One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). It was situated approximately midway between Ashdod (north) and Gaza (south) on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Historical Overview

Evidence of settlement dates to the Neolithic period (8300–4500 BC), although the earliest references to the city stem from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200–1200 BC). Ashkelon is mentioned among the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC) as an enemy of Egypt and in the Amarna tablets (1400 BC), where the city’s ruler affirms fealty to the pharaoh. Excavation confirms an Egyptian presence at Ashkelon during the Late Bronze Age; the city remained under Egyptian control until the incursion of the Sea Peoples (early twelfth century BC), after which Ashkelon was occupied by the Philistines.

Ashkelon remained under Philistine control until Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Syria and Israel (734–732 BC), when it became an Assyrian vassal. During Sennacherib’s reign Ashkelon’s king joined Hezekiah in revolt against Assyria and was deported (701 BC). In 604 BC, following Assyria’s demise, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ashkelon and deported the survivors, several of whom received rations at the Babylonian court (cf. Dan. 1:5).

During the Persian period Ashkelon was reestablished as a Tyrian market city, thus becoming prosperous once more. The city was never conquered by the Hasmoneans (mid-second to mid-first centuries BC; 1 Macc. 10:86; 11:60), and eventually it asserted its independence, signified by the minting of its own coins (beginning 111 BC). Herod the Great was purportedly a native of Ashkelon, and he lavished the city with public works projects. During the First Jewish Revolt, Ashkelon successfully defended itself against Jewish attack.

Excavations have located the council house and an elaborately painted tomb (Roman period), as well as the remains of a church and a synagogue (Byzantine period). Ashkelon came under Muslim control (seventh century AD), then briefly under Crusader control (AD 1153). The city was destroyed by Saladin (AD 1191) as he retreated before Richard the Lionheart.

Ashkelon in the Bible

Ashkelon was listed among the territory still to be conquered at the end of Joshua’s life (Josh. 13:3). Judah took the city but ultimately was unable to keep it (Judg. 1:18–19). The OT subsequently reckoned Ashkelon as part of Philistine territory, beginning with Judg. 14:19, which recounts one of Samson’s exploits.

Ashkelon shared in the affliction visited on the Philistines for taking the Ark of the Covenant, which they attempted to forestall by reparations or “sympathetic magic” (1 Sam. 6:17 [the “gold tumors” were likely meant to bear away the source of the Philistines’ suffering]). Ashkelon and Gath represent the Philistines overall as David anticipates their response to news of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (2 Sam. 1:20).

The remaining references occur in the prophets, who portended the destruction of Ashkelon and the other Philistine cities at various times (Jer. 25:20; 47:5, 7; Amos 1:8; Zeph. 2:4, 7; Zech. 9:5). Notably, Zeph. 2:7 expected that Judah would finally take possession of Ashkelon.

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). It was situated approximately midway between Ashdod (north) and Gaza (south) on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Historical Overview

Evidence of settlement dates to the Neolithic period (8300–4500 BC), although the earliest references to the city stem from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200–1200 BC). Ashkelon is mentioned among the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC) as an enemy of Egypt and in the Amarna tablets (1400 BC), where the city’s ruler affirms fealty to the pharaoh. Excavation confirms an Egyptian presence at Ashkelon during the Late Bronze Age; the city remained under Egyptian control until the incursion of the Sea Peoples (early twelfth century BC), after which Ashkelon was occupied by the Philistines.

Ashkelon remained under Philistine control until Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Syria and Israel (734–732 BC), when it became an Assyrian vassal. During Sennacherib’s reign Ashkelon’s king joined Hezekiah in revolt against Assyria and was deported (701 BC). In 604 BC, following Assyria’s demise, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ashkelon and deported the survivors, several of whom received rations at the Babylonian court (cf. Dan. 1:5).

During the Persian period Ashkelon was reestablished as a Tyrian market city, thus becoming prosperous once more. The city was never conquered by the Hasmoneans (mid-second to mid-first centuries BC; 1 Macc. 10:86; 11:60), and eventually it asserted its independence, signified by the minting of its own coins (beginning 111 BC). Herod the Great was purportedly a native of Ashkelon, and he lavished the city with public works projects. During the First Jewish Revolt, Ashkelon successfully defended itself against Jewish attack.

Excavations have located the council house and an elaborately painted tomb (Roman period), as well as the remains of a church and a synagogue (Byzantine period). Ashkelon came under Muslim control (seventh century AD), then briefly under Crusader control (AD 1153). The city was destroyed by Saladin (AD 1191) as he retreated before Richard the Lionheart.

Ashkelon in the Bible

Ashkelon was listed among the territory still to be conquered at the end of Joshua’s life (Josh. 13:3). Judah took the city but ultimately was unable to keep it (Judg. 1:18–19). The OT subsequently reckoned Ashkelon as part of Philistine territory, beginning with Judg. 14:19, which recounts one of Samson’s exploits.

Ashkelon shared in the affliction visited on the Philistines for taking the Ark of the Covenant, which they attempted to forestall by reparations or “sympathetic magic” (1 Sam. 6:17 [the “gold tumors” were likely meant to bear away the source of the Philistines’ suffering]). Ashkelon and Gath represent the Philistines overall as David anticipates their response to news of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (2 Sam. 1:20).

The remaining references occur in the prophets, who portended the destruction of Ashkelon and the other Philistine cities at various times (Jer. 25:20; 47:5, 7; Amos 1:8; Zeph. 2:4, 7; Zech. 9:5). Notably, Zeph. 2:7 expected that Judah would finally take possession of Ashkelon.

A written document, twice mentioned in the OT, recounting Joshua’s appeal for the sun and the moon to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13) and David’s lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). The book is mentioned as though well known.

“Jashar” means “straight” or “upright.” It is often used to describe a person’s character before God. The two references to the book, though dissimilar in style, are poetic in form. Hence, some have suggested that the book is a collection of songs recounting stories of “the just.”

