital, Jerusalem, in neutral territory. He made it the base of his operations and brought the ark of the covenant there. This move sent the message that he intended to rule all of Israel without tribal allegiances.

King David’s Wars of Expansion

Wars and strategic political moves would be key elements in the expansion of David’s kingdom. However, these wars were not always initiated by David. His first encounter with the Philistines under a unified Kingdom and the war against the Ammonites are good examples. However, David was quick to capitalize on opportunities presented to him by his enemies. As a result, he was able to build an impressive and prosperous empire.

Through his wars of expansion, King David gained control of all three major transportation routes in the land-bridge that is Israel: the Via Maris, the Road of the Patriarchs (Ridge Route), and the King’s Highway. Access to these transportation routes not only contributed to the economic success of his kingdom but also allowed for easy deployment of his military when necessary.

Here is a summary of David’s wars of expansion:

Subduing the Negev Tribes

As we have seen, David subdued the tribes of the Negev while he lived under Philistine protection. However, the result of these campaigns was instrumental in his ascension to the king of Judah.

The Conquest of Jerusalem

This was his first military engagement after being crowned King under a unified kingdom. The establishment of a capital in neutral territory was a political necessity to maintain the support of the various tribes. For a complete military analysis of the conquest, read How Jerusalem Became the City of David.

The Defeat of the Philistines

The Philistines were not particularly happy that their “vassal” David was now ruling all of Israel. They deployed their forces twice to the Valley of Rephaim, intending to confront David. David was successful in both engagements and would later take the Philistine capital, Gath. David would face off with the Philistines on several occasions throughout his reign, as he never completely subdued them. (II Samuel 5:17-25, I Chronicles 14:8-17, II Samuel 8:1)

The War Against Moab

David defeated the Moabites and was particularly severe in their treatment (although lenient in the context of ancient warfare). He ordered the execution of two-thirds of the Moabites (II Samuel 8:2, I Chronicles 18:2). Why would David take such measures after they had provided shelter to his mother and father (I Samuel 22:3)? The answer is left to conjecture; however, Jewish tradition claims the Moabites had killed David’s parents in an act of betrayal.

The Defeat of the Arameans

The Bible mentions two different encounters between David’s forces and Hadadezer, the king of Zobah, an Aramean king. From the text, it is unclear if these are two different perspectives of the same campaign or two different campaigns altogether. In the first account (2 Samuel 8:3-8, I Chronicles 18:3-9), David spectacularly defeats Hadadezer and other Arameans (ancient Syrians) who came to Hadadezer’s aid. In the second account in (II Samuel 10:1-19, I Chronicles 19:10-19), Hadadazer (along with other Arameans) came to the aid of Ammon, and David again defeated him. David would set up garrisons throughout the land area of Aram, controlling various city-states, including Damascus.

The Defeat of the Ammonites

In II Samuel 10:1-19 and I Chronicles 19:1-9, King Hanun of Ammon (and his advisors) mistook an act of kindness from David and responded by shaming David’s envoys. David’s response was swift. He deployed his army and defeated the Ammonites despite the latter’s help from the Arameans (referenced above). II Samuel 12:26-31 and I Chronicles 20:1-3 give details on the siege of Rabbah, the capital of Ammon.

The War Against Edom

Little is written in the text about the wars against Edom other than the 18,000 David defeated at the Valley of Salt at the hands of Abishai and Joab. As a result, David placed several garrisons throughout the land of Edom. (II Samuel 8:13-14, I Chronicles 18:12-13, Psalm 60:1)

King David Betrayed By His Son Absalom

After David’s kingdom reached its peak, David endured a painful betrayal by his son Absalom, forcing him to flee Jerusalem. Absalom’s move to steal the kingdom from David was no doubt rooted in familial discord. However, for Absalom to have been able to remove the king from his capital signals that David had lost much of that hard-won loyalty among the people, first, but also among the military-aged males.

Absalom Wins the Heart of the People

Absalom began to sow seeds of distrust among the people through a disinformation campaign. He made people believe that the King was unwilling or unable to administer justice and that Absalom would correct that wrong if given the chance (II Samuel 15:1 -6). This campaign took place over the course of four years, after which he successfully staged a coup.

But a coup would only be possible if Absalom had the military might behind him to accomplish such a feat.

¹³ And a messenger came to David, saying, “The hearts of the men of Israel have gone after Absalom.” ¹⁴ Then David said to all his servants who were with him at Jerusalem, “Arise, and let us flee, or else there will be no escape for us from Absalom. Go quickly, lest he overtake us quickly and bring down ruin on us and strike the city with the edge of the sword.”

II Samuel 15:13-14

The threat was real enough for an experienced military commander like David to assess that the only option was to willingly leave Jerusalem. The military force behind Absalom must have been formidable. Although the biblical text doesn’t provide details on who within the military might have betrayed King David, we know enough about the organization of David’s military to make an educated guess.

King David Loses the Support of the Militia

David’s army was organized into three main branches: the regular army, the militia, and the royal guard. The regular army was commanded by Joab and evolved out of the group that followed David in the wilderness. “The Thirty” seemed to form the nucleus of this group. Because of their history with David, it is likely that David maintained complete control of the regulars during the coup.

The royal guard was commanded by Benaiah. They were primarily a mercenary force and fiercely loyal.

The militia was a different story. As a reserve force, they would serve for only a month out of the year. Because most of their time was spent at home and amongst their tribe, the militia was more susceptible to tribal rivalries than the regular army. They were also more capable of falling for Absalom’s disinformation campaign. The bulk of Absalom’s military support therefore, must have come from the militia, a force likely much larger than David’s.

For a full discussion on the organization of David’s forces, see “The Organization of David’s Military.“

King David Defeats Absalom’s Forces

While fleeing Jerusalem, King David plants a double agent, Hushai, within Absalom’s inner circle. Hushai was able to convince Absalom and some of his other advisors not to pursue David right away, but rather engage him at a later time. This gave David time to organize his forces, resupply his men, and draw Absalom’s forces to his geographic area of choice, a strategic blunder for Absalom.

Although David likely planned the operation against Absalom’s forces, he did not take part in it. While it was common for David to fight with his men, in this instance, his men convinced him to stay safely within the walls of Mahanaim, located east of the Jordan River. His men’s concern was probably two-fold: David’s age and David’s emotional connection to Absalom.

The raging battle between David’s forces and Absalom’s took place within the Woods of Ephraim, a location that would favor David’s men. David’s regular forces were commanded by men who gained their military prowess in the wilderness with David. If the regular army was significantly smaller than the militia, the Woods of Ephraim would have been to David’s advantage. This kind of location was not conducive to neat military formations (preferable for the militia) and required irregular tactics. This decision to use the Woods of Ephraim again shows the brilliance of David as a military strategist and tactician.

It is not surprising that David’s regular forces would defeat “the people of Israel,” Absalom’s militia. According to II Samuel 18:7, 20,000 men lost their lives that day. In an encounter with David’s men, Absalom got himself stuck in a tree by his hair. Joab took advantage of Absalom’s vulnerable position and executed him (against the King’s orders).

King David’s Mercy

Ancient warfare was brutal, and “mercy” was frequently withheld, even from one’s own relatives. However, David extended mercy to his enemies and critics more often than not. If we read the exploits of David with a modern, Western worldview, we might miss just how unusual his character as a warrior was for the time. His compassion won him loyalty, but it also put him at odds with his most brutal military commander, Joab.

Here are some examples of David extending mercy:

• David refuses to kill Saul on two occasions despite the latter’s attempts to kill him. (I Samuel 24:3-7, I Samuel 26:7-11)

• David allows himself to be corrected by a woman, Abigail, and restrains himself from killing Nabal (I Samuel 25:2-35).

• David strikes a deal with Abner, Saul’s military commander, who helped pursue David and who also placed Ishbosheth on the throne in Israel. (II Samuel 3:21)

• An individual by the name of Shimei, from the house of Saul, cursed and threw stones at the king when David was running from Absalom. David’s warrior Abishai volunteered to take off his head, but David restrained him and forgave Shimei (II Samuel 16:5-14, 19:18-23)

• David grants Amasa command of his military (over Joab) even after Amasa had joined forces with Absalom (II Samuel 19:13).

• David is patient with Absalom’s rebellion and gives his instructions to his men to avoid harming him (I Samuel 18:5)

When David was fleeing from Absalom, he and his men were provided for by several individuals, including Nahash from Rabbah. Rabbah was a city that had been besieged by Joab and conquered by David. To command that kind of loyalty from a conquered people was probably due to King David’s more compassionate demeanor compared to other warriors and kings. It made him distinctly unique for the time period and probably was a key factor in helping to keep control of his empire.

King David’s Military Exploits End With A Giant

David’s military career was propelled forward by the killing of the giant Goliath. It is ironic, then, that his military career would end at the hands of a giant as well.

Towards the latter end of David’s days, Israel was at war again with the Philistines. The biblical account states that “David grew faint.” During a battle against the Philistines, a giant by the name of Ishbi-Benob came barreling toward David with the intent to kill him. And it looks like he might have succeeded, but the warrior and commander Abishai came to his aid and killed the giant instead. (II Samuel 21:17). After this incident, his men objected to his ever returning to the battlefield.

We are given a hint of David’s decline during the engagement with Absalom. His men’s insistence then that David not be directly involved in the battle against Absalom shows that his skills were beginning to wane. No doubt age was starting to take a toll. He was probably in his late 60s by this point.

David would obviously continue to be king and would endure another attempt by one of his sons, Adonijah, to usurp his throne towards the end of his life. However, this last incident with the giant is the last record pertaining to David’s military exploits.

Who Was the Real Strategic Genius?

In this survey of David’s life, primarily from a military and political perspective, one primary lesson stands out. The wilderness was instrumental in David’s success. As difficult as that period of time was for David, it helped forge him into a brilliant warrior and King. There is no doubt that David was gifted and charismatic, and his unusual compassion for the time all played a role, but in hindsight, the role of the wilderness is undeniable.

Through the wilderness, he was able to forge capable commanders who would, for the most part, remain loyal and would become the nuclei of his regular army.

Through the wilderness, he and his men gained valuable, unconventional expertise in knowing how to defeat much larger foes with smaller numbers. This was particularly handy in the battle against Absalom.

Clearly, the wilderness was thrust upon David. It was not a path that he freely chose, but it points to a divine plan that was much larger than David himself. Greatness is forged through adversity, and the Master Planner knew it was a necessary strategic move to mold David into the king he needed to be and to foreshadow a much greater King and warrior.

Other articles that might interest you:

How Jerusalem Became the City of David

Joab: Commander of David’s Army

Who Were David’s Mighty Men?

1. 1000 could refer to the unit itself and not the actual amount. Numbers in ancient militaries give an indication of relative size and not necessarily exact numbers. For example, a Roman centurion was not a captain of 100 men. The actual number was closer to 80

The post King David: The Rise of the Warrior King appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

David was a great conqueror, but he was not a one-man show. There are several large sections of text in the Bible that name key military figures in David’s army. These men helped him secure his throne. A group called David’s Mighty Men (also known as “The Thirty”) appears in two sections of scripture, I Chronicles 11:10-47 and II Samuel 23:8-39. The tales of their achievements would make great theatrical movies and make for an engaging study!

(My book recommendations have affiliate links, which means I may receive a small commission if you choose to purchase through my links (at no extra cost to you). As an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)

Who Were David’s Mighty Men?

David’s Mighty Men were an elite force who helped David establish his Kingdom also known as “The Thirty.” Their bravery is unparalleled and their accomplishments would make any warrior druel. The Bible gives us the names of these heroes, describes some of their incredible feats, and shows us how they were organized.

According to II Samuel 23, there were 37 men in all, although this part of the text only mentions 35 by name.((50+ in all the records combined)) However, I Chronicles 11 includes most of the names from II Samuel but adds several more. This leads us to believe that like any standing military unit, the membership is fluid. As some men die, they are replaced by others. The names we see in the two texts are the names of those who were part of The Thirty at one point or another.

