After this, David struck the Philistines and subdued them; and David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.
Parallel Translations
-
After this, David struck the Philistines and subdued them; and David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.
-
And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines.
-
And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them; and David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines.
Cross-references (4)
Passages linked to 2 Samuel 8:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 1 Chronicles 18:1-17 After this, David defeated the Philistines and subdued them, and took Gath and its towns out of the hand of the Philistines. He defeated Moab; and the Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute. David defeated Hadadezer king of Zobah to Hamath, as he went to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates. David took from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them enough for one hundred chariots. When the Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer king of Zobah, David struck twenty-two thousand men of the Syrians. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus; and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought tribute. Yahweh gave victory to David wherever he went. David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. From Tibhath and from Cun, cities of Hadadezer, David took very much bronze, with which Solomon made the bronze sea, the pillars, and the vessels of bronze. When Tou king of Hamath heard that David had struck all the army of Hadadezer king of Zobah, he sent Hadoram his son to king David, to Greet him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and struck him (for Hadadezer had wars with Tou); and he had with him all kinds of vessels of gold and silver and bronze. King David also dedicated these to Yahweh, with the silver and the gold that he carried away from all the nations; from Edom, from Moab, from the children of Ammon, from the Philistines, and from Amalek. Moreover Abishai the son of Zeruiah struck eighteen thousand of the Edomites in the Valley of Salt. He put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became servants to David. Yahweh gave victory to David wherever he went. David reigned over all Israel; and he executed justice and righteousness for all his people. Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests; Shavsha was scribe; and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and the sons of David were chief officials serving the king.
- 2 Samuel 2:24 But Joab and Abishai pursued Abner. The sun went down when they had come to the hill of Ammah, that lies before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon.
- 2 Samuel 7:9 I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you. I will make you a great name, like the name of the great ones who are in the earth.
- 2 Samuel 21:15-22 The Philistines had war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines. David grew faint; and Ishbibenob, who was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear was three hundred shekels of bronze in weight, he being armed with a new sword, thought he would kill David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah helped him, and struck the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David swore to him, saying, “Don’t go out with us to battle any more, so that you don’t quench the lamp of Israel.” After this, there was again war with the Philistines at Gob. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was of the sons of the giant. There was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite’s brother, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. There was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on every hand, and six toes on every foot, twenty four in count; and he also was born to the giant. When he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimei, David’s brother, killed him. These four were born to the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (23 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain So that they paid no more tribute.
So that they paid no more tribute.
Or, Metheg Ammah.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 2Sa 8:1 And after this it came to pass,…
2Sa 8:1 And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines.
Ver. 1. And after this it came to pass, that David smote.] Out of action he would not be; but seeing he might not build God a house, he would, by subduing his enemies on all hands, provide for his son Solomon both peace - the daughter of war - and spoils for materials great store. And it is observable that he assailed no nation which he overcame not, besieged no city which he took not; the same which our chronicles affirm of the Black Prince.
Read full note →
And David took Methegammah.] That is Gath with her precincts, {1Ch 18:1} called Methegammah, or the bridle of the angle, or corner, because it kept that part of the country in awe and order. This David took from the Philistines; so hath Christ taken away the dominion of sin. {Rom 6:8-14}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Metheg-ammah, i.e. Gath and her towns, as it is…
Metheg-ammah, i.e. Gath and her towns, as it is expressed in the parallel place, 1Ch 18:1, which are called Metheg-ammah, or the bridle of Ammah, because Gath was situate in the mountain of Ammah; and because this being the chief city of the Philistines, and having a king, which none of the rest had, was the bridle which had hitherto kept the Israelites in subjection, but now was taken out of their mouths.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain God had given David rest from all his enemies…
God had given David rest from all his enemies that opposed him and made head against him; and he having made a good use of that rest, has now commission given him to make war upon them, and to act offensively for the avenging of Israel's quarrels and the recovery of their rights; for as yet they were not in full possession of that country to which by the promise of God they were entitled.
I. He quite subdued the Philistines, Sa2 8:1. They had attacked him when they thought him weak (Sa2 5:17), and went by the worst then; but, when he found himself strong, he attacked them, and made himself master of their country. They had long been vexatious and oppressive to Israel. Saul got no ground against them; but David completed Israel's deliverance out of their hands, which Samson had begun long before, Jdg 13:5. Metheg-ammah was Gath (the chief and royal city of the Philistines) and the towns belonging to it, among which there was a constant garrison kept by the Philistines on the hill Ammah (Sa2 2:24), which was Metheg, a bridle (so it signifies) or curb upon the people of Israel; this David took out of their hand and used it as a curb upon them. Thus, when the strong man is disarmed, the armour wherein he trusted is taken from him, and used against him, Luk 11:22. And after the long and frequent struggles which the saints have had with the powers of darkness, like Israel with the Philistines, the Son of David shall tread them all under their feet and make the saints more than conquerors.
Read full note →
II. He smote the Moabites, and made them tributaries to Israel, Sa2 8:2. He divided the country into three parts, two of which he destroyed, casting down the strong-holds, and putting all to the sword; the third part he spared, to till the ground and be servants to Israel. Dr. Lightfoot says, "He laid them on the ground and measured them with a cord, who should be slain and who should live;" and this is called meting out the valley of Succoth, Psa 60:6. The Jews say he used this severity with the Moabites because they had slain his parents and brethren, whom he put under the protection of the king of Moab during his exile, Sa1 22:3, Sa1 22:4. He did it in justice, because they had been dangerous enemies to the Israel of God; and in policy, because, if left in their strength, they still would have been so. But observe, Though it was necessary that two-thirds should be cut off, yet the line that was to keep alive, though it was but one, is ordered to be a full line. Be sure to give that length enough; let the line of mercy be stretched to the utmost in favorem vitae - so as to favour life. Acts of indemnity must be construed so as to enlarge the favour. Now Balaam's prophecy was fulfilled, A sceptre shall arise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, to the utmost of which the fatal line extended, Num 24:17. The Moabites continued tributaries to Israel till after the death of Ahab, Kg2 3:4, Kg2 3:5. Then they rebelled and were never reduced.
III. He smote the Syrians or Aramites. Of them there were two distinct kingdoms, as we find them spoken of in the title of the 60th Psalm: Aram Naharaim, - Syria of the rivers, whose head city was Damascus (famed for its rivers, Kg2 5:12), and Aram Zobah, which joined to it, but extended to Euphrates. These were the two northern crowns. 1. David began with the Syrians of Zobah, Sa2 8:3, Sa2 8:4. As he went to settle his border at the river Euphrates (for so far the land conveyed by the divine grant to Abraham and his seed did extend, Gen 15:18), the king of Zobah opposed him, being himself possessed of those countries which belonged to Israel; but David routed his forces, and took his chariots and horsemen. The horsemen are here said to be 700, but Ch1 18:4 they are said to be 7000. If they divided their horse by ten in a company, as it is probable they did, the captains and companies were 700, but the horsemen were 7000. David houghed the horses, cut the sinews of their hams, and so lamed them, and made them unserviceable, at least in war, God having forbidden them to multiply horses, Deu 17:16. David reserved only 100 chariots out of 1000 for his own use: for he placed his strength not in chariots nor horses, but in the living God (Psa 20:7), and wrote it from his own observation that a horse is a vain thing for safety, Psa 33:16, Psa 33:17. 2. The Syrians of Damascus coming in to the relief of the king of Zobah fell with him. 22,000 were slain in the field, Sa2 8:5. So that it was easy for David to make himself master of the country, and garrison it for himself, Sa2 8:6. The enemies of God's church, that think to secure themselves, will prove, in the end, to ruin themselves, by their confederacies with each other. Associate yourselves, and you shall be broken in pieces, Isa 8:9.
IV. In all these wars, 1. David was protected: The Lord preserved him whithersoever he went. It seems, he went in person, and, in the cause of God and Israel, jeoparded his own life in the high places of the field; but God covered his head in the day of battle, which he often speaks of, in his psalms, to the glory of God. 2. He was enriched. He took the shields of gold which the servants of Hadadezer had in their custody (Sa2 8:7) and much brass from several cities of Syria (Sa2 8:8), which he was entitled to, not only jure belli - by the uncontrollable right of the longest sword ("Get it, and take it"); but by commission from heaven, and the ancient entail of these countries on the seed of Abraham.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And after this it came to pass,.... After David…
And after this it came to pass,.... After David had rest from his enemies for a time, and after the conversation he had had with Nathan about building the house of God, and after the message sent to him from the Lord by that prophet, forbidding him to build, and David's prayer to the Lord upon it, the following events happened; and which are recorded to show that David's rest from his enemies did not last long, and that he had other work to do than to build the house of God:
that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them; these had been long and implacable enemies of Israel; Samson began to weaken them in his days; a war was waged between them and Israel in the times of Samuel and Saul, and the battle sometimes went on one side and sometimes on the other; but now David made an entire conquest of them: before they had used to come into the land of Israel, and there fight with Israel, but now David entered into their land, and took it from them:
Read full note →
and David took Methegammah out of the hands of the Philistines; the name of a province in Palestine, and from the parallel place in Ch1 18:1, it appears to be Gath, and its adjacent towns; but why that was called the bridle of Ammah, or the bridle of a cubit, as it may be rendered, is not easy to say. The conjecture of Kimchi is, that there was a pool or river of water, so Ammah is thought to signify; and Aquila renders it a water course, which passed through the city, having been brought from without it into it, the communication of which from place to place it may be David cut off, by stopping or turning its stream; but interpreters more generally suppose that Gath was built upon an hill called Ammah, see Sa2 2:24; thought to be the same with the Amgaris of Pliny (d) though that is sometimes read Angaris, a mountain he places in Palestine; and that it was called Metheg, a bridle, because being a frontier city, and being very strong and powerful, erected into a kingdom, it was a curb and bridle upon the Israelites; but now David taking it out of their hands, opened his way for the more easy subduing the rest of their country: or the word may be rendered Metheg and her mother, that is, Gath, the metropolis, since that and her daughters, or towns, are said to be taken, Ch1 18:1; and Metheg might be one of them.
(d) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 13.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain David subdues the Philistines and Moabites, ver. 1-2. Smites…
David subdues the Philistines and Moabites, ver. 1-2. Smites Hadadezer, and the Syrians, ver. 3-8. Dedicates the presents he had received and the spoils to God, ver. 9-12. Conquers the Syrians again, and the Edomites, ver. 13, 14. His administration of justice and chief officers, ver. 15-18,
And David took - Gath and her towns, as it is expressed in the parallel place, 1 Chron. xviii, 1. Which are called Metheg-ammah, or the bridle of Ammah, Gath was situate in the mountain of Ammah; and because this being the chief city of the Philistines, and having a king, which none of the rest had, was the bridle which had hitherto kept the Israelites in subjection.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain David subdues the Philistines, 1;
CHAPTER VIII
David subdues the Philistines, 1;
Read full note →
and the Moabites, 2;
and the king of Zobah, 3, 4;
and the Syrians in general, 5-8.
Toi, king of Hamath, sends to congratulate him on his victories
over the king of Zobah, and sends him rich presents, 9-10.
David dedicates all the spoils to God, 11-13.
He garrisons Edom, 14;
and reigns over all Israel, 15.
An account of his chief officers, 16-18.
NOTES ON CHAP. VIII
Verse 1. David took Metheg-ammah] This is variously translated. The Vulgate has, Tulit David fraenum tributi, David removed the bondage of the tribute, which the Israelities paid to the Philistines. Some think it means a fortress, city, or strong town; but no such place as Metheg-ammah is known. Probably the Vulgate is nearest the truth. The versions are all different. See the following comparison of the principal passages here collated with the parallel place in 1 Chr: -
2Sa 8:1 - David took Methegammah
1Ch 18:1 - David took Gath and her towns.
2Sa 8:3. David smote Hadadezer
1Ch 18:3. David smote Hadarezer
2Sa 8:4. And David took from him 1000 and 700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot.
1Ch 18:4. And David took from him 1000 chariots, and 7000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot.
2Sa 8:6. Then David put garrisons in Syria
1Ch 18:6. Then David put in Syria
2Sa 8:8. And from Betah and Berothai cities of Hadadezer.
1Ch 18:8. And from Tibhath and Chun cities of Hadarezer.
2Sa 8:9. When Toi heard that David had smitten Hadadezer
1Ch 18:9. When Tou heard that David had smitten Hadarezer
2Sa 8:10. Then Toi sent Joram his son
1Ch 18:10. He sent Hadoram his son
2Sa 8:12 - Syria and Moab
1Ch 18:11 - Edom and Moab
2Sa 8:13. - Syrians, in the valley of salt, 18,000
1Ch 18:12. - Edomites, in the valley of salt, 18,000
2Sa 8:17 - Ahimelech - and Seraiah was the scribe.
1Ch 18:16 - Abimelech - and Shausha was scribe.
2Sa 10:16. Shobach the captain
1Ch 19:16. Shophach the captain
2Sa 10:17. David passed over Jordan, and came הלאמה to Helam.
1Ch 19:17. David passed over Jordan and came אלהם upon them
2Sa 10:18. David slew 700 chariots of the Syrians,
1Ch 19:18. David slew of the Syrians 7000 chariots,
2Sa. and 40,000 horsemen;
1Ch. and 40,000 footmen;
2Sa. and smote Shobach, &c.
1Ch. and killed Shophach, &c.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain 2Sa 8:1. David smote the Philistines, and subdued them…
2Sa 8:1. David smote the Philistines, and subdued them — In the beginning of his reign they had invaded Israel twice, and were successfully repulsed. But now David invaded their country, made a conquest of it, and brought it under subjection to the Israelites. David took Metheg-ammah — That is, Gath and her towns, as it is expressed in the parallel place, 1Ch 18:1, which are called Metheg-ammah, or the bridle of Ammah, because Gath was situate in the mountain of Ammah; and because this being the chief city of the Philistines, and having a king, which none of the rest had, was the bridle which had hitherto kept the Israelites in subjection.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Metheg-ammah must be the name of some stronghold which…
Metheg-ammah must be the name of some stronghold which commanded Gath, and the taking of which made David master of Gath and her towns.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Tribute. Aquila, and probably St. Jerome, translated, "cubit." Others…
Tribute. Aquila, and probably St. Jerome, translated, "cubit." Others suppose that Amma, or Meteg-ama, is some unknown place, which David wrested from the hands of the Philistines. It is hardly probable that the Israelites would have paid the latter tribute till the 20th year of his reign, (Calmet) or even till the 12th. (Salien) --- He might now force them to pay tribute. (St. Jerome, &c.) (Haydock) --- Perhaps a letter may have been transposed, and instead of Meteg, we should read, "Geth, the mother," or metropolis, and its dependencies; (1 Paralipomenon xviii. 1.) or "he took Metec, (Numbers xxxiii. 28.) and its mother," Geth, which reconciles the two passages. Chaldean, &c., "he deprived them of the advantage of the rivulet." Septuagint, "David took the separated" place, (Serarius) or the city of Geth. (Menochius)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain III. The splendid development of David’s royal rule without…
III. The splendid development of David’s royal rule without and within
2 Samuel 8-10
Read full note →
1. Without by wars and victories over Israel’s external enemies. 2Sa_8:1-14
1And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued [humbled] them; and David took Metheg-Ammah1 out of the hand of the Philistines.
2And he smote Moab and measured them with a line, casting them down to [making them lie down on] the ground; even with two lines measured he [and he measured two lines] to put to death and with [om. with] one2 full line to keep alive. And so [om. so] the Moabites became David’s servants and brought [bringing] gifts.
3David smote also [And David smote] Hadadezer3 the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at [to make an attack at4] the river Euphrates.5 4And David took from him a thousand chariots6 and seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen; and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
5And when the Syrians7 of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, 6David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men. Then [And] David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David and brought [bringing] gifts. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went. 7And David took the shields8 of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. 8And from Betah9 and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass [copper].
9When [And] Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of 10Hadadezer, Then [And] Toi sent Joram10 his son unto king David, to salute him and to bless [congratulate] him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him; for Hadadezer had wars with Toi; and Joram brought with him [and in his hand were] vessels of silver and vessels of gold and vessels of brass [copper]. 11Which [These] also king David did dedicate unto the Lord [Jehovah] with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all [ins. the] nations which he subdued, 12Of Syria11 and of Moab and of the children of Ammon and of the Philistines and of Amalek and of the spoil of Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah.
13And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of [om. of] the Syrians12 in the valley of salt, being [om. being] eighteen thousand men. 14And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of [om. they of] Edom became David’s servants. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
A general survey is here given of David’s wars and victories with the aid of the Lord (2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:14), without its being indicated, however (as is above observed), by the word “after this” that the wars here detailed were chronologically attached to the events of chap 7, or that these wars were chronologically related to one another as the sequence of mention might seem to show. The phrase “after this” is the general formula of transition and connection, which introduces David’s wars grouped according to the factual point of view, and works them into the broad frame of the theocratic history. See a similar loose, not strictly chronological connection by this formula in 2Sa_10:1; 2Sa_13:1. The parallel section in 1 Chron. is chap. 18.
2Sa_8:1. The subjection of the Philistines. David not only defeated them in a battle, but also subjected them to his authority. He took out of their hand “the bridle of the mother”13 (מֶתֶג הָאַמָּה metheg ha ammah). The Chronicler has for this “Gath and her daughters,” which words are to be accepted in explanation of our expression instead of giving place to vague conjectures. Ammah (אַמָּה, feminine formation from אֵם) = “mother-city;” so the capital city of a country is often called in Arabic and Phœnician, comp. Gesen. Thesaurus, p. 112, and our word “metropolis;” and the cities dependent on the capital city are called “daughters,” comp. Jos_15:45; Jos_15:47. Among the five chief cities of the Philistines (1Sa_6:16-17), Gath in Saul’s time already, as seat of a king who appears at the head of the Philistine princes (1Sa_27:2; 1Sa_29:2 sq.), had attained the rank of a capital of Philistia, whence the bridle of dominion was extended over the other cities and the whole people. [These notices do not seem sufficient in themselves to show a hegemony for Gath.—Tr.] The “bridle of the mother”—that is, according to Chron., the power and authority over Philistia concentrated in the metropolis, Gath, the mother with the “daughters,” or Philistine cities over which Gath exercised authority—David took possession of, he subjugated Philistia, and made it tributary, as the nations afterwards mentioned. The king of Gath mentioned in 1Ki_2:39 belonged also to the tributary kings, subject to Solomon, this side of the Euphrates, as far as Gaza (1Ki_5:1; 1Ki_5:4). So Gesenius, De Wette, Keil. Of other explanations of our phrase some do not accord with the meaning of the words, e. g., Schultens, Mich., Ewald render “arm-bridle,” but ammah does not mean “arm,” and Grotius gives claustra montis Ammœ—“the fortress of Mount Ammah,”—but metheg cannot mean “fortress.” Some do not agree with the actual condition of things, e. g., Bertheau explains, “he wrested from the Philistines the dominion that they had hitherto exercised over Israel,” but this does not agree with David’s dominion over Israel; and Böttcher takes ammah—(אֵם)—as meaning one that goes before and leads, and then in the abstract sense of leading, guidance, “the bridle of guidance,”—but “this would suit only if the setting aside of a hegemony were here spoken of” (Then.). Looking at the words of Chron., the Sept. (τὴν ἀφωρισμένην= “the separated, marked off”) and 1Sa_7:13-14, Thenius conjectures that the text has arisen by error of copyists from an original text, which contained a description (that cannot now be made out) of the boundary-district, which David then forever wrested from the Philistines. In the essence of the thing, this explanation agrees with that above given.