Some scholars find a possible third reference in 1 Kings 8:12–13, where the LXX refers to a “Book of the Song” (3 Kgdms. 8:53a LXX). However, this association depends on a transposition of two of the Hebrew letters and the phrase having been dropped from the MT while preserved only in the LXX.

A written document, twice mentioned in the OT, recounting Joshua’s appeal for the sun and the moon to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13) and David’s lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). The book is mentioned as though well known.

“Jashar” means “straight” or “upright.” It is often used to describe a person’s character before God. The two references to the book, though dissimilar in style, are poetic in form. Hence, some have suggested that the book is a collection of songs recounting stories of “the just.”

Some scholars find a possible third reference in 1 Kings 8:12–13, where the LXX refers to a “Book of the Song” (3 Kgdms. 8:53a LXX). However, this association depends on a transposition of two of the Hebrew letters and the phrase having been dropped from the MT while preserved only in the LXX.

The common Hebrew word for “scroll” is seper (Exod. 17:14; Num. 5:23; Deut. 17:18). The later term megillah can also refer to a scroll (Jer. 36:6; Ezek. 3:3). In a few cases megillah is combined with seper and translated as “scroll” (Ps. 40:7; Jer. 36:2; Ezek. 2:9).

The LXX commonly translates the Hebrew word seper (scroll) with the Greek word biblion (“scroll” or “book”), and the NT uses the same word. When Paul wrote to Timothy asking him to bring the parchments, he also requested that he bring ta biblia, “the books” (2 Tim. 4:13; NIV: “scrolls”). English translations often are inconsistent in the way they translate the Hebrew term seper or the Greek biblion.

Books and scrolls in antiquity. During Old and New Testament times, the two most common writing materials for ancient books or scrolls were papyrus and parchment. Papyrus was made from the papyrus reed stalk that grew abundantly in Egypt and around the Mediterranean. Two thin layers of the pith were laid at right angles to each other and pressed together, then the sheets or leaves were pasted together to form a roll. The other common type of writing material, parchment, was made of leather that had been scraped and stretched.

Text was written on the parchment or papyrus in columns, and the scroll was unrolled and rolled back up as one read through the columns. Jeremiah’s first edition of prophecy was written on a parchment scroll (Jer. 36). Parchment was also the common material used to write documents at Qumran. Scrolls made of parchment were more expensive than those made of papyrus.

It is in fact anachronistic when English translations refer to a scroll as a “book.” A “book” with pages (or leaves) and bound along the side did not appear until well after the third century BC. This new type of writing medium was called a “codex,” and its origin most likely came from wooden tablets covered with wax and bound together. Later papyrus or parchment leaves were folded and sewn together to form an inexpensive personal “notebook.” Letters and notes often were written on this early type of book.

In the Roman world the earliest codex to contain literary works dates to the first century AD. In 1930 the American collector Chester Beatty acquired a group of Greek papyrus manuscripts on the antiquities market. The collection contained portions of seven codices from the OT (Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Esther, Ecclesiastes) and three from the NT (the Gospels with Acts, the Pauline Epistles, Revelation). These important codices were copied in the second and third centuries AD.

Perhaps because the papyrus codex was cheaper to make, the early Christian church adopted it and made it popular. No codices have been found among the DSS. Scrolls continued to be the dominant medium for biblical books in the Jewish world until the tenth century AD. Only Torah scrolls are used in synagogues today. (See also Writing Implements and Materials.)

Books mentioned in the Bible. The Bible refers to a large number of distinct books that existed at various times and places. Unfortunately, these extrabiblical books did not survive, but the authors of Scripture knew about them and may have quoted them or employed them in writing biblical history. Below is a list of nonbiblical literary works mentioned in the Bible.

• The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 24:7; 2 Kings 23:2, 21; 2 Chron. 34:30).

• The Book of the Law (Deut. 30:10; 31:26; Josh. 1:8; 8:34; 2 Kings 22:8; Gal. 3:10). This is also called the Book of the Law of Moses (Josh. 23:6; cf. Mark 12:26) and the Book of the Law of God (Josh. 24:26).

• The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14). Quotations from this source may include Num. 21:14b–15, 17–18, 27–30.

• The Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18). This text contained David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:19–27) and most likely Joshua’s statement (Josh. 10:12).

• The scroll of Joshua (Josh. 18:9).

• The book of the annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41).

• The book of the annals of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19). This source is mentioned eighteen times in 1–2 Kings.

• The book of the annals of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29). This scroll is mentioned fifteen times in 1–2 Kings.

• Genealogical records from the reigns of Jotham king of Judah and Jeroboam king of Israel (1 Chron. 5:17).

• The book of the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Chron. 9:1; 2 Chron. 27:7).

• The book of the kings of Israel, which includes the annals of Jehu son of Hanani (2 Chron. 20:34). This may be the same as the book of the kings of Israel and Judah in 1 Chron. 9:1 (see ESV, NRSV).

• The book of the annals of King David (1 Chron. 27:24).

• The records of Samuel the seer (1 Chron. 29:29).

• The records of Nathan the prophet (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29).

• The records of Gad the seer (1 Chron. 29:29).

• The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chron. 9:29).

• The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 9:29).

• The records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (2 Chron. 12:15).

• The annotations of the prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 13:22).

• The book of the kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chron. 16:11). This includes information on Hezekiah’s reign in the vision of the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz (2 Chron. 32:32).

• The annotations on the book of the kings (2 Chron. 24:27).

• The annals of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. 33:18).

• The records of the seers (2 Chron. 33:19).

• The genealogical record of those who had been the first to return (Neh. 7:5).

• The book of the annals (Neh. 12:23). This contained genealogical data and possibly other historical material on the returning exiles.

• The book of the annals of the kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10:2; cf. Esther 2:23; 6:1; Ezra 4:15).

• The book of life (Ps. 69:28; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; cf. Exod. 32:32–33; Ps. 139:16).

• The Book of Truth (Dan. 10:21).

• The scroll of remembrance (Mal. 3:16).

