Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 2:16

And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and [thrust] his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together: wherefore that place was called Helkath-hazzurim, which [is] in Gibeon.

16. And they caught, &c.] Self-defence was forgotten in the ferocity of the struggle, and all the combatants fell together by a mutual slaughter.

Helkath-hazzurim ] This obscure name is variously explained as the field or plat, (a) of sharp edges, in allusion to the swords which proved so fatal; (b) of strong men, literally rocks, from the rock-like obstinacy with which they fought; so the Vulg. ager robustorum; (c) of plotters, the rendering of the LXX. ( ), which involves a slight change in the Hebrew word, implying that there was some foul play in the combat; (d) of sides, according to a conjectural emendation suggested in the Speaker’s Commentary, in allusion to the phrase “thrust his sword in his fellow’s side.” Either the first or second explanation is the most probable.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Compare Livys history of the battle between the Horatii and Curiatii. This combat, like that, may have been proposed as a means of avoiding the effusion of blood of two nations united by consanguinity, and having a common powerful enemy in the Philistines.

Helkath-hazzurim – i. e. the part, field, or plat Gen 23:19 of the sharp edges or blades. This seems, on the whole, the best explanation of this rather obscure name.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 16. Caught every one his fellow by the head] Probably by the beard, if these persons were not too young to have one, or by the hair of the head. Alexander ordered all the Macedonians to shave their beards; and being asked by Parmenio why they should do so, answered, “Dost thou not know that in battle there is no better hold than the beard?”

Helkath-hazzurim] “The portion of the mighty;” or, “The inheritance of those who were slain,” according to the Targum.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

By the head; by the hair of the head, which after their manner was of a considerable length, and therefore gave their enemy advantage; which every one of them endeavoured to get, and to improve against the other.

Helkath-hazzurim, or

the field of rocks, i. e. of men who stood like rocks, unmovable, each one dying upon the spot where he fought.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And they caught everyone his fellow by the head,…. By the hair of his head with his hand:

and [thrust] his sword in his fellow’s side; which he had in the other;

so they fell down together; the twelve on each side, all the twenty four; some think only the twelve on Abner’s side fell; but to me it seems that they all fell dead as one man, since they thrust their swords in each other’s sides:

wherefore that place was called Helkathhazzurim, which [is] in Gibeon; the field of rocks, or of mighty men as strong as rocks, who stood as immovable, and would not give way, but fell and died in the field of battle; the Targum interprets it, the inheritance of the slain.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

(16) Helkath hazzurim is interpreted in the margin the field of strong men, but the etymology is very doubtful. Most modern expositors understand it as meaning the field of sharp edges.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

16. By the head By the hair of the head or by the beard. Alexander, before entering into battle, ordered his men to shave their beards, because, said he, “in battle there is no better hold for the enemy than a beard.”

They fell down together The whole twenty-four of them. “The left-handed Benjamites, and the right-handed men of Judah their sword hands thus coming together seized each his adversary by the head, and the whole number fell by the mutual wounds they received.” Stanley.

Helkath-hazzurim Hebrew, smoothness of the rocks; apparently in reference to a smooth, rocky surface on which the combatants fought. Other explanations of the name have been given, as, the field of the plotters; field of strong men; field of swords; field of sharp edges; but none of them are sufficiently careful of the meaning of the Hebrew words.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Details Of David’s Administration As King And The Appointment Of His Son As Priests ( 2Sa 2:16-18 ).

Analysis.

a And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host

b And Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder

c And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests

b And Seraiah was scribe.

a And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites, and David’s sons were priests (or chief ministers).

Note that in ‘a’ Joab is over the host, and in the parallel Benaiah is over the king’s bodyguard. In ‘b’ Jehoshaphat is Recorder, and in the parallel Seraiah is the Scribe. Centrally in ‘c’ we have the names of the two High Priests. The description of David’s sons as priests (of a different kind) is then added at the end bringing out its emphasis. The parallel statements of the sons of the Aaronic house as priests with David’s sons as priests, arising in the second part of the chiasmus, follows a similar pattern found in earlier chiasmuses (see for example analysis of 1Sa 1:1-8).

2Sa 8:16-18

‘ And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host, and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder, and Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests, and Seraiah was scribe, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites, and David’s sons were priests (chief ministers).’

Both David’s greatness and his administrative flair is brought out in his appointees. He appointed Joab as general over his army, Jehoshaphat (otherwise unknown) as his recorder, historian and chancellor, Zadok and Abiathar’s son, Ahimelech, as his (High) Priests, Seraiah as his Scribe, and Benaiah as commander over his bodyguard. But above all he established his own sons as ‘priests’, in the last case with a view to them (hopefully) sharing with him in his kingly intercessory priesthood. In all his greatness he did not ignore the spiritual life of his sons.

The word for ‘priests’ used of David’s sons is the same as that used for Zadok and Abiathar’s son, Ahimelech (who both ministered as ‘Priest’ (High Priest), presumably one at the Tabernacle in Gibeon where the majority of the Tabernacle furniture was, and the other at the Tent in Jerusalem before the Ark) but the separation in mention indicates that the priesthood of David’s sons is to be seen as of a different type of priesthood. This was probably the priesthood of Jerusalem ‘after the order of Mechi-zedek’ uniting them with their father in spiritual concern for the realm as spiritual guardians. (We would expect some such thing from an optimistic and godly David who would have the highest expectations of his sons). 1 Chronicles calls them ‘the first at the side of the king’, and some would therefore translate as ‘close ministers’ (compare the king’s friend who is also called a ‘priest’ – 1Ki 4:5). But this would tie in well with their being, at least theoretically, prayer-upholders.

Note on the details of the list of names of David’s servants.

“Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host.” Joab was David’s nephew, being the eldest son of his sister Zeruiah. He had been David’s commander from the early days of his reign over Judah (2Sa 2:13-18; 2Sa 3:23), and had presumably been with David, along with his brothers Abishai and Asahel, in the wilderness days (see 1Sa 26:6). He and his two brothers were thus prominent and faithful in the service of David, but Joab and Abishai were seen by David as having somewhat of a ‘hard’ streak (2Sa 3:39), and Joab was never really forgiven for the slaying of Abner and Amasa, two rival generals (1Ki 2:5-6). He did, however, seem to have David’s (and his own) concerns at heart as he demonstrated when he risked the king’s anger by arranging for the slaying of Absalom in the face of David’s objections, although he took the precaution of ensuring that it was execution by a number of people so that no one person could take the blame. He also tried to persuade him not to sin by ‘numbering’ Israel (2Sa 24:3). He was David’s faithful commander to the end, but chose the wrong son (the eldest) when it came to the succession (1Ki 1:7), and on David’s advice (1Ki 2:5-6) Solomon had him summarily executed (1Ki 2:28-34). All that can be said in David’s favour with regard to this was that Joab no doubt angered him by seeking to make Adonijah king without David’s permission even while David was alive, not as an act of rebellion against David, but in order to prevent the selection of Solomon. Knowing what a hard man he was David no doubt foresaw that he would not be able to be trusted from then on in regard to Solomon. (So David could be hard too).

“Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder.” We know nothing further of Jehoshaphat the recorder. As Recorder he would maintain the official records of David’s reign and may well have been responsible for the source lying behind chapters 9-24. His responsibilities would also probably include responsibility for keeping the king informed on important matters, advising him, and communicating the king’s commands to others.

“Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were priests.” The mention of Abiathar’s son, Ahimelech (named after his grandfather), makes clear that at this time Abiathar had for some reason dropped out from acting as High Priest for a time. This need not necessarily surprise us, for if he had contracted a skin disease, which was not uncommon in those days, he would have been excluded from such duties. Once the skin disease had cleared up he could then return to his previous post. It may well be that Ahimelech died while fairly young as he is not mentioned later apart from in 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6 ; 1Ch 24:31. The necessity for having two High Priests would originally have arisen when Abiathar fled to David, and Saul wished to restore the Tabernacle ministry which had ceased when he slew the priests at Nob. He no doubt selected Zadok, who was descended from Eliezer, because he was from another branch of the Aaronic priesthood

“Seraiah was scribe.” That is, he was the secretary of state. In 2Sa 20:25 he is called Sheva. In 1Ki 4:3 he is named Shisha, which in 1Ch 8:16 becomes Shavshah. These are probably simply variants of his official name received on appointment. Ancient names were very flexible.

“Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites.” Benaiah was one of David’s mighty men and was over David’s bodyguard. He later under Solomon became commander of the Israelite army in Joab’s place. Some have seen the nouns cherethi and pelethi as signifying ‘executioners (from carath – to ‘cut down’) and couriers’ (from palath – in Arabic ‘escape, flee’). This would tie in with the fact that David regularly called on his young men to carry out executions, and they would certainly sometimes act as couriers in the same way as 19th century AD aide-de-camps. However, the Cherethites mentioned in 1Sa 30:14 were probably originally Cretans who had come over in the Philistine invasion (compare Eze 25:16; Zep 2:5), in which case we may see the Pelethi as ‘Philistines’ with the ‘s’ dropped out and with the word popularly fashioned so as to resonate with the Cherethi, who probably came over via Crete from the Aegean. They may well have come into David’s service at Ziklag, and even have converted to Yahwism. If this be the case both groups would presumably be mercenaries who served David personally, something which might be seen as confirmed by the fact that the same combination of the two helped to set Solomon on his throne (1Ki 1:44) and were then not heard of again.

“David” s sons were priests (chief ministers).’ The word for ‘priests’ is the same one as that used for Zadok and Ahimelech. As suggested above this may indicate that they were seen as ‘priests after the order of Melchi-zedek’ (Psa 110:4), possibly acting alongside David, and helping to fulfil his religious/political duties, especially when he was away. Certainly later Solomon reveals himself as a capable intercessor (1Ki 8:54-55). Others see the word as here meaning something like ‘chief ministers’.

(End of note.)

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett