The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
David’s Family Grows
2 Samuel 5:12–16 — David’s Family Grows. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
12And David realized that the LORD had established him as king over Israel and had exalted his kingdom for the sake of His people Israel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
dā·wiḏ way·yê·ḏa‘ kî- Yah·weh hĕ·ḵî·nōw lə·me·leḵ ‘al- yiś·rā·’êl wə·ḵî niś·śê mam·laḵ·tōw ba·‘ă·ḇūr ‘am·mōw yiś·rā·’êl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-knew, David, that YHWH had-established-him for-king over Israel, and-that he-had-lifted-high his-kingdom for-the-sake-of his-people Israel.
Where the English smooths the original
But gradually his fears passed away; and when he had twice defeated the Philistines, and been able to establish his rule, and with it some degree of orderly government throughout the twelve tribes, David saw in all this, and in the embassies from foreign nations, the proof, not of his own ability, but of Jehovah's purpose to exalt his kingdom for his people Israel's sake.The Pulpit reaches this line only after a long paragraph reconstructing David's despondency; the excerpt is the conclusion of that argument, not a stand-alone claim.
that Jehovah had firmly established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel's sake," i.e., because He had chosen Israel as His people, and had promised to make it great and glorious.
By the prosperity and success which attended him in everything he set his hand to: and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel's sake; for their advantage and glory more than for his own.
13After he had arrived from Hebron, David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’a·ḥă·rê bō·’ōw mê·ḥeḇ·rō·wn dā·wiḏ way·yiq·qaḥ ‘ō·wḏ pi·laḡ·šîm wə·nā·šîm mî·rū·šā·lim ‘ō·wḏ bā·nîm ū·ḇā·nō·wṯ way·yiw·wå̄·lə·dū lə·ḏā·wiḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
After his-coming from-Hebron, David took yet concubines and-wives from-Jerusalem; and-yet sons and-daughters were-born to-David.
Where the English smooths the original
But the many wives and concubines he took did not preserve him from coveting his neighbour’s wife. On the contrary, they inclined him to it; for men who have once broken the fence, will wander carelessly.Benson spends most of his entry extenuating David on grounds of dynastic policy; this closing sentence is where he withdraws the excuse. Quoting only the extenuation would misrepresent him.
David certainly came perilously near a violation of this law, although he did not, like his son Solomon, take wives and concubines in enormous number for the sake of having a great harem—an important element in the Oriental ideas of regal magnificence.
The use of it seems to have been his policy, that hereby he might enlarge his family, and strengthen his interest by alliances with so many considerable families. And the number of wives being not limited, Deu 17 , he might conceive this was no transgression of that law.Poole is reporting the plea David might have made (“he might conceive this was no transgression”), not endorsing it; he has already called the practice one of “David's miscarriages.”
In this conduct David transgressed an express law, which forbade the king of Israel to multiply wives unto himself (De 17:17).JFB states the transgression without qualification — the plainest verdict in this apparatus, set here deliberately against Poole's and Benson's extenuations.
14These are the names of the children born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·’êl·leh šə·mō·wṯ hay·yil·lō·ḏîm lōw bî·rū·šā·lim šam·mū·a‘ wə·šō·w·ḇāḇ wə·nā·ṯān ū·šə·lō·mōh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-these are-the-names of-the-born-ones to-him in-Jerusalem: Shammua, and-Shobab, and-Nathan, and-Solomon.
Where the English smooths the original
The first four were sons of Bathsheba, and as Solomon is always placed last it is natural to suppose that he was the youngest.
Solomon and Nathan are the two sons through whom St. Matthew and St. Luke trace our Lord’s genealogy.
these four were by Bathsheba; the first of these is called Shimea
15Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·yiḇ·ḥār we·’ĕ·lî·šū·a‘ wə·ne·p̄eḡ wə·yā·p̄î·a‘
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Ibhar, and-Elishua, and-Nepheg, and-Japhia.
Where the English smooths the original
it has evidently been done deliberately on account of their having died in infancy, or at a very early age. This also furnishes a very simple explanation of the fact, that the name Eliphalet occurs again at the end of the list, namely, because a son who was born later received the name of his brother who had died young.K&D is arguing against the assumption of scribal accident: he holds the two missing Chronicles names were dropped on purpose because those sons died young. It is an inference, offered as such.
Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia. Elishua is called Elishama
16Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
we·’ĕ·lî·šā·mā‘ wə·’el·yā·ḏā‘ we·’ĕ·lî·p̄ā·leṭ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Elishama, and-Eliada, and-Eliphelet. (פ — the scribes' closing mark)
Where the English smooths the original
Seven more by some other wife or wives; nine are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:6 ; there being in that account two Eliphalets, and another called Nogah; which two, one of the Eliphalets, and Nogah, might die without sons, as Kimchi thinks, and so are not mentioned here.Gill is relaying Kimchi's proposal, not asserting it on his own authority; note also that his arithmetic (“seven more”) counts differently from K&D's nineteen-son total.
David had therefore nineteen sons, six of whom were born in Hebron ( 2 Samuel 3:2 .), and thirteen at Jerusalem. Daughters are not mentioned in the genealogical accounts, because as a rule only heiresses or women who acquired renown from special causes were included in them.
Many have the favour and love of God, yet do not perceive it, and so want the comfort of it; but to be exalted to that, and to perceive it, is happiness.Henry's entry is a single block written over 5:11-16, so this sentence comments on the whole section (and chiefly on v. 12) rather than on the three names of v. 16.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens with a man doing almost nothing. Of the two perfect verbs in v. 12, הֱכִינ֧וֹ (kûwn, Hifil — “properly, to be erect,” made causative) and נִשֵּׂ֣א (nâsâʼ, Piel — “to lift”), both have YHWH as subject and David or David's kingdom as object. David's own verb is וַיֵּ֣דַע, “and he knew.” K&D supplies the unstated evidence — “(sc., from the success of his enterprises)” — and Gill names it concretely: “By the prosperity and success which attended him in everything he set his hand to.” Poole locates it in two places at once, in “the promises which God had made him, and the constant course of God's providence favouring him.” Cambridge points to Hiram: “The friendly co-operation of so powerful a king as Hiram, and the success of his enterprises in general, were unmistakeable proofs of divine favour” — and Barnes, in a note attached to the preceding verse, explains why Tyre was watching at all: the fall of the Jebusite citadel “had doubtless reached Tyre, and created a great impression of David's power.” The Pulpit alone supplies the psychology, reconstructing the despondency of the fugitive years before concluding that David at last “saw in all this, and in the embassies from foreign nations, the proof, not of his own ability, but of Jehovah's purpose.” ⚙ Every one of those readings is an inference about how David knew; the Hebrew states only that he did, using the verb Strong's defines as knowledge “properly, to ascertain by seeing.” And the whole verse then turns on a preposition: בַּעֲב֖וּר (ʻâbûwr, “properly, crossed”). Benson builds a doctrine of kingship on it — “not that the people were created and ordained by God for the king, but the king for the people” — and Ellicott says the same more soberly: “David's prosperity had not blinded him to the fact that his blessings came to him as the head of the theocracy.” K&D pushes the reason one step further back than the people, into election itself: “because He had chosen Israel as His people.”
Then the subject changes. In v. 13 the only active verb David governs is וַיִּקַּח֩ (lâqach, H3947, “to take in the widest variety of applications”), and its object is women; the children arrive in the Nifal, וַיִּוָּ֥לְדּוּ, “they were born.” Twice the adverb ע֜וֹד falls — Strong's: “properly, iteration or continuance” — yet more wives, yet more children. The narrator passes no sentence. The commentators, unanimously, do. JFB is blunt: “In this conduct David transgressed an express law, which forbade the king of Israel to multiply wives unto himself (De 17:17).” Gill: “which was not to his honour, and contrary to the law of God.” Ellicott grants the distinction that David “did not, like his son Solomon, take wives and concubines in enormous number,” while still holding that he “came perilously near a violation of this law.” Poole and Benson both offer the dynastic defence — alliances, heirs, political weight — and Poole even records the plea David himself might have made, that “the number of wives being not limited, Deu 17, he might conceive this was no transgression of that law.” Benson then takes the excuse back in one sentence: “the many wives and concubines he took did not preserve him from coveting his neighbour's wife. On the contrary, they inclined him to it.” K&D is the harshest and the most historical at once: the harem was “considered from time immemorial as part of the court of an oriental monarch,” and “David suffered himself to be seduced by that custom to disregard this prohibition, and suffered many a heartburn afterwards in consequence, not to mention his fearful fall in consequence of his passion for Bathsheba.” The Pulpit adds the observation that the enlargement “was gradual.” ⚙ What the Hebrew contributes to their argument is the bare grammar: a chapter that has just insisted twice that God does the lifting turns immediately to a king doing the taking.
Eleven names follow, strung on simple waw, with no verb from v. 13 to the end of the chapter. The heading is שְׁמ֛וֹת הַיִּלֹּדִ֥ים — “the names of the born-ones,” using yillôwd (H3209), a passive form the Verifier finds in only five verses of the canon. The four leading names are assigned to Bathsheba by 1 Chronicles 3:5, a point Ellicott, Cambridge, Gill and K&D all record, which means the register quietly presupposes chapters 11 and 12 that have not yet been narrated. On Solomon's position the sources divide honestly: Cambridge argues from placement that “as Solomon is always placed last it is natural to suppose that he was the youngest,” adducing Josephus; Ellicott argues from 2 Samuel 12:24 and from the age needed to succeed that “he appears … to have been the oldest of Bathsheba's sons.” ⚙ The Hebrew waw-chain decides neither. The list is also where the text visibly wears. K&D calls the Chronicler's Elishama at 1 Chronicles 3:6 an error of anticipation — “because Elishama follows afterwards” — and Cambridge independently calls it “a scribe's error.” K&D further insists the two names missing here, Eliphalet and Nogah, were not lost by accident but dropped “deliberately on account of their having died in infancy,” which also explains why Eliphelet reappears at the end: “a son who was born later received the name of his brother who had died young.” Gill reports Kimchi to the same effect. Cambridge and K&D both note that Eliada stands in 1 Chronicles 14:7 as Beeliada, “compounded with Baal = lord instead of El = God.” And K&D explains the missing daughters by the convention of the genealogies, “because as a rule only heiresses or women who acquired renown from special causes were included in them” — before naming the exception the book itself will supply, Tamar in 2 Samuel 13:1. ⚙ The unit ends on the Masoretic pe (פ) attached to Eliphelet's surface form: the scribes closed the paragraph exactly where Henry's heading closes it.
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested. Read the five verses as one sentence and they say: God stood David up, God lifted David's kingdom, and it was for Israel's sake — and then David took, and took again. The Hebrew builds the contrast without a syllable of comment. In v. 12 David is the object of two divine verbs and the subject only of knowing; in v. 13 he is the subject of taking, and the children are the subject of nothing at all, arriving in a Nifal passive. The commentators are right that Deuteronomy 17:17 stands over this, and right that no shared vocabulary makes the link — the Verifier finds no common lexeme, only a common subject. But there may be something the law itself had already said and the narrator is relying on. Deuteronomy's charge against multiplied wives is that the king's heart will be turned; the danger named is not appetite but diverted trust. And that is exactly the thing v. 12 says David had just got right. A man who has genuinely perceived that his kingdom was established by another does not need a harem to secure it. Benson's defence — that David married to build a house and an interest — is therefore the most damaging thing anyone in this apparatus says about him, because it concedes that David set about doing for himself precisely what v. 12 confesses God had already done. ⚙ Then notice what the register does with that. The rare word yillôwd that heads the list of sons appears elsewhere for children born under a death sentence, including the child of 2 Samuel 12:14; the four names at the head of the list belong, per the Chronicler, to Bathsheba, whom the story has not yet introduced. Which is to say: the record of David's self-secured house is written in the vocabulary of vulnerable birth, and the line that will actually carry the promise runs through the one union the book will spend chapter 11 condemning. That is not David's policy succeeding. It is God, in the teeth of David's policy, keeping the clause he already announced in v. 12 — for the sake of His people Israel. The taking was David's. The giving, then as at the start, was not.
A man who has truly perceived that his kingdom was established by another does not need a harem to secure it.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
Every name in vv. 14-16 recurs in the Chronicler's two lists, 1 Chronicles 14:4-7 and 1 Chronicles 3:5-8, and the Verifier's overlap is built on lexemes that scarcely exist elsewhere: יִבְחָר (Yibchar, H2984) in three verses of the whole canon, אֱלִישׁוּעַ (ʼĔlîyshûwaʻ, H474) in two, נֶפֶג (Nepheg, H5298) in four, יָפִיעַ (Yâphîyaʻ, H3309) in five. This is a copied register, not a coincidence of theme — and the copying shows its seams. K&D: “Elishua is written incorrectly in 1 Chronicles 3:6 as Elishama, because Elishama follows afterwards.” Cambridge reaches the same verdict independently (“probably by a scribe's error”) and adds the Beeliada/Eliada divergence. Ellicott and Gill note Shammua/Shimea. ⚙ The link is verbal in the strict sense — shared, rare lexemes — but it is a shared source document, not a quotation of Samuel by Chronicles; we claim no direction of dependence.
1 Chronicles 14:4 · 1 Chronicles 14:5 · 1 Chronicles 14:6 · 1 Chronicles 3:5 · 1 Chronicles 3:6 · 1 Chronicles 3:7 · 1 Chronicles 3:8
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2984 Yibchar (in 3 vv), H474 ʼĔlîyshûwaʻ (in 2 vv), H5298 Nepheg (in 4 vv), H3309 Yâphîyaʻ (in 5 vv), H7727 Shôwbâb (in 4 vv), H450 ʼElyâdâʻ (in 4 vv), H467 ʼĔlîypheleṭ (in 9 vv), H8051 Shammûwaʻ (in 5 vv) — a cluster of very rare lexemes in identical order; a shared register, not a citation
הַיִּלֹּדִים (yillôwd, H3209), the passive form heading the register in v. 14, stands in only five verses of the Hebrew Bible, and the Verifier names four of them. Every one concerns birth under threat or under judgment: Pharaoh's decree that every son born be cast into the Nile (Exodus 1:22); the people born in the wilderness who had not been circumcised (Joshua 5:5); the sons and daughters born in a Jerusalem about to fall, whom Jeremiah is forbidden to father (Jeremiah 16:3); and Nathan's sentence on David — “the child born to you shall surely die” (2 Samuel 12:14). ⚙ We do not claim any of these texts cites another. We claim what the Verifier can show: that Samuel chose, for David's roll of Jerusalem-born sons, a word that the canon otherwise reserves for the newly born in peril — and that the nearest other use in the same book is the death of David's own child by the mother of four names on this very list.
Exodus 1:22 · Joshua 5:5 · Jeremiah 16:3 · 2 Samuel 12:14
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H3209 yillôwd (in 5 vv) — a genuinely rare lexeme, so the verbal link is real; no quotation is claimed in either direction, and the thematic resonance is ⚙ ours
Not one commentator in this apparatus reads v. 13 without Deuteronomy 17:17. Ellicott quotes the statute (“Neither shall he multiply wives to himself”); JFB says David “transgressed an express law”; Benson calls it “expressly forbidden”; Gill, “contrary to the law of God”; Poole files it among “David's miscarriages”; Cambridge more mildly says the law “imposes some limitation on the practice”; K&D says David “suffered himself to be seduced by that custom to disregard this prohibition.” ⚙ But honesty requires a downgrade: the Verifier returns no shared Strong's lexeme between 2 Samuel 5:13 and Deuteronomy 17:17, and Samuel gives no verbal signal — no quotation formula, no distinctive vocabulary. The link is a shared legal subject, carried by seven independent witnesses and by the obvious narrative logic, and that is what we record it as: structural, not verbal.