The word “eagle” may represent more than one species of eagle and vulture, particularly the griffon vulture. A bird of prey, the eagle is classed among the unclean birds in the OT (Lev. 11:13). The eagle was considered one of the marvels of the world (Prov. 30:19), proverbial for its speed and power (Deut. 28:49; 2 Sam. 1:23; Ezek. 17:3), its inaccessibility among the high rocks (Job 39:27; Jer. 49:16), and its tutelage and protection of its young (Deut. 32:11). The eagle serves to illustrate the renewed strength of those whose hope is in God (Ps. 103:5; Isa. 40:31).

In the ancient world, the eagle was a symbol of transcendence over the earthly realm. In Egyptian and Mesopotamian iconography it is closely associated with royalty, serving to demonstrate that the king is invited to participate in a dominion normally beyond the reach of human capacity. There is a close association with warfare and with divine protection and guarantee of success.

In Exod. 19:4 God brings his royal-priestly people to himself at Mount Sinai “on eagles’ wings,” while in Deut. 32:10–11 the eagle illustrates the divine protection of Israel. Because of its proverbial attributes and associations, the eagle is included in a number of visionary images (Ezek. 1:10; Dan. 7:4; Rev. 4:7; 8:13).

One of the five major cities of the Philistines, each of which was ruled by its own lord (Josh. 13:3). Gath was situated close to the border of Judah. Since the Hebrew word gat means “winepress” and occurs in the names of several places (e.g., Gath Rimmon, Gath Hepher, Moresheth Gath), there may have been other towns of this name. Some of the biblical references (e.g., 1 Chron. 7:21; 8:13) may not be to Philistine Gath.

The most likely site of Philistine Gath is Tell es-Safi, overlooking the main north-south road through the Shephelah to the west of Jerusalem. Excavations here suggest that the site was inhabited in the pre-Israelite period and during the first millennium BC. Although the city was rebuilt in the Persian period after its destruction by the Babylonians, it seems to have been abandoned between the late first century BC and Crusader times.

At the time of the conquest, Gath (mentioned in the Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BC) was inhabited by the formidable Anakites, whom Joshua failed to dislodge (Josh. 11:21–22; see also Deut. 1:28; 9:2), and in David’s day it still boasted warriors of great height and strength (2 Sam. 21:19–22; 1 Chron. 20:5–8). However, it was also one of the cities that God afflicted with tumors when the captured ark of the covenant was stored there (1 Sam. 5:8–9; 6:17), and the mighty Goliath of Gath was no match for God’s anointed (1 Sam. 17:8–58).

On two occasions David fled from Saul to Achish, king of Gath. The first time, he was so scared of Achish that he feigned insanity and escaped as soon as he could (1 Sam. 21:10–22:1; cf. the superscription to Ps. 56). The second time, he settled down with six hundred men and their families to deceive Achish in a different way: he used Gath as a base to attack Israel’s other enemies (1 Sam. 27:1–30:31), all the while claiming that he was wreaking revenge on Saul. When Achish himself defeated Saul and Jonathan, David was horrified by the thought that the town of Gath would hear of their deaths and gloat (2 Sam. 1:20). His horror is poetically echoed in Micah’s eighth-century BC lament over a doomed Judah (Mic. 1:10).

David seems nevertheless to have made friends as well as enemies in Gath. Obed-Edom the Gittite was blessed rather than cursed when the ark was kept at his house before its final journey to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:10–11; 1 Chron. 13:3). After David had conquered Gath (1 Chron. 18:1), the six hundred Gittite mercenaries in his army were among his most loyal followers (2 Sam. 15:18–22).

Gath seems to have changed hands fairly frequently thereafter. We know that Achish ruled it in Solomon’s day, when Shimei retrieved his runaway slaves from there (1 Kings 2:39–46), and that it was again in Philistine hands when Uzziah broke down its walls (2 Chron. 26:6). In between, however, we are told that Rehoboam of Judah fortified it (2 Chron. 11:8), and that in Joash’s reign Hazael of Aram conquered it (2 Kings 12:17). The fact that Amos mentions Gath as “in Philistia” (Amos 6:2) but does not group it with the other four cities of the Philistines (1:6–8) may mean that it was under Israelite control at the time. Assyrian records from the eighth century BC describe several campaigns against rebellious Philistine cities, including the city of Gath (Annals of Sargon II).

(1) A priest who served the idolatrous shrine at Dan. According to the best textual traditions, he was a descendant of Moses, though the MT changes “Moses” to “Manasseh” out of embarrassment at the association (Judg. 18:30).

(2) The oldest son of Saul, the first king of Israel. As such, he would have been heir to the throne, but his father’s actions compromised the dynasty (1 Sam. 13:13–14). Jonathan’s great integrity throws into contrast his father’s meanness, particularly in regard to David. Jonathan’s military skill and bravery were notable. He led his father’s army in victory against the Philistine garrison at Geba (1 Sam. 13:1–7). Even though he was a loyal son, his paranoid father treated him poorly and even suspected him of collaborating with his enemy David (1 Sam. 20:30–33).

Although David and Jonathan were fast friends, they did not conspire against Saul, so Jonathan helped David escape his father’s murderous plans. Indeed, Jonathan expressed his deep love for David by handing over to him his robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt, a gift that may even have indicated his belief that David, not he, should be the next king (1 Sam. 18:4). Even so, Jonathan stayed with his father until the end. Jonathan died at his father’s side as they fought the Philistines at Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:1–3). David deeply mourned the loss of his dear friend, whose love was “more wonderful than that of women” (2 Sam. 1:26).

(3) The son of Abiathar, who was high priest at the time of David. Jonathan functioned as a spy for David during the rebellion of Absalom (2 Sam. 15:27, 36; 17:17, 20). He and his father sided with the Adonijah faction, so when Solomon became king, they were disenfranchised from the high priesthood in favor of Zadok (1 Kings 1:42–45).

(4) A nephew of David who killed an unnamed but fearsome Philistine warrior (2 Sam. 21:21; 1 Chron. 20:7). (5) One of David’s thirty mighty warriors (2 Sam. 23:32; 1 Chron. 11:34). (6) From the tribe of Judah, he was a descendant of Jerahmeel (1 Chron. 2:32–33). (7) The son of Uzziah, he was an official during David’s reign in charge of “storehouses in the outlying districts, in the towns, the villages and the watchtowers” (1 Chron. 27:25 [KJV: “Jehonathan”]). (8) David’s uncle, known as “a counselor, a man of insight and a scribe” (1 Chron. 27:32). (9) The father of Ebed, a family head who came to Jerusalem with Ezra (Ezra 8:6).

(10) The son of Asahel, he was one of four men who opposed Ezra’s mandate for men to separate from their foreign wives (Ezra 10:15). (11) A (high?) priest in the period after the exile (Neh. 12:11). (12) The head of a priestly family in the period after the exile (Neh. 12:14). (13) The father of Zechariah, a musician when the wall of Jerusalem was dedicated during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 12:35). (14) A secretary during the administration of Zedekiah in whose home Jeremiah was imprisoned (Jer. 37:15, 20). (15) A son of Kareah who, with Johanan his brother, swore allegiance to Gedaliah, the governor of Judah appointed by Babylon and supported by Jeremiah (Jer. 40:8).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

(1) The first king of Israel (1 Sam. 9:1–2 Sam. 1:27; 1 Chron. 9:35–10:14). Out of fear of their enemy the Philistines as well as displeasure over Samuel’s wicked sons, the people of Israel asked Samuel for a king like all the other nations had (1 Sam. 8). Though God and Samuel both expressed displeasure with the people’s request, God directed Samuel to anoint Saul as king. Saul’s initial reluctance to make his role public and also his hesitation to immediately confront the Philistines are not a sign of humility, but rather are an early example of the kind of disobedience to God and his prophet Samuel that eventually would bring God’s great anger against him.

Saul’s first significant failure, however, occurred before a battle with the Philistines, while he and his army were camped at Gilgal (1 Sam. 13). Before initiating battle, it was necessary to offer sacrifices. Samuel the priest, however, was late in arriving. Saul grew nervous because his troops were deserting, so he sacrificed the animals. When Samuel arrived, he confronted Saul. After all, with God on one’s side, large numbers of troops were unnecessary. Saul thus displayed a lack of confidence in God by his actions. For this, Samuel announced that he would not found a dynasty of kings (13:13–14).

Soon thereafter, Saul showed his disobedience in another important aspect of war. Upon victory, the king should immediately offer all the plunder to God. In addition, if the enemy came from within the land, all the captives were to be put to death (see Holy War). However, after defeating the hated Amalekites (cf. Exod. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–19), Saul kept the sheep and did not personally execute King Agag, their leader (1 Sam. 15). For this, Samuel announced God’s decision to remove him from the kingship and anoint another king (15:26).

At this time, Samuel anointed David, but David did not immediately become king (1 Sam. 16:1–13). For a period of time, David entered into Saul’s service (16:14–23). It was never David’s intention to forcibly remove Saul from the throne (1 Sam. 24; 26), but Saul grew intensely jealous of this popular young man. Indeed, Saul was a man deeply plagued by mental problems, perhaps depression and paranoia, even before the conflict with David. His jealousy also brought him into conflict with his own brave son, Jonathan, who had a deep friendship with David. Saul ejected David from the court and then spent much of his energy trying to track him down and kill him. He was, however, unsuccessful.

Eventually, God abandoned Saul. He was defeated and killed by the Philistines in the battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31), and David mourned his death and the death of his friend Jonathan (2 Sam. 1).

(2) Another name for the apostle Paul (see Paul).

Streets facilitated transportation within a community both in joining residential and public buildings for daily tasks and by linking city fortifications for the timely deployment of troops during a siege. In most large cities, a peripheral street ran along the inside of the city wall, primarily serving for quick defensive access to the wall ramparts. Additional streets bisected the residential and public quarters of the city’s interior. Larger main streets, as well as city gates, served as main places of commerce in ancient cities. Main streets typically led to the center of the city or to any important structures, such as palaces or temples.

The NT period saw a clear dichotomy between Jewish cities and those of Greek or Roman influence. Greco-Roman cities typically were well planned and rectilinear and included colonnaded streets. These typical “main” streets were lined with continuous rows of columns supporting a roof, originally developed to provide shade for marketplaces. Commerce took place under these colonnades or in public plazas. Colonnaded streets were paved and contained sidewalks for pedestrians and furnishings, such as statues of deities. Jewish cities, however, had no formal plan. Rather than being laid out in structured quarters divided by grids of neatly arranged streets, buildings in Jewish cities were constructed randomly over time. Roads were constructed later on and built around existing clumps of buildings as needed.

In the Bible, streets—along with squares and alleys—are often symbolic of public places. In the streets people call out in proclamation (2 Sam. 1:20; Esther 6:9) or in search of others (Song 3:2; Jer. 5:1; Matt. 22:9–10; Luke 14:21), or they wail in grief and distress (Ps. 144:14; Amos 5:16). On the street corners idolaters flaunt worship of false gods (Jer. 44:17; Ezek. 16:25) and hypocrites flaunt their piety (Matt. 6:2, 5). When a city is conquered or punished, the dead and destitute lie in the streets (Isa. 5:25; Lam. 4:5; Ezek. 11:6) or the streets are entirely deserted (Jer. 33:10; Zeph. 3:6). But when a city prospers, the streets are rebuilt (Isa. 58:12) and are filled with playing children (Zech. 8:4–5). Streets are also described as dusty and muddy (2 Sam. 22:43; Lam. 2:21; Mic. 7:10; Zech. 10:5), requiring the washing of feet (cf. John 13).

The books of Samuel tell the story of how kingship began in Israel and was subsequently secured under David. Almost all of David’s own story is recounted in Samuel, including God’s promise to him of a dynasty. This promise became a key seedbed for the messianic hope within the OT, which finds its fulfillment in Jesus as David’s son (Matt. 1:1).

