and took the royal city<\/em> ] “The royal city” seems to be equivalent to “the city of waters” of 2Sa 12:27<\/em><\/span>, that is, the lower city on the river, as distinguished from “the city” ( 2Sa 12:28<\/em><\/span>), i.e. the citadel. The capture of this probably deprived the citadel of its water-supply, and so rendered it untenable for any length of time.<\/p>\n 26 31. Capture of Rabbah<\/p>\n = 1Ch 20:1-3<\/span><\/p>\n Verse 26<\/span>. And took the royal city.<\/B><\/I>] How can this be, when Joab sent to David to come to take the city, in consequence of which David did come and take that city? The explanation seems to be this: Rabbah was composed of a city<\/I> and citadel<\/I>; the former, in which was the king’s residence, Joab had taken, and supposed he could soon render himself master of the latter, and therefore sends to David to come and take it, lest, he taking the whole, the city should be called after his name.<\/P> <\/p>\n i.e. That part of the city where was the kings palace, where he ordinarily resided; though now it seems he was retired to a strong fort. <\/P> <\/p>\n 26. Joab fought against Rabbah<\/B>Thetime during which this siege lasted, since the intercourse withBath-sheba, and the birth of at least one child, if not two, occurredduring the progress of it, probably extended over two years.<\/P><\/p>\n And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon<\/strong>,…. Of his being sent against it, and of his besieging it, we read in<\/p>\n 2Sa 11:1<\/span>; but it can hardly be thought that he had been so long besieging it, as that David had two children by Bathsheba; but the account of the finishing of it is placed here, that the story concerning Bathsheba might lie together without any interruption:<\/p>\n and took the royal city<\/strong>; or that part of it in which the king’s palace was, and which, as Abarbinel observes, was without the city, as the palaces of kings now usually are.<\/p>\n Conquest of Rabbah, and Punishment of the Ammonites (comp. 1Ch 20:1-3<\/span>). – “Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the king’s city.”<\/em> , the capital of the kingdom, is the city with the exception of the acropolis, as 2Sa 12:27<\/span> clearly shows, where the captured city is called “the water-city.” Rabbah<\/em> was situated, as the ruins of Ammn<\/em> show, on both banks of the river ( Moiet<\/em>) Ammn<\/em> (the upper Jabbok), in a valley which is shut in upon the north and south by two bare ranges of hills of moderate height, and is not more than 200 paces in breadth. “The northern height is crowned by the castle, the ancient acropolis, which stands on the north-western side of the city, and commands the whole city” (see Burckhardt, Syria<\/em> ii. pp. 612ff., and Ritter, Erdkunde<\/em> xv. pp. 1145ff.). After taking the water-city, Joab sent messengers to David, to inform him of the result of the siege, and say to him, “Gather the rest of the people together, and besiege the city<\/em> (i.e., the acropolis, which may have been peculiarly strong), and take it, that I may not take the city <\/em> (also), and my name be named upon it,”<\/em> i.e., the glory of the conquest be ascribed to me. Luther adopts this explanation in his free rendering, “and I have a name from it.” <\/p>\n The Conquest of Rabbah.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1036.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 26 And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city. 27 And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters. 28 Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it: lest I take the city, and it be called after my name. 29 And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. 30 And he took their king’s crown from off his head, the weight whereof was<\/I> a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set<\/I> on David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. 31 And he brought forth the people that were<\/I> therein, and put them<\/I> under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.<\/P> We have here an account of the conquest of Rabbah, and other cities of the Ammonites. Though this comes in here after the birth of David’s child, yet it is most probable that it was effected a good while before, and soon after the death of Uriah, perhaps during the days of Bath-sheba’s mourning for him. Observe, 1. That God was very gracious in giving David this great success against his enemies, notwithstanding the sin he had been guilty of just at that time when he was engaged in this war, and the wicked use he had made of the sword of the children of Ammon in the murder of Uriah. Justly might he have made that sword, thenceforward, a plague to David and his kingdom; yet he breaks it, and makes David’s sword victorious, even before he repents, that this goodness of God might lead him to repentance.<\/I> Good reason had David to own that God dealt not with him according to his sins,<\/I> Ps. ciii. 10<\/I><\/span>. 2. That Joab acted very honestly and honourably; for when he had taken the city of waters,<\/I> the royal city, where the palace was, and from which the rest of the city was supplied with water (and therefore, upon the cutting off of that, would be obliged speedily to surrender), he sent to David to come in person to complete this great action, that he might have the praise of it, v.<\/I><\/span> 26-28<\/span>. Herein he showed himself a faithful servant, that sought his master’s honour, and his own only in subordination to his, and left an example to the servants of the Lord Jesus, in every thing they do, to consult his honour. Not unto us, but to thy name, give glory.<\/I> 3. That David was both too haughty and too severe upon this occasion, and neither so humble nor so tender as he should have been. (1.) He seems to have been too fond of the crown of the king of Ammon, v.<\/I><\/span> 30<\/span>. Because it was of extraordinary value, by reason of the precious stones with which it was set, David would have it set upon his head, though it would have been better to have cast it at God’s feet, and at this time to have put his own mouth in the dust, under guilt. The heart that is truly humbled for sin is dead to worldly glory and looks upon it with a holy contempt. (2.) He seems to have been too harsh with his prisoners of war, v.<\/I><\/span> 31<\/span>. Taking the city by storm, after it had obstinately held out against a long and expensive siege, if he had put all whom he found in arms to the sword in the heat of battle, it would have been severe enough; but to kill them afterwards in cold blood, and by cruel tortures, with saws and harrows, tearing them to pieces, did not become him who, when he entered upon the government, promised to sing of mercy as well as judgment, Ps. ci. 1<\/span>. Had he made examples of those only who had abused his ambassadors, or advised or assisted in it, that being a violation of the law of nations, it might have been looked upon as a piece of necessary justice for terror to other nations; but to be thus severe with all the cities of the children of Ammon (that is, the garrisons or soldiers of the cities) was extremely rigorous, and a sign that David’s heart was not yet made soft by repentance, else the bowels of his compassion would not have been thus shut up–a sign that he had not yet found mercy, else he would have been more ready to show mercy.<\/P><\/p>\n Ammonites Defeated, <\/strong>2Sa 12:26-31<\/span> AND <\/strong>1Ch 20:1-3<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The Chronicles account tells how Joab went to engage the Ammonites following the defeat of the Syrians, how he pillaged and ruined their land while the populace sought safety from him inside the walls of their capital city, Rabbah. Chronicles passes over in silence all the account of David’s sin with Bathsheba, murder of Uriah, coming of Nathan, and death of the child, and proceeds to the fall of the Ammonite city.<\/p>\n Samuel gives more details of the siege and fall of Rabbah. The reference to the city of waters is evidently the source of the city’s water supply. With that in Israel’s hands it was impossible that the beleaguered city could continue to hold out. Therefore Joab sent to David to gather all the rest of the armed men and come to Rabbah that the king might lead the attack against it and its conquest be attributed to him rather than to Joab. David acted on the advice of his captain and came and received the city.<\/p>\n Much spoil was taken, including the king’s crown, which weighed a talent of gold, and was valued at more than a million dollars in today’s monetary values. It weighed in excess of ninety pounds and was set on David’s head. Certainly he must not have been able to wear such a heavy object on his head for long at a time.<\/p>\n The people were either put into servitude, laboring with saws, harrows, axes, and brick-making (as Samuel indicates), or they were put to death by these instruments and in this manner (as some commentators think the Chronicles account indicates). That they became slaves seems the more likely.<\/p>\n Some lessons: 1) The Lord will not allow His sinning servant to escape chastisement (Heb 12:6<\/span>); 2) sins of God’s people give occasion for others to continue in sin; 3) though men question, God’s decisions in judgment are right; 4) those who defy God’s people will ultimately be destroyed.<\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES <\/strong><\/p>\n 2Sa. 12:26<\/span>. The narrative now returns to chapter 2Sa. 11:1<\/span>. The royal city<\/strong>. From 2Sa. 12:29<\/span> it appears that Rabbah was not wholly captured until David came, and unless the whole result is here summarily stated in advance (Erdmann)<\/em>, this seizure must refer to that part called in the next verse the water city<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 12:27<\/span>. The city of waters,<\/strong> or, the water city<\/em>. The ruins of this city (see note on 2Sa. 10:3<\/span>) show that it lay on both sides of a narrow valley, through which runs a stream which is a tributary to the river Jabbok. The citadel still stands on the northern declivity. Apparently, Joab took all the city with the exception of this stronghold.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 12:28<\/span>. It be called after my name.<\/strong> Erdmann, Keil, and others, prefer to read and my name be named upon it; i.e.<\/em>, I receive the honour of the capture. Joabs conduct here is either that of a devoted servant, wishing to give his master honour or shield him from popular disfavour (on account of Bathsheba), or that of an adroit courtier who will not run the risk of exciting his kings envy by too much success (see 1Sa. 18:6-8<\/span>).(Tr. of Langes Commentary.)<\/em><\/p>\n 2Sa. 12:29<\/span>. All the people<\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, all the men of war who had remained behind in the land; from which we may see that Joabs besieging army had been considerably weakened during the long siege, and at the capture of the water-city. (Keil<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 2Sa. 12:30<\/span>. Their kings crown<\/strong>. So that he was either taken prisoner, or slain at the capture of the city. (Keil.)<\/em> A talent<\/strong>, etc. About 100 English pounds. (Tr. of Langes Commentary<\/em>.) This heavy crown of gold and precious stones might have been worn during the coronation by a strong man like David. In many places now weights scarcely less heavy are borne on the head even by women. We need not therefore suppose that the weight is accidentally exaggerated, (Keil)<\/em>, or that the crown was supported on the throne above the head. (Clericus.) (Erdmann.)<\/em><\/p>\n 2Sa. 12:31<\/span>. Under saws<\/strong>, etc. This must be rendered he cut them in two with the saw. The other instruments mentioned denote also cutting tools<\/em>. The brick-kiln<\/strong>. Keil understands that they were burned in the brick-kiln, but some expositors read with Kimchi, he passed them through Malcham<\/em>. i.e.<\/em>, the place where the Ammonites laid human sacrifices in the arms of the red-hot image of their god, Moloch. (See Lev. 18:21<\/span>.) But many contend that the Hebrew text cannot be so translated, and its true signification is very uncertain.<\/p>\n MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.<\/em>2Sa. 12:26-31<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n THE FINAL CONQUEST OF AMMON<\/p>\n I. To forego honour in favour of another is often as prudent as it is kind.<\/strong> If a man is beneath us in social position, or is less known or esteemed than we are, we ought to be able sometimes to stand back a little in order that he may be raised or brought forward and reap some of the benefits of which we have enjoyed so large a share. It is surely not a great self-denial for him who has won many prizes in the race of life, now and then to slacken his pace so that a less favoured person may taste the sweets of victory. But when those with whom we are engaged are our equals or superiors, prudence sometimes dictates such a course when benevolence does not prompt it. Those who feel themselves on a level with us, or know that they stand above us in many respects, are more likely to be jealous of our successes, and to look on us with suspicion if we leave them too far or too constantly behind in the contest for renown. If we desire to retain their goodwill we must sometimes put aside our just claims in their favour. The previous and the subsequent history of Joab lead us to incline to the view that his conduct at this time was actuated by this latter motive. He might<\/em> certainly have acted as he did out of kindness of heart. If this event happenedas is most likelybefore Davids repentance, Joab must have seen how ill at ease his master was, or, if the occurrence took place after the message of Nathan, David would still be in a depressed state of mind, and it is possible that Joab suggested his expedition against Rabbah to divert him from his gloomy thoughts. Or Davids reputation among his subjects may have suffered by his sinful conduct, and his general may have resorted to this expedient to restore the king to his old place in their esteem by reviving his military fame. But we think his proposal was dictated rather by prudence. David had already somewhat against him in the murder of Abner, and had doubtless marked him as an ambitious and unscrupulous man. Joab could not be unconscious of the deep offence he had given to David when he slew Abner, and was too wise a politician not to know how far he might go and yet retain his position at the head of the army. So, although he had a perfect right to complete the undertaking which he had carried so far, he showed great wisdom in now giving it into Davids hands, and thus laying him under a new obligation to continue his favours.<\/p>\n II. External success is no criterion by which to judge how a man stands in relation to the favour of God<\/strong>. By the conquest of Rabbah David completed that series of victories which made him secure against all his heathen foes. When the crown of the king of Ammon was placed upon his head and he returned to Jerusalem laden with spoil, those who measure how far a mans ways please the Lord by the amount of temporal success which He grants him, would say that now David was enjoying more of the Divine favour than ever before. But there can be little doubt that this campaign was undertaken while the heavy displeasure of God was resting upon David, and even if it did not take place until after his repentance, all this outward splendour stands in sad contrast to the inward gloom which must have overshadowed Davids spirit when he thought of the terrible sentence, The sword shall never depart from thine house because thou hast despised Me. David the shepherd and the fugitive was really enjoying far more of the Divine approval and favour than David the conqueror of Ammon, and this episode of his life is another illustration of a truth we are prone to forget even in the light of the Cross, that a mans external circumstances are no indication of his standing in the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n III. Isolated actions of men are often strangely at variance with their character as a whole.<\/strong> As we read this paragraph, we seem to want to transpose the names of the actorsto put into Davids mouth the words of Joab, and to make Joab responsible for all that is here ascribed to David. Such a change would harmonize entirely with the characters of the two men regarded in their entirety. As the record stands, the apparently unselfish words of Joab sound as strangely in his lips as the boastful and cruel deeds of David seem out of harmony with his general spirit. If we knew no more of either of these men, how false would be the estimate we should form of their characters. But all who are observant of men in general, and especially of their own lives, know well how often very good men act inconsistently with their profession, and how it not unfrequently happens that, in individual instances, they suffer when compared with men who are morally far below them. A bad man sometimes seems to rise above himself, and really does so at times, and even the best of men often fall far below their better nature. It behoves us, therefore, always to abstain from passing hasty judgments, and to look at a mans deeds in the light of the general tenor of his life.<\/p>\n OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS<\/em><\/p>\n The whole conduct of David at Rabbah is strange and painful. It was not creditable to be roused to an enterprise by an appeal to his love of fame; he might have left, Joab to complete the conquest and enjoy the honour which his sword had substantially won. It was unworthy of him to go through the empty ceremony of being crowned with the diadem of the Ammonitish king, as if he set an extraordinary value on having so precious a crown upon his head. Above all, it was very terrible to show so harsh a spirit in disposing of his prisoners of war. But all this is quite likely to have happened if David had not yet come to repentance. When a mans conscience is ill at ease, his temper is commonly sullen and irritable. Feeling himself pursued by an enemy whom he dare not face, he avoids solitude and reflectionhe courts bustle and business, and every kind of exciting and engrossing occupation. Uncomfortable and unhappy in his inmost soul, he is just in the temper to become savage and cruel when crossed. The whole occurrence shows that want of humility, admiration, love, and obedience towards God, tells darkly upon the whole life and character.Blaikie<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 12:28<\/span>. Do we the like by Jesus Christ, when we get any victory over our spiritual enemies, let him have the whole ghory; say we as those two disciples in Act. 3:12-16<\/span>.Trapp<\/em>.<\/p>\n The Final Siege of Rabbah. 2Sa. 12:26-31<\/span><\/p>\n 26 And Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city. 31 And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.<\/p>\n 18.<\/p>\n Explain Rabbahs being called the city of waters. 2Sa. 12:26<\/span><\/p>\n The river Jabbok flows near the city of Rabbah. This river would supply water to sustain many people. There was, as a matter of fact, a higher as well as a lower city. The city nearer the river was of lesser importance. The city sitting back some 300 feet higher in elevation was the principal city. The city was probably built to protect the formation. The unusual site of the city prompted the name. It was a royal city since it was the residence of the king. Once it was taken, the Ammonites were beaten.<\/p>\n 19.<\/p>\n Why was Joab so considerate? 2Sa. 12:28<\/span><\/p>\n Joab preferred that David have the glory which would come from capturing the city. He said that if he were to take it the city might later be called after his name. Conquerors quite often named cities after themselves. In other cases of historical note, the people have acclaimed the liberator by naming their city after the man who drove out their enemies. Such names as Caesarea, Tiberias, and Philippi bear testimony of the fact that the Romans captured and ruled over these places. Joab may have thought the kings fortunes were ebbing and he needed this additional boost to his popularity.<\/p>\n 20.<\/p>\n Why did the king have such a great crown? 2Sa. 12:30<\/span><\/p>\n After the Israelites conquered the Ammonites, they took the kings crown from off his head, so that he had either been taken a prisoner or slain at the time of the capture of the city. The weight is mentioned specifically, and it has been calculated to be something like eighty-three pounds. The strongest man could hardly have worn a crown of this weight on his head, even for a short time; and David would scarcely place it upon his own head, The crown must have been more for ornamental purposes than for actual use, but it would have symbolized the kings greatness and was very befitting to Davids exalted position. It may have been placed on his head in ceremonial fashion as men stood around to hold it, and this would signify that David was the ruler over this vassal state in the land east of the Jordan.<\/p>\n 21.<\/p>\n How did David treat the captives? 2Sa. 12:31<\/span><\/p>\n David treated the people very harshly, but he did not torture them. Some commentators view this as Davids actually sawing the people into pieces, and dragging harrows of iron over their bodies, or chopping them with axes. They even view this punishment as one of severe torture whereby they were caused to walk through heated brick kilns. David only made these people to do all kinds of servile work. He made them to serve as woodsmen. They dragged harrows through the field, and labored at the debilitating work at the brick kilns. They literally performed slave labor and thus, augmented the services available to the kingdom of Israel.<\/p>\n (26) Took the royal city.<\/strong>The parallel narrative is resumed at this point in 1Ch. 20:2<\/span>. Rabbah was situated in the narrow valley of the upper Jabbok, on both sides of the stream, but with its citadel on the cliff on the northern side. The royal city of this verse, and the city of waters of the next, refer probably to the city proper, while the city of 2Sa. 12:28-29<\/span> is no doubt the citadel, which was more strongly fortified.<\/p>\n CONQUEST OF RABBAH, 2Sa 12:26-30<\/span>.<\/p>\n 26<\/strong>. <\/strong> Joab fought against Rabbah <\/strong> This siege seems to have been going on during all the incidents recorded between 2Sa 11:1<\/span> and here. <\/p>\n Took the royal city <\/strong> Called in the next verse, the city of waters. <\/em> Ancient Rabbah seems to have been divided into two parts the city proper, containing the royal palace, and amply supplied with water from the stream that still flows through its ruins, and the citadel, or acropolis, which occupied one of the neighbouring heights. See note on 2Sa 11:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n As A Result Of His Forgiveness David’s Success Continues As He Reduces The City Of Rabbah ( 2Sa 12:26-31<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The fact that David was a changed man is now brought out in that he left his palace and personally took charge of the siege of Rabbah, and the fact that he had truly been forgiven was confirmed in that he was now successful in taking Rabbah and bringing the whole of Ammon under his control, receiving the crown of Ammon and setting the people to forced labour. Thus alongside the grief that would come on his family his success continued. He too was still the chosen of YHWH. <\/p>\n That this incident is to be seen as significant in the light of what has gone before comes out in that it is stressed that: <\/p>\n 1). David ceased to rest in Jerusalem (the cause of his downfall) and went forth to battle. He had awoken from his spiritual lethargy (contrast 2Sa 11:1<\/span>). <\/p>\n 2). The capture of Rabbah would enhance his name and his greatness, thus confirming that YHWH was still fulfilling His promises for David. He was making his name great (2Sa 12:28<\/span>; compare 2Sa 7:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n 3). In accordance with His covenant David was once again seen to be successful against all his enemies (compare<\/span>2Sa 7:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n We are therefore here given the assurance that David, in spite of his sins, was still safely established within the promises that YHWH had given him (2Sa 7:8-16<\/span>), because he had truly repented and had received his initial punishment. The narrative will then go on to indicate the wider punishment that David will receive. But before doing so it gives us this assurance that YHWH was still with David. <\/p>\n Analysis. <\/p>\n a <\/strong> Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city (2Sa 12:26<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, “I have fought against Rabbah, yes, I have taken the city of waters” (2Sa 12:27<\/span>). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> “Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called after my name” (2Sa 12:28<\/span>). <\/p>\n d <\/strong> And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it (2Sa 12:29<\/span>). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> And he took the crown of their king from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones, and it was set on David’s head (2Sa 12:30<\/span> a). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And he brought forth the spoil of the city, a very great amount (2Sa 12:30<\/span> b). <\/p>\n a <\/strong> And he brought forth the people who were in it, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln, and thus did he to all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem (2Sa 12:31<\/span>). <\/p>\n Note that in ‘a’ the royal city was subdued and taken, and in the parallel its people were set to forced labour. In ‘b’ the city is called ‘the city of waters’ and in the parallel great spoil flows from it. In ‘c’ the city is to be called after David’s name, and in the parallel its crown is placed on his head. Centrally in ‘d’ David turns from his former indolence and personally supervises the taking of Rabbah. <\/p>\n 2Sa 12:26<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.’ <\/p>\n While what has been described above was going on Joab continued with the siege of ‘Rabbah of the children of Ammon’, and eventually took part of the city. The name Rabbah means ‘large’ or ‘main city’ and thus ‘the main city of the children of Ammon’. Today it is called Amman and is the capital city of Jordan. Remains have been discovered on its airfield of a storage building used for the storage of cremated remains and dating from 13th century BC. Many of the remains were of children and may well have been ‘passed through the fire to Molech’ (Lev 18:21<\/span>; Deu 18:10<\/span>; 2Ki 16:3 ; 2Ki 17:17<\/span>; 2Ki 21:6<\/span>; 2Ki 23:10<\/span>; etc). Traces of ancient fortifications from the Middle Bronze and Iron Age have also been unearthed. <\/p>\n “And took the royal city.”<\/strong> This may refer to the whole city, the verse being in summary form before going into the detail of its gradual possession. Or it may indicate that section of Rabbah where the royal palace was, which was seemingly also called ‘the city of waters’ because it was where the main water sources were. Of course once that was taken the remainder would soon follow. No city could hold out long without a sufficient water supply. <\/p>\n 2Sa 12:27<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, “I have fought against Rabbah, yes, I have taken the city of waters.” ’ <\/p>\n Once Joab had taken the section of the city containing its water supplies (the city of waters) he rapidly despatched messengers to David calling on him to come personally so that he could take the credit for capturing the whole city. This last was something regularly done by great kings, who would also often loose off a token arrow (compare 2Ki 19:32<\/span>; Isa 37:33<\/span>) so that it could be recorded on inscriptions. <\/p>\n We should in fact note that large cities were often fortified in such a way that taking one part did not mean that the whole was taken. We can compare the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, which was only a section of Jerusalem and yet had remained independent of the remainder for hundreds of years. So there is nothing surprising in enjoying a pause after taking a part of the city. <\/p>\n 2Sa 12:28<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n “<\/strong> Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called after my name.” <\/p>\n Joab’s aim was that David should gather ‘the rest of the people’, that is, the men of Israel who were not yet involved in the fighting, so that he could lead an army both in order to seize what remained to be taken of Rabbah and also in order to conquer the whole of Ammon. The importance of a great king being present when a city was forced to yield was widely recognised. Only then could he be seen as the victor. Joab was not suggesting that Rabbah would be renamed Joab, but that if David was not present the defeat of Rabbah would be remembered throughout the world as the work of Joab. Thus Joab, and YHWH, were ensuring that David’s name would be made great, just as YHWH had promised (2Sa 7:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n 2Sa 12:29<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it.’ <\/p>\n So David gathered ‘all the people’ who were not yet involved in the siege and went to Rabbah and completed its subjection. This personal activity of David was important as a further evidence of his change of heart. He was no longer lingering in Jerusalem. <\/p>\n 2Sa 12:30<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And he took the crown of their king from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones, and it was set on David’s head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city, a very great amount.’ <\/p>\n Once the city was taken the ceremonial crown of the king of Ammon was taken ‘from off his head’, and set on David’s head. It was a crown of pure gold encrusted with jewels and was very heavy. It was thus probably a ceremonial crown and not for everyday usage. The ‘talent of gold’ was presumably a light talent of around 30 kilogrammes or 66 pounds. But it would still be excessively heavy. And as well as the crown a huge amount of spoil was taken from the city. It was openly apparent that YHWH had again caused David to prosper. <\/p>\n 2Sa 12:31<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And he brought forth the people who were in it, and put them to saws, and to harrows of iron, and to axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln, and thus did he to all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.’ <\/p>\n Then after their long resistance the people of Ammon were brought out and put to forced labour. It was common practise for the warriors of a city which had resisted a siege to be put to death (Deu 20:12-14<\/span>). This was in order to encourage cities to surrender without a siege, and also so as to ensure that once the army had moved on to further conquests it could not be attacked from behind. The provision in Deuteronomy was actually merciful as well as being practical, for many conquerors would slaughter all the inhabitants, apart from those whom they took away as slaves. But David was powerful enough, and merciful enough, not to need to do either of these, and instead he set the inhabitants of the city to forced labour. They were set to using saws, iron harrows and iron axes, and to work in the brick kilns. To be ‘made to pass through the brick kiln (malben)’ was probably a standing joke among the Israelites in view of the well known custom of the Ammonites of ‘passing their children through the fire to Molech (milcom)’. <\/p>\n Some see the description as signifying that the warriors of Ammon suffered cruel deaths by various means, but there are no other Scriptural examples of using such diverse methods of execution, while the descriptions adequately fit the idea of forced labour. Even so their fate would not be a happy one. 1Ch 20:1<\/span> says, ‘and he brought forth the people who were in it, and he\/they cut with saws, and with harrows of iron and with axes.’ The verb ‘cut’ is singular and might indicate David, but ‘people’ is also singular and it could therefore refer to what the people were made to do. But even if we do refer it to David it could signify that he did his cutting by means of the Ammonites <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/strong> Success Against the Ammonites<\/p>\n v. 26. And Joab,<\/strong> in the second year of the campaign, fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city,<\/strong> the city proper, without the citadel. <\/p>\n v. 27. And Joab sent messengers to David and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters,<\/strong> for it lap on both banks of the Upper Jabbok, in a narrow valley beneath its fort or acropolis. <\/p>\n v. 28. Now, therefore, gather the rest of the people together,<\/strong> mustering all those able to bear arms, and encamp against the city,<\/strong> the citadel on the heights, and take it, lest I take the city and it be called after my name. <\/strong> Joab here acted either as a devoted servant of David, who honestly wished him to have all the honor in the campaign, or as a shrewd politician, who would run no risks by gaining extraordinary successes. Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
27 And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters.
28 Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city, and take it: lest I take the city, and it be called after my name.
29 And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it.
30 And he took their kings crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on Davids head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance.<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/p>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n