One of David’s most significant contributions to warfighter theology is his complex understanding and relationship to his enemies, an issue that is ever relevant to warriors of all eras. Enemies are a pervasive theme throughout 1-2 Samuel, at times, they seem omnipresent as they dominate the landscape of David’s story.[1]
The Psalms speak regularly to this theme as well, 104 of 150 Psalms reference enemies.[2] This is a staggering and often overlooked data point from the book of Psalms. That 70 percent of Israel’s prayer book is concerned with enemies must change the way the book is read. The abundance of material on David’s engagement with his enemies is a rich resource for training the conscience and character of today’s warrior.
David’s posture toward his enemies is far from one-dimensional; rather, his approach is layered and multi-faceted. He models the complexity a godly warrior must embrace to navigate the enemy dynamic. David’s disposition toward his enemies has four anchor points: affirm dignity, execute justice, leave vengeance to God, and show mercy and forgiveness. This disposition is captured in the graphic below.
The first anchor is David’s affirmation of the inherent dignity of his enemies. David’s understanding of creation informed his view on human-beings, both friend and foe. The image of God undergirded David’s anthropology (Ps 8:5-8).[3] This theological affirmation grounded his combat experiences. He modeled respect for his enemies, even when they sought his death (1 Sam 24:1-22, 26:1-25). He refused to gloat and celebrate over their deaths (2 Sam 1:1-15, 4:9-11). In fact, he dignified and grieved the deaths of his enemies (2 Sam 1:17-27, 3:31-34, 18:33).[4]
Under the Mosaic Law, the image of God not only dignified engagement with one’s enemy, but it also grounded the necessity of taking life. David would have been familiar with the fourth reference in Genesis to the image of God: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image (Gen 9:6).” The image of God asserts the utter dignity of mankind, which includes accountability.[5] Justice affirms value, it speaks to moral agency, and it refuses to treat human beings as anything other than image-bearers.[6]
The image of God has two implications for enemy engagement. Both are essential for the well-being of the warfighter. Warriors need safeguards against the soul-wounding tendency of dehumanization.[7] This doctrine provides this protection in two ways. First, it equips the uniform-wearer to affirm an enemy’s inherent value in life and death: to see him as someone’s son, husband, father and friend. In turn, it enables the warfighter to resist degrading his enemy’s humanity in thought, speech, or action.[8] Second, it readies a warrior to hold image-bearers accountable for their actions. It ensures the vocational combatant that within certain boundaries taking life does not diminish human dignity but upholds it.[9]
This dual-pronged paradigm informs every other area of thinking about enemies in the Davidic material. It rests in the background in the following discussions on executing justice, leaving vengeance to God, and forgiving one’s enemies. In contemporary practice, a warrior would do well to allow this framework to drive one’s philosophy and praxis of enemy engagement.
The execution of justice is the second anchor point informing David’s approach to his enemies. As discussed above, this principle builds on the inherent dignity and accountability of image-bearing enemies. As a leader and warrior, David saw protection for his people as paramount. He ruled a nation that was surrounded on all sides by enemies. Safety required combat.
In the Davidic narratives, there is a moral boundary between protective/responsive combat and unwarranted/vengeful violence.[10] David had no qualms about engaging in combat when his people were in danger (1 Sam 30:1-17). However, engagement in battle for unjust reasons resulted in guilt, judgment, and a damaged conscience (1 Sam 25:1-39).[11]
The third anchor point for David’s posture toward his enemies is leaving vengeance to God. There are numerous examples of David’s refusal to take matters into his own hands when encountering his enemies (1 Sam 24:1-22, 26:1-25; 2 Sam 16:5-13). “May the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you” captures the sentiment of David in these scenarios (1 Sam 24:12, 25:39, 26:10).
The Psalms embody this dynamic in David’s life. As mentioned earlier, the language about enemies is pervasive in the Psalms. David did not leave his combat experiences, fear for his life, and desire for victory over his enemies out of worship. Instead, the reader finds vengeance psalms dominating his communication with God. Such prominence has merited the distinct category of the imprecatory psalm.
