{"id":8222,"date":"2022-09-24T02:29:05","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T07:29:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-samuel-81\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T02:29:05","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T07:29:05","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-samuel-81","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-samuel-81\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 8:1"},"content":{"rendered":"

And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

Chap. 8. The Development of David’s Kingdom<\/p>\n

= 1 Chronicles 18<\/span><\/p>\n

1, 2. Conquest of the Philistines and Moabites<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. And after this it came to pass<\/em> ] This chapter contains a summary account of the wars by which David established the supremacy of Israel among the surrounding nations. At what periods of his reign they were waged is not stated. As has been already implied in the note on ch. 2Sa 7:1<\/span>, it seems best to consider the words “and after this it came to pass” as a general formula of transition and connexion, not necessarily indicating a strict chronological sequence. It may possibly be derived from the annals which were the original source of the history. Cp. ch. 2Sa 10:1<\/span>, 2Sa 13:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n

took Metheg-ammah<\/em>, &c.] The most probable explanation of this obscure expression is took the bridle of the metropolis out of the hand of the Philistines<\/em>, i.e. wrested from them the control of their chief city. This is equivalent to the statement in 1Ch 18:1<\/span> that “David took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines;” and it may be noticed that the metaphor of the ‘mother-city’ is employed there, for the word translated “towns” literally means daughters<\/em>. Gath was allowed to retain its king as a tributary (1Ki 2:39<\/span>). On its site and history see note on 1Sa 5:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Metheg-ammah must be the name of some stronghold which commanded Gath, and the taking of which made David master of Gath and her towns.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2Sa 8:1-18<\/span><\/p>\n

David smote the Philistines and subdued them.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The victorious king<\/strong><\/p>\n

These years of war gave birth to some of the grandest of the psalms, amongst which may be numbered, 2., 20., 21., 60., 110.<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>The foe. They trust in chariots and in horses; their kings think that they will be saved by the multitude of their hosts. They inspire fear through the hearts of Israel, so that the land trembles as though God had rent it, and the people drink the wine of staggering and dismay. So tremendous is their assault, so overwhelming their numbers, that all help of man seems vain. It is thus in every era of the history of Gods people, that Satan has stirred up their foes. Right behind the coalitions of men lies the malignity of the fallen spirit, who ever seeks to bruise the heel of the womans seed.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>The attitude of faith. Whilst the Serried ranks of the foe are are in sight, the hero-king is permitted a vision into the unseen and eternal. There is no fear upon the face of God, no change in his determination to set his king upon his holy hill. In fact, it seems that the day of his foes attack is that in which he receives a new assurance of sonship, and is bidden to claim the nations for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. In perfect peace he anticipates the result, the Lord will send forth the rod of His strength out of Zion, and strike through kings in the day of His wrath, and make His enemies His footstool, so that in all after-days he may combine the office of priest and king, as Melchizedek did on that same site centuries before.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>The warriors of the priest-king. Catching the contagion of his faith, they triumph in Gods salvation, and in His Name set up their banners. They believe that God, as a Man of War, is going forth with their, hosts, and will tread down their adversaries. They are characterised by the willingness of their service. No mercenaries are pressed into their ranks; they gladly gather around the standard, as the warriors of whom Deborah sang, who willingly offered themselves. They are clad not in mail, but in the fine linen of the priests; the beauties of holiness, a phrase which suggests that the warfare was conducted by religious men as an act of worship to God. They are numerous as the dewdrops that bespangle the morning grass, when every blade has its own coronet of jewels, and the light is reflected from a million diamonds (Psa 110:1-7<\/span>.) What an exquisite conception of Davids ideal for his soldiers, and of the knightly chivalry, of the purity, truth, and righteousness, in which all the soldiers of the Messiah should be arrayed!<\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>The completeness of the victory. The armies of the alien cannot stand the onset of those heaven-accoutred soldiers. Kings of armies flee apace. They are bowed down and fallen in bitter, hopeless defeat. They are made as a fiery furnace in the time of Gods anger, and swallowed up in His wrath. Their dead bodies strew the battlefield, and the valleys are choked with slain. In David we have a type of the Messiah. For, of a truth, against the Holy Servant Jesus, whom God has anointed, both the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel have gathered together. Men have refused His sway, and do refuse it; but God hath sworn, and will not repent, that to Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess: and it is more sure than that to-morrows sun will rise that, ere long, great voices shall be heard in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of the world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ: and He shall reign for ever and ever (Rev 11:15-18<\/span>.) (F. B. Meyer, B. A<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Davids foreign wars<\/strong><\/p>\n

The first series of Davids wars, on the termination of which it is said that he enjoyed rest round about from all his enemies (2Sa 7:1<\/span>), was concluded before his proposal to build the temple. These seem to have been wars with such remnants of the ancient inhabitants as combined to molest his people within the limits of the twelve tribes. The wars now undertaken were chiefly against neighbouring nations, including the occupants of that large territory between Palestine and the Euphrates, which God had promised to Abraham (Gen 15:18<\/span>). The nations against which David now went forth were most of them extremely warlike; they seem, too, to have been banded together in leagues or confederacies; so that the enterprise was attended with difficulties and dangers which only a heart, made brave and fearless by trust in the Invisible, could have ventured to face. The 20th Psalm may have been written for the occasion, and left behind for the Levites, to be sung in the name of the nation, when they remembered the perils to which their king and his troops had gone forth. It is an instructive fact that the history of these wars occupies so small a portion of the Bible. A single verse is all that can be afforded to most of them. Had they been narrated at length, they would probably have forced a narrative that would have placed David, as a captain, on a level with Cyrus, Hannibal, or Caesar. It is one of the less noticed proofs of the inspiration of the Old Testament, that such dazzling transactions as these are passed over so briefly. There is no other history in the world where more space would be occupied in describing the carrying of an ark to its permanent resting-place, than in narrating seven great military campaigns. It would be beyond the power of human nature to resist the temptation to describe great battles–the story of which is always read with such interest, and which reflect so much earthly glory on ones nation, and create in the mind of the national reader such a feeling of satisfaction and pride.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The first campaign was against Davids old friends, the Philistines. In former battles, David seems to have been content with driving them out of his territories–now he attacked them in their own. The town which he took, called Metheg-ammah, or the bridle of Ammah (so named from its situation), appears, from 1Ch 18:1<\/span>, to have been Gath itself. It was now Davids lot, amid the vicissitudes of the world, to attack the place where he had once been sheltered–to hurl his weapons against the king (if he was still alive) whose hospitality he had experienced.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Much the same thing had to be done in his next campaign–that against Moab. The king of Moab had protected his father and mother when it became apparently unsafe for them to remain in their native land–and, through Ruth, Moabite blood ran in Davids veins. Jewish writers have a tradition that, after a time, the king put his parents to death, and that this occasioned the war which David carried on against them. The severity practised against Moab was very great; it was a terrible blow, intended to cripple them for a whole generation, and make it physically impossible for them to take up arms again.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The third of Davids conquests was over a more distant enemy, Hadadezer, the king of Zobah, in the direction of the Euphrates. It appears that in the course of this campaign another enemy had to be encountered–a vast mass of Syrians came out against him. It is evident that this campaign Was a very remarkable one, for the slaughter of the Syrians amounted to the prodigious number of 22,000; and the victory, besides giving David possession of Damascus and the whole of Syria, was followed by the voluntary submission of Tel, the king of Hamath (verse 10), in the valley of Lebanon.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> Of the wars with the Ammonites and Amalekites (verse 12) nothing is recorded, nor is it certain whether these wars were carried on at the same time with the other campaigns, or whether (as we are inclined to think) the war with Amalek was that which took place while David was at Ziklag, and the war with Ammon that which is described in a subsequent chapter.<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> The last enemy specified is Edom; arid it is evident that the contest with that ferocious people was peculiarly bloody and critical. There is a degree of indistinctness in the narrative of this event, when it is attempted to harmonize the three passages that contain allusions to it–in Samuel and Chronicles, and in the introduction to the 60th Psalm. In one place, it is said that it was 18,000 Syrians that fell in the Valley of Salt (2Sa 8:18<\/span>); in another they are said to have been Edomites (1Ch 8:12<\/span>); the introduction to the Psalm makes the number of Edomites 12,000; in Samuel, the victory is ascribed to David–in Chronicles, to Abishai–and in the Psalm, to Joab. It is probable that the war with Edom was carried on at the same time as the war with the Syrians; that while David and his army were in the north a detachment of the Syrians was sent to co-operate with the Edomites in attacking the southern part of Judah; that hearing of this, David despatched Abishai with a portion of his troops to encounter them; that Abishai completely defeated the confederate armies in the Valley of Salt (near Edom), much about the same time as David routed the Syrians in the neighbourhood of Damascus. If the Edomites and Syrians were confededate, it is not surprising that in one.place it should be said it was 18,000 Syrians that fell, and in another 18,000 Edomites. The psalm (60th), gives us a glimpse of the state of things in Davids army at this time, revealing the frightful difficulties and dangers of the enterprise, and the singularly lofty efforts of prayerful courage which were needed to carry him through the crisis, It appears that his army, far from home, and engaged with a very powerful foe, had sunk to the lowest ebb, and had even, for a time, been visited with the most direful reverses. The effect of these victories must have been very striking. Nor, only were the people now freed from all the harassing attacks to which they had been subject at every moment and on every side, but the Hebrew kingdom was elevated to the rank of a first-rate Power. Garrisons were placed in all the surrounding strongholds; the accumulated hoards of Eastern wealth were transferred to Jerusalem; and streams of tribute rolled their golden waters into the treasury of David. The secret of Davids success is expressed once and again in the narrative: The Lord was with David, and preserved him whithersoever he went. It is one of the great lessons of the Old Testament that the godly man can and does perform his duty better than any other, because the Lord is with him–whether he be steward of a house, or keeper of a prison, or ruler of a kingdom, like Joseph; or a judge and lawgiver, like Moses; or a warrior, like Samson or Gideon or Jephthah; or a king, like David or Jehoshaphat or Josiah; or a prime minister over a hundred and twenty provinces, like Daniel. This is one of the prominent lessons of the Book of Psalms–it is inscribed upon its very portals; the godly man shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. In all these warlike expeditions King David fulfilled his typical character–was an emblem of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, going forth conquering and to conquer. (W. G. Blaikie, M. A<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER VIII <\/P>

David subdues the Philistines<\/I>, 1;<\/P>

and the Moabites<\/I>, 2;<\/P>

and the king of Zobah<\/I>, 3, 4;<\/P>

and the Syrians in general<\/I>, 5-8.<\/P>

Toi, king of Hamath, sends to congratulate him on his victories<\/I><\/P>

over the king of Zobah, and sends him rich presents<\/I>, 9-10.<\/P>

David dedicates all the spoils to God<\/I>, 11-13.<\/P>

He garrisons Edom<\/I>, 14;<\/P>

and reigns over all Israel<\/I>, 15.<\/P>

An account of his chief officers<\/I>, 16-18. <\/P>

NOTES ON CHAP. VIII<\/P>

<\/P>

Verse 1<\/span>. David took Metheg-ammah<\/B><\/I>] This is variously translated. The Vulgate has, Tulit David fraenum tributi, David removed the<\/I> bondage of the tribute<\/I>, which the Israelities paid to the Philistines. Some think it means a fortress<\/I>, city, or strong town; but no such place as Metheg-ammah<\/I> is known. Probably the Vulgate is nearest the truth. The versions are all different. See the following comparison of the principal passages here collated with the parallel place in 1 Chr: – <\/P>

2Sa 8:1<\/span> – David took Methegammah<\/P>

1Ch 18:1<\/span> – David took Gath and her towns.<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:3<\/span>. David smote Hadadezer <\/P>

1Ch 18:<\/span>3<\/span><\/span>. David<\/I> smote Hadarezer<\/I> <\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:4<\/span>. And David took from him 1000 and 700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot.<\/P>

1Ch 18:<\/span>4<\/span><\/span>. And David took from him<\/I> 1000 chariots, and<\/I> 7000 horsemen, and<\/I> 20,000 foot.<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:6<\/span>. Then David put garrisons in Syria <\/P>

1Ch 18:6<\/span>. Then David put in Syria<\/I> <\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:8<\/span>. And from Betah and Berothai cities of Hadadezer. <\/P>

1Ch 18:<\/span>8<\/span><\/span>. And<\/I> from Tibhath and Chun cities of Hadarezer.<\/I> <\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:9<\/span>. When Toi heard that David had smitten Hadadezer<\/P>

1Ch 18:<\/span>9<\/span><\/span>. When Tou heard that David had smitten Hadarezer<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:10<\/span>. Then Toi sent Joram his son<\/P>

1Ch <\/span>18:10<\/span><\/span>. He sent Hadoram his son<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:12<\/span> – Syria and Moab <\/P>

1Ch 18:11<\/span> – Edom and Moab<\/I> <\/P>


<\/P>

2Sa 8:13<\/I><\/span>. – Syrians, in the valley of salt, 18,000<\/P>

1Ch 18:12<\/span>. – Edomites, in the valley<\/I> of salt,<\/I> 18,000<\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 8:17<\/span> – Ahimelech – and Seraiah was the scribe.<\/P>

1Ch<\/span> 18:16<\/span><\/span> – Abimelech – and Shausha<\/I> was scribe.<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 10:16<\/span>. Shobach the captain<\/P>

1Ch<\/span> 19:16<\/span><\/span>. Shophach the captain<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa 10:17<\/span>. David passed over Jordan, and came to Helam.<\/P>

1Ch 19:17<\/span>. David passed over Jordan and came <\/I> upon them<\/I><\/P>


<\/P>

2Sa 10:18<\/span>. David slew 700 chariots of the Syrians,<\/P>

1Ch<\/span> 19:18<\/span><\/span>. David slew of the Syrians<\/I> 7000 chariots,<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa. and 40,000 horsemen;<\/P>

1Ch. and<\/I> 40,000 footmen;<\/I><\/P>

<\/P>

2Sa. and smote Shobach, &c.<\/P>

1Ch. and killed Shophach, &c.<\/I> <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Metheg-ammah, <\/B>i.e. Gath and her towns<\/I>, as it is expressed in the parallel place, 1Ch 18:1<\/span>, which are called Metheg-ammah<\/I>, or the bridle of Ammah, because Gath was situate in the mountain of Ammah; and because this being the chief city of the Philistines, and having a king, which none of the rest had, was the bridle which had hitherto kept the Israelites in subjection, but now was taken out of their mouths. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. David took Metheg-ammah out ofthe hand of the Philistines<\/B>that is, Gath and her suburbantowns (1Ch 18:1<\/span>). That town hadbeen “a bridle” by which the Philistines kept the people ofJudah in check. David used it now as a barrier to repress thatrestless enemy.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And after this it came to pass<\/strong>,…. After David had rest from his enemies for a time, and after the conversation he had had with Nathan about building the house of God, and after the message sent to him from the Lord by that prophet, forbidding him to build, and David’s prayer to the Lord upon it, the following events happened; and which are recorded to show that David’s rest from his enemies did not last long, and that he had other work to do than to build the house of God:<\/p>\n

that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them<\/strong>; these had been long and implacable enemies of Israel; Samson began to weaken them in his days; a war was waged between them and Israel in the times of Samuel and Saul, and the battle sometimes went on one side and sometimes on the other; but now David made an entire conquest of them: before they had used to come into the land of Israel, and there fight with Israel, but now David entered into their land, and took it from them:<\/p>\n

and David took Methegammah out of the hands of the Philistines<\/strong>; the name of a province in Palestine, and from the parallel place in<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:1<\/span>, it appears to be Gath, and its adjacent towns; but why that was called the bridle of Ammah, or the bridle of a cubit, as it may be rendered, is not easy to say. The conjecture of Kimchi is, that there was a pool or river of water, so Ammah is thought to signify; and Aquila renders it a water course, which passed through the city, having been brought from without it into it, the communication of which from place to place it may be David cut off, by stopping or turning its stream; but interpreters more generally suppose that Gath was built upon an hill called Ammah, see 2Sa 2:24<\/span>; thought to be the same with the Amgaris of Pliny d though that is sometimes read Angaris, a mountain he places in Palestine; and that it was called Metheg, a bridle, because being a frontier city, and being very strong and powerful, erected into a kingdom, it was a curb and bridle upon the Israelites; but now David taking it out of their hands, opened his way for the more easy subduing the rest of their country: or the word may be rendered Metheg and her mother, that is, Gath, the metropolis, since that and her daughters, or towns, are said to be taken, 1Ch 18:1<\/span>; and Metheg might be one of them.<\/p>\n

d Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 13.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Subjugation of the Philistines. – In the introductory formula, “And it came to pass afterwards,”<\/em> the expression “afterwards”<\/em> cannot refer specially to the contents of 2 Samuel 7, for reasons also given, but simply serves as a general formula of transition to attach what follows to the account just completed, as a thing that happened afterwards. This is incontestably evident from a comparison of 2Sa 10:1<\/span>, where the war with the Ammonites and Syrians, the termination and result of which are given in the present chapter, is attached to what precedes by the same formula, “It came to pass afterwards”<\/em> (cf. 2Sa 13:1<\/span>). “David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and took the bridle of the mother out of the hand of the Philistines,”<\/em> i.e., wrested the government from them and made them tributary. The figurative expression Metheg-ammah<\/em>, “bridle of the mother,” i.e., the capital, has been explained by Alb. Schultens (on Job 30:11<\/span>) from an Arabic idiom, in which giving up one’s bridle to another is equivalent to submitting to him. Gesenius also gives several proofs of this ( Thes<\/em>. p. 113). Others, for example Ewald, render it arm-bridle; but there is not a single passage to support the rendering “arm” for ammah <\/em>. The word is a feminine form of , mother, and only used in a tropical sense. “Mother”<\/em> is a term applied to the chief city or capital, both in Arabic and Phoenician (vid., Ges .<\/em> Thes<\/em>. p. 112). The same figure is also adopted in Hebrew, where the towns dependent upon the capital are called its daughters (vid., Jos 15:45<\/span>, Jos 15:47<\/span>). In 1Ch 18:1<\/span> the figurative expression is dropped for the more literal one: “David took Gath and its daughters out of the hand of the Philistines,” i.e., he wrested Gath and the other towns from the Philistines. The Philistines had really five cities, every one with a prince of its own (Jos 13:3<\/span>). This was the case even in the time of Samuel (1Sa 6:16-17<\/span>). But in the closing years of Samuel, Gath had a king<\/em> who stood at the head of all the princes of the Philistines (1Sa 29:2<\/span>., cf. 1Sa 27:2<\/span>). Thus Gath became the capital of the land of the Philistines, which held the bridle (or reins) of Philistia in its own hand. The author of the Chronicles has therefore given the correct explanation of the figure. The one suggested by Ewald<\/em>, Bertheau, and others, cannot be correct, – namely, that David wrested from the Philistines the power which they had hitherto exercised over the Israelites. The simple meaning of the passage is, that David wrested from the Philistines the power which the capital had possessed over the towns dependent upon it, i.e., over the whole of the land of Philistia; in other words, he brought the capital (Gath) and the other towns of Philistia into his own power. The reference afterwards made to a king of Gath in the time of Solomon in 1Ki 2:39<\/span> is by no means at variance with this; for the king alluded to was one of the tributary sovereigns, as we may infer from the fact that Solomon ruled over all the kings on this side of the Euphrates as far as to Gaza (1Ki 5:1<\/span>, 1Ki 5:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

David’s Conquests.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD>

B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1042.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

      1 And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines.   2 And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so<\/I> the Moabites became David’s servants, and<\/I> brought gifts.   3 David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.   4 And David took from him a thousand chariots,<\/I> and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses,<\/I> but reserved of them for<\/I> a hundred chariots.   5 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.   6 Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: and the Syrians became servants to David, and<\/I> brought gifts. And the LORD<\/B> preserved David whithersoever he went.   7 And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.   8 And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass.<\/P>

      God had given David rest from all his enemies that opposed him and made head against him; and he having made a good use of that rest, has now commission given him to make war upon them, and to act offensively for the avenging of Israel’s quarrels and the recovery of their rights; for as yet they were not in full possession of that country to which by the promise of God they were entitled.<\/P>

      I. He quite subdued the Philistines, v.<\/I><\/span> 1<\/span>. They had attacked him when they thought him weak (ch.<\/I><\/span> v. 17<\/span>), and went by the worst then; but, when he found himself strong, he attacked them, and made himself master of their country. They had long been vexatious and oppressive to Israel. Saul got no ground against them; but David completed Israel’s deliverance out of their hands, which Samson had begun long before, Judg. xiii. 5<\/span>. Metheg-ammah<\/I> was Gath<\/I> (the chief and royal city of the Philistines) and the towns belonging to it, among which there was a constant garrison kept by the Philistines on the hill Ammah (2 Sam. ii. 24<\/span>), which was Metheg,<\/I> a bridle<\/I> (so it signifies) or curb<\/I> upon the people of Israel; this David took out of their hand and used it as a curb upon them. Thus, when the strong man is disarmed, the armour wherein he trusted is taken from him, and used against him, Luke xi. 22<\/span>. And after the long and frequent struggles which the saints have had with the powers of darkness, like Israel with the Philistines, the Son of David shall tread them all under their feet and make the saints more than conquerors.<\/P>

      II. He smote the Moabites, and made them tributaries to Israel, v.<\/I><\/span> 2<\/span>. He divided the country into three parts, two of which he destroyed, casting down the strong-holds, and putting all to the sword; the third part he spared, to till the ground and be servants to Israel. Dr. Lightfoot says, “He laid them on the ground and measured them with a cord, who should be slain and who should live;” and this is called meting out the valley of Succoth,<\/I> Ps. lx. 6<\/I><\/span>. The Jews say he used this severity with the Moabites because they had slain his parents and brethren, whom he put under the protection of the king of Moab during his exile, 1Sa 22:3<\/span>; 1Sa 22:4<\/span>. He did it in justice, because they had been dangerous enemies to the Israel of God; and in policy, because, if left in their strength, they still would have been so. But observe, Though it was necessary that two-thirds should be cut off, yet the line that was to keep alive, though it was but one, is ordered to be a full line. Be sure to give that length enough; let the line of mercy be stretched to the utmost in favorem vit–so as to favour life.<\/I> Acts of indemnity must be construed so as to enlarge the favour. Now Balaam’s prophecy was fulfilled, A sceptre shall arise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab,<\/I> to the utmost of which the fatal line extended, Num. xxiv. 17<\/span>. The Moabites continued tributaries to Israel till after the death of Ahab, 2Ki 3:4<\/span>; 2Ki 3:5<\/span>. Then they rebelled and were never reduced.<\/P>

      III. He smote the Syrians or Aramites. Of them there were two distinct kingdoms, as we find them spoken of in the title of the 60th Psalm<\/span>: Aram Naharaim,–Syria of the rivers,<\/I> whose head city was Damascus (famed for its rivers, 2 Kings v. 12<\/span>), and Aram Zobah,<\/I> which joined to it, but extended to Euphrates. These were the two northern crowns. 1. David began with the Syrians of Zobah, 2Sa 8:3<\/span>; 2Sa 8:4<\/span>. As he went to settle his border at the river Euphrates (for so far the land conveyed by the divine grant to Abraham and his seed did extend, Gen. xv. 18<\/span>), the king of Zobah opposed him, being himself possessed of those countries which belonged to Israel; but David routed his forces, and took his chariots and horsemen. The horsemen are here said to be 700, but 1 Chron. xviii. 4<\/span> they are said to be 7000. If they divided their horse by ten in a company, as it is probable they did, the captains and companies were 700, but the horsemen were 7000. David houghed the horses, cut the sinews of their hams, and so lamed them, and made them unserviceable, at least in war, God having forbidden them to multiply horses,<\/I> Deut. xvii. 16<\/I><\/span>. David reserved only 100 chariots out of 1000 for his own use: for he placed his strength not in chariots nor horses, but in the living God (Ps. xx. 7<\/span>), and wrote it from his own observation that a horse is a vain thing for safety,<\/I>Psa 33:16<\/span>; Psa 33:17<\/span>. 2. The Syrians of Damascus coming in to the relief of the king of Zobah fell with him. 22,000 were slain in the field, v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>. So that it was easy for David to make himself master of the country, and garrison it for himself, v.<\/I><\/span> 6<\/span>. The enemies of God’s church, that think to secure themselves, will prove, in the end, to ruin themselves, by their confederacies with each other. Associate yourselves, and you shall be broken in pieces,<\/I> Isa. viii. 9<\/I><\/span>.<\/P>

      IV. In all these wars, 1. David was protected: The Lord preserved him whithersoever he went.<\/I> It seems, he went in person, and, in the cause of God and Israel, jeoparded his own life in the high places of the field; but God covered his head in the day of battle, which he often speaks of, in his psalms, to the glory of God. 2. He was enriched. He took the shields of gold which the servants of Hadadezer had in their custody (v.<\/I><\/span> 7<\/span>) and much brass from several cities of Syria (v.<\/I><\/span> 8<\/span>), which he was entitled to, not only jure belli–by the uncontrollable right of the longest sword<\/I> (“Get it, and take it”); but by commission from heaven, and the ancient entail of these countries on the seed of Abraham.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

AUTHORS NOTE: Second Samuel – Chapter 8 and First Chronicles – Chapter 18<\/strong><\/p>\n

Summary of Conquests: Philistines, Syrians, 2Sa 8:1-8<\/span> AND <\/strong>1Ch 18:1-8<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The present chapter under study <\/em>are a summation of David’s conquest in his many wars. Some of them are more fully discussed in later chapters of the book of Second Samuel. The first has to do with David’s complete subjection of the Philistines. The ultimate defeat of them was his conquest of Gath and its tributary towns. This is called Metheg-ammah in the Samuel account. These Hebrew words should have been translated. They mean “bridle of the mother city”. David took the bridle of conquest over the chief city of the Philistines, meaning that he utterly vanquished them and put them under his dominion.<\/em><\/p>\n

The second nation conquered by <\/em>David was Moab. The Samuel account tells of a very harsh practice of ancient times employed by David at this time. The defeated Moabites were drawn up in three lines, lots cast to put to death two lines and let the other live. Belligerent nations were thus kept peaceful. Though this seems very cruel today it seemed necessary in order to curb their ability to wage war.<\/em><\/p>\n

David’s most <\/em>profitable venture was against the Syrians. In a move to extend his frontier to the Euphrates he was opposed by the king of Zobah, Hadad-ezer (Samuel), or Hadar-ezer (Chronicles). The spoil consisted of a thousand chariots, seven thousand (seven hundred, Samuel) horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen. It cannot now be known which number of horsemen is correct. It is probable that a copyist in the long ago made an error in transcribing the record from the original, inspired account. When the Syrians of Damascus came to the aid of their kindred nation they were also defeated, with the loss of twenty-two thousand men.<\/em><\/p>\n

Like the <\/em>Moabites the Syrians became tributary to David. He also took shields of gold which were on them, and brought them to Jerusalem. From the towns of Hadad-ezer’s kingdom David took a great amount of brass, which was later used by Solomon in the temple. This notice about the temple is found in the Chronicles, another indication of its later appearance after the account of Samuel.<\/em><\/p>\n

These wars resulted <\/em>in another infraction of the law of Moses concerning kings (De 17:16). David began to accumulate horses, setting a precedent continued by his successors, until the requirement was totally disregarded.<\/em><\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.<\/strong><\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:1<\/span>. Metheg-ammah.<\/strong> This is a very obscure word, and has been very variously translated. Metheg<\/strong> is a bridle,<\/strong> and ammah<\/strong> is translated mother<\/em> by Keil, Erdmann, Phillipson, and Wordsworth. Gesenius says this word is always used in a figurative sense as the head, or foundation of a thing, and agrees with the scholars above named in understanding it here to signify a capital or chief city. If so, to take the bridle<\/em> can only mean to subdue<\/em>, and this entire rendering is borne out by the parallel passage in 1Ch. 18:1<\/span>. Havernick, Michaelis, Ewald, and others translate arm-bridle<\/em>, but attach the same meaning to the words.<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:2<\/span>. Moab.<\/strong> Nothing is known of the cause or history of this war. Probably Davids former friend (1Sa. 22:3-4<\/span>) had been succeeded by a ruler of a different spirit. Probably in this war occurred what is mentioned in 1Ch. 11:22<\/span> of Benaiah, one of Davids heroes. (Erdmann)<\/em>. Thus he fulfilled Balaams prophecy in part (Num. 24:17<\/span>). (Wordsworth<\/em>.) Measured them.<\/strong> This refers to a well-known practice of Eastern kings, to command their prisoners of war, particularly those who had greatly incensed the victors, to lie down on the ground, and then to put to death a certain portion of them, which was determined by lot, but most commonly by a measuring line. This usage was not, perhaps, usually practised by the people of God; but Jewish writers assert that the cause of this particular severity against Moab was their having massacred Davids parents and family. (Jamieson<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:3<\/span>. Hadadezer<\/strong>. Hadad was the sun-god of the Syrians, and the name signifies Hadad our help. Zobah<\/strong>. A portion of Syria forming a separate kingdom in the time of Saul, David, and Solomon. See 1Sa. 14:47<\/span>. It is difficult to define its exact position and limits, but there seems to be grounds for regarding it as lying chiefly east of Coele-Syria, and extending thence north-east and east, towards, if not even to, the Euphrates. Smiths-Bib. Dictionary<\/em>. As he went<\/strong>. That these words refer to Hadadezer and not to David seems evident from the use of the word recover<\/em>. David had not possessed territory in this direction.<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:4<\/span>. Seven hundred horsemen<\/strong>. As the word chariots does not appear in the original text, the actual reading here is 1790 horsemen, whereas in Chronicles 7000 horsemen and 1000 chariots are mentioned. Most scholars agree that the word chariots has been accidentally omitted, and the numeral for a thousand confounded with one denoting a hundred. For in the plains of Syria seven thousand horsemen would be a much juster proportion to twenty thousand loot than seventeen hundred (Keil, Thenius, etc.), and, further on, David is said to have lamed the chariot-horses<\/em>, thereby implying the use of chariots in the engagement. Houghed<\/strong>, etc. The word translated chariot-horses denotes all animals used for riding. The reason of this mutilation was, that horses being forbidden by the Mosaic constitution to the Hebrews, both in war and agriculture, it was of no use to keep them; and their neighbours, placing much dependence on cavalry, but having, for want of a native breed, to procure them by purchase, the greatest damage that could be done to them was to render their horses unserviceable in war. (Jamieson<\/em>). He reserved a hundred of them, not for war, but for a triumph or guard; whether or not this reservation was illegal and ungodly is not said. (Translator of Langes Commentary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:7<\/span>. The servants of Hadadezer.<\/strong> Either his governors<\/em> and vassal princes<\/em> (Keil) or his immediate guard<\/em>. (Erdmann<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:8<\/span> The cities here mentioned are unknown. Brass<\/strong>, rather, copper<\/em>. Some centuries before this copper was carried in quantities from Syria to Egypt. (Bib. Commentary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:9<\/span>. Hamath<\/strong>. The principal city of upper Syria in the valley of the Orontes.<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:10<\/span>. Joram<\/strong>. Called Hadoram<\/em> in Chronicles, and this is most likely the true reading, as Joram is an Israelitish name.<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:13<\/span>. The Syrians in the valley of salt<\/strong>. As the valley of salt, near the Dead Sea, is at so great a distance from Syria, either Edom<\/em> must be here substituted for Aram<\/em> (here rendered Syrians), or the words and Edom<\/em> must be inserted before the valley of salt<\/em>. The sequel agrees with this reading. The facts were probably these: Whilst David, or rather Israel, was entangled in the war with the Ammonites and Aramns, the Edomites seized upon the opportunity which appeared to them a very favourable one to invade the land of Israel, and advanced as far as the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. As soon, therefore, as the Aramans were defeated and subjugated, and the Israelitish army had returned from this war, David ordered it to march against the Edomites, and defeated them in the valley of salt. (Keil<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:16<\/span>. Jehoshaphat<\/strong>. Nothing farther is known of this man. Recorder<\/strong>. Literally, one who calls to remembrance, therefore most likely one who recorded the most important events of the nation. Keil and some others liken the office to that of the magister memori<\/em> of the later Romans, or the waka nuvis<\/em> of the Persian court, who keeps a record of everything that takes place around the king, furnishes him with an account of all that occurs in his kingdom, places his vis<\/em> upon all the kings commands, and keeps a special protocol of all these things.<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:17<\/span>. Zadok<\/strong>. A descendant of Aarons son Eleazar (1Ch. 6:29-34<\/span>; 1Ch. 6:37-38<\/span>). Ahimelech.<\/strong> It is strange to find this name in connection with Zadok in the priesthood, as both before and after this time Abiathar<\/em> is himself mentioned as the priest (1Sa. 22:20<\/span>, etc.; 1Ki. 1:7<\/span>, etc). As the father of Abiathar was named Abimelech some have proposed to transpose<\/em> the names, but this would not solve the difficulty in 1Ch. 24:3<\/span>; 1Ch. 24:6<\/span>; 1Ch. 24:31<\/span>. But the preferable solution appears to be that held by Keil, Wordsworth, Bertbean, and others, that Abiathar had a son of the same name as his (Abiathars) father, who with Zadok assisted in the priestly duties. The historian states, says Wordsworth, that Zadok and Ahimelech were priests;<\/em> not, as in our version, the priests<\/em>. He supposes the reader to know the notorious fact that Abiathar was the<\/em> priest. But he tells us, in addition to Abiathar the High Priest, Zadok and Ahimelech officiated as priests<\/em>, just as we read of the two sons of Eli priests<\/em> of the Lord. (1Sa. 1:3<\/span>.) Abiathar and Ahimelech descended from Ithamar<\/em>, Aarons younger son. Scribe.<\/strong> Probably the State-secretary.<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:18<\/span>. Benaiah<\/strong>. A mighty warrior mentioned in 2Sa. 23:20<\/span>. Cherithites<\/em> and Pelethites<\/em>. The first of these words is from a verb meaning to cut down<\/em> or exterminate<\/em>, and probably points to one duty of these men, viz., that of executioners. Pelethites is derived from a word signifying to run, to hasten<\/em>, and intimates that they had to carry the royal orders to distant places. They were evidently Davids body-guard. Some have derived the names from the Philistines, and from a Philistine tribe mentioned 1Sa. 30:14<\/span>, but the derivation seems far-fetched. Chief rulers<\/strong>. The same word, used in 1Ki. 4:5<\/span> and translated principal officer, is afterwards explained as the kings friend<\/em>, It probably signifies confidential advisers.<\/p>\n

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER<\/em><\/p>\n

DAVIDS CONQUESTS<\/p>\n

I. However long the conflict continues between the kingdom of God and the enemies of that kingdom, the final issue is not doubtful.<\/strong> The land of Palestine had long since been given by God to the descendants of Abraham, who then constituted the Church of God upon the earth. But from the days of Joshua until the reign of David, the struggle between the old inhabitants and the new had been continued with varying success. There had been dark days when Israel had been almost entirely subdued by her enemies, yet she had never lost her footing in the promised land; and now, under David, she saw herself the mistress of Jerusalem in the heart of the kingdom, and her foes subdued on every side. So it must and shall be in every contest of the Church of the Living God with those who oppose her. She will be subject to varying fortunes, and will sometimes appear to sink too low to rise again; but she shall eventually subdue all her enemies, and instead of the Church militant shall become the Church triumphant.<\/p>\n

II. The victory of the kingdom of God depends upon the fulfilment of moral conditions.<\/strong> The success of the Philistines and the other nations against Israel had arisen from the moral degeneracy of the latterfrom their neglect to fulfil the conditions upon which God had promised them a peaceful occupation of the laud. And David now subdued them, and brought in a long period of rest, not because he was a mighty and skilful warrior, but because he was a man of faith in the Unseen, and one who, on the whole, was sincere in his devotion and undivided in his service to God. It is because the nominal members of Gods kingdom in the world have not fulfilled His conditions of success that the victory of the Cross is so long delayed and the Gospel makes so little progress among the nations. The earth has been given to Christ and His people, and the Great David will one day subdue all things to Himself and put an end to the conflict. But the coming of the kingdom is retarded by the want of faith in the so-called disciples of Christ, and by their apathy and worldlinessby their attempts to serve other gods beside Jehovah, and by their unwillingness to deny themselves for the cause they profess to have at heart.<\/p>\n

III. However diversified the enemies of God may be, they are one in opposition to Him and to His rule.<\/strong> There are birds of prey wearing a variety of plumage and exhibiting other differences which show them to belong to different families. But they have one and the same instinct, and though they may sometimes be found fighting with each other, a desire after the carcase is common to all. The people mentioned here as warring against Israel were of different races, and inhabited different lands, and doubtless often warred against each other; but they were one in their hatred of Israel and opposition to David. They are typical of the enemies of the spiritual Israel and of those who oppose the progress of the kingdom of Davids Son and Lord. Men who differ in all other points are found agreeing in this and although, like Herod and Pilate, they may be opposed to each other on other matters, they will often be found, like them, uniting for this end.<\/p>\n

IV. Yet, when the Church of God has temporal ascendancy and external prosperity some who care not for her principles will court her friendship.<\/strong> When David had subdued many nations the king of Hamath saluted and blessed him and so showed himself an exception to the general rule mentioned above. But this friendship for David was not founded on religious sympathy, but on hatred of a rival, and on policy. So the hatred between the enemies of God may sometimes for a time be more active than their enmity to His kingdom; but friendship arising from such a source will only last while the Church is in temporal prosperity. Like the multitudes who shouted Hosanna! during the brief moment of Christs popularity, and melted away or joined in crying Away with Him, in the hour of darkness, they will ever be found on the side which has the outward ascendancy.<\/p>\n

V. Those who do the work of preparation and those who inherit and carry on their labour are one in the kingdom of God.<\/strong> The man who fells the tree, and digs up the roots, and plans out the ground for a city, is a co-worker with him who raises the walls and builds the palaces. Without the toil of the first the work of the latter could not be accomplished, but there is danger that, when the whole is finished, the part which the first labourer had in the work may be forgotten. David, in what we may believe was far less congenial work than the building of a temple would have been, made the building of that temple possible, and, by the establishment of an orderly system of Divine worship and service, educated the spiritual perceptions of the people, so that, when they possessed a more permanent and gorgeous house of God, they might understand that it was but the means to an endonly the outward and visible sign of an inward and unseen realityof that worship of the heart and homage of the life, without which all other gifts and service are not only worthless in the sight of God, but an insult and an abomination. Let no worker for God be discouraged because he cannot do the completed work upon which he has set his heart, it is a law of the Divine kingdom that one man sows and another reaps. The sowing is not the most joyous part of the work, but for this very reason it may be more honourable, and is that without which the other could not exist.<\/p>\n

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS<\/em><\/p>\n

The transitions of the Bible, like those of actual life, are often singularly abrupt; that which now hurries us from the scene of elevated communion with Heaven, to the confused noise and dismal struggles of a battle-field, is peculiarly startling. It is an instructive fact that the history of these wars occupy so small a portion of the Bible. A single verse is all that can be afforded to most of them. Had they been narrated at length, they would probably have formed a narrative that would have placed David, as a captain, on a level with Cyrus, Hannibal, or Alexander. It is one of the less noticed proofs of the inspiration of the Old Testament, that such dazzling transactions as these are passed over so briefly. There is no other history in the world where more space would be occupied in describing the carrying of an ark to its permanent resting-place than in narrating seven great military campaigns. It would be beyond the power of human nature to resist the temptation to describe great battles,the story of which is always read with such interest, and which reflect so much earthly glory on ones nation.Blaikie<\/em>.<\/p>\n

2Sa. 8:15-18<\/span>. In the minds of most readers of the Bible, the name of David, king of Israel, is associated mainly with military power, poetic genius, and personal piety; and only on the rarest occasions do we hear any reference made to his administrative ability. Yet in this last quality he was at least as remarkable as in any one of the others; and great injustice is done to him if we leave out of view the eminent services which he rendered to his country by the exercise of his government and his organising faculties. More than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished for the tribes of Israel.Taylor<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Throne of David Established, 2Sa. 8:1-18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Davids Victories. 2Sa. 8:1-13<\/span><\/p>\n

And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines.
2 And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became Davids servants, and brought gifts.<\/p>\n

3 David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.
4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for a hundred chariots.<\/p>\n

5 And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succor Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.
6 Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts. And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went.<\/p>\n

7 And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.
8 And from Betah, and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass.
9 When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer,
10 Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass:<\/p>\n

11 Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued;
12 Of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah.
13 And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men.<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

What was the bridle of the mother city? 2Sa. 8:1<\/span> (ASV)<\/p>\n

David took the bridle of the mother city of the land of the Philistines. This statement is hard to understand unless it means that one of the cities of the Philistines ruled the other Philistine cities and that David then in turn conquered this leading city. The King James translators transliterated the Hebrew word as Methegammah, but this hardly is the name of a Philistine city. More than likely Gath was the mother city.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

What was Davids treatment of Moab? 2Sa. 8:2<\/span><\/p>\n

When David conquered the Moabites, he caused all the men to pass along to be measured. The actual procedure he used is not clear. It may have been that he caused all the men to lie on the ground and then taking a measure counted off two measures of men to be put to death, leaving every third measure to live. Or, it may have been that all the men that were tall enough to reach the upper two measures were put to death and only those that were short enough to come within the third measures were left alive.<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

What battle did David fight in the north? 2Sa. 8:3<\/span><\/p>\n

David also warred against Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah. We are told that he had gone to recover his dominion at the river. David very evidently was extending his rule to the Euphrates river. This being true, the dominion was still within the land promised to Abraham. Because horses were not very valuable in Palestine, David hocked all the chariot horses, reserving only enough for a hundred chariots. By so disabling the horses, David made them of no use to the king of Zobah. When the statement is made that . . . the Syrians of Damascus came to succor Hadadezer . . . (2Sa. 8:5<\/span>), light is thrown on the fact that Syria used to mean either all of Palestine or country about Damascus. Such a specific statement makes clear which Syrians so came to Hadadezer.<\/p>\n

4.<\/p>\n

Where was Hamath? 2Sa. 8:9<\/span><\/p>\n

Hamath was the extreme northern boundary of the land of Israel. It lay near the Orontes River and was considered the most important town of upper Syria. The modern name is Hamah, and from this site inscribed stones have been taken by archaeologists. The civilization that was most outstanding was of Hittite background. Whether Davids kingdom quite extended to the city or not, we can not tell; but his borders reached to the edge of the territory of Hamath.<\/p>\n

5.<\/p>\n

What did David do with the spoils of war? 2Sa. 8:11<\/span><\/p>\n

David dedicated the silver and gold which he took in his wars to make a treasury for Gods house. These things were dedicated to the Lord. As David neared the end of his career, he encouraged Solomon and his subjects to enter into the building effort. He gave a pattern for all that was to be built, and gave gold and silver for the work itself (1Ch. 28:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(1) Subdued them.<\/strong>In its connection this implies not merely the victory of a single battle, but the reversal of the former relation of the Philistines to Israel, and their reduction to a condition of inferiority and tribute.<\/p>\n

Took Metheg-ammah.<\/strong>No place of this name is known. The first word means bridle, <\/em>and the other is probably, although not certainly, a derivation from the word mother, <\/em>and has the sense metropolis. <\/em>The translation will then be, took the bridle <\/em>(i.e., <\/em>the key) of the metropolis, <\/em>and this seems sustained by the parallel phrase in 1Ch. 18:1<\/span>, took Gath and her towns (lit <\/em>daughters). Gath appears to have been already the principal among the five Philistine cities (1Sa. 27:2<\/span>), and with the rest of the country remained tributary to Solomon (1Ki. 4:21<\/span>; 1Ki. 4:24<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

SUMMARY OF DAVID’S VICTORIES, 2Sa 8:1-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

We are not to suppose that these victories all <\/em> occurred after the events recorded in the last chapter, nor that they are here recorded in exact chronological order. No such rigid method of writing history was known when these books of Samuel were compiled. Some of these wars occurred before and some after David purposed to build the temple. This list is a convenient summary, and stands as a monument to David’s military ability.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

David Triumphs Over All His Enemies And Makes A Name For Himself ( 2Sa 8:1-15<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this passage David’s victories against all his enemies are described, commencing with his taking of ‘the bridle of the mother city (1Ch 18:1<\/span> makes clear that this mother city was Gath) out of the hands of the Philistines’. In other words he became overlord over the city to which he had previously been a vassal, the mother city that was seen as in control over all the other Philistine cities. From this point on all of Philistia was in submission to him. The passage will then come to its final conclusion with a picture of his overall successful reign, for, in the final analysis, the reason why YHWH has given him success was so that he might rule justly over God’s people. Taking the enemy’s bridle in hand was a picture of the enemy’s submission, the idea being that the enemy’s horse was now being led by the bridle. The use of the phrase has been confirmed among the later Arabs. <\/p>\n

In between these two situations he smote Moab, dealing very severely with her warriors. This may have been following a period when, after initially submitting, Moab had revealed herself to be continuously rebellious, which would be seen as the kind of situation which would necessitate the decimation of her fighting force in order to prevent it happening again (compare a similar idea in Deu 20:12-13<\/span>). The smiting of Moab was then followed by the smiting of Hadadezer of Zobab, together with his Aramaean (Syrian) allies. A description is given of the prisoners-of-war taken, and of the way that Hadadezer’s war machine was weakened by the hocking of all his chariot horses, apart from those of one smaller unit (‘one hundred’) which were retained for David’s use. Both Hadadezer and Syria then paid tribute. The result was that Toi of Hamath also peaceably yielded to him, accepting him as his Overlord on a treaty basis, and paying tribute (‘presents’). <\/p>\n

Following this there was a second major victory over some Aramaeans who were in alliance with the Edomites, on the southern borders of Judah, a victory which enhanced David’s reputation, and was followed by the subduing of the whole of Edom. The consequence was that now David could rule safely and administer justice in total security over all the land of Israel with no fear of outside interference. <\/p>\n

Analysis. <\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

And after this it came about that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them, and David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines (2Sa 8:1<\/span>). <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> And he smote Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie down on the ground, and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive. And the Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute (2Sa 8:2<\/span>). <\/p>\n

c <\/strong> David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his dominion at the River, and David took from him a thousand and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen, and David hocked all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for a hundred chariots, and when the Aramaeans (Syrians) of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David smote of the Aramaeans (Syrians) two and twenty thousand men (2Sa 8:3-5<\/span>). <\/p>\n

d <\/strong> Then David put garrisons in Aram of Damascus, and the Aramaeans (Syrians) became servants to David, and brought tribute. And YHWH gave victory to David wherever he went. And David took the shields of gold which were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much bronze (2Sa 8:6-8<\/span>). <\/p>\n

e <\/strong> And when Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, then Toi sent Joram his son to king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him, for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. <\/p>\n

d <\/strong> And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of bronze. These also did king David dedicate to YHWH, with the silver and gold that he dedicated of all the nations which he subdued, of Syria, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah. <\/p>\n

c <\/strong> And David obtained for himself a name when he returned from smiting the Aramaeans in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men (2Sa 8:13<\/span>). <\/p>\n

b <\/strong> And he put garrisons in Edom, throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David. And YHWH gave victory to David wherever he went (2Sa 8:14<\/span>). <\/p>\n

a <\/strong> And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed justice and righteousness to all his people. (2Sa 8:15<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Note that in ‘a’ David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hands of the Philistines, and in the parallel he reigned over all Israel, and executed justice and righteousness to all his people, setting up his own court. In ‘b’ he subdued the Moabites, and in the parallel he subdued the Edomites, the two nations which had barred Israel’s way to the Promised Land. In ‘c’ David smote Hadadezer and the Aramaeans who came to his aid, and in the parallel he again smote the Aramaeans. In ‘d’ the tribute and spoils which were brought to Jerusalem are described and catalogued, and in the parallel a similar catalogue of what was given to YHWH is described. Centrally in ‘e’ the king of Hamath enters into a treaty or vassal relationship with David and gives him presents, acknowledging his supremacy. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And after this it came about that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them, and David took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.’ <\/p>\n

“And after this.”<\/strong> This is simply a general phrase referring back to most of what had happened in 2 Samuel 5-6. What is described in 2 Samuel 7<\/span> was simply a flash-forward, demonstrating David’s later expression of gratitude for his house of cedar (2Sa 5:11-12<\/span>), and confirming his words to Michal about the fact that YHWH had permanently appointed him and his house in Saul’s place (2Sa 6:21<\/span>). This is evident from the fact that 2 Samuel 7<\/span> took place after he had obtained rest from all his enemies (2Sa 7:1<\/span>). We are now to learn how he obtained that rest. <\/p>\n

The first stage was to turn the tables on the Philistines. He had previously been their vassal. But their warlike manoeuvres had now justified him in himself attacking Philistia and bringing it under his own control (thus “he smote the Philistines and subdued them”). Instead of David being the vassal of Achish, he had now become his overlord. <\/p>\n

The taking of the bridle of the mother city out of the hands of the Philistines is a vivid description of his taking control of them. To take someone’s bridle meant that you had taken them prisoner and brought them under your control. You led them by the bridle. The mother city is seen in 1Ch 18:1<\/span> as referring to “Gath and her daughters”. This may suggest that Achish was the senior lord of the Philistines and thus a kind of presiding leader over the council of five, his submission being seen as the submission of them all, or it may simply be because Gath was the city to which David had been subject, whose subjection brought about that of all the others. <\/p>\n

Some translators translate “bridle of the mother” as a place name Metheg-ha-ammah, but “taking the bridle” was a recognised phrase indicating the gaining of supremacy over someone (it is known elsewhere as an Arabic idiom) and should be allowed to stand. The importance of this state of affairs should not be underestimated. After a long period of constant invasion by the Philistines the dread of them was removed from Israel. Note how in 1Ki 2:39<\/span> on Achish was apparently a subject king to Israel, and part of the Empire (compare 1Ki 4:21<\/span>; 1Ki 4:24 ; 1Ki 8:65<\/span>; 2Ch 9:26<\/span>). <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And he smote Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie down on the ground, and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive. And the Moabites became servants to David, and brought tribute.’ <\/p>\n

Anyone in the writer’s day would have known what this meant. It indicated that Moab had initially submitted to David (possibly after they had invaded the territory of Reuben while David was engaged in subduing the Philistines and had then been themselves subdued) but had then openly rebelled and had severely harassed Israel again. Therefore, as David did not want Israel to have to continually live under the threat of Moabite invasion, they received the harsh treatment meted out to those who acted as traitor and whose treaty promises proved unreliable. Their fighting strength was reduced by summary executions. This was a common practise in the warfare of the day towards those who failed in their submission (compare Deu 20:12-13<\/span>). It was the only way of containment and of ensuring that they would not be strong enough to rebel again. (Initially he may well have originally offered them special treaty status because of Moab’s earlier kindness towards him (1Sa 22:3-4<\/span>). For them to have acted against that would have been seen as especially heinous. But the act was clearly felt necessary for the purposes of containment, which does suggest that they were continually harrying Israel. It is a reminder that David was a ‘man of blood’ who would do what he considered necessary to keep Israel secure. It would act as a severe warning to others of what would happen if they too rebelled. The result was (unsurprisingly) that they became his vassals and paid tribute. Indeed, one of the main emphases of this chapter is on the amount of tribute that David received. That was the mark of a successful empire-builder, and it was all committed to YHWH. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> David smote also Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his dominion at the River.’ <\/p>\n

David also smote the local empire-builder Hadadezer, king of Zobah with his arrogance and pretensions to greatness. We should note that this is a summary description of the final result of David’s battles with Zobah and Aram (Syria), which were started by the by the Aramaeans of Zobah (2Sa 10:6<\/span>). So David was not necessarily the original aggressor. For more detail of this see chapter 10. The name of Hadad-ezer meant ‘Hadad is my help’, Hadad being an Aramaean god (their equivalent of Baal). Hadar-ezer (1Ch 18:3<\/span>) was probably a dialectic variant. In 2 Samuel 14:47 Zobah (Aram-Zobah in 2Sa 10:6<\/span>; Psa 60:2<\/span>) is mentioned alongside Ammon, Moab and Edom as a neighbouring tribe, and as this chapter indicates (2Sa 8:3<\/span>; 2Sa 8:5<\/span>; 2Sa 8:9<\/span>) it was to be found in the vicinity of Damascus and Hamath, thus to the north of Israel, and probably north-east of Damascus. It was clearly in the ascendancy at this time. The fact that Hadad-ezer went to recover his dominion at the River (Euphrates) suggests that he was a belligerent, warlike king who had himself established an empire (unless it refers to his attempt to gain the assistance of mercenaries from fellow-Aramaeans beyond the River – 2Sa 10:16<\/span>). But his interference in the Ammonite war as described in chapter 10 had inevitably made him a target for David. It may also well be the case that one of those who were being invaded by Hadadezer was Toi, the king of Hamath, and that Toi had sent an appeal to David for help. This would explain his action towards David in 2Sa 8:10<\/span>. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:4<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And David took from him a thousand and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen, and David hocked all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for a hundred chariots.’ <\/p>\n

As read by an Israelite this may have signified a large chariot unit (an eleph) of say twelve to twenty chariots, seven military units of horsemen, and twenty larger military units of footmen, with David only keeping the best of the chariot horses sufficient for a smaller chariot unit (see below). The men would be taken as bondservants, with suitably responsive ones, especially mercenaries, possibly recruited into the army, and the ‘numbers’ are mentioned in order to bring out the scale of David’s victory. <\/p>\n

The mention of chariot horses indicates that we should expect mention of a chariot unit, which suggests that we see the eleph (‘thousand, military unit’) as referring to a chariot unit. The number of horses taken (which would include more than the chariot horses – compare Isa 21:7<\/span>) were, however, too many, or too unsuitable, to be of any use and were thus rendered unserviceable as war horses by hocking them (cutting their tendons) in order to render them less active and useless for warfare, apart, that is, from sufficient to service a small chariot unit. <\/p>\n

The smaller number of horsemen (‘hundreds’) compared with footmen (‘thousand’) may simply indicate that horsemen were in smaller units, or it may suggest that on the whole more horsemen had been able to flee (compare 1Sa 30:17<\/span>). Alternately the terms may have been inter-changeable, both simply indicating military units and simply used to ring the changes (this is what the uses in Samuel and Chronicles appear to suggest). If we do not see the ‘thousand’ as referring to a large chariot unit (say, of twelve to twenty chariots) as we have suggested, the horsemen who were captured would be seen as consisting of one large unit (a ‘thousand’) and seven smaller units (seven ‘hundreds’), the hundreds as opposed to the thousand may then suggest that only one entire unit of horsemen had been captured, together with remnants from the other units (but the reference to chariots is more likely. See also below). These would compare with the twenty large military units of footmen, who, of course, had not been able to make their escape, being trapped by David’s chariots and horsemen. <\/p>\n

However, in the parallel passage 1Ch 18:4<\/span> has ‘a thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen and twenty thousand footmen’ which supports our first conjecture. The question of large ‘numbers’ is a difficult one in the Old Testament as numbers tended to be used adjectivally in order to give an impression, rather than strictly numerically, and the words used for such numbers could also indicate a particular type and level of grouping (family, military unit, etc). We must remember that most Israelites could not in fact think accurately in large numbers, being unfamiliar with them. They did not think numerically. So it may well be that the verse here in 2 Samuel is intended to indicate ‘a large unit (of chariots, indicated by the mention of chariot horses. What was seen as a large unit of chariots may well have been numerically smaller than a smaller unit of horsemen), seven smaller units composed of horsemen (their units being smaller than those of footmen), and twenty large units of footmen’, the Chronicler then using ‘seven thousand’ (rather than ‘seven hundred’) for horsemen because by his time a ‘hundred’ was less obviously a military unit, or because the terms were inter-changeable when used of military units. The Chronicler regularly uses ‘thousand’ where Samuel\/Kings uses ‘hundred’, and vice versa). If that is so it is simply a matter of what might at first sight appear to be differing numbers rather reflecting changing literary usage. Others consider that there has been a mistake on the part of the writer of Samuel in copying the numbers from the original source. The argument is that numbers were liable to be incorrectly copied because of the signs used in order to indicate them. But it may very well be that the reason is simply one of literary usage, which may seem strange to us in our numerate age but would have been fully understood then. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:5<\/strong><\/span> <\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

‘And when the Aramaeans (Syrians) of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David smote of the Aramaeans (Syrians) two and twenty thousand men.’ <\/p>\n

When the Aramaeans of Damascus (Damasheq) came hotfoot to the rescue of the Aramaeans of Zobah they too were soundly beaten, with the result that they lost twenty two military units. David’s mighty men with their accompanying troops were proving mightily effective (and it was because the Spirit of YHWH was continually with David – 1Sa 16:13<\/span>). It must be recognised that the continuing campaign against the Aramaeans is substantially abbreviated. The details, which the writer was little interested in (he was interested in David’s triumph as a result of the power of YHWH), would have been much more complicated as consideration of chapter 10, which is also an abbreviated account, reveals. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:6<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> Then David put garrisons in Aram (Syria) of Damascus, and the Aramaeans (Syrians) became servants to David, and brought tribute. And YHWH gave victory to David wherever he went.’ <\/p>\n

The result for the Aramaeans was that David put garrisons in Aram of Damascus, and the Aramaeans became vassals of David, and began to pay tribute. And we are then informed that it was not only the Aramaeans who were defeated, for David was given the victory by YHWH wherever he went. No one could stand before his attacks. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:7<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And David took the shields of gold which were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.’ <\/p>\n

Having defeated Hadadezer David then proceeded to strip his kingdom of its riches, riches which had, of course, all been gained from Hadad-ezer’s empire building. The highlight of these riches were the shields of gold borne by Hadad-ezer’s bodyguard, or by his vassal princes, courtiers and commanders. And all this booty was brought to Jerusalem to be presented before YHWH, and put in the treasury. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:8<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much bronze.’ <\/p>\n

Further booty was obtained from Hadad-ezer’s other cities, such as Betah and Berothai, although in this case of the lesser metal, bronze. 1Ch 18:8<\/span> gives different names, probably reflecting a modernising of names which had taken place over a period of time. (In fact many cities regularly had more than one name. Geographical descriptions tended to be loose). <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9-10<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And when Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, then Toi sent Joram his son to king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him, for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of bronze.’ <\/p>\n

When the news of David’s victories reached the ears of Toi, king of Hamath (who may well have previously called on David for assistance) he sent his son Joram to David to salute him (probably in homage) and to show his gratitude towards him. Certainly David’s activity had relieved the pressure on his country, for Hadad-ezer had been continually harassing Hamath and threatening Toi. Toi clearly saw a treaty of friendship with David as a better option. Thus his son brought to David a thanksgiving gift which was little short (if at all) of tribute. It consisted of silver, gold and bronze. All this silver, gold and bronze would be stored up by David to be used in the building of the Temple <\/p>\n

1 Chronicles gives the name Hadoram instead of Joram. The latter, an Israelite name, was probably a name given to him by David, replacing Hado- (for Hadad) with Yo- (for YHWH) in connection with the acceptance of his homage (or even possibly his conversion to YHWH). <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:11-12<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> These also did king David dedicate to YHWH, with the silver and gold that he dedicated of all the nations which he subdued, of Aram (Syria), and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah.’ <\/p>\n

All these gift David dedicated to YHWH, the architect of his victories, along with the silver and gold of all his other victories, including those over Aram, over Moab, over Ammon, over the Philistines, over Amalek (possibly that mentioned in 1 Samuel 30<\/span>), and especially over Zobah. He had thus gained victories in the North (Aram), the East (Moab and Ammon), the West (Philistia), and the South (Amalek). None could stand before him, and all paid tribute to him. And in most cases David had not been the initial aggressor. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And David obtained for himself a name when he returned from smiting the Aramaeans (Syrians) in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men.’ <\/p>\n

Some, however, continued to try to obtain his downfall, and the result was that David was able to make a name for himself by defeating eighteen units of combined Aramaean and Edomite strength in the Valley of Salt which was on the southern borders of Judah. The fact that he ‘made a name’ for himself by this may suggest that no tribute was obtained at this time, so that he had to be satisfied with the increase of his reputation, although it may be reflecting YHWH’s promise to give him a great name like the great kings of the earth (2Sa 7:9<\/span>). The combined purpose of the whole passage is in order to bring out how David’s name became famous, and how much wealth he obtained as a result of booty and tribute. This war would appear to have been totally defensive, although it did then result in the invasion of Edom, who had been seemingly been allied with the Aramaeans. This fact of an alliance between the two is brought out by 1Ch 18:12<\/span>, where the Chronicler mentions Edomites, clearly wanting to connect the victory with the invasion that followed (compare also Amo 1:4<\/span> for a similar connection). That the Aramaeans did exercise authority around this area comes out in Isa 17:1-4<\/span> where the defeat of Aram (Syria) also resulted in the distress of Aroer. There were two Aroers, one in Judah near its southern borders (1Sa 30:28<\/span>), and one by the River Arnon, east of the Jordan Rift Valley (Deu 2:36<\/span>; Deu 3:12<\/span>; Deu 4:48<\/span>; Jos 12:2<\/span> and often). Either way it reflected the continued involvement of Aramaeans around that general area. Thus we may well see this as a combined Aramaean\/Edomite force. <\/p>\n

An alternative is to accept the minority of Hebrew texts in 2 Samuel (and LXX) which read ‘Edom’ for ‘Aram’ (the names being differentiated in Hebrew by the tiniest of changes in one letter). But the textual evidence, such as it is, at present favours Aram. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:14<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And he put garrisons in Edom, throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David. And YHWH gave victory to David wherever he went.’ <\/p>\n

The consequence of the Aramaean\/Edomite invasion was that David retaliated by subduing Edom and setting up garrisons throughout the land, with the result that the Edomites became his vassals, and would, of course, pay tribute. But the writer is at this point more concerned with the fact that he was now making a name for himself as one of the great ones on the earth (2Sa 7:9<\/span>). And once again we are reminded that it was YHWH Who gave victory to David wherever he went (compare 2Sa 8:6<\/span>). The repetition of the phrase highlights it in the passage and gives it special emphasis. It is thus stressed that he owed both his growing wealth and his great name to YHWH. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong> And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed justice and righteousness to all his people.’ <\/p>\n

The prime aim of David’s efforts, and the great name that he had attained, had been in order that YHWH might establish a righteous state for the benefit of His people, a kind of Kingdom of God. Thus having brought rest from war, and having safely established Israel in peace and security, David now reigned over them as YHWH’s representative in justice, equity and mercy. Note how this is also to be the sign of the great everlasting king (Isa 11:1-4<\/span>). <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/strong><\/span>  And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Word Study on “Methegammah” <\/em><\/strong> PTW <\/em> says the Hebrew name “ Methegammah”<\/em> <\/em><\/strong> means, “bridle of bondage.”<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:4<\/strong><\/span>  And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:4<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “seven hundred horsemen” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The parallel passage to 2Sa 8:4<\/span> is 1Ch 18:4<\/span>. <\/p>\n

1Ch 18:4<\/span>, “And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.”<\/p>\n

There a difference in these two verses in the number of horsemen that are mentioned. 2Sa 8:4<\/span> says that there are seven hundred (700) horsemen and 1Ch 18:4<\/span> says that there are seven thousand (7,000) horsemen.<\/p>\n

A look at the difference in the Hebrew words:<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:4<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) for “seven hundred horsemen”<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:4<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) for “seven thousand horsemen”<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9<\/strong><\/span>  When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “Toi king of Hamath” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The parallel passage in 1Ch 18:9<\/span> calls this king “Tou.”<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:9<\/span>, “Now when Tou king of Hamath heard how David had smitten all the host of Hadarezer king of Zobah;”<\/p>\n

A look at the difference in the Hebrew names:<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) – Toi. (H8583<\/span>)<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:9<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) – Tou. (H8583<\/span>)<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:10<\/strong><\/span>  Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass:<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:10<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “Joram” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The parallel passage in 1Ch 18:10<\/span> calls this king by the name “Hadoram.”<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:10<\/span>, “He sent Hadoram his son to king David, to enquire of his welfare, and to congratulate him, because he had fought against Hadarezer, and smitten him; (for Hadarezer had war with Tou;) and with him all manner of vessels of gold and silver and brass.”<\/p>\n

A look at the difference in the Hebrew names:<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:10<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) – Joram. (H3141<\/span>)<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:10<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) – Hadoram. (H1913<\/span>)<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:10<\/strong><\/span> “Hadadezer” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The parallel passage in 1Ch 18:10<\/span> calls this king by the name “Hadarezer.”<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:10<\/span>, “He sent Hadoram his son to king David, to enquire of his welfare, and to congratulate him, because he had fought against Hadarezer , and smitten him; (for Hadarezer had war with Tou;) and with him all manner of vessels of gold and silver and brass.”<\/p>\n

A look at the difference in the Hebrew names:<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:10<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) – Hadadezer. (H1909<\/span>)<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:10<\/span> – Hebrew ( ) – Hadarezer. (H1928<\/span>)<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13<\/strong><\/span> And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “the Syrians” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The Hebrew name “Syrians” is “Arm” ( ) (H758<\/span>). However, we read in the parallel passage of 1Ch 18:12<\/span> that David smote the Edomites in this great battle, and not the Syrians.<\/p>\n

1Ch 18:12-13<\/span>, “Moreover Abishai the son of Zeruiah slew of the Edomites in the valley of salt eighteen thousand. And he put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became David’s servants. Thus the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.”<\/p>\n

The context of the passage in 1 Chronicles implies the Edomites were defeated, since the following verse immediately refers to them, “And he put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became David’s servants. Thus the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.” (1Ch 18:13<\/span>) The context of 2Sa 8:13<\/span> implies the Edomites as well, being followed by the same statement about garrisons in Edom, “And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David’s servants. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.” (2Sa 8:14<\/span>) Christopher Wordsworth notes that the Syrians lives north east of Palestine, while this battle was fought in the Valley of Salt, located extreme south of Judah, where Judah borders Edom. [52] In addition, Psalms 60<\/span> very likely refers to this battle, telling us that David fought with Edom, and not with Syria.<\/p>\n

[52] Christopher Wordsworth, The Holy Bible in the Authorized Version; With Notes and Introductions, <\/em> vol. 2 (London: Rivingtons, Waterloo Place), 89.<\/p>\n

Psa 60:1<\/span>, (To the chief Musician upon Shushaneduth, Michtam of David, to teach; when he strove with Aramnaharaim and with Aramzobah, when Joab returned, and smote of Edom in the valley of salt twelve thousand.) “O God, thou hast cast us off, thou hast scattered us, thou hast been displeased; O turn thyself to us again.”<\/p>\n

Many scholars consider this an orthographical error, where a scribe accidentally wrote the Hebrew word for Aram (Syria) ( ) instead of Edom ( ). These words are similar except for the letters daleth ( ) and resh ( ) being interchanged in the middle. The error obviously occurred because the two letters are very similar. Perhaps because of the tremendous reverence that the Jews gave the Hebrew Scriptures, they feared to correct the text even when it was an obvious scribal error. Any corrections of recognized errors were made in the margin or footnote of the text, while the misspelled words were retained within in the text. Thus, the Masoretic text reads, “Syria” ( ) ( BHS<\/em>). The Vulgate also reads, “Syria.”<\/p>\n

VgClem<\/em>, “Fecit quoque sibi David nomen cum reverteretur capta Syria in valle Salinarum, csis decem et octo millibus.”<\/p>\n

In contrast, the LXX<\/em> version read “Edom” ( ). William MacDonald adds that the Syriac version and some old Hebrew manuscripts read “Edom.” [53]<\/p>\n

[53] William MacDonald, The Epistle to Philemon,<\/em> in Believer’s Bible Commentary<\/em>, ed. Arthur Farstad (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System<\/em>, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on 2 Samuel 8:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Brenton<\/em>, “And David made [himself] a name: and when he returned he smote Idumea in Gebelem to [the number of] eighteen thousand.”<\/p>\n

Some modern versions also make the change to “Edom” ( NIV, RSV<\/em>).<\/p>\n

NIV<\/em>, “And David became famous after he returned from striking down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt.” (2Sa 8:13<\/span>)<\/p>\n

RSV<\/em>, “And David won a name for himself. When he returned, he slew eighteen thousand E’domites in the Valley of Salt.”<\/p>\n

However, many scholars resolve this issue by suggesting that Edom was in conferate with Syria, so that the text should remain the same, being accurate.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong> Victories over Various Nations<\/p>\n

v. 1. And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued them,<\/strong> brought them completely into his power. And David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines,<\/strong> literally, “the bridle of the mother,” of the chief city, the figurative saying being understood of the complete yielding to the control of another. <\/p>\n

v. 2. And he smote Moab,<\/strong> east and southeast of the Dead Sea, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. <\/strong> It was a very severe punishment which was here meted out to the Moabites, since their soldiers were compelled to lie down on the ground, two thirds of them being measured for death and one-third for life. And so the Moabites,<\/strong> with only a third of their warriors remaining, became David’s servants and brought gifts,<\/strong> that is, paid tribute-money. <\/p>\n

v. 3. David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah,<\/strong> a district of Syria, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates;<\/strong> for Saul had already successfully fought against this nation, 1Sa 14:47<\/span>. When Hadadezer attempted to recover his shattered power on the Euphrates, David completed the work begun by Saul and brought the entire territory into subjection to him. <\/p>\n

v. 4. And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horsemen<\/strong> (some read seven thousand, 1Ch 18:4<\/span>) and twenty thousand footmen. And David houghed all the chariot horses,<\/strong> by cutting the sinews of their hind feet, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots,<\/strong> probably to display them in a triumphal procession or for the use of his guard. <\/p>\n

v. 5. And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succor Hadadezer, king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians,<\/strong> or, Arameans, two and twenty thousand men. <\/p>\n

v. 6. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus,<\/strong> in the country of the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus, a city still situated in its ancient location on the Pharpar River and on the great caravan route between Central Asia and the Mediterranean: and the Syrians became servants to David,<\/strong> tributary to Israel, and brought gifts. And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went;<\/strong> his success was due entirely to the blessing of Jehovah. <\/p>\n

v. 7. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer,<\/strong> for the officers of this king could afford such costly weapons, and brought them to Jerusalem,<\/strong> as a part of the rich booty made in this war. <\/p>\n

v. 8. And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, King David took exceeding much brass,<\/strong> for it seems that there were very productive copper-mines in this part of Syria. Note: If a believer undertakes his work in the fear of God and to His glory, the Lord will grant His blessing according to His promise. <\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

David smote the Philistines.<\/strong> In the previous chapter we have seen that the empire of David not only marked an era in the development of Israel nationally, but was also the reaching of a new stage in the preparation for the advent of the Messiah; and we saw that without this the development of prophecy would have been impossible, and the people have remained unfit for the high mission to which they were called as the witnesses to the unity of Cod. We have in this chapter a brief summary of the wars which raised Israel from the position of a struggling and oppressed race to the possession of widespread empire. With this narrative the first history of David ends, and in the subsequent narratives many of the events referred to here are more fully detailed, and given with additional incidents. David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines.<\/strong> Metheg-ammah means “the bridle of the mother city.” We learn from the parallel place (1Ch 18:1<\/span>) that the city of Gath is meant by this phrase. Gath was at this time the metropolis of Philistia, and had reduced the other four chief towns to a state of vassalage. Thus by taking Gath, his old city of refuge (1Sa 27:2<\/span>), David acquired also the supremacy which she had previously exercised over the whole country, and by placing a strong garrison there, as previously the Philistines had done in the towns of Israel, he kept that martial race in awe. It denotes great progress in the arts of war that David could besiege and capture a town so strong as Gath.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

He smote Moab.<\/strong> In the previous history we find David and Moab on such friendly terms that he entrusted his father and mother into their king’s keeping (1Sa 22:3<\/span>, 1Sa 22:4<\/span>). Now he not only subjugates them, but puts two-thirds or, according to the ancient versions, half of the captured combatants to death. Compared with the custom of the Romans, and with the attempt to destroy all the males in Edom, this was mild treatment; for we find Caesar in his Gallic wars putting all his prisoners to death, and using for their execution the mere phrase, “he counted them in the number of enemies,” as if the killing of enemies was a matter of course. The customs of the Israelites in war were not so cruel, and this treatment of the Moabites seems to be mentioned as showing that they received exceptionally severe treatment. The justification of this is found by Jewish commentators, on the authority of the Midrash, in the supposed fact that the King of Moab had put David’s father and mother to death. But as Philippson adds, even so it was an instance of the extreme barbarity of ancient warfare. Casting them down to the ground;<\/strong> Hebrew, making them to lie down on the ground; <\/em>and so the Revised Version. It is plain that those who were made to lie on the ground were combatants who had been made prisoners, and the Hebrew seems to mean that, while they were thus prostrate, they were measured off into three divisions, whereof two were put to the sword, and one permitted to live. All the versions, however, understand that only half were put to death, making the sense to be that he measured them with two cords, one to kill, and one full cordone, that is, of larger size, to save alive. We get no help from 1Ch 18:2<\/span>, where this treatment of the Moabites is omitted. It is probable that it was in this war that Benaiah slew “two lion-like men of Moab” (1Ch 11:22<\/span>), who were its champions and perhaps members of the royal house. They brought gifts<\/strong> means that they paid an annual tribute; but the phrase shows that, though now they were David’s servants,<\/strong> that is, subjects, <\/em>yet that they were left in possession of their independence, and that their internal affairs were managed by native authorities.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Hadadezer<\/strong>. The name is spelt Hadarezer in 2Sa 10:16<\/span> and in 1Ch 18:3<\/span>, and such is the reading of the versions here and of many Hebrew manuscripts. The other reading has been defended on the ground that Hadad is the name of the Syrian sun-god, but the cuneiform inscriptions show that his real name was Hadar. The King of Syria, mentioned in 1Ki 20:1<\/span>, is called in Assyrian Ben-Hidri. Zobah<\/strong>. Ewald identifies Zobah with the “Sabo” mentioned by Ptolemy. This is uncertain, but evidently Zobah lay northeast of Damascus and south of Hamath, in the region between the rivers Orontes and Euphrates. In 1Sa 14:47<\/span> it appears as a powerless country governed by a multitude of petty kings; but evidently now Hadarezer had made himself supreme, and become a powerful monarch whose authority extended even across the river into Mesopotamia (2Sa 10:16<\/span>). Having crushed his rivals at home, he had next endeavoured to extend his dominion abroad. As he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.<\/strong> The word “Euphrates” is inserted in the Authorized Version, because the margin says, “Euphrates read but not written.” In the Revised Version it is omitted, because the unauthoritative nature of these directions to read something not in the text has been demonstrated. Technically these readings are called K’ri<\/em>, and the written text K’tib.<\/em> In 1Ch 18:3<\/span> the reading is, “as he went to stablish his dominion by the river”a change which involves the alteration of only one letter, as the word rendered here “his border,” and in 1Ch 18:3<\/span> “his dominion,” is the same, signifying literally, “his hand.” For this reason the Revised Version renders it correctly in both places “his dominion.” Now, David never had possessed up to this time any dominion upon the Euphrates, but in the fuller narrative in 1Ch 10:1-14<\/span>. we learn that these Syrians of Zobah had sent powerful reinforcements to the Ammonites in their war with David; and he might reasonably, therefore, determine to follow up his victory over. them by extending his power up to the river, so as to guard the fords, and prevent all future invasions. And this Hadarezer would resent. As an able and enterprising man, he had succeeded in making Zobah a powerful realm, and was not likely to submit to having a bridle put upon his adventurous spirit by the posting of an Israelitish garrison on the borders. We learn from 2Sa 10:19<\/span> that David’s object was to prevent aid coming to Ammon from Zobah, and that he succeeded in putting a barrier in Hadarezer’s way. We can scarcely doubt, therefore, that the reading in the Chronicles is to be preferred. In 1Sa 14:47<\/span> we read that Saul had waged war with Zobah, and as David had probably served in it, he would have thereby acquired both a knowledge of the country, very useful in this present more serious expedition, and also have learned the necessity of guarding his dominions against perpetual invasions from that quarter. <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:4<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen. <\/strong>The word “chariots” is inserted in the Authorized Version after “thousand,” from the parallel place in 1Ch 18:4<\/span>, where also it is said that David captured seven thousand horsemen. The numbers of the Chronicler are more in proportion to one another than those mentioned here, provided we assume that the word “chariots” ought to be supplied, which, as it is not the only difference, is uncertain. Until the Arabs invented our present system of notation, the ancient methods of representing numbers were so liable to error that little dependence can be placed upon them. The Hebrews used their letters for numerals, but after 400 their system breaks down. Any number higher than 400 can be represented only by long sums in arithmetic, or by an intricate system of points above and below, which were sure to get into confusion. David houghed all the chariot<\/strong> horses<\/strong>. There is good reason for concluding that the word used here, recheb<\/em>, is a collective, and signifies animals used either for riding or driving. What David reserved was not a hundred chariots, but a hundred riding horses, which would be useful to him for rapid communication, and could scarcely be regarded as a violation of the command in Deu 17:16<\/span>. Both the Authorized and Revised Versions are wrong, but the Authorized Version at least makes the word recheb<\/em> have the same meaning in both clauses, whereas the Revised Version makes it signify chariot horses in the first clause, and the chariots themselves in the second. The defeat by David, with infantry only, of an army provided with so powerful a force of cavalry and chariots, proves his great military skill, and their capture hears even more emphatic testimony to his generalship. In the Psalms we find horses often referred to as objects regarded with terror, and which gave a great advantage to their enemies (Psa 20:7<\/span>; Psa 33:17<\/span>; Psa 76:6<\/span>; Psa 147:10<\/span>), but over which they had triumphed by Jehovah’s aid. This method, however, of rendering them useless, though practised by Joshua (Jos 11:6<\/span>), was most cruel; as the poor things, unable to move about with the sinews of their hind legs severed, would perish of hunger.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:5<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Syrians of Damascus; <\/strong>Hebrew, Aram-Dammesek; <\/em>that is, Aram-Damascus. The inhabitants of these regions and of Mesopotamia were descended from Aram, the son of Shem (Gen 10:22<\/span>), and bore his name. Thus Zobah is called Aram-Zobah in the title of Psa 60:1-12<\/span>. As members of a kindred race, and speaking the same language, all the clans of the Aramean family would naturally combine to check the growing power of Israel.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:6<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Garrisons<\/strong>. This is the word used in 1Sa 10:5<\/span> and 1Sa 13:3<\/span>. The Arameans were left free to manage their internal affairs themselves, but they had to pay tribute (see on 1Sa 13:2<\/span>); and to prevent the assembling of troops to contest David’s authority and shake off his yoke, garrisons were stationed in such places as commanded the country. The Philistines had done the same in Israel when they were masters there.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:7<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Shields of gold.<\/strong> Probably they were plated with gold, and were borne by Hadarezer’s bodyguard. But it is very uncertain whether shields are really meant. The word in Syriac means “quivers.” Jerome evidently could not at first find out what it signified, as he in this place translates in the Vulgate “arms,” but subsequently he became better, informed. The LXX<\/strong>. renders “bracelets,” and adds that they were carried away from Jerusalem by Shishak in the days of Rehoboam. There is no contradiction in this with what is said in 1Ki 14:26<\/span>, as what Solomon made were undoubtedly shields, such being the certain meaning of the word in the Hebrew, and its rendering in all the versions. No version renders the word used here “shield.” In the parallel place (1Ch 18:7<\/span>) the Syriac and Vulgate render it “quivers,” the LXX<\/strong>. “collars,” and the Arabic “plates of gold hung on the trappings of the horses.” As they were captured from a Syrian king, they probably retained their Syriac name, and if so they were “quivers.”<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:8<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Betah Barothai<\/strong>. Of these cities nothing certain is known, and in 1Ch 18:8<\/span> the names are changed to Tibhath <\/em>and Chun. <\/em>An interesting addition is made there, inserted also by the LXX<\/strong>. in this place, that it was from this brass (that is, copper) that Solomon made the great laver, the pillars, and many other vessels for the temple service.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Toi<\/strong>, called in Chronicles Tou, King of Hamath.<\/strong> This was a famous city upon the river Orontes, afterwards called by the Greeks Epiphania, and was situated upon the northernmost boundary of Palestine. Its interest in the present day lies in its having been the capital of the Hittitesa race whose very existence was doubted a few years ago, in spite of the testimony of Holy Scripture; but whose marvellous empire has been lately proved to be historical by Egyptian records on the one side, and cuneiform inscriptions on the other. Unfortunately, inscriptions which they have themselves left behind have not yet found any one capable of deciphering them. In the twelfth century B.C. they were the paramount power from the Euphrates to the Lebanon. For many centuries they contended with the Pharaohs for the possession of Egypt, and while Rameses II<\/strong>. had to make an inglorious peace with the Kheta, as they are called, and marry the king’s daughter, Rameses III<\/strong> won a great victory over them, and saved Egypt from thraldom. In the cuneiform inscriptions we find the record of a struggle between Assyria and the Hittites, lasting for four hundred years, during which Shalmaneser made thirty campaigns against them, but they were not finally conquered until B.C. 717, during the reign of Sargon. Fuller details will be found in Dr. Wright’s ‘Empire of the Hittites,’ published by Messrs. Nisbet.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Joram<\/strong>. In 1Ch 18:10<\/span> he is called Hadoram, and this was apparently his real name, Joram being merely the substitution of the nearest Hebrew word for something foreign and therefore unintelligible. So among the descendants of the French refugees settled in England similar changes are common. Thus Pillons becomes Pillow; Chevallier, Shoveller; St. Amour, Stammers. As Hamath bordered upon Zobah, and apparently had waged unsuccessful war with the vigorous Hadarezer, Tel was grateful to David for smiting his rival, and sent this embassy of congratulation for the purpose of ensuring the conqueror’s friendship. For this end he also sent rich presents; and as a present is called in the Hebrew a blessing<\/em>, the phrase used here, to bless him, contains the idea, not only of congratulation, but of offerings. There is something admirable in this high Oriental courtesy. The material value of the gifts is left in the background. Their worth lies in their being the acknowledgment of the Divine favour resting upon David, and in the prayer that that favour may continue. In Psa 18:43<\/span>, Psa 18:44<\/span> we have proof of the great pleasure which this embassy from so great a nation gave to David.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Which also King David did dedicate. <\/strong>The blessing became more blessed by this use of it, and it shows how strong were David’s feelings, that he thus gave to God’s house, not only the spoils of war, but also gifts of friendship. It was in this way that he accumulated those large stores of the precious metals enumerated in 1Ch 29:1-30<\/span>; and employed in making the sacred vessels of the temple. Their vast amount is the more remarkable because Palestine previously was almost destitute of them. Wherever the armies of Israel went, they made diligent search after everything that would serve towards the building of their sanctuary.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:12<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Of Syria;<\/strong> Hebrew, Aram. <\/em>The reading in 1Ch 18:11<\/span> is Edom<\/em>, which differs from Aram in only one letter. The two words are constantly confused in manuscripts, and “Edom” is probably right here, first, because it is coupled with Moab and Ammon, which were its neighbours; but chiefly because the spoil of Hadarezer, mentioned at the end of the verse, is the spoil of Aram. It would not be enumerated twice.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

From smiting of the Syrians;<\/strong> Hebrew, of Aram. <\/em>Here “Edom” is certainly right (see 1Ch 18:12<\/span>), unless we accept Keil’s conjecture, and suppose that “he smote Edom” has dropped out of the text, and must be inserted. In the superscription of Psalm we find the wars with Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia) and Aram-Zobah coupled with this smiting of Edom in the valley of salt, which lay to the south of the Dead Sea, and was a fatal place to the Edomitos in their war subsequently with Amaziah (2Ki 14:7<\/span>). Such a double victory over the Arameans first, and immediately afterwards over Edom, would account for the “name,” that is, the reputation, which David gained. The course of events seems to have been as follows. The Edomites, believing that David was engaged in a struggle beyond his powers with the Syrians, took the opportunity to invade Israel. But the campaign in Aram was quickly decided, and David was able to send Abishai with a detachment of his forces to repel the Edomites. On hearing of his approach, they retired before him, and, making a stand in their own territories, were defeated in the valley of salt, with the loss of eighteen thousand men (1Ch 18:12<\/span>). In this place the victory is ascribed to David, because it was won by his general acting under his orders. For some unexplained reason, the feelings of the Israelites against Edom were very vindictive, and Joab followed with larger forces, and not only slew twelve thousand in a second battle (Psa 60:1-12<\/span>, title), but remained six months in the country, ruthlessly putting every male to death (1Ki 11:15<\/span>, 1Ki 11:16<\/span>). From this time the Edomites and Israelites were implacable foes, and in later Jewish literature the Jews gave vent to their intense hatred of the Roman empire by giving it the name of Edom.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:14<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Throughout all Edom put he garrisons.<\/strong> In a country naturally so strong as Edom, and with neighbouring states ready to give shelter to their fugitives, Joab’s attempt would cause great misery, but only a moderate loss of life. And as soon as he withdrew, the exiles would return to their old homes. To keep them, therefore, in entire subjection, the country was. held by strong garrisons, and the Edomites became David’s servants, being apparently deprived for the present of any form of independent government. We have, then, in this chapter, a brief summary of David’s wars, whereby he established his supremacy ever the extensive region from Hamath on the north to the salt plains on the south of the Dead Sea, and from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

David executed judgment and justice. <\/strong>There was very little real truth in Absalom’s fault finding with the administration of justice (2Sa 15:3<\/span>, 2Sa 15:4<\/span>), unless we supposewhat is only too probablethat David, after his terrible crimes of murder and adultery, became lax in the discharge of his judicial duties. Here, at this period of his life, he was a zealous judge at home, as well as a brave and skilful general. He was one of those many sided characters who are great in a multitude of ways. Like Julius Caesar and our own Alfred, he was as distinguished in the arts of peace as in those of war. And thus, while his first care was for the establishment of religion, and while even the singing in the sanctuary was not beneath his notice, he also, even in the midst of dangerous wars, gave careful attention to the orderly government of his kingdom and the maintenance of right and law. We have already seen with what consummate skill he selected a capital immediately that he was made king of all Israel. Saul had done much in war. Though finally defeated at Gilboa, he had taught the Israelites their strength, and laid the foundations of David’s empire; but he had done nothing to consolidate the tribes, or provide tribunals for the settlement of disputed legal rights or the punishment of crimes. Israel was as loose an aggregate of discordant atoms at his death as it was at his appointment; and the maintenance of order was left to the caprice of local sheiks. Samuel had done far more for the internal development and consolidation of the people than Saul; but it was David who made them into a nation. The continuance of his work was frustrated by the extravagance of Solomon, the folly of Rehoboam, and the ambition of the restless tribe of Ephraim; but the two parts into which his realm was broken at least held together, and there never again was danger of such anarchy and threatened disintegration as existed in the times of the judges.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:16<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Joab was over the host. <\/strong>Twice in this book we have lists of David’s chief officershere and at the end of 2Sa 20:1-26<\/span>. The present lint belongs to the period of David’s greatest prosperity, when all went well with him in peace and war, and when Jehovah had elevated him to the unique rank of Messianic kinga distinction which belonged to him personally, and was inherited by none of his successors. Between it and the second list there lies a tragic tale of sin and shame, of crime and merited punishment, of the realm rising in rebellion against the adulterous king, and of his own family breaking away from the bends of godly discipline, and giving way to licentiousness, to bloodshed, and to parricidal ambition. But probably David’s character had then gained in spirituality and singleness of heart; whereas now prosperity must already have begun its work of sapping the foundations of his moral nature. Joab, who had been stripped of his command for the murder of Abner, had regained it by his bravery at the capture of Jerusalem. We have seen also that David entrusted to him the building of Jerusalem, and apparently he was prime minister in all matters except probably the king’s judicial functions. Jehoshaphat was recorder; <\/strong>literally, remembrancer. <\/em>It was his office to reduce the king’s decrees to writing, and also to see that they were carried into execution. Probably after they had been committed to writing, they were laid before the king for his approval, and, when confirmed by his hand or seal, were entered in the book of remembrance.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:17<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Zadok and Ahimelech were the priests.<\/strong> We have already seen that this was contrary to the letter of the Mosaic Law, and yet that there was no schism, and that by patience matters came back to the right groove. Zadok, of the elder line of Eleazar (1Ch 6:4-8<\/span>, 1Ch 6:50-53<\/span>), was high priest at Gibeon, and Ahimelech, of the junior line of Ithamar, was the high priest at Jerusalem. Instead of Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, <\/em>the Syriac transposes the names, and reads, “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech” This agrees with the list in 2Sa 20:25<\/span>, and it is certain that Abiathar outlived David (1Ki 2:26<\/span>), and that he was David’s high priest throughout his reign, though Zadok is not only constantly associated with him, but is placed first, as the man of higher rank (2Sa 15:24-35; 2Sa 17:15<\/span>; 2Sa 19:11<\/span>; 2Sa 20:25<\/span>). It is also remarkable that our Lord makes Abiathar the person who gave David the shewbread (Mar 2:26<\/span>), whereas in 1Sa 21:1-15<\/span>. he is repeatedly called Ahimelech. As both the LXX<\/strong>. and the Vulgate support the Hebrew against the Syriac, and as the reading “Ahimelech” is confirmed by 1Ch 18:16<\/span> and 1Ch 24:3<\/span>, 1Ch 24:6, 1Ch 24:31<\/span>, we must reject the emendation of the Syriac, and conclude that there was a double tradition respecting these names, some manuscripts making Abiathar the father, and others giving the seniority to Ahimelech. Our Lord made Abiathar the father, but the scribes, in their editing of the Hebrew text, gave that place to Ahimelech, yet did not carry out their restoration so thoroughly as not to leave proof that the names probably ought to be reversed. Seraiah was scribe.<\/strong> His office was similar to that of a secretary of state with us. For Seraiah <\/em>we have Shavsha <\/em>in 1Ch 18:16<\/span>, Shisha <\/em>in 1Ki 4:3<\/span>, and Sheva <\/em>in 2Sa 20:25<\/span>. This illustrates what has just been said as to the uncertainty about proper names. They are always most difficult to read, as the sense gives no aid, and these various forms of a name that does not occur elsewhere really bear witness to the high antiquity of the manuscripts uses by the scribes in settling the text of the Old Testament; and also to their self-restraint in not making them all forcibly agree.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Cherethites and the Pelethites. <\/strong>As we have already seen (1Sa 30:14<\/span>), the Cherethim were an insignificant tribe inhabiting the southern part of the country of the Philistines. Nor is that place the only proof of this fact; for they are connected with the Philistines also in Eze 25:16<\/span> and Zep 2:5<\/span>. David made their acquaintance when at Ziklag; and probably the Pelethim dwelt in the same neighbourhood, and were a still more unimportant clan or family. Much ingenuity has been expended in finding for their names a Hebrew derivation, and Gesenius explains them as meaning “cutters and runners,” though for the latter signification he has to go to the Arabic, where he finds a verb falata, <\/em>“to run away,” “flee.” But this craze of explaining the names of aboriginal tribes and their towns by Hebrew words is not only absurd in itself, but bars the way to sounder knowledge. For it is possible that, by the study of names not belonging to the Hebrew language, we might arrive at some correct ideas about the races who had previously occupied Palestine. Instead of this, the whole system of derivation is corrupted, and philology made ridiculous. What can be more ludicrous than to explain these Pelethim as “runners away,” unless it be the notion that the Rephaim took their name from the Hebrew word for “a ghost”? In his “mighties” David had a powerful bodyguard of native Israelites, and Saul previously had formed a similar force of three thousand men, not merely for the protection of his own person, but to guard the land from marauding incursions of Amalekites and other freebooting tribes. Such a body of men was of primary importance for police purposes anti the safety of the frontiers. How useful such a force would be we can well understand from the history of the marches between England and Scotland (see also note on 2Sa 3:22<\/span>); but I imagine that the Cherethites and Pelethites were used for humbler purposes. While “the mighties” guarded the frontiers, and kept the peace of the kingdom, these men would be used about the court and in Jerusalem, to execute the commands of the king and his great officers. Native Israelites would refuse such servile work, and the conquered Canaanites might become dangerous if trained and armed; while these foreigners, like the Swiss Guard in France, would be trustworthy and efficient. As for the true-born Israelites, they probably did not form the mass of the population, but, like the Franks in France, were the privileged and dominant race. We read that even from Egypt, besides their own dependents, there went up with Israel “a great mixture”. In Num 11:4<\/span> these are even contemptuously designated by a word which answers to our “omnium gatherum;” yet even they, after the conquest of Palestine, would be higher in rank than the subjugated Canaanites, from whom, together with another “mixed multitude” spoken of in Neh 13:3<\/span>, are descended the felahin of the present day. David’s armies would be drawn from the Israelites, among whom were now reckoned the mixed multitude which went up from Egypt, and which was ennobled by taking part in the conquest of Canaan. In the army “the mighties” would hold the chief place; while the mercenaries, recruited from Ziklag and its neighbourhood, which continued to be David’s private property (1Sa 27:6<\/span>), would be most useful in the discharge of all kinds of administrative duty, and would also guard the king’s person. In 2Sa 20:23<\/span> for Cherethi <\/em>we find Cheri<\/em>, which word also occurs in 2Ki 11:4<\/span>, 2Ki 11:19<\/span>. In the former passage the spelling is a mistake, the letter t<\/em> having dropped out, and it is so regarded by the Jews, who read “Cherethi.” The versions also translate there just as they do here, namely the Vulgate and LXX<\/strong>; <\/em>“Cherethi and Pelethi;” and the Syriac by two nouns of somewhat similar sound to the Hebrew, and which signify “freemen and soldiers.” In the latter place in Kings it is probable that some other tribe supplied the bodyguard in Queen Athaliah’s time. David’s sons were chief rulers; <\/strong>Hebrew and Revised Version, priests<\/em>. Similarly, in 2Ki 20:1-21 :26<\/span>, “Ira the Jairite was David’s priest,” Hebrew, cohen<\/em>; and in 1Ki 4:5<\/span>, “Zabud was Solomon’s priest.” Gesenius and others suppose that they were domestic chaplains, not ministering according to the Levitical law, but invested with a sort of sacerdotal sacredness in honour of their birth. But if we look again at 1Ki 4:5<\/span> we find “Zabud was priest, the king’s friend;” and the latter words seem to be an explanation of the title cohen<\/em>, added because the word in this sense was already becoming obsolete. <\/p>\n

In 1Ch 18:17<\/span> the language is completely changed, and we read, “and David’s sons were chief at the king’s hand.” We may feel sure that the Chronicler knew what was the meaning of the phrase in the Books of Samuel, and that he was also aware that it had gone out of use, and therefore gave instead the right sense. Evidently the word cohen had at first a wider significance, and meant a “minister and confidant.” He was the officer who stood next to his master, and knew his purpose and saw to its execution. And this was the meaning of the term when applied to the confidential minister of Jehovah, whose duty it was to execute his will according to the commands given in the Law; but when so used it gradually became too sacred for ordinary employment. Still, there is a divinity about a king, and so his confidants and the officers nearest to his person were still called cohens; and we find the phrase lingering on for another century and a half. For Jehu puts to death, not only Ahab’s great men and kinsfolk, but also “his cohens,” the men who had been his intimate friends (2Ki 10:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1-18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The historic mirror.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The narrative relates a succession of victories and conquests over the Philistines, the Moabites, the Zobahites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, the Amalekites, and the Edomites; the placing of garrisons in Syria and Edom; the voluntary recognition of David’s supremacy by the King of Hamath; the military, ecclesiastical, and civil appointments of the kingdom; the dedication of treasure won in conquest and diplomacy to the service of God; the maintenance of a righteous administration throughout Israel; and the safe keeping of David in all his undertakings. History is a record of human acts. Sacred history is a record of human acts in some special relation to the working out of the spiritual issues of the kingdom of God. In all history we see mirrored human thought and feeling. It gives us a glimpse of an invisible world of energy, that is ever seeking to find full expression for itself. In this portion of sacred history we see mirrored not only the strivings of the inner nature of men, but also outlines of truth pertaining to the invisible kingdom which is ever being extended over men. The early and lower developments in Davidic times indicate permanent truths for all Christian times.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THERE<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> GRADES<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SERVICE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> KINGDOM<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>. The conquest of these alien peoples, the rough and thorough crippling of their powers (2Sa 8:2<\/span>, 2Sa 8:4<\/span>, 2Sa 8:8<\/span>, 2Sa 8:14<\/span>), and the distribution of office among competent men (2Sa 8:16-18<\/span>), was a form of service far below, in the feelings involved, in the tone running through it, the other service rendered by David in the form of a holy, just life amidst his people, and a contribution by speech and song to the spiritual education of Israel. Yet this lower form of service was necessary, and had its proper place in the great scheme of government whereby God was preparing the world for the Prince of Peace. The actual state of mankind, and not some hypothetical state of perfection, conditioned the means by which gradually the final blessing should come. God is not responsible for the imperfect feelings with which David and others may have done certain work. He allows men in his service to apply themselves to the actual circumstances of their position according to the light they have, and then makes their general course of action subservient to the development of his own gracious purposes. The same is true now. In the Church there are higher and lower forms of service. In consequence of the imperfection of some of the workers and of their surroundings, the service draws out, not the highest feelings of which man is capable. There are rough men for rough work. Superior men may do such work, but they are not so much at ease in it as when engaged in purely spiritual efforts. It was more congenial to David to write psalms than to hough horses. The actual state of the world required both just then.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SUBJUGATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> EXTERNAL<\/strong> EVILS<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> GO<\/strong> ALONG<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> INTERNAL<\/strong> RENOVATION<\/strong>. The first aim of David was, as we have seen, to restore unity, justice, peace, and religion to Israel. He worked on the central spring of national life. But the heathen and restless foes around were an incessant trouble as long as the political and military strength of Israel under the new regime <\/em>were untested. Their subjugation was therefore the necessary complement of the internal consolidation. Taking the Davidic kingdom as representing in general features the kingdom of Christ, we see the same truth. Its settlement among men means internal change, reformation, and consolidation of all that is good; but it is bound, for its own peace and extension, to make war on all that is alien to the mind of Christ. Hence his Church is militant. He is our Captain. We are soldiers sworn to preserve our heritage and extend his domain by actual destruction of the forces of evil that lie around. The same applies to our own life viewed as a domain over which Christ rules. Internal harmony should be accompanied by an effort to overcome everything in our daily circumstances which, if not overcome, may mar our peace, and possibly gain an unhallowed influence over us.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> DEDICATION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> MATERIAL<\/strong> WEALTH<\/strong> TO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SERVICE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> IS<\/strong> AN<\/strong> EVIDENCE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GODLY<\/strong> WISDOM<\/strong>. The prohibition to apply the spoils of war to private uses (Jos 6:19<\/span>; cf. 1Sa 15:23<\/span>) was a wholesome restraint on a low class of human feelings. There was a strong temptation for David to enrich himself by conquest, and, reasoning as an ordinary man, he could have made out a good case for himself. But he was a man of God; he saw things, as it were, with the eyes of God, and therefore, apart from specific injunction for each case, acted in harmony with the mind of God. It was godly wisdom thus to devote to the service of God what had been acquired by his own strong arm; for very great wealth brings very great spiritual dangers (Mat 19:23<\/span>, Mat 19:24<\/span>). The blessed temporal condition does not lie in abundance (Pro 30:8<\/span>, Pro 30:9<\/span>; Luke 41:15). The possession of great wealth, combined with slender gifts to the cause of Christ, reveals a lack of spiritual perception and of sympathy with the heart and purpose of Christ. The devotion of wealth to Christ is the safest investment, for it brings blessings on the donor and on others through all ages. The spiritual results of material wealth, well employed, are beyond calculation. It is said of the true King in Zion, “To him shall be given of the gold of Sheba” (Psa 62:1-12 :15). He also is “worthy to receive riches” (Rev 5:12<\/span>). There are thousands of ways in which wealth may now be dedicated to God. The earnest heart will find out the right channel for its devotion. The demand for sanctuaries, labourers, and the claims of Christ’s poor, are ever before the rich (cf. Hag 1:4-6<\/span>; Mat 9:36<\/span>, Mat 9:37<\/span>; Rom 10:14<\/span>,Rom 10:15<\/span>; Mat 25:35-40<\/span>). In so far as Christians enter into the spirit of their Lord will they rejoice in consecrating wealth to him (2Co 8:9<\/span>; cf. 2Co 5:13-15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> BLESSING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> IN<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> ENDEAVOURS<\/strong> IS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRITUAL<\/strong> CONDITION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SUCCESS<\/strong>. It is said twice (2Sa 8:6<\/span>, 2Sa 8:14<\/span>) that God “preserved David whithersoever he went.” It is obvious that these various enterprises were full of danger to a man like Daviddanger to his life, his spirituality of mind, his moral conduct, his political reputation. His natural qualities of courage, thoroughness, and his laudable ambition as a monarch, might urge him on to positions of extreme peril; and the incidents of warfare are proverbially prejudicial to piety. The secret of his success lay in his being kept of God. The servant of God, doing rough, dangerous work, not for self-aggrandizement, but for God and his people, is surrounded by an unseen shield which no dart can penetrate. Here we see a truth ever being realized in private and public lifea true man of God, a man of undivided heart, setting himself to necessary but undesirable work, pressing on every day amidst dangers to life and religion, keeping the one thought of pleasing God clear before him, and ever everywhere guarded by him whom he serves. Till our work is done no “arrow that flieth by day” can touch us. It is a fact which should be much insisted on, that God does preserve his saints (Psa 37:23<\/span>, Psa 37:24<\/span>, Psa 37:28<\/span>). No outward sign was visible, yet God was with David. The absence of visible signs with us is no evidence that God is not our Shield and Helper. The chief thing for us is to see that we are his, that we do his will and not our own, and that we have a holy method in our enterprises, be they strictly spiritual or related to ordinary affairs.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GLORY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AN<\/strong> ACTIVE<\/strong> MAN<\/strong> LIES<\/strong> IN<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> BEING<\/strong> TRUE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HIS<\/strong> CALLING<\/strong>. David was a king, bound by virtue of his position to rule in equity and righteousness. A greater distinction could not have been awarded to him in that office than that conveyed in the declaration that “he executed judgment and justice unto all his people” (2Sa 8:15<\/span>). He was true to his vocation. No man can rise higher than that. The glory of a man does not lie in being or doing as others have been and done, for talents, opportunities, and occupations differ; but in performing the part to which Providence has called him thoroughly well. Every star is perfect in its own full lustre. Every man is noble when his whole nature is developed in harmony with the purpose of his Maker. “Well done, good and faithful servant,” is said of the lowliest of Christ’s servants who has been faithful in “a few things” (Mat 25:22<\/span>, Mat 25:23<\/span>). A monarch, a bishop, a pastor, a Sunday school teacher, a pious domestic servant, and a day labourer, may each be distinguished by faithfulness to the work in hand. True spiritual honour lies more in the spirit of loyalty to our divinely appointed calling than in the specific deeds transacted. Hence the moral prospects of all Christ’s servants. It is extremely important to impress this on the young, and on those who are prone to be discouraged by reason of the lowliness of their position in society and in Christian endeavour.<\/p>\n

GENERAL LESSONS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The disorganization produced in the world by the action of sin renders it inevitable that much human suffering, much collision of man against man, be endured even in the historical processes of Providence, by which the blessings of redemption are finally brought into full operation. The woes of the Moabites (2Sa 8:2<\/span>) and of others were humanly necessitated incidents in the ages, giving birth to the promised Christ; and much suffering will yet be endured ere the full triumph of good over evil is achieved (Rom 8:18-22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The most certain of the promises of God should be embraced in full confidence, and yet the most strenuous exertion on our part to bring about their fulfilment is reasonable. David’s kingdom had been assured (2Sa 7:27<\/span>). But, nevertheless, he set garrisons in defence of his heritage, and took pains to organize his administration on a judicious basis (2Sa 8:16-18<\/span>). Fatalism or presumption is irreligious as truly as is unbelief.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Resources obtained from men not religious may be used in the service of God (2Sa 8:9-11<\/span>). The deference paid by Toi to David is similar to that paid by many men destitute of vital godliness to Christians, and their gifts, though not in the most enlightened spirit, may be employed for the holiest of purposes.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. There is a prophetic truth in the turning of the golden shields and other instruments of the heathen into the peaceful uses of the sanctuary (2Sa 8:7<\/span>, 2Sa 8:9<\/span>, 2Sa 8:10<\/span>). As a fact, the weapons and splendour of kings will some day be turned into uses subservient to the reign of Christ, the Prince of Peace (Isa 2:2-5<\/span>; Isa 60:5-11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY B. DALE<\/strong><\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1-14<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

(1Ch 18:1-13<\/span>). (JERUSALEM<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

David’s wars and victories. Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The Philistines (2Sa 8:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The Moabites (2Sa 8:2<\/span>; Num 24:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(3) <\/strong>The Ammonites (2Sa 8:12<\/span>; 2Sa 10:1-19<\/span>.).<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> The Syrians of Zobah, under Hadadezer 2Sa 8:3<\/span>; 2Sa 10:15<\/span>, 2Sa 10:16<\/span>). The point here touched (2Sa 10:4<\/span>) in the struggle appears to have been after <\/em>the Ammonites had commenced hostilities, aided by Hadadezer,<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> the Syrians of Beth-Rehob,<\/p>\n

(6)<\/strong> the King of Maachah, and<\/p>\n

(7)<\/strong> the men of Tob; and bad been defeated (in a first <\/em>campaign) by Joab and Abishai at Medeba (2Sa 10:1-14<\/span>). Hadadezer now recruited his forces in Mesopotamia, and made immense preparations; but he was defeated by David, who took the field in person (in a second <\/em>campaign), at Helam; his general, Shobach, being slain (2Sa 10:15-19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(8)<\/strong> The Syrians of Damascus (2Sa 10:5<\/span>, 2Sa 10:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(9)<\/strong> Toi, King of Hamath (2Sa 10:9<\/span>, 2Sa 10:10<\/span>). “Thus the Aramean supremacy, which had in previous centuries become so formidable to the Hebrews, and even to the Ammonites, was now broken once more by the heroic arm of David” (Ewald).<\/p>\n

(10) <\/strong>The Edomites, in league with<\/p>\n

(11) <\/strong>the Amalekites (2Sa 10:12<\/span>) and others, threatening to render previous victories fruitless, overcome (in a third <\/em>campaign) by Abishai and by Joab (2Sa 10:13, 2Sa 10:14<\/span>; 1Ch 18:12<\/span>; 1Ki 11:15<\/span>; Psa 60:1-12<\/span>; inscription). “David himself came at the close of the campaign to arrange the conquered territory” (Stanley).<\/p>\n

(12) <\/strong>The siege of Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites, which still held out, by Joab (in a fourth <\/em>campaign), while the king remained at Jerusalem (2Sa 11:1<\/span>); and its capture by David (2Sa 12:26-31<\/span>; 1Ch 20:1-3<\/span>). These wars of Israel with surrounding nations were not ordinary wars (2Sa 2:24-29<\/span>). They were a special embodiment of the great conflict which was ordained from the beginning (Gen 3:15<\/span>) and of which the sacred history is a record. They involved principles and issues of vast importance; and they must be considered in the light of the peculiar position of the people of Israel, the measure of Divine revelation vouchsafed to them, and the “ruling ideas in early ages,” in order that they may be judged of correctly, and just inferences drawn from them in relation to the conduct of Christian nations. They were waged<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> POWERFUL<\/strong> ADVERSARIES<\/strong>. Numerous, varied, confederated, selfish, proud, and “delighting in war” (Psa 68:30<\/span>). The Ammonites (1Sa 11:1-15<\/span>) first attacked Israel (as the Philistines and others had previously done), assisted by the Syrians, “for reward.” “The first recorded example of mercenary warfare” (Kitto). They “succeeded in girdling the whole eastern frontier with steel.” They were idolaters, fought against Jehovah, sought to exterminate his people, and Would have been satisfied with nothing short of their entire subjugation. Never had their peril been more imminent. It was such as is described by the psalmist<\/p>\n

“Why do the nations rage,
And the people imagine a vain thing?
Kings of the earth set themselves up,
And rulers take counsel together
Against Jehovah, and against his anointed:
Let us burst their bonds asunder,
And cast away their cords from us!”<\/p>\n

(Psa 2:1-9<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> ON<\/strong> JUSTIFIABLE<\/strong> GROUNDS<\/strong>. For:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The defence of person and property, <\/em>and the preservation of the worship of Jehovah (2Sa 10:12<\/span>). The right of self-defence is a law of nature, extending to the relations of states and kingdoms, as well as of individuals. Without its exercise the destruction of Israel by their fierce and powerful enemies could have been averted only by a continuous miracle.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The punishment of evil doers<\/em>, and the execution of a Divine judgment upon the heathen and their gods. Of this David deemed himself an appointed agent, fulfilling a Divine commission, like that given to Saul concerning Amalek, and the command under which Joshua acted in the conquest of the land.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The attainment of the destination <\/em>of the chosen people to rule over the nations according to former promises and predictions. “The chief aim of the writer is to show the growth of God’s kingdom”. Psa 9:1-20<\/span>.,’ The righteous Judge of the heathen’<\/p>\n

“I will praise thee, O Jehovah, with my whole heart;
I will recount all thy wonderful works.
Arise, O Jehovah, let not mortal man he defiant;
Let the heathen be judged in thy sight.
Put them in fear, O Jehovah;
Let the heathen know that they are but mortal men!”<\/p>\n

(Psa 9:1<\/span>, Psa 9:19<\/span>, Psa 9:20<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> A DEVOUT<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong>. Faith in the immediate presence of God, reverence for his righteous laws, dependence upon his mighty arm, zeal for his universal honour; prayerfulness, confidence, thankfulness. “The whole nation was at once a nation of soldiers and a nation of priests. They were the soldiers of God, pledged to a crusadea holy war; pledged to the extermination of all idolatry and all wickedness wherever existing” (Perowne, in Psa 110:1-7<\/span>.). Psa 20:1-9<\/span>; ‘Going forth to battle’<\/p>\n

“Jehovah answer thee in the day of distress;
The Name of the God of Jacob set thee up on high.
We will shout for joy because of thy salvation,
And in the Name of our God will we raise our banners.
O Jehovah, save the king!
May he hear us in the day we call.”<\/p>\n

(Psa 20:1<\/span>, Psa 20:5<\/span>, Psa 20:9<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

In a reverse, such as may have taken place just before the overthrow of the Edomites, they turned to God in supplication, and girded themselves afresh for the conflict. Psa 60:1-12<\/span>, ‘Confidence in disaster'”the most martial of all the Psalms”partially repeated in Ps 108:7-14.<\/p>\n

“O God, thou hast east us off, thou hast broken us;
Thou hast been angry, restore us again.
Thou hast given to them that fear thee a banner,
That they may muster (around it) from before the bow,
Who will conduct me into the fortified city?
Who will bring me into Edom?
Through God shall we do valiantly;
And he will tread down our adversaries.”<\/p>\n

(Psa 60:1<\/span>, Psa 60:4<\/span>, Psa 60:9<\/span>, Psa 60:12<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> WITH<\/strong> EXTRAORDINARY<\/strong> SUCCESS<\/strong>; in which the hand of God was manifested, especially in the preservation of David “whithersoever he went” (Psa 108:6<\/span>, 14), and was recognized in the dedication to Jehovah of the spoils of war (Psa 108:7<\/span>, Psa 108:10-12<\/span>) amidst general thanksgiving and praise. One victory rapidly succeeded another until the whole region from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18<\/span>) was subdued, peace was established, and Israel occupied a position of unrivalled power and glory. “David erected, on Joab’s return (Psa 108:13<\/span>), a monument of thanksgiving for his victory; and we may imagine how brilliant was the triumphant procession in Jerusalem when we recollect the hundred war chariots with their horses which were spared when Hadarezer was conquered” (Ewald). Psa 21:1-13<\/span>; ‘Returning in triumph’<\/p>\n

“O Jehovah, in thy strength shall the king be glad,
And in thy saving help how greatly shall he exult!
Be thou exalted, O Jehovah, in thy strength;
So will we celebrate with voice and harp thy might.”<\/p>\n

(Psa 21:1<\/span>, Psa 21:13<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> WITHOUT<\/strong> DEPLORABLE<\/strong> CONSEQUENCES<\/strong>. Even when waged on justifiable grounds and from religious motives, war is associated with manifold evils. It was not the loss of life that occurred, nor the cruel severities that were practised (Psa 21:2<\/span>; 2Sa 12:31<\/span>), characteristic of the age, in the wars of David, which wrought the mischief, so much as the fierce passions, the pride, ambition, luxury, and vice they engendered, the heavy burdens they imposed, and the neglect of the humbler pursuits and more orderly virtues they involved. “The one blot upon the time is David’s lust of war, bringing men like Joab to the front, and debasing David’s own character If ever God wrote his verdict plainly upon ambition and aggressive war, he wrote it upon the wars of David. They brought the stain of two foul crimes on David himself; ruined his own domestic peace and happiness; ruined, by the possession of too-great power, the one of his sons who started so wisely and well; and ruined the kingdom, which broke asunder of its own weight”. Yet these effects. have not always been considered in later times; while the record of his successes has sometimes been regarded as affording a sanction and an incentive to the martial spirit under different circumstances and a better dispensation. “It was among the Teutonic race that the Church first manifested warlike propensities. They were emphatically men of blood. The chief difficulty of the Church was to teach them to love peace. According to a well-known story, the Gothic bishop, Ulphilas, showed his special sense of the special weakness of his Teuton converts by refraining from translating the Books of Samuel and Kings into their language, as he did the rest of the Scripture. His reason, we are told, was that they contained ‘the history of wars;’ and the nation was already very fond of war, and needed the bit rather than the spur so far as fighting was concerned”. Nevertheless, the wars and victories of David (allowed for “the hardness of men’s hearts” until “the times of reformation”)<\/p>\n

VI.<\/strong> FORESHADOWED<\/strong> NOBLER<\/strong> CONFLICTS<\/strong> AND<\/strong> TRIUMPHS<\/strong> by One greater than Davidthe Prince of Peace, and his faithful followers (1Sa 13:1-7<\/span>; 1Sa 17:47<\/span>); in which the elements of good that existed therein are retained and perfected, and those of evil set aside; “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but” spiritual (truth, righteousness, love) and “mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds” of error and unrighteousness (2Co 10:4<\/span>; Luk 9:56<\/span>; Joh 18:36<\/span>); and the effects, enduring peace, security, and happiness Isa 9:5<\/span>, Isa 9:6<\/span>). “Since the time that Jesus Christ said, ‘Put up thy sword into its scabbard,’ Christians ought not to go to war, unless it be in that most honourable warfare with the vilest enemies of the Churchthe inordinate love of money, anger, and ambition. These are our Philistines, these our Nebuchadnezzars, these our Moabites and Ammonites, with whom we ought never to make a truce; with these we must engage without intermission till, the enemy being utterly extirpated, peace may be firmly established. Unless we subdue such enemies as these, we can neither have peace with ourselves nor peace with any one else. This is the only war which tends to produce a real and lasting peace” (Erasmus).D.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

(JERUSALEM<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

Dedication of property to God.<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the custom of the time, the most valuable of the spoils of war became the property of David; and these, along with the presents brought to him, he devoted to a sacred usein preparation for the building of the temple (1Ch 18:8<\/span>). The spirit which he displayed had been shown at the erection of the tabernacle (Exo 35:29<\/span>); and it was participated in by many (1Ch 26:26-28<\/span>; 1Ch 29:5-9<\/span>). Other instances occurred at a much earlier period (Gen 14:1-24 :30<\/span>; Gen 28:22<\/span>). David’s act was:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Unselfish<\/em>. The evil of selfishness specially appears in undue attachment to earthly possessions; “which is idolatry,” and “a root of all evil.” It ofttimes increases with the increase of worldly good, “like the Indian fig tree connecting itself vitally at a hundred spots, with the soil over which it spreads.” Hence the injunction, “If riches increase,” etc 62:10). A good man receives that he may give, and feels that “it is more lessed to give than to receive.”<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Grrateful. David recognized the hand of God in his victories; and herein testified his thankfulness to his Divine Helper and Benefactor. Wealth is his gift; so is the power to acquire it (Deu 8:17<\/span>, Deu 8:18<\/span>). But how often are its possessors forgetful of this, proud, and unthankful! “All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (1Ch 29:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Faithful. <\/em>Earthly good is not an absolute gift, but a trust; it is put into our power only for a brief season; its possession involves the responsibility of its employment according to the will of the Owner; and its faithful use is conducive to the possession of “the true riches” (Luk 16:9-12<\/span>). Whilst it should be altogether employed according to his will, a due proportion of it should be set apart as sacred to the claims of the needy, the support of Diane worship, and the spread of the gospel. It would appear that every Jewish family in ancient times devoted as much as a fourth part of its income to religious and charitable purposes. But inasmuch as no definite rule is now enjoined, every man must determine the proportion for himself by earnest thought and prayer, without reference to what others may do, and with a view to giving, not as little, but as much as possible. It has been stated that more wealth has been made in England during the last fifty years than during the preceding eighteen centuries. But notwithstanding numerous examples of noble beneficence, how small a part of it comparatively has been devoted to the highest ends (Deu 16:17<\/span>; Pro 3:9<\/span>, Pro 3:10<\/span>; Luk 19:13<\/span>; 1Co 4:2; 1Co 16:1<\/span>; 2Co 8:1-24<\/span>; 2Co 9:1-15<\/span>.; 1Ti 6:17-19<\/span>)!<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Devotional. <\/em>David’s offering was religious; in it he offered himself to God; and sought to fulfil his purposes concerning the welfare of his people and the promotion of his honour and glory in the earth. This is the highest motive; and those who are actuated by it obtain an unspeakable blessing both here and hereafter (Mal 3:10<\/span>; Mat 25:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

“Largely thou givest, gracious Lord,
Largely thy gifts should be restored;
Freely thou givest, and thy word<\/p>\n

Is, ‘Freely give.’<\/p>\n

He only, who forgets to hoard,<\/p>\n

Has learnt to live.”
(Keble.)<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:14<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

God’s preserving care. <\/em>“And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went” (2Sa 8:6; 1Ch 18:6<\/span>, 1Ch 18:13<\/span>). The providence, of God (his preservation, and government of all things), which embraces the creation in general <\/em>(Psa 36:6<\/span>; Neh 9:6<\/span>) and man in particular <\/em>(Psa 8:4<\/span>, Psa 8:5<\/span>; Luk 12:7<\/span>), is exercised with special <\/em>regard to the good of those that love him (Mat 6:32<\/span>; Mat 10:29<\/span>, Mat 10:30<\/span>). This is evident from his relation and love to them (Deu 32:9<\/span>; Luk 12:32<\/span>), the promises and declarations of his Word (Psa 37:25<\/span>; Psa 121:8<\/span>), and the facts of observation and experience (Gen 45:5<\/span>; Est 6:1<\/span>). The life of David is full of illustrations thereof (1Sa 19:10<\/span>; 1Sa 23:28<\/span>). “The Lord preserveth the faithful” (Psa 31:23<\/span>)<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> IS<\/strong> LOYAL<\/strong> OBEDIENCE<\/strong> to his will, such as David exhibited.<\/p>\n

“For he will give his angels charge over thee,
To keep thee in all thy ways.”<\/p>\n

(Psa 91:11<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

i.e.<\/em> the ways of duty; not of presumption, like those which the tempter (omitting these words in his quotation) sought to induce the Son of man to pursue (Mat 4:6<\/span>). “He that walketh uprightly walketh surely” (Pro 10:9<\/span>), and “shall be saved; but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once” (Pro 28:18<\/span>). We must keep the commandments of God if we would be “kept <\/em>by the power of God.” “Who is he that wilt harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” (1Pe 3:13<\/span>; 1Pe 4:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> AMIDST<\/strong> IMMINENT<\/strong> PERIL<\/strong>, arising from attacks of numerous foes; which must often be met in the path of duty, and cannot be avoided without sin (2Sa 4:9-11<\/span>). “And, indeed, there is a great deal of reason why we should respect him that, with an untainted valour, has grown old in arms and hearing the drum heat. When every minute death seems to pass by and shun him, he is one that the supreme God cared for, and, by a particular guard, defended in the hail of death” (O. Felltham). There is a holy strife (Php 1:27<\/span>; Jud Php 1:3<\/span>; Eph 6:12<\/span>), and in it We may sometimes be exposed to as great danger as David was (2Sa 21:16<\/span>); but the eye of God sees it and his hand wards it off. “No weapon,” etc. (Isa 54:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

“O Jehovah Lord, thou Strength of my salvation,
Thou hast covered my head in the day of battle.”<\/p>\n

(Psa 140:7<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> BY<\/strong> MANIFOLD<\/strong> MEANS<\/strong>. Not without prudence and effort on the part of men; not by direct, extraordinary and miraculous interposition; but by:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The salutary influence of a devout spirit on conditions favourable to safety.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Special impressions on the minds both of the good and of the bad, conducive to the preservation of the former.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. A peculiar concurrence of circumstances having the same effect; and other ways, still more wonderful, and not less effectual (Pro 21:31<\/span>). Nothing is more mysterious to our partial comprehension of them than the methods of providence by which God accomplishes his designs. “A mighty maze! but not without a plan.”<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> BENEFICENT<\/strong> ENDS<\/strong>. Not only “the good of his chosen” (Psa 106:5<\/span>), whom he preserves; but also the good which they may effect on behalf of others, the manifestation of his great Name, the complete establishment of his kingdom. “We know that all things work together for good,” etc. (Rom 8:28<\/span>). “This is the sun in the heaven of all the promises.”D.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:15-18<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

(1Ch 18:14-17<\/span>). (JERUSALEM<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

David’s administration.<\/strong><\/p>\n

From the wars and victories of David we turn to contemplate his administration of the internal affairs of the kingdom. By his skill and energy, united with the services of many eminent men, and aided by the favour of Heaven, he raised the nation, in an incredibly short period, to a position of extraordinary power and glory. “More than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished for the tribes of Israel” (W.M. Taylor). What is here recorded (taken along with what is elsewhere stated) affords an illustration of<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> A JUST<\/strong> REIGN<\/strong>. “And David executed judgment and justice unto all the people” (1Sa 7:15-17<\/span>; 1Sa 10:24<\/span>). It was as important a part of his office to judge them as to lead them forth to battle (2Sa 15:2-4<\/span>); and, in its fulfilment, he acted:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. According to the laws of Jehovah, <\/em>the supreme King and Judge, whose servant he was.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. With proper discernment, strict equity and impartiality, <\/em>and great diligence.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. So that, either by his own decisions or those of judges appointed and superintended by him, right was done to all his subjects, <\/em>wrongs redressed, and wrong doers punished. He was a king who<\/p>\n

“In the royal palace gave
Example to the meanest of the fear
Of God and all integrity of life
And manners; who, august yet lowly; who,
Severe yet gracious; in his very heart
Detesting all oppression, all intent
Of private aggrandizement; and, the first
In every public duty, held the scales
Of justice, and, as the law which reigned in him
Commanded, gave rewards; or with the edge
Vindictive smote now light, now heavily,
According to the stature of the crime.”<\/p>\n

(Pollok, ‘The Course of Time.’) <\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> A SKILFUL<\/strong> ORGANIZATION<\/strong>, indicated by the mention of the chief officers of state, who formed the king’s council and acted as his confidential advisers, along with his sons (2Sa 8:18<\/span>), the prophets, and others (see for later enumeration, 2Sa 20:13-26<\/span>; 1Ch 27:32-34<\/span>).<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Military.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The host (1Ch 27:1-15<\/span>), or national militia (under Joab), consisting of all the males capable of bearing arms, and arranged in twelve bodies of twenty-four thousand each, whose turn of service came every month.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The bodyguard (under Benaiah), Krethi and Plethi (lictors and couriers; Cretans or Carians, and Philistines), “formed at Ziklag, and afterwards recruited from foreigners (2Sa 15:18<\/span>; 2Sa 20:23<\/span>), having their quarters in Jerusalem, not far from the royal castle” (Ewald).<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The heroes (Gibborim), mighty men or veterans (under Abishai); the old guard, who had gathered to David in his wanderings, constituting “the first standing army of which we have any special knowledge,” the number six hundred being maintained, “divided into three large bands of two hundred each, and small bands of twenty each; the small bands commanded by thirty officers, one for each band, who together formed ‘the thirty,’ and the three large bands by three officers, who together formed ‘the three'” (Stanley).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Civil; <\/em>pertaining to the registering and publication of the royal edicts, the regulation of judicial, financial, and other matters, the management of the royal demesnes, etc. (1Ch 27:25-31<\/span>), from which the revenue was largely derived. “Each tribe had still its prince <\/em>or ruler, and continued under a general superintendence from the king to conduct its local affairs (1Ch 27:16-22<\/span>). The supreme council of the nation continued to assemble on occasions of great national importance; and, though its influence could not have been so great as it was before the institution of royalty, it remained an integral part of the constitution. Without superseding the tribal governments, David greatly strengthened them by a systematic distribution through the country of a large number of Levites (six thousand) as officers and judges (1Ch 26:20 -33). It is extremely probable that this large and able body of Levites were not limited to strictly judicial duties, but that they performed important functions also in the education, the healing, and the general elevation of the people” (Blaikie).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Ecclesiastical; <\/em>the Levites (1Ch 23:1-32<\/span>.); the priests, in twenty-four classes, and their attendants (1Ch 24:1-31<\/span>.); the choristers, in twenty-four courses (1Ch 25:1-31<\/span>.); the porters and officers (1Ch 26:1-32<\/span>.). “Order is Heaven’s first law.” It is an essential condition of peace, safety, and power. “The solemn transfer of the ark of the covenant, at which almost all the people were present, had made a deep impression on their minds, and had awakened them to a sincere adoration of Jehovah. These favourable dispositions David wished to strengthen by suitable regulations in the service of the priests and Levites, especially by the instructive and animating psalms, which were composed partly by himself, and partly by other poets and prophets. By such instructive means, David, without using any coercive measures, brought the whole nation to forget their idols, and to worship Jehovah alone” (Jahn, ‘Heb. Com.’).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> AN<\/strong> ABLE<\/strong> EXECUTIVE<\/strong>. The best organization avails little unless there be men of ability to carry it into practical effect. David’s reign was singularly rich in such men.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Warriors <\/em>like Joab, Abishai, Benaiah, and other “heroes who had vied with him in valour and self-sacrifice for the community of Israel and the religion of Jehovah,” and “whose names lived on, linked forever with his memory” (2Sa 23:8-39<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Ministers <\/em>like Jehoshaphat, Sheva, Adoram, Ira the Jairite; counsellors like Ahithophel and Hushai.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Priests <\/em>like Zadok and Abiathar; “masters of the song” like Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun; prophets like Nathan and Gad. “All is now in full movement and almost in its original life, while around the chief hero a crowd of other figures are woven into the mighty drama, and even these are illumined by the bright rays of his sun; nay, even what would be insignificant elsewhere acquires importance here from the conspicuous eminence of Israel’s greatest king” (Ewald). A wise ruler discerns the ablest men, attaches them to him, and profits by their wisdom, appoints them to offices in which they can most effectually promote the common good, and upholds and encourages them in their faithful endeavours to that end. It has been said that “a ruler who appoints any man to an office when there is in his dominions another man better qualified for it, sins against God and against the state” (Koran).<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> A MIGHTY<\/strong> NATION<\/strong>; united, prosperous, powerful, imbued with lofty principles and aims, “as an eagle muing her mighty youth and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam” (Milton). To this many influences contributed, one of which was a just, wise, and strong administration (Psa 72:1-20<\/span>.). “David’s own moral exaltation, and still more the spirit of fearless justice in which he ruled, had its effect on the nation at large. The theocracy became real to them in a sense in which it had never been before. They saw that an organized system, which was based upon religion and built up of justice, was more truly the embodiment of the Divine government than the fitful inspiration of the judges. Thus they won the might that comes from right: they felt that a war in defence of this new organization was most truly a holy war, and that if David was at the head of it, he was not only the king but the high priest of the people. Animated by this feeling, they forgot all the old ‘divisions and searchings of heart,’ and flocked around the standard of their king in such numbers and with such a spirit that they crushed the greatest coalition that ever threatened to destroy their religion and their nation” (‘The Psalms chronologically arranged’). “The enlargement of territory, the amplification of power and state, leads to a corresponding enlargement of ideas, of imagery, of sympathies; and thus (humanly speaking) the magnificent forebodings of a wider dispensation in the prophetic writings first became possible through the court and empire of David” (Stanley).D.<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY G. WOOD<\/strong><\/p>\n

2Sa 8:6<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Divine preservation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Revised Version translates, “The Lord gave victory to David;” but in the margin, “saved David,” which is equivalent to the translation in the Authorized Version, and is the more literal meaning of the original, from which there is no necessity to depart. In the Psalms, in which David praises God for his help against his enemies, he speaks as much of the protection he experienced as of the victories he won. His preservation in so many perils of war was worthy of special mention. The record is one that might be made in an account of the lives of most of us; in some respects, of all.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PRESERVATION<\/strong> EXPERIENCED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Physical. <\/em>That of bodily life and health and of the senses. Protection in perils by land or water. Preservation from serious illnesses, or deliverance from them. The uniformity of good health and wholeness of limbs is a greater blessing than restoration from sickness or repair of fractures, although it does not usually excite so much notice or call forth so much gratitude.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Mental. <\/em>That of the soundness of the mind, of perception, memory, reason. It might be salutary for each of us to pay one visit to a lunatic asylum. Such impressions of the value of our reason may be obtained there as can be obtained nowhere else.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Moral and spiritual. <\/em>That of faith and a good conscience, of principles and habits of religion and virtue. Protection from specially powerful temptations which, yielded to, would have been our ruin.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Of reputation. <\/em>From slander or misunderstanding. A good name is conducive, not only to our comfort, but to our success in life, and to our usefulness. To some, owing to peculiar circumstances, its continuance is marvellous.<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. Prolonged. <\/em>In many cases for very many years, in which dangers numerous, various, repeated, and imminent, have been met with. The greater the perils and the longer the period, so much the more noteworthy the preservation.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> TO<\/strong> WHOM<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> ASCRIBED<\/strong>. “The Lord.” David owed much to faithful friends and brave soldiers, who regarded his life as their special care, and defended it at the peril of their own (see 2Sa 21:15-17<\/span>); but the historian ascribes all to God; and David, when he reviews his life, or any part of it, does the same. In like manner, as we look back, we may remember many who have in various ways ministered to our preservation, and towards whom we rightly cherish gratitude; but these, and all else that has contributed to our well being, we rightly ascribe to God.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> EMOTIONS<\/strong> IT<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> AWAKEN<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Gratitude. <\/em>Expressed in praise and renewed self-dedication.<\/p>\n

My life, which thou hast made thy care,<\/p>\n

Lord, I devote to thee.”<\/p>\n

Also in zealous endeavours to preserve others from evil, especially the young and inexperienced (see Psa 116:1-19<\/span>; Psa 117:1-2<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Confidence and hope<\/em>. As to future physical and mental preservation, so far as seems good to the infinite wisdom and goodness; but especially as to the moral and spiritual.<\/p>\n

“We’ll praise him for all that is past,
And trust him for all that’s to come.”<\/p>\n

G.W.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:11<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Dedication of treasure to God.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The dedication in this instance doubtless consisted in placing the spoils of war and other valuables named in the sacred treasury, whether for present use, or, as is probable, with a view to their employment in the erection or services of the future temple. The king presents in this act of piety an example which all should follow.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> WE<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> DEDICATE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Ourselves. <\/em>We must begin with this. All true godliness does begin with the surrender of self, with all its powers of soul and body, to God, to be saved and sanctified by him, and devoted to his service. No other gift can be truly presented while this is withheld; none can be a substitute for it; none acceptable without it. True offerings to God are the offerings of his true servants.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Our material treasures. <\/em>Gold and silver, houses and lands. All are to be dedicated to God. What we have inherited, what we have gained by industry and enterprise, and what may have been given to us, as the vessels of gold and silver and brass which the King of Hamath sent to David. But if we have gained aught by fraud, injustice or other iniquity, we may not present this to God, but return it to its rightful owners (see Luk 19:8<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Our mental gifts and acquisitions. <\/em>Spoils won from the heathen, it may be, by victorious study. All our abilities and culture; all our knowledge.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Our spiritual acquirements. <\/em>All we have of spiritual life and power; all the grace given to us. These are bestowed, not to be merely enjoyed, but used for God and the good of our brethren.<\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. Our influence. <\/em>Whether obtained through our abilities, or wealth, or station, or character, all is to be exercised for God. In a word, whatever we are, and whatever we have, are to be devoted to God. Nothing can be rightly withheld.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> IN<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> MANNER<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. In our ordinary life. <\/em>By employing our powers and possessions according to God’s will, in uprightness and kindness. By enjoying God’s gifts with thankfulness and temperance. By “setting the Lord always before us,” and doing and enjoying all as his children and servants. Thus the whole of life becomes religion, and common actions are as acceptable to God as prayers. “HOLINESS<\/strong> UNTO<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LORD<\/strong>” is written upon everything (see Zec 14:20<\/span>, Zec 14:21<\/span>). But no greater mistake can be made than to think that, in giving a portion of our substance and time to religion, we are set free to use the rest as we please.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. By devoting a due portion of our powers and possessions to religious and charitable uses. <\/em>First, to the support of the worship of God in the congregation to which we belong; then to the relief of the poor with whom we are personally acquainted, and the education of the young in our own locality; and then to such religious and charitable institutions as commend themselves to oar judgment, and appear to have a just claim upon our liberality. What proportion of our income should be given away must be left to each person’s conscience as in the sight of God. Only we must let conscience decide, not mere inclination. Certainly we ought not to give what belongs to creditors, or the reasonable wants of our families. Our aim should be to ascertain the will of God; and this will vary according to the various circumstances of individuals, and of the same individual at different times. “As he may prosper” (1Co 16:2<\/span>, Revised Version) is the general rule; and any special increase of prosperity (as with David at the time spoken of in the text) justly calls for special liberality. In general, our danger does not lie in the direction of excessive generosity. Few give away as much as they ought, on any just interpretation of our Lord’s precepts. “The liberal,” who “deviseth liberal things” (Isa 32:8<\/span>), is an exceptional person, although there are, thank God, many such.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> MOTIVES<\/strong> TO<\/strong> SUCH<\/strong> DEDICATION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The<\/em> claims of God. <\/em>As our Proprietor and the Proprietor of all we possess; by right of creation and redemption. “Ye are not your own” (1Co 6:19<\/span>). “All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (1Ch 29:14<\/span>). As our liberal Benefactor, who gave us his Son, and is ever bestowing good upon us (2Co 9:15<\/span>). As our supreme Ruler, who by innumerable commandments enjoins upon us devotement to his service and kindness to our brethren, and to whom we must give account of our use of what he has entrusted to us. As our Father, who desires that we should resemble him, and thus at once prove our sonship and do honour to his Name (Eph 5:1<\/span>, Eph 5:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The love of Jesus Christ to us, and the example he has given us. <\/em>(2Co 5:14<\/span>, 2Co 5:15<\/span>; 2Co 8:9<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Our professions of self-devotement.<\/em><\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. The good of others.<\/em><\/p>\n

5<\/strong>. Our own good.. <\/em>A life of self-dedication is the true, the noblest, the happiest life. We grow in all that is good by the practice of good. Our being is enriched, our happiness increased. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Act 20:35<\/span>). We have now the testimony of a good conscience, which is the witness of God’s approval. We shall hereafter be acknowledged and rewarded by him. In devoting ourselves and our substance to him, we are laying up treasures in heaven (Mat 6:20<\/span>), which will reappear transfigured, for our everlasting enrichment. Good done to others as unto the Lord will be reckoned and rewarded as done to himself; good withheld from them, as withheld from him (Mat 25:34-45<\/span>). Faithful service now will issue in larger and higher service hereafter Luk 19:17<\/span>, Luk 19:19<\/span>). Those to whom we have ministered on earth will welcome us into heaven (Luk 16:9<\/span>), and our eternal glory and joy will be increased by knowing how much we have contributed to theirs (1Th 2:19<\/span>).G.W.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Getting a name.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“David gat him a name,” There appears to have been something special in the campaign against the Syrians (or rather Edomites, 1Ch 18:12<\/span>), and in David’s part therein, which rendered his victory peculiarly signal and memorable. Hence he obtained an honourable “name;” his reputation and fame were greatly increased. A large proportion of the names that men have won have been gained in war. But others more honourable have been obtained by the arts and victories of peace. Most to be valued are those acquired by eminence in goodness and usefulness.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> NAMES<\/strong> WORTH<\/strong> GETTING<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. A good namea reputation for what is good. <\/em>Better than a merely great name. Some names, widely known and for centuries, are so much infamy. Better be totally unknown than have a name for ill doing. All may have some reputation, though in a small circle and for a brief period, for sincere piety and Christian excellence; for unselfishness, benevolence, activity in doing good, liberality, self-denial in helping others, meekness, humility, long suffering, patience, and the like. And such a name is more to be desired than riches (Pro 22:1<\/span>), infinitely more than a great name which has been obtained by unscrupulous ambition.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. A<\/em> good name which arises from and represents reality. <\/em>A mere name conferred through ignorance or flattery, or assumed and pushed into notice to gratify vanity or secure gain, is utterly worthless, and worse than worthless. So it is with a mere name for wisdom, or learning, or liberality (Isa 32:5<\/span>), or public spirit, or philanthropy; worst of all the name which a hypocrite sometimes gets for sanctity. How withering the reproach addressed to the Church at Sardis, “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead” (Rev 3:1<\/span>)!<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> VALUE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> A GOOD<\/strong> NAME<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. It is a just source of satisfaction to ourselves, <\/em>when our own consciousness testifies to its substantial truth. The good opinion of others, especially of the good and discerning, is part of the reward of goodness. It is one of the ways by which God expresses his favourable judgment of us.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. It sustains and stimulates in the course of conduct from which it has arisen. <\/em>We are influenced by it to strive more and more to be worthy of it.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. It is adapted to do good to others. <\/em>It attracts attention to the excellence it designates, and may lead to imitation. It awakens confidence in those who have won it, which gives force to their instructions or admonitions, and it gives them in other ways greater influence for good. On all these accounts it is a heinous sin to injure or destroy another’s deserved good name by slander.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> HOW<\/strong> IT<\/strong> SHOULD<\/strong> BE<\/strong> SOUGHT<\/strong>. It should scarcely be sought at all. The way to obtain it is, not to seek it, but to practise the virtues from which it arises. To seek it is to set our hearts on the approval of men, which is perilous. Let us labour to be accepted of God, and he will take care of our reputation among men, so far as it is good for us and adapted to honour him and benefit our fellow men. “It is a very small thing to be judged of man’s judgment He that judgeth us is the Lord” (1Co 4:3<\/span>, 1Co 4:4<\/span>). At the same time, for the reasons given under division II<\/strong>; we should not needlessly defy or sacrifice the good opinion of others, though we should willingly do so when fidelity to truth and God requires the sacrifice.<\/p>\n

In conclusion. The grandest instance of getting a name is that of our Lord and Saviour. By his self-humiliation and self-sacrifice, in love to us and obedience “unto death, even the death of the cross,” he obtained “a Name which is above every name,” as well in its significance as in its power with God and men (Php 2:5-11<\/span>).G.W.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Metheg-ammah<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Some learned men think this should be translated, Metheg, and her mother; i.e.<\/em> the daughter and the mother city; Metheg, and Gath her metropolis: though others choose to translate these words, the bridle of the angle, <\/em>apprehending that Gath was so called, on account of its being a garrison which kept all the contiguous country of Judea in awe. This is certain, that it was the metropolis of one of the five Philistine principalities, the seat of their kings, and the mother of giants. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

III. The splendid development of Davids royal rule without and within<\/em><\/p>\n

2 Samuel 8-10<\/p>\n

1. Without by wars and victories over Israels external enemies. 2Sa 8:1-14<\/span><\/p>\n

1And after this it came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued [humbled] them; and David took Metheg-Ammah1<\/span> out of the hand of the Philistines.<\/p>\n

2And he smote Moab and measured them with a line, casting them down to [making them lie down on] the ground; even with two lines measured he [and he measured two lines] to put to death and with [om.<\/em> with] one2<\/span> full line to keep alive. And so<\/em> [om.<\/em> so] the Moabites became Davids servants and brought [bringing] gifts.<\/p>\n

3David smote also [And David smote] Hadadezer3<\/span> the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at [to make an attack at4<\/span>] the river Euphrates.5<\/span> 4And David took from him a thousand chariots<\/em>6<\/span> and seven hundred horsemen and twenty thousand footmen; and David houghed all the chariot horses<\/em>, but reserved of them for<\/em> an hundred chariots.<\/p>\n

5And when the Syrians7<\/span> of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, 6David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men. Then [And] David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus, and the Syrians became servants to David and brought [bringing] gifts. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went. 7And David took the shields8<\/span> of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. 8And from Betah9<\/span> and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass [copper].<\/p>\n

9When [And] Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of 10Hadadezer, Then [And] Toi sent Joram10<\/span> his son unto king David, to salute him and to bless [congratulate] him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and smitten him; for Hadadezer had wars with Toi; and Joram<\/em> brought with him [and in his hand were] vessels of silver and vessels of gold and vessels of brass [copper]. 11Which [These] also king David did dedicate unto the Lord [Jehovah] with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all [ins.<\/em> the] nations which he subdued, 12Of Syria11<\/span> and of Moab and of the children of Ammon and of the Philistines and of Amalek and of the spoil of Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah.<\/p>\n

13And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of [om.<\/em> of] the Syrians12<\/span> in the valley of salt, being<\/em> [om.<\/em> being] eighteen thousand men<\/em>. 14And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of [om.<\/em> they of] Edom became Davids servants. And the Lord [Jehovah] preserved David whithersoever he went.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

A general survey<\/em> is here given of Davids wars<\/em> and victories<\/em> with the aid of the Lord (2Sa 8:6<\/span>; 2Sa 8:14<\/span>), without its being indicated, however (as is above observed), by the word after this that the wars here detailed were chronologically attached to the events of chap 7, or that these wars were chronologically related to one another as the sequence of mention might seem to show. The phrase after this is the general formula of transition and connection, which introduces Davids wars grouped according to the factual point of view, and works them into the broad frame of the theocratic history. See a similar loose, not strictly chronological connection by this formula in 2Sa 10:1<\/span>; 2Sa 13:1<\/span>. The parallel section in 1 Chron. is chap. 18.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/span>. The subjection of the Philistines<\/em>. David not only defeated them in a battle<\/em>, but also subjected them to his authority<\/em>. He took out of their hand the bridle of the mother13<\/span> ( metheg ha ammah<\/em>). The Chronicler has for this Gath and her daughters, which words are to be accepted in explanation of our expression instead of giving place to vague conjectures. Ammah<\/em> (, feminine formation from ) = mother-city; so the capital city of a country is often called in Arabic and Phnician, comp. Gesen. Thesaurus<\/em>, p. 112, and our word metropolis; and the cities dependent on the capital city are called daughters, comp. Jos 15:45<\/span>; Jos 15:47<\/span>. Among the five chief cities of the Philistines (1Sa 6:16-17<\/span>), Gath<\/em> in Sauls time already, as seat of a king who appears at the head of the Philistine princes (1Sa 27:2<\/span>; 1Sa 29:2<\/span> sq.), had attained the rank of a capital of Philistia, whence the bridle of dominion was extended over the other cities and the whole people. [These notices do not seem sufficient in themselves to show a hegemony for Gath.Tr.] The bridle of the mother<\/em>that is, according to Chron., the power and authority over Philistia concentrated in the metropolis, Gath, the mother with the daughters, or Philistine cities over which Gath exercised authorityDavid took possession of, he subjugated Philistia, and made it tributary, as the nations afterwards mentioned. The king of Gath mentioned in 1Ki 2:39<\/span> belonged also to the tributary kings, subject to Solomon, this side of the Euphrates, as far as Gaza (1Ki 5:1<\/span>; 1Ki 5:4<\/span>). So Gesenius, De Wette, Keil. Of other explanations of our phrase some do not accord with the meaning of the words, e. g.<\/em>, Schultens, Mich., Ewald render arm<\/em>-bridle, but ammah<\/em> does not mean arm, and Grotius gives claustra montis Amm<\/em>the fortress of Mount Ammah,but metheg<\/em> cannot mean fortress. Some do not agree with the actual condition of things, e. g.<\/em>, Bertheau explains, he wrested from the Philistines the dominion<\/em> that they had hitherto exercised over Israel, but this does not agree with Davids dominion over Israel; and Bttcher takes ammah<\/em>()as meaning one that goes before and leads, and then in the abstract sense of leading, guidance, the bridle of guidance<\/em>,but this would suit only if the setting aside of a hegemony were here spoken of (Then.). Looking at the words of Chron., the Sept. (= the separated, marked off) and 1Sa 7:13-14<\/span>, Thenius conjectures that the text has arisen by error of copyists from an original text, which contained a description (that cannot now be made out) of the boundary-district, which David then forever wrested from the Philistines. In the essence of the thing, this explanation agrees with that above given.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:2<\/span>. The subjugation of the Moabites<\/em>.On the former friendly relation between the king of Moab and David, see 1Sa 22:3-4<\/span>. The cause of Moabs enmity against him is unknown. Perhaps meantime another king had come to the throne than he with whom David sought refuge and with his parents found hospitality. Probably in this war occurred what is mentioned in 1Ch 11:22<\/span> of Benaiah, one of Davids heroes, that he slew two of the king of Moabs sons. The severe punishment inflicted on the arms-bearing Moabites (they were compelled to lie in a row on the ground, two-thirds were measured with a line for death, and one-third for life) points to some very grave offence on their part. They thenceforward became Davids servants, that is, were subject to him and paid him tribute. [Patrick: Now was fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam, Num 24:17<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3-4<\/span>. Subjugation of Hadadezer, king of Zobah<\/em>.And David smote Hadadezer<\/strong>.Instead of this name we have Hadarezer in 2Sa 10:16<\/span>; 2Sa 10:19<\/span>, and in Chron.; so also Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., Josephus. But as Hadad<\/em> was the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, and frequently occurs in Syrian proper names (see Movers, Phn<\/em>. I. 196 sq.), Hadadezer, = whose help God is, must be taken as the original reading. [For a different view see Text. and Gramm.Tr.] The district of Zobah<\/em> was a part of Syria (2Sa 10:6<\/span>; 2Sa 10:16<\/span> and Psa 60:2<\/span>, where it is called Aram<\/em>–<\/em>Zobah<\/em>), bordering on Syria, beyond the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, whence Hadadezer brought Arameans to his help across the Euphrates. Its position is more exactly described in 2Sa 8:5<\/span> (it was near the territory of the Damascus<\/em> Syrians) and 2Sa 8:9<\/span> and 2Ch 8:3<\/span> (it touched Hamath on the north, at the Orontes). It must therefore be put north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and the Euphrates. Comp. Winer, R.-B.<\/em> II. 738. It seems to have reached so far south that the Ammonites could get help from it against Israel, 2Sa 10:6<\/span>; 1Ch 19:6<\/span>. As Zobah was doubtless the capital city of the country, it is probably (Grot., Ew.) to be identified with the city Sabe<\/em> (Ptol.<\/em> 2Sa 5:19<\/span>) which lay on the same parallel with Damascus and eastward towards the Euphrates.14<\/span> We must therefore look for Zobah to the east of the transjordanic Israelitish territory and beyond its northern border, and its king must have ruled over a great part of the desert between Palestine and the Euphrates, and consequently over the southern part of Syria (Sthelin, Leben Davids<\/em>, p. 51). But on what occasion and under what circumstances was David involved in a war with this distant kingdom? The answer to this question will appear in the course of the following exposition. As he went to re-establish his power at the river<\/strong> (Euphrates). [Lit. as he went to put forth his hand = to make an effort or attack. See Text and Gramm. against Erdmanns rendering.Tr.] The question is whether Hadadezer or David is subject here. The Heb. [hand] = power, dominion. The Infin. () means not to stretch out, extend<\/em> (De Wette), but to draw back, re-establish<\/em> a dominion, which consequently existed before. Taking Hadadezer as subject, and looking to 1Sa 14:47<\/span>, where it is said that Saul<\/em> fought successfully against Zobah, it has been explained to mean that Hadadezer now attempted to regain the territory then lost (Maurer, Bunsen, Ewald, Keil). But can we suppose that Hadadezer waited so long after Sauls death? Rather it is to be presumed that he had long ago re-established his power. In favor of taking David<\/em> as subject, it may be said that the whole sentence would then have the same subject, which is most natural according to the tenor of the narrative, and that David must have felt called on to restore Israels power up to the Euphrates which had been lost since Sauls time. But against<\/em> this undoubtedly is the word his<\/em> power (); for David had not yet occupied the land on the Euphrates. We are therefore obliged to take Hadadezer<\/em> as subject, who had attempted to restore his shattered power on the Euphrates when David conquered him in this war and made him his vassal. How his power was shattered will appear hereafter. Chron. has to establish (), which agrees with the above explanationand so the Sept. . [=establish]. Which was the original reading cannot be determined. [The phrase in Sam. is a common one; that in Chron. (in the Heb.) is difficult and improbable.Tr.] Against the rendering of Grot. and Cler.: as he (David) went to force back his (Hadadezers) power towards the Euphrates is the prep. in, at () before river, and the change of persons in this subordinate sentence (Thenius). [Adopting the rendering suggested above, the reference may very well be to David as the subject: David going to make an attack at the Euphrates, was naturally opposed by the powerful Hadadezer; otherwise it is difficult to see how Hadadezers attack in this region could have brought him in contact with David.Tr.] The Masora adds Euphrates after river [so Eng. A. V.],which, however, is not necessary, since the word the river () of itself means the Euphrates.15<\/span> How important it must have been for David to rest his power on this side on the Euphrates is obvious. 2Sa 8:4<\/span>. And David took<\/strong> (prisoners) from him 1700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen<\/strong>.Chron. has 7000 horsemen and 1000 chariots. Here, therefore, the word chariot has fallen out, and the sign for seven thousand () been changed to that for seven hundred (). The text of Chron. is the correct one; for to 20,000 footmen in the plains of Syria 7000 horsemen is evidently better proportioned than 1700 (Thenius). The 1000 chariots<\/em> also accords with the connection, because afterward David is said to have houghed the chariot-horses (Cler.). And David lamed all the riding-animals<\/strong>.The word () means riding-animals in general, not merely chariot-horses (so Isa 21:7<\/span>). These David made useless and harmless by cutting the sinews of their hind feet (.comp. Jdg 11:6<\/span>; Jdg 11:9<\/span>). It was a matter of importance to David to render useless not the chariots<\/em>, but the horses<\/em>. [He reserved a hundred horses not for war, but for a triumph or a guard; whether or not this reservation was illegal and ungodly is not said.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:5-8<\/span>. The conquest of Aram-Damascus<\/em> (the Syrians of Damascus<\/em>). 2Sa 8:5<\/span>. Aram-Damascus<\/strong>that is, the Aramans whose capital was Damascus<\/em> (Chron. Darmesek<\/em>, Sam. Dammesek<\/em>)east of the Antilibanon range, on the Chrysorrhoas (Pharpar) river, and on the great caravan-route from Central Asia to Western Asia. These Syrians of Damascus came as allies to the help of Hadadezer, attacking David from the north, but suffered a severe defeat, as appears from the fact that they lost 22,000 men. [See Josephus reference here to the account of Nicolaus of Damascus (Ant.<\/em> 7, 5, 2), who mentions a Syrian king Hadad beaten at the Euphrates by David (Then.).Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:6<\/span>. To hold them in subjection he placed posts, garrisons<\/em> in their territory, comp. 1Sa 10:5<\/span>; 1Sa 13:3<\/span>. He made them subject<\/em> and tributary<\/em> to him. [Some render officers instead of garrisons, but hardly so well.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:7<\/span>. Shields (), not<\/em> armour, comp. 2Ki 11:10<\/span>, Gesen., Thes. and Lex. by Dietrich. The golden shields<\/em> of Hadadezers servants (that is, his immediate guard) David sent as booty to Jerusalem<\/em>. The Sept. here has the additional statement: And Susakim [Shishak] king of Egypt took them away when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Roboam, son of Solomon, of which there is no trace in any other version or in Chron., and which there is no good reason for introducing into our text (against Thenius), since, by comparing 1Ch 18:8<\/span> (where the use made of the copper is mentioned), and 1Ki 14:25-27<\/span>, it is clear how a translator or copyist from inexact observation of these passages might have been led to make such an addition to the text as marginal note or explanation. [Keil also points out that the shields carried off by Shishak were not these captured by David, but those made by Solomon.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:8<\/span>. And from Hadadezers cities Betah and Berothai took king David very much copper<\/strong>.It is not possible to determine certainly the position of these cities. But it may be conjectured that Berothai<\/em> (comp. Eze 47:16<\/span>), for which Chron. has Kun<\/em>, is identical either with Barathena<\/em>, near Sabe (Ptol. Geog.<\/em> 5, 19, 5; so Ewald), or with the present Berah<\/em> south-east of Damascus (Thenius), or with Birtha<\/em> on the eastern bank of the Euphrates (= Birtha<\/em>, Ptol. Geog.<\/em> 5, 19, 3), not to be confounded with Birtha, on the Tigris (Ptol. Geog.<\/em> 5, 18, 9). The old Phnician Berytus on the Mediterranean Sea (= Beirut) is out of the question, since the territory of the king of Zobah could certainly not have reached so far. The name may be derived as well from berosh<\/em> [cypress], in Syrian beroth<\/em>, as from beer<\/em> [a well] (Thenius). See Winer s. v.<\/em> (Bib. Comm.:<\/em> Can the Wady Barada be the modern representative of the name?Tr.] Instead of Betah<\/em> Chron. has Tibhath<\/em>, to which answer the Metebak<\/em> of the Sept. and the Tebah<\/em> of the Syriacso that we may suppose from Tebah () to be the original reading (Then., Keil). This is favored by the Tebah<\/em> of Gen 22:24<\/span> (which points to this region), the name of a son of Nahor, and also of a place that now stands north of Damascus and Tadmor, between Tadmor and Aleppo (Bsching, Erdbeschreib<\/em>. XI., I., 544). The booty of these cities consisted of a large quantity of copper. Chronicles (either, as Movers supposes, taking it from another source, or using more completely the same source as the author of Samuel) adds in respect to the use of the booty: Therefrom Solomon made the copper sea and the pillars and the coppern vessels. The Sept. adds these words here after very much brass with the insertion and the wash-basins. But there is no reason with Thenius to alter our text accordingly, since the effort of the Sept. to explain and fill out from other material is evident here, as in 2Sa 8:7<\/span>. [On copper in Canaan see Deu 8:9<\/span>. Some centuries before this copper was carried in quantities from Syria to Egypt [Bib. Com.<\/em>).Tr.]The loss of the Syrians in these battles was forty-two thousand men (comp. 2Sa 8:4-5<\/span>). This number agrees with the statement of the loss in 2Sa 10:18<\/span> = forty thousand men. From this alone it is clear that the Araman war that is minutely related in 2 Samuel 10<\/span> is the same as that here spoken of. It is to be further noted that the war against the Aramans here related ends with their complete subjection (2Sa 8:6<\/span>; 2Sa 8:9<\/span>). Against the view that 2 Samuel 10<\/span> narrates a second Araman war, wherein the subjugated Aramans revolt when David becomes involved in war with the Ammonites, and help them against him, is the fact that in 2 Samuel 10<\/span> nothing is said of such a revolt, the Syrians appearing as wholly independent of David and hiring their aid to the Ammonites (2Sa 10:6<\/span>). Before the Aramans could unite with these latter, Joab defeated them under Hadadezer; the latter called the Aramans from beyond the Euphrates to his help in order to regain his power on the Euphrates, which was lost by that defeat, and they were now also defeated by David (2Sa 10:13-18<\/span>). This explains our 2Sa 8:3<\/span> : as he (Hadadezer) went to re-establish his power at the river Phrath (Luther). In the general view of Davids wars in 2 Samuel 8<\/span> this Araman war is briefly related according to its issue under Davids lead. In 2 Samuel 10<\/span> the Ammonitish war (here merely alluded to, 2Sa 8:12<\/span>) is minutely related on account of the history of Uriah therewith connected; and as this war led to that with the Aramans, the latter also, after the summary statement of it in 2 Samuel 8<\/span>, is fully narrated in 2 Samuel 10<\/span> The war with Ammon, whose development could not be understood without the Syrian, is more elaborately narrated (in 2 Samuel 10<\/span>.) for a special reason only, namely, for the sake of Uriahs history, and is for this reason no doubt merely mentioned in the general view of all the great wars (2Sa 8:12<\/span>), since otherwise its issue at least would necessarily have been described as fully as that of the Moabite war (Ewald, Gesch<\/em>. [Hist. of Israel<\/em>] III. 205). Comp. Keils Comm.<\/em>,[Eng. Tr., p. 358 sq.]According to 1Ch 18:3<\/span> Davids decisive victory over the Aramans was gained at Hamath<\/em>, that is, Epiphania on the Orontes, a colony of the Canaanites (Gen 10:18<\/span>), at the foot of Hermon, therefore on the western boundary of the district of Zobah, and on the northernmost border of Palestine, still one of the greatest cities of Turkish Asia, retaining its old name; according to 2Sa 10:17<\/span> the victory was gained at Helam<\/em>, an unknown place; but this difference is insignificant, and may be removed by supposing either that Helam was near Hamath (Keil), or that the decisive combats occurred at both places at the same time.16<\/span><\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9-10<\/span>. King Toi of Hamath seeks a friendly alliance with David in consequence of the latters victory over the king of Zobah and his allies<\/em>.For Toi Chron. has To. When Toi heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer<\/strong> (Davids victory was therefore a decisive one), he sent his son Joram<\/strong> (better Hadoram<\/strong>) to David<\/strong>. Chron., instead of Joram, has Hadoram<\/em>, Joseph. Adoram<\/em>, and Sept. Jeddouram; Hadoram<\/em> (according to Mich., from Hador, the name of a Syrian deity, but see also Gen 10:27<\/span>; 1Ch 1:21<\/span>, where it is the name of an Arabian tribe) is to be regarded as the original reading, instead of the Heb. name Joram, which doubtless got into the text from similarity of sound by error of copying or of hearing [or, it is a Hebraization of a foreign name, as often happens.Tr.]. The embassy was 1) to greet<\/em> David in Tois name, properly, to ask after his welfare, comp. Gen 43:27<\/span>; Gen 43:2<\/span>) to bless<\/em> him, that is, to congratulate him on his victory over Hadadezer. The reason for this congratulation is given in the words: for a man of wars of Toi was Hadadezer, that is, Hadadezer carried on constant wars with Toi; Aq. and Sym. have waging war (). On the phrase: man of wars = one whose call and business is warring, comp. 1Ch 28:3<\/span>; Isa 42:13<\/span>. Since Hamath<\/em> and Zobah<\/em> bordered on one another, Toi was in constant danger of being entirely despoiled of his authority by Hadadezer, on whom he was perhaps in some degree dependent. Hence his congratulation of David as the expression of joy<\/em> over the victory that freed him from a dangerous enemy, and of the wish<\/em> to enter into a relation of friendship and alliance with the powerful victor, to which end he sent rich presents<\/em> consisting of vessels of silver<\/em>, of gold<\/em>, and of copper<\/em>. [For the forms of ancient Chaldean and Assyrian vessels see Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies<\/em> I. 91, 386.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:11-12<\/span>. David consecrates to the Lord all the booty of gold and silver taken from the conquered nations<\/em>. Davids wars were wars of the Lord<\/em>, in whose name he fought against the enemies of the chosen people, and led the people to victory. Therefore the booty belonged actually to the Lord. David affirmed this by separating it from profane use (this is the primary meaning of dedicated<\/em>, ), and setting it apart for the Lord, that is, either in general he put it into the treasury of the sanctuary, or he determined that it should be used in making sacred vessels for the temple that was to be built. Instead of the second dedicated () Chron. has took (), which gives the same sense.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:12<\/span>. From Aram<\/strong> [-Syria] and from Moab and from the children of Ammon and from the Philistines and from Amalek and from the spoil of Hadadezer<\/strong>. Instead of Aram<\/em> Chron. has Edom<\/em>, and omits the words referring to Hadadezer, that is, makes no mention at all of the wars against Aram. But as in this enumeration of all Davids wars (as it obviously is) Aram<\/em> could not, as it seems, be properly omitted, it might appear probable that we should read Aram<\/em> in Chron. instead of Edom<\/em> especially as the victory over Edom is not mentioned till afterwards. It might, however, be also supposed that Aram was omitted [in Chron.] because the booty taken from the Aramans has just been spoken of, and the further mention of booty from other nations was attached immediately to that statement. On the other hand it is not necessary (with Keil) to suppose a gap in our text after Aram, that is to be filled with from Edom. It may be supposed that, as the Chronicler did not mention Aram because he had spoken of it just before, so our narrator did not include Edom because he intended to speak of the victory over the Edomites immediately afterwards. [On this reading see Text. and Gram. As Edom is geographically connected with Moab and Ammon, and as the spoil of the Syrian Hadadezer is mentioned at the end of the verse, it seems better (with Bib. Com.<\/em>) to read Edom<\/em> for Aram;<\/em> though the Aram of our text might refer to the Syrians of Damascus (so Gill).Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13-14<\/span>. Conquest of Edom<\/em>. Comp. 1Ch 18:12-13<\/span>, where it is said that Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, smote the Edomites<\/em> in the valley of salt<\/em>, eighteen thousand men, and the statements in Psa 60:2<\/span> [superscription] and 1Ki 11:15<\/span>, which vary from this in minor points.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13<\/span>. And David made himself a name<\/strong>. Against the rendering he set up a monument<\/em> is the fact that such a statement could not have been made here without reference to the Lord<\/em> and indication of the place<\/em>, and that it is wholly irreconcilable with Davids disposition that he should here set up a monument to himself. The proper translation is: made himself a name (comp. Gen 11:4<\/span>; Gen 21:1<\/span>) gained renown (so the Vulg.), 2Sa 7:9<\/span>, I have made thee a great name, etc.<\/em>, is not in contradiction with this, for it points out the divine causality<\/em> in Davids glorious military career as contrasted with its human side<\/em>.The glory of his name was exalted still more by another splendid achievement. As he returned from the battle against Aram<\/strong>, literally, from smiting Aram. The connection alone naturally suggests that the Araman wars related above are here meant. But our text affirms David made himself a name by a new victory<\/em> over Aram<\/em> in the valley of salt. The text is here obviously incomplete. The words in the valley of salt cannot be connected with what here precedes, since a battle with the Aramans in this valley, which lay on the ancient border of Judah and Edom in the Edomite territory south of the Dead Sea, is out of the question. Before these words we must insert and he smote Edom<\/em>, which may easily have fallen out in copying through the similarity of Edom<\/em> and Aram<\/em> ( and ). Sept: he smote Idumea. [Or, we may read Edom<\/em> instead of Aram<\/em> (Syria), comp. 1Ch 18:12<\/span>, and see Text. and Gram.Tr.] Davids wars in the north against the Aramans and Ammonites had led the Edomites<\/em> to fancy that they might easily get possession of the southern part of the Israelitish territory. When David had ended those wars, he returned (the word returned does not refer to Joab (Ew.)see below). Whether he returned on the east or west of the Jordan and the Dead Sea is uncertain. The battle with the Edomites was then fought in the salt valley, the same place where Amaziah afterwards conquered the Edomites (2Ki 14:7<\/span>). The Edomites lost eighteen thousand men; so also Chron<\/em>. But in Chron. the battle is fought not by David himself, but by Abishai<\/em>, the son of Zeruiah, and in 1Ki 11:15<\/span> and in Psa 60:2<\/span> [superscription] by Joab<\/em>. There are here no real contradictions, since in different reports (for ex., in the last German-French war) the same battles are referred to different leaders, in one to the Fieldmarshal, in another to his subordinate Generals, in still another to the Generalissimo himself. Abishai, who in the Syrian-Ammonitish war commanded a division of Davids army under Joab, was the conqueror of the Edomites, while Joab was General-in-chief, and David had control of the whole military operation. Michaelis: David as king, Joab as chief commander, and Abishai, who was sent forward by his brother, and overthrew the enemy. Only incapacity to conceive such affairs in their reality and manifoldness can find a discrepancy here. For the rest it is to be noted that the Chronicler, though he names Abishai as leader in this victory, was at the same time thinking of David<\/em> as the conqueror (in accord with our passage), since he adds: And the Lord helped David in all his undertakings. The difference in numbers also (here and in Chron. eighteen thousand, in Psalms 60<\/span>. twelve thousand) is unimportant; there is no need to suppose an error of copyist in the last passage (Ew.) to explain it. It receives a simple explanation from the various statements about the battle in different authorities. In the last German-French war the reports of the numbers of killed or prisoners often differed by thousands. How much more might such differences arise at a time when so exact countings were not provided for. [Bp. Patrick suggests that Abishai began the fight and slew six thousand, and then Joab, advancing with his reserve, slew twelve thousand more (so Psalms 60<\/span>). It is impossible to give a certain explanation of the difference.Tr.] David put garrisons in all Edom<\/strong> (not in Chron). Thenius supposes the reason of the special emphatic statement here<\/em> (comp. 2Sa 8:6<\/span>), that no part of Edom was left without a garrison, to be that this was not the case in former campaigns against Edom (see for ex. 1Sa 14:47<\/span>). But the explanation lies rather in the numerous mountains, caves and gorges of the country, which made a complete garrisoning necessary.Thus had David overthrown the huge column of nations that were dangerous to Israel from north to south, and on its ruins founded his dominion. <\/p>\n

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. In all his wars and victories<\/em> over Israels enemies David, as theocratic king, was only the instrument of the Lord<\/em>, who Himself waged these wars for His people. Therefore in his royal military calling David knows himself also only as servant of the Lord<\/em>, to whom, as the true Commander, he consecrates and dedicates the booty gained. And the prophetical narrative can say nothing higher of David than that he performed these splendid deeds of arms through the help of the Lord<\/em> (2Sa 8:6<\/span>; 2Sa 8:14<\/span>). But in these victories over the enemies of Gods people was fulfilled the Lords promise<\/em> (2Sa 7:10-11<\/span>), trusting in which David could advance to battle prepared for war<\/em> and certain of victory<\/em>.<\/p>\n

2. Davids royal calling<\/em> was to be fulfilled chiefly in wars and victories over Israels enemies, in order that the kingdom of God in Israel might attain its unhindered, theocratic-national full development of form. But from this historical basis is subsequently developed the idea of the theocratic kingdom as a mighty and powerful one that victoriously combats the enemies of the theocracy, and makes them subservient to the divine might and power. On this is then built up the Messianic prophecy of the future king, who in divine might and glory will complete the kingdom of God by the thorough conquest of all its enemies, establish Gods universal dominion in the people of God redeemed from the world-powers, and dispense Gods blessing under His protection and pastoral fidelity. Compare especially Psalms 2, 72, 110, which in their historical foundation and fundamental ideas are unintelligible without the history of Davids wars and victories (ch. 8.) that lays the foundation both for the Messianic prophecy and for the promise in ch. 7.<\/p>\n

3. Under the guidance of Psalms 60<\/span>which refers to the impending new war with the Edomite (after the glorious conclusion of the Syrian-Ammonite war) and to Israels new danger from their inroad (Delitzsch, Moll), not to the situation after the victory over Edom in the Salt-valley (Hengst.)it is possible to follow the ups and downs of Davids thoughts under the experiences of this time and afterwards in his recollection of its trials and Gods gracious manifestations, and to exhibit the truths therein contained that hold good for Gods kingdom in all times. After the days of mighty manifestations of divine help there have come for Gods people times of great distress within and without, not, however, by chance, by a necessary natural process or by unavertable fate, but immediately from the Lord. The deep powerful feeling of the absolute dependence of all human life on the Lord permits no lament over calamity, without accompanying declaration that the Lord has sent it according to His unsearchable counsel, and without giving Him the glory by the confession: This hath the Lord done! So Davids lament in Psa 60:3-5<\/span> [13] is such a declaration and confession of the Lords omnipotent power in the infliction of severe sufferings and great dangers on His people. O God, thou hast cast us off, thou hast scattered us, made the land tremble and broken it, hast made thy people see hard things, etc.<\/em>But with such lament and confession is connected in the pious heart the living remembrance<\/em> of Gods former manifestations of favor in His promises, as the banner that is raised by the Lord for them that fear Him. Thereby has the Lord Himself given His assailed ones the right to remind<\/em> Him of His promises, and so the lament changes into the prayer: Help, answer us! (Psa 60:6-7<\/span> [4, 5]). Praying faith hears<\/em> the divine answer in the might-displaying word<\/em> of the living God<\/em> (God hath spoken in His holiness) wherein He announces Himself as the unlimited Owner and Lord of His land and people, and as the victorious opponent and sovereign of their enemies. These are the two fundamental truths that the history of Gods kingdom everywhere affirms and confirms: the Lord acknowledges His people (as His possession) with His promises and their fulfilment; and the enemies of Gods kingdom and people will not be able to elude His power, but must submit to it (Psa 60:8-10<\/span> [68]). But in how sharp contradiction<\/em> of such divine promises is the actual condition of Gods people in the world? Hast thou not cast us off? Dost thou not go forth with our hosts? (Psa 60:11-12<\/span> [9, 10]). [The translation of the Eng. A. V. is also possible, and gives the same general sense.Tr.]. The above lament is repeated in such a question<\/em>, which arises from the involuntary comparison of the present straitened condition of Gods kingdom and people with the majestic declaration of God that promises victory and dominion over all enemies. This sharp dissonance must penetrate deep into the heart of Gods servant when he sees with equal vividness and clearness both the rich promises of God and the needs and straits of Gods kingdom. But it is resolved into all the more pressing<\/em> entreaty and prayer for the divine help<\/em> and into the twofold confident avowal and confession: 1) In God we<\/em> shall show our power, that is, carry off the victory, and 2) God the Lord, who is in His people, will through them destroy the power of the enemy (Psalm 60:13, 14 [Psa 60:11-12<\/span>]). The Psalm ceases with the same twofold ground-tone that sounds through 2 Samuel 8<\/span>. David made himself a name by his victories over his enemies, and the Lord helped him whithersoever he went.<\/p>\n

Nearly related to Psalms 60<\/span>. is Psalms 44,17<\/span> which similarly presupposes the affliction of Gods people and the danger of their conquest and dispersion by the hostile neighboring nations. Through the Lords help<\/em> to the fathers when the land was taken possession of (Psa 44:2-4<\/span> [13]) is awakened and sustained faith<\/em> that the same God, as king of His people, will now also grant His people victory over their enemies (Psa 44:5-8<\/span> [47]), so that they shall forever thank Him as they have hitherto boasted of Him (Psa 44:9<\/span> [8]). But in contradiction of this tradition of divine help in the olden time and of this confidence is the present overthrow and distress of the people<\/em> (Psa 44:10-17<\/span> [916]) which is felt all the more deeply in view of the peoples faithfulness to the covenant<\/em>, as the omniscient<\/em> God knows (Psa 44:18-22<\/span> [1721]). But the consciousness of undeserved sufferings and afflictions leads to the profounder conviction<\/em> that such sufferings, inflicted by the Lord, must be endured for the Lords sake, since the enmity towards the Lords people is directed against the Lord Himself (Psa 44:23<\/span> [22]). Therewith, however, is connected also the hope<\/em> of Gods people, as expressed in their prayer that the Lord would arise from His inactivity and espouse His peoples cause. The ground of this hope and prayer lies in their need of help<\/em> and in the free grace of God<\/em>. Psalms 44<\/span>., being thus similar to Psalms 60<\/span>. in its course of thought and its historical presuppositions, most probably belongs to the time of affliction expressly designated in Psalms 60<\/span>., when the Edomites sorely pressed Israel; comp. Amo 1:6<\/span>. The frightful castigation that Joab inflicted on them (1Ki 11:15<\/span>) intimates the greatness of the suffering that they had prepared for Israel, and thus serves indirectly to confirm the historical circumstances presupposed in these two Psalms.In Psalms 108<\/span>. we find a repetition of Psa 60:7-12<\/span> [512]) loosely combined with another Psalm-fragment Psa 57:8-11<\/span> [711]).<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

War is right and a duty before God<\/em>, when the object Isaiah 1<\/span>) To guard Gods law and order against hostile power; 2) To preserve gifts and goods granted by God; 3) To fulfil tasks assigned by God; 4) To carry out the clearly recognized plans of Gods wisdom.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/span>. Schlier: We see here how it still is at the present day with wars in the world, what righteous and unrighteous wars properly are, but also what wars always ought to be.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:2<\/span>. Tueb. Bible: To pious kings God gives victory and glory. Pro 20:28<\/span>.Osiander: That is the most glorious victory and the most fortunate government, when the conquered enemies do not hate the conqueror, but hold him in honor and render him willing obedience.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3-4<\/span>. Osiander: If the mightiest foes could not subdue David, so too no human power will extirpate the kingdom of Christ.S. Schmid: Against God and those who trust in God no human might avails (Pro 29:25<\/span>). When the kingdom of God is the object of attack, the ungodly are somewhat united and help each other, while at other times they are against each other (Luk 23:12<\/span>; Act 4:27<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:6<\/span>. Cramer: The heathen also must bring gold and gifts (Isa 60:6<\/span>), and willingly offer to him in holy attire.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9-13<\/span>. A beautiful emblem of the fact that many among the heathen also shall willingly turn to Christ.Starke: Gods promises, though it be late, are yet truly and surely fulfilled (Gen 25:23<\/span>).18<\/span> If God gives to us, we should also give to Him again. But we give to Him again when we do good to His children and servants.Schlier: How well it would be if all rulers and warlike heroes never had their eye on themselves, but always and only on the honor of the Lord, if all happened to the Lords honor alone, if all honor were given only to the Lord, if all booty were spent only for the service of the Lord and never for display and pride.<\/p>\n

[2Sa 8:2<\/span>. David is at the present day often charged with great cruelty for slaying so many of the Moabites; but to most of his contemporaries, friend and foe, it probably seemed a hazardous leniency to spare a full third. The Asiatic rulers have always inclined to what we should regard as extreme severity in punishment; but no man has ever been able to rule long in Asia without such punishments, at least to the extent of making examples, as David did here and in 2Sa 12:31<\/span>. Is there not danger in the Christendom of to-day that we shall go to the opposite extreme, that mercy to criminals will be carried so far as to become cruelty to society?<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3<\/span>. Only once, and for a brief season, did the children of Abraham possess the whole region promised to him, Gen 15:18<\/span>. During all the centuries it was theirs by right through Gods gift; but it was not theirs by possession through their own fault. In like manner, how seldom does national or individual life and character reach up to the height of its heaven-permitted possibilities.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[2Sa 8:6<\/span>; 2Sa 8:14<\/span>. I. How trying a life David was leading, in its exertions, hardships, perils. II. How blessed a life amid it all, since the Lord preserved him whithersoever he went!<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:10-11<\/span>. It is the lot of many who wish to be greatly useful that they can but gather materials and devise plans, leaving it for others to build and rejoice. Men forget the former class, but God does not. We speak only of Solomons Temple; but in the eye of God it was Davids Temple too. Does one long for a different task, and feel tempted to repine? That which God assigns will be best for us, if we waste not life in dreaming of some other lot, but faithfully stand where He puts us.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[2Sa 8:1-13<\/span>. Lessons from Davids years of warfare<\/em>. 1) A pious man may have many enemies. 2) A pious man may be required to spend much of his life in war. 3) A pious man may be compelled to inflict severe punishments (2Sa 9:2<\/span>). 4) A pious man, even though not always prospered or preserved (2Sa 8:6<\/span>; 2Sa 8:14<\/span>) is always guided and blessed. 5) A pious man will rejoice to consecrate the richest results of his struggles and toils unto God (2Sa 8:10-11<\/span>).Tr.]<\/p>\n

2. Davids Internal Government: Organization of the Administration of the Kingdom (2Sa 8:15-18<\/span>) and Magnanimous Exhibition of Royal Favor to the Sunken House of Saul.Mephibosheth. Chapter 2Sa 8:1-13<\/span>.<\/p>\n

a. The Administration of the Kingdom and Davids Officers<\/em> 2Sa 8:15-18<\/span><\/p>\n

15And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people. 16And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; 17And Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar [Abiathar the son of Ahimelech]19<\/span> were the priests; and Seraiah20<\/span> was the [om.<\/em> the] scribe; 18And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over<\/em>21<\/span> both [om.<\/em> both] the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and Davids sons were chief rulers.22<\/span><\/p>\n

b. Davids Magnanimity toward Mephibosheth, Jonathans Son.<\/em> 2Sa 9:1-13<\/span>.<\/p>\n

1And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake? 2And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose name was Ziba. And when they had called [And they called] him unto David [ins.<\/em> and] the king said unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, Thy servant is <\/em>Hebrews 3<\/span><\/em> And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him? And Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son [There is yet a son of Jonathan] which is<\/em> [om.<\/em> which is] lame on 4[in] his feet. And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel in Lodebar.<\/p>\n

5Then [And] king David sent and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the 6son of Ammiel, from Lodebar. Now when [And] Mephibosheth23<\/span> the son of Jonathan the son of Saul was come [came] unto David he fell [and fell] on his face and did reverence. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he answered [said], Behold thy servant! 7And David said unto him, Fear not, for I will surely shew [show] thee kindness for Jonathan thy fathers sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father, and thou shaft eat bread at my table continually. 8And he bowed himself and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?<\/em><\/p>\n

9Then [And] the king called to Ziba Sauls servant and said unto him, I have 10given unto thy masters son all that pertained to Saul and to all his house. Thou therefore [And thou] and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring in the fruits<\/em> that thy masters son may have food [bring thy masters son food]24<\/span> to eat; but [and] Mephibosheth thy masters son shall eat bread alway at my table. Now [And] Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants. 11Then said Ziba [And Ziba said] unto the king, According to all that my lord the king hath commanded his servant so shall thy servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king<\/em>,25<\/span> he shall eat at my table as one of the kings sons. 12And Mephibosheth had a young son whose name was Micha. And all that dwelt in the house 13of Ziba were servants unto Mephibosheth. So [And] Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually at the kings table; and [ins.<\/em> he] was lame on [in] both his feet.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

a.<\/em> 2Sa 8:15-18<\/span>. The internal administration of the kingdom<\/em>. Alongside of Davids military activity without is here placed the new summary view of the offices and their incumbents, whereby a unitary administration, embracing all the internal affairs of the kingdom was carried on.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:15<\/span>. To Davids wars, which gained him safety from enemies and dominion over Israel is here attached a general characterization of his government in its inward nature. He was executing<\/strong>, that is, striving in all things thoroughly to establish judgment and justice in the whole nation<\/strong>.According to this point of view he ordered and administered the affairs of the kingdom through the following offices, the names of the incumbents of which are given.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:16<\/span>. 1<\/span>) Joab was over the host<\/strong>, had the supreme command of the army, was Minister of war and Chief Marshal in one. See 2Sa 2:18<\/span>. 2<\/span>) Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud<\/strong> (Ahilud was a well-known man) was Mazkir<\/em> (), that is, not the recorder and preserver of the most important events of the kingdom, as Vulg. (a commentariis<\/em>) and Sept. ( [keeper of the records]) understand it, but the referee in all internal affairs and highest representative counsellor, the Chancellor<\/strong>, who at the same time suggested and drew up the royal decrees and saw to their proper publication and registration in the State-archives. Comp. hler in Herzog<\/em>. VIII. 15. [For further mention of this office see 1Ki 4:3<\/span>; 2Ki 18:18; 2Ki 18:37<\/span>; 2Ch 34:8<\/span>. It is evident that the office was a very important one; and from the etymology (the word = one who calls to remembrance) it seems not unlikely that it included the recording of important events. It would thus sufficiently differ from that of Sopher (Scribe or Secretary), which would be more personal and political. Gesenius and others refer to the Roman Magister memori<\/em> and the Persian Waka Nuwis<\/em> (imperial historiographer). In the absence of any English term exactly representing the Hebrew, the recorder of Eng. A. V. may be retained.Tr.].<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:17<\/span>. Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests<\/strong> (= high-priests). Zadok here appears for the first time; he therefore did not become high-priest till after Davids accession to the throne. Through his father, Ahitub, he was a descendant of Aarons son Eleazar<\/em> (1 Chr. 5:29 compared with 1 Chr. 5:34 and 1Ch 6:35-37<\/span>); Ahimelech on the contrary descended through Abiathar from Ithamar<\/em>, Aarons younger son, 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6<\/span>. The Abimelech in 1Ch 18:16<\/span> is an error of copyist, since we have Ahimelech also in 1Ch 24:3<\/span>; 1Ch 24:6<\/span>. Elsewhere, however, the two high-priests in Davids time are given as Zadok and Abiathar<\/em> (2Sa 15:24<\/span>; 2Sa 15:35; 2Sa 17:15<\/span>; 2Sa 19:12<\/span>; 2Sa 20:25<\/span>), and according to 1Sa 22:20<\/span>, Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech<\/em>. Movers, Thenius, Ewald, hence suppose an inversion of names here, so that we should read: Abiathar, son of Ahimelech. But in that case we should have to suppose a similar inversion, so far as regards the change of Ahimelech to Abiathar in 1Ch 24:3<\/span>; 1Ch 24:6; 1Ch 24:31<\/span>, passages quite independent of ours, where Ahimelech, as son of Abiathar appears as high-priest of Ithamars line alongside of Zadok, who is of Eleazars line. Instead of this violent procedure Bertheau (on 1Ch 18:16<\/span>), hler, Keil, and others, suggest that Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, had a son of the same name as his grandfather, and that he, for some reason unknown to us, acted as high-priest along with his father who was still living at the beginning of Solomons reign (1Ki 2:27<\/span>). That he might<\/em> have had such a son of proper age is to be presumed from 1Sa 14:3<\/span>. According to 2Sa 15:27<\/span>; 2Sa 17:17; 2Sa 17:20<\/span>, Abiathar had a younger son Jonathan, who afterwards joined Adonijah against Solomon [1Ki 1:42<\/span>], while Ahimelech is mentioned neither there nor here, perhaps because he was no longer alive. But this suggestion is open to grave doubts, not merely because an Ahimelech son of Abiathar appears nowhere but here and in the passages cited from Chron., but especially because elsewhere Zadok and Abiathar appear as the acting priests [=high-priests] under David. There remains the supposition of a historical error<\/em> (instead of an error of copyist<\/em>) in the authority used here and in 1Ch 24:3<\/span>; 1Ch 24:6; 1Ch 24:31<\/span>, the author of the original account having reversed the order of the names. [This supposition of Erdmanns seems the most improbable of all here cited; error in such a point can hardly be supposed in the author of Samuel, with 1 Samuel 22<\/span>. and the rest of the history before him. An error in copying easily perpetuates itself, though we cannot always explain how it arose, and how it comes to reappear in certain places and not in others.Still less probable is the opinion of Geiger (Urschrift<\/em>, p. 21) and Well-hausen that there are here traces of a systematic attempt to exalt the line of Eleazar (Zadokites) at the expense of the house of Ithamar; that an Ahitub should occur several times is not strange or suspicious, and the whole tone of the history is quiet and natural, showing no signs of distortion and tendentious manipulation. There seems to be no sound objection to supposing an inversion of these names here by a scribes error. See Text, and Gram.Tr.].Zadok acted as high-priest in Gibeon (1Ch 16:39<\/span>; comp. 1Ki 3:4<\/span>) at the Sanctuary, the other in Jerusalem.4) Seraiah was scribe<\/strong> (Sopher<\/em>), State Secretary, not a military muster-officer, for this is designated by another word (), see 2Sa 24:2<\/span>; 2Sa 24:4; 2Sa 24:9<\/span>. Comp. hler (Herz.<\/em> VIII. 15) and Keil. [So in 2Ki 25:19<\/span> a certain military officer is termed the scribe (sopher), the captain of the army, who levied the people, or, perhaps (as in margin of Eng. A. V.) the scribe of the captain of the army. It is possible that the Sopher combined civil and military duties; it has also been supposed (though there is no proof of it) that there were two officers called Sopher, one civil and military (as here), the other ecclesiastical.Tr.].The name of this man in 1Ch 18:16<\/span> is Sharsha<\/em>, in 2Sa 20:25<\/span> Sheya<\/em> [Eng. A. V. has the marginal (Qeri) Sheva<\/em>] and in 1Ki 4:3<\/span> (where the same person is meant) Shisha<\/em>. According to this, Sheya26<\/span> seems to be a shortened form of Shisha = Shavsha, and the latter, along with Seraiah, a second name of the same person. Possibly, however, the difference came from scribal error or indistinctness of letters, whichever was the original form.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:18<\/span>. 5<\/span>) Benaiah the son of Jehoiada<\/strong> (a mighty warrior of Kabzeel, 2Sa 23:20-23<\/span>) was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites<\/strong> (we are to read over instead of the unintelligible masoretic and, as in the parallel passage in Chron.). These two names designate the royal body-guard<\/em> attached to the kings court and person (Jos. Ant. 7, 5, 4 ). The name Cherethite<\/em> is to be derived from a verb () meaning to cut down, destroy, it having been the duty of royal guards in the East to execute the death-sentence; so did Benaiah in 1Ki 2:25<\/span>. Pelethites<\/em>, from a verb (), to hasten, flee, means runners, the men of the bodyguard having had to carry the royal orders swiftly to distant places. Comp. 2Ch 30:6<\/span>. In the parallel passage 2Sa 20:23<\/span> instead of Kerethi<\/em> [Cherethi] stands Kari<\/em> (from , to dig), and in 2Ki 11:4; 2Ki 11:19<\/span>, for the whole phrase stands: the Kari<\/em> and the runners;<\/em> that is, Pelethites = runners. So Gesen. (Thes. s. v.<\/em>), Then. (here and on 1Ki 1:38<\/span>; 2Ki 11:12<\/span>) and Keil (here and on Chron.). The words are adjectives (formed by ) with substantival meaning, designating offices, properly executioners and runners (as the in 2Sa 23:8<\/span> [Eng. A. V. captains]). Comp. Ew., 177, 164.Opposed to this explanation is another, first advanced by Lakenmacher (observ. philolog<\/em>. II. 11 seq.), and then defended by Ew., Berth., Mov., Hitzig, Starke, Rtschi and others, namely, that the Kerethi = Cretes or Carians (), and the Pelethi = Philistines, since the latter are called Kerethi in 1Sa 30:14<\/span>; Zep 2:5<\/span>; Eze 25:16<\/span>. But in the first passage the name designates not the Philistines in general, but a branch of the Philistine people settled in the southwest of Philistia, and in the two prophetic passages the name Philistines stands along with this name (Kerethi), which characterizes them as murderers, exterminators. Further, the view that Pelethi<\/em> is corrupted from Philistines<\/em> ( from ) is to be rejected as wholly without foundation (so Keil after Gesen.: who can endure such a contraction in a Shemitic language?). If Kerethi and Pelethi both mean Philistines, the application of two synonymous words to the royal body-guard is as strange as if one should combine Englishmen and Britons, Italians and Welshmen27<\/span> (Gesen.). Against this view, moreover, is the later designation Kari and runners, whence Pelethi = runners. Besides, the conjecture that the Philistines immigrated from Crete rests on the indefinite statements of Tacitus (Hist.<\/em> 5, 1, 2): they say that the Jews fled from the island of Crete, and settled in the extreme parts of Libya, and of Stephanus of Byzantium (s. v.<\/em> ) that this city [Gaza] was once called Minoa after Minos king of Crete, to which are opposed Deu 2:23<\/span>; Amo 9:7<\/span>, which state that the Philistines came from Caphtor. See Keil, Comm.<\/em> 266 A. 1 [Eng. transl., p. 368 Note]. Further, as Thenius remarks, it is altogther improbable that the patriotic David, so faithful to the service of the one true God, should have surrounded himself with a foreign<\/em> and heathen<\/em> body guard, to which Keil (ubi supra<\/em>) admirably adds against Hitzig: Least of all would David have chosen his bodyguard out of the Philistines, the hereditary enemies of Israel.[The ancient versions throw little light on these words. Sept. and Vulg. transfer them; Syriac has nobles and rustics (Lond. Polyg. soldiers), Chald. archers and slingers.There are strong reasons for holding them to be not appellatives (as Ges. and Erdm.) but gentile nouns: 1) the grammatical form of the words (Krethi, Plethi) points to this; the termination i<\/em> is used in Heb. to form patronymics and gentilics, and besides to form nouns only from other nouns (sub. or adj.) or adverbs, that is, in general it forms denominative nouns; it cannot, then, be here well referred to verbal roots, as Gesenius and others wish, but must form a denominative, which here cannot well be anything but a gentilic noun; the shalishi<\/em> of 2Sa 23:8<\/span>, cited by Erdmann, being a denominative, does not favor his view; 2) in 1Sa 30:14<\/span> one of these words, Krethi, actually denotes a Philistine tribe, or a tribe dwelling near Philistia; this establishes the fact that it was the name of a tribe, while of any other use there is no established trace in the Bible; for so also it is used in Eze 25:16<\/span> and Zep 2:5<\/span>, where there is no reason to hold that anything else than the gentilic sense is meant, Ezekiel simply making a play on the name, as is very common in the prophetic writings; 3) add to this that if these words were appellatives signifying executioners and runners, it is not easy to see why the common Heb. words for these offices were not employed, and why our words appear only in Davids time (Retschi).These reasons seem almost decisive for regarding these as proper names (without saying anything of their origin and signification).The objections urged against this view by Keil and Erdmann seem insufficient to set it aside: a<\/em>) the objection from synonymous names rests on the assumption that both words must be taken as = Philistines; but, as Erdmann himself remarks, the Krethi are only a tribe living in or near the Philistine territory, and the Plethi may be another different tribe or family possibly not Philistines at all; b<\/em>) it is thought that the later phrase the kari and the runners (2Ki 11:4<\/span>; 2Ki 11:19<\/span>) establishes the fact that plethi<\/em> = runners, and that one of our words being an appellative, the other also must be appellative; but that the common Heb. word for runners or footmen should be used in Athaliahs time (as in Sauls, 1Sa 22:17<\/span>, and of Absalom and Adonijah) cannot prove that David did not have a special body of guards with a special gentilic name, even supposing the phrase in 1 Kings 11<\/span>. to be parallel with ours, which is by no means certain; if the Plethi were runners, it does not follow that the word itself means runners; nor is it clear whether the Kari (Eng. A. V. incorrectly captains) are the same with the Krethi (in 2Sa 20:23<\/span> the text has Kari, the margin Krethi), rather the word is another proper name (Carians or some other); c<\/em>) Davids patriotism and piety would be no bar to his taking a body-guard from neighboring tribes, among whom he had probably passed a part of his time of exile, and had many friends (compare Uriah, Ittai, and other foreigners), nor were such men necessarily heathen because they were foreigners, many foreigners having attached themselves to the religion of Israel.As to the origin of the names Krethi and Plethi there is much uncertainty. The first is identified with Cretan<\/em> by those that think Caphtor (Gen 10:14<\/span>, Deu 2:23<\/span>) to be Crete, but against this Ebers has brought strong reasons (gypt.<\/em> I. 130 sq.); however, independently of any reference to Caphtor, a tribe may have come from Crete and settled on the Mediterranean shore. The connection of Kari with Carian, while not improbable in itself, is yet unproved. The identification of the second name Plethi with Plishti or Philistine (by the falling out of the s<\/em> letter) is hard and improbable; Bp. Patrick thinks it likely that the name designated an Israelitish family, and refers to the Reubenite Peleth, Num 16:1<\/span>, and the Judahite of the same name, 1Ch 2:33<\/span>; Abarbanel (cited and approved by Philippson) regards both words as names of Israelitish families. At present we must be content to remain in ignorance of the origin of the names.Tr.]28<\/span> 6) And Davids sons were confidential counsellors<\/strong>. As Movers (Bibl. Chron.<\/em> 302 sq.) has shown, the word cohen<\/em> [usually = priest] does not here mean domestic chaplains, palace-priests, unlevitical spiritual advisers (Gesen., De Wette, Winer, Maurer, and others), but confidential counsellor, according to 1Ki 4:5<\/span>, where the same term applied to Sabud, son of Nathan [Eng. A. V. principal officer] is explained by the phrase the kings friend. [This phrase is not necessarily an explanation<\/em> of the term cohen<\/em>, but may be simply another descriptive epithet.Tr.]. The periphrastic expression in 1Ch 18:17<\/span> the first [chief] at the hand (side) of the king points to the same signification. According to Kimchi the verb () means to serve in an office of dignity; according to Grotius, to do<\/em> service, whence the participle in reference to God means a priest<\/em>, in reference to the king a minister<\/em>. [This seems to be the most probable statement from the examples in the Old Test., the rendering of Sept., Syr. and Chald. here, and the opinion of the Talmud (Bab., Nedarim 62 a) and the rabbinical writers. The fullest discussions are by J. D. Michaelis, Supplem. in Lex. Heb.<\/em>, and Gesenius, Thes. s. v.<\/em> Our data are hardly sufficient to enable us to speak with certainty of the original meaning of the word.Tr.]<\/p>\n

The list of officers (2Sa 8:16-18<\/span>) is here appended to the statistical-historical account of Davids wars in order to conclude the history of Davids royal rule at its culmination with a glance at the internal administration of the kingdom. It can no more be conclusively decided from this that the Editor here incorporates into his account a [different] history of David (Thenius) than in the similar passage, 1 Samuel 14<\/span>. It is a list of the high officers of state that stood by him in the internal administration of the kingdom at the moment when he had secured it against the enemies roundabout, and extended it by victories over them, and could now undisturbed give attention to its internal strengthening and organization. The list in 2Sa 20:23-26<\/span>, on the contrary, gives the list of officers as it stood in his last days after the internal shocks that his government had sustained.<\/p>\n

b. Ch. 9 Davids magnanimous conduct towards Mephibosheth<\/em>. As Mephibosheth was five years old at Sauls death (2Sa 4:4<\/span>), and now had a young son (2Sa 5:12<\/span>), what is here related cannot be put immediately after Davids removal to Jerusalem or Ishbosheths murder (2 Samuel 4<\/span>) (as Then., would do on account of Davids words, is there left any of Sauls house? which might indeed have been spoken with reference to that murder), but belongs to a later period, when David had secured his kingdom within and raised it to its zenith by external wars. These words indicate that David after long wars was had now found a time of quiet to attend to internal affairs, among the most important of which must have been the fulfilment of his covenant of friendship with Jonathan. The narrative shows how he fulfilled Jonathans request (1Sa 20:15<\/span>), and his own answering promise with royal grace and magnanimity.<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:1<\/span> Davids question: Is it so that there is yet any one left to<\/strong>29<\/span><\/strong> Sauls house?<\/strong> presupposes that he had made inquiry and gotten information thereof, and now wished to assure himself of what he had heard. He had perhaps some time before accidentally heard of the concealed abode of the unfortunate last scion of Sauls house in a remote place (2Sa 9:5<\/span>). The words: That I may show him kindness for Jonathans sake<\/strong> refer to Jonathans words, 1Sa 20:14-15<\/span> (show me the mercy of the Lord, etc<\/em>.).30<\/span><\/p>\n

2Sa 9:2<\/span>. A former servant of Saul, Ziba<\/em>, gives exacter information of the person and the place. [Kitto in Daily Bib. Ill.<\/em> thinks it improbable that David knew any thing of the existence of a son of Jonathan, or that he would recognize him under his altered name (Mephibosheth instead of Meribbaal); Ziba was probably known to some of Davids officers and hunted up by them.Tr.] In Davids question to him (2Sa 9:3<\/span>): Is there no one<\/strong>, etc.<\/em>, that I may show him the mercy of God?<\/strong> the term mercy<\/em> or kindness<\/em> (2Sa 9:1<\/span>) is more exactly defined as a kindness such as God Himself shows; and this agrees again with Jonathans mention (1Sa 20:14<\/span>) of the kindness of God, which he begs David to show to him and his house. [Others understand it of kindness in God, out of reverence for God, for Gods sake (Keil), or take the expression as merely a superlative one = very great kindness (Patrick), others combine these three views, and this is better; kindness shown from an indwelling in God will be pure and great kindness such as God shows.Tr.] According to Zibas information [2Sa 9:3-4<\/span>] Jonathans lame son is in Lodebar in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel<\/strong>. Lodebar<\/em> ( , in 2Sa 17:27<\/span> ) was therefore across the Jordan near Mahanaim and Rabbath-Ammon, perhaps Lidbir,31<\/span> Jos 13:26<\/span>. According to this account Machir<\/em> was a respected and propertied man, who had taken charge of Mephibosheth after Jonathans death. [See 2Sa 17:27-29<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:6-8<\/span>. Meeting of David and Mephibosheth<\/em>.Mephibosheth does reverence to David as his king with such tokens of fear that David is obliged to encourage him: Fear not<\/strong>.It was oriental custom, that rulers, and especially those of a new dynasty, should slay all the relations of a predecessor. David relieves him of this fear by declaring: 1) that he would show him kindness for his father Jonathans sake; 2) would restore to him all Sauls landthat is, his private estate at Gibeah (comp. 1 Samuel 9<\/span>), which had passed into the possession either of David or of remote kinsmen of Saul (Mephibosheth had therefore hitherto been a poor man, dependent on others), and 3) would take him during his life into his house and to his table. Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually<\/strong>.Mephibosheth, overwhelmed by this exhibition of royal grace, testifies his gratitude by gestures<\/em> (bowed himself) and by words wherein he confesses himself unworthy of such great goodness. The comparison of the dead dog<\/em> indicates what is lowest and most despicable, comp. 1Sa 24:15<\/span>. [Grove (Art. Mephibosheth in Smiths Bible Dictionary<\/em>):<\/em> These early misfortunes [loss of parents, lameness, poverty] threw a shade over his whole life, and his personal deformity seems to have exercised a depressing and depreciatory influence on his character.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:9-13<\/span>. Mephibosheth put in possession of Sauls estate and admitted to Davids house and table<\/em>.Davids transaction with Ziba suggests that the latter resided at Gibeah, on the land of Sauls family, and stood in some relation to the family, perhaps that of steward. David 1) informs<\/em> him that he has restored to Mephibosheth all the property of Saul and of his house. I have given them to thy masters son<\/strong>son<\/em> here=grandson<\/em>, as above (2Sa 9:7<\/span>) father=grandfather;<\/em> 2) commissions<\/em> him (2Sa 9:10<\/span>) to cultivate the land for him, entrusts him with the management and control of the property. The bring<\/em> is to be understood of storing<\/em> into the barns or also of delivery<\/em> at Jerusalem (Thenius), the latter according to Josephus and Ewald, 303 e<\/em>. That the son of thy master may have bread and eat it<\/strong> refers not to Mephibosheths son (Micha 2Sa 9:12<\/span>), as has been supposed in order to avoid the apparent contradiction of Davids statement that Mephibosheth is to eat at his table; there is really no contradiction, since this last statement merely means that Mephibosheth himself<\/em> is to have the honor of daily eating at Davids table, while these words relate to the general support of the house and family of the so highly honored son of Davids friend. [On the text see Text. and Gramm.Tr.] The statement: Ziba had 15 sons and 20 servants<\/strong> serves to explain the commission: Cultivate the land thou and thy sons and thy servants<\/strong> and to show that Ziba was in condition with his family and servants to manage so large an estate. Something considerable could therefore be made for Mephibosheth (Thenius). 2Sa 9:11<\/span> in its two partsZibas declaration that he would perform Davids command, and the statement of Mephibosheth eating at Davids tablecorresponds to the two parts of 2Sa 9:10<\/span>. The words: And Mephibosheth eats at my table as one of the kings sons<\/strong> cannot be taken as Davids (Clericus, De Wette [Eng. A. V.]), since David would then have said the same thing three times, and there would in general be no reason for such a reply<\/em> to Zibas words. They are rather to be regarded as spoken by Ziba<\/em>not, however, as a rejoinder<\/em> in the sense: If he will live with me, he will be treated as a kings son (Grotius), but as a repetition<\/em> of Davids word, attached to the as my lord has commanded<\/em> (2Sa 9:10<\/span>) with the expression of joyful astonishment and the consequent addition: as one of the kings sons! Ziba, in affirming that all that the king has ordered shall be done, repeats in reference to Mephibosheth his verba ipsissima<\/em>. This explanation may be preferred to the assumption of a wrong reading here, namely, my table, for Davids table, Sept. (Thenius, Keil), or thy tables (= thy table, Bttcher), partly because the text is not to be altered without pressing necessity, partly because in that case the statement that Mephisbosheth ate at Davids table would be repeated immediately afterwards (in 2Sa 9:13<\/span>). [For another view of the text see Text. and Gramm.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:12<\/span>. [Mephibosheth was about 13 years old when David fixed his abode in Jerusalem; how old he was now would depend on the chronological position of chap. 9, which cannot be fixed with certainty. The Heb. word () here rendered young is indefinite as to age; for Michas descendants see 1Ch 8:34<\/span> sq.;1Ch 9:40<\/span> sq.Tr.] The house of Ziba were servants;<\/em> Vulg. served. Thenius, in view of 2Sa 9:10<\/span>, would read the Particp. serving (). In any case, the constant servitude of Zibas whole household to Mephibosheth is indicated, while the latter as lord of the land dwelt at Jerusalem as companion of Davids family in the house and at the table.<\/p>\n

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The picture of Davids royal power and glory in contrast with the poor, crippled son of Jonathan, the last scion of Sauls fallen house, comes out in greater splendor, the deeper the latter humbles himself before him and trusts himself to his favor. In his noble conduct to Mephibosheth David demonstrates the friendship that he had sworn to Jonathan.
2. The truly pious and God-fearing man not only shows kindness of God in so far as Gods kindness impels him to show such merciful love as God does, whereby he proves himself in truth a child of God, but it is the merciful love of God Himself that dwells in his heart and works therefrom; for he that lives in fellowship with God receives into his heart through the Holy Ghost the love that is in God, and lives and moves in this love.<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

[2Sa 8:15-18<\/span>. Taylor: In the minds of most readers of the Bible the name of David, king of Israel, is associated mainly with military prowess, poetic genius, and personal piety; and only on the rarest occasions do we hear any reference made to his administrative ability. Yet in this last quality he was at least as remarkable as in any one of the others; and great injustice is done to him if we leave out of view the eminent services which he rendered to his country by the exercise of his governmental and organizing faculties. More than Charlemagne did for Europe, or Alfred for England, David accomplished for the tribes of Israel.Tr.]<\/p>\n

Chap. 9. How true, compassionate love of ones neighbor should be exhibited, is shown by Davids conduct towards Mephibosheth. 1) This love does not suffer the neighbors need to come to it, but searches out and goes after the need; 2) It does not suffer itself to be determined by selfish aims, but does its duty in faithfulness and impelled by Gods mercy for Gods sake; 3) It brings to the neighbors heart, when filled with trembling anxiety and fear, consolation and peace by the words, Fear not; 4) It lifts up the neighbor from his wretchedness and want, by restoring to him what he had lost without fault, and by making him share in the enjoyment of its own blessings, assigned it by God.
How a man after Gods heart, amid experiences of divine goodness and faithfulness, should show the mercy of God towards his fellow-man: 1) By faithfully discharging the duties of friendship;<\/em> 2) In case there has been enmity<\/em>, by requiting evil with good; 3) By rendering to one on whom Gods counsel has inflicted misfortune<\/em>, the words and deeds of humble and helpful love.<\/p>\n

The exercise of merciful love is an evidence that one has himself experienced the divine mercy; for this mercy Isaiah , 1) Its source, 2) Its motive, 3) Its example.The mercy of God is that which is shown in God and for Gods sake, Luk 6:30<\/span>. (Berl. Bible.)<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:1<\/span>. Starke: To poor children whose parents have deserved well of us we should do good in return. Wuert. Bib.: When harm has been done one, and his enemy is no longer present, he should not avenge himself on his posterity, but should forget the wrong, and, if possible, should do good to the children and posterity of the man who wronged him (Mat 5:44<\/span>).[Henry: David had too long forgotten his obligations to Jonathan, but now, at length, they are brought to his mind. It is good sometimes to bethink ourselves whether there be any promises or engagements that we have neglected to make good; better do it late than never. Scott: Those who have much in their power should sedulously inquire<\/em> after opportunities of doing good; for frequently the most deserving objects of our compassion are concealed by modesty and patient resignation.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:2-3<\/span>. S. Schmid: All our good works, even works of mercy, must be done for Gods sake.Starke: Our mercy should be ordered according to Gods mercy.<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:5<\/span>. Starke: A Christian should not only love in word, but also in deed and in truth (1Jn 3:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:6-7<\/span>. Cramer: Treat orphans as a father, and thou shalt be as a son of the Most High (Sir 4:10).Wuert. Bible: When parents are pious, their children after their death enjoy the fruit of it (Exo 20:6<\/span>; Psa 112:1-2<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:7<\/span>. Berl. Bible: Believers should earnestly take care to show all possible loving service to the children of those whom they have loved in the Lord, since we can then do nothing better than to remind such children of their parents grace, that they may follow them in faith and piety.Schlier: Still is it a good thing for children if they have God-fearing parents, and still for long years may children enjoy the good their parents have done. The piety of parents is worth more than much money and goods.[Cowper:<\/p>\n

My boast is not that I deduce my birth
From lions enthroned, and rulers of the earth;
But higher far my proud pretensions rise
The son of parents passed into the skies.Tr.]<\/p>\n

2Sa 9:9<\/span>. Hall: There is no more certain way to glory and advancement than a lowly dejection of ourselves. 2Sa 9:11-12<\/span>. Osiander: Stewards should serve their lord not with eye-service, but with all fidelity (Eph 6:6<\/span>; Col 3:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/span>[2Sa 8:1<\/span>. We leave this obscure word untranslated. Erdmann renders it the bridle of the mother, but the Heb. never means mother; so Philippson: the bridle of the metropolis (capital city). The ancient VSS. are discordant and unsatisfactory: Chald. has the fastening of the Ammah, Vulg. the bridle of tribute, Syr. and Arab, render a proper name Ramath-Gamah (which some translate the height of the rush), Aquila gives the bridle of the aqueduct or (according to another edition) the bridle of the ell, Symmachus the authority of tribute, while the Sept. reading suggests that their text contained the stem or . These renderings show the perplexity of the translators; the Rabbinical translation stream or aqueduct (so perhaps Chald.) is improbable, and the rendering tribute equally without authority (=), while the reading in Chron. Gath and her daughters is an explanation, not a translation, if it be not a different form of the same original text. In this uncertainty it seems better to leave the words untranslated, as in Eng. A. V. Perhaps we have here a proper name, possibly a corruption of the text of Chronicles.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[2]<\/span>[2Sa 8:2<\/span>. Sept. has two lines to kill and two to save, and Vulg. gives one line to each division (and so the Syr. in Waltons Polyglot, followed by Arab., but Lees Syr. text agrees with the Heb.); these are changes from desire for symmetry.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[3]<\/span>[2Sa 8:3<\/span>. Erdmann and many others prefer this form Hadadezer<\/em> to the form in Chron., Hadarezer<\/em> (which is found in all the ancient VSS. except Chald., and in many good Heb. MSS. and EDD.) on the ground that Hadad is the name of a Syrian sun-god and occurs in many other proper names; but Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das A. T.<\/em>, p. 101) says that the name of the Syrian king in 1Ki 20:1<\/span> is not Benhadad, but Ben-hadar, which the Assyrian writes Binhidri; Schrader translates the name (the god) Bin is exalted. If this be correct, the reading here is probably Hadarezer, as in Chron.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span>[2Sa 8:3<\/span>. Our text is here to be preferred to that of Chron. (2Sa 18:3<\/span>). Erdmann renders to re-establish his power, nearly as Eng. A. V. But the phrase here used always means to turn ones hand either literally (as 1Sa 14:27<\/span>) or figuratively, and either from () a thing (Eze 18:17<\/span>) or to or against a thing ( in Exo 4:7<\/span> in Amo 1:8<\/span>); here, as not the enemy against whom, but the place in which the effort is made is meant the prep. in () is used; he went to put his hand, direct his attack in or at the river.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span>[2Sa 8:3<\/span>. The word Euphrates, not in the text, is supplied by the Masorites in the margin, and is found in many MSS. and EDD.; its insertion in the Heb. is unnecessary, since the river means the Euphrates.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[6]<\/span>[2Sa 8:4<\/span>. The Heb. here reads: 1700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen; Eng. A. V. divides the first number and introduces chariots in order to account for their mention at the end of the verse (after 1Ch 18:4<\/span>); Erdmann adopts the whole of the reading of Chron. 1000 chariots, 7000 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen (so also Sept. and then). But Wellhausen objects to this that the at the end is used in a general sense, including the horses of the horsemen,inasmuch as after all the only are houghed, there remain only 100 chariot-horses and not also the riding-horses. Still, as the author may here have chosen to leave out the riding-horses altogether, this objection would not be decisive; but it is in favor of our text that, while not impossible, it is not so easy as that of Chron.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[7]<\/span>[2Sa 8:5<\/span>. Syr. and Arab. read badly Edom and Damascus.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[8]<\/span>[2Sa 8:7<\/span>. The versions render this word () variously, apparently guessing at its meaning from the connection. As Thenius points out, the etymology (from a verb meaning to be hard or strong) and some of the passages where it occurs (as Jer 51:11<\/span>) favor the meaning armour the rendering shield is now more commonly adopted.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[9]<\/span>[2Sa 8:8<\/span>. The probability seems to be in favor of the reading Tebah.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[10]<\/span>[2Sa 8:10<\/span>. The better reading is probably Hadoram (as in Chron.), with which compare the Hadar-ezer above.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[11]<\/span>[2Sa 8:12<\/span>. Some MSS. and Sept., Syr., Arab. read Edom, a change of one letter only in the Hebrew, and this better suits the connection, where this name is followed by Moab, etc.<\/em>, Zobah appearing at the end.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[12]<\/span>[2Sa 8:13<\/span>. As Syria was not near the valley of salt, this text is manifestly corrupt. We may either read Edom for Syria (so Sept. and Chron.) or insert the clause and smote Edom after Syrians (so Erdmann). The former course is the simpler, and avoids the difficulty of accounting for the omission of any reference to Syria in Chronicles. The Heb. words for Syria () and Edom () differ very slightly.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[13]<\/span>[On this phrase see Text. and Gramm. For various explanations see Pooles Synopsis<\/em> and Bocharts Hieroz<\/em>. II. p. 225.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[14]<\/span>[See Art. Zobah<\/em> in Smiths Bib. Dict.<\/em>Tr.]<\/p>\n

[15]<\/span>[As in Psa 72:8<\/span> : from the river to the ends of the earth (south of Egypt), and so 1Ma 7:8. As the Nahar is the Euphrates, so the Yeor is the Nile.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[16]<\/span>[See notes on 2Sa 10:16<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[17]<\/span>[The permanent and deep calamity portrayed in this Psalm makes it extremely difficult, if not quite impossible to refer it to the time of David. There is great room for doubt also as to the Davidic origin of Psalms 60<\/span>. See the Comms. of Delitzsch and Perowne on Psalms for discussions of this point.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[18]<\/span>[The mills of God grind late the fine flour, say the Jewish Sibylline Oracles; or as a late Greek writer has it, The mills of the gods grind late, but grind fine.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[19]<\/span>[2Sa 8:17<\/span>. The supposition that our text has here inverted the names seems to be justified by the whole history, which shows no other priest in Davids time by the side of Zadok but Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. Some, however (Bp. Patrick, Wordsworth), suppose that the chief-priest Abiathar is not here named, but the two subordinate priests are given. This is possible, but not probable, because we have here a list of the chief officers of David, With our Heb. text are 1Ch 18:16<\/span>; 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6<\/span>. Sept., Vulg., Chald., while Syr. and Arab. have the inversion hero proposed. Erdmann unnecessarily supposes a historical error in the text.Lit.: were priests, the Art. being omitted because they were the only priests (high-priests), as above recorder and below scribe.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[20]<\/span>[2Sa 8:17<\/span>. It seems impossible to decide certainly between this form of the name and those of Chron. (Shavsha), 2Sa 20:25<\/span> (Sheya and Sheva) and 1Ki 4:3<\/span> (Shisha).Tr.]<\/p>\n

[21]<\/span>[2Sa 8:18<\/span>. The Prep. over () is here properly supplied by Eng. A. V., which, however, incorrectly renders the following (which is to be rejected) by both.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[22]<\/span>[2Sa 8:18<\/span>. So Chron.; others render: counsellors. For the renderings of the verb () in the ancient versions and lexicons, see Gesen., Thes. s. v.<\/em> Gesenius himself holds that all other meanings of the word are derived from the notion of priest; but while the radical meaning must be held to be obscure, the connection of the use of the noun undoubtedly favors the rendering of Eng. A. V. here, and in 2Sa 20:23-26<\/span> and 1Ki 4:2-6<\/span>. The verb in Isa 61:10<\/span> also presents difficulty.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[23]<\/span>[2Sa 9:6<\/span>. On the form of this name, in which the last element was originally Baal<\/em>, and the reason for the change see on 2Sa 4:4<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[24]<\/span>[2Sa 9:10<\/span>. So all the ancient VSS. except Chald.; the of the Heb. is therefore to be omitted as destroying the syntax, since there is now no object for the verb bring (Eng. A. V. inserts the fruits). Further, some Greek VSS. cited in Montfaucons ed. of Origens Hexapla<\/em> read: and thou shalt bring bread to the house<\/em> ( instead of ) of thy lord, and this reading has also been proposed by Bttcher (independently, it would seem, as he does not mention the Greek) and approved by Thenius. The external evidence is distinctly against this reading (it is found only in some anonymous Greek versions), but the internal evidence strongly favors it; for, as Bttcher remarks, the following clause, affirming that Mephibosheth will eat at the royal table, would naturally contrast him with some other person or persons in this clause. The passage would then read thus: thou and thy sons and thy servants shall till the land for him, and thou shalt bring food to the household of thy master, and they shall eat; and Mephibosheth [himself] shall eat at my table. We might then put for , but it is not necessary, since (house) may take a verb in the Sing. The change of to in copying would be easy, especially as the phrase: son of thy master, is found near, and the error, if it be an error, must have come in very early.On the other hand our present Heb. text () is favored by the similar phrase elsewhere used in this narrative, and the contrast above referred to, while natural, cannot be said to be absolutely necessary. Bttchers emendation may therefore be said to be highly probable, but not absolutely certain.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[25]<\/span>[2Sa 9:11<\/span>. This phrase is supplied by Eng. A. V. on the supposition that these are the words of David, and so Bp. Patrick. Erdmann and others refer the words to Ziba. But it is not probable that David would here repeat his former declaration after Ziba had assented to everything; and in Zibas mouth the words are inappropriate, whether he means his own table (Philippson), or quotes the kings phrase: my table (Erdmann). It is better to regard the phrase as the statement of the narrator. Bib. Com.<\/em>, taking it so, retains the present text and renders: so Mephibosheth ate at my table, etc.<\/em>, regarding David himself as the narrator, which, however, is hard and unexampled. Following Sept. and Syr. we might read. and Mephibosheth ate (= was eating) at the kings table, etc.<\/em> The word king () may have fallen out through error of eye on account of its occurrence at the end of the verse, or the my table may have been repeated from 2Sa 9:11<\/span>. To this emendation it is not a sufficient objection that the same phrase would thus be employed by the narrator in 2Sa 9:13<\/span>; for in 2Sa 9:11<\/span> it describes the conclusion of the immediate arrangement made by the king, while in 2Sa 9:13<\/span> it concludes the whole account of Mephibosheths position and circumstances, as for a similar reason the statement about his lameness is repeated in 2Sa 9:13<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[26]<\/span> shortened from =, the latter, along with , a second name of the same person.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/span>[The word welsh<\/em> means foreign, and the Germans applied the name to Italians, as the Saxons did to the Cymry.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[28]<\/span>[Bttcher omits these two words, and (after the Sept.), renders Benaiah was counsellor, introducing instead of Krethi and Pelethi; but this view has little in its favor.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[29]<\/span>The Dat. is not periphrasis of the Gen. (Keil), nor to be changed into from (), the house (Then.), but indicates appertainment to.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/span>[On this speech of Jonathan see the corrected Eng. translation and translators notes.Tr.]<\/p>\n

[31]<\/span>[This word is variously read and understood; Eng. A. V. Debir.Tr.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CONTENTS<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We have a very different view of David in this chapter, from the view we had of him in the former. There we looked at him in his communion with God; and here, in his conflicts with men. Here are his conquests over the Philistines; the Moabites, Zobah, thy Syrians, and the Edomites. Here is also, the account of the rich gifts made to David; his courts of Justice, and his officers. So that altogether we see David here in a state of prosperity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

(1) And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It should seem, that this victory of David’s was fought by him. He did not, as in former battles, defend himself against the Philistines, but he went in quest of conquest. Thus, in spiritual warfares, when the Lord hath given us rest, as David had, from the enemies around, the same Lord gives us strength to wage war with the remaining Canaanites that are in the land. Let the reader remember God’s promise to Israel, that he would by little and little drive out all their enemies before them; and here he will see the fulfilling of that blessed promise. Deu 7:22<\/span> . Metheg-ammah, was probably so called, from having been a frontier garrison to the Philistines, and an awe upon Israel in the times of their humblings. The word Metheg, signifies a curb or bridle. Some have thought that this Metheg-ammah was Gath. Here it was, most probably, that Jonathan smote the garrison. See 1Sa 13:3<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2Sa 8<\/span><\/p>\n

(The eighth chapter closes the direct narrative of David’s reign. The rest of this book gives detailed accounts of particular incidents occurring at irregular intervals.)<\/p>\n

1. And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them [reduced them to a position of inferiority]: and David took Metheg-ammah [no such place known. Means, took the bridle of the metropolis] out of the hand of the Philistines.<\/p>\n

2. And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites [who were supposed to have killed David’s father and mother] became David’s servants, and brought gifts [paid tribute].<\/p>\n

3. David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border [to cause his hand to return] at the river Euphrates.<\/p>\n

4. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred [seven thousand] horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed [hamstrung] all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.<\/p>\n

5. And when the Syrians of Damascus [the most powerful branch of the Syrian race] came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.<\/p>\n

6. Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts. And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went.<\/p>\n

7. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

8. And from Betah, and from Berothai cities of Hadadezer, king David took exceeding much brass.<\/p>\n

9. When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer,<\/p>\n

10. Then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to salute him, and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer, and smitten him: for Hadadezer had wars with Toi. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass:<\/p>\n

11. Which also king David did dedicate unto the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued:<\/p>\n

12. Of Syria [of Edom?], and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah.<\/p>\n

13. And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt, being eighteen thousand men.<\/p>\n

14. And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David’s servants. And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went 15. And David reigned over all Israel; and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people.<\/p>\n

16. And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder [chancellor];<\/p>\n

17. And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe;<\/p>\n

18. And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites [bodies of men named here for the first time], and David’s sons were chief rulers.<\/p>\n

The Intended Temple<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

THERE is something beautiful in allowing certain men to muse a long while in religious silence, and waiting for their first word after the long contemplation. What can a king be thinking about when he is silent, almost day after day? What will an old warrior say after a fit of silence? He will cry because there are no more enemies to be conquered, or he will propose to add some new province to his crown. But David was more than soldier, and more than king. Soldier and king are passing terms indicative of accidental callings and situations; there is no eternal substance in them, as we understand the words. David was a seer, a prophet, a man with the inner vision, gifted with the genius of insight and foresight, the poetic soul; the man who turned common things into things uncommon. A worthy predecessor might such be of the Coming One, who turned supper bread into his flesh, and supper wine into his blood! David looking at his own personal comfort did not say, Let me now enjoy it; I have paid dearly for it: everything in my house cost me blood; if any man is entitled to a long quiet afternoon in life, I am the man; I am thankful for this tranquillity, and nothing shall disturb it. Men of David’s quality never make speeches of that kind: their peace is in their activity; their Sabbath is in their worship: the Sabbath is not an external time, a figure on a dial-plate, it is rapture of soul, elevated meditation, deep, loving, full reading of the divine statute and study of the divine ordinances, and a practical invention of ways by which to express the true peace and love of the soul. So, said David, look at the condition of affairs: I dwell in a house of cedar, and the ark of God dwelleth within curtains in an apparently insecure place, in a habitation unworthy of its history and dignity; I am sensible that things are out of balance, out of harmony, out of proportion; it cannot be right that I should have all this gold and all this splendour, and that God’s ark should be resident within curtains.<\/p>\n

Truly, he was a poet, with a fine sense of rhythm. Were a syllable too much in a line it would afflict him like the puncture of an edged instrument. Without studying letters, he knew when things swung in astronomic rhythm and balance and harmony. We may have lost that fine sense of unity and practical poesy; some men have lost it in speech. God has set all things in relation. He is a God of order. He has published the universe as a poem, and all his goings fall into noble sequence. We must study that spirit and pray for it, so that we cannot rest while a picture is out of square, whilst a pillar that ought to be upright is leaning a little to the right or to the left. We ought to be flung into disorder and sense of shame by a false colour, a false note. But whilst this is impossible to us in a practical way, what is possible to us is a sense of moral justice, a sense of righteous relation, a sense of what is due to God. To be at ease whilst his house is without a roof is to proclaim oneself no child of Heaven. It was nothing to David that his own house was lighted with splendour, whilst the ark was without a fit lodgment. Here is the poet again the poetic soul, the poetic conscience; the nature that studies harmony, relation, completeness, music. It is wonderful how content some people can be in the wildest tumult, and marvellous to observe how such people would make themselves the judges of what other people ought to be and to do: they themselves can be at rest why not all the world? They do not see the dust, the mud, the soil, the stain, the flaw, the inequality, why should other people look after such things? But these people must not be allowed to rule a universe which God has made.<\/p>\n

Having come into personal comfort, David will do good. That is the right expression of gratitude. What can I do for the Church? What can I do for the poor? Having read many books, and acquired some information, what can I do for the ignorant? Having a table off which crumbs fall, what is to be done with the crumbs at least? If we begin by giving away the crumbs, we may end by cutting off part of the body of the loaf. Begin where you can. This nobility of benevolence is a growth. It pleases us to think we are economic, and have a keen eye for lines and limits and stopping-places, but as we give bread, or knowledge, or help of any kind, the next donation becomes easier than the one before; and so here, as everywhere, and now, as always, we are lured, not driven, to noble issues. Here is a man with a grand design. It is something to have a great purpose, although it may never come to anything visible. David dreamed a temple, and he was the better for the dream. In proportion to the width and general nobleness of our thought is the benefit accruing from it to our whole life. A grand wish is an instrument of education. It comes almost to the dignity of a prayer. Herein is the wonderful mystery of prayer in human conduct: we cannot follow the prayer, or lift up the suppliant to the noble petition, but having uttered the supplication we are proportionately ennobled by the very sacrifice. Think of a mind without a great thought, a heart without a generous purpose, a life without a dream! Why, it is like the earth without sky. Cultivate high wishes, fine desires, pure aspirations, religious outgoings of soul, and though they may never come to anything visible and tangible, so far as this world is concerned, the heart is the better for this ministry of purpose, this ministry of secret purification, and this ministry of dispossession of evil by the encouragement and culture of good.<\/p>\n

Nathan and David settled the matter according to their own will. Nathan was a man who might perhaps be not indisposed to agree with the king whatever he said. He may come to another temper under divine ministry; for that we must wait. The idea struck Nathan as a good one. Nathan had no objection. He said, The idea is beautiful: carry it out instantaneously; the Lord is evidently with thee; this is a thought the image and superscription of which cannot be mistaken; and Nathan went home to sleep. There are some things that appear to need no judgment. There are some proposals that are so beautiful and precious that we at once accept them, endorse them, and pass them on to fulfilment, and then retire to rest. The Lord taught David another lesson; he said: This thing is all wrong; it is out of season; there is much more to be done before this man can advance in the direction he has proposed: my house must not be built by his hands; I have an interest in my house: I care for the masonry as well as for the sanctuary. No blasphemer ought to be engaged in building the walls of a cathedral; no flippant man ought to touch the meanest part of God’s house; and no man of blood should build a temple. It is not every man who can give to a Christian subscription. The Church should not beg of bad men, because their money is bad. It is a fearful thing to serve in the sanctuary. Who can serve now but those in whom God may inspire the wish at least to be better, to be worthy to light a lamp or put one stone on the top of another in his great house? “Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord.”<\/p>\n

Yet how gentle is the Most High! Who can speak like God? It is the dignity that gives the value to the condescension. The lesson which God taught to David is to trust the providence which has been good from the very first: “Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote,” so I am not going to forsake thee; if I had taken thee from a throne, reasoning in another direction might have been at least partially justified, but “I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel.”<\/p>\n

God will have his providence judged as a whole, that is to say, he will have the mind thrown back to the point of origin, and have all the days linked, like loops of gold, like loops of light; then he will say to the subject of his gracious government: Look back to the beginning; count the days; read between the lines; study the whole, and see how all the time I have been building thee a house; and, until that house is finished, wait! What peace it would give to us all if we could adopt this holy method of criticism! Look at the beginning: Where were we? What were we? How have we been trained, watched, defended 1 “When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.” The men that waited for my halting saith the psalmist were disappointed, for, by God’s grace, I never halt. Sometimes we have said, If another great gust of wind like the last should arise, the roof will be blown off our life-house. But it never did arise. Sometimes we have had the last coal in our hand to put into the grate, and we have measured it with an anxious eye, and calculated how long it would last, and then said the cold would overcome us; but it was a wonderful coal: it burned without being consumed, and made wonderful necromancy for us in the grate built cities for us, planted forests visible, had all kinds of operation proceeding within the fiery sphere; and then, behold, the bitter cold never benumbed us. Why, then, should we be so fearful today, and speak now as if to-morrow would be our last as if we could endure no longer? It is not we who endure; it is God. God is in us, with us, for us; Immanuel God with us. So whilst David is disappointed on the one side, he is comforted on the other.<\/p>\n

God further shows that all things are critically timed: “Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers” ( 2Sa 7:12 ) But God never sleeps. He says: “I will put thee to rest, O brave soldier, chivalrous grand heart; I will close thine eyelids, stained with rivers of tears; I bury the universe.” But is the universe ended when David sleeps? The universe always begins never ends. “Thou shalt sleep” but in 2Sa 7:13<\/span> , “he shall build.” We must leave something for the future to do. All things are written down in God’s book. Do not be afraid of this doctrine because some people call it Fatalism. Some people have a mischievous faculty of inventing foolish names, and then fall into the snare of being victimised by their own expressions. Fatalism is a stone which the enemy has thrown at God’s providence, but God’s providence abides the same as if the stone had never been lifted. The end is known from the beginning: there hath no temptation happened unto us that was not foreseen. The devil cannot invent a new temptation. He shot all his arrows in the first encounter, and he has no more to shoot. We understand him, and we can beware of his coming.<\/p>\n

Then is Solomon to be a perfect man, to have all his own way, to do what he pleases, to shed what blood he likes, and build the temple any size he may? God forbid! Hear the word of the Lord: “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but my mercy shall not depart away from him” ( 2Sa 7:14-15 ). There is a great central line of providence and purpose. God is not turned aside by what happens today or to-morrow, in the nature of accidental occurrence. This is the great doctrine of strength and assurance. The Lord reigneth. He moves by a certain definite unchangeable line, with many a variation of outward circumstance and visible ministry: the fear is that we may be deluded by the accidental and the familiar, and mistake the central, eternal purpose of God. God’s purpose is to save the world, and save it he will. God’s purpose is to have the whole world for his house, and he will not rest until the topstone be brought on with shoutings of “Grace, grace unto it.” So David is told that he must not build, but he must still work; so in the eighth chapter without being unduly critical regarding chronology in the eighth chapter we find him at work again. And that is God’s answer to us in many a reverie. We must not be left too long in the easy homestead; we must be put out in the cold air, and climb the steep hill. Where we cannot build a temple, we may at least destroy a mischief.<\/p>\n

In the eighth chapter David accomplishes seven victories. He could not have rested with six; his sense of harmony would have been disturbed again: the victory must be complete: seven is the mystic number; it represents fulness, completeness, fruition, satisfaction. The eighth chapter could not have been written in the New Testament. David’s Son never could have re-enacted this chapter. The day of David was a day of war, battle, blood, conflict; the day of Christ is a day of war, but a day of spiritual contest: the instruments are not carnal: the words are gentle, the weapons are arguments, the great thunder-burst is the eloquence of truth, the eloquence of music. But we must not force the ages. This record is in its right place. Every age has its own genius; its own orthodoxy; its own opportunities; and every age has its own interpretation of nature and of grace. Think of the time when there was a false theory of astronomy: what matter? Now it would be doing violence to civilisation; then it marked a point in slow progress. Think of the time of witchcraft: what of it? It meant something more than it seemed to be: it was a longing, a yearning, a struggle after something almost within reach. Think of the time of idolatry, when the heathen were falling down before all manner of vain idols: what of it? Now it would be intolerable; then it was a page in the soul’s education. Think of the sermons that have been preached; think of the mistakes committed in many instances on points of criticism; think how their authors if living today would revise, correct, amend, and enlarge them; think how some who were the orthodox of their day would now be ashamed of their own thoughts and productions: what of it? At the time they worked up to their opportunity, they were faithful to their opportunity; now to retain all these mistakes would not be veneration but mischievous superstition. But this must not go on. The book of Samuel could not, blessed be God, have been in the New Testament. The wars of the ancients are not in the spirit of the cross. But Providence is a long story, a serial issue, coming out in daily parts, quite a wonderful book, and should be read straight on from the beginning of the beginning up to the latest sunrise. He who reads so will be no pessimist, but will see that God’s eternal purpose stands, and that the holy purpose is to make the whole world a temple, and the whole universe beautiful with holiness.<\/p>\n

Prayer<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Almighty God, thou art indeed a consuming fire to them that are out of the way, whose hearts are obstinate and whose will has gone wantonly from God. Thou dost fight with fire. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. We come to thee for mercy, for a gentle rain of mercy, pity, compassion, love. We have done the things we ought not to have done, and all we hold in our hands is a broken law. God be merciful unto us, sinners! Speak to us from the cross: there do thou commune with our hearts, letting us whisper our sin and rather hint at our shame than tell it in plain words. We bless thee for a gospel so many-sided; it is like a thousand doors opening upon the heart of God. The prodigal is welcome: therefore are we here, not because of our goodness and perfectness, but because our of evil and imperfection. We are here where the cross is and the speaking blood the sacrifice for the sins of the world: a mystery even greater than our sin, and for the mystery we bless thee. To no argument would we trust, to no wall of words would we come for security and rest, but to an infinite mystery, to that which is above us like a sky, beyond us like the horizon, something without words, putting all speech to shame and confusion because of its inadequacy to express the infinite compassion of God. Where sin abounds grace doth much more abound. Who can be greater than God? What can be vaster than his love? What can get so deeply into the nature that the all-penetrating blood of Jesus Christ cannot remove it? Wash us, and we shall be clean. Undertake for us when our strength is all gone; when our sorrow is intolerable, do thou find the solace which we need; when we are blind through tears, do thou terminate the weeping by one night’s grief, that in the morning we may see a risen sun and a radiant sky. Amen.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

XVIII<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

THE WARS OF DAVID<\/p>\n

2Sa 5:11-25<\/span><\/strong> ; 2Sa 8:1<\/span><\/strong> ; 2Sa 10:1-19<\/span><\/strong> ; 2Sa 21:15-22<\/span><\/strong> ; 2Sa 23:13-17<\/span><\/strong> ; 1Ch 11:15-19<\/span><\/strong> ; 1Ch 12:8-15<\/span><\/strong> ; 1Ch 14:1-2<\/span><\/strong> ; 1Ch 14:8-17<\/span><\/strong> ; 1Ch 18:1<\/span><\/strong> ; 1Ch 19:1-19<\/span><\/strong> ; 1Ch 20:4-8<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

1. He was never the aggressor.<\/p>\n

2. He never lost a battle.<\/p>\n

3. His conquest filled out the kingdom to the boundaries originally promised to Abraham.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/em><\/strong> 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?”<\/p>\n

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”.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Some other incidents of the Philistine war are worthy of comment:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/span> .<\/p>\n

That you may have a connected account of these wars, the consideration of three periods is deferred to the next chapter:<\/p>\n

1. The great sin of David, with its far-reaching consequences, 2Sa 11:2-12:24<\/span> .<\/p>\n

2. His treatment of the Ammonites after the fall of Rabbah, 2Sa 12:31<\/span> and 1Ch 20:3<\/span> .<\/p>\n

3. His treatment of the Moabites, 2Sa 8:2<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. What is the necessity of breaking the power of the hostile nations within and around Judea?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

3. What event brought a tide of war on David?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

4. According to the record, with what nations did he wage successful war?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

5. What eight general observations on these wars?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

6. What special feature characterized them and all other ancient wars, and what modern inventions have now divested war of this feature?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

7. Cite the names of some of David’s champions and their exploits.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

8. How does Sir Walter Scott, in Ivanhoe, <\/em><\/strong> philosophize on the speedy oblivion coming to great champions?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

9. Recite one exploit that deserves to live in literature, and why?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

10. Cite the notable characteristic of the battle of Baal-Perazirn.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

11. Name the more decisive battle which followed, and give illustrations from history of the different methods of attack in those two battles.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

12. Give Major Penn’s text and sermon outline on some words concerning this battle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

13. Explain: ”He took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

14. What the result of these great achievements?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

15. Recite the occasion of the war with Ammon and its results, and describe the first battle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

16. Give a brief statement of wars with Syria, Moab, and Edom.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

17. With a map before you, show just how by these wars and alliances David safeguarded all his borders.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

18. How did he commemorate his victories?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

19. How did he celebrate them?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

20. Into what other book was his thanksgiving song transferred, and how numbered there?<\/p>\n

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2Sa 8:1 And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines.<\/p>\n

Ver. 1. And after this it came to pass, that David smote.<\/strong> ] Out of action he would not be; but seeing he might not build God a house, he would, by subduing his enemies on all hands, provide for his son Solomon both peace – the daughter of war – and spoils for materials great store. And it is observable that he assailed no nation which he overcame not, besieged no city which he took not; the same which our chronicles affirm of the Black Prince. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

And David took Methegammah.<\/strong> ] That is Gath with her precincts, 1Ch 18:1 called Methegammah, or the bridle of the angle, or corner, because it kept that part of the country in awe and order. This David took from the Philistines; so hath Christ taken away the dominion of sin. Rom 6:8-14 <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

subdued. While David was victorious over enemies without, he was defeated by enemies within. See 2Sa 11 and 2Sa 12. <\/p>\n

Metheg-ammah. 1Ch 18:1 gives us the meaning, and shows that Metheg = bridle or reins, is put by Figure of speech Metonymy (of Cause), App-6, for power or government, and Ammah = mother-city: i, e. “Gath and her daughters (i.e. towns)” (1Ch 18:1). <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

In the eighth chapter of second Samuel there is chronicled for us certain of David’s victories over their enemies round about, how that God was establishing David and his kingdom, and was subduing his enemies before him. So it tells about David’s moves in many directions as he was expanding the kingdom.<\/p>\n

He took Methegammah out of the hand of the Philistines. And then he smote Moab, [and they became the tributaries of David, and then he moved a little north from there, and came against Hadadezer,] and recovered the border as far as the Euphrates. And from him he took a thousand chariots, seven hundred horsemen, twenty thousand footmen: David houghed all of the chariot horses, but saved a hundred for the chariots. Then he moved against Damascus and captured Damascus: and the Syrians became the tributaries of David. He put garrisons in the city of Damascus: [“And David took the,” well there’s the phrase of, “The Lord preserved,” verse six] And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went. And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem. And then Toi sent Joram his son unto king David, to greet him, and to bless him, because he had been fighting against Hadadezer. And Joram brought with him vessels of silver, vessels of gold, vessels of brass: Which also king David did dedicate to the Lord, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated from all of the nations which he subdued ( 2Sa 8:1-7 , 2Sa 8:10-11 );<\/p>\n

So you remember last week David had expressed his desire to Nathan to build a house for God. Nathan off the top of his head said, “Oh, do everything that you want to do!” Then God spoke to Nathan and said, “You spoke out of turn. David can’t build a house for me, you must go and tell David because he is a man of war, he’s a bloody man, has been bloodied by battles and all, he cannot build a house for me. But I will build David a house,” and He prophesied of the coming Messiah.<\/p>\n

But even though he was refused by God, the privilege of building a house for God, yet David then set about to raise all of the treasure for the house of God. In other words, he started gathering gold and silver, and brass in abundance. Laying up a huge store so that when his son Solomon went to build a house of God, all they needed for the gold vessels and the silver vessels, and all, was already gathered by David. So the Lord didn’t say anything, “You can’t gather together all the loot to build the house,” so David set about gathering the wealth in order that the house might be built.<\/p>\n

He not only did that, he drew up the plans for the house of God, so that Solomon only had to build it. David did everything but build it, really. He gathered all of the precious metals and all, he gathered, he created the plans, and then he left it to Solomon his son to build the house of God.<\/p>\n

Of Syria, [verse twelve] and Moab, the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, of Amalek, the spoil of Hadadezer the son of Rehob, the king of Zobah. David got a name when he returned from smiting the Syrians in the valley of salt, he there killed eighteen thousand of them. [Valley of salt is south of the Dead Sea.] He put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom he put garrisons, they became David’s servants. The Lord preserved David whithersoever he went. David reigned over all Israel; David executed judgment and justice unto all of his people. And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the recorder; Zadok, and Ahimelech were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe ( 2Sa 8:12-17 );<\/p>\n

So these were really the men who served with David in his kingdom and thus the kingdom was established under David’s reign. <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Here we have the record of some of the victories of David, again not necessarily in chronological order. There is, however, a very close relation between this account of them and what had preceded.<\/p>\n

The story of the king’s successes contains more perhaps than is apparent on the surface. By them he strengthened his position and that of his people; but he also gathered treasure. The house of the Lord was still in his mind, and although he knew he would not be permitted to build, he was still gathering in preparation for the work of his son. The chapter ends with the account of the appointment of certain officers of state, by which the internal consolidation of the kingdom was ensured.<\/p>\n

The functions of these officers are interesting. One was appointed to lead the army; another to be recorder, or national historian; two were priests, in all probability exercising their functions at two centers; a fifth was scribe or secretary of state; a sixth became the head of David’s special bodyguard, which would seem to have been composed of foreigners. Finally, the sons of David were made priests, or as the A.V. has it, “chief rulers,” the reference undoubtedly being to positions of civic, rather than religious, authority. <\/p>\n

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Victorious on Every Side <\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1-18<\/p>\n

Twice in this chapter we are told that the Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went, 2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:14. Indeed, he was more than a conqueror, for he obtained not only victory but the spoils of his foes, of which he afterward made large donations to the house of God. We are reminded of those great words: Now thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ; and, They also shall overcome that are with Him [the Lamb], called and chosen and faithful, 2Co 2:14 and Rev 17:14, r.v.<\/p>\n

Never in this world shall we be able to lay down our weapons. Often temptations that we thought had passed out of our lives, will revive in their old vigor and present themselves with even greater subtlety and force. Resolutions and vows will fail us. We shall be constantly kept in mind of our weakness and dependence. The only victory which is permanent is our faith, which receives from Him what we cannot achieve for ourselves. It is a very humbling experience, but it is our safeguard against overweening pride.<\/p>\n

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

5. The Extension of His Kingdom<\/p>\n

CHAPTER 8<\/p>\n

1. The Philistines and Moab smitten (2Sa 8:1-2)<\/p>\n

2. Hadadezer overthrown (2Sa 8:3-8)<\/p>\n

3. Further conquests and triumphs (2Sa 8:9-14)<\/p>\n

4. Davids reign and his associates (2Sa 8:15-18)<\/p>\n

Great conquests and victories follow. David arose from the presence of the Lord to go forth to conquer. With such a message he had heard, assuring him of the Lords presence and power, of the success of his kingdom, he began to extend his kingdom over the different nations which surrounded the land. The Lord was with him and preserved him withersoever he went. The history of these wars for the enlargement of the kingdom of David we shall have occasion to follow a little closer in our annotations of the first book of Chronicles. The extension of the kingdom of our Lord when He comes and begins His kingly work among the nations, to rule them with a rod of iron, is foreshadowed in these events.<\/p>\n

When we read in verse 15 of Davids reign executing judgment and justice we have another faint picture of the rule of the coming King. The leading officers of the kingdom are mentioned. Joab was the general over his army; Jehosaphat the recorder. Zadok and Ahimelech were the priests; Seraiah the scribe. Benaiah had charge of the Cherethites and Pelethites; these two names mean executioners and runners, while Davids sons were also ruling with him. Order prevailed in all things. When that true kingdom will be established on earth there will also be those who rule under the King, who have charge over five or ten cities (Luk 19:17-18). Davids sons who ruled with him may represent typically believers who are sons of God in Christ and fellow heirs with Him.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

am 2964, bc 1040, An, Ex, Is, 451 <\/p>\n

And after: 2Sa 7:9, 2Sa 21:15-22 <\/p>\n

Methegammah: or, the bridle of Ammah, 2Sa 2:24, 1Ch 18:1-17, Gath, In the parallel passage of Chronicles, we read, “David took Gath and her towns;” and it is probable, that Gath and its districts were called Metheg-ammah in David’s time; which, being unusual or becoming obsolete, in the time of the author of the Chronicles, led him thus to explain it. <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Gen 19:37 – Moabites Gen 22:17 – thy seed Gen 27:29 – Let people Jdg 13:5 – begin 2Sa 22:38 – General 2Sa 22:44 – head 2Ch 26:6 – the wall of Gath Psa 9:5 – rebuked Psa 18:38 – General Psa 18:43 – made Psa 60:8 – triumph Psa 68:30 – Rebuke Psa 108:9 – Moab Psa 118:10 – All nations Eze 25:15 – to destroy Heb 11:33 – through Heb 11:34 – turned<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

VICTORY EVERYWHERE<\/p>\n

INTRODUCTORY WORDS<\/p>\n

The title to this lesson is from the phrase, twice repeated in chapter 8, And the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went; which the RV renders, And the Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went.<\/p>\n

The Lords Battle<\/p>\n

It is important to keep in mind that the Lord gave the victory and that it was not Davids prowess that won it. Neither did his character merit it. God has a purpose concerning the redemption of the race in which He is using Israel, and what He is now doing through David is part of the program. We have seen this before, but we must never lose sight of it. <\/p>\n

Of course David is, in his heart, submitted to the will of God, and one whom God, for that reason, delights to use; but still it is God working and not David. <\/p>\n

God also is responsible for what follows in the punishment and destruction of the nations. That is not to say that He approves of all of Davids acts in detail, far from it indeed; but the great outline plan or policy is His, a fact that should make the careless pause to think. <\/p>\n

Wars Cruelties<\/p>\n

There are things David does which are cruel in our eyes; but remember it is war we are considering and, as one of our own generals said, War is hell, i.e., a taste of hell on earth. The barbarities of Davids acts were in accord with the thinking of his time, just as the barbarities of the present are in accordance with the thinking of our time. A milder age, a millennial state, will look back at the wars of the twentieth century with the horror that we now contemplate some of the history of the Bible. <\/p>\n

Foreshadowing Coming Judgments<\/p>\n

But worse things are coming on the earth before those days, as we judge by the book of Revelation. The God who is judging and punishing the people of Davids period is the same who will be judging and punishing when the Antichrist is potent in the earth. <\/p>\n

Little is said about these things in current preaching and teaching. It is unpopular to talk of sin and judgment, and death and hell; but these things are in the Bible, and we have no right to believe what we like and reject what we do not like. He is the faithful witness for God, and the faithful friend of his fellowmen, who warns them truthfully of the wrath to come. <\/p>\n

DETAILS OF THE STORY (2 Samuel 8) <\/p>\n

Metheg-ammah (2Sa 8:1) is identical with Gath and her towns (1Ch 18:1). Be careful to examine the map for these localities, as it will aid in mastering the lesson; and remember that light will be thrown upon the text here and there by comparing the parallel record in I Chronicles. <\/p>\n

The line (2Sa 8:2) is explained by a custom of Eastern kings to make their prisoners lie on the ground, while they determine by lot or a measuring line, who should be spared as slaves and who should be slain. <\/p>\n

To recover his borders (2Sa 8:3) may refer to Davids purpose to get possession of all the dominion God promised his fathers (Gen 15:18; Num 24:17). Horses were forbidden Israel either in war or agriculture; perhaps it was an act of disobedience for David even to save one hundred for his kingly retinue. <\/p>\n

Verse 15 shows that while David was much in war yet he also reigned well at home. He had a strong cabinet (2Sa 8:16-18). An explanation of the two priests (2Sa 8:17) is that the former had been put in office by Saul, while David had exalted the latter. But now that David was supreme a compromise seems to have been effected, and Zadok exercised his office at Gibeon (1Ch 16:39) while Abiathar did the same at Jerusalem. <\/p>\n

AN ILLUSTRATION OF GRACE (2 Samuel 9-10) <\/p>\n

We need not dwell on chapters 9 and 10, but the Christian worker will discover a fine illustration of grace and a good outline for a sermon in that of Mephibosheth:<\/p>\n

He had nothing to commend him to David. <\/p>\n

David not only forgives and delivers him from the dread of retribution, but restores him to a good position in the kingdom. <\/p>\n

He did this for the sake of another, Jonathan. Mephibosheth served David faithfully all his days. <\/p>\n

QUESTIONS <\/p>\n

1. From what is the title of this lesson obtained? <\/p>\n

2. Why is God working for and through David? <\/p>\n

3. How would you explain some of Davids acts? <\/p>\n

4. To what future event do Davids victories point? <\/p>\n

5. How would you explain the contemporary priests? <\/p>\n

6. Can you tell the story of Mephibosheth from memory, and point out some of its spiritual lessons? <\/p>\n

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2Sa 8:1. David smote the Philistines, and subdued them In the beginning of his reign they had invaded Israel twice, and were successfully repulsed. But now David invaded their country, made a conquest of it, and brought it under subjection to the Israelites. David took Metheg-ammah That is, Gath and her towns, as it is expressed in the parallel place, 1Ch 18:1, which are called Metheg-ammah, or the bridle of Ammah, because Gath was situate in the mountain of Ammah; and because this being the chief city of the Philistines, and having a king, which none of the rest had, was the bridle which had hitherto kept the Israelites in subjection.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2Sa 8:2. Two lines. The measuring line gave inheritance, but here the line gave the inheritance of rebels to others, as is the manner of treating rebels by a total forfeiture of inheritance. The line is often mentioned in the old testament. Most of the nations, named below, had made unprovoked war on David, as in Psalms 83.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3. David smote Hadadezerking of Zobah. We know nothing of this city; but the kingdom of this prince was bordered by the Euphrates on the north, Hamath and Damascus on the west, and Ammon on the south. David marched from Moab east of the Jordan, and attacked him before his allies, it would seem, had arrived. Tadmor must have been a principal city in this kingdom, which had retained its prince, and where he built a palace: 2Sa 10:16-19.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:4. David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen. The Septuagint: A thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen. The Hebrew scribe had here dropped the word chariots, and so made it one thousand seven hundred horsemen; and the Vulgate follow the Hebrew. But the English, 1Ch 18:4, have put in chariots, and made it as it is in the Septuagint. They might also, out of the Septuagint and 1 Chronicles, have set the number of horsemen right; not seven hundred, but seven thousand. Josephus has chariots almost a thousand.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9. When Toi king of Hamath, heard of the fall of his old enemy, he sent his son to congratulate David. Hamath was a kingdom extending from the north of Lebanon to Antioch. The river Orontes flowed in the centre, and watered Emesa the metropolis; which is but another name for Hemath. 1Ch 13:5. Jer 49:28.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13-14. David gat him a name when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of Salt, being eighteen thousand men: and he put garrisons in Edom. The Septuagint: David got him a name: when he returned he smote Edom in Gebelim, eighteen thousand men; and he put garrisons in Edom. 1Ch 18:12-13 : Moreover Abishai the son of Zeruiah slew of the Edomites, in the valley of Salt, eighteen thousand: and he put garrisons in Edom. Title of the 60th Psalm of David: When he strove with Aram-naharaim, and with Aram-zobah; when Joab returned and smote of Edom, in the valley of Salt, twelve thousand. No expositor makes any doubt but that all these texts refer to the same battle, notwithstanding the mistaken readings that are in some of them. Josephus states that Abishai, Joabs brother, led the army against the Idumeans, and slew of them about eighteen thousand, and put garrisons in all Idumea. Gebelim in the Septuagint, is nothing but a corruption of the Hebrew name Begemelach, in the valley of Salt. David, in this text, is said to have had the victory which was obtained by his army under Abishai, or Joab, as generals. The people vanquished were the Edomites; as is plain by the words that are next in all the copies. And he put garrisons in Edom. But in the Hebrew the word Edom is missing; unless Aram, which is here translated the Syrians, be a corruption of it. They differ but in one letter, resh for daleth. All copies agree, it was upon his return from vanquishing the Syrians that he vanquished the Edomites. The number in the title of the Psalm is probably mis-written, twelve thousand for eighteen thousand. They that will not allow that, say, Joab slew twelve thousand, and Abishai six thousand. Dr. Wall.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:18. Cherethites, Cretes, Islanders, engaged as body guards. Pelethites, degenerate Israelites gathered out of Philistia.<\/p>\n

REFLECTIONS.<\/p>\n

In this chapter we follow the hero of the Hebrews through a circuitous tour of victories, from Philistia in the west to Moab in the south; for Moab by some new cruelties had highly provoked him. Attempting next to fix the boundaries of his empire in the east, Hadadezer opposed his march, and afforded him new laurels, vast riches, and large dominions. The Assyrians in the north, jealous of his power, cut off his retreat; and by this daring act exposed themselves to a tremendous slaughter.<\/p>\n

In these victories we see all at once accomplished the long slumbering promises which God had made to Abraham, and which Moses had repeated to Israel, that God would give them the land from the wilderness in the south, to Lebanon in the north; and from the sea in the west, to the Euphrates, which should form their eastern border. Thus David made his long-afflicted country a martial people; he enriched himself with spoil, and opened the avenues of wealth and power, by surrounding his empire with a vast belt of tributary kings. But while the believer views those actions as a glorious accomplishment of past promises, let him say that they presignify the sure victories which the lion of the tribe of Judah shall obtain for his church and people; and let him be inspired by the example to shake off every fetter, and to vanquish every foe.<\/p>\n

By those victories David filled all Jerusalem with trophies, with ambassadors, and with psalms of joy, which exalted his name for ever, and made his throne a shadow to his people. Now every man could sit under his own vine and figtree, none daring to make him afraid. Thus, by and bye, the Lord shall raise his long oppressed and afflicted people. Jesus shall have the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. So all in heaven shall sing in a higher and happier sense, than in the age of Constantine: Hallelujah, the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our God, and of his ChristThe Lord will hasten it in its time.<\/p>\n

It would seem from Psalms 83. that the nations had formed a conspiracy against David on hearing that he was made king. Like Cyrus therefore he went round, and threw the yoke on their own necks. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2 Samuel 8. Davids Victories. His Ministers (D).A concluding summary, corresponding to the similar section on Saul (1Sa 14:47 ff.) and by the same hand. Apparently it formed the conclusion of an early edition of the Book of Samuel. It includes material and information from earlier sources.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1-8. David subdues the Philistines, Moabites, and Syrians.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1. the bridle of the mother city: the text is hopelessly corrupt.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:2. Two-thirds were put to death.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3-8. Apparently a summary with variations of 2Sa 10:6-19.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:3. Zobah: 1Sa 14:47.the River: Euphrates.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:8. Betah . . . Berothai: not identified.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9-12. The king of Hamath sends presents to David; these, with the spoil from his various conquests, he dedicates to Yahweh, i.e. stores in the Temple treasury, primarily, possibly, for the use of the Temple, especially for equipment, decoration, and building; but probably also as a national reserve for other purposes, e.g. wars, which were Wars of Yahweh, a sacred activity, waged by consecrated warriors (pp. 99, 114). Temples in ancient times served as banks, the deity being supposed to protect the treasure committed to his care; though doubtless other precautions were taken.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:9. Hamath: 2Ki 14:25*, Isa 10:9*, Amo 6:2*.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13 f. David subdues Edom.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:13. Syrians: read Edom (mg.) with Ch., LXX, etc.Valley of Salt: probably to the S. of Judah, in Edom.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:15-18. In addition to a commander-in-chief, David had a recorder, lit. remembrancer, and a scribe. There are no express statements as to the functions of these officials. We should expect that the scribe would have charge of any secretarial work needed at the court; the recorder was probably not the public annalist, but the kings confidential adviser. There were two groups of priests: the more strictly professional priests, who were probably described in the original text as Zadok and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub; and the sons of David. In the present text Zadok is son of Ahitub, and therefore of the house of Eli, which is at variance with the rest of the history: Zadok became sole priest (i.e. of the royal sanctuary) when the house of Eli was deposed. A description of Zadok may have been lost; it is not clear that the early document connected either Eli or Zadok with Aaron. Note that in any case the priesthood is not limited to either the house of Aaron or the tribe of Levi; the royal princes are priests. This seemed impossible to late writers under the influence of the Priestly Code, and so 1Ch 18:17 alters priests to chief men about the king, AV and RVm follow suit with chief rulers and chief ministers; both mistranslations.<\/p>\n

Then there was a captain of the Cherethites (1Sa 30:13) and Pelethites (p. 56), the bodyguard of foreign mercenaries now first appearing in Israelite history. This body was often of great importance, on account of their personal devotion to the king, and their freedom from local ties. Pelethite only occurs in the phrase Cherethites and Pelethites, the title of the bodyguard; it is generally regarded as a variant of Philistine (HDB).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

God’s declaration to David of His sovereign counsels in chapter 7 and David’s submission and worship had good practical effect. Notice it is “after this” (v.1) that David defeated and subdued the Philistines, taking control of their capital city (Gath). Saul had never been able to do this: in fact he was soundly defeated by the Philistines and killed in his last battle with them (1Sa 31:1-13). The reason for this was that he was more interested in his own self-importance than in the counsels of God. He never learned to honestly depend on the living God, therefore he could not be depended on to fight God’s battles. May we, like David, learn to fully submit in adoring worship to the truth of the authoritative Word of God. Only in this way shall we gain victories for Him. The Philistines picture mere formal religion over which only faith can gain the victory, for the things of God are vital and real to a man of faith, not a matter of empty ritual.<\/p>\n

In verse 2 David is seen fully defeating Moab also. The character of this enemy of God is defined for us in Jer 48:11 “Moab has been at ease from his youth; he has settled on his dregs, and has not gone into captivity. Therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent has not changed.” Moab is therefore a picture of such religion as is seen in Laodicea (Rev 3:14-22), self-satisfied, boasting in material riches, easy going, settling down in the world without the exercise of trying circumstances. His taste for the things of the flesh remains in him, and there is no change in his scent. He is a stranger to the change that new birth brings.<\/p>\n

There may be a question as to what is literally meant by David’s measuring them with a line (v.2), but the spiritual significance of this is important. The self-indulgent religion pictured by Moab has no concern for the discipline that keeps one within proper lines of limitation. Never having learned self-discipline, people of this kind will be made to feel the discipline of God in measuring them precisely as they are, when the Lord Jesus takes the reigns of government. Evidently two thirds were cut off in death as a result of this measuring, while one third were preserved alive. This seems to indicate that the Lord Jesus will clearly discern and divide between those who have given themselves up to self-indulgent religion and those who, though identified with such religion, are not wholly given up to it. This is observing the principle, “on some have compassion, making a distinction” (Jud 1:22).<\/p>\n

Next we are told of David’s defeating the king of Zobah, which was in northern Syria (v.3), as he (David) went to establish his authority in the area of the Euphrates River. David evidently desired to extend his kingdom as far as God had decreed Israel’s boundaries will be eventually (Gen 15:18). Syria is a picture of the materialistic principle that absorbs all the blessings God gives and takes the credit for them as though they had originated them. Its name means exalted.<\/p>\n

David captured from them 1000 chariots, 700 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers. What he did with the soldiers we are not told, but he hamstrung all the horses except sufficient for use in 100 chariots. Of course, the hamstrung horses could not again be used for war.<\/p>\n

The Syrians of Damascus came to help Hadadezer, but only to be defeated also by David, who killed 22,000 of them (v.5), and put garrisons in their country, subduing them and putting them under tribute (v.6). This again was a more complete victory than Saul had ever accomplished. The reason is simple and clear. The Lord was with David in all his wars.<\/p>\n

Shields of gold (v.7) were not the proper possession of Hadadezer and his servants. For gold speaks of the glory of God, and Syria cannot honestly claim to be seeking God’s glory as is true of God’s chosen King, the Lord Jesus Christ. A large among of bronze was also taken from two of the cities of Hadadezer (v.8). This speaks of the holiness of God. Some religions claim to be the possessors of holiness, but again it is the proper possession of only the Lord Jesus, as He will prove when He takes His great power to reign. Mere human religion never uses holiness rightly, but abuses it. <\/p>\n

Toi, king of Hamath (v.9) is typical of those Gentiles who will willingly submit to the authority of the Lord Jesus when He is manifested in glory. Hearing of David’s conquest of Hadadezer, Toi sent his son to greet and congratulate David, and sent with him gifts of silver, gold and bronze. It was not necessary for David to take these things through warfare, for they were willingly given to him. Isa 60:3 addresses the Lord Jesus in regard to the day of manifestation: “Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.” David dedicated all these gifts to the Lord along with the silver and gold he had taken from other nations which he had subdued.<\/p>\n

David’s victories were many in his subduing the surrounding nations. Verse 13 speaks of his killing 18,000 Syrians in the valley of salt, which evidently enhanced his reputation. Then we are told that he put garrisons throughout all of Edom. Edom (which is only Adam with the vowels changed) is a picture of the flesh. While we are on earth the flesh will not leave us, but garrisons are necessary to restrain it from acting as it pleases. The authority of the Lord Jesus over His own involves His restraining hand to keep the flesh under control. In the millennial kingdom righteousness will not dwell (2Pe 3:13), but “a King will reign in righteousness” (Isa 32:1): nations will be subdued and under the control of the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n

Verses 15-18 gives a summary of the administration of David in its righteousness and justice for all the people. Comparatively speaking, his reign was far more equitable than is common among nations. Yet David was guilty of sad failure too, so that he is only a faulty type of the Lord Jesus, who will reign in perfect righteousness. Joab was David’s commander in chief of army, a typical soldier, hard and determined, not the kind of servant the Lord Jesus would choose. Jehoshaphat was recorder, a responsible position, requiring strict honesty in maintaining records. Zadok and Ahimelech were priests. Zadok is given a little more place in the history of David, yet the work of these priests does not seem to be given much significance. Seraiah was appointed as the scribe (or secretary), another important (though not prominent function. Benaiah (a trustworthy servant) was in charge of the Cherethites and Pelethites, David’s bodyguard. David’s sons too were given places of some prominence in government, as “chief ministers,” though some of them were not qualified for such positions. Samuel’s sons did not walk in Samuels ways (1Sa 8:3), and Absalom certainly did not walk in David’s ways (2Sa 13:28-29). In the kingdom of the Lord Jesus there will be no favoritism shown: all will be perfect justice and truth.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

8:1 And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Methegammah out of the {a} hand of the Philistines.<\/p>\n

(a) So that they paid no more tribute.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

4. The security of David’s kingdom ch. 8<\/span><\/p>\n

"From the religious heights of chapter 7 we descend again to the everyday world of battles and bloodshed in chapter 8. The military action picks up where the story left off at the end of chapter 5." [Note: Payne, p. 193.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Chapter 8 evidently describes the conquest of David’s enemies that took place before David brought the ark into Jerusalem (ch. 6) and received the Davidic Covenant (ch. 7). An apparent problem with this view is the statement, "Now after this," in 2Sa 8:1. However, since 2Sa 7:1 says God had given David rest from all his enemies, chapter 8 must precede chapter 7 and probably chapter 6. "After this" most likely refers to the battles with the Philistines the writer recorded in 2Sa 5:17-25. Following those battles David had one or more other conflicts with the Philistines described in 2Sa 8:1. The chief city of the Philistines (2Sa 8:1) was Gath (cf. 1Ch 18:1). The writer described David’s military campaigns from west (2Sa 8:1), to east (2Sa 8:2), to north (2Sa 8:3-11), to south (2Sa 8:13-14), suggesting victory in every direction, total success thanks to Yahweh (2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:14).<\/p>\n

"The Philistines considered themselves the legitimate heirs of the Egyptian rule in Palestine and their defeat by David implied the passage of the Egyptian province of Canaan into the hands of the Israelites." [Note: Abraham Malamat, "The Kingdom of David & Solomon in its Contact with Egypt and Aram Naharaim," Biblical Archaeologist 21:4 (1958):100.] <\/span><\/p>\n

In the east, David defeated the Moabites, executed one-third of their soldiers, and obligated them to pay tribute (2Sa 8:2).<\/p>\n

To the northeast, David subdued the king of Zobah (2Sa 8:3). The antecedent of "he" is probably Hadadezer. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, p. 358.] <\/span> The "River" is probably a reference to the Euphrates, the most important river in that area. There is a discrepancy in the number of horsemen David took in battle (2Sa 8:4). Probably the figure in 1Ch 18:4 is correct. 2Sa 8:4 has suffered a textual corruption. [Note: Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 184; Keil and Delitzsch, p. 360.] <\/span> There are many minor textual corruptions in the Hebrew text of 1 and 2 Samuel, probably more than in any other book of the Old Testament. [Note: For an introduction to the study of this subject, see Martin, pp. 209-22.] <\/span> David evidently captured 7,000 horsemen and preserved enough horses for 1,000 chariots. Hamstringing the horses involved severing the large tendon above and behind their hocks, which correspond to human ankles, to disable them. Evidently David had plenty of horses and did not need to use all that he captured in war. [Note: See Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery, p. 285.] <\/span><\/p>\n

The word "Syrian" (2Sa 8:5-6) is a later word that came to replace "Aramean." At the time of David’s conquest, people called the residents of the area around Damascus, Arameans, and the area, Aram. Damascus at this time was not as powerful as it became later. Aram was northeast of Canaan. David had previously defeated these people. [Note: See my note on 10:15-19.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"Whether they [the gold shields, 2Sa 8:7] were made of solid gold or simply bossed with gold or supplied with golden fittings is impossible to say (contrast the shields mentioned in 1Ki 10:16-17; 1Ki 14:26)." [Note: Youngblood, p. 906.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Hamath (2Sa 8:9) was farther northwest than Zobah and Aram. Solomon later used the bronze, silver, and gold articles that David captured to build his temple (2Sa 8:8; 2Sa 8:10-12).<\/p>\n

The battles summarized in 2Sa 8:3-12 probably occurred after the ones reported in chapters 10-12. [Note: Ibid., p. 904; John A. Bright, A History of Israel, p. 202, n. 38; and Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel’s History, p. 226.] <\/span><\/p>\n

There is another textual omission in 2Sa 8:13. Perhaps while Israel was at war with the Arameans, the Edomites seized the opportunity to invade Israel and proceeded toward Israel as far as the Valley of Salt. This valley lay at the south end of the Salt (Dead) Sea. David evidently defeated the Edomites there after defeating the Arameans (cf. Psa 60:1; 1Ch 18:12). [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, p. 364.] <\/span> Edom, of course, was Israel’s neighbor to the southeast. The writer of Samuel could have written much more about David’s military victories, but he chose to move on to emphasize other things in the chapters that follow.<\/p>\n

"Recapitulating David’s military victories during his years as king over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem, 2Sa 8:1-14 parallel the account of the defeat of the Philistines (2Sa 5:17-25) in the overall structure of the narrative of David’s powerful reign (2Sa 5:17 to 2Sa 8:18; . . .). The summary may not be intended as all-inclusive, since other wars and skirmishes are mentioned later in the book (cf. ch. 10; 2Sa 21:15-22; 2Sa 23:8-23).<\/p>\n

"The section leaves no doubt about the fact that David’s armies were invincible and that no nation, however numerous or powerful its fighting men, could hope to withstand the Israelite hosts." [Note: Youngblood, p. 901.] <\/span><\/p>\n

The real reason for David’s success emerges clearly, however: "The Lord helped David wherever he went" (2Sa 8:6; 2Sa 8:14).<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:15-18 constitute a summary of David’s administration and conclude this section of Samuel (2Sa 5:17 to 2Sa 8:18) that records the major important features of David’s reign (cf. 2Sa 20:23-26). God established his empire firmly. He had relocated his capital, subdued his enemy neighbors, brought the ark into Jerusalem, and received the Davidic Covenant. The writer probably listed David’s military victories last in chapter 8 because the formal record of a king’s accomplishments normally ended this way in the official records of ancient Near Eastern monarchs. [Note: See my note on 1 Samuel 14:47-52.] <\/span> The writer of the Book of Kings followed the same procedure in recording the reigns of the succeeding kings of Judah and Israel. These selected events from David’s reign show God’s blessing on him and on Israel through him. Because he was the Lord’s anointed who followed God faithfully, Yahweh poured out blessing and fertility.<\/p>\n

"The recorder<\/span> (Heb. mazkir <\/span>[2Sa 8:16]), whose title derived from the Hebrew ’to remember’ had a most important role at court, with responsibility for keeping the king informed, advising him, and communicating the king’s commands. Interestingly, the Lord is also depicted, like the human king, as having ’recorders’, though the word is translated ’remembrancers’ (RV, AV mg.); their responsibility was to keep reminding him of his stated intentions until they were completed (Isa 62:6). This is an aspect of prayer which is easily overlooked, though it is implicit in the Lord’s prayer: ’thy kingdom come, thy will be done . . .’" [Note: Baldwin, pp. 224-25. See also J. A. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles, p. 153.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Obviously God does not need people to remind Him of anything since He is omniscient. Reminding God of things does more for the person reminding than for the One reminded, and this is the primary intent of the figure. The "secretary" (2Sa 8:17) was similar to a secretary of state. [Note: Youngblood, p. 911.] <\/span> The Cherethites and Pelethites formed David’s private bodyguard (cf. 2Sa 15:18; 2Sa 20:7; 2Sa 20:23; 1Ki 1:38; 1Ki 1:44; 1Ch 18:17). The Cherethites were evidently Cretans and the Pelethites, Philistines. Though both groups came to Canaan from Crete, the Cherethites were native Cretans and the Pelethites had only passed through Crete during their migration from their original homeland, Greece. [Note: See The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Cherethites," by T. C. Mitchell.] <\/span> Together they constituted a core of foreign mercenaries that served as David’s bodyguard (cf. 1Sa 30:14).<\/p>\n

"Royal bodyguards were often made up of foreigners whose personal loyalty to the king was less likely to be adulterated by involvement in national politics (cf<\/span>. 1Sa 28:2)." [Note: Gordon, p. 247.] <\/span><\/p>\n

David’s sons were in some sense priests. "Chief ministers" (2Sa 8:18) is literally "priests." [Note: See Armerding, pp. 75-86; and J. Barton Payne, "1, 2 Chronicles," in I Kings-Job, vol. 4 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 399.] <\/span> Apparently they functioned in a mediatory capacity but not by carrying out sacerdotal functions that were the exclusive responsibilities of the Levitical priests. Gordon Wenham believed "priests" is a mistranslation and that the proper reading should be "administrators (of the royal estates)" (cf. 1Ch 18:17). [Note: G. J. Wenham, "Were David’s Sons Priests?" Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87:1 (1975):79-82.] <\/span> Perhaps these priestly duties resulted from David’s sons’ connection with the Melchizedekian priesthood (cf. 2Sa 6:12-15). [Note: Merrill, "2 Samuel," p. 234.] <\/span><\/p>\n

David’s kingdom stretched from the Gulf of Aqabah and the Wadi of Egypt, on the southeast and southwest respectively, to the Euphrates River on the northeast. [Note: See the map "The Kingdom of David" in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, p. 462.] <\/span> David did not have complete sovereignty over all this territory, however. Some of his neighbor kingdoms were tribute-paying vassal states. Israel lost control of most of this territory later. Since God had promised Abraham’s descendants permanent possession of the Promised Land (Gen 13:15), David’s kingdom did not constitute a fulfillment of the land promise in the Abrahamic Covenant.<\/p>\n

Five major conflicts and reversals of fortune occur in chapters 2-8. Saul’s men conflicted with David’s men (2Sa 2:1 to 2Sa 3:5), Saul’s kingdom conflicted with David’s kingdom (2Sa 3:6 to 2Sa 5:16), and the Philistines conflicted with David (2Sa 5:17-25). Saul’s line conflicted with David and the ark (chs. 6-7), and the nations conflicted with David (ch. 8).<\/p>\n

God’s blessing came on Israel when the people had a proper attitude toward Him, which their proper attitude toward the ark symbolized (2Sa 6:12-19). Preceding this attitude a series of conflicts resulted in David’s forces gaining strength and Saul’s forces losing strength. God reduced Saul’s line to one crippled boy (2Sa 4:4), and He condemned Michal to remain childless (2Sa 6:20-23). Later He cut off the rest of Saul’s line (2Sa 21:1-14). On the other hand, God promised David descendants who would endure and reign forever (ch. 7). In the fullness of time the ultimate Anointed One, Jesus Christ, issued from him (cf. Gal 4:4).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER X.<\/p>\n

FOREIGN WARS.<\/p>\n

2Sa 8:1-14.<\/p>\n

THE transitions of the Bible, like those of actual life, are often singularly abrupt; that which now hurries us from the scene of elevated communion with God to the confused noise and deadly struggles of the battle-field is peculiarly startling. We are called to contemplate David in a remarkable light, as a professional warrior, a man of the sword, a man of blood; wielding the weapons of destruction with all the decision and effect of the most daring commanders. That the sweet singer of Israel, from whose tender heart those blessed words poured out to which the troubled soul turns for composure and peace, should have been so familiar with the horrors of the battle-field, is indeed a surprise. We can only say that he was led to regard all this rough work as indispensable to the very existence of his kingdom, and to the fulfillment of the great ends for which Israel had been called. Painful and miserable though it was in itself, it was necessary for the accomplishment of greater good. The bloodthirsty spirit of these hostile nations would have swallowed up the kingdom of Israel, and left no trace of it remaining. The promise to Abraham, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed,” would have ceased to have any basis for its fulfillment. Painful though it was to deal death and destruction on every side, it would have been worse to see the nation of Israel destroyed, and the foundation of the world’s greatest blessings swept for ever away. <\/p>\n

The “rest from all his enemies round about,” referred to in the first verse of the seventh chapter, seems to refer to the nearer enemies of the kingdom, while the wars mentioned in the present chapter were mostly with enemies more remote. The most important of the wars now to be considered was directed against the occupants of that large territory lying between Palestine and the Euphrates which God had promised to Abraham, although no command had been given to dispossess the inhabitants, and therefore it could be held only in tributary subjection. In some respects, David was the successor of Joshua as well as of Moses. He had to continue Joshua’s work of conquest, as well as Moses’ work of political arrangement and administration. The nations against whom he had now to go forth were most of them warlike and powerful; some of them were banded together in leagues against him, rendering his enterprise very perilous, and such as could have been undertaken by no one who had not an immovable trust in God. The twentieth Psalm seems to express the feelings with which the godly part of the nation would regard him as he went forth to these distant and perilous enterprises: <\/p>\n

The Lord answer thee in the day of trouble;<\/p>\n

The name of the God of Jacob set thee up on high; <\/p>\n

Send thee help from the sanctuary, <\/p>\n

And strengthen thee out of Zion;<\/p>\n

Remember all thy offerings, <\/p>\n

And accept thy burnt-sacrifice; [Selah] <\/p>\n

Grant thee thy heart’s desire, <\/p>\n

And fulfill all thy counsel. <\/p>\n

We will triumph in thy salvation, <\/p>\n

And in the name of our God we will set up our banners; <\/p>\n

The Lord fulfill all thy petitions. <\/p>\n

Now know I that the Lord saveth His anointed;<\/p>\n

He will answer him from His holy heaven <\/p>\n

With the saving strength of His right hand. <\/p>\n

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, <\/p>\n

But we will make mention of the name of the Lord our God. <\/p>\n

They are bowed down and fallen;<\/p>\n

But we are risen, and stand upright. <\/p>\n

Save, Lord;<\/p>\n

Let the King answer us when we call. <\/p>\n

It is an instructive fact that the history of these wars is given so shortly. A single verse is all that is given to most of the campaigns. This brevity shows very clearly that another spirit than that which moulded ordinary histories guided the composition of this book. It would be beyond human nature to resist the temptation to describe great battles, the story of which is usually read with such breathless interest, and which gratify the pride of the people and reflect glory on the nation. It is not the object of Divine revelation to furnish either brief annals or full details of wars and other national events, except in so far as they have a spiritual bearing – a bearing on the relation between God and the people. From first to last the purpose of the Bible is simply to unfold the dispensation of grace, – God’s progress in revelation of His method of making an end of sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness. <\/p>\n

We shall briefly notice what is said regarding the different undertakings. <\/p>\n

1. The first campaign was against the Philistines. Not even their disastrous discomfiture near the plain of Rephaim had taught submission to that restless people. On this occasion David carried the war into their own country, and took some of their towns, establishing garrisons there, as the Philistines had done formerly in the land of Israel. There is some obscurity in the words which describe one of his conquests. According to the Authorized Version, “He took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines.” The Revised Version renders, “He took the bridle of the mother city out of the hand of the Philistines.” The parallel passage in 1Ch 18:1 has it, “He took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines.” This last rendering is quite plain; the other passage must be explained in its light. Gath, the city of King Achish, to which David had fled twice for refuge, now fell into his hands. The loss of Gath must have been a great humiliation to the Philistines; not even Samson had ever inflicted on them such a blow. And the policy that led David (it could hardly have been without painful feelings) to possess himself of Gath turned out successful; the aggressive spirit of the Philistines was now fairly subdued, and Israel finally delivered from the attacks of a neighbour that had kept them for many generations in constant discomfort. <\/p>\n

2. His next campaign was against Moab. As David himself had at one time taken refuge in Gath, so he had committed his father and mother to the custody of the king of Moab (1Sa 12:3-4). Jewish writers have a tradition that after a time the king put his parents to death, and that this was the origin of the war which he carried on against them. That David had received from them some strong provocation, and deemed it necessary to inflict a crushing blow for the security of that part of his kingdom, it seems hardly possible to doubt. Ingratitude was none of his failings, nor would he who was so grateful to the men of Jabesh-gilead for burying Saul and his sons have been severe on Moab if Moab had acted the part of a true friend in caring for his father and mother. When we read of the severity practiced on the army of Moab, we are shocked. And yet it is recorded rather as a token of forbearance than a mark of severity. How came it that the Moabite army was so completely in David’s power? Usually, as we have seen, when an army was defeated it was pursued by the victors, and in the course of the flight a terrible slaughter ensued. But the Moabite army had come into David’s power comparatively whole. This could only have been through some successful piece of generalship, by which David had shut them up in a position where resistance was impossible. Many an Eastern conqueror would have put the whole army to the sword; David with a measuring line measured two-thirds for destruction and a full third for preservation. Thus the Moabites in the south-east were subdued as thoroughly as the Philistines in the south-west, and brought tribute to the conqueror, in token of their subjection. The explanation of some commentators that it was not the army, but the fortresses, of Moab that David dealt with is too strained to be for a moment entertained. It proceeds on a desire to make David superior to his age, on unwillingness to believe, what, however, lies on the very surface of the story, that in the main features of his warlike policy he fell in with the maxims and spirit of the time. <\/p>\n

3. The third of his campaigns was against Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah. It is said in the chapter before us that the encounter with this prince took place ”as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates;” in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles it is “as he went to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates.” The natural interpretation is, that David was on his way to establish his dominion by the river Euphrates, when this Hadadezer came out to oppose him. The terms of the covenant of God with Abraham assigned to him the land “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen 15:18), and when the territory was again defined to Joshua, its boundary was “from the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” Under the provisions of this covenant, as made by Him whose is the earth and the fullness thereof, David held himself entitled to fix the boundary of his dominion by the banks of the river. In what particular form he designed to do this, we are not informed; but whatever may have been his purpose, Hadadezer set himself to defeat it. The encounter with Hadadezer could not but have been serious to David, for his enemy had a great force of military chariots and horsemen against whom he could oppose no force of the same kind. Nevertheless, David’s victory was complete; and in dealing with that very force in which he himself was utterly deficient, he was quite triumphant; for he took from his opponent a thousand and seven hundred horsemen, as well as twenty thousand footmen. There must have been some remarkable stroke of genius in this achievement, for nothing is more apt to embarrass and baffle a commonplace general than the presence of an opposing force to which his army affords no counterpart. <\/p>\n

4. But though David had defeated Hadadezer, not far, as we suppose, from the base of Mount Hermon, his path to the Euphrates was by no means clear. Another body of Syrians, the Syrians of Damascus, having come from that city to help Hadadezer, seem to have been too late for this purpose, and to have encountered David alone. This, too, was a very serious enterprise for David; for though we are not informed whether, like Hadadezer, they had arms which the king of Israel could not match, it is certain that the army of so rich and civilized a state as Syria of Damascus would possess all the advantages that wealth and experience could bestow. But in his battle with them, David was again completely victorious. The slaughter was very great – two-and-twenty thousand men. This immense figure illustrates our remark a little while ago: that the slaughter of defeated and retreating armies was usually prodigious. So entire was the humiliation of this proud and ancient kingdom, that “the Syrians became servants to David, and brought presents,” thus acknowledging his suzerainty over them. Between the precious things that were thus offered to King David and the spoil which he took from captured cities, he brought to Jerusalem an untold mass of wealth, which he afterwards dedicated for the building of the Temple. <\/p>\n

5. In one case, the campaign was a peaceful one. “When Toi, king of Hamath, heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer, then Toi sent Joram his son unto King David to salute him and to bless him, because he had fought against Hadadezer and had smitten him, for Hadadezer had wars with Toi.” The kingdom of Toi lay in the valley between the two parallel ranges of Lebanon and anti-Lebanon, and it too was within the promised boundary, which extended to “the entering in of Hamath.” Accordingly, the son of Toi brought with him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass; these also did King David dedicate to the Lord. The fame of David as a warrior was now such, at least in these northern regions, that further resistance seemed out of the question. Submission was the only course when the conqueror was evidently supported by the might of Heaven. <\/p>\n

6. In the south, however, there seems to have been more of a spirit of opposition. No particulars of the campaign against the Edomites are given; but it is stated that David put garrisons in Edom;” throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all the Edomites became servants to David.” The placing of garrisons through all their country shows how obstinate these Edomites were, and how certain to have returned to fresh acts of hostility had they not been held in restraint by these garrisons. From the introduction to Psa 60:1-12, it would appear that the insurrection of Edom took place while David was in the north contending with the two bodies of Syrians that opposed him – the Syrians of Zobah and those of Damascus. It would appear that Joab was detached from the army in Syria in order that he might deal with the Edomites. In the introduction to the Psalm, twelve thousand of the Edomites are said to have fallen in the Valley of Salt. In the passage now before us, it is said that eighteen thousand Syrians fell in that valley. The Valley of Salt is in the territory of Edom. It may be that a detachment of Syrian troops was sent to aid the Edomites, and that both sustained a terrible slaughter. Or it may be that, as in Hebrew the words for Syria and Edom are very similar ( and ); the one word may by accident have been substituted for the other. <\/p>\n

7. Mention is also made of the Ammonites, the Amalekites, and the Philistines as having been subdued by David. Probably in the case of the Philistines and the Amalekites the reference is to the previous campaign already recorded, while the Ammonite campaign may be the one of which we have the record afterwards. But the reference to these campaigns is accompanied with no particulars. <\/p>\n

Twice in the course of this chapter we read that ”the Lord gave David victory whithersoever he went.” It does not appear, however, that the victory was always purchased with ease, or the situation of David and his armies free from serious dangers. The sixtieth Psalm, the title of which ascribes it to this period, makes very plain allusion to a time of extraordinary trouble and disaster in connection with one of these campaigns. “O God, Thou hast cast us off; Thou hast scattered us; Thou hast been displeased: oh turn Thyself to us again.” It is probable that when David first encountered the Syrians he was put to great straits, his difficulty being aggravated by his distance from home and the want of suitable supplies. If the Edomites, taking advantage of his difficulty, chose the time to make an attack on the southern border of the kingdom, and if the king was obliged to diminish his own force by sending Joab against Edom, with part of his men, his position must have been trying indeed. But David did not let go his trust in God; courage and confidence came to him by prayer, and he was able to say, ”Through God we shall do valiantly; for He it is that shall tread down all our enemies.” <\/p>\n

The effect of these victories must have been very striking. In the Song of the Bow, David had celebrated the public services of Saul, who had “clothed the daughters of Israel in scarlet, with other delights, who had put on ornaments of gold on their apparel”; but all that Saul had done for the kingdom was now thrown into the shade by the achievements of David. With all his bravery, Saul had never been able to subdue his enemies, far less to extend the limits of the kingdom. David accomplished both; and it is the secret of the difference that is expressed in the words, “The Lord gave victory to David whithersoever he went.” It is one of the great lessons of the Old Testament that the godly man can and does perform his duty better than any other man, because the Lord is with him: that whether he be steward of a house, or keeper of a prison, or ruler of a kingdom, like Joseph; or a judge and lawgiver, like Moses; or a warrior, like Samson, or Gideon, or Jephthah; or a king, like David, or Jehoshaphat, or Josiah; or a prime minister, like Daniel, his godliness helps him to do his duty as no other man can do his. This is especially a prominent lesson in the book of Psalms; it is inscribed on its very portals; for the godly man, as the very first Psalm tells us, “shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither, and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” <\/p>\n

In these warlike expeditions. King David fore-shadowed the spiritual conquests of the Son of David, who went forth “conquering and to conquer,” staggered for a moment, as in Gethsemane, by the rude shock of confederate enemies, but through prayer regaining his confidence in God, and triumphing in the hour and powder of darkness. That noble effusion of fire and feeling, the sixty-eighth Psalm, seems to have been written in connection with these wars. The soul of the Psalmist is stirred to its depths; the majestic goings of Jehovah, recently witnessed by the nation, have roused his most earnest feelings, and he strains every nerve to produce a like feeling in the people. The recent exploits of the king are ranked with His doings when He marched before His people through the wilderness, and Mount Sinai shook before Him. Great delight is expressed in God’s having taken up His abode on His holy hill, in the exaltation of His people in connection with that step, and likewise in looking forward to the future and anticipating the peaceful triumphs when “princes should come out of Egypt, and Ethiopia stretch forth her aims to God.” Benevolent and missionary longings mingle with the emotions of the conqueror and the feelings of the patriot. <\/p>\n

“Sing unto the Lord, ye kingdoms of the earth;<\/p>\n

Oh, sing praises unto the Lord, <\/p>\n

To Him that rideth upon the heaven of heavens that are of old. <\/p>\n

Lo, He uttereth His voice, and that a mighty voice.” <\/p>\n

It is interesting to see how in this extension of his influence among heathen nations, the Psalmist began to cherish and express these missionary longings, and to call on the nations to sing praises unto the Lord. It has been remarked that, in the ordinary course of Providence, the Bible follows the sword, that the seed of the Gospel falls into furrows that have been prepared by war. Of this missionary spirit we find many evidences in the Psalms. It was delightful to the Psalmist to think of the spiritual blessings that were to spread even beyond the limits of the great empire that now owned the sway of the king of Israel. Mount Zion was to become the birth-place of the nations; from Egypt and Babylonia, from Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia, additions were to be made to her citizens (Psa 87:1-7). “The people shall be gathered together, and the nations, to serve the Lord” (Psa 102:22). ”All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him” (Psa 22:27). “All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord; and they shall glorify Thy name” (Psa 86:9). “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise” (Psa 100:1; Psa 100:4). <\/p>\n

Alas, the era of wars has not yet passed away. Even Christian nations have been woefully slow to apply the Christian precept, “Inasmuch as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” But let us at least make an earnest endeavour that if there must be war, its course may be followed up by the heralds of mercy, and that wherever there may occur “the battle of the warrior, and garments rolled in blood,” there also it may speedily be proclaimed, “Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government is on His shoulders: and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6). <\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And after this it came to pass, that David smote the Philistines, and subdued them: and David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines. Chap. 8. The Development of David’s Kingdom = 1 Chronicles 18 1, 2. Conquest of the Philistines and Moabites 1. And after this it came to pass ] This … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 8:1”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}