Deuteronomy 17:17
basis: No shared lexeme in the Verifier's candidates; the recorded basis is subject-matter identity (a king multiplying wives) attested by Ellicott, Benson, JFB, Poole, Gill, Cambridge and K&D independently — deliberately not tiered verbal
Ellicott: “Solomon and Nathan are the two sons through whom St. Matthew and St. Luke trace our Lord's genealogy.” Cambridge, on Nathan: “It was through the latter that Joseph traced his lineal descent from David, according to the genealogy of our Lord given by St Luke.” ⚙ The link cannot be verbal in the Verifier's sense: the Gospels are Greek and no Strong's lexeme can be shared across the Testaments. What is shared is the referent — two personal names standing side by side in a Hebrew register that the two evangelists later take up as the fork of a single line. We tier it structural, and we note the disagreement the sources themselves leave open: Cambridge and Ellicott differ on whether Solomon was Bathsheba's youngest or eldest son, and neither position affects the genealogical point.
Matthew 1:6 · Luke 3:31
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew), so shared Strong's numbers are impossible by definition and no verbal tier is available; the recorded basis is the identity of the two named persons in the register, attested by Ellicott (Matthew and Luke) and Cambridge (Luke 3:31)
The Verifier also returns four candidate links that we decline to promote, and it is worth recording why. Shôwbâb (H7727, 4 vv) is shared with a Judahite son of Caleb at 1 Chronicles 2:18; Nepheg (H5298, 4 vv) with a brother of Korah at Exodus 6:21; ʼElyâdâʻ (H450, 4 vv) with the father of Rezon, Solomon's Aramaean adversary, at 1 Kings 11:23 and a Benjamite captain at 2 Chronicles 17:17; Yâphîyaʻ (H3309, 5 vv) with the king of Lachish at Joshua 10:3, in a verse that also shares Chebrôwn (H2275). ⚙ Every one of these is a true shared lexeme and a false connection. Strong's own entries say so — “Nepheg, the name of two Israelites”; “Japhia, the name of a Canaanite, an Israelite, and a place.” A rare proper noun is rare because few men bore it, not because the men who bore it were related. We flag these for the reader precisely so the machine's own strongest signal can be seen failing.
1 Chronicles 2:18 · Exodus 6:21 · 1 Kings 11:23 · 2 Chronicles 17:17 · Joshua 10:3
basis: Verifier-computed shared lexemes are real (H7727 in 4 vv; H5298 in 4 vv; H450 in 4 vv; H3309 in 5 vv; H2275 Chebrôwn in 66 vv) but the referents are different persons and places; the link is homonymy, and no commentator in the apparatus asserts any of these connections
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
Two of the four names in v. 14 are the two through which the Gospels trace the descent of Jesus. Ellicott states it without argument, as settled: “Solomon and Nathan are the two sons through whom St. Matthew and St. Luke trace our Lord's genealogy.” Cambridge specifies the second: “It was through the latter that Joseph traced his lineal descent from David, according to the genealogy of our Lord given by St Luke.” ⚙ What the Hebrew adds is the total absence of emphasis. The register makes no distinction between these two and Ibhar or Nepheg; they are the third and fourth items in a waw-chain, and Cambridge notes that “nothing is known of any of these sons except Solomon and Nathan.” The line that carries the promise is, at this point in the text, indistinguishable from the line that carries nothing.
2 Samuel 5:14 · Matthew 1:6 · Luke 3:31
The two divine verbs of v. 12 are the vocabulary the book will use again in ch. 7, when what is established is no longer a man but a throne “forever.” Matthew Henry makes the move explicitly on this very passage: “David was established king; so is the Son of David, and all who, through him, are made to our God kings and priests” — an allusion to Revelation 1:6 and the reason Henry can also read Hiram's Tyrian builders through Isaiah 60:10, “The sons of strangers shall build up thy walls.” ⚙ The decisive clause, though, is בַּעֲב֖וּר עַמּ֥וֹ, “for the sake of His people.” Benson draws from it the general rule that a king exists “for the people”; K&D grounds it in election. Read forward, it is the shape of the greater King's reign exactly: a kingdom received, not seized, and held for the sake of the people rather than the sovereign — which is what the Son of David will say of himself when he comes not to be served but to serve.
2 Samuel 5:12 · 2 Samuel 7:12-13 · Isaiah 60:10 · Luke 1:32-33 · Revelation 1:6
⚙ This reading is offered more tentatively, marked novel, and should be weighed rather than assumed. The register of v. 14 puts four sons of Bathsheba at the head of the list — Ellicott, Cambridge, Gill and K&D all record the identification from 1 Chronicles 3:5 — and the acquisitive verb of v. 13, וַיִּקַּח֩ (lâqach, “to take”), is the very habit that K&D says ended in David's “fearful fall in consequence of his passion for Bathsheba” and that Benson says “inclined him” to covet his neighbour's wife. The Messianic line therefore runs, by the text's own arrangement, straight through the marriage the book will condemn. ⚙ We do not claim Samuel intends that irony here; the chapter is silent and the narrator passes no sentence. We claim only what the arrangement shows: that the promise of v. 12 — the kingdom lifted for the sake of His people — was kept through, and not because of, the house David was busy securing for himself. Grace runs in the line it is given, not in the line that was earned.
2 Samuel 5:13 · 2 Samuel 5:14 · 1 Chronicles 3:5 · 2 Samuel 12:24
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. Hebrew per the Berean interlinear with Strong's tagging. Two Masoretic section marks survive in the surface forms and appear in no English edition: a samekh (ס) attached to יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ס at the end of v. 12 and a pe (פ) attached to וֶאֱלִיפָֽלֶט׃פ at the end of v. 16. One word carries no Strong's number at all, ל֖וֹ in v. 14 (bare preposition plus suffix); its note reflects that.
Word order. The interlinear for v. 12 lists David at index 0 and the verb at index 1 for English readability. The Hebrew clause is verb-initial (wayyêdaʻ Dāwid). Our note keys follow the brief's indices; our literal rendering follows the Hebrew.
What the sources disagree about. Solomon's birth order: Cambridge argues from the list's shape and Josephus that he was Bathsheba's youngest; Ellicott argues from 2 Samuel 12:24 and from his age at accession that he was the oldest. We record both and settle neither. The two names present in Chronicles and absent here (Eliphalet/Elpalet and Nogah): K&D holds the omission deliberate, on account of infant death, and Gill relays Kimchi to similar effect; the Pulpit says only “perhaps because they died young.” It is an inference in every case. Totals also differ — Gill counts “seven more by some other wife or wives,” JFB heads the section “Eleven Sons Born to Him,” and K&D reckons nineteen sons overall, six at Hebron and thirteen at Jerusalem.
Voices used out of their strict verse. Matthew Henry's entry is one block covering 5:11-16, so his line quoted at v. 16 comments on the section, chiefly v. 12. Barnes's note at every verse in this unit is about Hiram of Tyre (v. 11) and is cited only in the commentary as background, never as a comment on vv. 13-16. JFB's note at vv. 14, 15 and 16 is the same block written on v. 13. The Geneva entries in this unit contain only the verse text plus the heading “EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)” and carry no commentary, so Geneva is not quoted.
What is uncertain. The etymologies of the second elements in Elishua, Elishama and Eliphelet are not supplied by the brief's lexicon and are not supplied by us; only the initial theophoric El is sourced, from Cambridge's and K&D's note that Beeliada is the same name “compounded with Baal = lord instead of El = God.” The identification of the son Nathan (v. 14) with the prophet Nathan is nowhere asserted in the sources and is not asserted here. The Verifier's homonym candidates are recorded in the threads as declined, with reasons.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)