David does not restrain his emotions or harsh intentions toward his enemies. Instead, he gives full vent to them before the face of God. In a bold act of faith, David abdicates his own vengeance while entrusting himself to the just action of the Almighty.[12] For David, the warrior must live naked before Yahweh. Soul wellness for the warfighter requires moral rigor within a covenant relationship with God.[13]
The fourth and final anchor point for David’s engagement with his enemies is mercy and forgiveness. While David called down God’s vengeance on his enemies and executed justice with his own hands, he also extended love and forgiveness toward his enemies (1 Sam 24:1-22, 25:24-35, 26:1-25; 2 Sam 14:25-33, 19:18-23).[14] At times, former enemies became reconciled friends (2 Sam 3:6-21). David’s love for his enemies was expressed in grief and honor at their deaths (2 Sam 1:17-27, 3:31-34, 18:33).
How loving one’s enemy and waging war against him can coincide has been debated throughout church history.[15] In reality, conceptualizing such a coexistence is much cleaner than its actual expression.[16] Nonetheless, Scripture is quite comfortable with theological tension. The imperative to love one’s enemy exists alongside the God-ordained work of bearing the sword. The call to love and protect one’s neighbor is held together with the demand to turn the other cheek.[17] The peacemaking mission of the church is affirmed along with the call to pursue justice. After all, discipleship is about following behind one who is both lion and lamb.
Vocational excellence and spiritual health in the profession of arms are contingent on the proper posture toward the enemy. Combat stress, moral injury, shame, guilt, remorse, grief, and the inverse of these are inextricably related to how warriors relate to their enemies.[18] David gives four anchor points that provide stability and safety for the vocational combatant. One-dimensional views of the enemy will not suffice; the warrior must have a layered view that includes the affirmation of dignity, the necessity of justice, the need to leave vengeance to God, and the call to mercy and forgiveness.
[1]1 Sam 17:40-54; 18:6-13, 28-29; 19:2, 9-17; 20:30-34; 21:10; 22:16-22; 23:1-29; 24:1-22; 25:20-21; 26:1-25; 27:8-12; 28:1-2; 29:4; 30:1-30; 2 Sam 1:11-12; 2:12-32; 3:1; 5:17-25; 7:9; 8:1-14; 10:1-19; 11:1, 14-17; 12:26-31; 15:13-18; 16:7-9, 21-23; 17:1-29; 18:1-18; 19:18-23; 20:4-22; 21:1-5, 15-22; 22:4, 18-19, 38-43; 23:8-23; 1 Kgs 2:5-9.
[2]“The Psalms bristle with talk about enemies.” Marti J. Steussy, “The Enemy in the Psalms,” Word & World 28, no. 1 (2008): 5. Martin Slabbert states, “Any person who would like to come to a better understanding of the Psalms, needs to take the relationship between the pious and the enemy into account.” Martin J. Slabbert, “Coping in a harsh reality: The concept of the ‘enemy’ in the composition of Psalms 9 and 10,” HTS Theological Studies 71, no. 3 (2015): 1. Erhard Gerstenberger states, “The Psalter, it is true, does speak a great deal about enemies and evildoers.” Erhard S. Gerstenberger, “Enemies and Evildoers in the Psalms: A Challenge to Christian Preaching,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 4, no. 5 (1983): 61.
[3]“This dominion-having of humanity is different from that in Genesis 1, but it is close enough to attract the attention of almost all interpreters. There is no ‘image of God’ for humanity in Psalm 8, but the near-divine status, followed by the declaration of divinely given rulership, is taken to be equivalent. The verb for rule, is used in a noun form for the function of the heavenly bodies in Gen 1:16. Intertextually, it is proper to read Psalm 8 with Genesis 1-2.” Marvin E. Tate, “An Exposition of Psalm 8,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 28, no. 4 (2001): 356. See also, Peter C. Craigie, Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 1-50 (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1983), 108-109.
[4]The narratives of David make clear that David did not always live up to this facet of the biblical warrior code. His callous murder of one of his best soldiers is case in point. He failed to affirm the imago dei in this warrior. Instead, he takes the life of a friend, not foe, and expresses no grief over his death (2 Sam 11:25). David’s engagement with Nabal demonstrates his dark-side. The narrative models the potential of vengeance overriding the dignity-affirming response to one’s enemy (1 Sam 25:1-39). The stories of David beg other important questions in this vein: Was dismembering the bodies of enemies something prescribed by God or a moral infringement by David (1 Sam 17:51)? David’s seething resentment and vengeance toward his enemies is revealed on his death-bed: his final wish includes the death of two individuals. How does this square with this perspective (1 Kgs 2:5-9)?
[5]“Gen 9:6 empowers humanity to return blood for blood and justifies retributive violence by appealing to humanity’s creation in the image of God. Humans, in other words, violently punish bloodshed because we are made in God’s image, and by doing so we imitate God’s actions in the flood.” Stephen M. Wilson, “Blood Vengeance and the Imago Dei in the Flood Narrative (Genesis 9:6),” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 71, no. 3 (2017): 265. According to Daniel Weiss, the rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 9:6 follows this line of thought, “the classical rabbinic understanding of the image of God as the living and embodied human individual represents a profound challenge to modern assumptions about bloodshed and violence on both the individual and collective levels.” Daniel H. Weiss, “Direct divine sanction, the prohibition of bloodshed, and the individual as image of God in classical rabbinical literature,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 32, no. 2 (2012): 33.
[6]Wilson argues that the flood narrative has a new creation motif. With the reset of creation comes the call to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen 9:1, 7). Notably, the imperatives to “rule and subdue the earth” (Gen 1:28) found in the original creation story are absent. Wilson argues that ensuring justice is the new “rule and subdue.” He states, “Their conspicuous absence here strongly suggests that the action incumbent on humanity as God’s vice-regent outlined at the end of the flood narrative—namely, to avenge innocent shed blood—replaces the depiction of the imago Dei from the creation story in light of the divine reassessment of creation after the flood.” Wilson, “Blood Vengeance and the Imago Dei,” 272.
[7]“It’s so much easier to kill someone if they look distinctly different from you. If your propaganda machine can convince your soldiers that their opponents are not really humans but are ‘inferior forms of life,’ then their natural resistance to killing their own species will be reduced.” David Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Costs of Learning to Kill in War and Society (New York: Back Bay Books, 2009), 35. Emile Bruneau asserts the principle that “wars begin in the minds of men.” In order to subdue the “strong moral prohibitions and psychological restraints against harming others,” nations have leveraged the dehumanization of other groups. Taking the holocaust as test-case, the article asserts, “Many psychologists suggested that the horror committed by the Nazis against Jews, the Roma and others was enabled by the perception of these groups as ‘sub-human’, which led to ‘moral disengagement’ from their suffering.” Emile Bruneau and Nour Kteily, “The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare,” Plos One, 12, no. 7 (2017): 1. According to Susan French, “Propaganda that tries to deny the humanity of enemies and associate them with subhuman animals is a common and effective tool for increasing aggression and breaking down the resistance to killing. This dehumanization can be achieved through the use of animal imagery and abusive language.” She asserts further, “The act of dehumanizing, both in the context of war and psychological experiments, is strongly associated with psychological trauma.” Susan E. French, “Dehumanizing the Enemy: The Intersection of Neuroethics and Military Ethics” in Responsibilities to Protect: Perspectives in Theory and Practice, ed. David Whetham and Bradley J. Strawser (Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2015), 176-177. Robert Stroud asserts, “You see, the horrible irony is that in dehumanizing the enemy, we also dehumanize ourselves…demonizing our enemies is not only an offense against truth; it is destructive to our national and personal soul.” Robert C. Stroud, “Demonizing Our Enemies & Dehumanizing Ourselves,” Curtana Sword of Mercy 54 (2009): 54-57.
[8]“There is an intimate connection between the psychological health of the veteran and the respect he feels for those he fought…restoring honor to the enemy is an essential step in recovery from combat PTSD.” Further, French argues that “by setting standards of behavior for themselves, accepting certain restraints, and even ‘honoring their enemies,’ warriors can create a lifeline that will allow them to pull themselves out of the hell of war and reintegrate themselves into their society, should they survive to see peace restored.” This principle also applies to warriors “who fight from a distance—who drop bombs or shoot missiles from planes or ships or submarines”; they are also in danger of “losing their humanity.” For these warriors, “what threatens them is the very ease by which they can take lives. As technology separates individuals from the results of their actions, it cheats them of the chance to absorb and reckon with the enormity of what they have done.” French, “The Code of the Warrior,” 68. Kevin Sites illustrates through the stories of combatants that men do not come back whole who have not come to terms with their enemies. He shows that for many, the path to healing is directly linked to facing how they have viewed and what they have done to their enemies. Kevin Sites, The Things They Cannot Say (New York: Harper Perennial, 2013), 165-182. For Luther, the doctrine of vocation and the dignity of warfighting also provides a safeguard against dehumanizing one’s enemy. “While some believe that dehumanizing one’s enemy is the only way in which one can ‘mentally’ prepare soldiers for the serious and psychologically traumatic act of killing a fellow human being, Luther need not take this route due to his understanding of being a soldier as a godly vocation in and through which God himself is at work. The soldier as the government’s and, therefore, God’s agent is elevated to high honors in this way; consequently, his enemy need not be degraded to a subhuman level.” Luther, “Christians Can Be Soldiers,” 106.
[9]“Such tremendous strife, common throughout the entire world, which no one can endure, must be counteracted by the little strife called war or the sword. This is why God honors the sword so highly that he calls it his own order. God does not want us to say or think that humans invented or established it. Because of this, the hand that uses this sword and kills is no longer man’s hand, but God’s hand. In such a case, it is not man, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, slays, and wars. All these are his works and judgments.” Luther, “Christians Can Be Soldiers,” 17.
[10]The biblical data is admittedly more complex. The presence of divinely commanded war is another category in these narratives. Amidst the narrative layers, the reader must discern contemporary discontinuity and continuity. In David’s journey, there are a number of battles that are not divinely sanctioned, at least explicitly. In this sphere of war, godly principles and wisdom informed David’s approach. In particular, it appears that David was well aware of what constituted a just and unjust response to conflict.
[11]The Nabal/Abigail narrative is rich with warfighter theology (1 Sam 25:1-39). David is tempted to engage Nabal’s folly with vengeance and bloodshed. On the verge of wiping out an entire tribe, Abigail shrewdly restrains David. Her persuasive speech includes warnings of God’s judgment, self-injury and heavy guilt for wrongful vengeance. Abigail’s language includes “bloodguilt” (25:26), “saving with your own hand” (25:26, 31) and being spared from “grief or pangs of conscience for having shed blood without cause” (25:31). David follows Abigail’s counsel and praises her for restraining him from “bloodguilt” (25:33) and working salvation with his “own hand” (25:33). Ralph Klein notes that the Nabal/Abigail narrative falls between two episodes where David spares the life of Saul (1 Sam 24, 26). The narrator is providing a stark contrast of David’s behavior in those stories and his desire for vengeance in this narrative. Klein links the language of salvation by one’s “own hand” to a flawed combat endeavor in Deuteronomy 20:4 (cf. Josh 7:2). Ralph W. Klein, Word Biblical Commentary: 1 Samuel, (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1983), 250. According to Walter Brueggemann, the narrative demonstrates David’s “dangerous potential and ‘near surface’ destructiveness.” Bruggemann rightly asserts, “Had it not been for Abigail, David would have done in both Nabal and himself.” Walter Brueggemann, Interpretation, A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: First and Second Samuel (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 175, 180. Clearly, there are parameters within which a warfighter must operate to preserve his conscience before God. The language in the story points to the destructive force of wrongful violence on one’s relationship with God, one’s neighbor, and one’s self. If there were ever a biblical prelude to the contemporary moral injury discussion this would be it.
[12]“David did not react in private revenge, as might be expected in such a circumstance. Instead, he released the retaliatory demands of justice to the One in whose jurisdiction it rightfully lies.” Day argues that “at times it is legitimate for God’s people to utter prayers of imprecation or pleas for divine vengeance—like those in the Psalms…these prayers are a divinely appointed source of power for believers in their powerlessness. In the face of sustained injustice, hardened enmity, and gross oppression, they are the Christians’ hope that divine justice will indeed be realized—not only in the eschaton (2 Thess. 1:6-10).” John N. Day, “The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics,” Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (2002): 175, 185-186. According to Dominic Hankle, “When one submits to God by praying a curse he or she is no longer free to take revenge, because vengeance is transferred from the heart of the speaker to God, who plays an interested role in the believer’s life. Although at first this sounds as if one is advocating that God will be a destroying force to call upon, in reality it leaves responsibility in God’s hands to make right what appears so wrong.” Dominic D. Hankle, “The Therapeutic Implications of the Imprecatory Psalms in the Christian Counseling Setting,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 38, no. 4 (2010): 278. Anderson states, “The plea for God to take vengeance on evildoers is not merely a call for personal and perhaps therefore petty revenge. It is rather a prayer that God underscore a principle fundamental to all human society: that good behavior will be rewarded and evil behavior punished. The imprecatory language of the Psalmist is so impassioned because the very concept of justice itself is at stake.” Further, Anderson follows Gregory of Nyssa’s thought as he argues that the “imprecatory psalms give witness to that deep abyss of personal hatred that David, through divine grace, was able to overcome.” Anderson, “King David and the Psalms of Imprecation,” 270, 272. Gerstenberger emphasizes the need for utilizing imprecatory psalms in a corporate setting as a source of accountability and communal healing. “Enemies are now being treated not simply eye to eye in a deadly group-conflict, but in the presence of a supreme judge.” Gerstenberger, “Enemies and Evildoers in the Psalms,” 77. See also, Martin J. Ward, “Psalm 109: David’s Poem of Vengeance,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 28, no. 2 (1980): 166-167.
[13]Brueggemann uses the language of “covenant partnership” to describe the divine-human relationship. Covenant with God is an invitation to rugged authenticity and fierce transparency about all of life. He argues that imprecatory psalms are “unguarded language that in most religious discourse is censored…this is the voice of resentment and vengeance that will not be satisfied until God works retaliation on those who have done wrong…in these psalms of disorientation one speaks unguardedly about how it in fact is. The stunning fact is that Israel does not purge this unguardedness but regards it as genuinely faithful communication.” Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 55. According to Steussy, “The psalms suggest that we should come honestly before God with how we do feel rather than wearing a brave mask of how we ought to feel…another reason for opening ourselves to our negative feelings is that this is usually the most effective way to get past them.” Steussy, “The Enemy in the Psalms,” 8. Hankle asserts, “Studies indicate that intentionally holding back emotions can cause harm to those who experience traumatic events…intentional withholding of emotional responses as a means to cope with combat trauma is uniquely associated with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.” Imprecatory psalms give combat veterans a mechanism for processing their experiences, suffering, and rage. “This form of prayer affirms that God hears the cry of those he loves and wants them to express in their terms the pain and suffering they feel. Yet, God is the one who administers justice so the client must develop a trusting relationship with God allowing him to take ownership of the situation. This ownership does not mean the resolution of the situation will be what one expects, but rather what God will do given his infinite knowledge of the complexity of the situation.” Hankle, “The Therapeutic Implications of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 277, 279. Wayne Ballard argues that the psalms of lament and imprecation are essential for those who desire peace and long to be peacemakers. He finds great utility in the full array of Psalms for contemporary challenges faced today. Wayne H. Ballard Jr., “Reading the Psalms in Light of 9-11: The Dialectic of War and Peace as Leitmotif in the Psalms of Ascents,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 31, no. 4 (2004): 442-450. David Barshinger explores Jonathan Edward’s view of the topic, “Edwards’s interpretation suggests that Christians can read, pray, and sing these texts within the wider spectrum of God’s work in the world.” David P. Barshinger, “Spite or Spirit? Jonathan Edwards on the Imprecatory Language of the Psalms,” Westminster Theological Journal 77 (2015): 69.
[14]Speaking to the narrative of David’s grief over Absalom, Eugene Merrill states, “Joab, completely disgusted by this show of emotion, reproached David, reminding him that time after time he had mourned for his enemies when he should have rejoiced at their defeat and death. First it was Saul, then Abner, then Ishbosheth, and now his own iniquitous son. If David possessed one overriding fault, in Joab’s sight that fault was an irresponsible love for all men including his enemies (II Sam. 19:6).” Eugene H. Merrill, An Historical Survey of the Old Testament (Ada: Baker Academic, 1992), 222.
[15]Augustine argued that “the love of enemy command (as well as the commandment to not resist an evildoer) refers to an inner disposition, and not outward actions.” Other theologians like Niebuhr argued that “fighting a war against our enemies is actually a way of loving them. While just war theory would support the idea that killing our enemy during a war may be a morally good thing, it seems disingenuous to maintain that it is still a method of loving them. Perhaps killing the person may prevent a greater evil that they might do, if they were allowed to go on living. Yet killing them is still tragic. Though it may be the lesser of two evils, it is still an evil. It is not one of many ways to love one’s enemy, but rather the grieved admission that it is no longer possible to love that enemy right now.” Johnston asserts that the “commandment to love our enemies should prevent us from committing two grave sins commonly associated with war. The first is the tendency to claim that God is on our side. The second is the tendency to dehumanize the enemy. In both of these sins, we deny our faith in a God whose love is so limitless that it extends even to our enemies.” Laurie Johnston, “‘Love Your Enemies’ Even in the Age of Terrorism,” Political Theology 6, no. 1 (2005): 93, 99. Mark Coppenger argues that loving one’s enemy takes on a different form in war. He suggests that “one might enter into combat with a general sense that he is doing the enemy good by preventing him from accomplishing something awful…for love is not essentially a matter of feeling. It is instead a dogged commitment to what is best for the other, however, you may feel.” Mark Coppenger, “The Golden Rule and War,” Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 2 (1990): 306-307. Luther states, “What is war other than the punishing of injustice and evil? Why is war waged unless peace and obedience are desired? Even if killing and destroying do not seem like works of love, they are in reality nothing else.” Luther, “Christians Can Be Soldiers,” 14.
[16]Alan Kirk argues that enemy love divorced from concrete social action dwindles into sentimentality. Enemy love is easy to talk about, much harder to put into solid action. Alan Kirk, “‘Love your enemies’ the Golden Rule, and ancient reciprocity (Luke 6:27-35),” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 4 (2003): 686. French states, “Troops should not be asked to love their enemies while inflicting suffering and death upon them. This is the mindset of an abuser, not a mindset we wish to encourage in troops who will return to civilian life.” French, “Dehumanizing the Enemy,” 51.
[17]“Forgiveness and vengeance exist side-by-side in the Bible, as they literally do in God’s own self-revelation in Exod 34:7, where God identifies as one ‘keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.’ This dichotomy likewise persists in the New Testament, where alongside the depiction of Jesus commanding love for enemies (Luke 6:27-29, 35) stands the image of the vengeful Christ riding a white horse and ‘making war’ against his foes (Rev 19:11- 21).” Wilson, “Blood Vengeance and the Imago Dei,” 273. Serge Ruzer traces the call to love one’s enemy back to Leviticus 19:8. He shows how the New Testament leverages this text on multiple occasions to inform enemy-love (Matt 5:43-48; Lk 6:31-38; Rom 12:9-20). This dynamic demonstrates that this was not an alien concept to the old covenant believer. This is a tension that the people of God have grappled with for millennia. Serge Ruzer, “‘Love Your Enemy’ Precept in the Sermon on the Mount in the Context of Early Jewish Exegesis: A New Perspective,” Revue Biblique 111, no. 2 (2004): 195, 208.
[18]Jonathan Shay, Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. (New York: Scribner, 1994), 103-119; Hankle, “The Therapeutic Implications of the Imprecatory Psalms,” 275-279; French, “The Code of the Warrior,” 66-70.