We do not have enough information from the biblical text to determine if they deployed as a whole unit, as a group of 30+ men. However, biblical evidence implies that The Thirty operated in squads of three. The Bible gives details on two, possibly three, distinct squads and each one had its own squad leader. We also know that some of those units of three were more distinguished than others. Because it seems that this group might have evolved into more of an elite council and its distinguished members were used to lead divisions across the military, the squads might have been how they operated in The Thirty’s infancy.

For a full discussion on the organization of David’s forces, see “The Organization of David’s Military.“

The Distinguished Squads of Three

Were these really squads that operated together as a unit in combat? It is actually difficult to know for sure from the text.¹ However, the fact that the text divides these groups of men into three and labels one man as the leader, lends itself to that possibility, even if it was just for a limited time.

What is clear from the text is that out of The Thirty, the Bible praises two squads (possibly three) for surpassing the skills of all the others.

The First Three

The first squad of three, the most elite, was comprised of Josheb-Basshebeth the Tachmonite, Eleazar the son of Dodo, and Shammah the son of Agee. Josheb-Basshebeth was the squad leader.

The three held impressive resumes. Josheb-Basshebeth was responsible for the death of 800 men at one time per II Samuel 23:8 (I Chronicles 11:11 lists that number as 300).²

Eleazar, at one point, held off the Philistines even though the Israelites had retreated, until “his hand stuck to the sword.”

Shammah defended a field of barley (or lentils), possibly with the help of the other two, and prevailed against the Philistines.

After relaying the individual exploits of these three men (II Samuel 23:8-12), the text then mentions a second group of three but does not provide names (II Samuel 23:13-17). From carefully reading the text, I surmised that this is not a second group at all, but the same three mentioned above.

In this second story, we learn the stealth capability of this elite squad. During one of David’s many encounters with the Philistines, shortly after the capture of Jerusalem, the men engage in a daring exploit to retrieve water for David. David and his army were operating out of the cave of Adullam and the Philistines had encamped in the Valley of Rephaim and their garrison was located in Bethlehem. These men managed to sneak through the Philistine lines, retrieve the water from a well outside the gate of Bethlehem, and bring it back to David. It was a daring and suicidal feat!

The Second Three

The second group of three was led by Abishai, brother of Joab (Joab was the commander of David’s army) and David’s nephew. Benaiah, who would become Captain of David’s guard, was also part of this second group, but the third member remains nameless. It is clear from the text, that these men were more skilled or honored than The Thirty as a whole, but did not quite reach the level of the first squad.

Abishai would end up having a long and impressive history under David’s command. His exploits include killing 300 men, commanding at different levels within David’s army (divisions, brigades, and at one point one-third of the army), and saving King David from a giant toward the end of David’s military career.

The Biblical text credits Benaiah with killing two ariels³ from Moab and killing a lion in a pit. The text in II Samuel 23:21, describes his prowess in disarming a giant Egyptian and then killing him with his own weapon. Benaiah’s crowing achievements would be commanding David’s guard, and later commanding the entire army under Solomon.

Other Key Warriors Among “The Thirty”

Although the names of 50-plus men are mentioned in total between the two records in II Samuel and I Chronicles, we know little of their individual accomplishments, except for three. Asahel was brother to Joab and Abishai and was David’s nephew. The Bible hails him for his speed. II Samuel 2:8 says he was “as swift of foot as a wild gazelle.” Unfortunately, Abner, the commander of Israel’s army (when the nation was still divided), kills Asahel.

Naharai was not only one of The Thirty but also an armor bearer for Joab. Armor bearers were responsible for a lot more than just carrying their leader’s armor. They were superb warriors who acted as bodyguards for their officers and learned to skillfully fight in concert with the ones they were sworn to protect. We know Joab was a skilled fighter, and as commander of David’s army, he would have required his armorbearer to be an elite warrior.

The other prominent mention among The Thirty is Uriah the Hittite. Uriah is more famously known as the one who David betrayed and murdered. Although the account is famous, the enormity of David’s sin overshadows Uriah. Few know that Uriah was actually an elite warrior, for example! But Uriah was one of The Thirty, and like any member of The Thirty, he would have known David personally and may have joined David while he was on the run, before he became king.

Their Humble Beginnings

Some, if not most, of “The Thirty” joined David when he was fleeing from Saul. The biblical text mentions two or three by name, Ishmaiah the Gibeonite, Amasai (I Chronicles 12:4), and possibly Jediael. I Samuel 22:2 states that while David was hiding from Saul, “everyone who was in distress, everyone who was in debt and everyone who was discontented gathered to him.” These were the kind of men who initially filled David’s rank,s and many of them certainly would become part of The Thirty.

The life these men led while following David in the wilderness would have been austere, desperate, and dangerous. A strong bond, not to mention unbreakable loyalty, must have developed between David and these warriors. It is also during these times that these men would have honed their skills and developed their prowess.

“Pagans” Among “The Thirty”

Although most of the men within “The Thirty” were from the twelve tribes of Israel, a few were not. Zelek the Ammonite, Ithmah the Moabite, and Uriah the Hittite appear to have been from pagan nations. The Hittites were no longer a mighty empire by the time of David’s reign, but many of their city-states were still prominent. The Ammonites and Moabites existed as kingdoms to the east of the Jordan River that David would later defeat and turn into vassal states. That begs the question, why would these men leave their culture and nations to fight for David? Were they mercenaries?

The interaction between David and Uriah in II Samuel 11 gives us a hint into the character of these warriors. Uriah shows an unbreakable allegiance to the men he is fighting with, but also shows genuine concern for the state of the Ark of the Covenant. The importance he places on the ark, a symbol of God’s presence in Israel, hints that he had left his own religion and his gods and adopted the God of Israel as his own. This leads me to believe that the men among The Thirty who came from pagan nations were not indeed mercenaries, but true converts. David may have originally swayed them with his charisma, but their allegiance was to the nation of Israel and its God. (Although mercenaries would play a key role in David’s bodyguard.)

David’s Mighty Men Operated Under the Will of God

Why does God take the time to list each of these individuals by name and tell some of their stories of bravery and courage?

Because they operated under the will of God. The Thirty were instrumental in achieving God’s will and helped David secure his throne.

Now these are the chiefs of David’s mighty men, who gave him strong support in his kingdom, together with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of the LORD concerning Israel.

I Chronicles 11:10 (ESV)

The introduction to The Thirty begins with these words in I Chronicles 11:10. The Bible makes it clear that David’s accomplishments were only possible because of the loyal support of these warriors. Furthermore, it states that it was accomplished, “according to the word of the LORD concerning Israel.”

David was a brilliant military leader, successfully subduing his enemies, expanding his kingdom, and establishing Israel as a formidable force in the Levant. But any leader, whether military or not, cannot achieve greatness without a strong, loyal support network. David’s was comprised of elite, superb warriors. They accomplished the impossible and I would dare to say few military units in history have achieved their skill.

Unfortunately, despite the length of text dedicated to these men, students of the Bible rarely mention them, and they often seem forgotten. But biblically, they are not, and they were key players in the establishment of Israel as a nation. The intentional mention in the Bible is an encouraging reminder of God’s appreciation of the warrior’s sacrifice and the importance of giving proper credit to not only those who lead a campaign but also to those who support it.

Other related articles you might enjoy:

King David: The Rise of the Warrior King

Joab: The Commander of David’s Army

1. The text actually presents a lot of problems for translators. In some instances, the Hebrew word behind the word “three” is sometimes translated as “thirty” or even “captains.” That makes it difficult to know for sure how these units were organized and if they were standing units at all.

2. Numbers, especially in reference to military sizes, men killed, are not necessarily meant to be taken literally. For example, even though this elite group is called “the thirty,” there were clearly more than 30 who took part. Numbers could be rounded up or used to give an idea of the scale without meaning to be exact. The discrepancy in the numbers could be a scribal error, or possibly two separate events.

3. The meaning of the Hebrew word for “ariels” is unclear. A possible literal translation may be “lion-men.” Some believe the phrase is used to describe the skill and ferocity of these opponents. However, in a time when giants appear frequently in the text, these could also be men who had lion-like features

The post David’s Mighty Men and Their Incredible Feats appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Joab is David’s nephew, the son of his sister Zeruiah, who became the commander of David’s military during his reign. As a fearless and talented commander, he was responsible for the defeat and capture of many city-states. He remained fiercely loyal to King David until the end of his reign. At that point, however, he sided with David’s son Adonijah to take the throne without his father’s blessing.

Joab was a complex individual who often acted impulsively against the King’s wishes, killing three men in cold blood, for example. Yet, he was a key figure in helping David expand his kingdom. He was finally executed under Solomon for his betrayal at the end of David’s life.

Joab’s Early Days

The Biblical text does not offer details of how Joab initially aligned himself with David. However, since he was David’s nephew, it is likely Joab joined David at the cave of Adullam in I Samuel 22 with the rest of his family.

David departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam. And when his brothers and all his father’s house heard it, they went down there to him.

I Samuel 22:1 (ESV)

The Bible states that David’s father’s house joined him at the cave after he escaped from Saul. I can only assume that when their grandfather Jesse decided to join David, Joab and his two brothers jumped at the bit to join their uncle as well. It is during this time during David’s exile (approximately seven years) that Joab gained a reputation as a skilled fighter and leader among David’s men.

A Natural Military Leader

Before Joab officially became the commander of the army (see 2 Sam 8:16), he was the de facto leader of David’s men second only to David. In 2 Samuel 2:14, there is a fierce encounter between Israel and Judah. Here, Abner, the commander of Israel’s army addresses Joab as the leader of Judah’s army. This is early in David’s reign over Judah, before uniting the kingdom. Despite having clear command of the army, we learn from the biblical text that his official title would come only later, after the capture of Jerusalem.

Since it appears that David had not officially placed Joab in that position, one can only assume that he naturally took on that role. He had clearly built a reputation for himself early on and Abner, who had been the commander of the military under Saul and later Ishbosheth, was distinctly aware of who he was.

The idea that Joab would rise up on his own to lead David’s men is in line with his character. He was often a man who was willing to do what was necessary to accomplish his own will but also appeared to have an appreciation and love for the men he led.

One of Three Warrior Brothers

Joab is often referred to as “Joab, son of Zeruiah.” When the Bible references a lineage, it usually names the father, a common practice in patriarchal societies. However, since the Bible uses the mother’s name, it brings attention to Zeruiah herself. Little is known about David’s sister, but we do know she raised three fearless, warrior sons. Joab was one of them. The others were Asahel and Abishai, both listed in the biblical text as elite warriors.

Executioner in Chief

Joab was a fearless leader, but he was also ruthless, especially with those whom he considered his enemies. In three different recorded instances, Joab took it upon himself to execute three high-ranking individuals, all against David’s wishes.

Joab’s Murder of Abner, the Commander of Saul’s Army

In II Samuel 3, Abner strikes a deal with David to transfer Israel (the northern Kingdom) to David (who ruled Judah). Joab was infuriated by this new alliance. Abner, in II Samuel 2, had killed Joab’s brother Asahel in self-defense. So Joab had pleaded with David to no avail and behind David’s back, he and his brother Abishai murdered Abner. David, in his fury, places a curse on Joab and his descendants but really does not subject him to any other repercussions.

Joab’s Murder of Absalom, David’s Son

When Absalom revolted against his father David, Joab and two other commanders loyal to David defeated Absalom and his army. Before the commencement of hostilities, David had given strict orders for his son Absalom not to be harmed. In the melee, Absalom got caught in a tree by his hair and the man who found him told Joab of Absalom’s predicament. Joab proceeded to spear Absalom and killed him against David’s orders.

Why Joab took such extreme measures is left to debate. Joab could have felt that Absalom had become too much of a liability for David and did so to protect the king and Israel in the long run. Absalom had proven to be very problematic for David, distracting him at first and later attempting a coup. Absalom had built a strong following, and getting rid of the head would force his followers to disperse.

It could have also been that Joab was settling old scores. In II Samuel 14: 25-31, Absalom burns Joab’s barley field, a great economic loss for Joab. He did so in order to force Joab to speak to David on his behalf. Initially, Joab acquiesced to Absalom’s demands, but the coup might have proven to be too much for Joab. When the opportunity presented itself, he executed Absalom.

Joab’s Murder of Amasa, The Commander of Absalom’s Army

In what appears to be an effort to reunite the kingdom after Absalom’s coup, David offers the position of head of his army to Amasa, the commander of Absalom’s army. It was a politically expedient move, but it undoubtedly angered Joab. In essence, David fired him. So while David’s army was quelling yet another insurrection, Joab took advantage of the confusion to murder Amasa.

8 When they were at the great stone that is in Gibeon, Amasa came to meet them. Now Joab was wearing a soldier’s garment, and over it was a belt with a sword in its sheath fastened on his thigh, and as he went forward it fell out. 9 And Joab said to Amasa, “Is it well with you, my brother?” And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. 10 But Amasa did not observe the sword that was in Joab’s hand. So Joab struck him with it in the stomach and spilled his entrails to the ground without striking a second blow, and he died. Then Joab and Abishai his brother pursued Sheba the son of Bichri.

II Samuel 20:8-10 (ESV)

Joab retook control of the army and surprisingly, once again, David did not reprimand Joab.

Joab’s Role in the Fall of Uriah

The death of the warrior Uriah is one of history’s greatest injustices. The scheme to murder Uriah was conceived by David, but it was expeditiously executed by Joab. Once Joab received the order, he didn’t question it, even knowing full well that Uriah was one of David’s elite warriors. (This is a little-known fact, but you can read the full background on Uriah in this analysis.)

To cover his intentions for Uriah, Joab directed an entire unit of men to attack, approaching the city’s outer wall which was in effect, a suicide mission. Uriah was not the only one who lost his life that day (See II Samuel 11:14-25). Joab’s loyalty to David at this point was unquestionable and David used it to his advantage.

Joab’s Greatest Military Accomplishments

Despite Joab’s brutal record, he was a brilliant military strategist and highly capable fighter. He accomplished a great feat for Israel and that seals his name in Israeli history.

The Capture of Jerusalem

The well-fortified city of Jebus (also known as Jerusalem) appeared to be impenetrable, but David had chosen it as his future capital. To spur ingenuity and bravery, David promised the title of Commander and Chief to whoever penetrated the city via a water shaft. Joab volunteered and in achieving this feat, he made it possible for David to take the city. (You can find a full analysis of that account here.) Joab would also take the lead in repairing the city after the defeat of the Jebusites. This marks the beginning of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. (I Chronicles 11:4-9)

Victory Against Edom

Joab struck down 12,000 from Edom at the Valley of Salt (Psalm 60:1). This victory came when Edom attacked from the south while David and his army were otherwise engaged in the north. (An analysis of these events from the viewpoint of Psalm 60:1 can be found here).

Successfully Defended a Simultaneous Attack from the Front and Rear

Joab was able to repel combined Ammonite and Syrian forces attacking both his front and rear. This is no small military feat. His impromptu decision to split his army into a smaller, elite group to face the Syrians while the remainder of the army attacked the Ammonites, saved the day. (See II Samuel 10: 7-13).

The Capture of Rabbah

Rabbah was a city with natural defenses, but its capture was necessary for Israel to control the entire region. Joab broke through the city’s defenses and captured its water supply. With control of the city’s water source, the capitulation of the entire city was imminent. However, Joab restrained himself from taking the city and saved the final conquest for David (See II Samuel 12:26-31)

The Defeat of Absalom’s Rebellion

Joab helped defeat Absalom’s rebellion, leading one-third of David’s forces (while two other commanders led the rest) to victory (See II Samuel 18:1-18)

The One Who Subdued Joab

Clearly, from Joab’s history, few could cross him and get away with it. However, Joab was masterfully subdued and by a woman no less. When Joab was in pursuing the rebel leader, Sheba, he was out for blood. Sheba escaped the fortified city Abel of Beth-maacah and Joab besieged the city to capture him. However, a wise woman intervened and negotiated a plan to give Joab what he wanted to prevent Joab from destroying her city. Joab surprisingly agreed and spared the inhabitants. (Read the full analysis of this account and the wise woman of Abel here.)

Joab Excluded From The Mighty Men

Despite Joab’s bravery and accomplishments, he is conspicuously missing from the roll call of David’s mighty men, also known as The Thirty (I Chronicles 11:10-47). This group of highly skilled, courageous, and loyal warriors, deserves its own discussion and you can read about them in “Who Were David’s Mighty Men?” However, for the sake of this article, suffice it to say that they were an elite group of warriors who many believe were part of a special forces type of unit. Its inception, presumably, was during David’s time in exile.

There are two separate lists with the names of those who were part of this group. One is found in I Chronicles 11:10-47 and the other in II Samuel 23. Joab’s two brothers Abishai and Asahel appear on these lists. The Bible prominently mentions Abishai even though he had a hand in the murder of Abner. Joab, however, is not included. Could it be because he was always either the de facto leader or formal leader of David’s army and by mere rank was never part of this elite unit? Or was it that the treason at the end of David’s reign would have sparked his removal from the highly praised Thirty? It is difficult to know for sure, but certainly worth discussing!

Joab’s Good Deeds

Although Joab could be merciless, he actually played a role on several occasions in helping David and his men.

Helping a Grieving Father Bring His Son Closer to Home

After David’s son Absalom killed his brother and fled to Syria, the ordeal heavily impacted David. Absalom had been away for three years and perceiving that the matter still grieved David, Joab conceived a plan to convince King David to allow his son to return to Jerusalem. He used a wise woman to approach the king with a story that would help the King to see reason (II Samuel 14:1-24). It worked and David permitted Joab to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem.

As mentioned earlier, Absalom had even had Joab’s barley field burned, but Joab still spoke to King David on Absalom’s behalf. Joab’s intervention prompted David to go see his son after his return to the capital.

Helping David Maintain the Loyalty of His Military While Giving His Men the Honor They Deserved

The death of his son Absalom grieved David greatly. When the warriors returned from battle, they did not return to a grateful king, but a grieving one who had opted not to receive them. Each one returned to his tent, feeling deflated even though they had struck a great victory. Joab correctly assessed that the King’s attitude was demoralizing his army and that could weaken his hold on an already fragile nation. Joab confronted King David with very poignant words.

Unlike his humble demeanor towards David when he tried to convince him to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem, the text leads us to believe that Joab was visibly angry at David for his lack of concern for the welfare of his army (See II Samuel 18:33-19:8). His apparent lack of decorum didn’t seem to bother David who humbly took the correction, composed himself, and greeted his men at the gates of the city.

Joab Attempts to Keep David From Sinning

One of David’s greatest mistakes was taking a census, a task that fell on Joab, to determine the potential strength and size of his military. The matter displeased God and David’s error cost Israel dearly (2 Samuel. 24:1-17).

Unlike the incident with Uriah, here Joab tries to dissuade David from making a mistake. Joab knew and understood that taking the census would leave Israel vulnerable to God’s judgment. However, the text says that “the king’s word prevailed against Joab.” Joab reluctantly followed orders, but intentionally left the tribe of Benjamin and Levi out of the count because “the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab.” (See I Chronicles 21:1-7)

Joab Gives a Portion of His Spoils

Leaders of households and leaders within the military regularly gave a part of their spoils of war towards the maintenance of the house of the Lord. Joab is one of the few mentioned by name who did so as well. (I Chronicles 26:26-28)

Joab’s Final Betrayal

At the end of David’s reign, when he was well advanced in years and his health quickly declining, his son Adonijah attempted to usurp the throne. Adonijah astutely sought Joab’s help as control of the military would be necessary to take the crown. Joab aligned himself with Adonijah while other key figures such as Benaiah (commander of David’s guard), The Mighty Men, Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, refused to do so. Upon hearing of Adonijah’s intentions and Joab’s betrayal, David moved quickly to anoint and crown Solomon as King. The move caused Adonijah to abandon his plans, but Joab’s treachery would finally face dreadful consequences.

Joab’s Execution

Although David never took action against Joab’s assassination of Abner and Amasa nor of his betrayal towards the end of his life, he made sure to give instructions to Solomon to hold Joab accountable. Solomon did not waste any time after David’s death to remove threats from his kingdom. He ordered the execution of Adonijah and the exile of Abiathar the priest (who also sided with Adonijah).

Joab, perceiving that he was next, fled to the Lord’s tabernacle and took hold of the horns of the altar. Upon hearing of Joab’s actions, Solomon ordered Benaiah to execute Joab. When Benaiah arrived, he ordered Joab out of the Tabernacle area but Joab refused, claiming that if he died, he would do so there. Benaiah sought Solomon’s counsel before proceeding, and Solomon ordered him to be executed where he stood.

Joab, a Hero?

Many paint Joab as an evil villain, but that clouds the complexity of his character. He certainly leaves a lot for debate on the intentions behind his behavior, but one cannot ignore his great military accomplishments. And those accomplishments and his ability to rally the men and do the impossible in the face of great odds may have been a reason David was so reluctant to admonish him more severely. So Joab certainly was not a man after God’s own heart like David, but his contribution to Israel’s security during the Davidic kingdom made him a military hero.

Other articles you might enjoy:

Who Were David’s Mighty Men (The Thirty)?

King David: The Rise of the Warrior King

How Jerusalem Became the City of David

The post Joab: Commander of David’s Army appeared first on Biblical Warfare.

Jerusalem is an ancient city and has been politically and strategically important for millennia. Even today, Jerusalem is the subject of hot debate. When President Trump moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem it drew hard criticism from not only Arab nations, but other world powers as well. They were afraid it would destabilize the region.

My intention here is to not provide an exhaustive look into the current political and religious debates but it does beg the question. Why does a relatively small city like Jerusalem spur so much consternation? The simple answer? It is considered a holy city to the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths. The importance of Jerusalem cannot be divorced from its spiritual significance. And so we begin by looking at how Jerusalem came to fall into the hands of the Israelites, was dubbed “The City of David,” and the ingenious military strategy that made it all possible.

God’s Mandate

In Genesis 15:18-21, God makes a covenant with Abraham. He carves out a piece of territory and promises to give it to Abraham’s descendants. God would also repeat His covenant to Moses on several occasions (Exodus 3:8, Exodus 3:17, Exodus 13:5, Exodus 23:3, Exodus 33:2, Exodus 34:11). There was one not-so-small problem in the eyes of God’s people. That land was already occupied by several Canaanite tribes, one of them was Biblically known as the Jebusites.(Some sources speculate that the original name of Jerusalem was Salem. For a brief discussion on this topic, click here. For a discussion on how the name Jerusalem evolved, click here.)

The Jebusites were a pagan people and to prevent this idolatrous influence from seeping into the tribes of Israel, God ordered His people to “devote them to complete destruction (Deu 20:16-18 ESV).”¹ Despite God’s promise that He would go before them, the Israelites hesitated in driving out the Jebusites (and other tribes for that matter).² They would spend 40 years in the wilderness as a result of their hesitation.

After taking the mantel from Moses, Joshua succeeded in killing one of the Jebusite kings (Joshua 12:8-10), but a remnant of Jebusites would remain in their highly fortified city of Jebus. Through the book of Judges and the reign of Saul, Jebus would remain controlled by the Jebusites. It was approximately 1100 years from the day that God gave his mandate until the Jebusites would be subdued.

Why is this important to the history of Jerusalem? The city of Jebus was the city captured by King David in approximately 1000 BC today known as — you guessed it — Jerusalem.

The Political Context Prior to the Conquest of Jebus (Jerusalem)

David’s ascension to the monarchy was not easy. He was anointed by Samuel and declared king by God in his teens, but would not take his seat on the throne until many years later. His encounter with Goliath thrust him into a military career serving King Saul for a few years and later he would spend his time hiding from Saul as a leader of a band of outlaws for several more. After Saul died, David was anointed by the tribe of Judah to be their king and reigned over Judah from the towns of Hebron for seven and a half years (2 Samuel 2:1-11).

While David ruled over Judah, the other tribes were ruled by Saul’s military commander Abner and his puppet king, Ish-bosheth (Saul’s son). After both Abner and Ish-bosheth were assassinated, the other tribes approached David and asked him to be their king. By this point, David had consolidated power in Judah and subdued surrounding regions. He had proved himself a key and able leader. Approaching David, after their king’s death, appeared to be the practical thing to do.

It is shortly after being anointed King of ALL of Israel, that David sets his eyes on the city of Jebus.

Why David Chose Jebus (Jerusalem) as The Capital

There are four primary reasons and they all have one thing in common. Location, location, location.³

Neutral Territory

The rivalry among the tribes could be traced back to the jealousy and contention between Rachel and Leah and the favoritism Jacob (Israel) shows Rachel’s children. You add to that years of tribe affiliation with their own leaders and practices, rivalry is the natural outcome.

We may be the United States of America, but rivalry and contention take center stage during sports and elections. It was no different for the tribes of Israel. And David was no fool.

If David was going to be the King of Israel, he needed to be the king of all. Had he remained at Hebron, an area in Judah, he could be accused of preferring Judah above all the other tribes. No. Hebron would not do.

Jebus was an unconquered morsel sandwiched between the Tribe of Benjamin and the Tribe of Judah. It was in neutral territory with no tribe affiliation. It was perfect.

The Defensible Terrain of Jebus

The city of Jebus was located on the southern slope of Mount Moriah, a north-south stretch of land in what is known today as the Judean mountains. The Kidron Valley on the east and the Central Valley on the west merged south of the city. To the North of the city, the terrain which sloped upward to the summit of Mount Moriah was desolate at the time of the capture of Jebus.

Attacking the city from either the west, east, or south was suicidal. The steep terrain coupled with the high walls of the city would leave an invading party exposed to slingers and archers. It was also well-entrenched in the Hill Country, making it incredibly difficult for more advanced militaries (such as the Philistines) to traverse the expanse with their chariots and siege machinery.

Its weakest side was the north, but it was also a much narrower part of the city. No doubt that when David looked at the terrain, he saw that the city could be expanded northward along the upward slopes to the peak of Mount Moriah. At this point, he might have even been thinking ahead to the construction of the temple. In time, with subsequent kings, that is exactly what happened.

Transportation Routes

The geographical area that God had slated for Israel, is a landbridge that connects Africa, Europe, and Asia. The strategic importance of that location cannot be overstated. Why is that important from David’s perspective? Because it would mean the area would always be highly coveted by neighboring powers (and still is to this day).

If David was a strategic thinker, and I believe he was, this would play into his decision-making in choosing Jebus (through divine inspiration) as the capital. He may not have understood the expanse of the African, European, nor Asian continents, but he surely understood the threats of his immediate neighbors such as the Philistines and the Ammonites. To be ready for that threat, easy access to transportation routes to deploy his military would be essential.

Transportation routes would also allow for the growth of trade and commerce, necessary for any city to thrive. Jebus lay along an ancient, but the well-traveled road called The Way of the Patriarchs (The Ridge Road). This road allowed for travel along the ridges of the central mountain range, running north-south, and connected to the Via Maris (The Way of the Sea), a major international trade route.⁴ There was also a more direct route to the Via Maris from Jebus via Timnah and Beth-shemesh that cut through the foothills and led towards the Mediterranean sea.

The Via Mari was one of two international trade routes that connected the Israeli land bridge to Mesopotamia to the north and Egypt to the South. Access to these routes was key for an economically prosperous nation.

(Note the central location of Jebus in the image below.)

Continuous Supply of Water

Siege warfare was common in ancient military conquests. Fortified cities and fortresses would be subdued through military blockades. Even if a city could not be penetrated by softening its defenses, eventually hunger, thirst, and/or disease would drive its inhabitants out.

If a city had a natural supply of water, it would extend the length of time it could survive a siege. Jebus was one of those cities.

The Gihon Spring was located on the northeastern outskirts of the city. It gave Jebus a continuous supply of fresh water which was accessible within the city walls. This was a great asset for any future capital and it would also be the Achilles heel of the Jebusites.

The Military Conquest of Jebus (Jerusalem)

For the same reasons that Jebus was highly desirable, it also made it difficult to conquer. However, David’s solution proved to be the key to penetrating the Jebusite stronghold. The entire military campaign is summarized in five verses.⁵

6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”–thinking, “David cannot come in here.” 7 Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. 8 And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David’s soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” 9 And David lived in the stronghold and called it the city of David. And David built the city all around from the Millo inward. 10 And David became greater and greater, for the LORD, the God of hosts, was with him.

2 Samuel 5:6-10 (ESV)

When David and his men arrived at Jebus, the Jebusites were so confident in their ability to repel David’s forces that they mocked David, claiming that they could defend the city by putting their lame and blind on the wall. Their over-confidence was short-lived.

The Achilles Heel of the Jebusites: The Gihon Spring

David was undeterred by the Jebusite mockery. Either through previous knowledge of the terrain or his keen eye in scouting his surroundings, he became aware of a natural spring that led into the city through a “water shaft.” Some scholars believe that shaft is what is known today as the Warren Shaft. However, there are some archeological debates as to whether the Warren Shaft was there at all during David’s conquest.

The real question is how did David know about a water shaft (whether the Warren Shaft or some other tunnel)? Was it through divine revelation? Did he have some previous intelligence from the inhabitants of the city? These are plausible, but there is a strong possibility that it was also an educated guess on his part.

David and his men had spent years living in caves and inhospitable terrain while hiding from Saul’s forces (cave of Adullam, Forest of Hereth, Wilderness of Ziph, Wilderness of Maon, for example). He had also spent time in Ein Gedi (I Samuel 23:29).

Ein Gedi is known for its natural springs formed as part of a karst hydrological system, that is water that flows through a series of naturally made tunnels and caves made by water flowing through the limestone. The caves made great hiding places for David and his men. What would warriors, who have time to kill and are stuck in a cave, do? Probably explore. My guess is that David and his men became very well acquainted with hydrological systems while at Ein Gedi.

The Gihon Spring at the base of Jebus is also part of a karst hydrological system. Once David and his men realized this, they were able to deduce that one of those tunnels led into the city.

The Special Operations Mission That Turned Jebus Into “The City of David”

Because the Biblical text is scarce with details we have to use a little imagination to envision how David’s plan was executed and that is what I do here.

Now that we have a little bit of background, we can form a picture of how exactly David takes the city. Note that most of the narrative below is my own conjecture, but it is based on what we know of ancient warfare, how battles were fought in the Bible and an understanding of the various Biblical characters involved (and maybe one too many war movies under my belt).

One Possible Scenario on How David’s Military Strategy was Executed

David was a brilliant military strategist. Before the arrival of his main army, he would have sent an advance party of scouts and he himself might have been one of them. The scouts would have searched for weaknesses in Jebus’s fortifications and it is at this point that they probably discovered the access point to the Gihon Springs.

With the necessary intelligence in hand, David advances his army to an attack position located outside the field of fire from slingers or archers. And yet, he wants his units within visibility of the Jebusite watchmen on the wall. He tests their readiness and unbeknown to the Jebusites, they tip their hand. With their jeers, taunting, and the placement of their handicapped on the wall, David knows they are unprepared for a breach.

The Gihon Springs is the key. If the Jebusites are indeed prepared for a long siege, then they must have continual access to the springs within the city walls. He learned at Ein Gedi that the maze of tunnels can run deep underground and portions would be narrow, claustrophobic, and dark. He could order some of his best men, but since it is potentially a suicide mission, he has a better plan.

David gathers his men and bellows, “Whoever strikes the Jebusites first shall be chief and commander (I Chronicles 11:6).” He is asking for volunteers and offers a prize too good to refuse.

Joab is not one to ever shy away from danger and believing that command should be his anyway sees this as an opportunity to prove himself once again. He volunteers before anyone else has a chance and his most trusted men agree to go with him.

David and Joab confer on the details of the special ops mission. They agree that if the Jebusites saw Joab approach the Gihon Springs access, they would get wind of David’s plans, and Joab and his men would fall into a trap. The cover of night would be necessary so that Joab and his unit can maneuver into the springs unnoticed.

They also need to agree on a sign for David’s army to begin the main attack. Joab has a simple, but effective idea. When the body of a watchman falls from the city wall, David would know to begin the assault.

Upon David’s orders, Joab and his men leave their fortified positions and slowly crawl to the access point.

The Gihon Spring proves to be dark and ominous. Joab and his men spend several hours with oil lamps scouting the various tunnels. They find the most viable option but agree that the ascent must be completed in total darkness. They couldn’t risk the light giving away their position once they got close to the exit. Plus, it was impractical to scale the walls while still holding the lamps.

They wait for the first inkling of dawn to begin their ascent. While the cover of darkness was ideal to gain access to the springs, the main army would have difficulty breaching the city at night.⁶

One by one, each man scales the walls of the shaft in complete darkness. As a skilled, brilliant, and deadly fighter, Joab leads the way. When he reaches the top of the shaft, he slowly emerges and scans the area for possible threats. Most of the city is still asleep and Joab gives the order for his men to follow.

Joab assigns each man a target and the men split up. They were masters at blending in and operating in enemy territory undetected. It was after all that same skill set that allowed David and Abishai to penetrate Saul’s camp and steal Saul’s spear and helmet while he slept. A few Jebusites who are already starting their morning chores see them but are either too busy to look too closely or mistake them for a fellow citizen.

Each man reaches his target. While one of Joab’s men sends a watchman over the wall of the city. Joab positions himself behind the guard at the gates. With a swift move of his sickle sword, the man breathes his last breath.

David sees the man falling from the wall and gives the order. The main force pours in through the gates. The Jebusites never had a chance. The Jebusite king quickly surrenders and David makes a declaration, “This will now be known as The City of David.”((Upon David’s conquest, “The City of David,” was only a few acres and comprised only a small fraction of modern-day Jerusalem. With subsequent kings, Jerusalem would expand. References today to the “City of David” refer only to the small portion of David’s initial conquest and the structures that David built during his reign.)) His men cheered with exhilaration.

The Aftermath

David did indeed call Jebus the “City of David” and he proceeded to construct his palace thanks to the generosity of the King of Tyre (2 Samuel 5:10). Joab takes his position as the commander of the King’s army and is tasked with managing repairs to the city (1 Chronicles 11: 8). In addition to the administrative tasks of establishing a new capital, the most significant action that David took immediately following was to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.

For David, the conquest of Jerusalem and the unification of Israel were meaningless without God’s presence. He was known, after all, as a “man after God’s own heart.” Shortly after, God makes a covenant with David per the biblical texts.

And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'”

2 Samuel 7:16 ESV

From a military perspective, the conquest of Jerusalem was the result of “out-of-the-box thinking.” In 1004 BC, Jebus was already an ancient city and had successfully withstood previous attempts. David and his brave men achieved what others had failed to do before. It was a remarkable feat. However, it pales in comparison to what was achieved from a spiritual perspective. It marked Jerusalem as the city of the future King of kings.

Military victories come and go and cities rise and fall, but for the Christian, Jerusalem will last forever.

Other related articles you might enjoy:

King David: The Rise of the Warrior King

Joab: Commander of David’s Army

1. For many, this is a hard pill to swallow and view it as evidence that the God of the Old Testament is a harsh and angry God. It is also used as fodder for criticisms of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Since this discussion is outside the scope of this article, I want to just provide a brief, albeit incomplete commentary. Textual Biblical evidence shows that God made exceptions for individuals who turned to worship him as the true God (Rahab, for example). Any people could be spared from destruction if they turned away from their pagan worship. Another point to consider is that the primary purpose behind these seemingly harsh judgments was to protect the nation of Israel and therefore protect the line of the future King that would save all humanity. Had Israel ceased to exist, so would have humanity’s hope for eternal salvation.

2. Originally the city of Jerusalem fell within land allotted to Benjamin

3. Because this is a blog about the military, campaign, I do not address the underlying spiritual reasons for choosing Jerusalem. However, as a Christian, I would be remiss to at least not mention them in the footnotes. Jerusalem was centrally located, allowing the tribes and foreigners to easily access the temple once it was built. It is also a great central location for the eventual spread of the gospel post the resurrection of Jesus. David’s decision was clearly God-inspired.

4. Biblical Archeology Website, “Major Trade Routes.” http://www.bibarch.com/ArchaeologicalSites/TradeRoutes.htm

5. The campaign as published by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews

6. Night military engagements were few and far between in the ancient world and only became popular in modern times with the help of advanced night-vision technology.

The post How Jerusalem Became the “City of David” appeared first on Biblical Warfare.