2Sa_8:2. The subjugation of the Moabites.—On the former friendly relation between the king of Moab and David, see 1Sa_22:3-4. The cause of Moab’s enmity against him is unknown. Perhaps meantime another king had come to the throne than he with whom David sought refuge and with his parents found hospitality. Probably in this war occurred what is mentioned in 1Ch_11:22 of Benaiah, one of David’s heroes, that he slew two of the king of Moab’s sons. The severe punishment inflicted on the arms-bearing Moabites (they were compelled to lie in a row on the ground, two-thirds were measured with a line for death, and one-third for life) points to some very grave offence on their part. They thenceforward became David’s servants, that is, were subject to him and paid him tribute. [Patrick: Now was fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam, Num_24:17.—Tr.]
2Sa_8:3-4. Subjugation of Hadadezer, king of Zobah.—And David smote Hadadezer.—Instead of this name we have “Hadarezer” in 2Sa_10:16; 2Sa_10:19, and in Chron.; so also Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., Josephus. But as Hadad was the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, and frequently occurs in Syrian proper names (see Movers, Phœn. I. 196 sq.), Hadadezer, = “whose help God is,” must be taken as the original reading. [For a different view see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] The district of Zobah was a part of Syria (2Sa_10:6; 2Sa_10:16 and Psa_60:2, where it is called Aram-Zobah), bordering on Syria, beyond the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, whence Hadadezer brought Arameans to his help across the Euphrates. Its position is more exactly described in 2Sa_8:5 (it was near the territory of the Damascus Syrians) and 2Sa_8:9 and 2Ch_8:3 (it touched Hamath on the north, at the Orontes). It must therefore be put north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and the Euphrates. Comp. Winer, R.-B. II. 738. It seems to have reached so far south that the Ammonites could get help from it against Israel, 2Sa_10:6; 1Ch_19:6. As Zobah was doubtless the capital city of the country, it is probably (Grot., Ew.) to be identified with the city Sabe (Ptol. 2Sa_5:19) which lay on the same parallel with Damascus and eastward towards the Euphrates.14 “We must therefore look for Zobah to the east of the transjordanic Israelitish territory and beyond its northern border, and its king must have ruled over a great part of the desert between Palestine and the Euphrates, and consequently over the southern part of Syria” (Stähelin, Leben Davids, p. 51). But on what occasion and under what circumstances was David involved in a war with this distant kingdom? The answer to this question will appear in the course of the following exposition. As he went to re-establish his power at the river (Euphrates). [Lit. “as he went to put forth his hand” = to make an effort or attack. See “Text and Gramm.” against Erdmann’s rendering.—Tr.] The question is whether Hadadezer or David is subject here. The Heb. יָד [hand] = power, dominion. The Infin. (הָשִׁינ) means not to stretch out, extend (De Wette), but to draw back, re-establish a dominion, which consequently existed before. Taking Hadadezer as subject, and looking to 1Sa_14:47, where it is said that Saul fought successfully against Zobah, it has been explained to mean that Hadadezer now attempted to regain the territory then lost (Maurer, Bunsen, Ewald, Keil). But can we suppose that Hadadezer waited so long after Saul’s death? Rather it is to be presumed that he had long ago re-established his power. In favor of taking David as subject, it may be said that the whole sentence would then have the same subject, which is most natural according to the tenor of the narrative, and that David must have felt called on to restore Israel’s power up to the Euphrates which had been lost since Saul’s time. But against this undoubtedly is the word “his power” (יָדוֹ); for David had not yet occupied the land on the Euphrates. We are therefore obliged to take Hadadezer as subject, who had attempted to restore his shattered power on the Euphrates when David conquered him in this war and made him his vassal. How his power was shattered will appear hereafter. Chron. has “to establish” (הַצִּיב), which agrees with the above explanation—and so the Sept. ἐπιστῆσαι. [=establish]. Which was the original reading cannot be determined. [The phrase in Sam. is a common one; that in Chron. (in the Heb.) is difficult and improbable.—Tr.] Against the rendering of Grot. and Cler.: “as he (David) went to force back his (Hadadezer’s) power towards the Euphrates” is the prep. “in, at” (בְּ) before “river,” and the change of persons in this subordinate sentence (Thenius). [Adopting the rendering suggested above, the reference may very well be to David as the subject: David going to make an attack at the Euphrates, was naturally opposed by the powerful Hadadezer; otherwise it is difficult to see how Hadadezer’s attack in this region could have brought him in contact with David.—Tr.] The Masora adds “Euphrates” after “river” [so Eng. A. V.],—which, however, is not necessary, since the word “the river” (הַנָּהָר) of itself means the Euphrates.15 How important it must have been for David to rest his power on this side on the Euphrates is obvious. 2Sa_8:4. And David took (prisoners) from him 1700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen.—Chron. has 7000 horsemen and 1000 chariots. Here, therefore, the word “chariot” has fallen out, and the sign for seven thousand (ז̈) been changed to that for seven hundred (ן). The text of Chron. is the correct one; “for to 20,000 footmen in the plains of Syria 7000 horsemen is evidently better proportioned than 1700” (Thenius). The 1000 chariots also accords with the connection, “because afterward David is said to have houghed the chariot-horses” (Cler.). And David lamed all the riding-animals.—The word (רֶכֶב) means riding-animals in general, not merely chariot-horses (so Isa_21:7). These David made useless and harmless by cutting the sinews of their hind feet (יֲעקֵּר.—comp. Jdg_11:6; Jdg_11:9). It was a matter of importance to David to render useless not the chariots, but the horses. [He reserved a hundred horses not for war, but for a triumph or a guard; whether or not this reservation was illegal and ungodly is not said.—Tr.]
2Sa_8:5-8. The conquest of Aram-Damascus (the Syrians of Damascus). 2Sa_8:5. Aram-Damascus—that is, the Aramæans whose capital was Damascus (Chron. Darmesek, Sam. Dammesek)—east of the Antilibanon range, on the Chrysorrhoas (Pharpar) river, and on the great caravan-route from Central Asia to Western Asia. These Syrians of Damascus came as allies to the help of Hadadezer, attacking David from the north, but suffered a severe defeat, as appears from the fact that they lost 22,000 men. [See Josephus’ reference here to the account of Nicolaus of Damascus (Ant. 7, 5, 2), who mentions a Syrian king Hadad beaten at the Euphrates by David (Then.).—Tr.]
2Sa_8:6. To hold them in subjection he placed posts, garrisons in their territory, comp. 1Sa_10:5; 1Sa_13:3. “He made them subject and tributary to him.” [Some render “officers” instead of “garrisons,” but hardly so well.—Tr.]
2Sa_8:7. “Shields” (שֶׁלֶט), not “armour,” comp. 2Ki_11:10, Gesen., Thes. and Lex. by Dietrich. The golden shields of Hadadezer’s servants (that is, his immediate guard) David sent as booty to Jerusalem. The Sept. here has the additional statement: “And Susakim [Shishak] king of Egypt took them away when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Roboam, son of Solomon,” of which there is no trace in any other version or in Chron., and which there is no good reason for introducing into our text (against Thenius), since, by comparing 1Ch_18:8 (where the use made of the copper is mentioned), and 1Ki_14:25-27, it is clear how a translator or copyist from inexact observation of these passages might have been led to make such an addition to the text as marginal note or explanation. [Keil also points out that the shields carried off by Shishak were not these captured by David, but those made by Solomon.—Tr.]
2Sa_8:8. And from Hadadezer’s cities Betah and Berothai took king David very much copper.—It is not possible to determine certainly the position of these cities. But it may be conjectured that Berothai (comp. Eze_47:16), for which Chron. has Kun, is identical either with Barathena, near Sabe (Ptol. Geog. 5, 19, 5; so Ewald), or with the present Berah south-east of Damascus (Thenius), or with Birtha on the eastern bank of the Euphrates (= Birtha, Ptol. Geog. 5, 19, 3), not to be confounded with Birtha, on the Tigris (Ptol. Geog. 5, 18, 9). The old Phœnician Berytus on the Mediterranean Sea (= Beirut) is out of the question, since the territory of the king of Zobah could certainly not have reached so far. “The name may be derived as well from berosh [cypress], in Syrian beroth, as from beer [a well]” (Thenius). See Winer s. v. (Bib. Comm.: Can the Wady Barada be the modern representative of the name?—Tr.] Instead of Betah Chron. has Tibhath, to which answer the Metebak of the Sept. and the Tebah of the Syriac—so that we may suppose “from Tebah” (מִטֶּבַח) to be the original reading (Then., Keil). This is favored by the Tebah of Gen_22:24 (which points to this region), the name of a son of Nahor, and also of a place that now stands north of Damascus and Tadmor, between Tadmor and Aleppo (Büsching, Erdbeschreib. XI., I., 544). The booty of these cities consisted of a large quantity of copper. Chronicles (either, as Movers supposes, taking it from another source, or using more completely the same source as the author of Samuel) adds in respect to the use of the booty: “Therefrom Solomon made the copper sea and the pillars and the coppern vessels.” The Sept. adds these words here after “very much brass” with the insertion “and the wash-basins.” But there is no reason with Thenius to alter our text accordingly, since the effort of the Sept. to explain and fill out from other material is evident here, as in 2Sa_8:7. [On copper in Canaan see Deu_8:9. Some centuries before this copper was carried in quantities from Syria to Egypt [Bib. Com.).—Tr.]—The loss of the Syrians in these battles was forty-two thousand men (comp. 2Sa_8:4-5). This number agrees with the statement of the loss in 2Sa_10:18 = forty thousand men. From this alone it is clear that the Aramæan war that is minutely related in 2 Samuel 10 is the same as that here spoken of. It is to be further noted that the war against the Aramæans here related ends with their complete subjection (2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:9). Against the view that 2 Samuel 10 narrates a second Aramæan war, wherein the subjugated Aramæans revolt when David becomes involved in war with the Ammonites, and help them against him, is the fact that in 2 Samuel 10 nothing is said of such a revolt, the Syrians appearing as wholly independent of David and hiring their aid to the Ammonites (2Sa_10:6). Before the Aramæans could unite with these latter, Joab defeated them under Hadadezer; the latter called the Aramæans from beyond the Euphrates to his help in order to regain his power on the Euphrates, which was lost by that defeat, and they were now also defeated by David (2Sa_10:13-18). This explains our 2Sa_8:3 : “as he (Hadadezer) went to re-establish his power at the river Phrath” (Luther). In the general view of David’s wars in 2 Samuel 8 this Aramæan war is briefly related according to its issue under David’s lead. In 2 Samuel 10 the Ammonitish war (here merely alluded to, 2Sa_8:12) is minutely related on account of the history of Uriah therewith connected; and as this war led to that with the Aramæans, the latter also, after the summary statement of it in 2 Samuel 8, is fully narrated in 2 Samuel 10 “The war with Ammon, whose development could not be understood without the Syrian, is more elaborately narrated (in 2 Samuel 10.) for a special reason only, namely, for the sake of Uriah’s history, and is for this reason no doubt merely mentioned in the general view of all the great wars (2Sa_8:12), since otherwise its issue at least would necessarily have been described as fully as that of the Moabite war” (Ewald, Gesch. [Hist. of Israel] III. 205). Comp. Keil’s Comm.,[Eng. Tr., p. 358 sq.]—According to 1Ch_18:3 David’s decisive victory over the Aramæans was gained at Hamath, that is, Epiphania on the Orontes, a colony of the Canaanites (Gen_10:18), at the foot of Hermon, therefore on the western boundary of the district of Zobah, and on the northernmost border of Palestine, still one of the greatest cities of Turkish Asia, retaining its old name; according to 2Sa_10:17 the victory was gained at Helam, an unknown place; but this difference is insignificant, and may be removed by supposing either that Helam was near Hamath (Keil), or that the decisive combats occurred at both places at the same time.16
2Sa_8:9-10. King Toi of Hamath seeks a friendly alliance with David in consequence of the latter’s victory over the king of Zobah and his allies.—For Toi Chron. has Toü. When Toi heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer (David’s victory was therefore a decisive one), he sent his son Joram (better Hadoram) to David. Chron., instead of Joram, has Hadoram, Joseph. Adoram, and Sept. Jeddouram; Hadoram (according to Mich., from Hador, the name of a Syrian deity, but see also Gen_10:27; 1Ch_1:21, where it is the name of an Arabian tribe) is to be regarded as the original reading, instead of the Heb. name Joram, which doubtless got into the text from similarity of sound by error of copying or of hearing [or, it is a Hebraization of a foreign name, as often happens.—Tr.]. The embassy was 1) to greet David in Toi’s name, properly, to ask after his welfare, comp. Gen_43:27; Gen_43:2) to bless him, that is, to congratulate him on his victory over Hadadezer. The reason for this congratulation is given in the words: “for a man of wars of Toi was Hadadezer,” that is, Hadadezer carried on constant wars with Toi; Aq. and Sym. have “waging war” (πολεμῶν). On the phrase: “man of wars” = one whose call and business is warring, comp. 1Ch_28:3; Isa_42:13. Since Hamath and Zobah bordered on one another, Toi was in constant danger of being entirely despoiled of his authority by Hadadezer, on whom he was perhaps in some degree dependent. Hence his congratulation of David as the expression of joy over the victory that freed him from a dangerous enemy, and of the wish to enter into a relation of friendship and alliance with the powerful victor, to which end he sent rich presents consisting of vessels of silver, of gold, and of copper. [For the forms of ancient Chaldean and Assyrian vessels see Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies I. 91, 386.—Tr.]
2Sa_8:11-12. David consecrates to the Lord all the booty of gold and silver taken from the conquered nations. David’s wars were wars of the Lord, in whose name he fought against the enemies of the chosen people, and led the people to victory. Therefore the booty belonged actually to the Lord. David affirmed this by separating it from profane use (this is the primary meaning of “dedicated,” הִקְדִּישׁ), and setting it apart for the Lord, that is, either in general he put it into the treasury of the sanctuary, or he determined that it should be used in making sacred vessels for the temple that was to be built. Instead of the second “dedicated” (הִקְדִּישׁ) Chron. has “took” (נָשָׂא), which gives the same sense.
2Sa_8:12. From Aram [-Syria] and from Moab and from the children of Ammon and from the Philistines and from Amalek and from the spoil of Hadadezer. Instead of Aram Chron. has Edom, and omits the words referring to Hadadezer, that is, makes no mention at all of the wars against Aram. But as in this enumeration of all David’s wars (as it obviously is) Aram could not, as it seems, be properly omitted, it might appear probable that we should read Aram in Chron. instead of Edom especially as the victory over Edom is not mentioned till afterwards. It might, however, be also supposed that “Aram” was omitted [in Chron.] because the booty taken from the Aramæans has just been spoken of, and the further mention of booty from other nations was attached immediately to that statement. On the other hand it is not necessary (with Keil) to suppose a gap in our text after “Aram,” that is to be filled with “from Edom.” It may be supposed that, as the Chronicler did not mention Aram because he had spoken of it just before, so our narrator did not include Edom because he intended to speak of the victory over the Edomites immediately afterwards. [On this reading see “Text. and Gram.” As Edom is geographically connected with Moab and Ammon, and as the spoil of the Syrian Hadadezer is mentioned at the end of the verse, it seems better (with Bib. Com.) to read Edom for Aram; though the Aram of our text might refer to the Syrians of Damascus (so Gill).—Tr.]
2Sa_8:13-14. Conquest of Edom. Comp. 1Ch_18:12-13, where it is said that Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, smote the Edomites in the valley of salt, eighteen thousand men, and the statements in Psa_60:2 [superscription] and 1Ki_11:15, which vary from this in minor points.
2Sa_8:13. And David made himself a name. Against the rendering “he set up a monument” is the fact that such a statement could not have been made here without reference to the Lord and indication of the place, and that it is wholly irreconcilable with David’s disposition that he should here set up a monument to himself. The proper translation is: “made himself a name” (comp. Gen_11:4; Gen_21:1) gained renown (so the Vulg.), 2Sa_7:9, “I have made thee a great name,” etc., is not in contradiction with this, for it points out the divine causality in David’s glorious military career as contrasted with its human side.—The glory of his name was exalted still more by another splendid achievement. As he returned from the battle against Aram, literally, from smiting Aram. The connection alone naturally suggests that the Aramæan wars related above are here meant. But our text affirms David made himself a name by a new victory over Aram in the valley of salt. The text is here obviously incomplete. The words “in the valley of salt” cannot be connected with what here precedes, since a battle with the Aramæans in this valley, which lay on the ancient border of Judah and Edom in the Edomite territory south of the Dead Sea, is out of the question. Before these words we must insert “and he smote Edom,” which may easily have fallen out in copying through the similarity of Edom and Aram (אדם and ארם). Sept: “he smote Idumea.” [Or, we may read Edom instead of Aram (Syria), comp. 1Ch_18:12, and see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] David’s wars in the north against the Aramæans and Ammonites had led the Edomites to fancy that they might easily get possession of the southern part of the Israelitish territory. When David had ended those wars, he returned (the word “returned” does not refer to Joab (Ew.)—see below). Whether he returned on the east or west of the Jordan and the Dead Sea is uncertain. The battle with the Edomites was then fought in the salt valley, the same place where Amaziah afterwards conquered the Edomites (2Ki_14:7). The Edomites lost eighteen thousand men; so also Chron. But in Chron. the battle is fought not by David himself, but by Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, and in 1Ki_11:15 and in Psa_60:2 [superscription] by Joab. There are here no real contradictions, since in different reports (for ex., in the last German-French war) the same battles are referred to different leaders, in one to the Fieldmarshal, in another to his subordinate Generals, in still another to the Generalissimo himself. Abishai, who in the Syrian-Ammonitish war commanded a division of David’s army under Joab, was the conqueror of the Edomites, while Joab was General-in-chief, and David had control of the whole military operation. Michaelis: “David as king, Joab as chief commander, and Abishai, who was sent forward by his brother, and overthrew the enemy.” Only incapacity to conceive such affairs in their reality and manifoldness can find a discrepancy here. For the rest it is to be noted that the Chronicler, though he names Abishai as leader in this victory, was at the same time thinking of David as the conqueror (in accord with our passage), since he adds: “And the Lord helped David in all his undertakings.” The difference in numbers also (here and in Chron. eighteen thousand, in Psalms 60. twelve thousand) is unimportant; there is no need to suppose an error of copyist in the last passage (Ew.) to explain it. It receives a simple explanation from the various statements about the battle in different authorities. In the last German-French war the reports of the numbers of killed or prisoners often differed by thousands. How much more might such differences arise at a time when so exact countings were not provided for. [Bp. Patrick suggests that Abishai began the fight and slew six thousand, and then Joab, advancing with his reserve, slew twelve thousand more (so Psalms 60). It is impossible to give a certain explanation of the difference.—Tr.] David put garrisons in all Edom (not in Chron). Thenius supposes the reason of the special emphatic statement here (comp. 2Sa_8:6), that no part of Edom was left without a garrison, to be that this was not the case in former campaigns against Edom (see for ex. 1Sa_14:47). But the explanation lies rather in the numerous mountains, caves and gorges of the country, which made a complete garrisoning necessary.—Thus had David overthrown the huge column of nations that were dangerous to Israel from north to south, and on its ruins founded his dominion.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. In all his wars and victories over Israel’s enemies David, as theocratic king, was only the instrument of the Lord, who Himself waged these wars for His people. Therefore in his royal military calling David knows himself also only as servant of the Lord, to whom, as the true Commander, he consecrates and dedicates the booty gained. And the prophetical narrative can say nothing higher of David than that he performed these splendid deeds of arms through the help of the Lord (2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:14). But in these victories over the enemies of God’s people was fulfilled the Lord’s promise (2Sa_7:10-11), trusting in which David could advance to battle prepared for war and certain of victory.
2. David’s royal calling was to be fulfilled chiefly in wars and victories over Israel’s enemies, in order that the kingdom of God in Israel might attain its unhindered, theocratic-national full development of form. But from this historical basis is subsequently developed the idea of the theocratic kingdom as a mighty and powerful one that victoriously combats the enemies of the theocracy, and makes them subservient to the divine might and power. On this is then built up the Messianic prophecy of the future king, who in divine might and glory will complete the kingdom of God by the thorough conquest of all its enemies, establish God’s universal dominion in the people of God redeemed from the world-powers, and dispense God’s blessing under His protection and pastoral fidelity. Compare especially Psalms 2, 72, 110, which in their historical foundation and fundamental ideas are unintelligible without the history of David’s wars and victories (ch. 8.) that lays the foundation both for the Messianic prophecy and for the promise in ch. 7.
3. Under the guidance of Psalms 60—which refers to the impending new war with the Edomite (after the glorious conclusion of the Syrian-Ammonite war) and to Israel’s new danger from their inroad (Delitzsch, Moll), not to the situation after the victory over Edom in the Salt-valley (Hengst.)—it is possible to follow the ups and downs of David’s thoughts under the experiences of this time and afterwards in his recollection of its trials and God’s gracious manifestations, and to exhibit the truths therein contained that hold good for God’s kingdom in all times. After the days of mighty manifestations of divine help there have come for God’s people times of great distress within and without, not, however, by chance, by a necessary natural process or by unavertable fate, but immediately from the Lord. The deep powerful feeling of the absolute dependence of all human life on the Lord permits no lament over calamity, without accompanying declaration that the Lord has sent it according to His unsearchable counsel, and without giving Him the glory by the confession: “This hath the Lord done!” So David’s lament in Psa_60:3-5 [1–3] is such a declaration and confession of the Lord’s omnipotent power in the infliction of severe sufferings and great dangers on His people. “O God, thou hast cast us off, thou hast scattered us, made the land tremble and broken it, hast made thy people see hard things, etc.”—But with such lament and confession is connected in the pious heart the living remembrance of God’s former manifestations of favor in His promises, as the banner that is raised by the Lord for them that fear Him. Thereby has the Lord Himself given His assailed ones the right to remind Him of His promises, and so the lament changes into the prayer: Help, answer us! (Psa_60:6-7 [4, 5]). Praying faith hears the divine answer in the might-displaying word of the living God (“God hath spoken in His holiness”) wherein He announces Himself as the unlimited Owner and Lord of His land and people, and as the victorious opponent and sovereign of their enemies. These are the two fundamental truths that the history of God’s kingdom everywhere affirms and confirms: the Lord acknowledges His people (as His possession) with His promises and their fulfilment; and the enemies of God’s kingdom and people will not be able to elude His power, but must submit to it (Psa_60:8-10 [6–8]). But in how sharp contradiction of such divine promises is the actual condition of God’s people in the world? “Hast thou not cast us off?” Dost thou not go forth with our hosts? (Psa_60:11-12 [9, 10]). [The translation of the Eng. A. V. is also possible, and gives the same general sense.—Tr.]. The above lament is repeated in such a question, which arises from the involuntary comparison of the present straitened condition of God’s kingdom and people with the majestic declaration of God that promises victory and dominion over all enemies. This sharp dissonance must penetrate deep into the heart of God’s servant when he sees with equal vividness and clearness both the rich promises of God and the needs and straits of God’s kingdom. But it is resolved into all the more pressing entreaty and prayer for the divine help and into the twofold confident avowal and confession: 1) In God we shall show our power, that is, carry off the victory, and 2) God the Lord, who is in His people, will through them destroy the power of the enemy (Psalm 60:13, 14 [Psa_60:11-12]). The Psalm ceases with the same twofold ground-tone that sounds through 2 Samuel 8. David made himself a name by his victories over his enemies, and the Lord helped him whithersoever he went.
Nearly related to Psalms 60. is Psalms 44,17 which similarly presupposes the affliction of God’s people and the danger of their conquest and dispersion by the hostile neighboring nations. Through the Lord’s help to the fathers when the land was taken possession of (Psa_44:2-4 [1–3]) is awakened and sustained faith that the same God, as king of His people, will now also grant His people victory over their enemies (Psa_44:5-8 [4–7]), so that they shall forever thank Him as they have hitherto boasted of Him (Psa_44:9 [8]). But in contradiction of this tradition of divine help in the olden time and of this confidence is the present overthrow and distress of the people (Psa_44:10-17 [9–16]) which is felt all the more deeply in view of the people’s faithfulness to the covenant, as the omniscient God knows (Psa_44:18-22 [17–21]). But the consciousness of undeserved sufferings and afflictions leads to the profounder conviction that such sufferings, inflicted by the Lord, must be endured for the Lord’s sake, since the enmity towards the Lord’s people is directed against the Lord Himself (Psa_44:23 [22]). Therewith, however, is connected also the hope of God’s people, as expressed in their prayer that the Lord would arise from His inactivity and espouse His people’s cause. The ground of this hope and prayer lies in their need of help and in the free grace of God. Psalms 44., being thus similar to Psalms 60. in its course of thought and its historical presuppositions, most probably belongs to the time of affliction expressly designated in Psalms 60., when the Edomites sorely pressed Israel; comp. Amo_1:6. The frightful castigation that Joab inflicted on them (1Ki_11:15) intimates the greatness of the suffering that they had prepared for Israel, and thus serves indirectly to confirm the historical circumstances presupposed in these two Psalms.—In Psalms 108. we find a repetition of Psa_60:7-12 [5–12]) loosely combined with another Psalm-fragment Psa_57:8-11 [7–11]).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
War is right and a duty before God, when the object Isaiah 1) To guard God’s law and order against hostile power; 2) To preserve gifts and goods granted by God; 3) To fulfil tasks assigned by God; 4) To carry out the clearly recognized plans of God’s wisdom.
2Sa_8:1. Schlier: We see here … how it still is at the present day with wars in the world, what righteous and unrighteous wars properly are, but also what wars always ought to be.
2Sa_8:2. Tueb. Bible: To pious kings God gives victory and glory. Pro_20:28.—Osiander: That is the most glorious victory and the most fortunate government, when the conquered enemies do not hate the conqueror, but hold him in honor and render him willing obedience.
2Sa_8:3-4. Osiander: If the mightiest foes could not subdue David, so too no human power will extirpate the kingdom of Christ.—S. Schmid: Against God and those who trust in God no human might avails (Pro_29:25). When the kingdom of God is the object of attack, the ungodly are somewhat united and help each other, while at other times they are against each other (Luk_23:12; Act_4:27).
2Sa_8:6. Cramer: The heathen also must bring gold and gifts (Isa_60:6), and willingly offer to him in holy attire.
2Sa_8:9-13. A beautiful emblem of the fact that many among the heathen also shall willingly turn to Christ.—Starke: God’s promises, though it be late, are yet truly and surely fulfilled (Gen_25:23).18 If God gives to us, we should also give to Him again. But we give to Him again when we do good to His children and servants.—Schlier: How well it would be if all rulers and warlike heroes never had their eye on themselves, but always and only on the honor of the Lord, if all happened to the Lord’s honor alone, if all honor were given only to the Lord, if all booty were spent only for the service of the Lord and never for display and pride.
[2Sa_8:2. David is at the present day often charged with great cruelty for slaying so many of the Moabites; but to most of his contemporaries, friend and foe, it probably seemed a hazardous leniency to spare a full third. The Asiatic rulers have always inclined to what we should regard as extreme severity in punishment; but no man has ever been able to rule long in Asia without such punishments, at least to the extent of making examples, as David did here and in 2Sa_12:31. Is there not danger in the Christendom of to-day that we shall go to the opposite extreme, that mercy to criminals will be carried so far as to become cruelty to society?
2Sa_8:3. Only once, and for a brief season, did the children of Abraham possess the whole region promised to him, Gen_15:18. During all the centuries it was theirs by right through God’s gift; but it was not theirs by possession through their own fault. In like manner, how seldom does national or individual life and character reach up to the height of its heaven-permitted possibilities.—Tr.]
[2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:14. I. How trying a life David was leading, in its exertions, hardships, perils. II. How blessed a life amid it all, since the Lord preserved him whithersoever he went!
2Sa_8:10-11. It is the lot of many who wish to be greatly useful that they can but gather materials and devise plans, leaving it for others to build and rejoice. Men forget the former class, but God does not. We speak only of Solomon’s Temple; but in the eye of God it was David’s Temple too. Does one long for a different task, and feel tempted to repine? That which God assigns will be best for us, if we waste not life in dreaming of some other lot, but faithfully stand where He puts us.—Tr.]
[2Sa_8:1-13. Lessons from David’s years of warfare. 1) A pious man may have many enemies. 2) A pious man may be required to spend much of his life in war. 3) A pious man may be compelled to inflict severe punishments (2Sa_9:2). 4) A pious man, even though not always prospered or preserved (2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:14) is always guided and blessed. 5) A pious man will rejoice to consecrate the richest results of his struggles and toils unto God (2Sa_8:10-11).—Tr.]
2. David’s Internal Government: Organization of the Administration of the Kingdom (2Sa_8:15-18) and Magnanimous Exhibition of Royal Favor to the Sunken House of Saul.—Mephibosheth. Chapter 2Sa_8:1-13.
a. The Administration of the Kingdom and David’s Officers 2Sa_8:15-18
15And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people. 16And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; 17And Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar [Abiathar the son of Ahimelech]19 were the priests; and Seraiah20 was the [om. the] scribe; 18And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over21 both [om. both] the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief rulers.22
b. David’s Magnanimity toward Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s Son. 2Sa_9:1-13.
1And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake? 2And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba. And when they had called [And they called] him unto David [ins. and] the king said unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, Thy servant is Hebrews 3 And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son [There is yet a son of Jonathan] which is [om. which is] lame on 4[in] his feet. And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel in Lodebar.
5Then [And] king David sent and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the 6son of Ammiel, from Lodebar. Now when [And] Mephibosheth23 the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come [came] unto David he fell [and fell] on his face and did reverence. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered [said], Behold thy servant! 7And David said unto him, Fear not, for I will surely shew [show] thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father, and thou shaft eat bread at my table continually. 8And he bowed himself and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?
9Then [And] the king called to Ziba Saul’s servant and said unto him, I have 10given unto thy master’s son all that pertained to Saul and to all his house. Thou therefore [And thou] and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits that thy master’s son may have food [bring thy master’s son food]24 to eat; but [and] Mephibosheth thy master’s son shall eat bread alway at my table. Now [And] Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants. 11Then said Ziba [And Ziba said] unto the king, According to all that my lord the king hath commanded his servant so shall thy servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king,25 he shall eat at my table as one of the king’s sons. 12And Mephibosheth had a young son whose name was Micha. And all that dwelt in the house 13of Ziba were servants unto Mephibosheth. So [And] Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and [ins. he] was lame on [in] both his feet.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
a. 2Sa_8:15-18. The internal administration of the kingdom. Alongside of David’s military activity without is here placed the new summary view of the offices and their incumbents, whereby a unitary administration, embracing all the internal affairs of the kingdom was carried on.
2Sa_8:15. To David’s wars, which gained him safety from enemies and dominion over Israel is here attached a general characterization of his government in its inward nature. He was executing, that is, striving in all things thoroughly to establish judgment and justice in the whole nation.—According to this point of view he ordered and administered the affairs of the kingdom through the following offices, the names of the incumbents of which are given.
2Sa_8:16. 1) Joab was over the host, had the supreme command of the army, was Minister of war and Chief Marshal in one. See 2Sa_2:18. 2) Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud (Ahilud was a well-known man) was Mazkir (מַזְכִּיר), that is, not the recorder and preserver of the most important events of the kingdom, as Vulg. (a commentariis) and Sept. (ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων [keeper of the records]) understand it, but the referee in all internal affairs and highest representative counsellor, the Chancellor, who at the same time suggested and drew up the royal decrees and saw to their proper publication and registration in the State-archives. Comp. Œhler in Herzog. VIII. 15. [For further mention of this office see 1Ki_4:3; 2Ki_18:18; 2Ki_18:37; 2Ch_34:8. It is evident that the office was a very important one; and from the etymology (the word = one who calls to remembrance) it seems not unlikely that it included the recording of important events. It would thus sufficiently differ from that of Sopher (Scribe or Secretary), which would be more personal and political. Gesenius and others refer to the Roman Magister memoriœ and the Persian Waka Nuwis (imperial historiographer). In the absence of any English term exactly representing the Hebrew, the “recorder” of Eng. A. V. may be retained.—Tr.].
2Sa_8:17. Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests (= high-priests). Zadok here appears for the first time; he therefore did not become high-priest till after David’s accession to the throne. Through his father, Ahitub, he was a descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar (1 Chr. 5:29 compared with 1 Chr. 5:34 and 1Ch_6:35-37); Ahimelech on the contrary descended through Abiathar from Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son, 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6. The “Abimelech” in 1Ch_18:16 is an error of copyist, since we have “Ahimelech” also in 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6. Elsewhere, however, the two high-priests in David’s time are given as Zadok and Abiathar (2Sa_15:24; 2Sa_15:35; 2Sa_17:15; 2Sa_19:12; 2Sa_20:25), and according to 1Sa_22:20, Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech. Movers, Thenius, Ewald, hence suppose an inversion of names here, so that we should read: Abiathar, son of Ahimelech. But in that case we should have to suppose a similar inversion, so far as regards the change of Ahimelech to Abiathar in 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6; 1Ch_24:31, passages quite independent of ours, where Ahimelech, as son of Abiathar appears as high-priest of Ithamar’s line alongside of Zadok, who is of Eleazar’s line. Instead of this violent procedure Bertheau (on 1Ch_18:16), Œhler, Keil, and others, suggest that Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, had a son of the same name as his grandfather, and that he, for some reason unknown to us, acted as high-priest along with his father who was still living at the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1Ki_2:27). That he might have had such a son of proper age is to be presumed from 1Sa_14:3. According to 2Sa_15:27; 2Sa_17:17; 2Sa_17:20, Abiathar had a younger son Jonathan, who afterwards joined Adonijah against Solomon [1Ki_1:42], while Ahimelech is mentioned neither there nor here, perhaps because he was no longer alive. But this suggestion is open to grave doubts, not merely because an Ahimelech son of Abiathar appears nowhere but here and in the passages cited from Chron., but especially because elsewhere Zadok and Abiathar appear as the acting priests [=high-priests] under David. There remains the supposition of a historical error (instead of an error of copyist) in the authority used here and in 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6; 1Ch_24:31, the author of the original account having reversed the order of the names. [This supposition of Erdmann’s seems the most improbable of all here cited; error in such a point can hardly be supposed in the author of “Samuel,” with 1 Samuel 22. and the rest of the history before him. An error in copying easily perpetuates itself, though we cannot always explain how it arose, and how it comes to reappear in certain places and not in others.—Still less probable is the opinion of Geiger (Urschrift, p. 21) and Well-hausen that there are here traces of a systematic attempt to exalt the line of Eleazar (Zadokites) at the expense of the house of Ithamar; that an “Ahitub” should occur several times is not strange or suspicious, and the whole tone of the history is quiet and natural, showing no signs of distortion and tendentious manipulation. There seems to be no sound objection to supposing an inversion of these names here by a scribe’s error. See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.].—Zadok acted as high-priest in Gibeon (1Ch_16:39; comp. 1Ki_3:4) at the Sanctuary, the other in Jerusalem.—4) Seraiah was scribe (Sopher), State Secretary, not a military muster-officer, for this is designated by another word (פָּקַד), see 2Sa_24:2; 2Sa_24:4; 2Sa_24:9. Comp. Œhler (Herz. VIII. 15) and Keil. [So in 2Ki_25:19 a certain military officer is termed “the scribe (sopher), the captain of the army, who levied the people,” or, perhaps (as in margin of Eng. A. V.) “the scribe of the captain of the army. It is possible that the Sopher combined civil and military duties; it has also been supposed (though there is no proof of it) that there were two officers called Sopher, one civil and military (as here), the other ecclesiastical.—Tr.].—The name of this man in 1Ch_18:16 is Sharsha, in 2Sa_20:25 Sheya [Eng. A. V. has the marginal (Qeri) Sheva] and in 1Ki_4:3 (where the same person is meant) Shisha. According to this, Sheya26 seems to be a shortened form of Shisha = Shavsha, and the latter, along with Seraiah, a second name of the same person. Possibly, however, the difference came from scribal error or indistinctness of letters, whichever was the original form.
2Sa_8:18. 5) Benaiah the son of Jehoiada (a mighty warrior of Kabzeel, 2Sa_23:20-23) was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites (we are to read “over” instead of the unintelligible masoretic “and,” as in the parallel passage in Chron.). These two names designate the royal body-guard attached to the king’s court and person (Jos. Ant. 7, 5, 4 σωματοφύλακες). The name Cherethite is to be derived from a verb (כָּרַת) meaning “to cut down, destroy,” it having been the duty of royal guards in the East to execute the death-sentence; so did Benaiah in 1Ki_2:25. Pelethites, from a verb (פָלַת), “to hasten, flee,” means “runners,” the men of the bodyguard having had to carry the royal orders swiftly to distant places. Comp. 2Ch_30:6. In the parallel passage 2Sa_20:23 instead of Kerethi [Cherethi] stands Kari (from כוּר, “to dig”), and in 2Ki_11:4; 2Ki_11:19, for the whole phrase stands: “the Kari and the runners;” that is, Pelethites = runners. So Gesen. (Thes. s. v.), Then. (here and on 1Ki_1:38; 2Ki_11:12) and Keil (here and on Chron.). The words are adjectives (formed by י) with substantival meaning, designating offices, properly “executioners and runners” (as the שָלִישִׁיּ in 2Sa_23:8 [Eng. A. V. “captains”]). Comp. Ew., § 177, 164.—Opposed to this explanation is another, first advanced by Lakenmacher (observ. philolog. II. 11 seq.), and then defended by Ew., Berth., Mov., Hitzig, Starke, Rütschi and others, namely, that the Kerethi = Cretes or Carians (כרי), and the Pelethi = Philistines, since the latter are called Kerethi in 1Sa_30:14; Zep_2:5; Eze_25:16. But in the first passage the name designates not the Philistines in general, but a branch of the Philistine people settled in the southwest of Philistia, and in the two prophetic passages the name “Philistines” stands along with this name (Kerethi), which characterizes them as murderers, exterminators. Further, the view that Pelethi is corrupted from Philistines (פְּלֵתִי from פְּלִשְׁתִּים) is to be rejected as “wholly without foundation” (so Keil after Gesen.: “who can endure such a contraction in a Shemitic language?”). If Kerethi and Pelethi both mean Philistines, the application of two synonymous words to the royal body-guard is as strange as if one should combine “Englishmen and Britons, Italians and Welshmen”27 (Gesen.). Against this view, moreover, is the later designation “Kari and runners,” whence Pelethi = runners. Besides, the conjecture that the Philistines immigrated from Crete rests on the indefinite statements of Tacitus (Hist. 5, 1, 2): “they say that the Jews fled from the island of Crete, and settled in the extreme parts of Libya,” and of Stephanus of Byzantium (s. v. Γαζά) that this city [Gaza] was once called Minoa after Minos king of Crete, to which are opposed Deu_2:23; Amo_9:7, which state that the Philistines came from Caphtor. See Keil, Comm. 266 A. 1 [Eng. transl., p. 368 Note]. Further, as Thenius remarks, “it is altogther improbable that the patriotic David, so faithful to the service of the one true God, should have surrounded himself with a foreign and heathen body guard,” to which Keil (ubi supra) admirably adds against Hitzig: “Least of all would David have chosen his bodyguard out of the Philistines, the hereditary enemies of Israel.”—[The ancient versions throw little light on these words. Sept. and Vulg. transfer them; Syriac has “nobles and rustics (Lond. Polyg. soldiers),” Chald. “archers and slingers.”—There are strong reasons for holding them to be not appellatives (as Ges. and Erdm.) but gentile nouns: 1) the grammatical form of the words (Krethi, Plethi) points to this; the termination i is used in Heb. to form patronymics and gentilics, and besides to form nouns only from other nouns (sub. or adj.) or adverbs, that is, in general it forms denominative nouns; it cannot, then, be here well referred to verbal roots, as Gesenius and others wish, but must form a denominative, which here cannot well be anything but a gentilic noun; the shalishi of 2Sa_23:8, cited by Erdmann, being a denominative, does not favor his view; 2) in 1Sa_30:14 one of these words, Krethi, actually denotes a Philistine tribe, or a tribe dwelling near Philistia; this establishes the fact that it was the name of a tribe, while of any other use there is no established trace in the Bible; for so also it is used in Eze_25:16 and Zep_2:5, where there is no reason to hold that anything else than the gentilic sense is meant, Ezekiel simply making a play on the name, as is very common in the prophetic writings; 3) add to this that if these words were appellatives signifying “executioners and runners,” it is not easy to see why the common Heb. words for these offices were not employed, and why our words appear only in David’s time (Rüetschi).—These reasons seem almost decisive for regarding these as proper names (without saying anything of their origin and signification).—The objections urged against this view by Keil and Erdmann seem insufficient to set it aside: a) the objection from synonymous names rests on the assumption that both words must be taken as = Philistines; but, as Erdmann himself remarks, the Krethi are only a tribe living in or near the Philistine territory, and the Plethi may be another different tribe or family possibly not Philistines at all; b) it is thought that the later phrase “the kari and the runners” (2Ki_11:4; 2Ki_11:19) establishes the fact that plethi = “runners,” and that one of our words being an appellative, the other also must be appellative; but that the common Heb. word for “runners or footmen” should be used in Athaliah’s time (as in Saul’s, 1Sa_22:17, and of Absalom and Adonijah) cannot prove that David did not have a special body of guards with a special gentilic name, even supposing the phrase in 1 Kings 11. to be parallel with ours, which is by no means certain; if the Plethi were runners, it does not follow that the word itself means “runner’s;” nor is it clear whether the Kari (Eng. A. V. incorrectly “captains”) are the same with the Krethi (in 2Sa_20:23 the text has Kari, the margin Krethi), rather the word is another proper name (Carians or some other); c) David’s patriotism and piety would be no bar to his taking a body-guard from neighboring tribes, among whom he had probably passed a part of his time of exile, and had many friends (compare Uriah, Ittai, and other foreigners), nor were such men necessarily heathen because they were foreigners, many foreigners having attached themselves to the religion of Israel.—As to the origin of the names Krethi and Plethi there is much uncertainty. The first is identified with Cretan by those that think Caphtor (Gen_10:14, Deu_2:23) to be Crete, but against this Ebers has brought strong reasons (Ægypt. I. 130 sq.); however, independently of any reference to Caphtor, a tribe may have come from Crete and settled on the Mediterranean shore. The connection of Kari with Carian, while not improbable in itself, is yet unproved. The identification of the second name Plethi with Plishti or Philistine (by the falling out of the s letter) is hard and improbable; Bp. Patrick thinks it likely that the name designated an Israelitish family, and refers to the Reubenite Peleth, Num_16:1, and the Judahite of the same name, 1Ch_2:33; Abarbanel (cited and approved by Philippson) regards both words as names of Israelitish families. At present we must be content to remain in ignorance of the origin of the names.—Tr.]28 6) And David’s sons were confidential counsellors. As Movers (Bibl. Chron. 302 sq.) has shown, the word cohen [usually = priest] does not here mean “domestic chaplains, palace-priests, unlevitical spiritual advisers” (Gesen., De Wette, Winer, Maurer, and others), but “confidential counsellor,” according to 1Ki_4:5, where the same term applied to Sabud, son of Nathan [Eng. A. V. “principal officer”] is explained by the phrase “the king’s friend.” [This phrase is not necessarily an explanation of the term cohen, but may be simply another descriptive epithet.—Tr.]. The periphrastic expression in 1Ch_18:17 “the first [chief] at the hand (side) of the king” points to the same signification. According to Kimchi the verb (כִהֵן) means “to serve in an office of dignity;” according to Grotius, “to do service, whence the participle in reference to God means a priest, in reference to the king a minister.” [This seems to be the most probable statement from the examples in the Old Test., the rendering of Sept., Syr. and Chald. here, and the opinion of the Talmud (Bab., Nedarim 62 a) and the rabbinical writers. The fullest discussions are by J. D. Michaelis, Supplem. in Lex. Heb., and Gesenius, Thes. s. v. Our data are hardly sufficient to enable us to speak with certainty of the original meaning of the word.—Tr.]
The list of officers (2Sa_8:16-18) is here appended to the statistical-historical account of David’s wars in order to conclude the history of David’s royal rule at its culmination with a glance at the internal administration of the kingdom. It can no more be conclusively decided from this that the Editor here incorporates into his account a [different] history of David (Thenius) than in the similar passage, 1 Samuel 14. It is a list of the high officers of state that stood by him in the internal administration of the kingdom at the moment when he had secured it against “the enemies roundabout,” and extended it by victories over them, and could now undisturbed give attention to its internal strengthening and organization. The list in 2Sa_20:23-26, on the contrary, gives the list of officers as it stood in his last days after the internal shocks that his government had sustained.
b. Ch. 9 David’s magnanimous conduct towards Mephibosheth. As Mephibosheth was five years old at Saul’s death (2Sa_4:4), and now had a young son (2Sa_5:12), what is here related cannot be put immediately after David’s removal to Jerusalem or Ishbosheth’s murder (2 Samuel 4) (as Then., would do on account of David’s words, “is there left any of Saul’s house?” which might indeed have been spoken with reference to that murder), but belongs to a later period, when David had secured his kingdom within and raised it to its zenith by external wars. These words indicate that David after long wars was had now found a time of quiet to attend to internal affairs, among the most important of which must have been the fulfilment of his covenant of friendship with Jonathan. The narrative shows how he fulfilled Jonathan’s request (1Sa_20:15), and his own answering promise with royal grace and magnanimity.
2Sa_9:1 David’s question: Is it so that there is yet any one left to29 Saul’s house? presupposes that he had made inquiry and gotten information thereof, and now wished to assure himself of what he had heard. He had perhaps some time before accidentally heard of the concealed abode of the unfortunate last scion of Saul’s house in a remote place (2Sa_9:5). The words: That I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake refer to Jonathan’s words, 1Sa_20:14-15 (“show me the mercy of the Lord,” etc.).30
2Sa_9:2. A former servant of Saul, Ziba, gives exacter information of the person and the place. [Kitto in Daily Bib. Ill. thinks it improbable that David knew any thing of the existence of a son of Jonathan, or that he would recognize him under his altered name (Mephibosheth instead of Meribbaal); Ziba was probably known to some of David’s officers and hunted up by them.—Tr.] In David’s question to him (2Sa_9:3): Is there no one, etc., that I may show him the mercy of God? the term mercy or kindness (2Sa_9:1) is more exactly defined as a kindness such as God Himself shows; and this agrees again with Jonathan’s mention (1Sa_20:14) of the “kindness of God,” which he begs David to show to him and his house. [Others understand it of kindness in God, out of reverence for God, for God’s sake (Keil), or take the expression as merely a superlative one = very great kindness (Patrick), others combine these three views, and this is better; kindness shown from an indwelling in God will be pure and great kindness such as God shows.—Tr.] According to Ziba’s information [2Sa_9:3-4] Jonathan’s lame son is in Lodebar in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel. Lodebar (לוֹ דְבָר, in 2Sa_17:27 לא דְבָר) was therefore across the Jordan near Mahanaim and Rabbath-Ammon, perhaps Lidbir,31 Jos_13:26. According to this account Machir was a respected and propertied man, who had taken charge of Mephibosheth after Jonathan’s death. [See 2Sa_17:27-29.—Tr.]
2Sa_9:6-8. Meeting of David and Mephibosheth.—Mephibosheth does reverence to David as his king with such tokens of fear that David is obliged to encourage him: Fear not.—It was oriental custom, that rulers, and especially those of a new dynasty, should slay all the relations of a predecessor. David relieves him of this fear by declaring: 1) that he would show him kindness for his father Jonathan’s sake; 2) would restore to him all Saul’s land—that is, his private estate at Gibeah (comp. 1 Samuel 9), which had passed into the possession either of David or of remote kinsmen of Saul (Mephibosheth had therefore hitherto been a poor man, dependent on others), and 3) would take him during his life into his house and to his table. Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually.—Mephibosheth, overwhelmed by this exhibition of royal grace, testifies his gratitude by gestures (“bowed himself”) and by words wherein he confesses himself unworthy of such great goodness. The comparison of the dead dog indicates what is lowest and most despicable, comp. 1Sa_24:15. [Grove (Art. “Mephibosheth” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary): These early misfortunes [loss of parents, lameness, poverty] threw a shade over his whole life, and his personal deformity seems to have exercised a depressing and depreciatory influence on his character.—Tr.]
2Sa_9:9-13. Mephibosheth put in possession of Saul’s estate and admitted to David’s house and table.—David’s transaction with Ziba suggests that the latter resided at Gibeah, on the land of Saul’s family, and stood in some relation to the family, perhaps that of steward. David 1) informs him that he has restored to Mephibosheth all the property of Saul and of his house. I have given them to thy master’s son—son here=grandson, as above (2Sa_9:7) father=grandfather; 2) commissions him (2Sa_9:10) to cultivate the land for him, entrusts him with the management and control of the property. The “bring” is to be understood of “storing into the barns or also of delivery at Jerusalem” (Thenius), the latter according to Josephus and Ewald, § 303 e. That the son of thy master may have bread and eat it refers not to Mephibosheth’s son (Micha 2Sa_9:12), as has been supposed in order to avoid the apparent contradiction of David’s statement that Mephibosheth is to eat at his table; there is really no contradiction, since this last statement merely means that Mephibosheth himself is to have the honor of daily eating at David’s table, while these words relate to the general support of the house and family of the so highly honored son of David’s friend. [On the text see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] The statement: Ziba had 15 sons and 20 servants serves to explain the commission: Cultivate the land thou and thy sons and thy servants and to show that Ziba was in condition with his family and servants to manage so large an estate. “Something considerable could therefore be made for Mephibosheth” (Thenius). 2Sa_9:11 in its two parts—Ziba’s declaration that he would perform David’s command, and the statement of Mephibosheth eating at David’s table—corresponds to the two parts of 2Sa_9:10. The words: And Mephibosheth eats at my table as one of the king’s sons cannot be taken as David’s (Clericus, De Wette [Eng. A. V.]), since David would then have said the same thing three times, and there would in general be no reason for such a reply to Ziba’s words. They are rather to be regarded as spoken by Ziba—not, however, as a rejoinder in the sense: “If he will live with me, he will be treated as a king’s son” (Grotius), but as a repetition of David’s word, attached to the “as my lord has commanded” (2Sa_9:10) with the expression of joyful astonishment and the consequent addition: “as one of the king’s sons!” Ziba, in affirming that all that the king has ordered shall be done, repeats in reference to Mephibosheth his verba ipsissima. This explanation may be preferred to the assumption of a wrong reading here, namely, “my table,” for “David’s table,” Sept. (Thenius, Keil), or “thy tables” (= thy table, Böttcher), partly because the text is not to be altered without pressing necessity, partly because in that case the statement that Mephisbosheth ate at David’s table would be repeated immediately afterwards (in 2Sa_9:13). [For another view of the text see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.]
2Sa_9:12. [Mephibosheth was about 13 years old when David fixed his abode in Jerusalem; how old he was now would depend on the chronological position of chap. 9, which cannot be fixed with certainty. The Heb. word (קָטֹן) here rendered “young” is indefinite as to age; for Micha’s descendants see 1Ch_8:34 sq.;1Ch_9:40 sq.—Tr.] “The house of Ziba were servants; Vulg. “served.” Thenius, in view of 2Sa_9:10, would read the Particp. serving (עֹבְדִים). In any case, the constant servitude of Ziba’s whole household to Mephibosheth is indicated, while the latter as lord of the land dwelt at Jerusalem as companion of David’s family in the house and at the table.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The picture of David’s royal power and glory in contrast with the poor, crippled son of Jonathan, the last scion of Saul’s fallen house, comes out in greater splendor, the deeper the latter humbles himself before him and trusts himself to his favor. In his noble conduct to Mephibosheth David demonstrates the friendship that he had sworn to Jonathan.
2. The truly pious and God-fearing man not only shows “kindness of God” in so far as God’s kindness impels him to show such merciful love as God does, whereby he proves himself in truth a child of God, but it is the merciful love of God Himself that dwells in his heart and works therefrom; for he that lives in fellowship with God receives into his heart through the Holy Ghost the love that is in God, and lives and moves in this love.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
[2Sa_8:15-18. Taylor: In the minds of most readers of the Bible the name of David, king of Israel, is associated mainly with military prowess, poetic genius, and personal piety; and only on the rarest occasions do we hear any reference made to his administrative ability. Yet in this last quality he was at least as remarkable as in any one of the others; and great injustice is done to him if we leave out of view the eminent services which he rendered to his country by the exercise of his governmental and organizing faculties. … More than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished for the tribes of Israel.—Tr.]
Chap. 9. How true, compassionate love of one’s neighbor should be exhibited, is shown by David’s conduct towards Mephibosheth. 1) This love does not suffer the neighbor’s need to come to it, but searches out and goes after the need; 2) It does not suffer itself to be determined by selfish aims, but does its duty in faithfulness and impelled by God’s mercy for God’s sake; 3) It brings to the neighbor’s heart, when filled with trembling anxiety and fear, consolation and peace by the words, “Fear not;” 4) It lifts up the neighbor from his wretchedness and want, by restoring to him what he had lost without fault, and by making him share in the enjoyment of its own blessings, assigned it by God.
How a man after God’s heart, amid experiences of divine goodness and faithfulness, should show the mercy of God towards his fellow-man: 1) By faithfully discharging the duties of friendship; 2) In case there has been enmity, by requiting evil with good; 3) By rendering to one on whom God’s counsel has inflicted misfortune, the words and deeds of humble and helpful love.
The exercise of merciful love is an evidence that one has himself experienced the divine mercy; for this mercy Isaiah , 1) Its source, 2) Its motive, 3) Its example.—“The mercy of God is that which is shown in God and for God’s sake, Luk_6:30.” (Berl. Bible.)
2Sa_9:1. Starke: To poor children whose parents have deserved well of us we should do good in return. Wuert. Bib.: When harm has been done one, and his enemy is no longer present, he should not avenge himself on his posterity, but should forget the wrong, and, if possible, should do good to the children and posterity of the man who wronged him (Mat_5:44).—[Henry: David had too long forgotten his obligations to Jonathan, but now, at length, they are brought to his mind. It is good sometimes to bethink ourselves whether there be any promises or engagements that we have neglected to make good; better do it late than never. Scott: Those who have much in their power should sedulously inquire after opportunities of doing good; for frequently the most deserving objects of our compassion are concealed by modesty and patient resignation.—Tr.]
2Sa_9:2-3. S. Schmid: All our good works, even works of mercy, must be done for God’s sake.—Starke: Our mercy should be ordered according to God’s mercy.
2Sa_9:5. Starke: A Christian should not only love in word, but also in deed and in truth (1Jn_3:18).
2Sa_9:6-7. Cramer: Treat orphans as a father, and thou shalt be as a son of the Most High (Sir_4:10).—Wuert. Bible: When parents are pious, their children after their death enjoy the fruit of it (Exo_20:6; Psa_112:1-2).
2Sa_9:7. Berl. Bible: Believers should earnestly take care to show all possible loving service to the children of those whom they have loved in the Lord, since we can then do nothing better than to remind such children of their parents’ grace, that they may follow them in faith and piety.—Schlier: Still is it a good thing for children if they have God-fearing parents, and still for long years may children enjoy the good their parents have done. The piety of parents is worth more than much money and goods.—[Cowper:
My boast is not that I deduce my birth
From lions enthroned, and rulers of the earth;
But higher far my proud pretensions rise—
The son of parents passed into the skies.—Tr.]
2Sa_9:9. Hall: There is no more certain way to glory and advancement than a lowly dejection of ourselves. 2Sa_9:11-12. Osiander: Stewards should serve their lord not with eye-service, but with all fidelity (Eph_6:6; Col_3:22).
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa_8:1. We leave this obscure word untranslated. Erdmann renders it “the bridle of the mother,” but the Heb. אַמָּה never means mother; so Philippson: “the bridle of the metropolis (capital city).” The ancient VSS. are discordant and unsatisfactory: Chald. has “the fastening of the Ammah,” Vulg. “the bridle of tribute,” Syr. and Arab, render a proper name Ramath-Gamah (which some translate “the height of the rush”), Aquila gives “the bridle of the aqueduct” or (according to another edition) “the bridle of the ell,” Symmachus “the authority of tribute,” while the Sept. reading τὴν ἀφωρισμένην suggests that their text contained the stem גּרשׁ or חרשׁ. These renderings show the perplexity of the translators; the Rabbinical translation “stream or aqueduct” (so perhaps Chald.) is improbable, and the rendering “tribute” equally without authority (=הַמַּם), while the reading in Chron. “Gath and her daughters” is an explanation, not a translation, if it be not a different form of the same original text. In this uncertainty it seems better to leave the words untranslated, as in Eng. A. V. Perhaps we have here a proper name, possibly a corruption of the text of Chronicles.—Tr.]
[2][2Sa_8:2. Sept. has “two lines to kill and two to save,” and Vulg. gives one line to each division (and so the Syr. in Walton’s Polyglot, followed by Arab., but Lee’s Syr. text agrees with the Heb.); these are changes from desire for symmetry.—Tr.]
[3][2Sa_8:3. Erdmann and many others prefer this form Hadadezer to the form in Chron., Hadarezer (which is found in all the ancient VSS. except Chald., and in many good Heb. MSS. and EDD.) on the ground that Hadad is the name of a Syrian sun-god and occurs in many other proper names; but Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., p. 101) says that the name of the Syrian king in 1Ki_20:1 is not Benhadad, but Ben-hadar, which the Assyrian writes Binhidri; Schrader translates the name (“the god) Bin is exalted.” If this be correct, the reading here is probably Hadarezer, as in Chron.—Tr.]
[4][2Sa_8:3. Our text is here to be preferred to that of Chron. (2Sa_18:3). Erdmann renders “to re-establish his power,” nearly as Eng. A. V. But the phrase here used always means “to turn one’s hand” either literally (as 1Sa_14:27) or figuratively, and either from (מִן) a thing (Eze_18:17) or to or against a thing (אֶל in Exo_4:7 עַל in Amo_1:8); here, as not the enemy against whom, but the place in which the effort is made is meant the prep. “in” (בְּ) is used; he went to “put his hand, direct his attack” in or at the river.—Tr.]
[5][2Sa_8:3. The word “Euphrates,” not in the text, is supplied by the Masorites in the margin, and is found in many MSS. and EDD.; its insertion in the Heb. is unnecessary, since “the river” means the Euphrates.—Tr.]
[6][2Sa_8:4. The Heb. here reads: “1700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen;” Eng. A. V. divides the first number and introduces “chariots” in order to account for their mention at the end of the verse (after 1Ch_18:4); Erdmann adopts the whole of the reading of Chron. “1000 chariots, 7000 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen” (so also Sept. and then). But Wellhausen objects to this that the רכב at the end is used in a general sense, including the horses of the “horsemen,”—inasmuch as after all the רכב only are houghed, there remain only 100 רכב “chariot-horses” and not also the “riding-horses.” Still, as the author may here have chosen to leave out the riding-horses altogether, this objection would not be decisive; but it is in favor of our text that, while not impossible, it is not so easy as that of Chron.—Tr.]
[7][2Sa_8:5. Syr. and Arab. read badly “Edom and Damascus.”—Tr.]
[8][2Sa_8:7. The versions render this word (שּׁלט) variously, apparently guessing at its meaning from the connection. As Thenius points out, the etymology (from a verb meaning “to be hard or strong”) and some of the passages where it occurs (as Jer_51:11) favor the meaning “armour” the rendering “shield” is now more commonly adopted.—Tr.]
[9][2Sa_8:8. The probability seems to be in favor of the reading “Tebah.”—Tr.]
[10][2Sa_8:10. The better reading is probably Hadoram (as in Chron.), with which compare the Hadar-ezer above.—Tr.]
[11][2Sa_8:12. Some MSS. and Sept., Syr., Arab. read “Edom,” a change of one letter only in the Hebrew, and this better suits the connection, where this name is followed by Moab, etc., Zobah appearing at the end.—Tr.]
[12][2Sa_8:13. As Syria was not near the valley of salt, this text is manifestly corrupt. We may either read “Edom” for “Syria” (so Sept. and Chron.) or insert the clause “and smote Edom” after “Syrians (so Erdmann). The former course is the simpler, and avoids the difficulty of accounting for the omission of any reference to Syria in Chronicles. The Heb. words for Syria (ארם) and Edom (ארם) differ very slightly.—Tr.]
[13][On this phrase see “Text. and Gramm.” For various explanations see Poole’s Synopsis and Bochart’s Hieroz. II. p. 225.—Tr.]
[14][See Art. Zobah in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.]
[15][As in Psa_72:8 : “from the river to the ends of the earth” (south of Egypt), and so 1Ma_7:8. As the Nahar is the Euphrates, so the Yeor is the Nile.—Tr.]
[16][See notes on 2Sa_10:16.—Tr.]
[17][The permanent and deep calamity portrayed in this Psalm makes it extremely difficult, if not quite impossible to refer it to the time of David. There is great room for doubt also as to the Davidic origin of Psalms 60. See the Comms. of Delitzsch and Perowne on Psalms for discussions of this point.—Tr.]
[18][“The mills of God grind late the fine flour,” say the Jewish Sibylline Oracles; or as a late Greek writer has it, “The mills of the gods grind late, but grind fine.”—Tr.]
[19][2Sa_8:17. The supposition that our text has here inverted the names seems to be justified by the whole history, which shows no other priest in David’s time by the side of Zadok but Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. Some, however (Bp. Patrick, Wordsworth), suppose that the chief-priest Abiathar is not here named, but the two subordinate priests are given. This is possible, but not probable, because we have here a list of the chief officers of David, With our Heb. text are 1Ch_18:16; 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6. Sept., Vulg., Chald., while Syr. and Arab. have the inversion hero proposed. Erdmann unnecessarily supposes a historical error in the text.—Lit.: “were priests,” the Art. being omitted because they were the only priests (high-priests), as above “recorder” and below “scribe.”—Tr.]
[20][2Sa_8:17. It seems impossible to decide certainly between this form of the name and those of Chron. (Shavsha), 2Sa_20:25 (Sheya and Sheva) and 1Ki_4:3 (Shisha).—Tr.]
[21][2Sa_8:18. The Prep. “over” (עַל) is here properly supplied by Eng. A. V., which, however, incorrectly renders the following וְ (which is to be rejected) by “both.”—Tr.]
[22][2Sa_8:18. So Chron.; others render: “counsellors.” For the renderings of the verb (כהן) in the ancient versions and lexicons, see Gesen., Thes. s. v. Gesenius himself holds that all other meanings of the word are derived from the notion of “priest;” but while the radical meaning must be held to be obscure, the connection of the use of the noun undoubtedly favors the rendering of Eng. A. V. here, and in 2Sa_20:23-26 and 1Ki_4:2-6. The verb in Isa_61:10 also presents difficulty.—Tr.]
[23][2Sa_9:6. On the form of this name, in which the last element was originally Baal, and the reason for the change see on 2Sa_4:4.—Tr.]
[24][2Sa_9:10. So all the ancient VSS. except Chald.; the הָיָה of the Heb. is therefore to be omitted as destroying the syntax, since there is now no object for the verb “bring” (Eng. A. V. inserts “the fruits”). Further, some Greek VSS. cited in Montfaucon’s ed. of Origen’s Hexapla read: “and thou shalt bring bread to the house (בית instead of בן) of thy lord,” and this reading has also been proposed by Böttcher (independently, it would seem, as he does not mention the Greek) and approved by Thenius. The external evidence is distinctly against this reading (it is found only in some anonymous Greek versions), but the internal evidence strongly favors it; for, as Böttcher remarks, the following clause, affirming that Mephibosheth will eat at the royal table, would naturally contrast him with some other person or persons in this clause. The passage would then read thus: “thou and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring food to the household of thy master, and they shall eat; and Mephibosheth [himself] shall eat at my table.” We might then put אָכְלוּ for אֲכָלוֹ, but it is not necessary, since בית (house) may take a verb in the Sing. The change of בית to בן in copying would be easy, especially as the phrase: “son of thy master,” is found near, and the error, if it be an error, must have come in very early.—On the other hand our present Heb. text (בן) is favored by the similar phrase elsewhere used in this narrative, and the contrast above referred to, while natural, cannot be said to be absolutely necessary. Böttcher’s emendation may therefore be said to be highly probable, but not absolutely certain.—Tr.]
[25][2Sa_9:11. This phrase is supplied by Eng. A. V. on the supposition that these are the words of David, and so Bp. Patrick. Erdmann and others refer the words to Ziba. But it is not probable that David would here repeat his former declaration after Ziba had assented to everything; and in Ziba’s mouth the words are inappropriate, whether he means his own table (Philippson), or quotes the king’s phrase: “my table” (Erdmann). It is better to regard the phrase as the statement of the narrator. Bib. Com., taking it so, retains the present text and renders: “so Mephibosheth ate at my table,” etc., regarding David himself as the narrator, which, however, is hard and unexampled. Following Sept. and Syr. we might read. “and Mephibosheth ate (= was eating) at the king’s table,” etc. The word king (המלך) may have fallen out through error of eye on account of its occurrence at the end of the verse, or the “my table” may have been repeated from 2Sa_9:11. To this emendation it is not a sufficient objection that the same phrase would thus be employed by the narrator in 2Sa_9:13; for in 2Sa_9:11 it describes the conclusion of the immediate arrangement made by the king, while in 2Sa_9:13 it concludes the whole account of Mephibosheth’s position and circumstances, as for a similar reason the statement about his lameness is repeated in 2Sa_9:13.—Tr.]
[26] שְׁיָא shortened from שׁושא=שׁישׁא, the latter, along with שְׂרָיָא, a second name of the same person.
[27][The word welsh means “foreign,” and the Germans applied the name to Italians, as the Saxons did to the Cymry.—Tr.]
[28][Böttcher omits these two words, and (after the Sept.), renders “Benaiah was counsellor,” introducing יוֹעֵץ instead of “Krethi and Pelethi;” but this view has little in its favor.—Tr.]
[29]The Dat. is not periphrasis of the Gen. (Keil), nor to be changed into “from (מִן), the house” (Then.), but indicates “appertainment to.”
[30][On this speech of Jonathan see the corrected Eng. translation and translator’s notes.—Tr.]
[31][This word לדבר is variously read and understood; Eng. A. V. Debir.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain SUMMARY OF DAVID’S VICTORIES, 2Sa_8:1-14.
SUMMARY OF DAVID’S VICTORIES, 2Sa_8:1-14.
We are not to suppose that these victories all occurred after the events recorded in the last chapter, nor that they are here recorded in exact chronological order. No such rigid method of writing history was known when these books of Samuel were compiled. Some of these wars occurred before and some after David purposed to build the temple. This list is a convenient summary, and stands as a monument to David’s military ability.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Chap. 8. The Development of David’s Kingdom
Chap. 8. The Development of David’s Kingdom
= 1 Chronicles 18
Read full note →
1, 2. Conquest of the Philistines and Moabites
1. And after this it came to pass] This chapter contains a summary account of the wars by which David established the supremacy of Israel among the surrounding nations. At what periods of his reign they were waged is not stated. As has been already implied in the note on ch. 2Sa_7:1, it seems best to consider the words “and after this it came to pass” as a general formula of transition and connexion, not necessarily indicating a strict chronological sequence. It may possibly be derived from the annals which were the original source of the history. Cp. ch. 2Sa_10:1, 2Sa_13:1.
took Metheg-ammah, &c.] The most probable explanation of this obscure expression is took the bridle of the metropolis out of the hand of the Philistines, i.e. wrested from them the control of their chief city. This is equivalent to the statement in 1Ch_18:1 that “David took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines;” and it may be noticed that the metaphor of the ‘mother-city’ is employed there, for the word translated “towns” literally means daughters. Gath was allowed to retain its king as a tributary (1Ki_2:39). On its site and history see note on 1Sa_5:8.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) Subdued them.—In its connection this implies not merely…
(1) Subdued them.—In its connection this implies not merely the victory of a single battle, but the reversal of the former relation of the Philistines to Israel, and their reduction to a condition of inferiority and tribute.
Took Metheg-ammah.—No place of this name is known. The first word means bridle, and the other is probably, although not certainly, a derivation from the word mother, and has the sense metropolis. The translation will then be, took the bridle (i.e., the key) of the metropolis, and this seems sustained by the parallel phrase in 1Ch_18:1, “took Gath and her towns (lit daughters).” Gath appears to have been already the principal among the five Philistine cities (1Sa_27:2), and with the rest of the country remained tributary to Solomon (1Ki_4:21; 1Ki_4:24).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain David smote the Philistines. In the previous chapter we…
David smote the Philistines. In the previous chapter we have seen that the empire of David not only marked an era in the development of Israel nationally, but was also the reaching of a new stage in the preparation for the advent of the Messiah; and we saw that without this the development of prophecy would have been impossible, and the people have remained unfit for the high mission to which they were called as the witnesses to the unity of Cod. We have in this chapter a brief summary of the wars which raised Israel from the position of a struggling and oppressed race to the possession of widespread empire. With this narrative the first history of David ends, and in the subsequent narratives many of the events referred to here are more fully detailed, and given with additional incidents. David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines. Metheg-ammah means "the bridle of the mother city." We learn from the parallel place (1Ch_18:1) that the city of Gath is meant by this phrase. Gath was at this time the metropolis of Philistia, and had reduced the other four chief towns to a state of vassalage. Thus by taking Gath, his old city of refuge, (1Sa_27:2) David acquired also the supremacy which she had previously exercised over the whole country, and by placing a strong garrison there, as previously the Philistines had done in the towns of Israel, he kept that martial race in awe. It denotes great progress in the arts of war that David could besiege and capture a town so strong as Gath.
Vers. 1-18.
Read full note →
The historic mirror.
The narrative relates a succession of victories and conquests over the Philistines, the Moabites, the Zobahites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, the Amalekites, and the Edomites; the placing of garrisons in Syria and Edom; the voluntary recognition of David"s supremacy by the King of Hamath; the military, ecclesiastical, and civil appointments of the kingdom; the dedication of treasure won in conquest and diplomacy to the service of God; the maintenance of a righteous administration throughout Israel; and the safe keeping of David in all his undertakings. History is a record of human acts. Sacred history is a record of human acts in some special relation to the working out of the spiritual issues of the kingdom of God. In all history we see mirrored human thought and feeling. It gives us a glimpse of an invisible world of energy, that is ever seeking to find full expression for itself. In this portion of sacred history we see mirrored not only the strivings of the inner nature of men, but also outlines of truth pertaining to the invisible kingdom which is ever being extended over men. The early and lower developments in Davidic times indicate permanent truths for all Christian times.
I THERE ARE GRADES OF SERVICE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. The conquest of these alien peoples, the rough and thorough crippling of their powers (vers. 2, 4, 8, 14), and the distribution of office among competent men (vers. 16-18), was a form of service far below, in the feelings involved, in the tone running through it, the other service rendered by David in the form of a holy, just life amidst his people, and a contribution by speech and song to the spiritual education of Israel. Yet this lower form of service was necessary, and had its proper place in the great scheme of government whereby God was preparing the world for the Prince of Peace. The actual state of mankind, and not some hypothetical state of perfection, conditioned the means by which gradually the final blessing should come. God is not responsible for the imperfect feelings with which David and others may have done certain work. He allows men in his service to apply themselves to the actual circumstances of their position according to the light they have, and then makes their general course of action subservient to the development of his own gracious purposes. The same is true now. In the Church there are higher and lower forms of service. In consequence of the imperfection of some of the workers and of their surroundings, the service draws out, not the highest feelings of which man is capable. There are rough men for rough work. Superior men may do such work, but they are not so much at ease in it as when engaged in purely spiritual efforts. It was more congenial to David to write psalms than to hough horses. The actual state of the world required both just then.
II THE SUBJUGATION OF EXTERNAL EVILS SHOULD GO ALONG WITH INTERNAL RENOVATION. The first aim of David was, as we have seen, to restore unity, justice, peace, and religion to Israel. He worked on the central spring of national life. But the heathen and restless foes around were an incessant trouble as long as the political and military strength of Israel under the new regime were untested. Their subjugation was therefore the necessary complement of the internal consolidation. Taking the Davidic kingdom as representing in general features the kingdom of Christ, we see the same truth. Its settlement among men means internal change, reformation, and consolidation of all that is good; but it is bound, for its own peace and extension, to make war on all that is alien to the mind of Christ. Hence his Church is militant. He is our Captain. We are soldiers sworn to preserve our heritage and extend his domain by actual destruction of the forces of evil that lie around. The same applies to our own life viewed as a domain over which Christ rules. Internal harmony should be accompanied by an effort to overcome everything in our daily circumstances which, if not overcome, may mar our peace, and possibly gain an unhallowed influence over us.
III THE DEDICATION OF MATERIAL WEALTH TO THE SERVICE OF GOD IS AN EVIDENCE OF GODLY WISDOM. The prohibition to apply the spoils of war to private uses (Jos_6:19; cf. 1Sa_15:23) was a wholesome restraint on a low class of human feelings. There was a strong temptation for David to enrich himself by conquest, and, reasoning as an ordinary man, he could have made out a good case for himself. But he was a man of God; he saw things, as it were, with the eyes of God, and therefore, apart from specific injunction for each case, acted in harmony with the mind of God. It was godly wisdom thus to devote to the service of God what had been acquired by his own strong arm; for very great wealth brings very great spiritual dangers. (Mat_19:23, Mat_19:24) The blessed temporal condition does not lie in abundance. (Pro_30:8, 9 Luk_4:15) The possession of great wealth, combined with slender gifts to the cause of Christ, reveals a lack of spiritual perception and of sympathy with the heart and purpose of Christ. The devotion of wealth to Christ is the safest investment, for it brings blessings on the donor and on others through all ages. The spiritual results of material wealth, well employed, are beyond calculation. It is said of the true King in Zion, "To him shall be given of the gold of Sheba". (Psa_62:1-5) He also is "worthy to receive riches". (Rev_5:12) There are thousands of ways in which wealth may now be dedicated to God. The earnest heart will find out the right channel for its devotion. The demand for sanctuaries, labourers, and the claims of Christ"s poor, are ever before the rich (cf. Hag_1:4-6; Mat_9:36, Mat_9:37; Rom_10:14, Rom_10:15; Mat_25:35-40) In so far as Christians enter into the spirit of their Lord will they rejoice in consecrating wealth to him. (2Co_8:9 2Co_5:13-15)
IV THE BLESSING OF GOD IN OUR ENDEAVOURS IS THE SPIRITUAL CONDITION OF SUCCESS. It is said twice (vers. 6, 14) that God "preserved David whithersoever he went." It is obvious that these various enterprises were full of danger to a man like David danger to his life, his spirituality of mind, his moral conduct, his political reputation. His natural qualities of courage, thoroughness, and his laudable ambition as a monarch, might urge him on to positions of extreme peril; and the incidents of warfare are proverbially prejudicial to piety. The secret of his success lay in his being kept of God. The servant of God, doing rough, dangerous work, not for self-aggrandizement, but for God and his people, is surrounded by an unseen shield which no dart can penetrate. Here we see a truth ever being realized in private and public life a true man of God, a man of undivided heart, setting himself to necessary but undesirable work, pressing on every day amidst dangers to life and religion, keeping the one thought of pleasing God clear before him, and ever everywhere guarded by him whom he serves. Till our work is done no "arrow that flieth by day" can touch us. It is a fact which should be much insisted on, that God does preserve his saints. (Psa_37:23, Psa_37:24, Psa_37:28) No outward sign was visible, yet God was with David. The absence of visible signs with us is no evidence that God is not our Shield and Helper. The chief thing for us is to see that we are his, that we do his will and not our own, and that we have a holy method in our enterprises, be they strictly spiritual or related to ordinary affairs.
V THE GLORY OF AN ACTIVE MAN LIES IN HIS BEING TRUE TO HIS CALLING. David was a king, bound by virtue of his position to rule in equity and righteousness. A greater distinction could not have been awarded to him in that office than that conveyed in the declaration that "he executed judgment and justice unto all his people" (ver. 15). He was true to his vocation. No man can rise higher than that. The glory of a man does not lie in being or doing as others have been and done, for talents, opportunities, and occupations differ; but in performing the part to which Providence has called him thoroughly well. Every star is perfect in its own full lustre. Every man is noble when his whole nature is developed in harmony with the purpose of his Maker. "Well done, good and faithful servant," is said of the lowliest of Christ"s servants who has been faithful in "a few things". (Mat_25:22, Mat_25:23) A monarch, a bishop, a pastor, a Sunday school teacher, a pious domestic servant, and a day labourer, may each be distinguished by faithfulness to the work in hand. True spiritual honour lies more in the spirit of loyalty to our divinely appointed calling than in the specific deeds transacted. Hence the moral prospects of all Christ"s servants. It is extremely important to impress this on the young, and on those who are prone to be discouraged by reason of the lowliness of their position in society and in Christian endeavour.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. The disorganization produced in the world by the action of sin renders itinevitable that much human suffering, much collision of man against man, be endured even in the historical processes of Providence, by which the blessings of redemption are finally brought into full operation. The woes of the Moabites (ver. 2) and of others were humanly necessitated incidents in the ages, giving birth to the promised Christ; and much suffering will yet be endured ere the full triumph of good over evil is achieved. (Rom_8:18-22)
2. The most certain of the promises of God should be embraced in fullconfidence, and yet the most strenuous exertion on our part to bring about their fulfilment is reasonable. David"s kingdom had been assured. (2Sa_7:27) But, nevertheless, he set garrisons in defence of his heritage, and took pains to organize his administration on a judicious basis (vers. 1618). Fatalism or presumption is irreligious as truly as is unbelief.
3. Resources obtained from men not religious may be used in the service ofGod (vers. 9-11). The deference paid by Toi to David is similar to that paid by many men destitute of vital godliness to Christians, and their gifts, though not in the most enlightened spirit, may be employed for the holiest of purposes.
4. There is a prophetic truth in the turning of the golden shields and otherinstruments of the heathen into the peaceful uses of the sanctuary (vers. 7, 9, 10). As a fact, the weapons and splendour of kings will some day be turned into uses subservient to the reign of Christ, the Prince of Peace. (Isa_2:2-5 Isa_60:5-11)
HOMILIES BY B. DALE.
Vers. 1-14 (JERUSALEM.) (1Ch_18:1-13)
David"s wars and victories. Summary:
(1) The Philistines (ver. 1).
(2) The Moabites (ver. 2; Num_24:17)
(3) The Ammonites (ver. 12; ch. 10.).
(4) The Syrians of Zobah, under Hadadezer ver. 3; (2Sa_10:15, 2Sa_10:16) The point here touched (ver. 4) in the struggle appears to have been after the Ammonites had commenced hostilities, aided by Hadadezer,
(5) the Syrians of Beth-Rehob,
(6) the King of Maachah, and
(7) the men of Tob; and bad been defeated (in a first campaign) by Joab and Abishai at Medeba (ch. 10:1-14). Hadadezer now recruited his forces in Mesopotamia, and made immense preparations; but he was defeated by David, who took the field in person (in a second campaign), at Helam; his general, Shobach, being slain (ch. 10:15-19).
(8) The Syrians of Damascus (vers. 5, 6).
(9) Toi, King of Hamath (vers. 9, 10). "Thus the Aramean supremacy, which had in previous centuries become so formidable to the Hebrews, and even to the Ammonites, was now broken once more by the heroic arm of David" (Ewald).
(10) The Edomites, in league with
(11) the Amalekites (ver. 12) and others, threatening to render previous victories fruitless, overcome (in a third campaign) by Abishai and by Joab (vers. 13, 14; 1Ch_18:12; 1Ki_11:15 Ps 60., inscription) "David himself came at the close of the campaign to arrange the conquered territory" (Stanley).
(12) The siege of Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites, which still held out, by Joab (in a fourth campaign), while the king remained at Jerusalem; (2Sa_11:1) and its capture by David (2Sa_12:26-31; 1Ch_20:1-3) These wars of Israel with surrounding nations were not ordinary wars. (2Sa_2:24-29) They were a special embodiment of the great conflict which was ordained from the beginning (Gen_3:15) and of which the sacred history is a record. They involved principles and issues of vast importance; and they must be considered in the light of the peculiar position of the people of Israel, the measure of Divine revelation vouchsafed to them, and the "ruling ideas in early ages," in order that they may be judged of correctly, and just inferences drawn from them in relation to the conduct of Christian nations. They were waged
I WITH POWERFUL ADVERSARIES. Numerous, varied, confederated, selfish, proud, and "delighting in war". (Psa_68:30) The Ammonites (1Sa_11:1-15) first attacked Israel (as the Philistines and others had previously done), assisted by the Syrians, "for reward." "The first recorded example of mercenary warfare" (Kitto). They "succeeded in girdling the whole eastern frontier with steel." They were idolaters, fought against Jehovah, sought to exterminate his people, and Would have been satisfied with nothing short of their entire subjugation. Never had their peril been more imminent. It was such as is described by the psalmist
Why do the nations rage, And the people imagine a vain thing? Kings of the earth set themselves up, And rulers take counsel together Against Jehovah, and against his anointed: Let us burst their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us! (Psa_2:1-9)
II ON JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS. For:
1. The defence of person and property, and the preservation of the worship of Jehovah. (2Sa_10:12) The right of self-defence is a law of nature, extending to the relations of states and kingdoms, as well as of individuals. Without its exercise the destruction of Israel by their fierce and powerful enemies could have been averted only by a continuous miracle.
2. The punishment of evil doers, and the execution of a Divine judgment upon the heathen and their gods. Of this David deemed himself an appointed agent, fulfilling a Divine commission, like that given to Saul concerning Amalek, and the command under which Joshua acted in the conquest of the land.
3. The attainment of the destination of the chosen people to rule over the nations according to former promises and predictions. "The chief aim of the writer is to show the growth of God"s kingdom" (see the martial Psalms, 9., 10., 18., 20., 21., 44., 60., 68., 110.). Psalm 9.," The righteous Judge of the heathen
I will praise thee, O Jehovah, with my whole heart; I will recount all thy wonderful works. Arise, O Jehovah, let not mortal man he defiant; Let the heathen be judged in thy sight. Put them in fear, O Jehovah; Let the heathen know that they are but mortal men! (Psa_9:1, Psa_9:19, Psa_9:20)
III IN A DEVOUT SPIRIT. Faith in the immediate presence of God, reverence for his righteous laws, dependence upon his mighty arm, zeal for his universal honour; prayerfulness, confidence, thankfulness. "The whole nation was at once a nation of soldiers and a nation of priests. They were the soldiers of God, pledged to a crusade a holy war; pledged to the extermination of all idolatry and all wickedness wherever existing" (Perowne, in Ps 110). Psalm 20., "Going forth to battle
Jehovah answer thee in the day of distress; The Name of the God of Jacob set thee up on high. We will shout for joy because of thy salvation, And in the Name of our God will we raise our banners. O Jehovah, save the king! May he hear us in the day we call. (Psa_20:1, Psa_20:5, Psa_20:9)
In a reverse, such as may have taken place just before the overthrow of the Edomites, they turned to God in supplication, and girded themselves afresh for the conflict. Ps 60, "Confidence in disaster most martial of all the Psalms partially repeated in Ps 108.
O God, thou hast east us off, thou hast broken us; Thou hast been angry, restore us again. Thou hast given to them that fear thee a banner, That they may muster (around it) from before the bow, Who will conduct me into the fortified city? Who will bring me into Edom? Through God shall we do valiantly; And he will tread down our adversaries. (Psa_60:1, Psa_60:4, Psa_60:9, Psa_60:12)
IV WITH EXTRAORDINARY SUCCESS; in which the hand of God was manifested, especially in the preservation of David "whithersoever he went" (vers. 6, 14), and was recognized in the dedication to Jehovah of the spoils of war (vers. 7, 10-12) amidst general thanksgiving and praise. One victory rapidly succeeded another until the whole region from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen_15:18) was subdued, peace was established, and Israel occupied a position of unrivalled power and glory. "David erected, on Joab"s return (ver. 13), a monument of thanksgiving for his victory; and we may imagine how brilliant was the triumphant procession in Jerusalem when we recollect the hundred war chariots with their horses which were spared when Hadarezer was conquered" (Ewald). Psalm 21., "Returning in triumph
O Jehovah, in thy strength shall the king be glad, And in thy saving help how greatly shall he exult! Be thou exalted, O Jehovah, in thy strength; So will we celebrate with voice and harp thy might. (Psa_21:1, Psa_21:13)
V NOT WITHOUT DEPLORABLE CONSEQUENCES. Even when waged on justifiable grounds and from religious motives, war is associated with manifold evils. It was not the loss of life that occurred, nor the cruel severities that were practised (ver. 2; 2Sa_12:31) characteristic of the age, in the wars of David, which wrought the mischief, so much as the fierce passions, the pride, ambition, luxury, and vice they engendered, the heavy burdens they imposed, and the neglect of the humbler pursuits and more orderly virtues they involved. "The one blot upon the time is David"s lust of war, bringing men like Joab to the front, and debasing David"s own character If ever God wrote his verdict plainly upon ambition and aggressive war, he wrote it upon the wars of David. They brought the stain of two foul crimes on David himself; ruined his own domestic peace and happiness; ruined, by the possession of too-great power, the one of his sons who started so wisely and well; and ruined the kingdom, which broke asunder of its own weight" ("Prophecy a Preparation for Christ," p. 216). Yet these effects. have not always been considered in later times; while the record of his successes has sometimes been regarded as affording a sanction and an incentive to the martial spirit under different circumstances and a better dispensation. "It was among the Teutonic race that the Church first manifested warlike propensities. They were emphatically men of blood. The chief difficulty of the Church was to teach them to love peace. According to a well-known story, the Gothic bishop, Ulphilas, showed his special sense of the special weakness of his Teuton converts by refraining from translating the Books of Samuel and Kings into their language, as he did the rest of the Scripture. His reason, we are told, was that they contained "the history of wars;" and the nation was already very fond of war, and needed the bit rather than the spur so far as fighting was concerned" (British Quarterly Review, January, 1881). Nevertheless, the wars and victories of David (allowed for "the hardness of men"s hearts" until "the times of reformation")
VI FORESHADOWED NOBLER CONFLICTS AND TRIUMPHS by One greater than David the Prince of Peace, and his faithful followers; (1Sa_13:1-7 1Sa_17:47) in which the elements of good that existed therein are retained and perfected, and those of evil set aside; "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but" spiritual (truth, righteousness, love) and "mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds" of error and unrighteousness (2Co_10:4; Luk_9:56; Joh_18:36) and the effects, enduring peace, security, and happiness. (Isa_9:5, Isa_9:6) "Since the time that Jesus Christ said, "Put up thy sword into its scabbard," Christians ought not to go to war, unless it be in that most honourable warfare with the vilest enemies of the Church the inordinate love of money, anger, and ambition. These are our Philistines, these our Nebuchadnezzars, these our Moabites and Ammonites, with whom we ought never to make a truce; with these we must engage without intermission till, the enemy being utterly extirpated, peace may be firmly established. Unless we subdue such enemies as these, we can neither have peace with ourselves nor peace with any one else. This is the only war which tends to produce a real and lasting peace" (Erasmus). D.
Dedication of treasure to God.
The dedication in this instance doubtless consisted in placing the spoils of war and other valuables named in the sacred treasury, whether for present use, or, as is probable, with a view to their employment in the erection or services of the future temple. The king presents in this act of piety an example which all should follow.
I WHAT WE SHOULD DEDICATE TO GOD.
1. Ourselves. We must begin with this. All true godliness does begin with the surrender of self, with all its powers of soul and body, to God, to be saved and sanctified by him, and devoted to his service. No other gift can be truly presented while this is withheld; none can be a substitute for it; none acceptable without it. True offerings to God are the offerings of his true servants.
2. Our material treasures. Gold and silver, houses and lands. All are to be dedicated to God. What we have inherited, what we have gained by industry and enterprise, and what may have been given to us, as the vessels of gold and silver and brass which the King of Hamath sent to David. But if we have gained aught by fraud, injustice or other iniquity, we may not present this to God, but return it to its rightful owners. (see Luk_19:8)
3. Our mental gifts and acquisitions. Spoils won from the heathen, it may be, by victorious study. All our abilities and culture; all our knowledge.
4. Our spiritual acquirements. All we have of spiritual life and power; all the grace given to us. These are bestowed, not to be merely enjoyed, but used for God and the good of our brethren.
5. Our influence. Whether obtained through our abilities, or wealth, or station, or character, all is to be exercised for God. In a word, whatever we are, and whatever we have, are to be devoted to God. Nothing can be rightly withheld.
II IN WHAT MANNER.
1. In our ordinary life. By employing our powers and possessions according to God"s will, in uprightness and kindness. By enjoying God"s gifts with thankfulness and temperance. By "setting the Lord always before us," and doing and enjoying all as his children and servants. Thus the whole
2. of life becomes religion, and common actions are as acceptable to God as prayers. "HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD" is written upon everything. (see Zec_14:20, Zec_14:21) But no greater mistake can be made than to think that, in giving a portion of our substance and time to religion, we are set free to use the rest as we please.
3. By devoting a due portion of our powers and possessions to religious and charitable uses. First, to the support of the worship of God in the congregation to which we belong; then to the relief of the poor with whom we are personally acquainted, and the education of the young in our own locality; and then to such religious and charitable institutions as commend themselves to oar judgment, and appear to have a just claim upon our liberality. What proportion of our income should be given away must be left to each person"s conscience as in the sight of God. Only we must let conscience decide, not mere inclination. Certainly we ought not to give what belongs to creditors, or the reasonable wants of our families. Our aim should be to ascertain the will of God; and this will vary according to the various circumstances of individuals, and of the same individual at different times. "As he may prosper" (1Co_16:2, Revised Version) is the general rule; and any special increase of prosperity (as with David at the time spoken of in the text) justly calls for special liberality. In general, our danger does not lie in the direction of excessive generosity. Few give away as much as they ought, on any just interpretation of our Lord"s precepts. "The liberal," who "deviseth liberal things", (Isa_32:8) is an exceptional person, although there are, thank God, many such.
III MOTIVES TO SUCH DEDICATION.
1. The claims of God. As our Proprietor and the Proprietor of all we possess; by right of creation and redemption. "Ye are not your own". (1Co_6:19) "All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee". (1Ch_29:14) As our liberal Benefactor, who gave us his Son, and is ever bestowing good upon us. (2Co_9:15) As our supreme Ruler, who by innumerable commandments enjoins upon us devotement to his service and kindness to our brethren, and to whom we must give account of our use of what he has entrusted to us. As our Father, who desires that we should resemble him, and thus at once prove our sonship and do honour to his Name. (Eph_5:1, Eph_5:2)
2. The love of Jesus Christ to us, and the example he has given us. (2Co_5:14, 15 8:9)
1. Our professions of self-devotement.
2. The good of others.
3. Our own good.. A life of self-dedication is the true, the noblest, the happiest life. We grow in all that is good by the practice of good. Our being is enriched, our happiness increased. "It is more blessed to give than to receive". (Act_20:35) We have now the testimony of a good conscience, which is the witness of God"s approval. We shall hereafter be acknowledged and rewarded by him. In devoting ourselves and our substance to him, we are laying up treasures in heaven, (Mat_6:20) which will reappear transfigured, for our everlasting enrichment. Good done to others as unto the Lord will be reckoned and rewarded as done to himself; good withheld from them, as withheld from him. (Mat_25:34-45) Faithful service now will issue in larger and higher service hereafter. (Luk_19:17, Luk_19:19) Those to whom we have ministered on earth will welcome us into heaven, (Luk_16:9) and our eternal glory and joy will be increased by knowing how much we have contributed to theirs. G.W. (1Th_2:19)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain David smote the Philistines and subdued them.
2Sa_8:1-18
David smote the Philistines and subdued them.
Read full note →
The victorious king
These years of war gave birth to some of the grandest of the psalms, amongst which may be numbered, 2., 20., 21., 60., 110.
I. The foe. They trust in chariots and in horses; their kings think that they will be saved by the multitude of their hosts. They inspire fear through the hearts of Israel, so that the land trembles as though God had rent it, and the people drink the wine of staggering and dismay. So tremendous is their assault, so overwhelming their numbers, that all help of man seems vain. It is thus in every era of the history of Gods people, that Satan has stirred up their foes. Right behind the coalitions of men lies the malignity of the fallen spirit, who ever seeks to bruise the heel of the womans seed.
II. The attitude of faith. Whilst the Serried ranks of the foe are are in sight, the hero-king is permitted a vision into the unseen and eternal. There is no fear upon the face of God, no change in his determination to set his king upon his holy hill. In fact, it seems that the day of his foes attack is that in which he receives a new assurance of sonship, and is bidden to claim the nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. In perfect peace he anticipates the result, the Lord will send forth the rod of His strength out of Zion, and strike through kings in the day of His wrath, and make His enemies His footstool, so that in all after-days he may combine the office of priest and king, as Melchizedek did on that same site centuries before.
III. The warriors of the priest-king. Catching the contagion of his faith, they triumph in Gods salvation, and in His Name set up their banners. They believe that God, as a Man of War, is going forth with their, hosts, and will tread down their adversaries. They are characterised by the willingness of their service. No mercenaries are pressed into their ranks; they gladly gather around the standard, as the warriors of whom Deborah sang, who willingly offered themselves. They are clad not in mail, but in the fine linen of the priests; the beauties of holiness, a phrase which suggests that the warfare was conducted by religious men as an act of worship to God. They are numerous as the dewdrops that bespangle the morning grass, when every blade has its own coronet of jewels, and the light is reflected from a million diamonds (Psa_110:1-7.) What an exquisite conception of Davids ideal for his soldiers, and of the knightly chivalry, of the purity, truth, and righteousness, in which all the soldiers of the Messiah should be arrayed!
IV. The completeness of the victory. The armies of the alien cannot stand the onset of those heaven-accoutred soldiers. Kings of armies flee apace. They are bowed down and fallen in bitter, hopeless defeat. They are made as a fiery furnace in the time of Gods anger, and swallowed up in His wrath. Their dead bodies strew the battlefield, and the valleys are choked with slain. In David we have a type of the Messiah. For, of a truth, against the Holy Servant Jesus, whom God has anointed, both the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel have gathered together. Men have refused His sway, and do refuse it; but God hath sworn, and will not repent, that to Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess: and it is more sure than that to-morrows sun will rise that, ere long, great voices shall be heard in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of the world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ: and He shall reign for ever and ever (Rev_11:15-18.) (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
Davids foreign wars
The first series of Davids wars, on the termination of which it is said that he enjoyed rest round about from all his enemies (2Sa_7:1), was concluded before his proposal to build the temple. These seem to have been wars with such remnants of the ancient inhabitants as combined to molest his people within the limits of the twelve tribes. The wars now undertaken were chiefly against neighbouring nations, including the occupants of that large territory between Palestine and the Euphrates, which God had promised to Abraham (Gen_15:18). The nations against which David now went forth were most of them extremely warlike; they seem, too, to have been banded together in leagues or confederacies; so that the enterprise was attended with difficulties and dangers which only a heart, made brave and fearless by trust in the Invisible, could have ventured to face. The 20th Psalm may have been written for the occasion, and left behind for the Levites, to be sung in the name of the nation, when they remembered the perils to which their king and his troops had gone forth. It is an instructive fact that the history of these wars occupies so small a portion of the Bible. A single verse is all that can be afforded to most of them. Had they been narrated at length, they would probably have forced a narrative that would have placed David, as a captain, on a level with Cyrus, Hannibal, or Caesar. It is one of the less noticed proofs of the inspiration of the Old Testament, that such dazzling transactions as these are passed over so briefly. There is no other history in the world where more space would be occupied in describing the carrying of an ark to its permanent resting-place, than in narrating seven great military campaigns. It would be beyond the power of human nature to resist the temptation to describe great battles--the story of which is always read with such interest, and which reflect so much earthly glory on ones nation, and create in the mind of the national reader such a feeling of satisfaction and pride.
(1) The first campaign was against Davids old friends, the Philistines. In former battles, David seems to have been content with driving them out of his territories--now he attacked them in their own. The town which he took, called Metheg-ammah, or the bridle of Ammah (so named from its situation), appears, from 1Ch_18:1, to have been Gath itself. It was now Davids lot, amid the vicissitudes of the world, to attack the place where he had once been sheltered--to hurl his weapons against the king (if he was still alive) whose hospitality he had experienced.
(2) Much the same thing had to be done in his next campaign--that against Moab. The king of Moab had protected his father and mother when it became apparently unsafe for them to remain in their native land--and, through Ruth, Moabite blood ran in Davids veins. Jewish writers have a tradition that, after a time, the king put his parents to death, and that this occasioned the war which David carried on against them. The severity practised against Moab was very great; it was a terrible blow, intended to cripple them for a whole generation, and make it physically impossible for them to take up arms again.
(3) The third of Davids conquests was over a more distant enemy, Hadadezer, the king of Zobah, in the direction of the Euphrates. It appears that in the course of this campaign another enemy had to be encountered--a vast mass of Syrians came out against him. It is evident that this campaign Was a very remarkable one, for the slaughter of the Syrians amounted to the prodigious number of 22,000; and the victory, besides giving David possession of Damascus and the whole of Syria, was followed by the voluntary submission of Tel, the king of Hamath (verse 10), in the valley of Lebanon.
(4) Of the wars with the Ammonites and Amalekites (verse 12) nothing is recorded, nor is it certain whether these wars were carried on at the same time with the other campaigns, or whether (as we are inclined to think) the war with Amalek was that which took place while David was at Ziklag, and the war with Ammon that which is described in a subsequent chapter.
(5) The last enemy specified is Edom; arid it is evident that the contest with that ferocious people was peculiarly bloody and critical. There is a degree of indistinctness in the narrative of this event, when it is attempted to harmonize the three passages that contain allusions to it--in Samuel and Chronicles, and in the introduction to the 60th Psalm. In one place, it is said that it was 18,000 Syrians that fell in the Valley of Salt (2Sa_8:18); in another they are said to have been Edomites (1Ch_8:12); the introduction to the Psalm makes the number of Edomites 12,000; in Samuel, the victory is ascribed to David--in Chronicles, to Abishai--and in the Psalm, to Joab. It is probable that the war with Edom was carried on at the same time as the war with the Syrians; that while David and his army were in the north a detachment of the Syrians was sent to co-operate with the Edomites in attacking the southern part of Judah; that hearing of this, David despatched Abishai with a portion of his troops to encounter them; that Abishai completely defeated the confederate armies in the Valley of Salt (near Edom), much about the same time as David routed the Syrians in the neighbourhood of Damascus. If the Edomites and Syrians were confededate, it is not surprising that in one.place it should be said it was 18,000 Syrians that fell, and in another 18,000 Edomites. The psalm (60th), gives us a glimpse of the state of things in Davids army at this time, revealing the frightful difficulties and dangers of the enterprise, and the singularly lofty efforts of prayerful courage which were needed to carry him through the crisis, It appears that his army, far from home, and engaged with a very powerful foe, had sunk to the lowest ebb, and had even, for a time, been visited with the most direful reverses. The effect of these victories must have been very striking. Nor, only were the people now freed from all the harassing attacks to which they had been subject at every moment and on every side, but the Hebrew kingdom was elevated to the rank of a first-rate Power. Garrisons were placed in all the surrounding strongholds; the accumulated hoards of Eastern wealth were transferred to Jerusalem; and streams of tribute rolled their golden waters into the treasury of David. The secret of Davids success is expressed once and again in the narrative: The Lord was with David, and preserved him whithersoever he went. It is one of the great lessons of the Old Testament that the godly man can and does perform his duty better than any other, because the Lord is with him--whether he be steward of a house, or keeper of a prison, or ruler of a kingdom, like Joseph; or a judge and lawgiver, like Moses; or a warrior, like Samson or Gideon or Jephthah; or a king, like David or Jehoshaphat or Josiah; or a prime minister over a hundred and twenty provinces, like Daniel. This is one of the prominent lessons of the Book of Psalms--it is inscribed upon its very portals; the godly man shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. In all these warlike expeditions King David fulfilled his typical character--was an emblem of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, going forth conquering and to conquer. (W. G. Blaikie, M. A.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain
CHAPTER X.
FOREIGN WARS.
Read full note →
2Sa_8:1-14.
THE transitions of the Bible, like those of actual life, are often singularly abrupt; that which now hurries us from the scene of elevated communion with God to the confused noise and deadly struggles of the battle-field is peculiarly startling. We are called to contemplate David in a remarkable light, as a professional warrior, a man of the sword, a man of blood; wielding the weapons of destruction with all the decision and effect of the most daring commanders. That the sweet singer of Israel, from whose tender heart those blessed words poured out to which the troubled soul turns for composure and peace, should have been so familiar with the horrors of the battle-field, is indeed a surprise. We can only say that he was led to regard all this rough work as indispensable to the very existence of his kingdom, and to the fulfillment of the great ends for which Israel had been called. Painful and miserable though it was in itself, it was necessary for the accomplishment of greater good. The bloodthirsty spirit of these hostile nations would have swallowed up the kingdom of Israel, and left no trace of it remaining. The promise to Abraham, "In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed," would have ceased to have any basis for its fulfillment. Painful though it was to deal death and destruction on every side, it would have been worse to see the nation of Israel destroyed, and the foundation of the world's greatest blessings swept for ever away.
The "rest from all his enemies round about," referred to in the first verse of the seventh chapter, seems to refer to the nearer enemies of the kingdom, while the wars mentioned in the present chapter were mostly with enemies more remote. The most important of the wars now to be considered was directed against the occupants of that large territory lying between Palestine and the Euphrates which God had promised to Abraham, although no command had been given to dispossess the inhabitants, and therefore it could be held only in tributary subjection. In some respects, David was the successor of Joshua as well as of Moses. He had to continue Joshua's work of conquest, as well as Moses' work of political arrangement and administration. The nations against whom he had now to go forth were most of them warlike and powerful; some of them were banded together in leagues against him, rendering his enterprise very perilous, and such as could have been undertaken by no one who had not an immovable trust in God. The twentieth Psalm seems to express the feelings with which the godly part of the nation would regard him as he went forth to these distant and perilous enterprises:
The Lord answer thee in the day of trouble;
The name of the God of Jacob set thee up on high;
Send thee help from the sanctuary,
And strengthen thee out of Zion;
Remember all thy offerings,
And accept thy burnt-sacrifice; [Selah]
Grant thee thy heart's desire,
And fulfill all thy counsel.
We will triumph in thy salvation,
And in the name of our God we will set up our banners;
The Lord fulfill all thy petitions.
Now know I that the Lord saveth His anointed;
He will answer him from His holy heaven
With the saving strength of His right hand.
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses,
But we will make mention of the name of the Lord our God.
They are bowed down and fallen;
But we are risen, and stand upright.
Save, Lord;
Let the King answer us when we call.
It is an instructive fact that the history of these wars is given so shortly. A single verse is all that is given to most of the campaigns. This brevity shows very clearly that another spirit than that which moulded ordinary histories guided the composition of this book. It would be beyond human nature to resist the temptation to describe great battles, the story of which is usually read with such breathless interest, and which gratify the pride of the people and reflect glory on the nation. It is not the object of Divine revelation to furnish either brief annals or full details of wars and other national events, except in so far as they have a spiritual bearing - a bearing on the relation between God and the people. From first to last the purpose of the Bible is simply to unfold the dispensation of grace, - God's progress in revelation of His method of making an end of sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness.
We shall briefly notice what is said regarding the different undertakings.
1. The first campaign was against the Philistines. Not even their disastrous discomfiture near the plain of Rephaim had taught submission to that restless people. On this occasion David carried the war into their own country, and took some of their towns, establishing garrisons there, as the Philistines had done formerly in the land of Israel. There is some obscurity in the words which describe one of his conquests. According to the Authorized Version, "He took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines." The Revised Version renders, "He took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines." The parallel passage in 1Ch_18:1 has it, "He took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines." This last rendering is quite plain; the other passage must be explained in its light. Gath, the city of King Achish, to which David had fled twice for refuge, now fell into his hands. The loss of Gath must have been a great humiliation to the Philistines; not even Samson had ever inflicted on them such a blow. And the policy that led David (it could hardly have been without painful feelings) to possess himself of Gath turned out successful; the aggressive spirit of the Philistines was now fairly subdued, and Israel finally delivered from the attacks of a neighbour that had kept them for many generations in constant discomfort.
2. His next campaign was against Moab. As David himself had at one time taken refuge in Gath, so he had committed his father and mother to the custody of the king of Moab (1Sa_12:3-4). Jewish writers have a tradition that after a time the king put his parents to death, and that this was the origin of the war which he carried on against them. That David had received from them some strong provocation, and deemed it necessary to inflict a crushing blow for the security of that part of his kingdom, it seems hardly possible to doubt. Ingratitude was none of his failings, nor would he who was so grateful to the men of Jabesh-gilead for burying Saul and his sons have been severe on Moab if Moab had acted the part of a true friend in caring for his father and mother. When we read of the severity practiced on the army of Moab, we are shocked. And yet it is recorded rather as a token of forbearance than a mark of severity. How came it that the Moabite army was so completely in David's power? Usually, as we have seen, when an army was defeated it was pursued by the victors, and in the course of the flight a terrible slaughter ensued. But the Moabite army had come into David's power comparatively whole. This could only have been through some successful piece of generalship, by which David had shut them up in a position where resistance was impossible. Many an Eastern conqueror would have put the whole army to the sword; David with a measuring line measured two-thirds for destruction and a full third for preservation. Thus the Moabites in the south-east were subdued as thoroughly as the Philistines in the south-west, and brought tribute to the conqueror, in token of their subjection. The explanation of some commentators that it was not the army, but the fortresses, of Moab that David dealt with is too strained to be for a moment entertained. It proceeds on a desire to make David superior to his age, on unwillingness to believe, what, however, lies on the very surface of the story, that in the main features of his warlike policy he fell in with the maxims and spirit of the time.
3. The third of his campaigns was against Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah. It is said in the chapter before us that the encounter with this prince took place ''as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates;" in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles it is "as he went to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates." The natural interpretation is, that David was on his way to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates, when this Hadadezer came out to oppose him. The terms of the covenant of God with Abraham assigned to him the land "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates" (Gen_15:18), and when the territory was again defined to Joshua, its boundary was "from the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates." Under the provisions of this covenant, as made by Him whose is the earth and the fullness thereof, David held himself entitled to fix the boundary of his dominion by the banks of the river. In what particular form he designed to do this, we are not informed; but whatever may have been his purpose, Hadadezer set himself to defeat it. The encounter with Hadadezer could not but have been serious to David, for his enemy had a great force of military chariots and horsemen against whom he could oppose no force of the same kind. Nevertheless, David's victory was complete; and in dealing with that very force in which he himself was utterly deficient, he was quite triumphant; for he took from his opponent a thousand and seven hundred horsemen, as well as twenty thousand footmen. There must have been some remarkable stroke of genius in this achievement, for nothing is more apt to embarrass and baffle a commonplace general than the presence of an opposing force to which his army affords no counterpart.
4. But though David had defeated Hadadezer, not far, as we suppose, from the base of Mount Hermon, his path to the Euphrates was by no means clear. Another body of Syrians, the Syrians of Damascus, having come from that city to help Hadadezer, seem to have been too late for this purpose, and to have encountered David alone. This, too, was a very serious enterprise for David; for though we are not informed whether, like Hadadezer, they had arms which the king of Israel could not match, it is certain that the army of so rich and civilized a state as Syria of Damascus would possess all the advantages that wealth and experience could bestow. But in his battle with them, David was again completely victorious. The slaughter was very great - two-and-twenty thousand men. This immense figure illustrates our remark a little while ago: that the slaughter of defeated and retreating armies was usually prodigious. So entire was the humiliation of this proud and ancient kingdom, that "the Syrians became servants to David, and brought presents," thus acknowledging his suzerainty over them. Between the precious things that were thus offered to King David and the spoil which he took from captured cities, he brought to Jerusalem an untold mass of wealth, which he afterwards dedicated for the building of the Temple.
5. In one case, the campaign was a peaceful one. "When Toi, king of Hamath, heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, then Toi sent Joram his son unto King David to salute him and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and had smitten him, for Hadadezer had wars with Toi." The kingdom of Toi lay in the valley between the two parallel ranges of Lebanon and anti-Lebanon, and it too was within the promised boundary, which extended to "the entering in of Hamath." Accordingly, the son of Toi brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass; these also did King David dedicate to the Lord. The fame of David as a warrior was now such, at least in these northern regions, that further resistance seemed out of the question. Submission was the only course when the conqueror was evidently supported by the might of Heaven.
6. In the south, however, there seems to have been more of a spirit of opposition. No particulars of the campaign against the Edomites are given; but it is stated that David put garrisons in Edom;" throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David." The placing of garrisons through all their country shows how obstinate these Edomites were, and how certain to have returned to fresh acts of hostility had they not been held in restraint by these garrisons. From the introduction to Psalm 60, it would appear that the insurrection of Edom took place while David was in the north contending with the two bodies of Syrians that opposed him - the Syrians of Zobah and those of Damascus. It would appear that Joab was detached from the army in Syria in order that he might deal with the Edomites. In the introduction to the Psalm, twelve thousand of the Edomites are said to have fallen in the Valley of Salt. In the passage now before us, it is said that eighteen thousand Syrians fell in that valley. The Valley of Salt is in the territory of Edom. It may be that a detachment of Syrian troops was sent to aid the Edomites, and that both sustained a terrible slaughter. Or it may be that, as in Hebrew the words for Syria and Edom are very similar (אﬧﬦ
and אדﬦ); the one word may by accident have been substituted for the other.
7. Mention is also made of the Ammonites, the Amalekites, and the Philistines as having been subdued by David. Probably in the case of the Philistines and the Amalekites the reference is to the previous campaign already recorded, while the Ammonite campaign may be the one of which we have the record afterwards. But the reference to these campaigns is accompanied with no particulars.
Twice in the course of this chapter we read that ''the Lord gave David victory whithersoever he went." It does not appear, however, that the victory was always purchased with ease, or the situation of David and his armies free from serious dangers. The sixtieth Psalm, the title of which ascribes it to this period, makes very plain allusion to a time of extraordinary trouble and disaster in connection with one of these campaigns. "O God, Thou hast cast us off; Thou hast scattered us; Thou hast been displeased: oh turn Thyself to us again." It is probable that when David first encountered the Syrians he was put to great straits, his difficulty being aggravated by his distance from home and the want of suitable supplies. If the Edomites, taking advantage of his difficulty, chose the time to make an attack on the southern border of the kingdom, and if the king was obliged to diminish his own force by sending Joab against Edom, with part of his men, his position must have been trying indeed. But David did not let go his trust in God; courage and confidence came to him by prayer, and he was able to say, ''Through God we shall do valiantly; for He it is that shall tread down all our enemies."
The effect of these victories must have been very striking. In the Song of the Bow, David had celebrated the public services of Saul, who had "clothed the daughters of Israel in scarlet, with other delights, who had put on ornaments of gold on their apparel"; but all that Saul had done for the kingdom was now thrown into the shade by the achievements of David. With all his bravery, Saul had never been able to subdue his enemies, far less to extend the limits of the kingdom. David accomplished both; and it is the secret of the difference that is expressed in the words, "The Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went." It is one of the great lessons of the Old Testament that the godly man can and does perform his duty better than any other man, because the Lord is with him: that whether he be steward of a house, or keeper of a prison, or ruler of a kingdom, like Joseph; or a judge and lawgiver, like Moses; or a warrior, like Samson, or Gideon, or Jephthah; or a king, like David, or Jehoshaphat, or Josiah; or a prime minister, like Daniel, his godliness helps him to do his duty as no other man can do his. This is especially a prominent lesson in the book of Psalms; it is inscribed on its very portals; for the godly man, as the very first Psalm tells us, "shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither, and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper."
In these warlike expeditions. King David fore-shadowed the spiritual conquests of the Son of David, who went forth "conquering and to conquer," staggered for a moment, as in Gethsemane, by the rude shock of confederate enemies, but through prayer regaining his confidence in God, and triumphing in the hour and powder of darkness. That noble effusion of fire and feeling, the sixty-eighth Psalm, seems to have been written in connection with these wars. The soul of the Psalmist is stirred to its depths; the majestic goings of Jehovah, recently witnessed by the nation, have roused his most earnest feelings, and he strains every nerve to produce a like feeling in the people. The recent exploits of the king are ranked with His doings when He marched before His people through the wilderness, and Mount Sinai shook before Him. Great delight is expressed in God's having taken up His abode on His holy hill, in the exaltation of His people in connection with that step, and likewise in looking forward to the future and anticipating the peaceful triumphs when "princes should come out of Egypt, and Ethiopia stretch forth her aims to God." Benevolent and missionary longings mingle with the emotions of the conqueror and the feelings of the patriot.
"Sing unto the Lord, ye kingdoms of the earth;
Oh, sing praises unto the Lord,
To Him that rideth upon the heaven of heavens that are of old.
Lo, He uttereth His voice, and that a mighty voice."
It is interesting to see how in this extension of his influence among heathen nations, the Psalmist began to cherish and express these missionary longings, and to call on the nations to sing praises unto the Lord. It has been remarked that, in the ordinary course of Providence, the Bible follows the sword, that the seed of the Gospel falls into furrows that have been prepared by war. Of this missionary spirit we find many evidences in the Psalms. It was delightful to the Psalmist to think of the spiritual blessings that were to spread even beyond the limits of the great empire that now owned the sway of the king of Israel. Mount Zion was to become the birth-place of the nations; from Egypt and Babylonia, from Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia, additions were to be made to her citizens (Psalm 87). "The people shall be gathered together, and the nations, to serve the Lord" (Psa_102:22). ''All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him" (Psa_22:27). "All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord; and they shall glorify Thy name" (Psa_86:9). "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise" (Psa_100:1; Psa_100:4).
Alas, the era of wars has not yet passed away. Even Christian nations have been woefully slow to apply the Christian precept, "Inasmuch as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." But let us at least make an earnest endeavour that if there must be war, its course may be followed up by the heralds of mercy, and that wherever there may occur "the battle of the warrior, and garments rolled in blood," there also it may speedily be proclaimed, "Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government is on His shoulders: and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa_9:6).
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain 2Sa_8:1. “Metheg-ammah.” This is a very obscure word, and…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.—
2Sa_8:1. “Metheg-ammah.” This is a very obscure word, and has been very variously translated. “Metheg” is a “bridle,” and “ammah” is translated mother by Keil, Erdmann, Phillipson, and Wordsworth. Gesenius says this word is always used in a figurative sense as the head, or foundation of a thing, and agrees with the scholars above named in understanding it here to signify a capital or chief city. If so, to take the bridle can only mean to subdue, and this entire rendering is borne out by the parallel passage in 1Ch_18:1. Havernick, Michaelis, Ewald, and others translate arm-bridle, but attach the same meaning to the words.
Read full note →
2Sa_8:2. “Moab.” Nothing is known of the cause or history of this war. Probably David’s former friend (1Sa_22:3-4) had been succeeded by a ruler of a different spirit. “Probably in this war occurred what is mentioned in 1Ch_11:22 of Benaiah, one of David’s heroes.” (Erdmann). “Thus he fulfilled Balaam’s prophecy in part” (Num_24:17). (Wordsworth.) “Measured them.” “This refers to a well-known practice of Eastern kings, to command their prisoners of war, particularly those who had greatly incensed the victors, to lie down on the ground, and then to put to death a certain portion of them, which was determined by lot, but most commonly by a measuring line. This usage was not, perhaps, usually practised by the people of God; but Jewish writers assert that the cause of this particular severity against Moab was their having massacred David’s parents and family.” (Jamieson.)
2Sa_8:3. “Hadadezer.” Hadad was the sun-god of the Syrians, and the name signifies Hadad our help. “Zobah.” A portion of Syria forming a separate kingdom in the time of Saul, David, and Solomon. See 1Sa_14:47. It is difficult to define its exact position and limits, but there seems to be grounds for regarding it as lying chiefly east of Coele-Syria, and extending thence north-east and east, towards, if not even to, the Euphrates. Smith’s-Bib. Dictionary. “As he went.” That these words refer to Hadadezer and not to David seems evident from the use of the word recover. David had not possessed territory in this direction.
2Sa_8:4. “Seven hundred horsemen.” As the word chariots does not appear in the original text, the actual reading here is 1790 horsemen, whereas in Chronicles 7000 horsemen and 1000 chariots are mentioned. Most scholars agree that the word “chariots” has been accidentally omitted, and the numeral for a thousand confounded with one denoting a hundred. For “in the plains of Syria seven thousand horsemen would be a much juster proportion to twenty thousand loot than seventeen hundred” (Keil, Thenius, etc.), and, further on, David is said to have lamed the chariot-horses, thereby implying the use of chariots in the engagement. “Houghed,” etc. The word translated chariot-horses denotes all animals used for riding. “The reason of this mutilation was, that horses being forbidden by the Mosaic constitution to the Hebrews, both in war and agriculture, it was of no use to keep them; and their neighbours, placing much dependence on cavalry, but having, for want of a native breed, to procure them by purchase, the greatest damage that could be done to them was to render their horses unserviceable in war.” (Jamieson). “He reserved a hundred of them, not for war, but for a triumph or guard; whether or not this reservation was illegal and ungodly is not said. (Translator of Lange’s Commentary.)
2Sa_8:7. “The servants of Hadadezer.” Either his “governors and vassal princes” (Keil) or “his immediate guard.” (Erdmann.)
2Sa_8:8 The cities here mentioned are unknown. “Brass,” rather, copper. “Some centuries before this copper was carried in quantities from Syria to Egypt.” (Bib. Commentary.)
2Sa_8:9. “Hamath.” The principal city of upper Syria in the valley of the Orontes.
2Sa_8:10. “Joram.” Called Hadoram in Chronicles, and this is most likely the true reading, as Joram is an Israelitish name.
2Sa_8:13. “The Syrians in the valley of salt.” As the valley of salt, near the Dead Sea, is at so great a distance from Syria, either Edom must be here substituted for Aram (here rendered Syrians), or the words “and Edom” must be inserted before “the valley of salt.” The sequel agrees with this reading. “The facts were probably these: Whilst David, or rather Israel, was entangled in the war with the Ammonites and Aramæns, the Edomites seized upon the opportunity which appeared to them a very favourable one to invade the land of Israel, and advanced as far as the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. As soon, therefore, as the Aramæans were defeated and subjugated, and the Israelitish army had returned from this war, David ordered it to march against the Edomites, and defeated them in the valley of salt.” (Keil.)
2Sa_8:16. “Jehoshaphat.” Nothing farther is known of this man. “Recorder.” Literally, one who calls to remembrance, therefore most likely one who recorded the most important events of the nation. Keil and some others liken the office to that of the “magister memoriæ of the later Romans, or the waka nuvis of the Persian court, who keeps a record of everything that takes place around the king, furnishes him with an account of all that occurs in his kingdom, places his visé upon all the king’s commands, and keeps a special protocol of all these things.”
2Sa_8:17. “Zadok.” A descendant of Aaron’s son Eleazar (1Ch_6:29-34; 1Ch_6:37-38). “Ahimelech.” It is strange to find this name in connection with Zadok in the priesthood, as both before and after this time Abiathar is himself mentioned as the priest (1Sa_22:20, etc.; 1Ki_1:7, etc). As the father of Abiathar was named Abimelech some have proposed to transpose the names, but this would not solve the difficulty in 1Ch_24:3; 1Ch_24:6; 1Ch_24:31. But the preferable solution appears to be that held by Keil, Wordsworth, Bertbean, and others, that Abiathar had a son of the same name as his (Abiathar’s) father, who with Zadok assisted in the priestly duties. “The historian states,” says Wordsworth, “that Zadok and Ahimelech were priests; not, as in our version, the priests. He supposes the reader to know the notorious fact that Abiathar was the priest. But he tells us, in addition to Abiathar the High Priest, Zadok and Ahimelech officiated as priests, just as we read of “the two sons of Eli priests of the Lord.” (1Sa_1:3.) Abiathar and Ahimelech descended from Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son. “Scribe.” Probably the State-secretary.
2Sa_8:18. “Benaiah.” A mighty warrior mentioned in 2Sa_23:20. Cherithites and Pelethites. The first of these words is from a verb meaning to cut down or exterminate, and probably points to one duty of these men, viz., that of executioners. Pelethites is derived from a word signifying to run, to hasten, and intimates that they had to carry the royal orders to distant places. They were evidently David’s body-guard. Some have derived the names from the Philistines, and from a Philistine tribe mentioned 1Sa_30:14, but the derivation seems far-fetched. “Chief rulers.” The same word, used in 1Ki_4:5 and translated “principal officer,” is afterwards explained as “the king’s friend,” It probably signifies confidential advisers.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
DAVID’S CONQUESTS
I. However long the conflict continues between the kingdom of God and the enemies of that kingdom, the final issue is not doubtful. The land of Palestine had long since been given by God to the descendants of Abraham, who then constituted the Church of God upon the earth. But from the days of Joshua until the reign of David, the struggle between the old inhabitants and the new had been continued with varying success. There had been dark days when Israel had been almost entirely subdued by her enemies, yet she had never lost her footing in the promised land; and now, under David, she saw herself the mistress of Jerusalem in the heart of the kingdom, and her foes subdued on every side. So it must and shall be in every contest of the Church of the Living God with those who oppose her. She will be subject to varying fortunes, and will sometimes appear to sink too low to rise again; but she shall eventually subdue all her enemies, and instead of the Church militant shall become the Church triumphant.
II. The victory of the kingdom of God depends upon the fulfilment of moral conditions. The success of the Philistines and the other nations against Israel had arisen from the moral degeneracy of the latter—from their neglect to fulfil the conditions upon which God had promised them a peaceful occupation of the laud. And David now subdued them, and brought in a long period of rest, not because he was a mighty and skilful warrior, but because he was a man of faith in the Unseen, and one who, on the whole, was sincere in his devotion and undivided in his service to God. It is because the nominal members of God’s kingdom in the world have not fulfilled His conditions of success that the victory of the Cross is so long delayed and the Gospel makes so little progress among the nations. The earth has been given to Christ and His people, and the Great David will one day subdue all things to Himself and put an end to the conflict. But the “coming of the kingdom” is retarded by the want of faith in the so-called disciples of Christ, and by their apathy and worldliness—by their attempts to serve other gods beside Jehovah, and by their unwillingness to deny themselves for the cause they profess to have at heart.
III. However diversified the enemies of God may be, they are one in opposition to Him and to His rule. There are birds of prey wearing a variety of plumage and exhibiting other differences which show them to belong to different families. But they have one and the same instinct, and though they may sometimes be found fighting with each other, a desire after the carcase is common to all. The people mentioned here as warring against Israel were of different races, and inhabited different lands, and doubtless often warred against each other; but they were one in their hatred of Israel and opposition to David. They are typical of the enemies of the spiritual Israel and of those who oppose the progress of the kingdom of David’s Son and Lord. Men who differ in all other points are found agreeing in this and although, like Herod and Pilate, they may be opposed to each other on other matters, they will often be found, like them, uniting for this end.
IV. Yet, when the Church of God has temporal ascendancy and external prosperity some who care not for her principles will court her friendship. When David had subdued many nations the king of Hamath saluted and blessed him and so showed himself an exception to the general rule mentioned above. But this friendship for David was not founded on religious sympathy, but on hatred of a rival, and on policy. So the hatred between the enemies of God may sometimes for a time be more active than their enmity to His kingdom; but friendship arising from such a source will only last while the Church is in temporal prosperity. Like the multitudes who shouted “Hosanna!” during the brief moment of Christ’s popularity, and melted away or joined in crying “Away with Him,” in the hour of darkness, they will ever be found on the side which has the outward ascendancy.
V. Those who do the work of preparation and those who inherit and carry on their labour are one in the kingdom of God. The man who fells the tree, and digs up the roots, and plans out the ground for a city, is a co-worker with him who raises the walls and builds the palaces. Without the toil of the first the work of the latter could not be accomplished, but there is danger that, when the whole is finished, the part which the first labourer had in the work may be forgotten. David, in what we may believe was far less congenial work than the building of a temple would have been, made the building of that temple possible, and, by the establishment of an orderly system of Divine worship and service, educated the spiritual perceptions of the people, so that, when they possessed a more permanent and gorgeous house of God, they might understand that it was but the means to an end—only the outward and visible sign of an inward and unseen reality—of that worship of the heart and homage of the life, without which all other gifts and service are not only worthless in the sight of God, but an insult and an abomination. Let no worker for God be discouraged because he cannot do the completed work upon which he has set his heart, it is a law of the Divine kingdom that one man “sows and another reaps.” The sowing is not the most joyous part of the work, but for this very reason it may be more honourable, and is that without which the other could not exist.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
The transitions of the Bible, like those of actual life, are often singularly abrupt; that which now hurries us from the scene of elevated communion with Heaven, to the confused noise and dismal struggles of a battle-field, is peculiarly startling.… It is an instructive fact that the history of these wars occupy so small a portion of the Bible. A single verse is all that can be afforded to most of them. Had they been narrated at length, they would probably have formed a narrative that would have placed David, as a captain, on a level with Cyrus, Hannibal, or Alexander. It is one of the less noticed proofs of the inspiration of the Old Testament, that such dazzling transactions as these are passed over so briefly. There is no other history in the world where more space would be occupied in describing the carrying of an ark to its permanent resting-place than in narrating seven great military campaigns. It would be beyond the power of human nature to resist the temptation to describe great battles,—the story of which is always read with such interest, and which reflect so much earthly glory on one’s nation.—Blaikie.
2Sa_8:15-18. In the minds of most readers of the Bible, the name of David, king of Israel, is associated mainly with military power, poetic genius, and personal piety; and only on the rarest occasions do we hear any reference made to his administrative ability. Yet in this last quality he was at least as remarkable as in any one of the others; and great injustice is done to him if we leave out of view the eminent services which he rendered to his country by the exercise of his government and his organising faculties.… More than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished for the tribes of Israel.—Taylor.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain David's Victories, and a List of his Officers
David's Victories, and a List of his Officers
This chapter concludes this account of David's reign. The remainder of the book is taken from a different source.
Read full note →
1. Metheg-ammah] RV 'the bridle of the mother city.' This is supposed to mean 'the authority of the capital,' namely, Gath (cp. 1Ch_18:1). Many take it, however, as the name (perhaps corrupted) of a place which David took from the Philistines. RM retains Metheg-ammah.
2. Casting them down to the ground] RV 'making them to lie down on the ground.' David then slew two out of every three. The reason for this severity is not known. Gifts] Moab continued tributary till the death of Ahab (2Ki_3:5).
3. Hadadezer] i.e. 'Hadad is a help': cp. Eliezer, Joezer, Azariah. Hadad was the supreme god of Syria. In 2Sa_10:16 his name is given more correctly as Hadarezer. Zobah] a Syrian kingdom, whose territory seems to have lain N. of Damascus and not far from the Euphrates. To recover his border] Chronicles reads 'to establish his dominion' (1Ch_18:3).
4. A thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen] RV 'a thousand and seven hundred horsemen.'
5. Damascus] is situated 'in a plain of vast size and extreme fertility, which lies east of the great chain of Anti-Libanus, on the edge of the Desert.' It has always been one of the most important cities of Syria. It succeeded in throwing off the yoke of Israel in the reign of Solomon (1Ki_11:24). Its history is related in the books of Kings.
6. Syria of Damascus] The phrase indicates the small Aramæan states in the regions of Damascus.
8. Exceeding much brass] i.e. copper. It is said that the Egyptians of the 18th and 19th dynasties got so much copper from Syria that they gave up working the mines on Mt. Sinai.
9. Hamath] on the Orontes.
10. Joram] LXX 'Jeddoram,' Chronicles 'Hadoram.' A Jewish scribe has probably altered Hadoram to the more familiar Joram.
12, 13. Syria.. Syrians] LXX and Chronicles (1Ch_18:12) rightly read 'Edom,' 'Edomites.'
15-18. These vv. are intended by the author to form the conclusion of his history of David's reign. Another list of officers is given in 2Sa_20:23-26.
17. Zadok.. and Abimelech.. were the priests] Zadok seems to have become chief priest under Saul: David had his own high priest, Abiathar. He solved the resulting difficulty by dividing the office between them. But for the prompt action of Joab, he would probably have divided the command of the army between Joab and Abner. Ahirmelech the son of Abiathar] His name was really Abiathar, the son of Ahirmelech (see 1Sa_22:20; 2Sa_15:35). But both in OT. and NT. the names are continually confused.
18. The Cherethites and the Pelethites] see on 1Sa_30:14; They formed part of David's foreign bodyguard.
Chief rulers] RV 'priests.' There can be no doubt that the translation of RV is correct, for the word has never any other meaning than that of 'priests.' But it is far from clear what were the precise duties which they discharged. Zadok and Abiathar were the priests for the nation, while 2Sa_20:26 and 1Ki_4:5 show that these 'priests' stood in some special relation to the king. Accordingly Ewald conjectures that they were his domestic priests. In Egypt, the king's confidential advisers are said to have been chosen from among the priests, and it is this view of their functions which is taken in Chronicles. 'The sons of David were chief about the king.' See Intro. § 5.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 5. The Extension of His Kingdom
5. The Extension of His Kingdom
CHAPTER 8
Read full note →
1. The Philistines and Moab smitten (2Sa 8:1-2)
2. Hadadezer overthrown (2Sa 8:3-8)
3. Further conquests and triumphs (2Sa 8:9-14)
4. David’s reign and his associates (2Sa 8:15-18)
Great conquests and victories follow. David arose from the presence of the Lord to go forth to conquer. With such a message he had heard, assuring him of the Lord’s presence and power, of the success of his kingdom, he began to extend his kingdom over the different nations which surrounded the land. The Lord was with him and preserved him withersoever he went. The history of these wars for the enlargement of the kingdom of David we shall have occasion to follow a little closer in our annotations of the first book of Chronicles. The extension of the kingdom of our Lord when He comes and begins His kingly work among the nations, to rule them with a rod of iron, is foreshadowed in these events.
When we read in verse 15 of David’s reign executing judgment and justice we have another faint picture of the rule of the coming King. The leading officers of the kingdom are mentioned. Joab was the general over his army; Jehosaphat the recorder. Zadok and Ahimelech were the priests; Seraiah the scribe. Benaiah had charge of the Cherethites and Pelethites; these two names mean “executioners and runners, while David’s sons were also ruling with him. Order prevailed in all things. When that true kingdom will be established on earth there will also be those who rule under the King, who have charge over five or ten cities (Luk 19:17-18). David’s sons who ruled with him may represent typically believers who are sons of God in Christ and fellow heirs with Him.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Victories over Various Nations
Victories over Various Nations
v. 1. And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued them, brought them completely into his power. And David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines, literally, "the bridle of the mother," of the chief city, the figurative saying being understood of the complete yielding to the control of another.
Read full note →
v. 2. And he smote Moab, east and southeast of the Dead Sea, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. It was a very severe punishment which was here meted out to the Moabites, since their soldiers were compelled to lie down on the ground, two thirds of them being measured for death and one-third for life. And so the Moabites, with only a third of their warriors remaining, became David’s servants and brought gifts, that is, paid tribute-money.
v. 3. David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, a district of Syria, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates; for Saul had already successfully fought against this nation, 1Sa 14:47. When Hadadezer attempted to recover his shattered power on the Euphrates, David completed the work begun by Saul and brought the entire territory into subjection to him.
v. 4. And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen (some read seven thousand, 1Ch 18:4) and twenty thousand footmen. And David houghed all the chariot horses, by cutting the sinews of their hind feet, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots, probably to display them in a triumphal procession or for the use of his guard.
v. 5. And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succor Hadadezer, king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians, or, Arameans, two and twenty thousand men.
v. 6. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, in the country of the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus, a city still situated in its ancient location on the Pharpar River and on the great caravan route between Central Asia and the Mediterranean: and the Syrians became servants to David, tributary to Israel, and brought gifts. And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went; his success was due entirely to the blessing of Jehovah.
v. 7. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, for the officers of this king could afford such costly weapons, and brought them to Jerusalem, as a part of the rich booty made in this war.
v. 8. And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, King David took exceeding much brass, for it seems that there were very productive copper-mines in this part of Syria. Note: If a believer undertakes his work in the fear of God and to His glory, the Lord will grant His blessing according to His promise.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 David attacked
David attacked
Here David represents his soldiers. AT: "David and his soldiers attacked" (See: Synecdoche)
Read full note →
translationWords
David
Philistines
Gath
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 8:1-18 The expansion of David’s empire through military victories…
8:1-18 The expansion of David’s empire through military victories (8:1-14) and the establishment of his royal bureaucracy (8:15-18) fulfilled God’s promise of a famous name (7:9; cp. 8:13).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.