Poole on 1 Kings 1:1-4: David and Abishag

[1015 BC]  Verse 1:[1]  Now king David was old and stricken in years (Heb. entered into days[2]); and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.

[King David had grown old]  That is, he was seventy years of age (Piscator,[3] Malvenda,[4] Lyra,[5] Menochius,[6] Serarius,[7] Junius[8]); as it is evident out of 2 Samuel 5:4, 5 (Malvenda out of Junius).

Stricken in years; Being in the end of his seventieth year.

[And, although he was covered in clothes, he was not warm, ‎וְלֹ֥א יִחַ֖ם לֽוֹ׃]  And he was not warm (Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, Junius and Tremellius[9]); it was not growing warm to him (Junius, Piscator, similarly Montanus,[10] Jonathan[11]).  The לוֹ, to him, is superfluous (Vatablus[12]).  Question:  What is the reason?  Responses:  1.  Excessive age (Serarius out of Tostatus[13]).  The native heat in him was nearly extinguished (Vatablus).  The elderly are wont to be cold; neither do garments help their chill; because these do not warm of themselves, or with their own heat, but only because they retain our heat (Sanchez,[14] similarly Martyr), and repel cold air (Martyr).  2.  Perhaps a cold sickness fell upon him, inducing trembling and paralysis (Sanchez, similarly Serarius out of Tostatus).  3.  The large amount of blood shed in war (Serarius out of Tostatus).  For he waged various wars.  4.  The great effusion of seed; for he had many wives and children.  5.  He had been exercised with labors, both of soul and body, fear, and sorrow, which drieth the bones, Proverbs 17:22.  It is not strange, therefore, that the vital humor in him was exhausted, with which dried up, heat is impaired, and cold advances (Martyr).  6.  The Jews imagine another reason, namely, because he cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe[15] (Sanchez).

He gat no heat; which is not strange in a person not only of so great an age, but also who had been exercised with so many hardships in war, and with such tormenting cares, and fears, and sorrows, for his own sins, (as divers of his Psalms witness,) and for the sins and miseries of his children and people.  See Proverbs 17:22.  Besides, this might be from the nature of his disease, or bodily distemper.

Verse 2:[16]  Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought (Heb. let them seek[17]) for my lord the king a young virgin (Heb. a damsel, a virgin[18]):  and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him (Heb. be a cherisher unto him[19]), and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.

His servants; his physicians.

[Let us seek a young woman, etc.]  Heat from a young and healthy body is especially advantageous to the elderly (Grotius).  Galen,[20] in Method 7, concerning the curing of the cold and dry, says, Let a well-formed boy lie down together, so that his abdomen might be in continual contact (Malvenda out of Lapide,[21] Sanchez).  This was the counsel of his physicians (Martyr).  They do not seek a boy, because he could not furnish what this young woman does; neither would that lying together be altogether free from indecency.  The other wives of David were aging, for we do not read that he took a wife or concubine, with the exception of Bath-sheba, after entering into the kingdom of all Israel.[22]  They seek a virgin, because those that had been in labor, have heat, either weaker, or less wholesome (Sanchez).  Through conception and childbirth much of the body’s well-balanced heat is lost (Martyr, similarly Munster,[23] Vatablus).

A young virgin; whose natural heat is fresh and wholesome, and not impaired with bearing or breeding of children.  The same counsel doth Galen give for the cure of some cold and dry distempers.  Let her stand before the king, that is, minister unto him, or wait upon him, (as this phrase is oft used,) in his sickness, as occasion requires.

[And let her cherish him (thus Munster, Pagnine,[24] Tigurinus,[25] thus Strigelius,[26] English, Dutch), ‎וּתְהִי־ל֖וֹ סֹכֶ֑נֶת [27]]  And let her be to him a helper (Montanus); that she might bring usefulness to him (Hebrews in Vatablus), that is, by warming him (Vatablus, the Septuagint in Grotius).  ‎סֹכֶנֶת signifies a woman that is useful to someone, but in what manner what follows explains (Grotius).  She shall be cherishing him (Septuagint, Munster), that is, in her bosom (Piscator), not in an altogether different manner than a mother cherishes her infant child in her bosom (Munster).  Let her be a minister to him (Syriac, similarly the Arabic), or a helper (Junius and Tremellius), or a curatrix/caregiver.  Thus Shebna, in Isaiah 22:15, is called a ‎סֹכֵן/curator, or administrator (Piscator).  Let her be near to him (Jonathan in Vatablus), that is, bring herself, or her body, near to the royal body, so that she might warm him (Vatablus).

[And let her sleep in thy bosom]  Question:  Whether David took her to wife?  Response 1:  It is more probable that he did not marry her (Aben-melech and Tostatus in Serarius, Estius[28]).  She was his concubine, but not his wife (Tostatus in Sanchez).  [Nevertheless, Munster denies that.]  That סֹכֶנֶת did not perform the office of a פִּלֶגֶשׁ/concubine (Munster).  If she was not a spouse, it is not an example to be followed; for he would have exposed both himself and her to grave danger.  Pains need not be taken, that we always free the father from fault, who also are not to be accused, unless the history compels.  Moreover, he did this, not willingly, nor lustfully, but by the counsel of the physicians (Martyr).  Response 2:  She was a wife of David (Martyr, Sanchez out of Theodoret[29] and Procopius[30] and Dionysius[31] and Cajetan,[32] Tirinus,[33] Lyra, Lapide).  It is proven, 1.  For why then would it be said that she was not known by David,[34] unless she had been able lawfully to be known?  2.  Would Adonijah’s sin have been so grievous,[35] if he had only sought the handmaid of the King? (Sanchez, Tirinus).  Objection:  But how had Adonijah been so impudent, that he sought the wife of his father contrary to the express law of Leviticus 18? (Estius).  But I shall speak on this in its place (Martyr).  Response:  That law is understood concerning a woman that was a wife completely, that is, who consummated the marriage with copulation; or certainly Adonijah was ignorant of that law, as a laic, and as a young courtier (Lapide out of Cajetan).  3.  Otherwise the King would not have allowed this sort of medical remedy, so dangerous to his soul (Sanchez).  Question:  Whether David, being cold and impotent, acted rightly in taking a wife?  Responses:  1.  Perhaps he was believing himself to be able to be restored from that frigidity.  2.  If the girl knew it, and yet gave her consent, she was suffering no injury.  For thus the laws say, If a woman knew the impediment of her husband, and enters into contract anyway, she is not able to go back.  Moreover, God made use of this occasion to suppress Adonijah, and to establish the kingdom of Solomon (Martyr).

Let her lie in thy bosom, as his wife or concubine; for that she was so may appear by divers arguments.  First, Otherwise this had been a wicked counsel and course; which therefore neither his servants durst have prescribed, nor would David have used, especially being now in a dying condition.  And seeing this was easily prevented by his taking her for his concubine, which then was esteemed allowable, it is absurd to think that he would not choose the safer way.  Secondly, That passage, verse 4, but the king knew her not, implies that the king might have had carnal knowledge of her without sin or scandal.  Thirdly, it appears from this phrase of lying in his bosom, which is every where in Scripture mentioned as the privilege of a wife and concubine, as Genesis 16:5; Deuteronomy 13:6; 2 Samuel 12:8; Micah 7:5.  Fourthly, This made Adonijah’s crime, in desiring her to wife, so heinous in Solomon’s account, because he wisely saw, that by marrying the king’s wife he designed to revive his pretence to the kingdom, at least in case of Solomon’s death; which pretence had been ridiculous, if she had been only the king’s handmaid.

[And let her warm the king (thus Jonathan, Arabic), ‎וְחַ֖ם לַאדֹנִ֥י הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃]  And, or so that, my Lord the king might be made warm (Septuagint, Tigurinus, etc.); let the flesh of my Lord the king be warmed (Pagnine).  And let her cherish…the king (Vatablus).  And let there be warmth to my lord the king (Montanus).

Verse 3:[36]  So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a (Josh. 19:18) Shunammite, and brought her to the king.

[They sought a fair damsel, etc.]  Lest, should she be ill-formed, she should disgust the king (Sanchez).  Beautiful virgins excite natural heat, even without regard to sexual congress (Lapide out of Dionysius).  All beauty naturally draws to itself desire, and produces pleasure.  Many are wont more agreeably to receive food from the hand of certain ones, rather than others, and especially the sick, who intensely follow their own desires (Tostatus).

A fair damsel; whose beauty might engage his affections, and refresh his spirits, and invite him to those embraces which might communicate some of her natural heat to him, as was designed.

[A Shunammite]  From Shunem, a town of Issachar, Joshua 19:18 (Junius, Piscator, Vatablus).

A Shunammite, of the city of Shunem in Issachar, Joshua 19:18.  See 2 Kings 4:8.

Verse 4:[37]  And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him:  but the king knew her not.

[The king knew her not]  This is expressed, 1.  for the commendation of the abstinence of David.  2.  So that it might be signified, that she remained a virgin after the death of the King.  3.  Because it contributes to the cause of Adonijah (Menochius).

