Good News Translation has restructured this verse by combining the first two lines. Contemporary English Version also combines lines one and two but breaks the sentence into four lines as follows:

is like the sunrise
on a cloudless day,
or like rain that sparkles
on the grass.

He dawns: the pronoun refers back to the one who rules justly. And the verb, which is normally used only of the sun, is used figuratively to speak of the ruler. The subject of the verb is usually the sun (for example, Gen 32.31; Jonah 4.8), but it is sometimes used of the LORD or the glory of the LORD (Isa 60.1-2), or “the sun of righteousness” (Mal 4.2). This, however, is the only case in the Old Testament where the subject of the verb “dawn” is a human ruler. The context clearly indicates that the just ruler is being compared to the sun. Nevertheless many languages will have to use a verb with a more general meaning like “appear” or “arise.” Or another alternative is to make the implied comparison explicit by saying something like “he [the ruler] is like the sun dawning….”

Like rain: instead of taking this as a second comparison, this time likening the ruler to the rain, most modern scholars translate “after rain” (New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), making this an extension of the original comparison of the ruler to the sun, and this interpretation seems to be more faithful to the Hebrew. The image is that of the sun rising on a clear morning just after a rain storm: “He is like sunshine after a rain…” (New Century Version). Translators are advised to follow this interpretation.

Makes grass to sprout: literally “grass from earth” or “grass of earth.” The cryptic nature of the Hebrew text has led some interpreters to supply the verb sprout as in Revised Standard Version, or “grow” (New Century Version), but others supply “sparkle” (New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Revised English Bible, Contemporary English Version, as well as Good News Translation). The latter is preferred.

In some languages it may be necessary to state more clearly in what way the just ruler is like the sun. Possibly some may wish to say that such a ruler is “as welcome as the sunrise on a day without clouds, or as pleasing as sunshine after the rain….”

If translators use the quote within a quote formula as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, it will be very important that the end of the internal quotation is clearly marked at the end of this verse.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Yea: this is a translation of the Hebrew adverb which is a marker of emphasis, and it may also be rendered “Indeed,” “Certainly,” or “Doubtless.” Others have translated it “Yes” (New Jerusalem Bible), “Surely” (Revised English Bible), and “Truly” (New American Standard Bible). But it is often left untranslated, as in New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Bible, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh as well as Good News Translation.

Does not my house stand so with God? This question is more literally “is not my house thus with God?” where the adverb of manner, “thus” or so, refers back to the description of the just ruler in the previous verse. The rendering of New International Version, “right with God,” seems to skew the meaning here. And the rhetorical question is really a statement of David’s strong belief that God will in future years bless his descendants. The word house, of course, refers to the family or descendants of David over the years to come. For this part of the verse, translators may consider a possible model that changes the question to a rather emphatic statement: “This, indeed, is how God has blessed my family.” Good News Translation focuses more on the future aspect of God’s blessing, but in languages that have a habitual verb form that includes the present as well as the future, such a form will be appropriate here.

An everlasting covenant: this is the same expression as used in the conclusion of the story of Noah’s ark (Gen 9.16), in God’s relationship to Abraham (Gen 17) and in numerous other places in the Old Testament (Exo 31.16; Lev 24.8; Psa 105.10). The everlasting covenant referred to here is further described as being ordered in all things and secure. The first of these two expressions is taken to mean that the agreement is “set forth in detail” (New American Bible) or “the terms spelled out” (Revised English Bible). The second word focuses on the certainty of the covenant. It is “unchanging” (Contemporary English Version) or “faithfully kept” (Revised English Bible).

Will he not cause to prosper all my help and my desire? A further rhetorical question is asked at the end of the verse, but it is like the first in that it is intended to make a strong affirmation of faith about what God will do for the family of David in the years after his death. It will be better translated as an affirmative statement in many languages.

The following is a possible model for the verse as a whole, changing the rhetorical questions to statements:

• Indeed, that is the way it will be with my descendants. God has made an agreement with me that will last forever. Everything is well arranged and he will never break his promise. This is all I want. God will be sure to help me; he will make all this happen.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

But translates the common Hebrew conjunction. Here it introduces contrast between the righteous rulers mentioned previously and godless men.

Godless men: see the comments at 16.7 (“worthless fellow”); 20.1; 1 Sam 1.16; 2.12. There is no particular emphasis on the maleness of these people. So instead of men, a more neutral term meaning “human beings” should probably be employed. It may also be important in certain languages to specify in what way these people are like thorns (literally “like a thorn [or, thornbush]”). They are at the same time both worthless and dangerous.

They cannot be taken with the hand: this passive expression may be easily made active, either as Good News Translation has done or by saying “no one can pick them up using only their hands.” In Hebrew the verb translated be taken is in the active voice, and the subject is indefinite third person plural. A more literal translation is “they do not take them with the hand.” Some interpreters, however, suggest that this verb is an unusual passive form, and that the subject is “the thorns.”

A possible model for the verse as a whole is:

• Bad people are like thorns; they are good for nothing, so they should be destroyed, but people cannot pick them up with their hands because they are dangerous.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

But: the common conjunction here introduces a statement that is contrary to what is normally done with weeds. Instead of handling the thornbush with bare hands, some kind of instrument must be used.

The man who touches them: the subject here is not a specific male person but is any person who has to deal with the thorns described in the previous verse. The man may therefore be better rendered “whoever” (New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “anyone.” As the context clearly shows, this person does not actually touch the thorns in the sense of coming into direct contact with them. The whole point of the sentence is that some sort of instrument is necessary to handle them. In some languages, therefore, the verb touches will not be appropriate, since it would imply direct physical contact. A verb like “handles” will be required.

The words arms himself translate a Hebrew verb meaning “to be filled.” If the Masoretic Text is followed, the sense seems to be “his hands are filled with….” Some interpreters, however, follow the Septuagint and correct the Hebrew to read “unless [or, except]” instead of “to be filled.” This correction results in the translation “nor will any man touch them except with…” (Anderson). Although Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament does not mention this possible correction to the Masoretic Text, it is quite likely a valid correction. However, whether translators follow the MT or the Septuagint here, the meaning is essentially the same.

Iron and the shaft of a spear: Good News Translation indicates that the writer intended the use of one instrument or the other. Similarly New Jerusalem Bible speaks of “a pitchfork or a spear-shaft.” And Contemporary English Version takes the expression to refer to a single tool, “a sharp spear” (similarly Anderson). But it is quite possible that the original meaning was that two instruments were necessary to root out the thornbush and place it on the fire. New American Bible, like Revised Standard Version, uses the conjunction “and,” speaking of the person being armed “with iron and with the shaft of a spear.”

Consumed with fire: in some languages it will be unnecessary to use a noun and a verb to express this idea. A single verb will express the idea “burned up.”

The Masoretic Text ends with a word that may be interpreted as meaning “where they lie” (New International Version, Revised English Bible, and New Century Version) or “on the spot” (New Revised Standard Version and Contemporary English Version). This, however, is not reflected in Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New English Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text here, and there is no good reason not to follow this recommendation.

As the note in Good News Translation indicates, verses 6 and 7 are unclear in Hebrew. If translators think it is important enough, they may add a similar footnote.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Next to him: translators should be careful not to give the impression that this refers to physical nearness, as if the three men were standing in a row next to each other. The idea is that of rank or importance. In some languages this idea will be conveyed by saying “After him…” (Anchor Bible). But in other cases a clearer statement of rank as in Good News Translation will be more natural.

Son of Ahohi: the parallel in 1 Chronicles has “the Ahohite,” which seems to indicate clan affiliation rather than a relationship of father to son. But many interpreters think that the essential meaning is virtually the same, whether it refers to the grandfather Ahohi or to the clan he established. Bible en français courant speaks of the “grandson of a man of Ahoa.” The correct reading is probably “son of an Ahohite,” but this has the same essential meaning as “the Ahohite” (Revised English Bible, New American Bible).

With David when they defied the Philistines: these words translate the Masoretic Text, to which Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives an {A} rating. Some interpreters think that the Masoretic Text should be corrected to read here “he was with David at Pas-dammim where the Philistines…” (New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, Nueva Biblia Española, Anchor Bible, and Anderson). This is in harmony with 1 Chr 11.13. New American Bible has a similar place name on the assumption that this is the same place as mentioned in 1 Sam 17.1, “Ephes-dammim.” However, it is probably better to translate the traditional Hebrew text as in Revised Standard Version at this point. The word defied may be rendered “confronted,” or “taunted” (New International Version). New Century Version, like Good News Translation, uses the verb “challenged.”

The pronoun they in this context seems to refer to David and Eleazar (Good News Translation).

Gathered there: if the text of the preceding words is not corrected to read “at Pas-dammim,” translators must decide what the adverb there refers to. New International Version says “gathered at Pas Dammim” instead of gathered there. It is better, however, to understand there as a reference to the unnamed place where David and Eleazar defied the Philistines.

The men of Israel withdrew: this seems to indicate that all the Israelites retreated, but what follows shows that there was one important exception, and that exception is, in fact, the hero of the story. Contemporary English Version adds what is implied, “except Eleazar.” This may be a good model for some other languages. Or some may prefer to say “all the other soldiers of Israel retreated….”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

At the beginning of this verse there is no conjunction in Hebrew, and this is reflected by Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation, however, correctly adds “but” in English. This serves to highlight the contrast between the action of the rest of the Israelite soldiers and that of Eleazar, who stood firm against the enemy. New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible also add “but.”

He rose: this should not be taken to mean that Eleazar was in a sitting position or lying down before the action described in this verse. It is rather a way of introducing the beginning of significant action. Others take the verb here to mean that “he stood his ground” (Revised English Bible, New Century Version, and Anderson as well as Good News Translation).

His hand cleaved to the sword: this wording may be misleading if translated literally into other languages. The idea is that by gripping the handle of the sword so firmly and for such a long time, Eleazar reached the point where his muscles were so tense that he was unable to release his grip. Compare Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente (and Good News Translation), “his hand had a cramp and he couldn’t any longer let go of the sword.” Like Good News Translation, several other modern versions make this statement in a negative form: “he could not let go of his sword” (New Century Version, for example).

The LORD wrought a great victory: while Good News Translation translates “won a great victory,” a better model for some languages may be “brought about a great victory” (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version), using a causative verb form. The same expression should be used in verse 12.

The men: that is, the other Israelite soldiers.

To strip the slain: as in 1 Sam 31.8, this does not mean that the bodies of the enemies were left naked. The idea is that the Israelite troops came back to retrieve the armor and weapons of their enemies. A better rendering of the verb may be “to plunder” (New Jerusalem Bible, Moffatt) or “gather up the spoils of the dead” (Knox). New Century Version provides a more complete and simpler translation of the basic meaning, “to take the weapons and armor from the enemy.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Next to him: continuing with ranking in order of importance, this expression now refers to the third most famous of the three top fighters. This should be translated in keeping with the way the same expression was handled in verse 9 above.

Son of Agee: the name here is disputed by textual experts. While there is some evidence for “son of Elah” (New Jerusalem Bible), Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends, with a {C} rating, the name “Agee,” as in Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most other versions.

Hararite: this may refer either to an otherwise unknown tribe or to a place that is equally unknown. Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, for example, says “from the city of Harar.” The word may be related to the Hebrew word for mountain (har) and mean something like “mountaineer,” but translators should probably take it as a reference to a place or a clan and translate “from a place called Harar” or “from the clan of Harar.”

Lehi: this place name is found in the story of Samson (Judges 15.9), but here it is uncertain that this reflects the original reading of the Hebrew text. The difficulty is that in Hebrew the words “towards Lehi” and “into a band” are spelled with the same consonants. The vowels in the Masoretic Text make this word read “in a band”; some experts therefore think that the single Hebrew word rendered at Lehi should be translated “in a troop” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) or “in force” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). But Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends “at Lehi,” giving a {B} rating to the correction, and this seems to be followed by the majority of modern versions. Probably the reading “in a band” in the Masoretic Text came about through making this word agree with the word for “a band” in verse 13.

Plot of ground: literally “a portion of a field.” The expression used here seems to refer to an area smaller than a complete field but large enough to grow a garden. Compare Gen 33.19, and see also Ruth 2.3; 4.3.

Lentils: this refers to the flat seeds of a small, pea-like plant that grows in the Near East. These seeds are high in protein and carbohydrates and are used to make a stew or soup (Gen 25.34), and as a basis for a kind of bread during difficult times (Ezek 4.9). The same word appears also in 17.28. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 11.13 has “barley” in place of lentils, but the two accounts should be translated without attempting to make them agree in translation.

The men: literally “the people.” This refers to the fighting men of Israel other than the hero of the story. So it may be preferable in some languages to say “the rest of the Israelite soldiers” or “the other warriors of Israel.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

But: the common Hebrew conjunction here marks the contrast between the behavior of the hero and that of the rest of the soldiers. It is properly translated “but” in most versions.

The pronoun he at the beginning of this verse refers, of course, to Shammah. If there is any danger that it will be understood to refer to someone else, or if readers will not know who is involved, then the name should be used in place of the pronoun.

Took his stand: some will say “just stood in the same place in the garden.” Compare 20.11; 1 Sam 17.16. The Hebrew verb is often used in a military context. Compare “he stood his ground” (Revised English Bible, Good News Translation).

In the midst of the plot: since the Philistines had come to steal the crop of lentils that was still in the field, Shammah positioned himself there to hold it for his people.

This verse ends with the same words in Hebrew as found in the middle of verse 10: the LORD wrought a great victory.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .