Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 12:31
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.
31. put them under saws ] Put them upon saws: or perhaps we should read as in Chron., sawed them with saws. Cp. Heb 11:37. This barbarous practice was not unknown at Rome. “[Caligula] medios serra dissecuit.” (Sueton. Calig. 27.)
harrows of iron ] Threshing-sledges of iron: sledges or frames armed on the underside with rollers or sharp spikes, used for the purpose of bruising the ears of corn, and extracting the grain, and at the same time breaking up the straw into small pieces for use as fodder. See Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, i. 408, ii. 423.
made them pass through the brick-kiln ] Burned them in brick-kilns. The phrase is chosen with reference to the idolatrous rite practised by the Ammonites, of “making their children pass through the fire” in honour of Moloch (2Ki 23:10). This is the meaning of the Qr or read text (see Introd. p. 15), which is probably correct. The Kthbh or written text however has “made them pass through the Malchan,” which is explained to mean the place where they burnt their children in honour of Moloch. But the word occurs nowhere else, and is of doubtful authority.
These cruel punishments must be judged according to the standard of the age in which they were inflicted, not by the light of Christian civilisation. The Ammonites were evidently a savage and brutal nation (1Sa 11:1-2; 2Sa 10:1-5; Amo 1:13), and in all probability they were treated no worse than they were accustomed to treat others. It was the age of retaliation, when the law of like for like the lextalionis prevailed (Jdg 1:7; Lev 24:19-20). They had foully insulted David, and it is not to be wondered at if he was provoked into making a signal example of them by this severity. In this respect he did not rise above the level of his own age. Modern history has its parallels, not only in the barbarities perpetrated at Alenon by a ruthless soldier like William the Conqueror, but in the merciless massacre by which the Black Prince sullied his fair fame on the capture of Limoges. Green’s History, pp. 72, 226.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For the saw as an implement of torture compare Heb 11:37.
Harrows of iron – Or rather thrashing-machines (Isa 28:27; Isa 41:15, etc.).
Axes – The word so rendered occurs only here and in 1Ch 20:3. It evidently means some cutting instrument.
Made them pass through the brick-kiln – The phrase is that always used of the cruel process of making their children pass through the fire to Moloch, and it is likely that David punished this idolatrous practice by inflicting something similar upon the worshippers of Moloch. The cruelty of these executions belongs to the barbarous manners of the age, and was provoked by the conduct of the Ammonites 2Sa 10:1-4; 1Sa 11:1-2, but is utterly indefensible under the light of the Gospel. If Rabbah was taken before Davids penitence, he may have been in an unusually harsh and severe frame of mind. The unpleasant recollection of Uriahs death would be likely to sour and irritate him to the utmost.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 31. He brought forth the people] And put them under saws. From this representation a great cry has been raised against “David’s unparalleled, if not diabolic, cruelty.” I believe this interpretation was chiefly taken from the parallel place, 1Ch 20:3, where it is said, he cut them with saws, and with axes, c. Instead of vaiyasar, he sawed, we have here (in Samuel) vaiyasem, he put them and these two words differ from each other only in a part of a single letter, resh for mem. And it is worthy of remark, that instead of vaiyasar, he sawed, in 1Ch 20:3, six or seven MSS. collated by Dr. Kennicott have vaiyasem, he put them; nor is there found any various reading in all the MSS. yet collated for the text in this chapter, that favours the common reading in Chronicles. The meaning therefore is, He made the people slaves, and employed them in sawing, making iron harrows, or mining, (for the word means both,) and in hewing of wood, and making of brick. Sawing asunder, hacking, chopping, and hewing human beings, have no place in this text, no more than they had in David’s conduct towards the Ammonites.
It is surprising, and a thing to be deplored, that in this and similar cases our translators had not been more careful to sift the sense of the original words by which they would have avoided a profusion of exceptionable meanings with which they have clothed many passages of the sacred writings. Though I believe our translation to be by far the best in any language, ancient or modern, yet I am satisfied it stands much in need of revision. Most of the advantages which our unbelievers have appeared to have over certain passages of Scripture, have arisen from an inaccurate or false translation of the terms in the original; and an appeal to this has generally silenced the gainsayers. But in the time in which our translation was made, Biblical criticism was in its infancy, if indeed it did exist; and we may rather wonder that we find things so well, than be surprised that they are no better.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The people that were therein: the words are indefinite, and therefore not necessarily to be understood of all the people; for it had been barbarous to use women and children thus; but of the men of war, and especially of those who had been the chief actors or abettors of that villainous action against Davids ambassadors, (which was contrary to the law of nature, and of nations, and of all humanity,) and of the dreadful war ensuing upon it; for which they might seem to deserve the severest punishments. Although indeed there seems to have been too much rigour used; especially, because these dreadful deaths were inflicted not only upon those great counsellors, who were the only authors of that vile usage of the ambassadors; but upon a great number of the people, who were innocent from that crime. And therefore it is probably conceived that David exercised this cruelty whilst his heart was hardened and impenitent, and when he was bereaved of that free and good Spirit of God which would have taught him more mercy and moderation.
Put them under saws: he sawed them to death; of which punishment we have examples, both in Scripture, Heb 11:37, and in other authors. Under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron; he caused them to be laid down upon the ground, and torn by sharp iron harrows drawn over them, and hewed in pieces by keen axes. Made them pass through the brick-kiln, i.e. to be burnt in brickkilns. Or, made them to pass through the furnace of Malchen, i.e. of Moloch, called also Milchom, and here Malchen; punishing them with their own sin, and with the same kind of punishment which they inflicted upon their own children: see 2Ki 16:3; 23:10; Lev 18:21; 20:2; Deu 18:10.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31. he brought forth the people . .. and put them under saws, c.This excessive severity andemployment of tortures, which the Hebrews on no other occasion arerecorded to have practised, was an act of retributive justice on apeople who were infamous for their cruelties (1Sa 11:2Amo 1:13).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he brought forth the people that [were] therein,…. Not all the inhabitants of the place, but the princes of the children of Ammon, the counsellors of Hattun, who advised him to use David’s ambassadors in so shameful a manner, and others that expressed their pleasure and satisfaction in it:
and put [them] under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron; whereby they were cut asunder, as some were by the Romans and others n, or their flesh torn to pieces, and they put to extreme pain and agony, and so died most miserably; see 1Ch 20:3;
and made them pass through the brickkiln; where they burnt their bricks, by which they were not only scorched and blistered, but burnt to death; so the word in the “Keri”, or margin, signifies, which we follow; but in the text it is, they caused them to pass through Malcem, the same with Milcom or Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon, 1Ki 11:5; unto which they made their children pass through the fire, and burnt them; and now in the same place they themselves are made to pass through, and be burnt, as a righteous punishment of them for their barbarous and wicked idolatry. The word used in the Greek version, according to Suidas o, signifies an army, or a battalion of men drawn up in a quadrangular form, like a brick; and in the same sense Josephus p uses it; hence a learned man q conjectures that David’s army was drawn up in the like form, through which the Ammonites were obliged to pass, and as they passed were assailed with darts, and killed; a like punishment to which is what the Italians call “passing through the pikes”:
and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon; to the inhabitants of them; that is, the chief, who bad expressed their joy at the ill usage of his ambassadors: this he did to strike terror into other nations, that they might fear to use his ambassadors in such like manner. This action of David’s showing so much severity, is thought by most to be done when under the power of his lust with Bathsheba, in an hardened and impenitent state, when he had no sense of mercy himself, and so showed none; which is too injurious to his character; for this was a righteous retaliation of this cruel people, 1Sa 11:2. Which may be observed in other instances, Jud 8:6; but the charge of cruelty in David will be easily removed by following the translation of a learned r man, and which I think the words will bear, “and he obliged the people that were in it to go out, and put them to the saw”, to cut stones; “and to the iron mines”, to dig there; “and to the axes of iron”, to cut wood, with; “after he had made them to pass with their king” out of the city.
So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem; in triumph, and with great spoil.
n Suetonius in Vita Caii, c. 27. Vid. Herodot. l. 2. c. 139. o In voce . p Antiqu. l. 13. c. 4. sect. 4. q Menochius de Repub. Heb. l. 8. c. 3. col 752. r Danzii Commentat. de miligat. David in Ammon. crudel. Jenae 1710, apud Michael. in 1 Chron. xx. 3. Vid. Stockium, p. 392.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He also had the inhabitants executed, and that with cruel tortures. “He sawed them in pieces with the saw and with iron harrows.” , “he put them into the saw,” does not give any appropriate sense; and there can be no doubt, that instead of we should read (from ): “he cut (sawed) them in pieces.” , “and with iron cutting tools.” The meaning of the . . cannot be more precisely determined. The current rendering, “axes or hatchets,” is simply founded upon the circumstance that , to cut, is applied in 2Ki 6:4 to the felling of trees. The reading in the Chronicles, , is evidently a copyist’s error, as we have already had , “with the saw.” The meaning of the next clause is a disputed point, as the reading itself varies, and the Masoretes read instead of the Chethibh , “he made them go through brick-kilns,” i.e., burnt them in brick-kilns, as the lxx and Vulgate render it. On the other hand, Thenius takes the Chethibh under his protection, and adopts Kimchi’s explanation: “he led them through Malchan, i.e., through the place where the Ammonites burned their children in honour of their idol.” Thenius would therefore alter into or : “he offered them as sacrifices in their image of Moloch. ” But this explanation cannot be even grammatically sustained, to say nothing of the arbitrary character of the alteration proposed; for the technical expression , “to cause to go through the fire for Moloch” (Lev 18:21), is essentially different from , to cause to pass through Moloch, an expression that we never meet with. Moreover, it is impossible to see how burning the Ammonites in the image of Moloch could possibly be “an obvious mode of punishing idolatry,” since the idolatry itself consisted in the fact that the Ammonites burned their children to Moloch. So far as the circumstances themselves are concerned, the cruelties inflicted upon the prisoners are not to be softened down, as Daaz and others propose, by an arbitrary perversion of the words into a mere sentence to hard labour, such as sawing wood, burning bricks, etc. At the same time, the words of the text do not affirm that all the inhabitants of Rabbah were put to death in this cruel manner. (without ) refers no doubt simply to the fighting men that were taken prisoners, or at the most to the male population of the acropolis of Rabbah, who probably consisted of fighting men only. In doing this, David merely retaliated upon the Ammonites the cruelties with which they had treated their foes; since according to Amo 1:13 they ripped up women who were with child, and according to 1Sa 11:2 their king Nahash would only make peace with the inhabitants of Jabesh upon the condition that the right eye of every one of them should be put out. It is sufficiently evident from this, that the Ammonites had aimed at the most shameful extermination of the Israelites. “Thus did he unto all the cities of the Ammonites,” i.e., to all the fortified cities that resisted the Israelites. After the close of this war, David returned to Jerusalem with all the men of war. The war with the Syrians and Ammonites, including as it did the Edomitish war as well, was the fiercest in which David was ever engaged, and was also the last great war of his life.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(31) Put them under saws.The literal translation of the Hebrew (put them with, or into, the saw) does not give any good sense, and no doubt a single letter of the text should be changed, bringing it into agreement with 1Ch. 20:3, cut them with saws. (Comp. Heb. 11:37.)
Harrows of iron.These are the heavy iron tools, often armed with sharp points on the lower side, which were used for the purposes of threshing the grain and breaking up the straw.
The brick-kiln.This is the reading of the Hebrew text, and there is no sufficient reason to call it in question. The Hebrew margin, however, has through Malchan; and hence some have supposed that David made the Ammonites pass through the same fire by which they were accustomed to consecrate their children to Molech.
In the infliction of these cruelties on his enemies David acted in accordance with the customs and the knowledge of his time. Abhorrent as they may be to the spirit of Christianity, David and his contemporaries took them as matters of course, without a suspicion that they were not in accordance with Gods will.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
31. Put them under saws That is, as 1Ch 20:3 explains it, cut them with saws. They were sawn asunder, as Isaiah is said to have been tortured. Heb 11:37. Shaw, in his Travels, describes a case of sawing asunder by placing the criminal between boards, and then beginning at the head. The above cut of ancient saws is from paintings found at Herculaneum.
Harrows of iron Rather, as the cognate Hebrew word is rendered in Amo 1:3, Threshing instruments of iron. The victims were probably made to lie down on the ground, as were the Moabites when David measured them with a line, (2Sa 8:2,) and a heavy threshing instrument, with jagged iron rollers underneath, was drawn over them.
Axes of iron For cut of ancient axes see on 1Sa 13:21. But it is not clear that the word , which occurs here only, means axes. Keil renders it simply iron cutting tools, and we incline to believe with him that “the meaning cannot be more precisely determined.”
Made them pass through the brick-kiln Burned to death vast numbers of them by forcing them into the fires of brick-kilns. By these various instruments and methods of torture did David execute the captive Ammonites, thus retaliating upon them cruelties equivalent to what they themselves were accustomed to impose upon their captives. Many have cried out against these terrible cruelties, and thought it impossible that David could have been barbarous enough to authorize them. Hence has arisen another interpretation, which makes the text mean that David enslaved the people, and set them at sawing and hewing wood, making or using iron instruments, and burning brick. But this interpretation accords not well with the words, has the text in Chronicles decidedly against it, and is also open to the objection that the Hebrew people had little or no need of these kinds of labour. Their houses were of stone, or else simply tents, their iron instruments were comparatively few, and they certainly made no such use of wood as required so many sawyers and hewers as all these cities of the Ammonites afforded. But if we consider the customs of that age, and the barbarous character of these Ammonites, we will see the ground and reason of David’s severity. They were wont to rip up women with child, (Amo 1:13😉 they would not covenant with the men of Jabesh except that they might thrust out all their right eyes, (1Sa 11:2,) and they had provoked this war by their most shameful treatment of David’s friendly ambassadors. 2Sa 10:4. If, then, it was proper barbarously to mutilate Adoni-bezek because he had thus mutilated other kings, (Jdg 1:6-7,) and to hew Agag in pieces because his sword had made women childless, (1Sa 15:33,) and utterly destroy the idolatrous nations of Canaan, (Deu 7:2; Jos 6:21; Jos 8:25-26; 1Sa 15:3,) it is surely a strange inconsistency to cry out against this retaliatory severity of David, as if it were unparalleled and diabolical. The measure was strictly in accordance with the military customs of the age.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Sa 12:31. And he brought forth the people, &c. This treatment of the Ammonites having shocked some unthinking readers, it will not be unseasonable to inform them, that the words will bear a milder interpretation. Literally, they may be rendered thus: And he brought forth the people, and placed them by, [ vaiiusem bamgerah,] or, more nearly, put them to the saw, and to iron harrows, or mines, and to axes of iron, and made them pass by, or to, the brick-kilns; i.e. made them slaves, and put them to the most servile employments; sawing, harrowing, or making iron harrows, or mining, and hewing of wood, and making of bricks. That the prefix beth, signifies to, in numerous places, may be seen in Noldius; and it does so in construction with this very verb bamgerah, in the place before us; let not the king [ iasem] put this thing [ beabdo] to his servant; 1Sa 22:15 and in several other instances which might be mentioned. It may also be observed, that the Syriac and Arabic versions give a more favourable interpretation of this passage, and render it, he brought them out, and threw them into chains, and iron shackles, and made them pass before him in a proper measure, or by proper companies at a time. The version of the LXX is not so clear. He put them in, or to, the saw, &c. and made them pass by the brick-kiln, which may well be interpreted of his putting them to these servile employments. The words bacharitzei habbarzel, rendered harrows of iron, signify iron mines; which will determine the meaning in this more favourable sense. Thus charutz, signifies gold, as being deeply dug out of the mines, from cheretz, to dig; Pro 3:14. But what shall we say to the parallel place, 1Ch 20:3 which our version renders, he cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes? Why, first, the verb does not agree in sense with the several punishments mentioned; for if nasar be the root of vaiiasar, as our version makes it to be, it properly signifies he cut with a saw; and therefore cannot be applied either to the ax, or harrow, or mine. But though this be the original sense of nasar, yet it is used in the Arabic in a more general sense, to signify, he dispersed, divided, separated, and the place may be rendered, he divided or separated them to the saw, harrows, or iron mines, and axes; i.e. to these servile employments, some to one, and some to another. It may be farther observed, that the root iasar, may be sur; the meaning of which is, he ruled, or governed them, viz. by the saw, the harrows, or mines, and axes; made them slaves, and condemned them to these servile employments. The word is thus rendered by Schmidius, he ruled by the saw, &c. And this interpretation is far from forced, agreeable to the proper sense and construction of the words, and will vindicate David from any inhumanity which can be charged upon him in this instance. The Syriac version is, he bound them with iron chains, &c. and thus he bound them all: and the Arabic, he bound them all with chains, killing none of the Ammonites. This account may be farther confirmed by the next clause, thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon: for, had he destroyed all the inhabitants by these or any methods of severity, it would have been an almost total extirpation of them: and yet we read of them as united with the Moabites, and the inhabitants of Seir, and forming a very large army to invade the dominions of Jehoshaphat. It may be added, that if the punishments inflicted on this people were as severe as our version represents them, they were undoubtedly inflicted by way of reprisals. Nahash the father of Hanun, in the wantonness of cruelty, would admit the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to surrender themselves to him, upon no other condition than their every one consenting to have their right eye thrust out, that he might lay it as a reproach upon all Israel. If these severities of David were now exercised by way of retaliation for former cruelties of this nature, it will greatly lessen the horror which may be conceived on account of them, and in some measure justify David’s using them, considering more especially the dispensation of grace under which he lived: and as the sacred writers, who have transmitted this history to us, do not pass any censure on David as having exceeded the bounds of humanity in this punishment of the Ammonites, we may reasonably conclude, either that the punishment was not so severe as our version represents it; or, that there was some peculiar reason which demanded this exemplary vengeance, and which, if we were acquainted with it, would induce us to pass a more favourable judgment concerning it; or, that the law of nations then subsisting admitted such kind of executions upon very extraordinary provocations, though there are scarcely any which can justify them.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(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.
The harsh method David here adopted to the Ammonites, serves to confirm the observation made before. Spiritually considered, God’s people should bring indeed the corruptions of their own desperately wicked hearts under saws of iron, and make them pass through the fires to consume them; for these are the Ammonites with which our souls are most severely exercised and assaulted. Toward these I would show no mercy.
REFLECTIONS
Lord! give me grace in the perusal of this chapter to gather all the precious instructions thine Holy Spirit mercifully intended, in the publishing such a record for thy church and people. Do thou, Holy Spirit, graciously accompany thy written word with the influences of thy divine power, that it may be profitable to my soul, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
And here, first, cause me to learn, from this view of thy servant David, what my nature is, even in its highest attainments. The best of men, if left to themselves, may fall into the worst of sins. So I behold it here, and let the view of it humble my soul to the dust before thee.
In the next place; Lord, teach me also, from what I here discover, that a child of God when fallen cannot arise of himself. The first advance towards a recovery must come from thee. The conviction of this most certain truth is enough to make a soul go humbly all his days.
And, blessed God, when thou hast wrought these truths in their own living characters in my heart, oh! lead us to see that from the nature of thy blessed covenant, in the blood and righteousness of thy dear Son, thou wilt not leave thy fallen children in their low state, but wilt recover them for thy name’s sake, and for thy righteousness sake thou wilt heal them. Thou wilt send some Nathan, some heavenly messenger; nay, blessed Jesus, thou wilt come thyself, and by the sweet influences of thy Holy Spirit, in convincing of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, thou wilt heal their backslidings, and love them freely. And though by afflictions thou mayest bring them down, yet for thine own sake thou wilt not cast them off. Unworthy, Lord, as we are in ourselves, yet in Jesus thou beholdest us with complacency. Though thou visit our offences with a rod, and our iniquities with stripes, yet thy loving-kindness wilt thou not take from him, nor suffer thy faithfulness to fail.
Here then, Lord, let my soul rest. And when I have gathered all these sweet and precious instructions from the relation the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to give of David’s fall and recovery, in the instances before me; when I have beheld everything connected with it in a way of improvement, as it refers to his case, and as it concerns my own; let the whole have this blessed effect on my poor, fallen, corrupt, and sinful nature; to endear yet more and more the Lord Jesus to my heart, and to form him there, the one only sure and certain hope of glory. Yes! thou dear Immanuel! thou art the Lord our righteousness! for other righteousness the whole race of fallen Adam can have none. In thee do I trust; on thee do I lean; to thee do I come, and with thee pray everlastingly to be found. Be thou made of God to me, wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that (according as it is written) he that glorieth let him glory in the Lord.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
XIX
THREE DARK EVENTS OF DAVID’S CAREER
2Sa 11:1-12:25
In the preceding discussion, three dark events of David’s career were omitted, first, because it was thought best to give in unbroken connection a history of his successful wars, carrying his kingdom to its promised boundaries and filling the world with his fame; secondly, because the three events called for special and extended treatment. Truly the wars closed in a blaze of glory, for “The Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went,” “his kingdom was exalted on high for his people Israel’s sake;” “So David gat him a great name,” according to the gracious promise of Jehovah, “I will make unto thee a great name, like unto the name of the great ones that are in the earth.” Indeed, at the close of these wars his was the most illustrious name on earth and his kingdom the greatest.
It is a bitter thing to give to this luminous glory a background of horrible darkness. Yet fidelity to truth and the ages-long value of the lesson, require us to dip the brush that paints the background in most sombre colors. It is characteristic of portrait painters to use a flattering brush, and it was Cromwell only who said sternly to his portrait maker, “Paint me as I am; leave not out a scar or blemish.” What was exceptional with Cromwell was habitual with inspiration. It describes only one perfect, ideal man. It indulges in no hero worship. Noah’s drunkenness, Jacob’s meanness and duplicity, Aaron’s golden calf, the ill-advised words of Moses, the despondency of Elijah, the lying and swearing of Peter, the vengeful spirit of the beloved John, the awful sin of David, “the man after God’s own heart,” must all appear in the pictures when the Holy Spirit is the limner.
Concerning the best of men standing in the limelight of infinite holiness) we must say with the psalmist, “I have seen an end of all perfection for thy commandment is exceeding broad.”
The three dark episodes of David’s war-career made the theme of this chapter, are: (1) David’s great sin in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah. (2) His treatment of his Ammonite captives. (3) His treatment of his Moabite captives.
The three are presented in one view because it is probable that the second, if not also the third, arose from a conscience blunted by the first. We need not go into the revolting details, since the record is before you, but consider the history only in the light of its practical value, seeing it was recorded “fur our admonition.”
So far as the first and greatest sin is concerned, it has evoked a voluminous literature. In the “Pulpit Commentary” alone are more than fifty pages of condensed homilies, and in Spurgeon’s Treasury of David is much more, but perhaps the best homiletical and philosophical treatment you will find is Taylor’s David, King of Israel. His outline of discussion is: (1) The precursors of the sin. (2) Its aggravations. (3) The penitence manifested. (4) The forgiveness received. (5) The consequences flowing from it.
After all, however, the most searching light on his heart experiences are found in his own songs of conviction, penitence and forgiveness in the following order: Psa 38:6 , 51, 32. Borrowing somewhat from Taylor’s order and treatment we submit this outline:
I. The precursors of David’s sin.
Sin has a genesis and development. It does not spring into life, like Minerva, full grown. James, the brother of our Lord, states the case thus: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man; but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death” (Jas 1:13-15 ). What, then, the explanatory antecedents of his sin?
1. Since his crowning at Hebron he had enjoyed a long course of unbroken prosperity. Before that event he had been “emptied from vessel to vessel” and so had not “settled on his lees,” but now because he had no changes he becomes overconfident, less watchful and prayerful.
2. Up to the time of this sin he had been a very busy man, leading and sharing in all the privations and hazards of his army, but now, while Joab leads the army against Rabbah, “David tarried at Jerusalem.” While his soldiers sleep at night on the tented field, David rises from his daytime bed of luxury to look at eventide on Bathsheba. How grim must have been the rebuke of Uriah’s words: “And Uriah said unto David, The Ark and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing,” 2Sa 11:11 . It has been well said, “If Satan tempts busy men, idle and luxurious men tempt Satan.”
3. He had prepared himself for a fall at the weakest point in his character by polygamy and concubinage, which while tolerated under restrictions under Mosaic law, was expressly forbidden to kings: “He shall not multiply wives to himself,” which was the Mosaic prohibition of the kingdom charter, Deu 17:17 . Sensualism is the sin of Oriental kings.
4. The sense of irresponsibility to moral law creeps with insidious power upon the rich and great and socially distinguished. The millionaires, the upper ten, the great 400 — what avails their wealth and power if they be not exempt from the obligations of the seventh commandment? Let the poor be virtuous. The king can do no wrong. To all such people the lesson is hard: “God is no respecter of persons.”
5. In times of war the bridle is slipped from human passions.
6. Subservient instruments are always ready to act as panderers to the great, while obsequious, high society paliates and condones their offenses.
7. In such conjuncture always comes opportunity as a spark of fire in a powder magazine; millions equally sensual have not sinned because there was no opportunity, no favorable conjuncture of circumstances.
II. The sin and its aggravations.
The sin, with all its progeny) was primarily sin against God, but it was adultery with Bathsheba, ingratitude, duplicity, and murder to Uriah, complicity in crime with his servants, a sin against himself and family.
1. It was a presumptuous sin against Jehovah, to whose favors it was ingratitude and to whose holiness it was insult, and to whose omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence it was a brazen dare.
2. It was a violation of his solemn coronation vow at Hebron as expressed in his own psalm that he would use his kingly office to put down offenses, and not for indulgences in them.
3. From his very exalted position as king over God’s people it caused the enemies of truth to blaspheme then and every since. It was a scandal in the etymological sense of the word, a stumbling block, over which thousands in every age have fallen. An inspired writer has said, “The wicked eat up the sins of my people.” Like buzzards swarming around carrion, they gather and feast and flap their wings in gloating when a Christian sins.
4. It served then and does now as an excuse for worse and smaller men to repeat the offenses or to condone other offenses.
5. It put his reputation in the hands of the servants employed in the transaction, and paved the way for whatever blackmail the unscrupulous instrument, Joab, might choose to exact, so that indeed hereafter “the sons of Zeruiah will be too hard for him.” Whoever calls in Turks, Tartars, and Huns for allies must afterwards reckon with the allies.
6. It was a sin against the devoted friendship of his brave champions, Uriah, the Hittite, and his comrade, Bathsheba’s father, who for many years of hazard and persecution had been his bulwark.
The meanness of the subterfuge in sending for Uriah that the offense might be hidden from him by making him an unwitting “cuckold,” the hypocrisy of sending him choice dishes and the means of drunkenness to the same end, and the refined cruelty of making him the carrier of the letter which contained his death warrant, the deliberate provision for others to die with him when exposed to danger, the order to withdraw from him and then that they might die and the lying ascription of such death to the chances of war, are unsurpassed in criminal history. A classic legend tells of such a letter carried by Bellerophon, giving rise to the proverb, “Beware of Bellerophonic letters.”
III. The sin on the conscience.
We may not suppose that David was without compunction of conscience for a whole year until reproved by Nathan. The Psa 38 and 6 indicate the contrary. While his crime was ostensibly a secret, you may be assured that it was an open secret which greatly damaged the king’s reputation, of which he is evidently conscious. Known to Joab and his household servants, it would be whispered from lip to ear, and carried from house to house. Enemies would naturally make the most of it. The side-look, the shoulder-shrug, and many-winged rumors would carry it far and wide. Even in the house of God, where he kept up the form of worship, knowing ones would make signs and comment under the thinnest veil of confidence.
IV. Jehovah speaks at last, or Nathan and David.
Whatever was David’s own conception of his sin, or the judgment of man, our record says, “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. And the Lord sent Nathan unto David.” Four things here impress the mind:
1. God’s judgment of human conduct is more than man’s judgment. It is the chief thing. We may hold out against, the adverse judgment of men if God approves in the matter of the thing condemned, but there is no withstanding the disapproval of the Holy One.
2. The fidelity of the prophets as mouthpieces of God. They make no apologies, nor soften words, nor have respect of persons. They speak to a king as to a peasant to a rich man as to a pauper.
3. The prophet’s method of causing David to pass judgment on himself is an inimitable parable that has charmed the world by its simplicity, brevity, pathos, and directness.
4. Its application is like a bolt of lightning: “Thou art the man!” In one flash of light the heart of the sin is laid bare and judgment follows judgment like the dreadful strokes of a trip-hammer) thus: (a) “The sword shall never depart from thy house.” (b) “I will raise up evil against thee in thine own house.” (c) “What thou hast done secretly against another shall be done against thee openly.”
V. David’s confession.
It is instant: “I have sinned against the Lord.” There is no trickery nor subterfuge, nor evasion, nor defense. His confession is like the publican’s prayer, who stood afar off, not lifting so much as his eyes to heaven, but smiting upon his breast, and saying, “God be merciful to me, the sinner.” The inspired prophet knew his penitence was genuine, and announces pardon for the world to come, but chastisement in this world, thus explaining those latter words of Jesus concerning another and greater sin which is eternal, having never forgiveness either in this world or in the next.
VI. The time penalties.
(1) The death of the child begotten in sin. (2) Following a father’s evil example, Amnon assaults his sister, Tamar. (3) Following the father’s example, and with much more justice, Absalom murders Amnon. (4) The devil once loosed, Absalom rebels against his father. (5) There being now no restraint, Absalom openly degrades David’s concubines, and this too under the advice of Ahithophel, Bathsheba’s grandfather, who evidently resents the shame put upon his granddaughter. (6) Joab pitilessly murders Absalom, in open violation of the father’s orders, and so exacts immunity as blackmail for his complicity in David’s sin. (7) Adonijah’s rebellion, encouraged by Joab, and his death. Such the long train of evil consequences of one sin.
VII. The sincerity of David’s repentance.
It is evidenced by his humility, submission, and hope on the death of his child. The story is very touching. “The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare to David and it was very sick.” The child was much beloved, but must die for the parents’ sin. This, David felt keenly: “This baby is dying for my sin.” No wonder he fasted and wept and prayed. The submission and hope are manifested after the child is dead. No need now to fast and pray and weep, as when it was yet alive and perchance might be saved. The death is of the body only and for this world only. He lives safe and happy in that better world: “He cannot return to me, but I may go to him.”
In all subsequent ages the doctrines of these words have illumined houses of mourning, “I shall go to him.”
At one stroke it destroys all hope of visitation from the dead, and at another stroke confers all hope of visitation to the dead, with all the joys of recognition and reunion.
This is by far the lightest of David’s penalties. There is no hope of reunion when Amnon and Absalom and Adonijah die. The farewell in their case is eternal. The most impressive, therefore, of all contrasts is the hopeful lamentation over this child, and the hopeless lamentation over Absalom. What a theme for a sermon!
But the sincerity of his penitence is best evidenced in his psalm. While Psa 38:6 convey most the sense of convicting power, Psa 51 , through the ages, has been regarded as the most vivid expression of contrition and repentance. Two incidents bearing upon his sincerity and genuine penitence cited by Taylor are worth repetition:
1. The testimony of Carlyle, that hater of all shams and hypocrisies, in his “Lecture on the Hero as Prophet,” says:
Faults! the greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none. Readers of the Bible, above all, one would think, might know better. Who is there called the man of God according to God’s own heart? David, the Hebrew king, had fallen into sins enough; blackest crimes; there was no want of sins. And thereupon unbelievers sneer and ask, “1s this your man according to God’s heart?” The sneer, I must say, seems to me but a shallow one. What are faults? what are the outward details of a life, if the inner secret of it the remorse, temptations, true, often baffled, never-ending struggle of it be forgotten? “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Of all acts, is not, for a man, repentance the most divine? The deadliest sin, I say, were that same supercilious consciousness of no sin. That is death. The heart so conscious is divorced from sincerity, humility, and fact, is dead. It is pure, as dead, dry sand is pure. David’s life and history, as written for us in those Psalms of his, I consider to be the truest emblem ever given of a man’s moral progress and warfare here below. All earnest souls will ever discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul toward what is good and best. Struggle often baffled sore, baffled down into entire wreck, yet a struggle never ended; ever with tears, repentance, true, unconquerable purpose begun anew. Poor human nature! Is not a man’s walking in truth always that “a succession of falls”? Man can do no other. In this wild element of a life, he has to struggle upward: now fallen, now abased; and ever with tears, repentance, and bleeding heart, he has to rise again, struggle again, still onward. That his struggle be a faithful, unconquerable one that is the question of questions.
2. The effect of Psa 51 on Voltaire when he read it with a view to caricature it. Dr. Leander Van Ess tells it as an undoubted fact that Voltaire once attempted to burlesque this psalm, and what was the result? While carefully perusing it, that he might familiarize himself with the train of sentiment which he designed to caricature, he became so oppressed and overawed by its solemn devotional tone, that he threw down his pen and fell back half senseless on his couch, in an agony of remorse.
But if Psa 51 is the highest expression of penitence, Psa 32 is the model expression of the Joy of forgiveness: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah imputeth not iniquity.
See the use Paul makes of this psalm in his great argument on justification by faith.
By application of this experience of David we learn other serious lessons.
1. The pen that writes the letter of Uriah must also write Psa 51 .
2. It is easy to fall, but difficult to rise again a thought most vigorously expressed by Virgil and less vigorously rendered by Dryden: The gates of Hell are open night and day; Smooth the descent, and easy is the way; But to return and view the cheerful skies, In this the task and mighty labor lies.
3. One sin another doth provoke; Murder’s as near to lust as fire to smoke.
4. The hardening power of sin. It petrifies spiritual sensitiveness and tenderness. As Burns so well expresses it: I waive the quantum of the sin, The hazard of concealing; But och! it hardens within, And petrifies the feelin’.
5. Sooner or later all extenuations fail, and the shifting of the blame on God or chance or circumstance. There comes one at last to the naked soul, and pointing accusing finger, says, “Thou art the man.”
6. The reproach of Uriah has found expression in noble song: And self to take or leave is free, Feeling its own sufficiency: In spite of science, spite of fate, The Judge within thee, soon or late, Will cry, “Thou art the man!” Say not, I would, but could not, He Should bear the blame who fashioned me. Call a mere change of motive, choice I Scorning such pleas, the inner voice Cries out, “Thou art the man!”
Edgar Allan Poe has used with dramatic effect Nathan’s words, “Thou art the man,” in one of his detective stories. In order to force confession, he puts the body of the murdered man in a wine-case, so adjusted on springs that when the lid is raised by the murderer, the body will sit up and point the finger at him, while a ventriloquist will make the dead lips say, “Thou art the man!” The Ark of God is in the field, Like clouds around the alien armies sweep; Each by his spear, beneath his shield, In cold and dew the anointed warriors sleep. And can it be? thou liest awake, Sworn watchman, tossing on thy couch of down; And doth thy recreant heart not ache To hear the sentries round the leisured town? Oh, dream no more of quiet life; Care finds the careless out; more wise to vow Thine heart entire to faith’s pure strife; So peace will come, thou knowest not when or how. Lyra Apostolica.
7. On the gracious words of pardon, “The Lord hath put away thy sin,” Keble, in his “Christian Year,” thus writes: The absolver saw the mighty grief, And hasten’d with relief; “The Lord forgives; thou shalt not die” Twas gently spoke, yet heard on high, And all the band of angels, us’d to sing In heaven, accordant to his raptur’d string, Who many a month had turn’d away With veiled eyes, nor own’d his lay. Now spread their wings, and throng around To the glad mournful sound, And welcome, with bright open face, The broken heart to love’s embrace. The rock is smitten, and to future years Springs ever fresh the tide of holy tears And holy music, whispering peace Till time and sin together cease.” Keble, “Sixth Sunday after Trinity.”
It has been not improbably supposed that a connection exists between David’s great sin, through its hardening of his yet impenitent heart and
VIII. His treatment of the conquered Ammonites.
See 2Sa 12:31 and 1Ch 20:3 . As this matter calls for particular and honest treatment let us first of all look at the text in three English versions. The American Standard revision renders the two paragraphs thus: “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 brick-kiln; and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem” (1 Sam. 12:31). “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. And thus did David unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem” (1Ch 20:3 ). The margin puts “to” for “under,” and adds: “Or, with a slight change in the Hebrew text, ‘made them labor at saws, . . .?’ “
Leeser’s Jewish English version copies in both passages the American Revision. The Romanist Douay English version thus renders 2Sa 12:31 : “And bringing forth the people thereof, he sawed them, and drove over them chariots armed with irons and divided them with knives, and made them pass through brick-kilns: so did he to the children of Ammon. And David returned with all the people to Jerusalem.” 1Ch 20:3 : “And the people that were therein he brought out; and made harrows, and sleds, and chariots of iron, to go over them, so that they were cut and bruised to pieces. In this manner David dealt with all the cities of the children of Ammon: and he returned with all his people to Jerusalem.”
With the text thus before us the first inquiry is, What mean these passages, fairly interpreted? Do they mean merely, as the margin of the American revision intimates, that David enslaved his captured prisoners, putting them to work with saws, harrows, and axes, and at brick-making, or that he put them to torture by sawing them asunder, driving over them with iron-toothed harrows, mangling them in threshing machines, chopping them up with axes, cooking them alive in brick-kilns? How stand the commentators? Josephus, adopting the torture interpretation, says, “He tormented them and destroyed them.”
The comment in the Romanist version on 2Sa 12:31 is, “Sawed” Heb., “he puts them under saws and under rollers of iron, and under knives, . . .” The Jews say that Isaiah was killed by being sawed asunder; to which punishment Paul alludes (Heb 11:37 ). “Brick-kilns, or furnaces.” Daniel and his companions were thrown into the fiery furnace ( Dan 3:6-12 ). Saliem blames Joab for what seems too cruel. But though he was barbarous and vindictive, we need not condemn him on this occasion, no more than his master; as we are not to judge of former times by our own manners. War was then carried on with great cruelty. With these agree substantially, Kirkpatrick in “Cambridge Bible,” Blaikie in “Expositor’s Bible,” “The Speakers’ Commentary,” “The Pulpit Commentary,” Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Geikie, and many others.
On the contrary, Murphy on 1Ch 20:3 , following the idea of the margin in American Standard revision says, “As saws, harrows, or threshing drags, and axes or scythes, are not instruments of torture of execution, it is obvious that David did not ‘cut’ them, but forced or ‘put’ them to hard labor as serfs with instruments of husbandry, or in the making of bricks, as is added in Samuel. The verb rendered ‘cut’ is nowhere else used in this sense, but in that of ruling, and therefore employing in forced labor.” “Nor does he stand alone. Many authorities on both sides might be added. But these are sufficient to set the case before you. In extenuation of the “‘torture” interpretation the following argument may be considered: David was under the Mosaic law. That law bears on two points:
1. The law of war for captured cities, Deu 20:10-14 : “When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when Jehovah thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which Jehovah hath given thee.”
2. The lextalionis, or law of retaliation, i. e., “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, . . .” Under the first law a city carried by storm was devoted to destruction, which custom unfortunately prevails in modern wars. Under the second law, the evils practiced on others were requited in kind. See case of Adonibezek (Jdg 1:5-7 ). Applying this second law, the cruel things done by David to the Ammonites, under the “torture” interpretation of our passages, had been practiced by them against others then and later. (See Amo 1:13 .) They caused their own children to pass through the fire to Moloch, hence the retaliation of the brick-kiln.
The weight of authority seems to favor the “torture” interpretation, and yet how readily does a humane mind turn in preference to Murhpy’s rendering. If this “torture” interpretation be true (and we must count it doubtful) then we need not cry out too loud in horror at the torture of prisoners by North American savages, and we may rejoice at the coming of one who in his Sermon on the Mount gives us something higher and better than the lextalionis.
In the case of the Moabite prisoners made to lie prostrate and measured in bulk by a tape-line, one-third to live and two-thirds to die, we find something more merciful than in the case of the Ammonites, but sufficiently revolting in the wholesale mathematical method of selecting the living by lot. The black and white beans for the Mier prisoners impress more favorably. The sum of the truth is that war in any age, now as well as then, “is hell.” The reconstruction measures forced on the conquered South after the war between the States surpassed in the bitterness of its prolonged anguish all the quick tortures of saw, harrow, ax, and brick-kiln inflicted on the Ammonites. No language can describe the height, depth, length, breadth of the horrors of reconstruction; not a fleeting agony like being sawn asunder, or burnt in a brick-kiln, but a deliberate harrowing of the South back and forth and crisscrossing for twenty-five years, every tooth in the harrow red hot, until the whole harried country found expression for its hopeless woes in the Lamentation of Jeremiah: Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow?
There was no measurement of the prostrate South by tapeline, sparing a part, but one vast humiliation extending from Virginia to Texas.
And if Jehovah sent condign punishment on Nebuchadnezzar, the wicked ax of his vengeance for the spirit with which this desolation was brought on sinning Jerusalem and the self-complacency of the deed, so will he yet in his own way visit his wrath on the land of those who had no pity on the desolate South.
The Jews are accustomed to excuse David’s apparent ingratitude for Moab’s past kindness to his father and mother, and his seeming disregard of the ties of kindred through Ruth, on the score that Moab murdered his parents when trusted to their hospitality. Of this there is no historic evidence. A better reason lies in the fact that Moab joined the conspiracy with Ammon, Syria, and Edom to destroy David and his kingdom.
QUESTIONS
1. Cite the passages which show that David’s wars closed in a blaze of glory.
2. What said Cromwell to the painter of his portrait?
3. What always the character of inspiration’s portrait-painting?
4. What the three great sins that darken this part of David’s career?
5. What books show the voluminous homiletical use of first & greatest sin?
6. What Taylor’s outline?
7. What psalm, in order, throws the greatest light on his heart experiences of this sin?
8. What the precursors of this sin, preparing for his fall?
9. What the sin itself in its manifold nature?
10. What its aggravations?
11. What evidence that David’s sin was on his conscience before the visit of Nathan?
12. What four things impress the mind in Nathan’s words to David?
13. What may you say of David’s confession of sin?
14. What the twofold verdict on the confession, and how does it explain our Lord’s saying on the unpardonable sin?
15. What the time penalties inflicted, and which the mildest?
16. In what ways is the sincerity of David’s penitence evidenced?
17. What two doctrines in David’s words concerning his child, “He shall not return to me but I shall go to him,” and what the comfort therefrom?
18. Concerning the evidence of sincere repentance in Psa 51 , what says Carlyle?
19. How did it affect Voltaire?
20. What psalm the model expression of the happiness of the forgiveness, and how does Paul use it?
21. What the first lesson of the application on the experience of David arising from this sin?
22. What the second, and Virgil’s expression of it?
23. What couplet on one sin provoking another?
24. Cite the passage from Burns on the hardening power of sin.
25. Cite the stanzas on “Thou art the man,” and give Edgar Allan. Poe’s use of the phrase. 26, Cite the stanzas on the reproach of Uriah.
27. Cite Keble’s lines on “The Lord hath put away thy sin.”
28. What the two interpretations of 2Sa 12:31 and 1Ch 20:3 , and which do you adopt?
29. What scriptural argument may be made in extenuation of the “torture” theory of interpretation?
30. How do the Jews excuse David’s treatment of the Moabite captives, and what the better reason?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Sa 12:31 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.
Ver. 31. And he brought forth the people that were therein. ] The ring leaders especially, who had been chief in abusing David’s messengers. The Corinthians abused certain Roman ambassadors, and were therefore burnt to the ground by L. Mummius: a for irasci populo Romano nemo sapienter possit, saith Livy. No wise man will wrong the people of Rome: much less the people of God: and least of all the ambassadors of Christ. Hath any one ever waxed fierce against him and prospered? Job 9:4 I think not.
And put them under saws, and under harrows of iron.
“Tribulaeque, trahaeque et iniquo pondere rastri,” – Virg. Georg. i.
saws, harrows, axes were used in this sort, for punishment of offenders. Whether David did not herein overdo, the doctors are divided. Certain it is, that what miseries soever impenitent sinners suffer here, they are but a typical hell, a praeludium to the wrath to come, a beginning of sorrows, a foretaste of torments without end and past imagination.
And made them pass through the brickkiln.
a Cic. pro lege Manil.
put = appointed, appointed over, set, &c. Hebrew. sum (Gen 2:8; Gen 45:8, Gen 45:9; Gen 47:6. Exo 2:14; Exo 5:14. 1Sa 8:11; 1Sa 7:10. 2Ki 10:24. Psa 78:5; Psa 81:5. Hos 1:11, &c.)
under = with, especially to work with. Hebrew letter (Beth), prefixed as preposition = in, within, with. When the preposition “under ” = beneath, then it is either part of a verb or one of four distinct words: ‘el (2 Samaritan Pentateuch 2Sa 2:23); mattah (1Ch 27:23); tehoth’ (Jer. 2Sa 10:11. Dan 4:12, Dan 4:21; Dan 7:27, “under the heavens “); tahath (Dan 4:14, “under a tree “). Beth, when translated “under”, is only in the sense of within (as “under (or within the shelter of) the wing”, or “under (or within) the earth “). Otherwise, used with a tool or weapon or instrument, it always means “with”. See “with an axe “(Deu 19:5. Jer 10:3); “with axes” (Jer 46:22. Eze 26:9. Psa 74:6); “with nails and with hammers” (Jer 10:4); “with an ox-goad “(Jdg 3:31); “with mattock “(Isa 7:25; “with sword and with bow “(Gen 48:22. Jos 24:12. 2Ki 6:22); “with a graving tool “(Exo 32:4), &c.
pass through = pass by or before. Hebrew. ‘abar, as in Eze 37:2; Eze 46:21. Deu 2:30. Exo 33:19. 1Sa 16:8, 1Sa 16:9, 1Sa 16:10, &c.
brickkiln = brick-work; hence, brick pavement or paved area (Revised Version margin) Not brickkiln; no brickkilns in Palestine. All bricks there are sun-dried. Only once spoken of as burnt–as being a strange thing (Gen 11:3, and margin) Hebrew. malben, occurs only here, Jer 43:9, and Nah 3:14, the former at “entry” of royal palace, the latter said to be “fortified”. Both out of the question, and quite incongruous for a brickkiln. The very paved area of Jer 43:9 was discovered at Tahpanhes by Flinders Petrie in 1886, where. Nebuchadnezzar did exactly what David did here and in Ch. 2Sa 8:2 and 1Ch 20:3.
thus did he: i.e. as in 2Sa 8:2, with Moab, s(here; he caused the captives to pass by before him, he seated on a pavement of brick-work, or paved area where he appointed them to the various departments of labour for which they were suited. Compare Jer 43:9-11 These were the “strangers” (i.e. foreigners) and the “abundance of’ workmen” referred to in 1Ch 22:2, 1Ch 22:15. Compare Deu 29:11. Jos 9:27. See notes on 1Ki 5:13; 1Ki 9:15, 1Ki 9:21, 1Ki 9:22.
and put them: Rather, as the particle frequently signifies, “And he put them to saws, and to harrows, and to axes,” etc., as we say, to put a person to the plough, to the anvil, to the last, etc. 1Ch 20:3, Also, 2Sa 8:2, Psa 21:8, Psa 21:9, Amo 1:3
Reciprocal: Gen 11:3 – brick Deu 23:6 – Thou shalt 1Sa 14:44 – thou shalt 2Ch 16:10 – the same time 2Ch 25:12 – cast them Pro 20:26 – bringeth Jer 43:9 – in the brickkiln
2Sa 12:31. He brought forth the people The words are indefinite, and therefore not necessarily to be understood of all the people, but of the men of war, and especially of those who had been the chief actors of that villanous action against Davids ambassadors, and of the dreadful war ensuing upon it; for which they deserved severe punishments. Indeed, since David left Shobi in the government of Rabbah, (2Sa 17:27,) it must be presumed that he left some besides female subjects under his dominion; and it is most likely that the bulk of the people were received to mercy, and only the king, and the accomplices and instruments of his tyranny, suffered the chastisements due to their guilt. And put them under saws, &c. The Hebrew, , vajasem bammegeerah, &c., may be literally and properly rendered, and he put them to the saw, and to iron harrows, or mines, and to axes of iron, and made them pass by, or to, the brick-kilns; that is, he made them slaves, and put them to the most servile employments, namely, sawing, harrowing, or making iron harrows, or mining, hewing of wood, and making brick. The version of the Seventy, though not very clear, may be interpreted to the same purpose. The Syriac and Arabic versions render the passage, He brought them out, and threw them into chains, and iron shackles, and made them pass before him in a proper measure, or by companies at a time. If the parallel place, 1Ch 20:3, which our version renders, He cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes, be objected, it must be observed, the Hebrew,, vajasser, may be rendered, He separated to the saw, &c.; or, He ruled or governed by the saw, harrows, mines, and axes; made them slaves, and condemned them to these servile employments. Thus the words are rendered by Schmidius. And this interpretation, says Dr. Dodd, is far from being forced, is agreeable to the proper sense and construction of the words, and will vindicate David from any inhumanity that can be charged upon the man after Gods own heart. The Syriac version is, He bound them with iron chains, &c.; and thus he bound them all. And the Arabic, He bound them all with chains, killing none of the Ammonites, This interpretation may be further confirmed by the next clause: Thus did he unto all the children of Ammon For had he destroyed all the inhabitants by these, or any methods of severity, it would have been an almost total extirpation of them; and yet we read of them as united with the Moabites, and the inhabitants of Seir, and forming a very large army to invade the dominions of Jehoshaphat. It may be added, that if the punishments inflicted on this people were as severe as our version represents them, they were undoubtedly inflicted by way of reprisals. Nahash, the father of Hanun, in the wantonness of cruelty, would admit the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead to surrender themselves to him upon no other condition than their every one consenting to have their right eye thrust out, that he might lay it as a reproach upon all Israel. If these severities of David were now exercised by way of retaliation for former cruelties of this nature, it will greatly lessen the horror that may be conceived upon account of them, and, in some measure, justify Davids using them; and as the sacred writers, who have transmitted this history to us, do not pass any censure on David for having exceeded the bounds of humanity in this punishment of the Ammonites, we may reasonably conclude, either that the punishment was not so severe as our version represents it, or that there was some peculiar reason that demanded this exemplary vengeance, and which, if we were acquainted with it, would induce us to pass a more favourable judgment concerning it; or that the law of nations, then subsisting, admitted such kind of executions upon very extraordinary provocations, though there are scarce any that can justify them. See Delaney and Chandler, p. 178. But in whatever light we view these severities exercised upon the Ammonites, they ought, in no manner, to be proposed as an example to Christians, nor be pleaded as a precedent for any people to do the like. For the divine laws are the rules of our conduct, and not the actions of any men whomsoever.
12:31 And he brought forth the people that [were] therein, and put [them] under {t} 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.
(t) Signifying that as they were malicious enemies of God, so he put them to cruel death.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes