Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 12:26
And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.
26. And Joab fought against Rabbah ] The narrative returns to the point at which it was left in ch. 2Sa 11:1. But how long a time was occupied in the siege does not appear. It is possible that it lasted more than one year, and did not come to an end till after the birth of Bath-sheba’s first child. But on the other hand it would be quite natural for the historian, having once commenced his account of Bath-sheba, to complete it before narrating the capture of Rabbah, so that this may have been effected within a year.
and took the royal city ] “The royal city” seems to be equivalent to “the city of waters” of 2Sa 12:27, that is, the lower city on the river, as distinguished from “the city” ( 2Sa 12:28), i.e. the citadel. The capture of this probably deprived the citadel of its water-supply, and so rendered it untenable for any length of time.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
26 31. Capture of Rabbah
= 1Ch 20:1-3
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 26. And took the royal city.] How can this be, when Joab sent to David to come to take the city, in consequence of which David did come and take that city? The explanation seems to be this: Rabbah was composed of a city and citadel; the former, in which was the king’s residence, Joab had taken, and supposed he could soon render himself master of the latter, and therefore sends to David to come and take it, lest, he taking the whole, the city should be called after his name.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
i.e. That part of the city where was the kings palace, where he ordinarily resided; though now it seems he was retired to a strong fort.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. Joab fought against RabbahThetime during which this siege lasted, since the intercourse withBath-sheba, and the birth of at least one child, if not two, occurredduring the progress of it, probably extended over two years.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon,…. Of his being sent against it, and of his besieging it, we read in
2Sa 11:1; but it can hardly be thought that he had been so long besieging it, as that David had two children by Bathsheba; but the account of the finishing of it is placed here, that the story concerning Bathsheba might lie together without any interruption:
and took the royal city; or that part of it in which the king’s palace was, and which, as Abarbinel observes, was without the city, as the palaces of kings now usually are.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Conquest of Rabbah, and Punishment of the Ammonites (comp. 1Ch 20:1-3). – “Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the king’s city.” , the capital of the kingdom, is the city with the exception of the acropolis, as 2Sa 12:27 clearly shows, where the captured city is called “the water-city.” Rabbah was situated, as the ruins of Ammn show, on both banks of the river ( Moiet) Ammn (the upper Jabbok), in a valley which is shut in upon the north and south by two bare ranges of hills of moderate height, and is not more than 200 paces in breadth. “The northern height is crowned by the castle, the ancient acropolis, which stands on the north-western side of the city, and commands the whole city” (see Burckhardt, Syria ii. pp. 612ff., and Ritter, Erdkunde xv. pp. 1145ff.). After taking the water-city, Joab sent messengers to David, to inform him of the result of the siege, and say to him, “Gather the rest of the people together, and besiege the city (i.e., the acropolis, which may have been peculiarly strong), and take it, that I may not take the city (also), and my name be named upon it,” i.e., the glory of the conquest be ascribed to me. Luther adopts this explanation in his free rendering, “and I have a name from it.”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Conquest of Rabbah. | B. C. 1036. |
26 And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city. 27 And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters. 28 Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it: lest I take the city, and it be called after my name. 29 And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. 30 And he took their king’s crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. 31 And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.
We have here an account of the conquest of Rabbah, and other cities of the Ammonites. Though this comes in here after the birth of David’s child, yet it is most probable that it was effected a good while before, and soon after the death of Uriah, perhaps during the days of Bath-sheba’s mourning for him. Observe, 1. That God was very gracious in giving David this great success against his enemies, notwithstanding the sin he had been guilty of just at that time when he was engaged in this war, and the wicked use he had made of the sword of the children of Ammon in the murder of Uriah. Justly might he have made that sword, thenceforward, a plague to David and his kingdom; yet he breaks it, and makes David’s sword victorious, even before he repents, that this goodness of God might lead him to repentance. Good reason had David to own that God dealt not with him according to his sins, Ps. ciii. 10. 2. That Joab acted very honestly and honourably; for when he had taken the city of waters, the royal city, where the palace was, and from which the rest of the city was supplied with water (and therefore, upon the cutting off of that, would be obliged speedily to surrender), he sent to David to come in person to complete this great action, that he might have the praise of it, v. 26-28. Herein he showed himself a faithful servant, that sought his master’s honour, and his own only in subordination to his, and left an example to the servants of the Lord Jesus, in every thing they do, to consult his honour. Not unto us, but to thy name, give glory. 3. That David was both too haughty and too severe upon this occasion, and neither so humble nor so tender as he should have been. (1.) He seems to have been too fond of the crown of the king of Ammon, v. 30. Because it was of extraordinary value, by reason of the precious stones with which it was set, David would have it set upon his head, though it would have been better to have cast it at God’s feet, and at this time to have put his own mouth in the dust, under guilt. The heart that is truly humbled for sin is dead to worldly glory and looks upon it with a holy contempt. (2.) He seems to have been too harsh with his prisoners of war, v. 31. Taking the city by storm, after it had obstinately held out against a long and expensive siege, if he had put all whom he found in arms to the sword in the heat of battle, it would have been severe enough; but to kill them afterwards in cold blood, and by cruel tortures, with saws and harrows, tearing them to pieces, did not become him who, when he entered upon the government, promised to sing of mercy as well as judgment, Ps. ci. 1. Had he made examples of those only who had abused his ambassadors, or advised or assisted in it, that being a violation of the law of nations, it might have been looked upon as a piece of necessary justice for terror to other nations; but to be thus severe with all the cities of the children of Ammon (that is, the garrisons or soldiers of the cities) was extremely rigorous, and a sign that David’s heart was not yet made soft by repentance, else the bowels of his compassion would not have been thus shut up–a sign that he had not yet found mercy, else he would have been more ready to show mercy.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Ammonites Defeated, 2Sa 12:26-31 AND 1Ch 20:1-3
The Chronicles account tells how Joab went to engage the Ammonites following the defeat of the Syrians, how he pillaged and ruined their land while the populace sought safety from him inside the walls of their capital city, Rabbah. Chronicles passes over in silence all the account of David’s sin with Bathsheba, murder of Uriah, coming of Nathan, and death of the child, and proceeds to the fall of the Ammonite city.
