Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 5:11
And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons: and they built David a house.
11 16. David’s Palace and Family
=1Ch 14:1-7
11. Hiram king of Tyre ] In 1Ki 5:10 ; 1Ki 5:18, the name is spelt Hirom, in Chron. Huram.
Josephus (against Apion i. 18) states, on the authority of Menander of Ephesus, who wrote a history of Tyre based upon native Tyrian documents, that Hiram, Solomon’s ally and helper in building the Temple, reigned thirty-four years. He also states that Solomon began the Temple in the twelfth year of Hiram’s reign. This Hiram therefore reigned only eight years contemporaneously with David, as the Temple was begun in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.
But David’s palace must have been built before the last eight years of his reign. From ch. 2Sa 7:2 we learn that it was finished before he conceived the plan of building the Temple, at a time when Solomon was not yet born (ch. 2Sa 7:12: cp. 1Ch 22:9), and probably some twenty-five years before the close of his reign.
If the statements of Menander and Josephus are accurate, we must suppose that the Hiram here mentioned was either the father or the grandfather of Solomon’s ally. His father is called by Menander Abibaal, but he may have borne both names, or the more familiar name of his son may have been attached to him.
It is probable that the historian to some extent forsakes chronological order, and places the account of David’s palace-building and of his family here by anticipation in proof of the statement of 2Sa 5:10. He must have been too fully occupied at the beginning of his reign with the works mentioned in 2Sa 5:9, and with wars such as those against the Philistines ( 2Sa 5:17-25), to have had leisure for the luxury of palace-building.
Tyre ] One of the two great cities of Phoenicia, celebrated for its commerce, its mechanical skill, and its wealth. When the Israelites entered Canaan, it was already noted for its strength (Jos 19:29). Three causes co-operated to bring Phoenicia into close and friendly relation with Israel. ( a) The contiguity of the countries, and the short distance between their capitals. From Tyre to Jerusalem by land was scarcely more than 100 miles, so that intercourse was easy. ( b) Similarity of language. Phoenician so closely resembles Hebrew, that it must have been readily intelligible to the Israelites. ( c) Tyre depended upon Palestine for its supplies of wheat and oil, and in return sent to Jerusalem its articles of commerce, and provided skilled workmen for the buildings erected by David and Solomon.
cedar trees ] Felled no doubt in the forests of Lebanon, and brought by sea to Joppa. Cp. 2Ch 2:16. The cedar was the prince of trees (Psa 104:16), the emblem of strength and stature and grandeur (Psa 92:12; Amo 2:9; Eze 31:3). Its timber was highly prized for building on account of its durability. Other species of pine besides the well-known cedar of Lebanon were probably included under the general term cedar.
they built David a house ] Psalms 30, which is entitled “A song at the Dedication of the House,” may possibly have been written to celebrate the completion of this palace. If so, David had just recovered from a severe illness, concerning which the history is silent.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Hiram king of Tyre – Now mentioned for the first time. He survived David, and continued his friendship to Solomon (marginal references). The news of the capture of the city of the Jebusites had doubtless reached Tyre, and created a great impression of Davids power.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Sa 5:11-22
And Hiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers to David.
The kingdom established
1. Now the tide fairly turned in Davids history, and that, instead of a sad chronicle of hardship and disappointment, the record of his reign becomes one of unmingled success and prosperity. The fact is far from an unusual one in the history of mens lives. How often, even in the ease of men who have become eminent, has the first stage of life been one of disappointment and sorrow, and the last part one of prosperity so great as to exceed the fondest dreams of youth. Effort after effort has been made by a young man to get a footing m the literary world, but his books have proved comparative failures. At last he issues one which catches in a remarkable degree the popular taste, and thereafter fame and fortune attend him, and lay their richest offerings at his feet. A similar tale is to be told of many an artist and professional man. And even persons of more ordinary gifts, who have found the battle of life awfully difficult in its earlier stages, have gradually, through diligence and perseverance, acquired an excellent position, more than fulfilling every reasonable desire for success. But it is an encouraging thing for those who begin life under hard conditions, but with a brave heart and a resolute purpose to do their best, that, as a general rule, the sky clears as the day advances, and the troubles and struggles of the morning yield to success and enjoyment later in the day. Davids prosperity and enlargement in every quarter were due to the gracious presence and favour of God. Unlike many successful men, who ascribe their success so largely to their personal talents and ways of working, he felt that the great factor in his success was God. There is what the world calls luck, that is to say those conditions of success which are quite out of our control; as, for instance, in business the unexpected rise or fall of markets, the occurrence of favourable openings, the honesty or dishonesty of partners and connections, the stability or the vicissitudes of investments. The difference between the successful man of the world and the successful godly man in these respects is that the one speaks only of his tuck, the other sees the hand of God in ordering all such things for his benefit. This last was Davids case. But is this way of claiming to be specially favoured and blessed by God not objectionable? Is it not what the world calls cant? Is it not highly offensive in any man to claim to be a favourite of Heaven? This may be a plausible way of reasoning, but one thing is certain–it has not the support of Scripture. If it be an offence publicly to recognise the special favour and blessing with which it has pleased God to visit us, David himself was the greatest offender in this respect the world has ever known. What is the great burden of his psalms of thanksgiving? Is it not an acknowledgment of the special mercies and favours that God bestowed on him, especially in his times of great necessity? What the world is so ready to believe is that this cannot be done save in the spirit of the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not as other men. And whenever a worldly man falls foul of one who owns the distinguishing spiritual mercies that God has bestowed on him, it is this accusation he is sure to hurl at his head. The truth is, the world cannot or will not distinguish between the Pharisee and the humble saint, conscious that in him dwelleth no good thing. The one is as unlike the other as light is to darkness. What good men need to bear in mind is that when they do make mention of the special goodness of God to them they should be most careful to do so in no boastful mood, but in the spirit of a most real, and not an assumed or formal, humility.
2. Midway between the two statements before us on the greatness and prosperity which God conferred on David, mention is made of his friendly relations with the king of Tyre (2Sa 5:11.) The Phoenicians were not included among the seven nations of Palestine whom the Israelites were to extirpate, so that a friendly alliance with them was not forbidden. Tyre had a great genius for commerce; and the spirit of commerce is alien from thee spirit of war. That it is always a nobler spirit cannot be said; for while commerce ought to rest on the idea of mutual benefit, and many of its sons honourably fulfil this condition, it often degenerates into the most atrocious selfishness, and heeds not what havoc it may inflict on others provided it derives personal gain from its undertakings. But we have no reason to believe that there was anything specially hurtful in the traffic which Tyre now began with Israel, although the intercourse of the two countries afterwards led to other results pernicious to the latter–the introduction of Phoenician idolatry and the overthrow of pure worship in the greater part of the tribes of Israel. Meanwhile what Hiram does is to send to David cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons, by means of whom a more civilized style of dwelling is introduced; and the new city which David has commenced to build, and especially the house which is to be his own, present features of skill and beauty hitherto unknown in Israel. For, amid all his zeal for higher things, the young king of Israel does not disdain to advance his kingdom in material comforts.
3. Two campaigns against these inveterate enemies of Israel are recorded, and the decisive encounter in both cases took place in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The narrative is so brief that we have difficulty in apprehending all the circumstances. The first invasion of the Philistines took place soon after David was anointed king over all Israel. It is not said whether this occurred before David possessed himself of Mount Zion, nor, considering the structure common in Hebrew narrative, does the circumstance that in the history it follows that event prove that it was subsequent to it in the order of time. We see that the campaign was very serious, and Davids difficulties very great. David attacked the Philistines and smote them at a place called Baal-perazim, somewhere most likely between Adullam and Jerusalem. Considering the superior position of the Philistines, and the great advantage they seem to have had over David in numbers also, this was a signal victory, even though it did not reduce the foe to helplessness. For when the Philistines had got time to recover, they again came up, pitched again in the plain of Rephaim, and appeared to render unavailing the signal achievement of David at Baal-perazim. Again David inquired what he should do. The reply was somewhat different from before. David was not to go straight up to face the enemy, as he had done before. He was to fetch a compass behind them, that is, as we understand it, to make a circuit, so as to get in the enemys rear over against a grove of mulberry trees. That tree has not yet disappeared from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem; a mulberry tree still marks the spot in the valley of Jehoshaphat, where, according to tradition, Isaiah was sawn asunder. When he should hear the sound of a going (R.V., the sound of a march) in the tops of the mulberry trees, then he was to bestir himself. It is probable that the presence of David and his troop in the rear of the Philistines was not suspected, the mulberry trees forming a screen between them. When David got his opportunity, he availed himself of it to great advantage. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 11. Hiram king of Tyre] He was a very friendly man, and no doubt a believer in the true God. He was not only a friend to David, but also of his son Solomon, to whom, in building the temple, he afforded the most important assistance.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For Lebanon, which was famous for its cedars, was a great part of it in his dominion. For the Tyrians were excellent artists and workmen, as both sacred and profane writers agree.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11, 12. Hiram . . . sent carpenters,and masonsThe influx of Tyrian architects and mechanicsaffords a clear evidence of the low state to which, through thedisorders of long-continued war, the better class of artisans haddeclined in Israel.
2Sa5:13-16. ELEVEN SONSBORN TO HIM.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Hiram king of Tyre,…. This was father of that Hiram that lived in the times of Solomon, whose name was Abibalus before he took the name of Hiram, which became a common name of the kings of Tyre; his former name may be seen in the ancient historians quoted by Josephus s; of the city of Tyre, [See comments on Isa 23:1]; which was built one year before the destruction of Troy t. This king, on hearing of David’s being acknowledged king by all Israel, and of his taking Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jebusites,
sent messengers to David; to congratulate him upon all this:
and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons; these might not be sent at first, but David intending to build himself an house, might, by the messengers on their return, request of Hiram to send him timber and workmen for that purpose; the people of Israel being chiefly employed in cultivating their fields, and vineyards, and oliveyards, and feeding their flocks and herds, few of them had any skill in hewing: timber and stone, and building houses, at least not like the Tyrians and Sidonians; see 1Ki 5:6; and accordingly he sent him cedars from Lebanon, a great part of which was in his dominions, and artificers in wood and stone, to build his house in the most elegant manner:
and they built David an house; to dwell in, a stately palace, called an house of cedar, 2Sa 7:2.
s Contr. Apion. l. 1. sect. 17, 18. t Justin e Trogo, l. 18. c. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
David’s Palace, Wives and Children (comp. 1Ch 14:1-7). – King Hiram of Tyre sent messengers to David, and afterwards, by the express desire of the latter, cedar-wood and builders, carpenters and stone-masons, who built him a house, i.e., a palace. Hiram ( Hirom in 1Ki 5:2; Huram in the Chronicles; lxx ; Josephus, and ), king of Tyre, was not only an ally of David, but of his son Solomon also. He sent to the latter cedar-wood and builders for the erection of the temple and of his own palace (1Ki 5:8.; 2Ch 2:2.), and fitted out a mercantile fleet in conjunction with him (1Ki 9:27-28; 2Ch 9:10); in return for which, Solomon not only sent him an annual supply of corn, oil, and wine (1Ki 5:11; 2Ch 2:9), but when all the buildings were finished, twenty years after the erection of the temple, he made over to him twenty of the towns of Galilee (1Ki 9:10.). It is evident from these facts that Hiram was still reigning in the twenty-fourth, or at any rate the twentieth, year of Solomon’s reign, and consequently, as he had assisted David with contributions of wood for the erection of his palace, that he must have reigned at least forty-five or fifty years; and therefore that, even in the latter case, he cannot have begun to reign earlier than the eighth year of David’s reign over all Israel, or from six to ten years after the conquest of the Jebusite citadel upon Mount Zion. This is quite in harmony with the account given here; for it by no means follows, that because the arrival of an embassy from Hiram, and the erection of David’s palace, are mentioned immediately after the conquest of the citadel of Zion, they must have occurred directly afterwards. The arrangement of the different events in the chapter before us is topical rather than strictly chronological. Of the two battles fought by David with the Philistines (2Sa 5:17-25), the first at any rate took place before the erection of David’s palace, as it is distinctly stated in 2Sa 5:17 that the Philistines made war upon David when they heard that he had been anointed king over Israel, and therefore in all probability even before the conquest of the fortress of the Jebusites, or at any rate immediately afterwards, and before David had commenced the fortification of Jerusalem and the erection of a palace. The historian, on the contrary, has not only followed up the account of the capture of the fortress of Zion, and the selection of it as David’s palace, by a description of what David gradually did to fortify and adorn the new capital, but has also added a notice as to David’s wives and the children that were born to him in Jerusalem. Now, if this be correct, the object of Hiram’s embassy cannot have been “to congratulate David upon his ascent of the throne,” as Thenius maintains; but after he had ascended the throne, Hiram sent ambassadors to form an alliance with this powerful monarch; and David availed himself of the opportunity to establish an intimate friendship with Hiram, and ask him for cedar-wood and builders for his palace.
(Note: The statements of Menander of Ephesus in Josephus (c. Ap. i. 18), that after the death of Abibal his son Hirom ( ) succeeded him in the government, and reigned thirty-four years, and died at the age of fifty-three, are at variance with the biblical history. For, according to these statements, as Hiram was still reigning “at the end of twenty years” (according to 1Ki 9:10-11), when Solomon had built his palaces and the house of the Lord, i.e., twenty-four years after Solomon began to reign, he cannot have ascended the throne before the sixty-first year of David’s life, and the thirty-first of his reign. But in that case the erection of David’s palace would fall somewhere within the last eight years of his life. And to this we have to add the repeated statements made by Josephus ( l.c. and Ant. viii. 3, 1), to the effect that Solomon commenced the building of the temple in Hiram’s twelfth year, or after he had reigned eleven years; so that Hiram could only have begun to reign seven years before the death of David (in the sixty-third year of his life), and the erection of the palace by David must have fallen later still, and his determination to build the temple, which he did not form till he had taken possession of his house of cedar, i.e., the newly erected palace (2Sa 7:2), would fall in the very last years of his life, but a very short time before his death. As this seems hardly credible, it has been assumed by some that Hiram’s father, Abibal, also bore the name of Hiram, or that Hiram is confounded with Abibal in the account before us (Thenius), or that Abibal’s father was named Hiram, and it was he who formed the alliance with David (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 287). But all these assumptions are overthrown by the fact that the identity of the Hiram who was Solomon’s friend with the contemporary and friend of David is expressly affirmed not only in 2Ch 2:2 (as Ewald supposes), but also in 1Ki 5:15. For whilst Solomon writes to Hiram in 2Ch 2:3, “as thou didst deal with David my father, and didst send him cedars to build him an house to dwell therein,” it is also stated 1Ki 5:1 that “Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants unto Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of his father: for Hiram was a lover of David all days (all his life).” Movers ( Phnizier ii. 1, p. 147ff.) has therefore attempted to remove the discrepancy between the statements made in Josephus and the biblical account of Hiram’s friendship with David and Solomon, by assuming that in the narrative contained in the books of Samuel we have a topical and not a chronological arrangement, and that according to this arrangement the conquest of Jerusalem by David is followed immediately by the building of the city and palace, and this again by the removal of the holy ark to Jerusalem, and lastly by David’s resolution to build a temple, which really belonged to the close of his reign, and indeed, according to 2Sa 7:2, to the period directly following the completion of the cedar palace. There is a certain amount of truth at the foundation of this, but it does not remove the discrepancy; for even if David’s resolution to build a temple did not fall within the earlier years of his reign at Jerusalem, as some have inferred from the position in which it stands in the account given in this book, it cannot be pushed forward to the very last years of his life and reign. This is decidedly precluded by the fact, that in the promise given to David by God, his son and successor upon the throne is spoken of in such terms as to necessitate the conclusion that he was not yet born. This difficulty cannot be removed by the solution suggested by Movers (p. 149), “that the historian necessarily adhered to the topical arrangement which he had adopted for this section, because he had not said anything yet about Solomon and his mother Bathsheba:” for the expression “which shall proceed out of thy bowels” (2Sa 7:12) is not the only one of the kind; but in 1Ch 22:9, David says to his son Solomon, “The word of the Lord came to me, saying, A son shall be born to thee – Solomon – he shall build an house for my name;” from which it is very obvious, that Solomon was not born at the time when David determined to build the temple and received this promise from God in consequence of his intention.
To this we have also to add 2Sa 11:2, where David sees Bathsheba, who gave birth to Solomon a few years later, from the roof of his palace. Now, even though the palace is simply called “the king’s house” in this passage, and not the “house of cedar,” as in 2Sa 7:2, and therefore the house intended might possibly be the house in which David lived before the house of cedar was built, this is a very improbable supposition, and there cannot be much doubt that the “king’s house” is the palace (2Sa 5:11; 2Sa 7:1) which he had erected for himself. Lastly, not only is there not the slightest intimation in the whole of the account given in 2 Samuel 7 that David was an old man when he resolved to build the temple, but, on the contrary, the impression which it makes throughout is, that it was the culminating point of his reign, and that he was at an age when he might hope not only to commence this magnificent building, but in all human probability to live to complete it. The only other solution left, is the assumption that there are errors in the chronological date of Josephus, and that Hiram lived longer than Menander affirms. The assertion that Solomon commenced the erection of the temple in the eleventh or twelfth year of Hiram’s reign was not derived by Josephus from Phoenician sources; for the fragments which he gives from the works of Menander and Dius in the Antiquities (viii. 5, 3) and c. Apion (i. 17, 18), contain nothing at all about the building of the temple (vid., Movers, p. 141), but he has made it as the result of certain chronological combinations of his own, just as in Ant. viii. 3, 1, he calculates the year of the building of the temple in relation both to the exodus and also to the departure of Abraham out of Haran, but miscalculates, inasmuch as he places it in the 592nd year after the exodus instead of the 480th, and the 1020th year from Abraham’s emigration to Canaan instead of the 1125th. And in the present instance his calculation of the exact position of the same event in relation to Hiram’s reign was no doubt taken from Menander; but even in this the numbers may be faulty, since the statements respecting Balezorus and Myttonus in the very same extract from Menander, as to the length of the reigns of the succeeding kings of Tyre, can be proved to be erroneous, and have been corrected by Movers from Eusebius and Syncellus; and, moreover, the seven years of Hiram’s successor, Baleazar, do not tally with Eusebius and Syncellus, who both give seventeen years. Thus the proof which Movers adduces from the synchronism of the Tyrian chronology with the biblical, the Egyptian, and the Assyrian, to establish the correctness of Menander’s statements concerning Hiram’s reign, is rendered very uncertain, to say nothing of the fact that Movers has only succeeded in bringing out the synchronism with the biblical chronology by a very arbitrary and demonstrably false calculation of the years that the kings of Judah and Israel reigned.)
2Sa 5:12-14 “And David perceived (sc., from the success of his enterprises) that Jehovah had firmly established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel’s sake,” i.e., because He had chosen Israel as His people, and had promised to make it great and glorious.
To the building of David’s palace, there is appended in 2Sa 5:13-15 the account of the increase of his house by the multiplication of his wives and concubines, and of the sons who were born to him at Jerusalem (as in 1Ch 14:3.). Taking many wives was indeed prohibited in the law of the king in Deu 17:17; but as a large harem was considered from time immemorial as part of the court of an oriental monarch, David suffered himself to be seduced by that custom to disregard this prohibition, and suffered many a heartburn afterwards in consequence, not to mention his fearful fall in consequence of his passion for Bathsheba. The concubines are mentioned before the wives, probably because David had taken many of them to Jerusalem, and earlier than the wives. In the Chronicles the concubines and omitted, though not “intentionally,” as they are mentioned in 1Ch 3:9; but as being of no essential importance in relation to the list of sons which follows, because no difference was made between those born of concubines and those born of wives. “Out of Jerusalem,” i.e., away from Jerusalem: not that the wives were all born in Jerusalem, as the words which follow, “after he was come from Hebron,” clearly show. In the Chronicles, therefore, it is explained as meaning “in Jerusalem.” The sons are mentioned again both in 1Ch 14:5-7 and in the genealogy in 1Ch 3:5-8. Shammua is called Shimea in 1Ch 3:5, according to a different pronunciation. Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon were sons of Bathsheba according to 1Ch 3:5.
2Sa 5:15-16 Elishua is written incorrectly in 1Ch 3:6 as Elishama, because Elishama follows afterwards. There are two names after Elishua in 1Ch 3:6-7, and 1Ch 14:6-7, viz., Eliphalet and Nogah, which have not crept into the text from oversight or from a wrong spelling of other names, because the number of the names is given as nine in 1Ch 3:8, and the two names must be included in order to bring out that number. And, on the other hand, it is not by the mistake of a copyist that they have been omitted from the text before us, but it has evidently been done deliberately on account of their having died in infancy, or at a very early age. This also furnishes a very simple explanation of the fact, that the name Eliphalet occurs again at the end of the list, namely, because a son who was born later received the name of his brother who had died young. Eliada, the last but one, is called Beeliada in 1Ch 14:7, another form of the name, compounded with Baal instead of El. David had therefore nineteen sons, six of whom were born in Hebron (2Sa 3:2.), and thirteen at Jerusalem. Daughters are not mentioned in the genealogical accounts, because as a rule only heiresses or women who acquired renown from special causes were included in them. There is a daughter named Thamar mentioned afterwards in 2Sa 13:1.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| David’s Children. | B. C. 1046. |
11 And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons: and they built David a house. 12 And David perceived that the LORD had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel’s sake. 13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. 14 And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, 15 Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 16 And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet.
Here is, I. David’s house built, a royal palace, fit for the reception of the court he kept and the homage that was paid to him, v. 11. The Jews were husbandmen and shepherds, and did not much addict themselves either to merchandise or manufactures; and therefore Hiram, king of Tyre, a wealthy prince, when he sent to congratulate David on his accession to the throne, offered him workmen to build him a house. David thankfully accepted the offer, and Hiram’s workmen built David a house to his mind. Many have excelled in arts and sciences who were strangers to the covenants of promise. Yet David’s house was never the worse, nor the less fit to be dedicated to God, for being built by the sons of the stranger. It is prophesied of the gospel church, The sons of the strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee, Isa. lx. 10.
II. David’s government settled and built up, v. 12. 1. His kingdom was established, there was nothing to shake it, none to disturb his possession or question his title. He that made him king established him, because he was to be a type of Christ, with whom God’s hand should be established, and his covenant stand fast, Ps. lxxxix. 21-28. Saul was made king, but not established; so Adam in innocency. David was established king, so is the Son of David, with all who through him are made to our God kings and priests. 2. It was exalted in the eyes both of its friends and enemies. Never had the nation of Israel looked so great or made such a figure as it began now to do. Thus it is promised of Christ that he shall be higher than the kings of the earth, Ps. lxxxix. 27. God has highly exalted him, Phil. ii. 9. 3. David perceived, by the wonderful concurrence of providences to his establishment and advancement, that God was with him. By this I know that thou favourest me, Ps. xli. 11. Many have the favour of God and do not perceive it, and so want the comfort of it: but to be exalted to that and established in it, and to perceive it, is happiness enough. 4. He owned that it was for his people Israel’s sake that God had done great things for him, that he might be a blessing to them and they might be happy under his administration. God did not make Israel his subjects for his sake, that he might be great, and rich, and absolute: but he made him their king for their sake, that he might lead, and guide, and protect them. Kings are ministers of God to their people for good, Rom. xiii. 4.
III. David’s family multiplied and increased. All the sons that were born to him after he came to Jerusalem are here mentioned together, eleven in all, besides the six that were born to him before in Hebron, 2Sa 3:2; 2Sa 3:5. There the mothers are mentioned, not here; only, in general, it is said that he took more concubines and wives, v. 13. Shall we praise him for this? We praise him not; we justify him not; nor can we scarcely excuse him. The bad example of the patriarchs might make him think there was no harm in it, and he might hope it would strengthen his interest, by multiplying his alliances, and increasing the royal family. Happy is the man that has his quiver full of these arrows. But one vine by the side of the house, with the blessing of God, may send boughs to the sea and branches to the rivers. Adam, by one wife, peopled the world, and Noah re-peopled it. David had many wives, and yet that did not keep him from coveting his neighbour’s wife and defiling her; for men that have once broken the fence will wander endlessly. Of David’s concubines, see 2Sa 15:16; 2Sa 16:22; 2Sa 19:5. Of his sons, see 1 Chron. iii. 1-9.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
David Grows Stronger, 2Sa 5:11-16 AND 1Ch 14:1-7
This passage records the beginning of a long period of friendship between the kings of Tyre and Israel. Though many other kings fought against David and thus became subservient to him Hiram king of Tyre effected a treaty of friendship with him (see 2 Samuel chapter 8; 1Ch 18:1-17). This was the expedient thing for him to do, for the Lord was giving David success in all that he did. Hiram had the artisans and material to construct fine buildings, so he sent his carpenters and masons, with cedar lumber, to build David a fine palace.
When David saw how he grew in stature before other nations and in the esteem of his people he gave credit to the proper One, the Lord. The Scriptures say that David “perceived” that the Lord had established his kingship and exalted his kingdom over the people for their sake. It means that David, by honest observation, readily acknowledged that the Lord was responsible (1Pe 5:6).
David did not wholly keep the law with reference to kings (De 17:14ff), but took to himself an harem of wives and concubines, as did the heathen kings. He had many more children born to him in Jerusalem. The Samuel account lists eleven sons, while Chronicles lists thirteen. Samuel omits Elpalet and Nogah, and Chronicles puts a prefix to Eliada, making his name Beeliada. None of these sons are heard about again, except for Solomon, of course, and Nathan is the son of David through whom Mary, the mother of Jesus, was descended (Lu 3:31). It is learned from 1Ch 3:5 that the first four named of these sons, Shammuah (or Shimea), Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, were all the children of David and Bathsheba. Apparently Solomon was youngest.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(11) Hiram king of Tyre.This is the same Hiram, variously spelt Hirom and Huram, who was afterwards the friend of Solomon (1Ki. 5:1; 2Ch. 2:3),and was still living in the twenty-fourth year of Solomons reign (1Ki. 9:10-14; comp. 6:1, 38; 7:1); either, therefore, he must have had a reign of some fifty-seven years, or else his embassy to David must have been some time after the capture of Jerusalem. It is not unlikely that several years may have elapsed between the two events, during which David went on and grew great (2Sa. 5:10), thereby attracting the attention and regard of Hiram. But the statement quoted by Josephus from Menander (100 Apion, i. 18) cannot be correct, that Hiram reigned only thirty-four years; for David was already in his house of cedar (2Sa. 7:2) when he formed the purpose of building the Temple, and this was before the birth of Solomon (2Sa. 7:12; 1Ch. 22:9). Hurams father, however, was also named Huram (2Ch. 2:13).
The Israelites evidently had little skill in architecture, since they relied on the Phnicians for workmen both for this palace and for Solomons, as well as for the Temple.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
DAVID’S INTERCOURSE WITH HIRAM HIS TEMPORAL PROSPERITY, 2Sa 5:11-16.
11. And Hiram Called Huram in 2Ch 2:3; 2Ch 2:11; 2Ch 8:2; 2Ch 9:10. On the question of the identity of this Hiram with the one who assisted Solomon in building the temple, see on 1Ki 5:1.
Tyre On the locality of this great city see Jos 19:29. From this verse we learn that it was under a monarchical form of government, and in it the mechanical arts had been carried to a noteworthy state of perfection. In Isaiah xxiii, 8, it is called “the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth.” Its power and glory are more fully delineated in Ezekiel 26-28.
Sent messengers to David Probably for the purpose of forming an alliance with him. David seems to have availed himself of the opportunity thus offered to secure from Hiram the service of carpenters and masons workers in wood and stone and also the gift of cedar wood from Lebanon.
They built David a house A royal palace on Zion. This verse is evidently the mere outline of many interesting facts in the history of David which the sacred writer has not seen proper to record. This mention of David’s intercourse with the king of Tyre, as well as what follows about the growth of his family, is appended to the notice of the capture of Zion, (2Sa 5:6-10,) not because these events followed in chronological order immediately after its capture, but in order to show how David grew great and prospered.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Sa 5:11. Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers The accounts left us of this king are but short; it is evident, however, that he was a magnificent and generous prince, and a believer in the true God, as appears from the form of his congratulation to Solomon upon his accession to the throne, 1Ki 5:7. And this character well fitted him to enter into, and to cultivate an alliance with David, as he did, with uncommon friendship and affection, as long as David lived, and continued it to his son for his sake. See Josephus against Appion, book 1:
REFLECTIONS.1. David, with thankfulness, perceived the establishment of his kingdom, every competitor removed, himself beloved by his subjects, courted by his neighbours, and feared by his enemies; and this he ascribes to God’s love to his people, whom he regards, not as given to be his slaves, but as intrusted with him to be made happy under his wise and prudent administration. Happy the nation that has such a king!
2. Many wives and concubines increased his family, and seemed to strengthen his kingdom, though it is to be feared they hurt his heart. Having once suffered his eye to wander on various objects, his neighbour’s wife was not safe at last: so dangerous is the first step from the path of duty; for we know not then where we shall stop.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
XVIII
THE WARS OF DAVID
2Sa 5:11-25
Our last chapter intimated that the union of the nation under such a king as David, in such a capital, would naturally excite the jealousy and alarm of all neighboring heathen nations. This section commences thus: “And when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David.”
Your attention has already been called to the necessity of breaking the power of the hostile heathen nations lying all around Judah, if ever the Jewish nation is to fulfil its mission to all other nations. The geographical position of Judah, which is the best in the world for leavening the nations with the ideas of the kingdom of God, if it maintained its national purity and adherence to Jehovah, also made it the most desirable possession for other peoples having far different ideals. As the salvation of the world including these very hostile nations, depended on the perpetuity and purity of Israel, these nations, through whom came idolatry and national corruption, must be broken, hence the seeming cruelty and partiality of Jehovah’s order through Moses to destroy the Canaanites, root and branch, and to avoid the corruptions of the other nations, were meant as mercy and kindness to the world.
The nations against which David successfully warred, so far as our text records them, were the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Syrians of Zobah, the Syrians of Damascus, the Moabites, and the Edomites. He had previously smitten the Amalekites of the Negeb. On these wars in general the following observations are noteworthy:
1. He was never the aggressor.
2. He never lost a battle.
3. His conquest filled out the kingdom to the boundaries originally promised to Abraham.
4. The spoils of all these wars, staggering credulity in their variety and value, were consecrated to Jehovah, making the richest treasury known to history.
5. By alliance without war he secured the friendship of Hiram, king of Tyre, most valuable to him and to his son Solomon. As Phoenicia, through the world-famous fleets of Tyre and Sidon, commanded the Mediterranean with all its marine commerce, and as David ruled the land through whose thoroughfares must pass the caravans carrying this traffic to Africa, Arabia, India, Syria, and Mesopotamia, it was of infinite value to both to be in friendly alliance. To these merchant-princes it was of incalculable advantage that all the land transportation of their traffic should lie within the boundaries of one strong and friendly nation rather than to have to run the gauntlet between a hundred irresponsible and predatory tribes, while to David, apart from the value of this peaceful commerce, the whole western border of Judah along the Mediterranean coast was safe from invasion by sea so long as friendship was maintained with Hiram, king of the sea.
6. By the voluntary submission of Hamath after his conquest of Damascus, he controlled the famous historic “Entrance into Hamath,” the one narrow pathway of traffic with the nations around the Caspian Sea, thus enabling David to reach those innumerable northern hordes so graphically described in later days by Ezekiel, the exile-prophet.
7. By the conquest of Damascus he controlled the only caravan route to the Euphrates and Mesopotamia, since the desert lying east of the trans-Jordanic tribes was practically impassable for trade and army movement from a lack of water, We have seen Abraham, migrating from Ur of the Chaldees, low down on the Euphrates, compelled to ascend that river for hundreds of miles in order to find an accessible way to the Holy Land through Damascus. In his day, also Chedorlaorner’s invasion had to follow the same way, as we will see later invasions do in Nebuchadnezzar’s time, which at last conquered David’s Jerusalem.
8. By the conquest of Ammon, Moab, and Edom, all the Arabah passed into his hands, checkmating invasion by Arabian hordes, as well as barring one line of invasion from Egypt. By the conquest of the Philistines and Amalekites the other two ways of Egyptian invasion were barred. You should take a map, such as you will find in Huribut’s Atlas, and show how David’s wars and peaceful alliances safeguarded every border, north, east, south, and west.
Besides these general observations, we may note a special feature characterizing these, and indeed all other wars, prior to the leveling invention of gunpowder and other high explosives, namely, much was accomplished by individual champions of great physical prowess and renown. David himself was as famous in this respect as Richard, the Lionhearted, until in a desperate encounter, related in this section, his life was so endangered that a public demand justly required him to leave individual fighting to less necessary men and confine himself to the true duty of a general the direction of the movements of the army.
Your text recites the special exploits of Jashobeam, Eleazer, Shammah, Abishai, Benaiah, or Benajah, after whom my father, myself, and my oldest son were named. With them may be classed the ten Gadites whose faces were like the faces of lions and who were as swift as the mountain deer, the least equal to 100 and the greatest equal to 1000. These crossed the Jordan at its mighty flood and smote the Philistines in all its valley, east and west.
