“Your friend is right. Nazirite or not, the issue with Uriah is that the Ark is in the field. I can only suppose that since an innocent noctural emission meant you had to leave the camp for a day, deliberate sex was completely forbidden. David, being under a vow and on the king’s mission, he says anyway, seems to be claiming something similar. I may be wrong, however, in making too much of a comparison between the two. Good question.”

Thanks Drew

I think you are right. Must have misheard, misread or dreamt this no-women factor up. It would still apply to Uriah’s consumption of alcohol. But that would mean that Ahimelech’s question had nothing to do with a Nazirite vow. Fair enough! Nice to get some critical feedback.

I just found an interesting article by Jordan on the vow here:
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-43-leviticus-27/

Uriah probably just acted the way he did because he was so gung-ho about being a soldier that he couldn’t stand the thought of living in comfort while his friends were out dying. Whereas Uriah cannot bear to go home and leave David’s servants, however, he does *agree* to drink alcohol (2 Samuel 11:13).

Thanks for your comment. Great to hear from you again.

I think the idea of ‘holy war’ is built into these tours of duty against Canaanites, which infers short-term Nazirite vows. Uriah wouldn’t have been allowed to eat raisins, drink wine or sleep with his wife. But you are right, it is not explicitly stated here.

However, it also explains the fact that Ahimelech allowed David and his men to eat the Showbread once they confirmed they had not been with women. A Nazirite was sort of a temporary “priesthood” for the purpose of holy war.

This is one of those things Jordan mentions that makes you scratch your head but actually seems to play out in more ways than you thought.

Other than that, good post.