Genre and Purpose

Samuel is part of a block of texts running from Joshua through Kings (excluding Ruth), which is known in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets. This block offers a more or less continuous account of Israel’s life in the land of promise from its entry under Joshua until the exile after Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25). Any assessment of the genre and purpose of Samuel must consider its relationship to these surrounding texts, though it should also recognize the distinctive elements of Samuel itself.

At its simplest, Samuel is a work of narrative prose that tells how kingship began in Israel and was secured under David after the failure of Saul, though it also contains a number of important poems. Although contemporary history writing would not be done in the same way, since Samuel points to the ways in which God is active throughout this time, Samuel certainly offers a testimony to this crucial period in Israel’s history. It is not the whole story of the period, as its testimony is concerned with a specific set of issues, and that testimony is related through God’s purposes for Samuel, Saul, and David. But this observation is vital for appreciating that Samuel is not just the story of how kingship came to Israel but is specifically a theological examination of it. It explores how God was at work, fulfilling the hope for kingship that had been expressed through Judg. 17–21, while also providing hope that the exile was not the end of his purposes for Israel as a whole and the kings of David’s line in particular. We should not think of this as a dry piece of history writing, for an important element is also that the telling of this story should entertain and grip those who either read or (perhaps more likely) heard it. Knowing that God had acted in the past for his people and that these actions continued to be important was not enough; the excitement that this should generate also needed to be apparent in the skill with which the story was told.

Outline

I. The Rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1–7)

II. The Birth of Monarchy (1 Sam. 8–12)

III. Saul’s Early Reign and Rejection (1 Sam. 13–15)

IV. Long Rivalry Narrative: David and Saul (1 Sam.16–2 Sam. 1)

A. David’s anointing and arrival at court (1 Sam. 16–17)

B. David within Saul’s court (1 Sam. 18–20)

C. David as an outlaw in Judah (1 Sam. 21–26)

D. David in Philistine territory and Saul’s death (1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1)

V. Short Rivalry Narrative: David and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:1–5:5)

VI. First Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 5:6–8:18)

VII. Narrative of David’s Court (2 Sam. 9–20)

A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9)

B. The war with Ammon and David’s sin (2 Sam. 10–12)

C. Long rebellion narrative: Absalom against David (2 Sam. 13–19)

D. Short rebellion narrative: Sheba against David (2 Sam. 20)

VIII. Second Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 21–24)

Composition

Authorship and sources. The books of Samuel are anonymous, and any assessment of their authorship needs to start with this basic fact. There is a tradition in the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b; 15a) that associates the book with Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, presumably concluding that the books of Samuel constitute the source mentioned by 1 Chron. 29:29. But this reference is only to information on David’s life and thus is unlikely to refer to the whole of Samuel. Since Samuel’s own death is recorded in 1 Sam. 25:1, the book’s title in our tradition (in the LXX the books of Samuel are the first two books of Kingdoms, which continue into Kings) is unlikely to refer to authorship. Rather, it is more likely that a later author has drawn together a range of source materials in order to offer a coherent testimony about the origins of kingship.

For some time, the main sources behind Samuel seemed to have been identified, and they included a series of Shiloh traditions concerning the end of the house of Eli and the rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1–4:1a), an ark narrative (2 Sam. 4:1b–7:1; 6), traditions concerning Saul and the origins of kingship (1 Sam. 7:2–15:35), a history of David’s rise (1 Sam. 16:1–2 Sam. 5:5), a succession narrative (2 Sam. 9–20), and a Samuel appendix (2 Sam. 21–24). Within this analysis, the place of 2 Sam. 5:6–25 and 2 Sam. 7:1–8:17 remained unclear, but the general thought was that the sources were more or less placed one after the other in their chronological sequence. But the probability of this conclusion has been challenged in recent times because the various sections of the books are clearly aware of information in other parts, so that the whole is actually well integrated. In addition, the actual boundaries of the sources remained unclear. An unfortunate effect of the source theories is that they tended to downplay some parts of the book, especially 2 Sam. 21–24, as being of less importance, whereas some recent studies have shown that they are closely integrated into the rest of the book, tying together themes developed elsewhere while also showing the structural integrity of the whole of Samuel.

Samuel is likely the end product of several stages of material collected together, rather than being the product of sources that are kept intact, but it is still a unified work. Possibly the oldest material is the collection of longer poems in 1 Sam. 2:1–10; 2 Sam. 1:17–27; 22:1–23:7, all of which draws on common themes and language and comments on the nature of kingship. The opening and closing blocks form the bookends, raising the hope of kingship (1 Sam. 2:1–10) and then commenting on how the king must submit to God’s reign (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7). In the central poem (2 Sam. 1:17–27) David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. It is likely that these poems were joined with the stories about Samuel, Saul, and David in the ninth century BC but were then carefully placed to comment on the stories and yet also be commented on by them. Further editing may have continued until the time of Hezekiah in the late eighth century BC. Later on, more or less the whole of Samuel as we know it was included in the Former Prophets, perhaps during the exile. The important point to note here is that Samuel is a carefully composed whole and not simply a collection of source materials.

Literary devices. Evidence for the nature of the book’s composition can be seen in how it employs certain literary devices throughout. Two that are worth noting are the way the text plays with narrative chronology and employs repetition in various forms. The play with narrative chronology means that although the movement of the book is broadly chronological (moving from the origins of the monarchy to the latter period of David’s reign), not every element is recorded in its actual chronological sequence, since at some points other factors were more important. Alternatively, at some points different narrative strands are brought into a chronological relationship with one another, most notably in comparing the locations of David and Saul in 1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1. A simple example of relating material outside its chronological sequence occurs in 1 Sam. 26:12, where it is said that God had caused Saul’s soldiers to sleep so that David could enter Saul’s camp only after David had reached Saul, though clearly the soldiers must already have been asleep.

At other points, the breaks with chronological sequence cover different stories about David. For example, in 2 Sam. 5:17–8:14 there are four accounts about David, two in which he overcomes enemies (5:17–25; 8:1–14) and two associated with events in Jerusalem and public worship (6:1–7:29). Since 7:1 tells us that David’s desire to build a temple came after God had delivered him from all his enemies, it follows that the events of chapter 7 must have come after those of 8:1–14. Here, arranging the material to highlight the theme of public worship was more important than placing it in chronological sequence.

This same section also demonstrates the use of repetition. Hence, 5:17–25 recounts two nearly identical defeats of the Philistines in which David must trust God, while the victories in 8:1–14 are twice said to come about because God gave David victory wherever he went (8:6, 14). Similarly, both 6:1–23 and 7:1–29 depend upon interest in the ark and thus mutually interpret each other. Other large-scale repetitions include two announcements of the coming of kingship (1 Sam. 2:10, 34), two announcements of the end of Eli and his family in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:10–14), and two times when David does not kill Saul (1 Sam. 24; 26). In an oral culture, such repetitions are not evidence of poor composition but rather are a crucial tool for emphasizing the central themes being developed. In addition, variations within each repetition are a tool for increasing the audience’s interest, showing that the authors of Samuel were interested in both giving historical testimony and entertaining their audience.

Text

It is generally agreed that the text of Samuel poses more than its fair share of difficulties, something that can be seen in the often significant differences between the received Hebrew text (MT) and the early translations, especially the main Greek translation (LXX). For example, in 1 Sam. 17 the best-regarded edition of the LXX lacks vv. 12–31, 50, 55–58, and even in shared material it is sometimes significantly shorter. It is generally agreed that the Greek version resolves a number of anomalies, but is this because the MT has been expanded or because the LXX has been abbreviated? In addition, three significant Samuel manuscripts were found at Qumran. Although two of these are only fragmentary, one covers significant portions of Samuel. Although the disputed portions of 1 Sam. 17 are absent from it, there are some points where it appears to support the LXX and others where it agrees with the MT while also introducing some other issues of its own.

It is clear, therefore, that complex issues are involved in determining the text of Samuel, and one must avoid taking a doctrinaire position and allow each point to be resolved on its own merits. At the same time, the difficulties should not be magnified beyond reason, since large sections of the text can be established with reasonable certainty, and for all the problems, the MT remains a reliable guide. One might suggest in the case of 1 Sam. 17, for example, that the LXX text represents an early attempt to address apparent difficulties in the narrative (especially the question of when Saul met David) that nevertheless failed to realize that not everything in Samuel is narrated in exact chronological order. Nevertheless, anyone who compares different translations of Samuel (e.g., NIV and NRSV) will notice variants and should make use of good commentaries at that point.

Central Themes

The reign of God. Kingship lies at the heart of Samuel. But although it is concerned with the story of Israel’s first two kings (Abimelek in Judg. 9 is an aberration and probably only a local figure), it places their story within the framework of God’s reign. No matter what authority a king in Israel might claim, it was always subject to God’s greater authority. Indeed, Samuel makes clear that God did not need a king but rather chose the monarchy as the means by which his own reign might be demonstrated.

An important way in which God’s reign is demonstrated is through the motif of the reversal of fortunes, in which the powerful are brought down and the weak raised. This is announced in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:4–8) and is then demonstrated when God removed the corrupt family of Eli from their position of power in the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:27–36; 4:1–18). On the other hand, Samuel himself came to prominence even though he had no position of power. Saul, likewise, although a member of a relatively wealthy family (9:1–2), knew that he was not someone who had automatic power (9:21) but still was raised up to be king by God. Yet when he, like Eli before him, became corrupt and clung to power rather than submit to God, he too was removed so that he could be replaced (15:28–29).

David also came from a humble position as the youngest son in his family (1 Sam. 16:11), but unlike Eli and Saul, he would not grasp power for himself. Indeed, he twice refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (1 Sam. 24; 26) and punished those who claimed that they could exercise violence on his behalf (2 Sam. 1:11–16; 4:9–12). Even when it seemed that David had later lost all to Absalom, he held to the fact that he could reign only as long as he had God’s support (2 Sam. 15:25–26). This, in fact, is a central theme in 2 Sam. 7 when David wanted to build a temple for God, for there it is made clear that David cannot act without God’s authority, and that his descendants will have authority as long as they too submit to God (2 Sam. 7:11b–15). David’s closing songs (22:1–23:7) make clear that the king has no authority apart from God.

Kingship. Kingship in Israel is closely related to the theme of God’s reign. The possibility of kingship first arises in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:10) and is confirmed by the man of God who announces the judgment against Eli’s family (2:34). Both references occur before Israel’s elders requested a king because of the failure of Samuel’s sons (8:1–9), indicating that the request for a king did not take God by surprise. In addition, it indicates that authentic kingship in Israel could only be that which was initiated by God.

The story of Saul’s rise to the throne needs to be read in light of this. Although the human move to kingship stemmed from the request of the elders for a king (1 Sam. 8:4–9), it was still the case that Saul could become king only because of God’s decision. Although 1 Sam. 8–12 often has been broken down into supposedly conflicting sources, it is better to read it as a unified text but to note that the narrator’s voice is not equivalent to any of the characters that speak through it. When the text is understood in this way, it is possible to appreciate that kingship was part of God’s purposes for Israel, but it needed to follow his model. Kings in Israel could prosper only when they submitted to the greater reign of God. It was Saul’s mistake that he did not recognize this. David, although he made some terrible mistakes, always understood this truth, and his closing songs (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7) reflect on it. David learned what Saul never did: power is never something to be grasped; rather, it can only be accepted as a gracious gift from God to be used for his purposes.

New Testament Connections

The importance of the books of Samuel for the NT is far greater than its five direct citations there (Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:9; 2 Cor. 6:18 [2×]; Heb. 1:5) might indicate. The theme of kingship and the associated promise to David in 2 Sam. 7 are fundamental to the messianic hope throughout the OT and are picked up in the NT. Even when the NT cites other OT texts (such as Ps. 2) with reference to Jesus, it is still the books of Samuel that lie behind the citation. In addition, the NT frequently indicates that Jesus was a son of David (e.g., Matt. 1:1). Although such texts do not cite Samuel directly, they clearly allude to it because of God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Jesus’ ministry transcends that of David in every way, but we cannot understand his ministry apart from David and God’s promise to him.

The Israelite conquest of the Promised Land is narrated in Numbers through 2 Samuel and includes key figures such as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, and David, although the main events of the conquest are described in Joshua and Judges. There is considerable scholarly debate about the very complicated details of the conquest. Much of this debate centers on archaeology and the dating of sites and artifacts that have been excavated in the last century. Further complicating things is the fact that many of the events recorded in the Bible are not recorded anywhere else, making verification of events challenging.

Dating the conquest (using the destruction of Jericho as a fixed point) is notoriously difficult. Scholars who accept the biblical account as historically reliable tend to date the conquest of Jericho in the early twelfth century BC. This dating is based on the identification of the pharaoh in the exodus story as one of the Ramesses (who reigned in the Nineteenth or Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, or roughly the thirteenth to tenth centuries BC). Some archaeologists, however, have argued that during this time Jericho was no more than a small, unwalled village with little or no military significance, thus making the story of Jericho’s destruction in the Bible impossible. Thus, other scholars have suggested a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century date for the conquest (when Jericho was known to be fortified). This solution, however, makes identification of the exodus pharaoh difficult and requires spreading out the events in Judges over four centuries instead of two. Both sides have different theories of how to accommodate the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that it was 480 years after the exodus that Solomon began to build the temple. This controversy involving biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists promises to continue for many years to come.

The background for the Canaanite conquest is found in the Pentateuch narratives that describe the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and their trek toward Palestine. Indeed, the conquest is anticipated already in God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants will become a mighty nation (Gen. 12:1–3; see also 15:16). The story describes God’s initial command to quickly conquer the land after meeting them on Mount Sinai (Num. 13), and the people’s rebellion caused by fear of the Canaanites, who are described as “giants in the land” (NLT). As a result, the Israelites are forced to wander in the Sinai wilderness until the entire generation dies (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb).

As narrated in the Bible, the conquest begins with defeat of the Midianites on the eastern side of the Jordan River under the leadership of Moses (Num. 31–32). Then, after Moses’ death, the Israelites cross the Jordan River to attack Jericho (Josh. 1–7). After the miraculous destruction of Jericho, the Israelites move to Ai and encounter initial defeat due to one man’s sin (Josh. 8). Later, after being tricked by the Gibeonites, the Israelites engage in battle with the five kings of the Amorites (Josh. 9–10). Finally, Josh. 11 describes the conquest of the northern part of the land and especially the military and strategically important city of Hazor.

The book of Judges relates fewer, more concentrated battles against different enemies, sometimes in offensive attacks and other times as defensive battles to preserve land control. The final stage of the conquest under David’s kingship is described in 2 Sam. 1–8. After Saul’s death, a short and violent confrontation takes place between Israelite forces still loyal to Saul’s family and those loyal to David. Political power is consolidated with a few key assassinations, rather than through full-fledged war, orchestrated by David’s men (there is some debate about how involved David was in these events). As a result, David, with the full support of the army (both the forces previously loyal to Saul and his own), takes the city of Jerusalem and then finally conquers the areas of the Philistines, the Ammonites, and the Moabites (areas that Saul had been unable to subdue). Thus, large-scale fighting for territory ends during David’s reign.

The tribal boundaries are described in Josh. 14–22. How closely these boundaries describe land actually conquered and how much of it was a territorial stake that required further warfare in order to be obtained are subject to intense debate. By the time of David, however, the allotment (described in Joshua) fairly closely reflects the largest reaches of the United Kingdom under David (described in 2 Samuel).

The descriptions of the Israelites’ total destruction of their enemies, often including women, children, and livestock, have created theological difficulties for interpreters trying to reconcile the seeming incongruity of God’s love for humankind, especially the innocent, and his commands to completely destroy these cultures. Some scholars have sought to justify these actions by describing the horrific religious practices of these people (such as child sacrifice and ritual sexual perversions), but there are questions about how widespread these practices actually were and doubt about how they would justify a response involving the death of innocents. Currently, there is no strong scholarly consensus on how to resolve this difficult theological issue.

The craft of applying dyes in order to permanently color textiles. The Bible often speaks of dyed materials, though not of the dyeing process itself. While many dye colors were obtained from plants, animals, and minerals, the Bible usually refers to the colors blue, scarlet, and purple. These three colors figured prominently in the early Israelite tabernacle and priestly garb (Exod. 25–28; 35–39). They were also used in King Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 2:7, 14) and for royalty (2 Sam. 1:24; Esther 8:15).

The ancient source of blue, according to the Talmud, is a mysterious sea creature, the hilazon. The hilazon’s exact identity is unknown, though it is believed by some Jews to be the only true source for dyeing parts of their prayer shawls (Num. 15:37–40).

Scarlet comes from the kermes worm, which can be found in various oak trees in Israel. Once dried, the female’s eggs or the ensuing larvae are crushed, producing a few drops of the rich red color.

Purple was the most prized and expensive of the three colors because of the effort involved in production and the dye’s quality (cf. Lam. 4:5; Dan. 5:7; Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12). Also known as “Tyrian purple” or “imperial purple,” the dye came from the smelly flesh of the murex and purpura mollusks. Each specimen produced only a scarce amount of the precious purple substance. And while cheaper imitations eventually were produced, none could rival the quality or durability of the dye that was literally worth its weight in gold.

The craft of applying dyes in order to permanently color textiles. The Bible often speaks of dyed materials, though not of the dyeing process itself. While many dye colors were obtained from plants, animals, and minerals, the Bible usually refers to the colors blue, scarlet, and purple. These three colors figured prominently in the early Israelite tabernacle and priestly garb (Exod. 25–28; 35–39). They were also used in King Solomon’s temple (2 Chron. 2:7, 14) and for royalty (2 Sam. 1:24; Esther 8:15).

The ancient source of blue, according to the Talmud, is a mysterious sea creature, the hilazon. The hilazon’s exact identity is unknown, though it is believed by some Jews to be the only true source for dyeing parts of their prayer shawls (Num. 15:37–40).

Scarlet comes from the kermes worm, which can be found in various oak trees in Israel. Once dried, the female’s eggs or the ensuing larvae are crushed, producing a few drops of the rich red color.

Purple was the most prized and expensive of the three colors because of the effort involved in production and the dye’s quality (cf. Lam. 4:5; Dan. 5:7; Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12). Also known as “Tyrian purple” or “imperial purple,” the dye came from the smelly flesh of the murex and purpura mollusks. Each specimen produced only a scarce amount of the precious purple substance. And while cheaper imitations eventually were produced, none could rival the quality or durability of the dye that was literally worth its weight in gold.

One of five principal cities of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3). It was situated approximately midway between Ashdod (north) and Gaza (south) on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Historical Overview

Evidence of settlement dates to the Neolithic period (8300–4500 BC), although the earliest references to the city stem from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2200–1200 BC). Ashkelon is mentioned among the Egyptian Execration texts (nineteenth century BC) as an enemy of Egypt and in the Amarna tablets (1400 BC), where the city’s ruler affirms fealty to the pharaoh. Excavation confirms an Egyptian presence at Ashkelon during the Late Bronze Age; the city remained under Egyptian control until the incursion of the Sea Peoples (early twelfth century BC), after which Ashkelon was occupied by the Philistines.

Ashkelon remained under Philistine control until Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns against Syria and Israel (734–732 BC), when it became an Assyrian vassal. During Sennacherib’s reign Ashkelon’s king joined Hezekiah in revolt against Assyria and was deported (701 BC). In 604 BC, following Assyria’s demise, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Ashkelon and deported the survivors, several of whom received rations at the Babylonian court (cf. Dan. 1:5).

During the Persian period Ashkelon was reestablished as a Tyrian market city, thus becoming prosperous once more. The city was never conquered by the Hasmoneans (mid-second to mid-first centuries BC; 1 Macc. 10:86; 11:60), and eventually it asserted its independence, signified by the minting of its own coins (beginning 111 BC). Herod the Great was purportedly a native of Ashkelon, and he lavished the city with public works projects. During the First Jewish Revolt, Ashkelon successfully defended itself against Jewish attack.

Excavations have located the council house and an elaborately painted tomb (Roman period), as well as the remains of a church and a synagogue (Byzantine period). Ashkelon came under Muslim control (seventh century AD), then briefly under Crusader control (AD 1153). The city was destroyed by Saladin (AD 1191) as he retreated before Richard the Lionheart.

Ashkelon in the Bible

Ashkelon was listed among the territory still to be conquered at the end of Joshua’s life (Josh. 13:3). Judah took the city but ultimately was unable to keep it (Judg. 1:18–19). The OT subsequently reckoned Ashkelon as part of Philistine territory, beginning with Judg. 14:19, which recounts one of Samson’s exploits.

Ashkelon shared in the affliction visited on the Philistines for taking the Ark of the Covenant, which they attempted to forestall by reparations or “sympathetic magic” (1 Sam. 6:17 [the “gold tumors” were likely meant to bear away the source of the Philistines’ suffering]). Ashkelon and Gath represent the Philistines overall as David anticipates their response to news of Saul’s and Jonathan’s deaths (2 Sam. 1:20).

The remaining references occur in the prophets, who portended the destruction of Ashkelon and the other Philistine cities at various times (Jer. 25:20; 47:5, 7; Amos 1:8; Zeph. 2:4, 7; Zech. 9:5). Notably, Zeph. 2:7 expected that Judah would finally take possession of Ashkelon.

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

After Genesis, almost every scriptural reference to “Benjamin” is to the tribe of Benjamin, named after the youngest son of Jacob. Jacob’s blessing “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf” (Gen. 49:27) was prophetic, as the tribe of Benjamin came to be known for its prowess in warfare (Judg. 3:15; 1 Chron. 8:40; 2 Sam. 1:22). The land allotted for the tribe of Benjamin was “between the tribes of Judah and Joseph” (Josh. 18:11–20). Although the tribe of Benjamin was the second smallest during the exodus (Num. 1:36–37; Ps. 68:27), several prominent biblical figures are descended from it, including King Saul (1 Sam. 9:1), Queen Esther (Esther 2:5), and the apostle Paul (Rom. 11:1).

Grief is great sadness or sorrow or the circumstances that produce such; mourning refers to expressions of grief. Grief and mourning are often thought of in conjunction with death, but they may occur with regard to any personal or national tragedy (2 Sam. 13:19), the impending prospect of tragedy (Esther 4:3; Isa. 37:1), or repentance prompted by prophetic word of tragedy, sorrow over sin, or both.

The expressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2), wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes and wearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground (2 Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting on dust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2 Sam. 3:35; 12:16), singing songs of lament (2 Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35), pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair (Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek. 24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7), and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such as slashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), and the somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:28).

Thus, grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief was expressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressions ranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song. Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners, expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times David was a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief should be brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic of women was a Greek development that entered the church through people such as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had very briefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’s admonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that it is wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in, not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John 11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heaven lament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests and once for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circumstances and illustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was to moan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaning silently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in any mourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah the circumstances that they would face, without opportunity to mourn properly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalem for “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving the cycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songs of lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lament honoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang a lament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals (3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son of Bathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom (18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, David mourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had been prophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of his sins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of his other sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of some prophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9, 25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeral songs per se. Compare also the book of Lamentations and the psalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressions of grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance, combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin (2 Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).