Samuel gives more details of the siege and fall of Rabbah. The reference to the city of waters is evidently the source of the city’s water supply. With that in Israel’s hands it was impossible that the beleaguered city could continue to hold out. Therefore Joab sent to David to gather all the rest of the armed men and come to Rabbah that the king might lead the attack against it and its conquest be attributed to him rather than to Joab. David acted on the advice of his captain and came and received the city.
Much spoil was taken, including the king’s crown, which weighed a talent of gold, and was valued at more than a million dollars in today’s monetary values. It weighed in excess of ninety pounds and was set on David’s head. Certainly he must not have been able to wear such a heavy object on his head for long at a time.
The people were either put into servitude, laboring with saws, harrows, axes, and brick-making (as Samuel indicates), or they were put to death by these instruments and in this manner (as some commentators think the Chronicles account indicates). That they became slaves seems the more likely.
Some lessons: 1) The Lord will not allow His sinning servant to escape chastisement (Heb 12:6); 2) sins of God’s people give occasion for others to continue in sin; 3) though men question, God’s decisions in judgment are right; 4) those who defy God’s people will ultimately be destroyed.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
2Sa. 12:26. The narrative now returns to chapter 2Sa. 11:1. The royal city. From 2Sa. 12:29 it appears that Rabbah was not wholly captured until David came, and unless the whole result is here summarily stated in advance (Erdmann), this seizure must refer to that part called in the next verse the water city.
2Sa. 12:27. The city of waters, or, the water city. The ruins of this city (see note on 2Sa. 10:3) show that it lay on both sides of a narrow valley, through which runs a stream which is a tributary to the river Jabbok. The citadel still stands on the northern declivity. Apparently, Joab took all the city with the exception of this stronghold.
2Sa. 12:28. It be called after my name. Erdmann, Keil, and others, prefer to read and my name be named upon it; i.e., I receive the honour of the capture. Joabs conduct here is either that of a devoted servant, wishing to give his master honour or shield him from popular disfavour (on account of Bathsheba), or that of an adroit courtier who will not run the risk of exciting his kings envy by too much success (see 1Sa. 18:6-8).(Tr. of Langes Commentary.)
2Sa. 12:29. All the people, i.e., all the men of war who had remained behind in the land; from which we may see that Joabs besieging army had been considerably weakened during the long siege, and at the capture of the water-city. (Keil.)
2Sa. 12:30. Their kings crown. So that he was either taken prisoner, or slain at the capture of the city. (Keil.) A talent, etc. About 100 English pounds. (Tr. of Langes Commentary.) This heavy crown of gold and precious stones might have been worn during the coronation by a strong man like David. In many places now weights scarcely less heavy are borne on the head even by women. We need not therefore suppose that the weight is accidentally exaggerated, (Keil), or that the crown was supported on the throne above the head. (Clericus.) (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 12:31. Under saws, etc. This must be rendered he cut them in two with the saw. The other instruments mentioned denote also cutting tools. The brick-kiln. Keil understands that they were burned in the brick-kiln, but some expositors read with Kimchi, he passed them through Malcham. i.e., the place where the Ammonites laid human sacrifices in the arms of the red-hot image of their god, Moloch. (See Lev. 18:21.) But many contend that the Hebrew text cannot be so translated, and its true signification is very uncertain.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 12:26-31
THE FINAL CONQUEST OF AMMON
I. To forego honour in favour of another is often as prudent as it is kind. If a man is beneath us in social position, or is less known or esteemed than we are, we ought to be able sometimes to stand back a little in order that he may be raised or brought forward and reap some of the benefits of which we have enjoyed so large a share. It is surely not a great self-denial for him who has won many prizes in the race of life, now and then to slacken his pace so that a less favoured person may taste the sweets of victory. But when those with whom we are engaged are our equals or superiors, prudence sometimes dictates such a course when benevolence does not prompt it. Those who feel themselves on a level with us, or know that they stand above us in many respects, are more likely to be jealous of our successes, and to look on us with suspicion if we leave them too far or too constantly behind in the contest for renown. If we desire to retain their goodwill we must sometimes put aside our just claims in their favour. The previous and the subsequent history of Joab lead us to incline to the view that his conduct at this time was actuated by this latter motive. He might certainly have acted as he did out of kindness of heart. If this event happenedas is most likelybefore Davids repentance, Joab must have seen how ill at ease his master was, or, if the occurrence took place after the message of Nathan, David would still be in a depressed state of mind, and it is possible that Joab suggested his expedition against Rabbah to divert him from his gloomy thoughts. Or Davids reputation among his subjects may have suffered by his sinful conduct, and his general may have resorted to this expedient to restore the king to his old place in their esteem by reviving his military fame. But we think his proposal was dictated rather by prudence. David had already somewhat against him in the murder of Abner, and had doubtless marked him as an ambitious and unscrupulous man. Joab could not be unconscious of the deep offence he had given to David when he slew Abner, and was too wise a politician not to know how far he might go and yet retain his position at the head of the army. So, although he had a perfect right to complete the undertaking which he had carried so far, he showed great wisdom in now giving it into Davids hands, and thus laying him under a new obligation to continue his favours.
II. External success is no criterion by which to judge how a man stands in relation to the favour of God. By the conquest of Rabbah David completed that series of victories which made him secure against all his heathen foes. When the crown of the king of Ammon was placed upon his head and he returned to Jerusalem laden with spoil, those who measure how far a mans ways please the Lord by the amount of temporal success which He grants him, would say that now David was enjoying more of the Divine favour than ever before. But there can be little doubt that this campaign was undertaken while the heavy displeasure of God was resting upon David, and even if it did not take place until after his repentance, all this outward splendour stands in sad contrast to the inward gloom which must have overshadowed Davids spirit when he thought of the terrible sentence, The sword shall never depart from thine house because thou hast despised Me. David the shepherd and the fugitive was really enjoying far more of the Divine approval and favour than David the conqueror of Ammon, and this episode of his life is another illustration of a truth we are prone to forget even in the light of the Cross, that a mans external circumstances are no indication of his standing in the kingdom of God.
III. Isolated actions of men are often strangely at variance with their character as a whole. As we read this paragraph, we seem to want to transpose the names of the actorsto put into Davids mouth the words of Joab, and to make Joab responsible for all that is here ascribed to David. Such a change would harmonize entirely with the characters of the two men regarded in their entirety. As the record stands, the apparently unselfish words of Joab sound as strangely in his lips as the boastful and cruel deeds of David seem out of harmony with his general spirit. If we knew no more of either of these men, how false would be the estimate we should form of their characters. But all who are observant of men in general, and especially of their own lives, know well how often very good men act inconsistently with their profession, and how it not unfrequently happens that, in individual instances, they suffer when compared with men who are morally far below them. A bad man sometimes seems to rise above himself, and really does so at times, and even the best of men often fall far below their better nature. It behoves us, therefore, always to abstain from passing hasty judgments, and to look at a mans deeds in the light of the general tenor of his life.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
The whole conduct of David at Rabbah is strange and painful. It was not creditable to be roused to an enterprise by an appeal to his love of fame; he might have left, Joab to complete the conquest and enjoy the honour which his sword had substantially won. It was unworthy of him to go through the empty ceremony of being crowned with the diadem of the Ammonitish king, as if he set an extraordinary value on having so precious a crown upon his head. Above all, it was very terrible to show so harsh a spirit in disposing of his prisoners of war. But all this is quite likely to have happened if David had not yet come to repentance. When a mans conscience is ill at ease, his temper is commonly sullen and irritable. Feeling himself pursued by an enemy whom he dare not face, he avoids solitude and reflectionhe courts bustle and business, and every kind of exciting and engrossing occupation. Uncomfortable and unhappy in his inmost soul, he is just in the temper to become savage and cruel when crossed. The whole occurrence shows that want of humility, admiration, love, and obedience towards God, tells darkly upon the whole life and character.Blaikie.
2Sa. 12:28. Do we the like by Jesus Christ, when we get any victory over our spiritual enemies, let him have the whole ghory; say we as those two disciples in Act. 3:12-16.Trapp.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
The Final Siege of Rabbah. 2Sa. 12:26-31
26 And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.
27 And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters.
28 Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it: lest I take the city, and it be called after my name.
29 And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it.
30 And he took their kings crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on Davids head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance.
31 And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.
18.
Explain Rabbahs being called the city of waters. 2Sa. 12:26
The river Jabbok flows near the city of Rabbah. This river would supply water to sustain many people. There was, as a matter of fact, a higher as well as a lower city. The city nearer the river was of lesser importance. The city sitting back some 300 feet higher in elevation was the principal city. The city was probably built to protect the formation. The unusual site of the city prompted the name. It was a royal city since it was the residence of the king. Once it was taken, the Ammonites were beaten.
19.
Why was Joab so considerate? 2Sa. 12:28
Joab preferred that David have the glory which would come from capturing the city. He said that if he were to take it the city might later be called after his name. Conquerors quite often named cities after themselves. In other cases of historical note, the people have acclaimed the liberator by naming their city after the man who drove out their enemies. Such names as Caesarea, Tiberias, and Philippi bear testimony of the fact that the Romans captured and ruled over these places. Joab may have thought the kings fortunes were ebbing and he needed this additional boost to his popularity.
20.
Why did the king have such a great crown? 2Sa. 12:30
After the Israelites conquered the Ammonites, they took the kings crown from off his head, so that he had either been taken a prisoner or slain at the time of the capture of the city. The weight is mentioned specifically, and it has been calculated to be something like eighty-three pounds. The strongest man could hardly have worn a crown of this weight on his head, even for a short time; and David would scarcely place it upon his own head, The crown must have been more for ornamental purposes than for actual use, but it would have symbolized the kings greatness and was very befitting to Davids exalted position. It may have been placed on his head in ceremonial fashion as men stood around to hold it, and this would signify that David was the ruler over this vassal state in the land east of the Jordan.
21.
How did David treat the captives? 2Sa. 12:31
David treated the people very harshly, but he did not torture them. Some commentators view this as Davids actually sawing the people into pieces, and dragging harrows of iron over their bodies, or chopping them with axes. They even view this punishment as one of severe torture whereby they were caused to walk through heated brick kilns. David only made these people to do all kinds of servile work. He made them to serve as woodsmen. They dragged harrows through the field, and labored at the debilitating work at the brick kilns. They literally performed slave labor and thus, augmented the services available to the kingdom of Israel.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(26) Took the royal city.The parallel narrative is resumed at this point in 1Ch. 20:2. Rabbah was situated in the narrow valley of the upper Jabbok, on both sides of the stream, but with its citadel on the cliff on the northern side. The royal city of this verse, and the city of waters of the next, refer probably to the city proper, while the city of 2Sa. 12:28-29 is no doubt the citadel, which was more strongly fortified.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
CONQUEST OF RABBAH, 2Sa 12:26-30.
26. Joab fought against Rabbah This siege seems to have been going on during all the incidents recorded between 2Sa 11:1 and here.
Took the royal city Called in the next verse, the city of waters. Ancient Rabbah seems to have been divided into two parts the city proper, containing the royal palace, and amply supplied with water from the stream that still flows through its ruins, and the citadel, or acropolis, which occupied one of the neighbouring heights. See note on 2Sa 11:1.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
As A Result Of His Forgiveness David’s Success Continues As He Reduces The City Of Rabbah ( 2Sa 12:26-31 ).
The fact that David was a changed man is now brought out in that he left his palace and personally took charge of the siege of Rabbah, and the fact that he had truly been forgiven was confirmed in that he was now successful in taking Rabbah and bringing the whole of Ammon under his control, receiving the crown of Ammon and setting the people to forced labour. Thus alongside the grief that would come on his family his success continued. He too was still the chosen of YHWH.
That this incident is to be seen as significant in the light of what has gone before comes out in that it is stressed that:
1). David ceased to rest in Jerusalem (the cause of his downfall) and went forth to battle. He had awoken from his spiritual lethargy (contrast 2Sa 11:1).
2). The capture of Rabbah would enhance his name and his greatness, thus confirming that YHWH was still fulfilling His promises for David. He was making his name great (2Sa 12:28; compare 2Sa 7:9).
3). In accordance with His covenant David was once again seen to be successful against all his enemies (compare2Sa 7:9).
We are therefore here given the assurance that David, in spite of his sins, was still safely established within the promises that YHWH had given him (2Sa 7:8-16), because he had truly repented and had received his initial punishment. The narrative will then go on to indicate the wider punishment that David will receive. But before doing so it gives us this assurance that YHWH was still with David.
Analysis.
a
b And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, “I have fought against Rabbah, yes, I have taken the city of waters” (2Sa 12:27).
c “Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called after my name” (2Sa 12:28).
d And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it (2Sa 12:29).
c And he took the crown of their king from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones, and it was set on David’s head (2Sa 12:30 a).
b And he brought forth the spoil of the city, a very great amount (2Sa 12:30 b).
a And he brought forth the people who were in it, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln, and thus did he to all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem (2Sa 12:31).
Note that in ‘a’ the royal city was subdued and taken, and in the parallel its people were set to forced labour. In ‘b’ the city is called ‘the city of waters’ and in the parallel great spoil flows from it. In ‘c’ the city is to be called after David’s name, and in the parallel its crown is placed on his head. Centrally in ‘d’ David turns from his former indolence and personally supervises the taking of Rabbah.
2Sa 12:26
‘ Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.’
While what has been described above was going on Joab continued with the siege of ‘Rabbah of the children of Ammon’, and eventually took part of the city. The name Rabbah means ‘large’ or ‘main city’ and thus ‘the main city of the children of Ammon’. Today it is called Amman and is the capital city of Jordan. Remains have been discovered on its airfield of a storage building used for the storage of cremated remains and dating from 13th century BC. Many of the remains were of children and may well have been ‘passed through the fire to Molech’ (Lev 18:21; Deu 18:10; 2Ki 16:3 ; 2Ki 17:17; 2Ki 21:6; 2Ki 23:10; etc). Traces of ancient fortifications from the Middle Bronze and Iron Age have also been unearthed.
“And took the royal city.” This may refer to the whole city, the verse being in summary form before going into the detail of its gradual possession. Or it may indicate that section of Rabbah where the royal palace was, which was seemingly also called ‘the city of waters’ because it was where the main water sources were. Of course once that was taken the remainder would soon follow. No city could hold out long without a sufficient water supply.
2Sa 12:27
‘ And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, “I have fought against Rabbah, yes, I have taken the city of waters.” ’
Once Joab had taken the section of the city containing its water supplies (the city of waters) he rapidly despatched messengers to David calling on him to come personally so that he could take the credit for capturing the whole city. This last was something regularly done by great kings, who would also often loose off a token arrow (compare 2Ki 19:32; Isa 37:33) so that it could be recorded on inscriptions.
We should in fact note that large cities were often fortified in such a way that taking one part did not mean that the whole was taken. We can compare the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, which was only a section of Jerusalem and yet had remained independent of the remainder for hundreds of years. So there is nothing surprising in enjoying a pause after taking a part of the city.
2Sa 12:28
“ Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called after my name.”
Joab’s aim was that David should gather ‘the rest of the people’, that is, the men of Israel who were not yet involved in the fighting, so that he could lead an army both in order to seize what remained to be taken of Rabbah and also in order to conquer the whole of Ammon. The importance of a great king being present when a city was forced to yield was widely recognised. Only then could he be seen as the victor. Joab was not suggesting that Rabbah would be renamed Joab, but that if David was not present the defeat of Rabbah would be remembered throughout the world as the work of Joab. Thus Joab, and YHWH, were ensuring that David’s name would be made great, just as YHWH had promised (2Sa 7:9).
2Sa 12:29
‘ And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it.’
So David gathered ‘all the people’ who were not yet involved in the siege and went to Rabbah and completed its subjection. This personal activity of David was important as a further evidence of his change of heart. He was no longer lingering in Jerusalem.
2Sa 12:30
‘ And he took the crown of their king from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones, and it was set on David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city, a very great amount.’
Once the city was taken the ceremonial crown of the king of Ammon was taken ‘from off his head’, and set on David’s head. It was a crown of pure gold encrusted with jewels and was very heavy. It was thus probably a ceremonial crown and not for everyday usage. The ‘talent of gold’ was presumably a light talent of around 30 kilogrammes or 66 pounds. But it would still be excessively heavy. And as well as the crown a huge amount of spoil was taken from the city. It was openly apparent that YHWH had again caused David to prosper.
2Sa 12:31
‘ And he brought forth the people who were in it, and put them to saws, and to harrows of iron, and to axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln, and thus did he to all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.’
Then after their long resistance the people of Ammon were brought out and put to forced labour. It was common practise for the warriors of a city which had resisted a siege to be put to death (Deu 20:12-14). This was in order to encourage cities to surrender without a siege, and also so as to ensure that once the army had moved on to further conquests it could not be attacked from behind. The provision in Deuteronomy was actually merciful as well as being practical, for many conquerors would slaughter all the inhabitants, apart from those whom they took away as slaves. But David was powerful enough, and merciful enough, not to need to do either of these, and instead he set the inhabitants of the city to forced labour. They were set to using saws, iron harrows and iron axes, and to work in the brick kilns. To be ‘made to pass through the brick kiln (malben)’ was probably a standing joke among the Israelites in view of the well known custom of the Ammonites of ‘passing their children through the fire to Molech (milcom)’.
Some see the description as signifying that the warriors of Ammon suffered cruel deaths by various means, but there are no other Scriptural examples of using such diverse methods of execution, while the descriptions adequately fit the idea of forced labour. Even so their fate would not be a happy one. 1Ch 20:1 says, ‘and he brought forth the people who were in it, and he/they cut with saws, and with harrows of iron and with axes.’ The verb ‘cut’ is singular and might indicate David, but ‘people’ is also singular and it could therefore refer to what the people were made to do. But even if we do refer it to David it could signify that he did his cutting by means of the Ammonites
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Success Against the Ammonites
v. 26. And Joab, v. 27. And Joab sent messengers to David and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters, v. 28. Now, therefore, gather the rest of the people together, v. 29. And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it, v. 30. And he took their king’s crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones v. 31. And he brought forth the people that were there in,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
2Sa 12:26. And Joab foughtand took Or, Now Joab had foughtand had taken.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(26) And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city. (27) And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters. (28) Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it: lest I take the city, and it be called after my name. (29) And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. (30) And he took their king’s crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance.
Though this relation is put in at the close of this chapter, it should seem that it must have taken place before Nathan’s visit to David, and when his heart had not been melted down with true sorrow for his sin; for else the crown of the king of Ammon would have been a mere bauble in David’s view after Nathan’s visit.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Sa 12:26 And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.
Ver. 26. And took the royal city. ] He had well nigh taken it after a twelve month’s siege. David’s sin at home had hindered Joab’s good success abroad, and retarded the conquest of this city of Rabbah, which now is ready to be taken, that David reconciled to God may have the honour of it: whom therefore Joab desireth to speed away with fresh forces.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joab: 2Sa 11:25, 1Ch 20:1
Rabbah: Rabbah, or Rabbath-Ammon, also called Philadelphia, from Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, was situated east of Jordan, and, according to Eusebius, ten miles east from Jazer. It is sometimes mentioned as belonging to Arabia, sometimes to Coelo-Syria; and was one of the cities of the Decapolis east of Jordan. Josephus extends the region of Perea as far as Philadelphia. It is now, says Burckhardt, called Amman, distant about 19 miles to the se by e of Szalt, and lies along the banks of a river called Moiet Amman, which has its source in a pond, at a few hundred paces from the south-western end of the town, and empties itself in the Zerka, or Jabbok, about four hours to the northward. This river runs in a valley bordered on both sides by barren hills of flint, which advance on the south side close to the edge of the stream. The edifices which still remain, though in a decaying state, from being built of a calcareous stone of moderate hardness, sufficiently attest the former greatness and splendour of this metropolis of the children of Ammon.
Reciprocal: Deu 3:11 – Rabbath Jos 10:2 – the royal cities Jos 13:25 – Rabbah 2Sa 8:12 – Syria 2Sa 11:1 – Rabbah Psa 60:9 – strong city Eze 21:20 – Rabbath Eze 25:4 – men Eze 25:5 – Rabbah Amo 1:14 – Rabbah
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Sa 12:26-27. Took the royal city That is, that part of the city where the kings palace was; though now, it seems, he was retired to a strong fort. It is not to be supposed that Joab had continued the siege so long as till David had two children by Bath-sheba; this was done soon after the death of Uriah, when David commanded them to assault the city with greater force. The city of waters That part of the city which lay open, or was encompassed with the water; the other part, which was the upper city, and probably much stronger, was not yet taken.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
God’s faithfulness to David 12:26-31
In spite of David’s rebellion, God granted his army victory over the Ammonites. David’s military leaders evidently executed the defeated warriors (1Ch 20:3) and forced many of the people to do labor of various kinds to support Israel (2Sa 12:31). [Note: On the crown mentioned in 2Sa 12:30, see Siegfried H. Horn, "The Crown of the King of the Ammonites," Andrews University Seminary Bulletin 11:2 (1973):170-80. For an explanation of David’s actions in 2Sa 12:31, see G. C. O’Ceallaigh, "’And So David Did to All the Cities of Ammon,’" Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962):179-89.]
Chapters 10-12 contain very important revelation that helps us understand the complexity of God’s righteous ways. We often think too superficially about the way God deals with sin in His people’s lives. We see in these chapters that David’s great sins did not completely wash out his past record of godly behavior. God continued to bless him in part because God had chosen him as His anointed, but also because he genuinely had a heart for God and usually sought to please God. His sins had terrible consequences, as we shall see, but God did not cast David off. The most important factor seems to be David’s basic heart attitude toward God. In this he was very different from Saul, and it is for this reason, I believe, that David did not end as Saul did. When David sinned, he confessed his sin. When Saul sinned, he made excuses. [Note: For a structural analysis of chapters 10-12, see Roth, "You Are . . ."]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XV.
DAVID AND NATHAN.
2Sa 12:1-12; 2Sa 12:26-31.
IT is often the method of the writers of Scripture, when the stream of public history has been broken by a private or personal incident, to complete at once the incident, and then go back to the principal history, resuming it at the point at which it was interrupted. In this way it sometimes happens (as we have already seen) that earlier events are recorded at a later part of the narrative than the natural order would imply. In the course of the narrative of David’s war with Ammon, the incident of his sin with Bathsheba presents itself. In accordance with the method referred to, that incident is recorded straight on to its very close, including the birth of Bathsheba’s second son, which must have occurred at least two years later. That being concluded, the history of the war with Ammon is resumed at the point at which it was broken off. We are not to suppose, as many have done, that the events recorded in the concluding verses of this chapter (2Sa 12:26-31) happened later than those recorded immediately before. This would imply that the siege of Rabbah lasted for two or three years – a supposition hardly to be entertained; for Joab was besieging it when David first saw Bathsheba, and there is no reason to suppose that a people like the Ammonites would be able to hold the mere outworks of the city for two or three whole years against such an army as David’s and such a commander as Joab. It seems far more likely that Joab’s first success against Rabbah was gained soon after the death of Uriah, and that his message to David to come and take the citadel in person was sent not long after the message that announced Uriah’s death.
In that case the order of events would be as follows: After the death of Uriah, Joab prepares for an assault on Rabbah. Meanwhile, at Jerusalem, Bathsheba goes through the form of mourning for her husband, and when the usual days of mourning are over David hastily sends for her and makes her his wife. Next comes a message from Joab that he has succeeded in taking the city of waters, and that only the citadel remains to be taken, for which purpose he urges David to come himself with additional forces, and thereby gain the honour of conquering the place. It rather surprises one to find Joab declining an honour for himself, as it also surprises us to find David going to reap what: another had sowed. David, however, goes with “all the people,” and is successful, and after disposing of the Ammonites he returns to Jerusalem. Soon after Bathsheba’s child is born; then Nathan goes to David and gives him the message that lays him in the dust. This is not only the most natural order for the events, but it agrees best with the spirit of the narrative. The cruelties practiced by David on the Ammonites send a thrill of horror through us as we read them. No doubt they deserved a severe chastisement; the original offence was an outrage on every right feeling, an outrage on the law of nations, a gratuitous and contemptuous insult; and in bringing these vast Syrian armies into the field they had subjected even the victorious Israelites to grievous suffering and loss, in toil, in money, and in lives.
Attempts have been made to explain away the severities inflicted on the Ammonites, but it is impossible to explain away a plain historical narrative. It was the manner of victorious warriors in those countries to steel their hearts against all compassion toward captive foes, and David, kind-hearted though he was, did the same. And if it be said that surely his religion, if it were religion of the right kind, ought to have made him more compassionate, we reply that at this period his religion was in a state of collapse. When his religion was in a healthy and active state, it showed itself in the first place by his regard for the honour of God, for whose ark he provided a resting-place, and in whose honour he proposed to build a temple. Love to God was accompanied by love to man, exhibited in his efforts to show kindness to the house of Saul for the sake of Jonathan, and to Hanun for the sake of Nahash. But now the picture is reversed; he falls into a cold state of heart toward God, and in connection with that declension we mark a more than usually severe punishment inflicted on his enemies. Just as the leaves first become yellow and finally drop from the tree in autumn, when the juices that fed them begin to fail, so the kindly actions that had marked the better periods of his life first fail, then turn to deeds of cruelty when that Holy Spirit, who is the fountain of all goodness, being resisted and grieved by him, withholds His living power.