But the king knew her not:  Which is mentioned to note the continuance and progress of the king’s malady, and the ground of Adonijah’s rebellion, and of his following request, 1 Kings 2:17.

[1] Hebrew:  ‎וְהַמֶּ֤לֶךְ דָּוִד֙ זָקֵ֔ן בָּ֖א בַּיָּמִ֑ים וַיְכַסֻּ֙הוּ֙ בַּבְּגָדִ֔ים וְלֹ֥א יִחַ֖ם לֽוֹ׃

[2] Hebrew:  ‎בָּ֖א בַּיָּמִ֑ים.

[3] John Piscator (1546-1626) was a learned Protestant divine.  He held the position of Professor of Divinity at Herborn (1584).  His German version was the first, complete and independent, since that of Martin Luther.  Through the course of his career, his views changed from those of the Lutherans to those of the Calvinists, and from those of the Calvinists to those of the Arminians.  He remains widely regarded for his abilities as a commentator.

[4] Thomas Malvenda (1566-1628) was a Spanish Dominican.  Within his order, he was widely regarded for his abilities in philosophy and divinity.

[5] Little is known about the early life of Nicholas de Lyra (1270-1340).  He entered the Franciscan Order and became a teacher of some repute in Paris.  His Postilla in Vetus et Novum Testamentum are remarkable for the time period:  Lyra was firmly committed to the literal sense of the text, as a necessary control for allegorical exposition; and he drew heavily upon Hebraic and Rabbinical materials.  His commentary was influential among the Reformers.

[6] John Stephen Menochius (1576-1656) joined the Society of Jesuits at an early age.  His superiors in the order, recognizing his academic abilities, set him apart for training in the exposition of Holy Scripture.  His critical acumen and commitment to the literal sense of the text are on display in his Commentariis in Sacram Scripturam.

[7] Nicholas Serarius (1555-1610) was a Jesuit scholar.  He served as Professor of Theology at the University of Mentz.  He wrote Commentarium in Librum Josuæ, Judicum, Ruth, Regum, et Paralipomenon.

[8] Francis Junius (1545-1602) was a Huguenot divine of great learning.  He suffered the varied fortunes of his people; but he had the opportunity to study in Geneva, and he was eventually appointed Professor of Divinity at Leiden (1592).  Junius’ De Vera Theologia was massively important in the development of the Dogmatic structure of Reformed Scholasticism.  He also labored with Tremellius in the production of their famous Latin Version of the Old Testament.

[9] John Immanuel Tremellius (1510-1580) converted from Judaism to Christianity and quickly embraced the principles of the Reformation.  He taught Hebrew at Strasburg (1541) and at Cambridge (succeeding Paul Fagius in 1549), and served as Professor of Old Testament at Heidelberg (1561).

[10] Benedict Arias Montanus (1527-1598) was a Spanish Benedictine monk.  He attended the Council of Trent, and he was heavily involved in the production of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible.  Montanus also commented on a number of Biblical books.

[11] Jonathan ben Uzziel (first century) was one of the great pupils of Hillel.  It is a matter of some doubt whether Jonathan ben Uzziel is actually responsible for the translation of this portion of the Chaldean Version.  For the most part, Targum Jonathan tends to be more paraphrastic and expansive than Targum Onkelos.

[12] Francis Vatablus (c. 1485-1547) was a prominent Hebrew scholar, doing much to stimulate Hebraic studies in France.  He was appointed to the chair of Hebrew in Paris (1531).  Because of some consonance with Lutheran doctrine, his annotations (Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum), compiled by his auditors, were regarded with the utmost esteem among Protestants, but with a measure of suspicion and concern by Roman Catholics.  Consequently, the theologians of Salamanca produced their own edition of Vatablus’ annotations for their revision of the Latin Bible (1584).

[13] Alonso Tostado, or Tostatus (c. 1400-1455), was a Spanish, Roman Catholic churchman and scholar.  He was trained in philosophy, theology, civil and canon law, Greek, and Hebrew.  He wrote commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament (Genesis-2 Chronicles), and on the Gospel of Matthew.

[14] Gasper Sanchez (1554-1628) was a Jesuit scholar.  He served as Professor of Divinity at Alcala.  He wrote Commentarius et Paraphrasis in Libros Regum, as well as commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Song of Solomon.

[15] See 1 Samuel 24.

[16] Hebrew: ‎וַיֹּ֧אמְרוּ ל֣וֹ עֲבָדָ֗יו יְבַקְשׁ֞וּ לַאדֹנִ֤י הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ נַעֲרָ֣ה בְתוּלָ֔ה וְעָֽמְדָה֙ לִפְנֵ֣י הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וּתְהִי־ל֖וֹ סֹכֶ֑נֶת וְשָׁכְבָ֣ה בְחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וְחַ֖ם לַאדֹנִ֥י הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

[17] Hebrew:  ‎יְבַקְשׁוּ.

[18] Hebrew:  ‎נַעֲרָ֣ה בְתוּלָ֔ה.

[19] Hebrew:  ‎וּתְהִי־ל֖וֹ סֹכֶ֑נֶת.

[20] Claudius Galenus of Pergamum (129-200 AD) was an innovative Greek physician.

[21] Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637) was a Flemish Jesuit scholar.  His talents were employed in the professorship of Hebrew at Louvain, then at Rome.  Although his commentaries (covering the entire Roman Catholic canon, excepting only Job and the Psalms) develop the four-fold sense of Scripture, he emphasizes the literal.  His knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and the commentators that preceded him is noteworthy.

[22] See 2 Samuel 11.

[23] Sebastian Munster (1489-1552) was a German scholar of great talent in the fields of mathematics, Oriental studies, and divinity.  He left the Franciscans to join the Lutherans, became Professor of Hebrew at Basil (1529-1552), and produced an edition of the Hebrew Bible with a Latin translation and important early Reformation annotations (Annotationibus in Vetus Testamentum).

[24] Pagnine (1466-1541) was an Italian Dominican.  He was gifted as a Hebraist, exegete, and preacher.  He was commissioned by Pope Leo X to produce a new Latin translation of the Scripture.

[25] Leo Jud (1482-1542) was a co-laborer of Ulrich Zwingli during the time of the Swiss Reformation.  His translation work might be his most important contribution to the reformation of Zurich.  He labored with other divines to produce a vernacular version for the Swiss people, and he produced a Latin version of the Old Testament, usually known as “Tigurinus”, which would be translated, “of Zurich”.

[26] Victorinus Strigelius (1524-1569) was a Melanchthonian Lutheran scholar and Professor of Philosophy at Jena, and then at Leipzig.  He wrote Libros Samuelis, Regum, et Paralipomenon, ad Veritatem Hebraicam Recognitos et Brevibus Commentariis Explicatos.

[27] סָכַן signifies to be of use or service.

[28] William Estius (1542-1613) labored first as a lecturer on Divinity, then as the Chancellor at Doway.  Theologically, he bears the imprint of the modified Augustinianism of Michael Baius.  In his commentary writing, as exemplified in his Commentariis in Sacram Scripturam and Commentariis in Epistolas Apostolicas, he focuses on the literal meaning of the text; and he is widely regarded for his exegetical skill and judgment.

[29] Theodoret (393-457) was bishop of Cyrus, and a significant participant in the Christological controversies of his age.  He was an advocate of Antiochian dyophysitism, or moderate Nestorianism, although he condemned the Nestorian affirmation of two Sons in Christ, and the Nestorian denial that Mary was Theotokos, that is, the Mother of God.  His orthodoxy was cleared at the Council of Chalcedon (451). With respect to exegetical method, Theodoret came up under the tutelage of Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom.  He commented on most of the books of the Bible; his comments on the Scripture are sober, and clear in expression.

[30] Procopius of Gaza (c. 465-528) was a Christian rhetorician, teacher, and writer.  He produced commentaries on much of the Old Testament in a catenic form (consisting of a series of extracts from the Fathers).

[31] Denis the Carthusian (1402-1471) was a Carthusian monk, theologian, and mystic, considered by some to be the last of the Schoolmen.  He commented on the entire Bible.

[32] Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534) was an Italian cardinal and one of the more able opponents of the Reformation.

[33] James Tirinus (1580-1636) was a Flemish Jesuit priest.  His abilities as a commentator are displayed in his Commentariis in Sacram Scripturam.

[34] Verse 4.

[35] See 1 Kings 2:21-24.

[36] Hebrew:  ‎וַיְבַקְשׁוּ֙ נַעֲרָ֣ה יָפָ֔ה בְּכֹ֖ל גְּב֣וּל יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַֽיִּמְצְא֗וּ אֶת־אֲבִישַׁג֙ הַשּׁ֣וּנַמִּ֔ית וַיָּבִ֥אוּ אֹתָ֖הּ לַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

[37] Hebrew:  ‎וְהַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה יָפָ֣ה עַד־מְאֹ֑ד וַתְּהִ֙י לַמֶּ֤לֶךְ סֹכֶ֙נֶת֙ וַתְּשָׁ֣רְתֵ֔הוּ וְהַמֶּ֖לֶךְ לֹ֥א יְדָעָֽהּ׃