6<\/strong>. in the wood of Ephraim<\/em> ] “The forest of Ephraim” might naturally be expected to mean the great forest covering the high lands of central Palestine in which the tribe of Ephraim settled (Jos 17:15-18<\/span>). But all the circumstances are in favour of supposing the battle to have been fought on the eastern side of the Jordan. ( a<\/em>) Absalom marched into Gilead and encamped there (ch. 2Sa 17:26<\/span>); David was at Mahanaim; and there is not the slightest hint that either army crossed the Jordan. ( b<\/em>) It is implied beforehand that the battle would be in the neighbourhood of Mahanaim (ch. 2Sa 18:3<\/span>). ( c<\/em>) The return of the army to Mahanaim on the same day<\/em> (ch. 2Sa 19:2-5<\/span>), would scarcely have been possible, had the battle been fought on the west of the Jordan. These considerations make it all but certain that “the wood of Ephraim” was some part of the great forests of Gilead. The origin of the name can only be conjectured. It may possibly have been derived from the connexion of Ephraim with the trans-Jordanic Manasseh, or from some incident such as the slaughter of the Ephraimites by Jephthah (Jdg 12:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n Against Israel – <\/B>Implying that the revolt was in a great measure that of the ten tribes, Sauls party, against the kingdom.<\/P> The wood of Ephraim – <\/B>This would naturally be sought in the west of Jordan (marginal reference). But on the other hand it seems certain that the scene of this battle was on the east of Jordan. It seems therefore inevitable to conclude that some portion of the thick wood of oaks and terebinths which still runs down to the Jordan on the east side was for some reason called the wood of Ephraim, either because it was a continuation on the east side of the great Ephraimitic forests on the west, or because of some transaction there in which Ephraim had taken part, such as the slaughter of the Midianites Jdg 7:24-25<\/span>, or their own slaughter Jdg 12:6<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n So called, not from its situation in the tribe of Ephraim, which was on the other side Jordan, as is evident; but from some memorable action or occurrent of the Ephraimites beyond, Jordan; whether it was their killing of Oreb and Zeeb there, Jdg 7:25<\/span>; 8:3<\/span>, or their slaughter by Jephthah, Jdg 12:5<\/span>,6<\/span>, or some other not mentioned in sacred Scripture. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6. wood of Ephraim<\/B>This wood,of course, was on the east of Jordan. Its name was derived, accordingto some, from the slaughter of the Ephraimites by Jephthahaccordingto others, from the connection of blood with the trans-jordanicManasseh.<\/P><\/p>\n So the people went out into the field against Israel<\/strong>,…. Josephus e calls it a great field, with a wood behind it:<\/p>\n and the battle was in the wood of Ephraim<\/strong>; or near it f rather; not in a wood in the tribe of Ephraim, which lay on this side Jordan; whereas this battle was fought on the other side Jordan, in the land of Gilead, not far from Mahanaim, where was this wood; and which was so called, either from the slaughter of the Ephraimites here in the times of Jephthah, Jud 12:4<\/span>; or from the Ephraimites feeding their cattle here and near it; for the Jews say g, that Joshua gave them a grant to feed their cattle in any wood in any of the tribes of Israel; and lying near Jordan, they used to drive their cattle over to this place, from whence it had its name.<\/p>\n e Ut supra, (Antiqu. l. 7. c. 10.) sect. 2. f “ad sylvam”, Junius Tremellius “prope sylvam”, Piscator. g In Jarchi, Kimchi, & Abarbinel, in loc.<\/p>\n Battle in the wood of Ephraim, and death of Absalom.<\/em> – 2Sa 18:6<\/span>, 2Sa 18:7<\/span>. When the people, i.e., David’s army, had advanced into the field against Israel (those who followed Absalom), a battle was fought “in the wood of Ephraim,”<\/em> when Israel was smitten by David’s warriors and sustained a loss of 20,000 men. The question, where the “wood of Ephraim” was situated, is a disputed one. But both the name and the fact that, according to Jos 17:15-16<\/span>, the tribe-land of Ephraim abounded in forests, favour the idea that it was a wood in the inheritance of Ephraim, on this side of the Jordan; and this is in perfect harmony with the statement in 2Sa 18:23<\/span>, that Ahimaaz took the way of the Jordan valley to bring the news of the victory to David, who was staying behind in Mahanaim. Nevertheless the majority of commentators have supposed that the place alluded to was a woody region on the other side of the Jordan, which had received the name of “wood Ephraim” probably after the defeat of the Ephraimites in the time of Jephthah (Jdg 12:1-5<\/span>). The reasons assigned are, first<\/em>, that according to 2Sa 17:26<\/span>, Absalom had encamped in Gilead, and it is not stated that he had crossed the Jordan again; secondly<\/em>, that 2Sa 18:3<\/span> (“that thou succour us out of the city”) presupposes that the battle took place in the neighbourhood of Mahanaim (Thenius); and thirdly<\/em>, that after the victory the army returned to Mahanaim; whereas if the battle had been fought on this side of the Jordan, it would evidently have been much better for it to remain there and occupy Jerusalem (Ewald, Gesch<\/em>. iii. p. 237). But neither of these reasons is decisive, and there is no force in the other arguments employed by Thenius. There was no necessity for an immediate occupation of Jerusalem by David’s victorious army, since all Israel fled to their tents after the fall of Absalom and the defeat of his army (2Sa 18:17<\/span> and 2Sa 19:9<\/span>); that is to say, such of Absalom’s followers as had not fallen in or after the battle, broke up and returned home, and therefore the revolution was at an end. Consequently there was nothing left for David’s army to do but to return to its king at Mahanaim, and fetch him back to Jerusalem, and reinstate him in his kingdom. The other two reasons might have some force in them, if the history before us contained a complete account of the whole course of the war. But even Ewald admits that it is restricted to a notice of the principal battle, which completely crushed the rebellion. There can be no doubt, however, that this was preceded, if not by other battles, yet by such military operations as accompany every war. This is clearly indicated in 2Sa 18:6<\/span>, where it is stated that the army advanced into the field against Israel (2Sa 18:6<\/span>), which evidently refers to such an advance on the part of David’s army as might compel Absalom to draw back from Gilead across the Jordan, until at length a decisive battle was fought, which ended in the complete destruction of his army and his own death. Ewald observes still further, that “it seems impossible, at any rate so far as the name is concerned, to assume that the wood of Ephraim was on the other side of the Jordan, whilst according to 2Sa 18:23<\/span>, the messenger who reported the victory went from the field of battle towards the Jordan valley in order to get to David.” But the way in which Ewald tries to set aside this important point, as bearing upon the conclusion that the battle took place on this side of the Jordan, – namely, by adopting this rendering of 2Sa 18:23<\/span>, “he ran after the manner of Kikkar<\/em>, running, and therefore overtook Kushi<\/em>,” – is far too unnatural to meet with acceptance. Under all these circumstances, therefore, we decide in favour of the assumption that the wood of Ephraim is to be sought for in the tribe-territory of Ephraim.<\/p>\n The nature of the ground contributed a great deal to the utter defeat of Absalom.<\/p>\n (6) The wood of Ephraim.<\/strong>No wood of Ephraim <\/em>on the eastern side of the Jordan happens to be elsewhere mentioned in Scripture. Yet it is plain that the battle must have been on that side of the river for the following reasons: (1) both armies were on that side beforehand, and there is no mention of their crossing; (2) David remained in Mahanaim (2Sa. 18:3-4<\/span>) with the reserves, for the purpose of succouring the army in case of need; (3) he there received the news of Absaloms death (2Sa. 18:24-33<\/span>); (4) the army returned thither after the battle (2Sa. 19:3<\/span>); and (5) David was obliged to cross the Jordan on his final return to Jerusalem, and was met at the crossing by the tribes (2Sa. 18:15<\/span>, &c.). There is really no difficulty but such as arises from our ignorance of local names. The narrative clearly implies that there was a wood of Ephraim, otherwise unknown, on the east of the Jordan.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> Against Israel <\/strong> Alas! It was Israel against Israel. But it had come to pass that strong prejudices were manifest between the people <\/em> of Israel and the men <\/em> of Judah. <\/p>\n The wood of Ephraim <\/strong> A forest evidently not far from Mahanaim, and probably near the Jordan, but its exact locality and the origin of its name are now unknown. Grotius conjectured that it took its name from the great slaughter of the Ephraimites recorded Jdg 12:1-6<\/span>; and the Jews have a tradition that Joshua, who was an Ephraimite, permitted the people of his tribe to pasture their flocks in this forest. Keil argues that it was on the west of the Jordan in the tribe-land of Ephraim, which, according to Jos 17:15<\/span>, abounded in wood. But as David was at Mahanaim, and Absalom in Gilead, (2Sa 17:20<\/span>,) this battle doubtless took place on the east of the Jordan.<\/p>\n 2Sa 18:6<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And the battle was in the wood of Ephraim<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> It is supposed that this wood, which was in Gilead, not far from Maanaim, took its name either from the victory which Gideon gained over Oreb and Zeeb, kings of the Midianites, by the assistance of the Ephraimites, Jdg 7:25<\/span> or from the great daughter of the Ephraimites here by Jephthah, Jdg 12:5-6<\/span>. The expression in the eighth verse, the wood devoured more people that day<\/em> than the sword devoured, <\/em>signifies that more perished in the wood than in the field of battle: their flight, as Josephus well expresses it, was more fatal to them than the combat. <\/p>\n (6) So the people went out into the field against Israel: and the battle was in the wood of Ephraim; (7) Where the people of Israel were slain before the servants of David, and there was there a great slaughter that day of twenty thousand men. (8) For the battle was there scattered over the face of all the country: and the wood devoured more people that day than the sword devoured.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Is not this a lively representation, (without straining the figure) in what is said of the wood devouring more than the sword, of the awful decision of that final war, when it is said, the wicked will call to the mountains, and to the rocks, to fall on them to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Rev 6:16<\/span> .<\/p>\n 2Sa 18:6 So the people went out into the field against Israel: and the battle was in the wood of Ephraim;<\/p>\n Ver. 6. And the battle was in the wood of Ephraim.<\/strong> ] So called, because it was opposite Ephraim; or because forty-two thousand Ephraimites there once lost their lives. Jdg 12:5-6 <\/p>\n wood of Ephraim. Compare Jos 17:15-18 <\/p>\n wood of Ephraim: The wood of Ephraim was evidently beyond Jordan, and apparently not far from Mahanaim; and it is supposed to be the place where the Ephraimites were slain by Jephthah. Jos 17:15, Jos 17:18, Jdg 12:4-6 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Sa 19:8 – for Israel 2Sa 22:44 – delivered<\/p>\n 18:6 So the people went out into the field against Israel: and the battle was in the {c} wood of Ephraim;<\/p>\n (c) So called, because the Ephraimites (as some say) fed their cattle beyond Jordan in this wood.<\/p>\n The battle between David’s and Absalom’s armies 18:6-8<\/span><\/p>\n The location of the forest of Ephraim is unknown, but it was probably in Gilead (cf. Jdg 12:1-5). [Note: Cf. LaMoine DeVries, "The Forest of Ephraim," Biblical Illustrator 10:1 (1983):82-85.] <\/span> As early as the Judges period, so many Ephraimites had settled in Gilead that the western Ephraimites called the Gileadites "fugitives of Ephraim" (Jdg 12:4). [Note: George Adam Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 335, n. 2.] <\/span> How the forest devoured more of Absalom’s men than David’s soldiers did (2Sa 18:8) is not clear, but that it did suggests that Yahweh assisted David’s men by using the forest somehow to give him the victory.<\/p>\n So the people went out into the field against Israel: and the battle was in the wood of Ephraim; 6. in the wood of Ephraim ] “The forest of Ephraim” might naturally be expected to mean the great forest covering the high lands of central Palestine in which the tribe of Ephraim settled (Jos 17:15-18). … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 18:6”<\/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-8496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8496","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=8496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ 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: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"