Quite to the front also, as giant-killers, were Sibbecai, Elhanan, and Jonathan’s nephew. Of others, all mighty heroes, we have only a catalogue of names as famous in their day as Hercules, Theseus, and Achilles, Ajax, Ulysses, Horatius, and .King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, but, as philosophizes Sir Walter Scott in lvanhoe concerniog the doughty champions at the tourney of Ashby de la Zouch: “To borrow lines from a contemporary poet, ‘The knights are dust, And their good swords rust, Their souls are with the saints, we trust,’while their escutcheons have long mouldered from the walls of their castles; their castles themselves are but green mounds and shattered ruins; the place that once knew them knows them no more. Nay, many a race since theirs has died out and been forgotten in the very land which they occupied with all the authority of feudal proprietors and lords. What then would it avail to the reader to know their names, or the evanescent symbols of their martial rank?”
One exploit of three of these champions deserves to live forever in literature. It thrills the heart by the naturalness of its appeal to the memory of every man concerning the precious things of his childhood’s home. David was in his stronghold, the Cave of Adullam, weary and thirsty. Bethlehem and his childhood rise before him: “O that one would give me water to drink of the Well of Bethlehem that is by the gate!” His exclamation thrills like Woodworth’s famous poem, “How dear to my heart are the scenes of my childhood, As fond recollections presents them to view! The orchard, the meadow, the deep-tangled wildwood, And ev’ry loved spot which my infancy knew”.
David’s longing for water from that particular well, and Woodworth’s “Old Oaken Bucket” harmonize with my own experience whenever I am delirious with fever. I always see a certain spring on my father’s plantation issuing from the mosscovered, fern-bordered rocks, and filling a sucken barrell. Hard by, hanging on a bush, is the gourd which, when dipped into the cold, clear spring, is more precious to thirsty lips than the silver tankards or gold drinking cups of kings; only in my fever-thirst I never am able to get that gourd to my lips. Three of David’s mighty men heard the expression of his longing for that water out of the Well of Bethlehem, and slipping quietly away, not caring that a Philistine garrison held Bethlehem, the three men alone break through the defended gate and under fire draw water from the well and bring a vessel of it over a long, hot way to thirsty David. It touched his heart when he saw their wounds. He could not drink water purchased with their blood, but poured it out as a libation to such great and devoted friendship.
Some other incidents of the Philistine war are worthy of comment:
1. So great was the defeat of the Philistines in their first battle, where David, under divine direction, attacked the center of their army, the scene is named “Baal-Perazirn,” i.e., “The place of breaking forth.” Splitting their column wide open at its heart, he dispersed them in every direction. They even sat their gods behind them to be burned by David’s men. We need not be startled at the burning of such gods, for history tells of one nation that ate their god, made out of dough, in times of famine. This breaking of a battle-center was a favorite method with Napoleon later, and vainly attempted by Lee at Gettysburg.
2. In the second great battle, again following divine direction, he avoided the center where they expected his attack as before and were there prepared for him this time, and “fetched” a compass to their rear, sheltered from their view by a thick growth of balsam trees, and on hearing “a sound of a going” in these trees, struck them unawares and overthrew them completely.
So Stonewall Jackson, his movements sheltered from observation by the trees of the wilderness, marched and struck in his last and greatest victory at Chancellorsville. And so did that master of war, Frederick the Great, screened by intervening hills, turn the Austrian columns and win his greatest victory at Leuthen. Major Penn, the great Texas lay-evangelist, preached his greatest sermon from “This fetching a compass,” and “When thou hearest the sound of a going in the mulberry trees, bestir thyself.” His application was: (a) Let great preachers attack the center, as David did at Baal-Perazim. (b) But as I am only a layman I must fetch a compass and strike them in the rear where they are not expecting attack. (c) As the signal of assault was the sound of a going in the mulberry trees, which we interpret to mean the power of the Holy Spirit going before, we must tarry for that power, for without it we are bound to fail. (d) But that power being evident, let every member of the church bestir himself. On this last point his zealous exhortation put every man, woman, and child to working.
3. The third incident of this war was its culmination. He pressed his victory until “he took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines;” that is, he captured Gath and the four other cities, or daughters, that had gone from it. To take the bridle of a horse from the hand of a rider is to make that horse serve the new master, so Gath and her daughters paid tribute to David and served him quite a new experience for the Philistines.
4. The result of these great achievements is thus expressed: “And the fame of David went out into all lands; and the Lord brought the fear of him on all nations.”
The occasion of his next war, the one with Ammon, was remarkable. Nabash, the king of Ammon, held very friendly relations with David. The fact is that he may have ‘been the father of Amasa, a son of David’s sister, Abigail. Anyway, the relations between them had been very pleasant, so when Nahash died, David, out of the kindness of his heart, always remembering courtesies shown him, sent a friendly embassy to Hanun, the son of Nahash, but the princes of Ammon said to the young king, “Do you suppose that love for your father prompted David to send these men? He sent them to spy out the land so that he can make war successfully against us.” This evil suggestion led the young king to do a very foolish thing, and one that violated all international policy. He arrested these ambassadors and subjected them to the greatest indignity. Their venerable beards were cut off. I don’t know whether that means cut off half-way or just shaved off one side of the face. Then he cut off their long robes of dignity so they would be bob-tailed jackets striking about the hips, and sent them home. No mortification could exceed theirs. Somebody told David about it and he sent this word to them: “Tarry at Jericho until your beards grow out.”
A deacon of the First Church at Waco, when I was pastor, whenever a young member of the church would propose some innovation on the customs of the church, would draw up his tall figure he was quite tall and would reach out his long arm and point at the young man and say, “My young brother, you had better tarry at Jericho until your beard grows out.” It was very crushing on the young brother, and I used to exhort the deacon about his curt way of cutting off members who, whether young or old, had a right equal to his own to speak in conference.
Having practiced that unpardonable indignity upon the friendly ambassadors, the Ammonites know they must fight, since they have made themselves odious to David, so they raise an enormous sum of money, 1,000 talents of silver, and hire 33,000 men from the Syrians, the different branches of the Syrians. Some of them were horsemen from across the Euphrates, some from Tob, some from Maacah, and the rest of them from Zobah. David sends Joab at the head of his mighty army of veterans to fight them. The Ammonites remain in their fortified city of Rabbah, and as Joab’s army approaches, 33,000 Syrians come up behind them, and Joab sees that there is a battle to be fought in the front and in the rear, so he divides his army and takes his picked men to attack the Syrians, and commands Abishai, his brother, to go after the Ammonites as they pour out of their city to attack in front. Joab says to his brother, “If the Syrians are too strong for me, you help me, and if the Ammon-ites are too strong for you, then I will come and help you,” and so they fight both ways and whip in both directions with tremendous success. Joab destroys the Syrians, and Abishai drives the Ammonites back under the walls of their city.
That victory leads to another war. When the Syrians heard of the overthrow of the contingent sent to succor Ammon, they sent across the Euphrates again for reinforcements and mobilized a large home army to fight David. David met them in battle and blotted them off the map, and having disposed of the Syrians, at the return of the season for making war, he sent Joab with a mighty army to besiege the city of Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites. Joab besieges them and when he sees them about to surrender he sends for David to come and accept the surrender and David puts the crown of the king of Ammon on his own head. Then having destroyed the Ammonites, he marches against their southern ally, Moab, and conquers them. Following up this victory he leads his army against Edom, and conquers all that country. This war lasts six months. He gains a great victory over the Edomites and through Abishai, his leader, 18,000 of the Edomites were slain. The heir of the king escapes with great difficulty to Egypt, and is sheltered there. Joab remained six months to bury the dead and gather up the spoils. So ends this period of conquest.
The text tells you, in conclusion, who were the administration officers during this period. You will find it on page 122 of the Harmony. Joab was over the host, Jehoshaphat was recorder, Zadok and Ahimelech were priests, Seraiah was scribe, Benaiah, or Benajah, was over the Cherethites and Pelethites and David’s sons were chiefs about the king.
That great round of successes is followed by the magnificent song of thanksgiving, which needs to be analyzed specially and which is transferred to the Psalter as Psa 18 .
That you may have a connected account of these wars, the consideration of three periods is deferred to the next chapter:
1. The great sin of David, with its far-reaching consequences, 2Sa 11:2-12:24 .
2. His treatment of the Ammonites after the fall of Rabbah, 2Sa 12:31 and 1Ch 20:3 .
3. His treatment of the Moabites, 2Sa 8:2 .
QUESTIONS
1. What is the necessity of breaking the power of the hostile nations within and around Judea?
2. Show why the geographical position of Judea was favorable to its mission of leavening all nations with the ideas of the kingdom of God, and why Judea was a desirable possession to those nations.
3. What event brought a tide of war on David?
4. According to the record, with what nations did he wage successful war?
5. What eight general observations on these wars?
6. What special feature characterized them and all other ancient wars, and what modern inventions have now divested war of this feature?
7. Cite the names of some of David’s champions and their exploits.
8. How does Sir Walter Scott, in Ivanhoe, philosophize on the speedy oblivion coming to great champions?
9. Recite one exploit that deserves to live in literature, and why?
10. Cite the notable characteristic of the battle of Baal-Perazirn.
11. Name the more decisive battle which followed, and give illustrations from history of the different methods of attack in those two battles.
12. Give Major Penn’s text and sermon outline on some words concerning this battle.
13. Explain: ”He took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.”
14. What the result of these great achievements?
15. Recite the occasion of the war with Ammon and its results, and describe the first battle.
16. Give a brief statement of wars with Syria, Moab, and Edom.
17. With a map before you, show just how by these wars and alliances David safeguarded all his borders.
18. How did he commemorate his victories?
19. How did he celebrate them?
20. Into what other book was his thanksgiving song transferred, and how numbered there?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Sa 5:11 And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons: and they built David an house.
Ver. 11. And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David. ] To congratulate his happy settlement in the kingdom. This Tyre was at first a poor town, built by the Phoenicians, for their fishermen to dwell in: but afterwards it became a famous city: like as Dublin, the chief city of Ireland, was at first called by the Irish Balacleigh, that is, the town upon hurdles, because the foundation thereof was laid upon hurdles; the place where it was built was so fennish and moorish.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Hiram. Not the Hiram of 1Ki 9:11, which was sixty years later. Josephus says he was his father. Compare 2Ch 2:13. 1Ki 5:1.
Tyre. Israel had no war with Phoenicians. Asher failed to expel them (Jdg 1:31).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Hiram: 1Ki 5:1, 1Ki 5:2, 1Ki 5:8, 1Ki 5:9, 1Ch 14:1
masons: Heb. hewers of the stone of the wall
they built: 2Sa 7:2, 1Ki 7:1-12, Ecc 2:4-11, Jer 22:14-16
Reciprocal: Jos 19:29 – Tyre 1Ch 22:2 – masons 1Ch 22:4 – cedar trees 2Ch 2:3 – As thou didst Psa 30:1 – at the Amo 1:9 – brotherly covenant
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Sa 5:11. Hiram sent messengers to David, &c. Hearing that he intended to settle in the fort he had taken, Hiram sent him both materials and artificers to build him a palace. For the Jews, being given to feeding cattle and husbandry, were not very skilful in mechanic arts. The accounts left us of this king of Tyre are short; but it appears from them that he was a magnificent and a generous prince, and a believer in the true God. See the form of his congratulation to Solomon upon his accession to the throne, 1Ki 5:7. And this character well fitted him to enter into and to cultivate an alliance with David, as he did with uncommon friendship and affection as long as David lived, and continued it to his son for his sake. Delaney.