In the whole transaction at Rabbah David shows poorly. It is not like him to be roused to an enterprise by an appeal to his love of fame; he might have left Joab to complete the conquest and enjoy the honour which his sword had substantially won. It is not like him to go through the ceremony of being crowned with the crown of the king of Ammon, as if it were a great thing to have so precious a diadem on his head. Above all, it is not like him to show so terrible a spirit in disposing of his prisoners of war. But all this is quite likely to have happened if he had not yet come to repentance for his sin. When a man’s conscience is ill at ease, his temper is commonly irritable. Unhappy in his inmost soul, he is in the temper that most easily becomes savage when provoked. No one can imagine that David’s conscience was at rest. He must have had that restless feeling which every good man experiences after doing a wrong act, before coming to a clear apprehension of it; he must have been eager to escape from himself, and Joab’s request to him to come to Rabbah and end the war must have been very opportune. In the excitement of war he would escape for a time the pursuit of his conscience; but he would be restless and irritable, and disposed to drive out of his way, in the most unceremonious manner, whoever or whatever should cross his path.
We now return with him to Jerusalem. He had added another to his long list of illustrious victories, and he had carried to the capital another vast store of spoil. The public attention would be thoroughly occupied with these brilliant events; and a king entering his capital at the head of his victorious troops, and followed by wagons laden with public treasure, need not fear a harsh construction on his private actions. The fate of Uriah might excite little notice; the affair of Bathsheba would soon blow over. The brilliant victory that had terminated the war seemed at the same time to have extricated the king from a personal scandal David might flatter himself that all would now be peace and quiet, and that the waters of oblivion would gather over that ugly business of Uriah.
“But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.”
“And the Lord sent Nathan unto David.”
Slowly, sadly, silently the prophet bends his steps to the palace. Anxiously and painfully he prepares himself for the most distressing task a prophet of the Lord ever had to go through. He has to convey God’s reproof to the king; he has to reprove one from whom, doubtless, he has received many an impulse towards all that is high and holy. Very happily he clothes his message in the Eastern garb of parable. He puts his parable in such life-like form that the king has no suspicion of its real character. The rich robber that spared his own flocks and herds to feed the traveler, and stole the poor man’s ewe lamb, is a real flesh-and- blood criminal to him. And the deed is so dastardly, its heartlessness is so atrocious, that it is not enough to enforce against such a wretch the ordinary law of fourfold restitution; in the exercise of his high prerogative the king pronounces a sentence of death upon the ruffian, and confirms it with the solemnity of an oath – “The man that hath done this thing shall surely die.” The flash of indignation is yet in his eye, the flush of resentment is still on his brow, when the prophet with calm voice and piercing eye utters the solemn words, “Thou art the man!” Thou, great king of Israel, art the robber, the ruffian, condemned by thine own voice to the death of the worst malefactor! “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; and I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little I would moreover have given thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.”
It is not difficult to fancy the look of the king as the prophet delivered his message – how at first when he said, “Thou art the man,” he would gaze at him eagerly and wistfully, like one at a loss to divine his meaning; and then, as the prophet proceeded to apply his parable, how, conscience-stricken, his expression would change to one of horror and agony; how the deeds of the last twelve months would glare in all their infamous baseness upon him, and outraged Justice, with a hundred glittering swords, would seem all impatient to devour him.
It is no mere imagination that, in a moment, the mind may be so quickened as to embrace the actions of a long period; and that with equal suddenness the moral aspect of them may be completely changed. There are moments when the powers of the mind as well as those of the body are so stimulated as to become capable of exertions undreamt of before. The dumb prince, in ancient history, who all his life had never spoken a word, but found the power of speech when he saw a sword raised to cut down his father, showed how danger could stimulate the organs of the body. The sudden change in David’s feeling now, like the sudden change in Saul’s on the way to Damascus, showed what electric rapidity may be communicated to the operations of the soul. It showed too what unseen and irresistible agencies of conviction and condemnation the great Judge can bring into play when it is His will to do so. As the steam hammer may be so adjusted as either to break a nutshell without injuring the kernel, or crush a block of quartz to powder, so the Spirit of God can range, in His effects on the conscience, between the mildest feeling of uneasiness and the bitterest agony of remorse. “When He is come,” said our blessed Lord, ”He shall reprove the world of sin.” How helpless men are under His operation! How utterly was David prostrated! How were the multitudes brought down on the day of Pentecost! Is there any petition we more need to press than that the Spirit be poured out to convince of sin, whether as it regards ourselves or the world? Is it not true that the great want of the Church the want of is a sense of sin, so that confession and humiliation are become rare, and our very theology is emasculated, because, where there is little sense of sin, there can be little appreciation of redemption? And is not a sense of sin that which would bring a careless world to itself, and make it deal earnestly with God’s gracious offers? How striking is the effect ascribed by the prophet Zechariah to that pouring of the spirit of grace and supplication upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, when “they shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for an only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” Would that our whole hearts went out in those invocations of the Spirit which we often sing, but alas! so very tamely –
“Come, Holy Spirit, come,
Let Thy bright beams arise;
Dispel the darkness from our minds.
And open all our eyes.
“Convince us of our sin,
Lead us to Jesus blood,
And kindle in our breast the flame
Of never-dying love.”
We cannot pass from this aspect of David’s case without marking the terrible power of self-deception. Nothing blinds men so much to the real character of a sin as the fact that it is their own. Let it be presented to them in the light of another man’s sin, and they are shocked. It is easy for one’s self-love to weave a veil of fair embroidery, and cast it over those deeds about which one is somewhat uncomfortable. It is easy to devise for ourselves this excuse and that, and lay stress on one excuse and another that may lessen the appearance of criminality. But nothing is more to be deprecated, nothing more to be deplored, than success in that very process. Happy for you if a Nathan is sent to you in time to tear to rags your elaborate embroidery, and lay bare the essential vileness of your deed! Happy for you if your conscience is made to assert its authority, and cry to you, with its awful voice, “Thou art the man!” For if you live and die in your fool’s paradise, excusing every sin, and saying peace, peace, when there is no peace, there is nothing for you but the rude awakening of the day of judgment, when the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies!
After Nathan had exposed the sin of David he proceeded to declare his sentence. It was not a sentence of death, in the ordinary sense of the term, but it was a sentence of death in a sense even more difficult to bear. It consisted of three things – first, the sword should never depart from his house; second, out of his own house evil should be raised against him, and a dishonoured harem should show the nature and extent of the humiliation that would come upon him; and thirdly, a public exposure should thus be made of his sin, so that he would stand in the pillory of Divine rebuke, and in the shame which it entailed, before all Israel, and before the sun. When David confessed his sin, Nathan told him that the Lord had graciously forgiven it, but at the same time a special chastisement was to mark how concerned God was for the fact that by his sin he had caused the enemy to blaspheme – the child born of Bathsheba was to die.
Reserving this last part of the sentence and David’s bearing in connection with it for future consideration, let us give attention to the first portion of his retribution. “The sword shall never depart from thy house.” Here we find a great principle in the moral government of God, – correspondence between an offence and its retribution. Of this many instances occur in the Old Testament Jacob deceived his father; he was deceived by his own sons. Lot made a worldly choice; in the world’s ruin he was overwhelmed. So David having slain Uriah with the sword, the sword was never to depart from him. He had robbed Uriah of his wife; his neighbours would in like manner rob and dishonour him. He had disturbed the purity of the family relation; his own house was to become a den of pollution. He had mingled deceit and treachery with his actions; deceit and treachery would be practiced towards him. What a sad and ominous prospect! Men naturally look for peace in old age; the evening of life is expected to be calm. But for him there was to be no calm; and his trial was to fall on the tenderest part of his nature. He had a strong affection for his children; in that very feeling he was to be wounded, and that, too, all his life long. Oh let not any suppose that, because God’s children are saved by His mercy from eternal punishment, it is a light thing for them to despise the commandments of the Lord! “Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee; know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that thy fear is not in Me, saith the Lord of hosts.”
Pre-eminent in its bitterness was that part of David’s retribution which made his own house the source from which his bitterest trials and humiliations should arise. For the most part, it is in extreme cases only that parents have to encounter this trial. It is only in the wickedest households, and in households for the most part where the passions are roused to madness by drink, that the hand of the child is raised against his father to wound and dishonour him. It was a terrible humiliation to the king of Israel to have to bear this doom, and especially to that king of Israel who in many ways bore so close a resemblance to the promised Seed, who was indeed to be the progenitor of that Seed, so that when Messiah came He should be called “the Son of David.” Alas! the glory of this distinction was to be sadly tarnished. “Son of David” was to be a very equivocal title, according to the character of the individual who should bear it. In one case it would denote the very climax of honour; in another, the depth of humiliation. Yes, that household of David’s would reek with foul lusts and unnatural crimes. From the bosom of that home where, under other circumstances, it would have been so natural to look for model children, pure, affectionate, and dutiful, there would come forth monsters of lust and monsters of ambition, whose deeds of infamy would hardly find a parallel in the annals of the nation I In the breasts of some of these royal children the devil would find a seat where he might plan and execute the most unnatural crimes. And that city of Jerusalem, which he had rescued from the Jebusites, consecrated as God’s dwelling-place, and built and adorned with the spoils which the king had taken in many a well-fought field, would turn against him in his old age, and force him to fly wherever a refuge could be found as homeless, and nearly as destitute, as in the days of his youth when he fled from Saul!
And lastly, his retribution was to be public. He had done his part secretly, but God would do His part openly. There was not a man or woman in all Israel but would see these judgments coming on a king who had outraged his royal position and his royal prerogatives. How could he ever go in and out happily among them again? How could he be sure, when he met any of them, that they were not thinking of his crime, and condemning him in their hearts? How could he meet the hardly suppressed scowl of every Hittite, that would recall his treatment of their faithful kinsman? What a burden would he carry ever after, he that used to wear such a frank and honest and kindly look, that was so affable to all that sought his counsel, and so tenderhearted to all that were in trouble! And what outlet could he find out of all this misery? There was but one he could think of. If only God would forgive him; if He, whose mercy was in the heavens, would but receive him again of His infinite condescension into His fellowship, and vouchsafe to him that grace which was not the fruit of man’s deserving, but, as its very name implied, of God’s unbounded goodness, then might his soul return again to its quiet rest, though life could never be to him what it was before. And this, as we shall presently see, is what he set himself very earnestly to seek, and what of God’s mercy he was permitted to find. O sinner, if thou hast strayed like a lost sheep, and plunged into the very depths of sin, know that all is not lost with thee! There is one way yet open to peace, if not to joy. Amid the ten thousand times ten thousand voices that condemn thee, there is one voice of love that comes from heaven and says, “Return unto Me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord.”