THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL

This book contains the history of Davids reign, arranged according to its
leading features: viz.,
(1) the commencement of his reign as king of Judah at Hebron, whereas the other
tribes of Israel adhered to the house of Saul (2Sa. 1-4);
(2) his promotion to be king over all Israel, and the victorious extension of his sway
(2Sa. 5-9);
(3) the decline of his power in consequence of his adultery (2Sa. 10-20);
(4) the close of his reign (2Sa. 21-24). Parallels and supplements to this history, in
which the reign of David is described chiefly in its connection with the development
of the kingdom of God under the Old Testament, are given in 11-28 of the first book
of Chronicles, where we have an elaborate description of the things done by David,
both for the elevation and organization of the public worship of God, and also for the
consolidation and establishment of the whole kingdom, and the general
administration of government.

I. David King over Judah;

and Ishbosheth King over Israel.
When David received the tidings at Ziklag of the defeat of Israel and the death
of Saul, he mourned deeply and sincerely for the fallen king and his noble son
Jonathan (2Sa. 1). He then returned by the permission of God into the land of
Judah, namely to Hebron, and was anointed king of Judah by the elders of that
tribe; whereas Abner, the cousin and chief general of Saul, took Ishbosheth, the
only remaining son of the fallen monarch, and made him king over the other
tribes of Israel at Mahanaim (2Sa. 2: 1-11). This occasioned a civil war. Abner
marched to Gibeon against David with the forces of Ishbosheth, but was
defeated by Joab, Davids commander-in-chief, and pursued to Mahanaim, in
which pursuit Abner slew Asahel the brother of Joab, who was eagerly
following him (2Sa. 2:12-32). Nevertheless, the conflict between the house of
David and the house of Saul continued for some time longer, but with the
former steadily advancing and the latter declining, until at length Abner
quarrelled with Ishbosheth, and persuaded the tribes that had hitherto adhered
to him to acknowledge David as king over all Israel. After the negotiations with
David for effecting this, he was assassinated by Joab on his return from Hebron,
an act at which David not only expressed his abhorrence by a solemn
mourning for Abner, but declared it still more openly by cursing Joabs crime
(2Sa. 3). Shortly afterwards, Ishbosheth was assassinated in his own house by
two Benjaminites; but this murder was also avenged by David, who ordered the

murderers to be put to death, and the head of Ishbosheth, that had been
delivered up to him, to be buried in Abners tomb (2Sa. 4). Thus the civil war
and the threatened split in the kingdom were brought to an end, though without
any complicity on the part of David, but rather against his will, viz., through the
death of Abner, the author of the split, and of Ishbosheth, whom he had placed
upon the throne, both of whom fell by treacherous hands, and received the
reward of their rebellion against the ordinance of God. David himself, in his
long school of affliction under Saul, had learned to put all his hope in the Lord
his God; and therefore, when Saul was dead, he took no steps to grasp by force
the kingdom which God had promised him, or to remove his rival out of the
way by crime.

Davids Conduct on Hearing of Sauls Death. His Elegy upon

Saul and Jonathan. Ch. 1.
2Sa. 1. David received the intelligence of the defeat of Israel and the death of
Saul in the war with the Philistines from an Amalekite, who boasted of having
slain Saul and handed over to David the crown and armlet of the fallen king, but
whom David punished with death for the supposed murder of the anointed of
God (vv. 1-16). David mourned for the death of Saul and Jonathan, and poured
out his grief in an elegiac ode (vv. 17-27). This account is closely connected
with the concluding chapters of the first book of Samuel.

2Sa. 1: 1-16. DAVID RECEIVES THE NEWS OF SAULS DEATH. Vv. 1-4.
After the death of Saul, and Davids return to Ziklag from his campaign against
the Amalekites, there came a man to David on the third day, with his clothes
torn and earth strewed upon his head (as a sign of deep mourning: see at
1Sa. 4:12), who informed him of the flight and overthrow of the Israelitish
army, and the death of Saul and Jonathan.

2Sa. 1: 1. V. 1 may be regarded as the protasis to v. 2, so far as the contents

are concerned, although formally it is rounded off, and BEy

WA forms the apodosis
to YHIYiW:A
It came to pass after the death of Saul, David had returned from the slaughter of
the Amalekites (1Sa. 30: 1-26), that David remained at Ziklag two days. And it came
to pass on the third day, etc.

Both of these notices of the time refer to the day, on which David returned to
Ziklag from the pursuit and defeat of the Amalekites. Whether the battle at
Gilboa, in which Saul fell, occurred before or after the return of David, it is
impossible to determine. All that follows from the juxtaposition of the two
events in v. 1, is that they were nearly contemporaneous. The man came from

the army from with Saul, and therefore appears to have kept near to Saul
during the battle.

2Sa. 1: 4. Davids inquiry, How did the thing happen? refers to the
statement made by the messenger, that he had escaped from the army of Israel.
In the answer, REJ serves, like YkI in other passages, merely to introduce the
words that follow, like our namely (vid., Ewald, 338, b.). The people fled
from the fight; and not only have many of the people fallen, but Saul and
Jonathan his son are also dead. GAWi GAWi : not only...but also.

2Sa. 1: 5ff. To Davids further inquiry how he knew this, the young man
replied (vv. 6-10),
I happened to come (JROQiNI = HROQiNI ) up to the mountains of Gilboa, and saw Saul
leaning upon his spear; then the chariots (the war-chariots for the charioteers) and
riders were pressing upon him, and he turned round and saw me,...and asked me,
Who art thou? and I said, An Amalekite; and he said to me, Come hither to me, and
slay me, for the cramp (BFF according to the Rabbins) hath seized me (sc., so that I
cannot defend myself, and must fall into the hands of the Philistines); for my soul
(my life) is still whole in me. Then I went to him, and slew him, because I knew that
after his fall he would not live; and took the crown upon his head, and the bracelet
upon his arm, and brought them to my lord (David).

After his fall does not mean after he had fallen upon his sword or spear
(Clericus), for this is neither implied in WLOPiNI nor in WTOYNIXLA FiNI
(supported, i.e., leaning upon his spear), nor are we at liberty to transfer it
from 1Sa. 31: 4 into this passage; but after his defeat, i.e., so that he would
not survive this calamity. This statement is at variance with the account of the
death of Saul in 1Sa. 31: 3ff.; and even apart from this it has an air of
improbability, or rather of untruth in it, particularly in the assertion that Saul
was leaning upon his spear when the chariots and horsemen of the enemy came
upon him, without having either an armour-bearer or any other Israelitish
soldier by his side, so that he had to turn to an Amalekite who accidentally
came by, and to ask him to inflict the fatal wound. The Amalekite invented this,
in the hope of thereby obtaining the better recompense from David. The only
part of his statement which is certainly true, is that he found the king lying dead
upon the field of battle, and took off the crown and armlet; since he brought
these to David. But it is by no means certain whether he was present when Saul
expired, or merely found him after he was dead.

2Sa. 1:11, 12. This information, the substance of which was placed beyond
all doubt by the kings jewels that were brought, filled David with the deepest
sorrow. As a sign of his pain he rent his clothes; and all the men with him did
the same, and mourned with weeping and fasting until the evening for Saul

and for Jonathan his son, for the people of Jehovah, and for the house of
Israel, because they had fallen by the sword (i.e., in battle). The people of
Jehovah and the house or people of Israel are distinguished from one
another, according to the twofold attitude of Israel, which furnished a double
ground for mourning. Those who had fallen were first of all members of the
people of Jehovah, and secondly, fellow-countrymen. They were therefore
associated with them, both according to the flesh and according to the spirit,
and for that reason they mourned the more (Seb. Schmidt). The only deep
mourning for Saul, with the exception of that of the Jabeshites (1Sa. 31:11),
proceeded from the man whom he had hated and persecuted for so many years
even to the time of his death; just as Davids successor wept over the fall of
Jerusalem, even when it was about to destroy Himself (O. v. Gerlach).

2Sa. 1:13. David then asked the bringer of the news for further information
concerning his own descent, and received the reply that he was the son of an
Amalekite stranger, i.e., of an Amalekite who had emigrated to Israel.

2Sa. 1:14. David then reproached him for what he had done: How wast thou
not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lords anointed? and
commanded one of his attendants to slay him (vv. 15ff.), passing sentence of
death in these words: Thy blood come upon thy head (cf. Lev. 20: 9,
Jos. 2;(1); for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the
Lords anointed. f1
David regarded the statement of the Amalekite as a sufficient ground for
condemnation, without investigating the truth any further; though it was most
probably untrue, as he could see through his design of securing a great reward
as due to him for performing such a deed (vid., 2Sa. 4:10), and looked upon a
man who could attribute such an act to himself from mere avarice as perfectly
capable of committing it. Moreover, the kings jewels, which he had brought,
furnished a practical proof that Saul had really been put to death. This
punishment was by no means so severe as to render it necessary to estimate its
morality according to the times, or to defend it merely from the standpoint of
political prudence, on the ground that as David was the successor of Saul, and
had been pursued by him as his rival with constant suspicion and hatred, he
ought not to leave the murder of the king unpunished, if only because the
people, or at any rate his own opponents among the people, would accuse him
of complicity in the murder of the king, if not of actually instigating the
murderer. David would never have allowed such considerations as these to lead
him into unjust severity. And his conduct requires no such half vindication.
Even on the supposition that Saul had asked the Amalekite to give him his
death-thrust, as he said he had, it was a crime deserving of punishment to fulfil
this request, the more especially as nothing is said about any such mortal

wounding of Saul as rendered his escape or recovery impossible, so that it

could be said that it would have been cruel under such circumstances to refuse
his request to be put to death. If Sauls life was still full in him, as the
Amalekite stated, his position was not so desperate as to render it inevitable
that he should fall into the hands of the Philistines. Moreover, the supposition
was a very natural one, that he had slain the king for the sake of a reward. But
slaying the king, the anointed of the Lord, was in itself a crime that deserved to
be punished with death. What David might more than once have done, but had
refrained from doing from holy reverence for the sanctified person of the king,
this foreigner, a man belonging to the nation of the Amalekites, Israels greatest
foes, had actually done for the sake of gain, or at any rate pretended to have
done. Such a crime must be punished with death, and that by David who had
been chosen by God and anointed as Sauls successor, and whom the Amalekite
himself acknowledge in that capacity, since otherwise he would not have
brought him the news together with the royal diadem.

2Sa. 1:17-27. DAVIDS ELEGY UPON SAUL AND JONATHAN . An eloquent

testimony to the depth and sincerity of Davids grief for the death of Saul is
handed down to us in the elegy which he composed upon Saul and his noble son
Jonathan, and which he had taught to the children of Israel. It is one of the
finest odes of the Old Testament; full of lofty sentiment, and springing from
deep and sanctified emotion, in which, without the slightest allusion to his own
relation to the fallen king, David celebrates without envy the bravery and
virtues of Saul and his son Jonathan, and bitterly laments their loss. He said to
teach, i.e., he commanded the children of Judah to practise or learn it. TEQ,E
bow,; i.e., a song to which the title Kesheth or bow was given, not only because
the bow is referred to (v. 22), but because it is a martial ode, and the bow was
one of the principal weapons used by the warriors of that age, and one in the
use of which the Benjaminites, the tribe-mates of Saul, were particularly skilful:
cf. 1Ch. 8:40; 12: 2; 2Ch. 14: 7; 17:17. Other explanations are by no means so
natural; such, for example, as that it related to the melody to which the ode was
sung; whilst some are founded upon false renderings, or arbitrary alterations of
the text, e.g., that of Ewald (Gesch. i. p. 41), Thenius, etc. This elegy was
inserted in the book of the righteous (see at Jos. 10:13), from which the
author of the books of Samuel has taken it.
The ode is arranged in three strophes, which gradually diminish in force and
sweep (viz., vv. 19-24, 25-26, 27), and in which the vehemence of the sorrow
so gradually modified, and finally dies away. Each strophe opens with the
exclamation, How are the mighty fallen! The first contains all that had to be
said in praise of the fallen heroes; the deepest mourning for their death; and
praise of their bravery, of their inseparable love, and of the virtues of Saul as

king. The second commemorates the friendship between David and Jonathan.
The third simply utters the last sigh, with which the elegy becomes silent. The
first strophe runs thus:
19 The ornament, O Israel, is slain upon thy heights!
Oh how are the mighty fallen!
20 Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon;
Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,
Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!
21 Ye mountains of Gilboa,
let now dew or rain be upon you,
or fields of first-fruit offerings:
For there is the shield of the mighty defiled,
The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.
22 From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty,
The bow of Jonathan turned not back,
And the sword of Saul returned not empty.
23 Saul and Jonathan, beloved and kind, in life
And in death they are not divided.
Lighter than eagles were they; stronger than lions.
24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,
Who clothed you in purple with delight;
Who put a golden ornament upon your apparel!

2Sa. 1:19. The first clause of v. 19 contains the theme of the entire ode. YBIciHA
does not mean the gazelle here (as the Syriac and Clericus and others render it),
the only plausible support of which is the expression upon thy heights,
whereas the parallel YRIWbOgI shows that by YBIciHA we are to understand the two
heroes Saul and Jonathan, and that the word is used in the appellative sense of
ornament. The king and his noble son were the ornament of Israel. They were
slain upon the heights of Israel. Luther has given a correct rendering, so far as
the sense is concerned (die Edelsten, the noblest), after the inclyti of the
Vulgate. The pronoun thy high places refers to Israel. The reference is to the
heights of the mountains of Gilboa (see v. 21). This event threw Israel into deep
mourning, which commences in the second clause.

2Sa. 1:20. The tidings of this mourning were not to be carried out among the
enemies of Israel, lest they should rejoice thereat. Such rejoicing would only
increase the pain of Israel at the loss it had sustained. Only two of the cities of
Philistia are mentioned by name, viz., Gath, which was near, and Askelon,
which was farther off by the sea. The rejoicing of the daughters of the

Philistines refers to the custom of employing women to celebrate the victories

of their nation by singing and dancing (cf. 1Sa. 18: 6).

2Sa. 1:21. Even nature is to join in the mourning. May God withdraw His
blessing from the mountains upon which the heroes have fallen, that they may
not be moistened by the dew and rain of heaven, but, remaining in eternal
barrenness, be memorials of the horrible occurrence that has taken place upon
them. AbOLigIBA YR
HF is an address to them; and the preposition bi with the
construct state is poetical: mountains in Gilboa (vid., Ewald, 289, b.). In
KEYL
LJA the verb YHIYi is wanting. The following words, TWMOwRTi YD
Viw,
are in apposition to the foregoing: and let not fields of first-fruit offerings be
upon you, i.e., fields producing fruit, from which offerings of first-fruits were
presented. This is the simplest and most appropriate explanation of the words,
which have been very differently, and in some respects very marvellously
rendered. The reason for this cursing of the mountains of Gilboa was, that there
the shield of the heroes, particularly of Saul, had been defiled with blood,
namely the blood of those whom the shield ought to defend. LAgF does not mean
to throw away (Dietrich.), but to soil or defile (as in the Chaldee), then to
abhor. Not anointed with oil, i.e., not cleansed and polished with oil, so that
the marks of Sauls blood still adhered to it. YLIbi poetical for JLO. The
interpolation of the words as though (quasi non esset unctus oleo, Vulgate)
cannot be sustained.

2Sa. 1:22. Such was the ignominy experienced upon Gilboa by those who had
always fought so bravely, that their bow and sword did not turn back until it
was satisfied with the blood and fat of the slain. The figure upon which the
passage is founded is, that arrows drink the blood of the enemy, and a sword
devours their flesh (vid., Deu. 32:42; Isa. 34: 5, 6; Jer. 46:10). The two
principal weapons are divided between Saul and Jonathan, so that the bow is
assigned to the latter and the sword to the former.

2Sa. 1:23. In death as in life, the two heroes were not divided, for they were
alike in bravery and courage. Notwithstanding their difference of character, and
the very opposite attitude which they assumed towards David, the noble
Jonathan did not forsake his father, although his fierce hatred towards the friend
whom Jonathan loved as his own soul might have undermined his attachment to
his father. The two predicates, BHFJN,E loved and amiable, and YIN,F affectionate
or kind, apply chiefly to Jonathan; but they were also suitable to Saul in the
earliest years of his reign, when he manifested the virtues of an able ruler, which
secured for him the lasting affection and attachment of the people. In his
mourning over the death of the fallen hero, David forgets all the injury that Saul
has inflicted upon him, so that he only brings out and celebrates the more

amiable aspects of his character. The light motion or swiftness of an eagle (cf.
Hab. 1: 8), and the strength of a lion (vid., 2Sa. 17:10), were the leading
characteristics of the great heroes of antiquity. Lastly, in v. 24, David
commemorates the rich booty which Saul had brought to the nation, for the
purpose of celebrating his heroic greatness in this respect as well. YNI F was the
scarlet purple (see at Exo. 25: 4). With delights, or with lovelinesses, i.e., in a
lovely manner.
The second strophe (vv. 25 and 26) only applies to the friendship of Jonathan:
25 Oh how are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!
Jonathan (is) slain upon thy heights!
26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan:
Thou wast very kind to me:
Stranger than the love of woman was thy love to me!

2Sa. 1:25. V. 25 is almost a verbal repetition of v. 19. RCA (v. 26) denotes the
pinching or pressure of the heart consequent upon pain and mourning.
HTFJALiPiNI, third pers. fem., like a verb HL with the termination lengthened
(vid., Ewald, 194, b.), to be wonderful or distinguished. TiBFHJ,A thy love to
me. Comparison to the love of woman is expressive of the deepest earnestness
of devoted love.

2Sa. 1:27. The third strophe (v. 27) contains simply a brief aftertone of
sorrow, in which the ode does away:
Oh how are the mighty fallen,
The instruments of war perished!

The instruments of war are not the weapons; but the expression is a
figurative one, referring to the heroes by whom war was carried on (vid.,
Isa. 13: 5). Luther has adopted this rendering (die Streitbaren).

David King over Judah, and Ishbosheth King over Israel. Battle
at Gibeon. Ch. 2.
2Sa. 2. After David had mourned for the fallen king, he went, in accordance
with the will of the Lord as sought through the Urim, to Hebron, and was there
anointed king by the tribe of Jabesh, for the love which they had shown to Saul
in burying his bones (vv. 1-7), and reigned seven years and a half at Hebron
over Judah alone (vv. 10 and 11). Abner, on the other hand, put forward
Ishbosheth the son of Saul, who still remained alive, as king over Israel (vv. 8
and 9); so that a war broke out between the adherents of Ishbosheth and those
of David, in which Abner and his army were beaten, but the brave Asahel, the

son-in-law of David, was slain by Abner (vv. 12-32). The promotion of

Ishbosheth as king was not only a continuation of the hostility of Saul towards
David, but also an open act of rebellion against Jehovah, who had rejected Saul
and chosen David prince over Israel, and who had given such distinct proofs of
this election in the eyes of the whole nations, that even Saul had been convinced
of the appointment of David to be his successor upon the throne. But David
attested his unqualified submission to the guidance of God, in contrast with this
rebellion against His clearly revealed will, not only by not returning to Judah till
he had received permission from the Lord, but also by the fact that after the
tribe of Judah had acknowledged him as king, he did not go to war with
Ishbosheth, but contented himself with resisting the attack made upon him by
the supporters of the house of Saul, because he was fully confident that the
Lord would secure to him in due time the whole of the kingdom of Israel.

2Sa. 2: 1-4a. Davids return to Hebron, and anointing as king over Judah.
V. 1. After this, i.e., after the facts related in 2Sa. 1, David inquired of the
Lord, namely through the Urim, whether he should go up to one of the towns
of Judah, and if so, to which. He received the reply, to Hebron, a place
peculiarly well adapted for a capital, not only from its situation upon the
mountains, and in the centre of the tribe, but also from the sacred reminiscences
connected with it from the olden time. David could have no doubt that, now
that Saul was dead, he would have to give up his existing connection with the
Philistines and return to his own land. But as the Philistines had taken the
greater part of the Israelitish territory through their victory at Gilboa, and there
was good reason to fear that the adherents of Saul, more especially the army
with Abner, Sauls cousin, at its head, would refuse to acknowledge David as
king, and consequently a civil war might break out, David would not return to
his own land without the express permission of the Lord. Vv. 2-4a. When he
went with his wives and all his retinue (vid., 1Sa. 27: 2) to Hebron and the
cities of Hebron, i.e., the places belonging to the territory of Hebron, the
men of Judah came (in the persons of their elders) and anointed him king over
the house, i.e., the tribe, of Judah. Just as Saul was made king by the tribes
after his anointing by Samuel (1Sa. 11:15), so David was first of all anointed by
Judah here, and afterwards by the rest of the tribes (2Sa. 5: 3).

2Sa. 2: 4-7. A new section commences with wDgIyAW.A The first act of David as
king was to send messengers to Jabesh, to thank the inhabitants of this city for
burying Saul, and to announce to them his own anointing as king. As this
expression of thanks involved a solemn recognition of the departed king, by
which David divested himself of even the appearance of a rebellion, the
announcement of the anointing he had received contained an indirect summons
to the Jabeshites to recognise him as their king now.

2Sa. 2: 6. And now, sc., that ye have shown this love to Saul your lord,
may Jehovah show you grace and truth. Grace and truth are connected
together, as in Exo. 34: 6, as the two sides by which the goodness of God is
manifested to men, namely in His forgiving grace, and in His trustworthiness, or
the fulfilment of His promises (vid., Psa. 25:10). And I also show you this
good, namely the prayer for the blessing of God (v. 5), because ye have done
this (to Saul). In v. 7 there is attached to this the demand, that now that Saul
their lord was dead, and the Judaeans had anointed him (David) king, they
would show themselves valiant, namely valiant in their reverence and fidelity
towards David, who had become their king since the death of Saul. KEYD
Yi
HNFQiZAXtE, i.e., be comforted, spirited (cf. Jud. 7:11). It needed some resolution
and courage to recognise David as king, because Sauls army had fled to
Gilead, and there was good ground for apprehending opposition to David on
the part of Abner. Ishbosheth, however, does not appear to have been
proclaimed king yet; or at any rate the fact was not yet known to David. GAWi
does not belong to YTIJ,O but to the whole clause, as YTIJO is placed first merely
for the sake of emphasis.

2Sa. 2: 8-11. PROMOTION OF ISHBOSHETH TO BE KING OVER ISRAEL.

The account of this is attached to the foregoing in the form of an antithesis:
But Abner, the chief captain of Saul (see at 1Sa. 14:50), had taken Ishbosheth
the son of Saul, and led him over to Mahanaim. Ishbosheth had probably been
in the battle at Gilboa, and fled with Abner across the Jordan after the battle had
been lost. Ishbosheth (i.e., man of shame) was the fourth son of Saul (according
to 1Ch. 8:33; 9:39): his proper name was Esh-baal (i.e., fire of Baal, probably
equivalent to destroyer of Baal). This name was afterwards changed into
Ishbosheth, just as the name of the god Baal was also translated into Bosheth
(shame, Hos. 9:10, Jer. 3:24, etc.), and Jerubbaal changed into Jerubbosheth
(see at Jud. 8:35). Ewalds supposition, that bosheth was originally employed in
a good sense as well, like aidwj and DXApA (Gen. 31:53), cannot be sustained.
Mahanaim was on the eastern side of the Jordan, not far from the ford of
Jabbok, and was an important place for the execution of Abners plans, partly
from its historical associations (Gen. 32: 2, 3), and partly also from its situation.
There he made Ishbosheth king for Gilead, i.e., the whole of the land to the
east of the Jordan (as in Num. 32:29, Jos. 22: 9, etc.). For the Ashurites: this
reading is decidedly faulty, since we can no more suppose it to refer to Assyria
(Asshur) than to the Arabian tribe of the Assurim (Gen. 25: 3); but the true
name cannot be discovered.f2
And for Jezreel, i.e., not merely the city of that name, but the plain that was
named after it (as in 1Sa. 29: 1). And for Ephraim, and Benjamin, and all (the

rest of) Israel, of course not including Judah, where David had already been
acknowledged as king.

2Sa. 2:10, 11. LENGTH OF THE REIGNS OF I SHBOSHETH OVER ISRAEL, AND
DAVID AT HEBRON. The age of Ishbosheth is given, as is generally the case
at the commencement of a reign. He was forty years old when he began to
reign, and reigned two years; whereas David was king at Hebron over the house
of Judah seven years and a half. We are struck with this difference in the length
of the two reigns; and it cannot be explained, as Seb. Schmidt, Clericus, and
others suppose, on the simple assumption that David reigned two years at
Hebron over Judah, namely up to the time of the murder of Ishbosheth, and
then five years and a half over Israel, namely up to the time of the conquest of
Jerusalem: for this is at variance with the plain statement in the text, that David
was king in Hebron over the house of Judah seven years and a half. The
opinion that the two years of Ishbosheths reign are to be reckoned up to the
time of the war with David, because Abner played the principal part during the
other five years and a half that David continued to reign at Hebron, is equally
untenable. We may see very clearly from 2Sa. 3-5 not only that Ishbosheth was
king to the time of his death, which took place after that of Abner, but also that
after both these events David was anointed king over Israel in Hebron by all the
tribes, and that he then went directly to attack Jerusalem, and after conquering
the citadel of Zion, chose that city as his own capital. The short duration of
Ishbosheths reign can only be explained, therefore, on the supposition that he
was not made king, as David was, immediately after the death of Saul, but after
the recovery by Abner of the land which the Philistines had taken on this side
the Jordan, which may have occupied five years.f3

2Sa. 2:12-32. WAR BETWEEN THE SUPPORTERS OF ISHBOSHETH AND THOSE

OF DAVID. Vv. 12, 13. When Abner had brought all Israel under the
dominion of Ishbosheth, he also sought to make Judah subject to him, and went
with this intention from Mahanaim to Gibeon, the present Jib, in the western
portion of the tribe of Benjamin, two good hours to the north of Jerusalem (see
at Jos. 9: 3), taking with him the servants, i.e., the fighting men, of Ishbosheth.
There Joab, a son of Zeruiah, Davids sister (1Ch. 2:16), advanced to meet him
with the servants, i.e., the warriors of David; and the two armies met at the pool
of Gibeon, i.e., probably one of the large reservoirs that are still to be found
there (see Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 135-6; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerusalem, ii. pp. 515-6),
the one encamping upon the one side of the pool and the other upon the other.

2Sa. 2:14ff. Abner then proposed to Joab that the contest should be decided
by a single combat, probably for the purpose of avoiding an actual civil war.
Let the young men arise and wrestle before us. QXAVI , to joke or play, is used

here to denote the war-play of single combat. As Joab accepted this proposal,
twelve young warriors for Benjamin and Ishbosheth, and twelve from Davids
men, went over, i.e., went out of the two camps to the appointed scene of
conflict; and one seized the others head, and his sword was (immediately) in
the side of the other (his antagonist), so that they fell together. The clause
wH
R
DCAbi WbORiXAWi is a circumstantial clause: and his sword (every ones
sword) was in the side of the other, i.e., thrust into it. Sending the sword into
the opponents side is thus described as simultaneous with the seizure of his
head. The ancient translators expressed the meaning by supplying a verb
(enephcan, defixit: LXX, Vulg.). This was a sign that the young men on both
sides fought with great ferocity, and also with great courage. The place itself
received the name of Helkath-hazzurim, field of the sharp edges, in
consequence (for this use of zur, see Psa. 89:44).

2Sa. 2:17. As this single combat decided nothing, there followed a general
and very sore or fierce battle, in which Abner and his troops were put to flight
by the soldiers of David. The only thing connected with this, of which we have
any further account, is the slaughter of Asahel by Abner, which is mentioned
here (vv. 18-23) on account of the important results which followed. Of the
three sons of Zeruiah, viz., Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, Asahel was peculiarly
light of foot, like one of the gazelles; and he pursued Abner most eagerly,
without turning aside to the right or to the left.

2Sa. 2:20, 21. Then Abner turned round, asked him whether he was Asahel,
and said to him, Turn to thy right hand or to thy left, and seize one of the
young men and take his armour for thyself, i.e., slay one of the common
soldiers, and take his accoutrements as booty, if thou art seeking for that kind
of fame. But Asahel would not turn back from Abner. Then he repeated his
command that he would depart, and added, Why should I smite thee to the
ground, and how could I then lift up my face to Joab thy brother? from which
we may see that Abner did not want to put the young hero to death, out of
regard for Joab and their former friendship.

2Sa. 2:23. But when he still refused to depart in spite of this warning, Abner
wounded him in the abdomen with the hinder part, i.e., the lower end of the
spear, so that the spear came out behind, and Asahel fell dead upon the spot.
The lower end of the spear appears to have been pointed, that it might be stuck
into the ground (vid., 1Sa. 26: 7); and this will explain the fact that the spear
passed through the body. The fate of the young hero excited such sympathy,
that all who came to the place where he had fallen stood still to mourn his loss
(cf. 2Sa. 20:12).

2Sa. 2:24. But Joab and Abishai pursued Abner till the sun set, and until they
had arrived at the hill Ammah, in front of Giah, on the way to the desert of
Gibeon. Nothing further is known of the places mentioned here.

2Sa. 2:25, 26. The Benjaminites then gathered in a crowd behind Abner, and
halted upon the top of a hill to beat back their pursuers; and Abner cried out to
Joab,
Shall the sword then devour for ever (shall there be no end to the slaughter)? dost
thou not know that bitterness arises at last? and how long wilt thou not say to the
people, to return from pursuing their brethren?

Thus Abner warns Joab of the consequences of a desperate struggle, and calls
upon him to put an end to all further bloodshed by suspending the pursuit.

2Sa. 2:27. Joab replied, If thou hadst not spoken (i.e., challenged to single
combat, v. 14), the people would have gone away in the morning, every one
from his brother, i.e., there would have been no such fratricidal conflict at all.
The first YkI introduces the substance of the oath, as in 1Sa. 25:34; the second
gives greater force to it (vid., Ewald, 330, b.). Thus Joab threw all the blame
of the fight upon Abner, because he had been the instigator of the single
combat; and as that was not decisive, and was so bloody in its character, the
two armies had felt obliged to fight it out. But he then commanded the trumpet
to be blown for a halt, and the pursuit to be closed.

2Sa. 2:29. Abner proceeded with his troops through the Arabah, i.e., the
valley of the Jordan, marching the whole night; and then crossing the river,
went through the whole of Bithron back to Mahanaim. Bithron is a district
upon the eastern side of the Jordan, which is only mentioned here. Aquila and
the Vulgate identify it with Bethhoron; but there is no more foundation for this
than for the suggestion of Thenius, that it is the same place as Bethharam, the
later Libias, at the mouth of the Nahr Hesban (see at Num. 32:36). It is very
evident that Bithron is not the name of a city, but of a district, from the fact that
it is preceded by the word all, which would be perfectly unmeaning in the case
of a city. The meaning of the word is a cutting; and it was no doubt the name
given to some ravine in the neighbourhood of the Jabbok, between the Jordan
and Mahanaim, which was on the north side of the Jabbok.

2Sa. 2:30, 31. Joab also assembled his men for a retreat. Nineteen of his
soldiers were missing besides Asahel, all of whom had fallen in the battle. But
they had slain as many as three hundred and sixty of Benjamin and of Abners
men. This striking disproportion in the numbers may be accounted for from the
fact that in Joabs army there were none but brave and well-tried men, who had
gathered round David a long time before; whereas in Abners army there were

only the remnants of the Israelites who had been beaten upon Gilboa, and who
had been still further weakened and depressed by their attempts to recover the
land which was occupied by the Philistines.

2Sa. 2:32. On the way back, Davids men took up the body of Asahel, and
buried it in his fathers grave at Bethlehem. They proceeded thence towards
Hebron, marching the whole night, so that they reached Hebron itself at
daybreak. It got light to them (i.e., the day dawned) at Hebron.

David Advances and Ishbosheth Declines. Abner Goes Over to

David, and Is Murdered by Joab. Ch. 3.
2Sa. 3: 1.
And the war became long (was protracted) between the house of Saul and the
house of David; but David became stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul
weaker and weaker.

LAH,F when connected with another verb or with an adjective, expresses the
idea of the gradual progress of an affair (vid., Ges. 131, 3, Anm. 3). The
historian sums up in these words the historical course of the two royal houses,
as they stood opposed to one another. The war does not mean continual
fighting, but the state of hostility or war in which they continued to stand
towards one another. They concluded no peace, so that David was not
recognised by Ishbosheth as king, any more than Ishbosheth by David. Not only
is there nothing said about any continuance of actual warfare by Abner or
Ishbosheth after the loss of the battle at Gibeon, but such a thing was very
improbable in itself, as Ishbosheth was too weak to be able to carry on the war,
whilst David waited with firm reliance upon the promise of the Lord, until all
Israel should come over to him.

2Sa. 3: 2-5. GROWTH OF T HE HOUSE OF DAVID. Proof of the advance of

the house of David is furnished by the multiplication of his family at Hebron.
The account of the sons who were born to David at Hebron does not break the
thread, as Clericus, Thenius, and others suppose, but is very appropriately
introduced here, as a practical proof of the strengthening of the house of David,
in harmony with the custom of beginning the history of the reign of every king
with certain notices concerning his family (vid., 2Sa. 5:13ff.; 1Ki. 3: 1; 14:21;
15: 2, 9, etc.). We have a similar list of the sons of David in 1Ch. 3: 1-4. The
first two sons were born to him from the two wives whom he had brought with
him to Hebron (1Sa. 25:42, 43). The Chethibh WDLYW is probably only a
copyists error for wDLiwFyIWA , which is the reading in many Codices. From
Ahinoam the first-born, Amnon (called Aminon in 2Sa. 13:20); from Abigail
the second, Chileab. The latter is also called Daniel in 1Ch. 3: 1, and

therefore had probably two names. The lamed before Ahinoam and the
following names serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, like the German von, in
consequence of the word son being omitted (vid., Ewald, 292, a.). The other
four were by wives whom he had married in Hebron: Absalom by Maachah, the
daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a small kingdom in the north-east of Bashan
(see at Deu. 3:14); Adonijah by Haggith; Shephatiah by Abital; and Ithream by
Eglah. The origin of the last three wives is unknown. The clause appended to
Eglahs name, viz., Davids wife, merely serves as a fitting conclusion to the
whole list (Bertheau on 1Ch. 3: 3), and is not added to show that Eglah was
Davids principal wife, which would necessitate the conclusion drawn by the
Rabbins, that Michal was the wife intended.

2Sa. 3: 6-39. DECLINE OF THE HOUSE OF SAUL. Vv. 6-11. Abners

quarrel with Ishbosheth. During the war between the house of Saul and the
house of David, Abner adhered firmly to the house of Saul, but he appropriated
one of Sauls concubines to himself. When Ishbosheth charged him with this, he
fell into so violent a rage, that he at once announced to Ishbosheth his intention
to hand over the kingdom to David. Abner had certainly perceived the utter
incapacity of Ishbosheth for a very long time, if not from the very outset, and
had probably made him king after the death of Saul, merely that he might save
himself from the necessity of submitting to David, and might be able to rule in
Ishbosheths name, and possibly succeed in paving his own way to the throne.
His appropriation of the concubine of the deceased monarch was at any rate a
proof, according to Israelitish notions, and in fact those generally prevalent in
the East, that he was aiming at the throne (vid., 2Sa. 16:21; 1Ki. 2:21). But it
may gradually have become obvious to him, that the house of Saul could not
possibly retain the government in opposition to David; and this may have led to
his determination to persuade all the Israelites to acknowledge David, and
thereby to secure for himself an influential post under his government. This will
explain in a very simple manner Abners falling away from Ishbosheth and going
over to David.

2Sa. 3: 6, 7. v. 6 and 7 constitute one period, expanded by the introduction of

circumstantial clauses, the YHIYiWA (it came to pass) of the protasis being continued
in the RMEJyOWA (he said) of v. 7b.
It came to pass, when there was war between the house of Saul and the house of
David, and Abner showed himself strong for the house of Saul, and Saul had a
concubine named Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, that he (Ishbosheth) said to Abner,
Why hast thou gone to my fathers concubine?

The subject to said is omitted in the apodosis; but it is evident from v. 8, and
the expression my father, that Ishbosheth is to be supplied. Even in the

second circumstantial clause, and Saul had a concubine, the reason why this
is mentioned is only to be gathered from Ishbosheths words. bi Qz
XATiHI: to
prove ones self strong for, or with, a person, i.e., to render him powerful help.
LJE JWbO means to cohabit with. It was the exclusive right of the successor to
the throne to cohabit with the concubines of the deceased king, who came
down to him as part of the property which he inherited.

2Sa. 3: 8. Abner was so enraged at Ishbosheths complaint, that he replied,

Am I a dogs head, holding with Judah? To-day (i.e., at present) I show affection
to the house of Saul thy father, towards his brethren and his friends, and did not let
thee fall into the hand of David, and thou reproachest me to-day with the fault with
the woman?

Dogs head is something thoroughly contemptible. HDFwHYLI REJ, lit. which

(belongs) to Judah, i.e., holds with Judah.

2Sa. 3: 9. God do so to Abner,...as Jehovah hath sworn to David, so will I

do to him. The repetition of YkI serves to introduce the oath, as in 2Sa. 2:27.
To take away the kingdom from the house of Saul, and set up the throne of
David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan to Beersheba. We do not know
of any oath with which God had promised the kingdom to David; but the
promise of God in itself is equivalent to an oath, as God is the true God, who
can neither lie nor deceive (1Sa. 15:29; Num. 23:19). This promise was
generally known in Israel. From Dan to Beersheba (as in Jud. 20: 1).

2Sa. 3:11. Ishbosheth could make no reply to these words of Abner, because
he was afraid of him.

2Sa. 3:12-21. ABNER GOES OVER TO DAVID. V. 12. Abner soon carried
out his threat to Ishbosheth. He sent messengers to David in his stead (not on
the spot, or immediately, a rendering adopted by the Chaldee and Symmachus,
but for which no support can be found) with this message: Whose is the
land? i.e., to whom does it belong except to thee? and, Make a covenant
with me; behold, so is my hand with thee (i.e., so will I stand by thee), to turn
all Israel to thee.

2Sa. 3:13. David assented to the proposal on this condition:

Only one thing do I require of thee, namely, Thou shalt not see my face, unless
thou first of all bringest me Michal, the daughter of Saul, when thou comest to see
my face. JYBIH YN
PiLIJI YkI, except before thy bringing,

i.e., unless when thou hast first of all brought or delivered Michal to me. This
condition was imposed by David, not only because Michal had been unjustly

taken away from him by Saul, after he had rightfully acquired her for his wife by
paying the dowry demanded, and in spite of her love to him (1Sa. 18:27; 19:11,
12), and given to another man (1Sa. 25:44), so that he could demand her back
again with perfect justice, and Ishbosheth could not refuse to give her up to
him, but probably on political grounds also, namely, because the renewal of his
marriage to the kings daughter would show to all Israel that he cherished no
hatred in his heart towards the fallen king.

2Sa. 3:14. Thereupon, namely when Abner had assented to this condition,
David sent messengers to Ishbosheth with this demand: Give (me) my wife
Michal, whom I espoused to me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines (see
1Sa. 18:25, 27). David sent to Ishbosheth to demand the restoration of Michal,
that her return might take place in a duly legal form, that it might be apparent
that he had dealt justly with Paltiel in the presence of his king, and that he had
received his wife back again, and had not taken her by force from her husband
(Seb. Schmidt).

2Sa. 3:15. Ishbosheth probably sent Abner to Gallim (1Sa. 25:44) to fetch
Michal from her husband Paltiel (see at 1Sa. 25:44), and take her back to
David. The husband was obliged to consent to this separation.

2Sa. 3:16. When he went with his wife, weeping behind her, to Bahurim,
Abner commanded him to turn back; and he returned. Bahurim, Shimeis
home (2Sa. 19:17; 1Ki. 2: 8), was situated, according to 2Sa. 16: 1, 5, and
17:18, upon the road from Jerusalem to Gilgal, in the valley of the Jordan, not
far from the Mount of Olives, and is supposed by v. Schubert (R. iii. p. 70) to
have stood upon the site of the present Abu Dis, though in all probability it is to
be sought for farther north (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 103). Paltiel had therefore
followed his wife to the border of the tribe of Judah, or of the kingdom of
David.

2Sa. 3:17, 18. But before Abner set out to go to David, he had spoken to the
elders of Israel (the tribes generally, with the exception of Benjamin [see v. 19]
and Judah):
Both yesterday and the day before yesterday (i.e., a long time ago), ye desired to
have David as king over you. Now carry out your wish: for Jehovah hath spoken
concerning David, Through my servant David will I save my people Israel out of the
power of the Philistines and all their enemies.

AYIWHO is an evident mistake in writing for AYIWJO, which is found in many

MSS, and rendered in all the ancient versions.

2Sa. 3:19. Abner had spoken in the same way in the ears of Benjamin. He
spoke to the Benjaminites more especially, because the existing royal family
belonged to that tribe, and they had reaped many advantages in consequence
(vid., 1Sa. 22: 7). The verb HYFHF in the circumstantial clause (v. 17), and the
verb Rb
DAYiWA in v. 19, which serves as a continuation of the circumstantial
clause, must be translated as pluperfects, since Abners interview with the
elders of Israel and with Benjamin preceded his interview with David at
Hebron. We may see from Abners address to the elders, that even among the
northern tribes the popular voice had long since decided for David. In 1Ch. 12
we have historical proofs of this. The word of Jehovah concerning David, which
is mentioned in v. 18, is not met with anywhere in this precise form in the
history of David as it has come down to us. Abner therefore had either some
expression used by one of the prophets (Samuel or Gad) in his mind, which he
described as the word of Jehovah, or else he regarded the anointing of David by
Samuel in accordance with the command of the Lord, and the marvellous
success of all that David attempted against the enemies of Israel, as a practical
declaration on the part of God, that David, as the appointed successor of Saul,
would perform what the Lord had spoken to Samuel concerning Saul
(1Sa. 9:16), but what Saul had not fulfilled on account of his rebellion against
the commandments of the Lord.

2Sa. 3:19b. When Abner had gained over the elders of Israel and Benjamin to
recognise David as king, he went to Hebron to speak in the ears of David all
that had pleased Israel and the whole house of Benjamin, i.e., to make known
to him their determination to acknowledge him as king. There went with him
twenty men as representatives of all Israel, to confirm Abners statements by
their presence; and David prepared a meal for them all.

2Sa. 3:21. After the meal, Abner said to David,

I will raise and go and gather together all Israel to my lord the king, that they may
make a covenant with thee (i.e., do homage to thee before God as king), and thou
mayest become king over all that thy soul desireth,

i.e., over all the nation of God; whereupon David took leave of him, and Abner
went away in peace. The expression in peace serves to prepare the way for
what follows. It is not stated, however, that David sent him away in peace
(without avenging himself upon him), but that David sent him away, and he
went in peace. Apart altogether from the mildness of Davids own character,
he had no reason whatever for treating Abner as an enemy, now that he had
given up all opposition to his reigning, and had brought all the Israelites over to
him. What Abner had done for Ishbosheth, including his fighting against David,
was indeed a sinful act of resistance to the will of Jehovah, which was not

unknown to him, and according to which Samuel had both called and anointed
David king over the nation; but for all that, it was not an ordinary act of
rebellion against the person of David and his rightful claim to the throne,
because Jehovah had not yet caused David to be set before the nation as its king
by Samuel or any other prophet, and David had not yet asserted the right to
reign over all Israel, which had been secured to him by the Lord and guaranteed
by his anointing, as one which the nation was bound to recognise; but, like a
true servant of God, he waited patiently till the Lord should give him the
dominion over all His people.

2Sa. 3:22-30. ABNER ASSASSINATED BY JOAB. V. 22. After Abners

departure, the servants of David returned with much booty from a marauding
expedition, and Joab at their head. The singular JbF may be explained from the
fact that Joab was the principal person in the estimation of the writer. DwDgiHAM
,
lit. from the marauding host, i.e., from the work of a marauding host, or from a
raid, which they had been making upon one of the tribes bordering upon Judah.

2Sa. 3:23. When Joab learned Lit. they told him, that Abner had been with
David, and he had sent him away again, he went to David to reproach him for
having done so. What hast thou done? Behold, Abner came to thee; why then
hast thou sent him away, and he is gone quite away? i.e., so that he could go
away again without being detained (for this meaning of the inf. abs., see Ewald,
280, b.).
Thou knowest (or more correctly as a question, Dost thou know?) Abner, the son of
Ner, that he came to persuade thee (i.e., to make thee certain of his intentions), and
to learn thy going out and in (i.e., all thine undertakings), and to learn all that thou
wilt do

(i.e., all thy plans). Joab hoped in this way to prejudice David against Abner, to
make him suspected as a traitor, that he might then be able to gratify his own
private revenge with perfect impunity.

2Sa. 3:26. For Abner had only just gone away from David, when Joab sent
messengers after him, no doubt in Davids name, though without his
knowledge, and had him fetched back from Bor-hasirah, i.e., the cistern of
Sirah. Sirah is a place which is quite unknown to us. According to Josephus
(Ant. vii. 1, 5), it was twenty stadia from Hebron, and called Bhsira.

2Sa. 3:27. When he came back, Joab took him aside into the middle of the
gate, to talk with him in the stillness, i.e., in private, and there thrust him
through the body, so that he died for the blood of Asahel his brother, i.e.,
for having put Asahel to death (2Sa. 2:23).

2Sa. 3:28, 29. When David heard this, he said,

I and my kingdom are innocent before Jehovah for ever of the blood of Abner. Let
it turn (LwX, to twist ones self, to turn or fall, irruit) upon the head of Joab and all
his fathers house (or so-called family)! Never shall there be wanting (TR
kFYI LJA, let
there not be cut off, so that there shall not be, as in Jos. 9:23) in the house of Joab
one that hath an issue (vid., Lev. 15: 2), and a leper, and one who leans upon a stick
(i.e., a lame person or cripple; LEp,E according to the LXX skutalh, a thick round
staff), and who falls by the sword, and who is in want of bread,

The meaning is: May God avenge the murder of Abner upon Joab and his
family, by punishing them continually with terrible diseases, violent death, and
poverty. To make the reason for this fearful curse perfectly clear, the historian
observes in v. 30, that Joab and his brother Abishai had murdered Abner,
because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle
(2Sa. 2:23). This act of Joab, in which Abishai must have been in some way
concerned, was a treacherous act of assassination, which could not even be
defended as blood-revenge, since Abner had slain Asahel in battle after repeated
warnings, and only for the purpose of saving his own life. The principal motive
for Joabs act was the most contemptible jealousy, or the fear lest Abners
reconciliation to David should diminish his own influence with the king, as was
the case again at a later period with the murder of Amasa (2Sa. 20:10).

2Sa. 3:31-39. DAVIDS MOURNING FOR ABNER S DEATH. Vv. 31, 32. To
give a public proof of his grief at this murder, and his displeasure at the crime in
the sight of all the nation, David commanded Joab, and all the people with him
(David), i.e., all his courtiers, and the warriors who returned with Joab, to
institute a public mourning for the deceased, by tearing their clothes, putting on
sackcloth, i.e., coarse hairy mourning and penitential clothes, and by a funeral
dirge for Abner; i.e., he commanded them to walk in front of Abners bier
mourning and in funeral costume, and to accompany the deceased to his
resting-place, whilst David as king followed the bier.

2Sa. 3:32. Thus they buried Abner at Hebron; and David wept aloud at his
grave, and all the people with him.

2Sa. 3:33, 34. Although the appointment of such a funeral by David, and his
tears at Abners grave, could not fail to divest the minds of his opponents of all
suspicion that Joab had committed the murder with his cognizance (see at v.
37), he gave a still stronger proof of his innocence, and of the sincerity of his
grief, by the ode which he composed for Abners death:
33 Like an ungodly man must Abner die!

34 Thy hands were not bound,

and thy feet were not placed in fetters.
As one falls before sinners, so hast thou fallen!

2Sa. 3:33. The first strophe (v. 33) is an expression of painful lamentation at
the fact that Abner had died a death which he did not deserve. The fool
(nabal) is the ungodly, according to Israelitish ideas (vid., Psa. 14: 1). The
meaning of v. 34 is: Thou hadst not made thyself guilty of any crime, so as to
have to die like a malefactor, in chains and bonds; but thou hast been
treacherously murdered. This dirge made such an impression upon all the
people (present), that they wept still more for the dead.

2Sa. 3:35. But David mourned so bitterly, that when all the people called
upon him to take some food during the day, he declared with an oath that he
would not taste bread or anything else before the setting of the sun. XELE
TWROBiHA does not mean, as in 2Sa. 13: 5, to give to eat, on account of the
expression all the people, as it can hardly be imagined that all the people,
i.e., all who were present, could have come to bring David food, but it signifies
to make him eat, i.e., call upon him to eat; whilst it is left uncertain whether
David was to eat with the people (cf. 2Sa. 12:17), i.e., to take part in the
funeral meal that was held after the burial, or whether the people simply urged
him to take some food, for the purpose of soothing his own sorrow. JI YkI are
to be taken separately: YkI, oti, introducing the oath, and JI being the particle
used in an oath: if, i.e., assuredly not.

2Sa. 3:36. And all the people perceived it (i.e., his trouble), and it pleased
them, as everything that the king did pleased all the people.

2Sa. 3:37. All the people (sc., who were with the king) and all Israel
discerned on that day (from Davids deep and heartfelt trouble), that the death
of Abner had not happened (proceeded) from the king, as many may probably
at first have supposed, since Joab had no doubt fetched Abner back in Davids
name.

2Sa. 3:38, 39. Finally, David said to his (confidential) servants: Know ye not
(i.e., surely perceive) that a prince and great man has this day fallen in
Israel? This sentence shows how thoroughly David could recognise the
virtues possessed by his opponents, and how very far he was from looking upon
Abner as a traitor, because of his falling away from Ishbosheth and coming over
to him, that on the contrary he hoped to find in him an able general and a
faithful servant. He would at once have punished the murderer of such a man, if
he had only possessed the power. But, he adds, I am this day (still) weak,
and only anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too strong for

me. The Lord reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. The
expression to-day not only applies to the word weak, or tender, but also to
anointed (to-day, i.e., only just anointed). As David was still but a young
sovereign, and felt himself unable to punish a man like Joab according to his
deserts, he was obliged to restrict himself at first to the utterance of a curse
upon the deed (v. 29), and to leave the retribution to God. He could not and
durst not forgive; and consequently, before he died, he charged Solomon, his
son and successor, to punish Joab for the murder of Abner and Amasa
(1Ki. 2: 5).

Murder of Ishbosheth, and Punishment of the Murderers.

Ch. 4.
2Sa. 4: 1-6. MURDER OF ISHBOSHETH. V. 1. When the son of Saul heard
of the death of Abner, his hands slackened, i.e., he lost the power and
courage to act as king, since Abner had been the only support of his throne.
And all Israel was confounded; i.e., not merely alarmed on account of
Abners death, but utterly at a loss what to do to escape the vengeance of
David, to which Abner had apparently fallen a victim.

2Sa. 4: 2, 3. Sauls son had two leaders of military companies (for LwJFBE
wYHF we must read uBELi wYHF): the one was named Baanah, the other Rechab,
sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the sons of Benjamin, i.e., belonging to
them; for Beeroth is also reckoned to Benjamin (LA, over, above, added to).
Beeroth, the present Bireh (see at Jos. 9:17), was close to the western frontier
of the tribe of Benjamin, to which it is also reckoned as belonging in Jos. 18:25.
This remark concerning Beeroth in the verse before us, serves to confirm the
statement that the Beerothites mentioned were Benjaminites; but that statement
also shows the horrible character of the crime attributed to them in the
following verses. Two men of the tribe of Benjamin murdered the son of Saul,
the king belonging to their own tribe.

2Sa. 4: 3. The Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were strangers there unto
this day. Gittaim is mentioned again in Neh. 11:33, among the places in which
Benjaminites were dwelling after the captivity, though it by no means follows
from this that the place belonged to the tribe of Benjamin before the captivity. It
may have been situated outside the territory of that tribe. It is never mentioned
again, and has not yet been discovered. The reason why the Beerothites fled to
Gittaim, and remained there as strangers until the time when this history was
written, is also unknown; it may perhaps have been that the Philistines had
conquered Gittaim.

2Sa. 4: 4. Before the historian proceeds to describe what the two Beerothites
did, he inserts a remark concerning Sauls family, to show at the outset, that
with the death of Ishbosheth the government of this family necessarily became
extinct, as the only remaining descendant was a perfectly helpless cripple. He
was a son of Jonathan, smitten (i.e., lamed) in his feet. He was five years old
when the tidings came from Jezreel of Saul and Jonathan, i.e., of their death.
His nurse immediately took him and fled, and on their hasty flight he fell and
became lame. His name was Mephibosheth (according to Simonis, for TEBO
HJEPiM,A destroying the idol); but in 1Ch. 8:34 and 9:40 he is called Meribbaal
(Baals fighter), just as Ishbosheth is also called Eshbaal (see at 2Sa. 2: 8). On
his future history, see 2Sa. 9, 16: 1ff., and 19:25ff.

2Sa. 4: 5. The two sons of Rimmon went to Mahanaim, where Ishbosheth

resided (2Sa. 2: 8, 12), and came in the heat of the day (at noon) into
Ishbosheths house, when he was taking his mid-day rest.

2Sa. 4: 6. And here they had come into the midst of the house, fetching
wheat (i.e., under the pretext of fetching wheat, probably for the soldiers in
their companies), and smote him in the abdomen; and Rechab and his brother
escaped. The first clause in this verse is a circumstantial clause, which
furnishes the explanation of the way in which it was possible for the murderers
to find their way to the king. The second clause continues the narrative, and
wHkUyAWA is attached to wJBOyFWA (v. 5).f4

2Sa. 4: 7-12. PUNISHMENT OF T HE MURDERERS BY DAVID. V. 7. As the

thread of the narrative was broken by the explanatory remarks in v. 6, it is
resumed here by the repetition of the words uWGW wJBOyFW:A They came into the
house, as he lay upon his bed in his bed-chamber, and smote him, and slew
him, for the purpose of attaching the account of the further progress of the
affair, viz., that they cut off his head, took it and went by the way of the Arabah
(the valley of the Jordan: see 2Sa. 2:29) the whole night, and brought the head
of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron with these words: Behold (= there thou
hast) the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul thine enemy, who sought thy life;
and thus hath Jehovah avenged my lord the king this day upon Saul and his
seed. No motive is assigned for this action. But there can be little doubt that it
was no other than the hope of obtaining a great reward from David. Thus they
presumed to spread the name of God and His providence as a cloak and
covering over their villany, as the wicked are accustomed to do (Berleb.
Bible).

2Sa. 4: 9ff. But David rewarded them very differently from what they had
expected. He replied,

As Jehovah liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity, the man who
told me, Behold, Saul is dead, and thought he was a messenger of good to me, I
seized and slew at Ziklag (vid., 1:14, 15), to give him a reward for his news: how
much more when wicked men have murdered a righteous man in his house upon his
bed, should I not require his blood at your hand, and destroy you from the earth?

The several parts of this reply are not closely linked together so as to form one
period, but answer to the excited manner in which they were spoken. There is
first of all the oath, As truly as Jehovah liveth, and the clause appended,
who redeemed my soul, in which the thought is implied that David did not
feel it necessary to get rid of his enemies by the commission of crimes. After
this (v. 10) we have an allusion to his treatment of the messenger who
announced Sauls death to him, and pretended to have slain him in order that he
might obtain a good reward for his tidings. YkI , like oti, simply introduces the
address. WYNFY
bi DYgIMAHA is placed at the head absolutely, and made
subordinate to the verb by WBO after HZFXJOWF . WLOYtITIL,i namely, to give him.
REJ is employed to introduce the explanation, like our namely (vid., Ewald,
338, b.). HRFVOb,i good news, here the reward of news. The main point
follows in v. 11, beginning with YkI JA, how much more (vid., Ewald, 354,
c.), and is introduced in the form of a climax. The words WBOk
F iMI YINFJ are
also written absolutely, and placed at the head: men have slain, for how
much more in this instance, when wicked men have slain. Righteous
(zaddik), i.e., not guilty of any wicked deed or crime. The assumption of the
regal power, which Abner had forced upon Ishbosheth, was not a capital crime
in the existing state of things, and after the death of Saul; and even if it had
been, the sons of Rimmon had no right to assassinate him. Davids sentence
then follows: And now that this is the fact, that ye have murdered a righteous
man, should I not, etc. R
bI, to destroy by capital punishment, as in
Deu. 13: 6, etc. dF q
bI (= dF RAd,F Gen. 9: 5), to require the blood of a
person, i.e., to take blood-revenge.

2Sa. 4:12. David then commanded his servant to slay the murderers, and also
to make the punishment more severe than usual. They cut off their hands and
feet, the hands with which they had committed the murder, and the feet
which had run for the reward, and hanged the bodies by the pool at
Hebron for a spectacle and warning, that others might be deterred from
committing similar crimes (cf. Deu. 21:22; J. H. Michaelis). In illustration of the
fact itself, we may compare the similar course pursued by Alexander towards
the murderer of king Darius, as described in Justins history (2Sa. 12: 6) and
Curtius (2Sa. 7: 5). They buried Ishbosheths head in Abners grave at Hebron.
Thus David acted with strict justice in this case also, not only to prove to the
people that he had neither commanded nor approved of the murder, but from

heartfelt abhorrence of such crimes, and to keep his conscience void of offence
towards God and towards man.

II. The Government of David over all Israel in the

Time of its Strength and Glory.
2Sa. 5-9. After the death of Ishbosheth, David was anointed in Hebron by all
the tribes as king over the whole of Israel (2Sa. 5: 1-5). He then proceeded to
attack the Jebusites in Jerusalem, conquered their fortress Zion, and made
Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom; fortifying it still further, and building a
palace in it (2Sa. 5: 6-16), after he had twice inflicted a defeat upon the
Philistines (2Sa. 5:17-25). But in order that the chief city of his kingdom and
the seat of his own palace might also be made the religious centre of the whole
nation as a congregation of Jehovah, he first of all brought the ark of the
covenant out of its place of concealment, and had it conveyed in a festal
procession to Zion, and deposited there in a tent which had been specially
prepared for it, as a place of worship for the whole congregation (2Sa. 6). He
then resolved to erect for the Lord in Jerusalem a temple fitted for His name;
and the Lord gave him in return the promise of the eternal perpetuity of his
throne (2Sa. 7). To this there is appended a cursory account of Davids wars
with the neighbouring nations, by which not only his own sovereignty, but the
Israelitish kingdom of God, was raised into a commanding power among the
nations and kingdoms of the world. In connection with all this, David still
maintained his affection and fidelity towards the fallen royal family of Saul, and
showed compassion towards the last remaining descendant of that family
(2Sa. 9).
This account of the unfolding of the power and glory of the kingdom of Israel,
through the instrumentality of David and during his reign, is so far arranged
chronologically, that all the events and all the enterprises of David mentioned in
this section occurred in the first half of his reign over the whole of the covenant
nation. The chronological arrangement, however, is not strictly adhered to, so
far as the details are concerned; but the standpoint of material resemblance is so
far connected with it, that all the greater wars of David are grouped together in
2Sa. 8 (see the introduction to 2Sa. 8). It is obvious from this, that the plan
which the historian adopted was first of all to describe the internal improvement
of the Israelitish kingdom of God by David, and then to proceed to the external
development of his power in conflict with the opposing nations of the world.

David Anointed King over All Israel. Jerusalem Taken, and

Made the Capital of the Kingdom. Victories over the Philistines.
Ch. 5.

2Sa. 5: 1-5. DAVID ANOINTED KING OVER ALL ISRAEL. Vv. 1-3 (compare
with this the parallel passages in 1Ch. 11: 1-3). After the death of Ishbosheth,
all the tribes of Israel (except Judah) came to Hebron in the persons of their
representatives the elders (vid., v. 3), in response to the summons of Abner
(2Sa. 3:17-19), to do homage to David as their king. They assigned three
reasons for their coming:
(1.) Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh, i.e., thy blood-relations,
inasmuch as all the tribes of Israel were lineal descendants of Jacob (vid.,
Gen. 29:14; Jud. 9: 2).
(2.) In time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast the leader of Israel
(thou leddest out and broughtest in Israel), i.e., thou didst superintend the
affairs of Israel (see at Num. 27:17; and for the fact itself, 1Sa. 18: 5). JYCIWMO
HTFYYIHF is an error in writing for JYCIWmOHA TFYYIH,F and YBIM
for JYBIM
, with the J
dropped, as in 1Ki. 21:21, etc. (vid., Olshausen, Gr. p. 69).
(3.) They ended by asserting that Jehovah had called him to be the shepherd and
prince over His people. The remarks which we have already made at 2Sa. 3:18
respecting Abners appeal to a similar utterance on the part of Jehovah, are
equally applicable to the words of Jehovah to David which are quoted here:
Thou shalt feed my people Israel, etc. On the Piska, see the note to Jos. 4: 1.

2Sa. 5: 3. All the elders of Israel came is a repetition of v. 1a, except that
the expression all the tribes of Israel is more distinctly defined as meaning all
the elders of Israel.
So all the elders came;...and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron
before the Lord (see at 2Sa. 3:21): and they anointed David king over (all) Israel.

The writer of the Chronicles adds, according to the word of the Lord through
Samuel, i.e., so that the command of the Lord to Samuel, to anoint David king
over Israel (1Sa. 16: 1, 12), found its complete fulfilment in this.

2Sa. 5: 4, 5. The age of David when he began to reign is given here, viz.,
thirty years old; also the length of his reign, viz., seven years and a half at
Hebron over Judah, and thirty-three years at Jerusalem over Israel and Judah. In
the books of Chronicles these statements occur at the close of Davids reign
(1Ch. 29:27).

2Sa. 5: 6-10. Conquest of the Stronghold of Zion, and Choice of Jerusalem as

the Capital of the Kingdom (cf. 1Ch. 11: 4, 9). These parallel accounts agree
in all the main points; but they are both of them merely brief extracts from a
more elaborate history, so that certain things, which appeared of comparatively
less importance, are passed over either in the one or the other, and the full

account is obtained by combining the two. The conquest of the citadel Zion
took place immediately after the anointing of David as king over all the tribes of
Israel. This is apparent, not only from the fact that the account follows directly
afterwards, but also from the circumstance that, according to v. 5, David
reigned in Jerusalem just as many years as he was king over all Israel.

2Sa. 5: 6. The king went with his men (i.e., his fighting men: the Chronicles
have all Israel, i.e., the fighting men of Israel) to Jerusalem to the Jebusites,
the inhabitants of the land, i.e., the natives or Canaanites; and they said (the
singular RMEJyOWA is used because YSIwBYiHA is a singular form) to David, Thou wilt
not come hither (i.e., come in), but the blind and lame will drive thee away: to
say (i.e., by which they meant to say), David will not come in. RiYSIH is not
used for the infinitive, but has been rightly understood by the LXX, Aben Ezra,
and others, as a perfect. The perfect expresses a thing accomplished, and open
to no dispute; and the use of the singular in the place of the plural, as in
Isa. 14:32, is to be explained from the fact that the verb precedes, and is only
defined precisely by the subject which follows (vid., Ewald, 319, a.). The
Jebusites relied upon the unusual natural advantages of their citadel, which
stood upon Mount Zion, a mountain shut in by deep valleys on three different
sides; so that in their haughty self-security they imagined that they did not even
need to employ healthy and powerful warriors to resist the attack made by
David, but that the blind and lame would suffice.

2Sa. 5: 7. However, David took the citadel Zion, i.e., the city of David.
This explanatory remark anticipates the course of events, as David did not give
this name to the conquered citadel, until he had chosen it as his residence and
capital (vid., v. 9). WyOCI (Sion), from HYFC,F to be dry: the dry or arid mountain or
hill. This was the name of the southern and loftiest mountain of Jerusalem.
Upon this stood the fortress or citadel of the town, which had hitherto remained
in the possession of the Jebusites; whereas the northern portion of the city of
Jerusalem, which was upon lower ground, had been conquered by the Judaeans
and Benjaminites very shortly after the death of Joshua (see at Jud. 1: 8). In
v. 8 we have one circumstance mentioned which occurred in connection with
this conquest. On that day, i.e., when he had advanced to the attack of the
citadel Zion, David said, Every one who smites the Jebusites, let him hurl into
the waterfall (i.e., down the precipice) both the lame and blind, who are hateful
to Davids soul. This is most probably the proper interpretation of these
obscure words of David, which have been very differently explained. Taking up
the words of the Jebusites, David called all the defenders of the citadel of Zion
lame and blind, and ordered them to be cast down the precipice without
quarter. RWnOCI signifies a waterfall (catarracta) in Psa. 42: 8, the only other

passage in which it occurs, probably from RNAC,F to roar. This meaning may also
be preserved here, if we assume that at the foot of the steep precipice of Zion
there was a waterfall probably connected with the water of Siloah. It is true we
cannot determine anything with certainty concerning it, as, notwithstanding the
many recent researches in Jerusalem, the situation of the Jebusite fortress and
the character of the mountain of Zion in ancient times are quite unknown to us.
This explanation of the word zinnor is simpler than Ewalds assumption that the
word signifies the steep side of a rock, which merely rests upon the fact that the
Greek word katarrakthj originally signifies a plunge.f5
GYW should be pointed as a Hiphil gAYAWi. The Masoretic pointing gAYIWi arises
from their mistaken interpretation of the whole sentence. The Chethibh WJNV
might be the third pers. perf., who hate Davids soul; only in that case the
omission of REJ would be surprising, and consequently the Keri YJ
NUVi is to be
preferred. From this, adds the writer, the proverb arose, The blind and lame
shall not enter the house; in which proverb the epithet blind and lame,
which David applied to the Jebusites who were hated by him, has the general
signification of repulsive persons, with whom one does not wish to have
anything to do. In the Chronicles not only is the whole of v. 7 omitted, with the
proverb to which the occurrence gave rise, but also the allusion to the blind and
lame in the words spoken by the Jebusites (v. 6); and another word of Davids
is substituted instead, namely, that David would make the man who first smote
the Jebusites, i.e., who stormed their citadel, head and chief; f6
and also the statement that Joab obtained the prize. The historical credibility of
the statement cannot be disputed, as Thenius assumes, on the ground that Joab
had already been chief (sar) for a long time, according to 2Sa. 2:13: for the
passage referred to says nothing of the kind; and there is a very great difference
between the commander of an army in the time of war, and a head and chief,
i.e., a commander-in-chief. The statement in v. 8 with regard to Joabs part, the
fortification of Jerusalem, shows very clearly that the author of the Chronicles
had other and more elaborate sources in his possession, which contained fuller
accounts than the author of our books has communicated.

2Sa. 5: 9. David dwelt in the fort, i.e., he selected the fort or citadel as his
palace, and called it Davids city. David may have been induced to select the
citadel of Zion as his palace, and by so doing to make Jerusalem the capital of
the whole kingdom, partly by the natural strength of Zion, and partly by the
situation of Jerusalem, viz., on the border of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah,
and tolerably near to the centre of the land. And David built, i.e., fortified (the
city of Zion), round about from Millo and inwards. In the Chronicles we have
BYBIsFHADAW,i and to the environs or surroundings, i.e., to the encircling wall

which was opposite to the Millo. The fortification inwards must have
consisted in the enclosure of Mount Zion with a strong wall upon the north
side, where Jerusalem joined it as a lower town, so as to defend the palace
against the hostile attacks on the north or town side, which had hitherto been
left without fortifications. The Millo was at any rate some kind of
fortification, probably a large tower or castle at one particular part of the
surrounding wall (comp. Jud. 9: 6 with vv. 46 and 49, where Millo is used
interchangeably with Migdal). The name (the filling) probably originated in
the fact that through this tower or castle the fortification of the city, or the
surrounding wall, was filled or completed. The definite article before Millo
indicates that it was a well-known fortress, probably one that had been erected
by the Jebusites. With regard to the situation of Millo, we may infer from this
passage, and 1Ch. 11: 8, that the tower in question stood at one corner of the
wall, either on the north-east or north-west, where the hill of Zion has the least
elevation and therefore needed the greatest strengthening from without
(Thenius on 1Ki. 9:15). This is fully sustained both by 1Ki. 11:27, where
Solomon is said to have closed the breach of the city of David by building
(fortifying) Millo, and by 2Ch. 32: 5, where Hezekiah is said to have built up all
the wall of Jerusalem, and made Millo strong, i.e., to have fortified it still
further (vid., 1Ki. 9:15 and 24).

2Sa. 5:10. And David increased in greatness, i.e., in power and fame, for
Jehovah the God of hosts was with him.

2Sa. 5:11-16. DAVIDS PALACE, WIVES AND CHILDREN (comp. 1Ch. 14: 17). King Hiram of Tyre sent messengers to David, and afterwards, by the
express desire of the latter, cedar-wood and builders, carpenters and stonemasons, who built him a house, i.e., a palace. Hiram (Hirom in 1Ki. 5:32;
Huram in the Chronicles; LXX eiram; Josephus, Eiramoj and Eirwmoj), king
of Tyre, was not only an ally of David, but of his son Solomon also. He sent to
the latter cedar-wood and builders for the erection of the temple and of his own
palace (1Ki. 5:21ff.; 2Ch. 2: 2ff.), and fitted out a mercantile fleet in
conjunction with him (1Ki. 9:27, 28; 2Ch. 9:10); in return for which, Solomon
not only sent him an annual supply of corn, oil, and wine (1Ki. 5:24; 2Ch. 2: 9),
but when all the buildings were finished, twenty years after the erection of the
temple, he made over to him twenty of the towns of Galilee (1Ki. 9:10ff.). It is
evident from these facts that Hiram was still reigning in the twenty-fourth, or at
any rate the twentieth, year of Solomons reign, and consequently, as he had
assisted David with contributions of wood for the erection of his palace, that he
must have reigned at least forty-five or fifty years; and therefore that, even in
the latter case, he cannot have begun to reign earlier than the eighth year of
Davids reign over all Israel, or from six to ten years after the conquest of the

Jebusite citadel upon Mount Zion. This is quite in harmony with the account
given here; for it by no means follows, that because the arrival of an embassy
from Hiram, and the erection of Davids palace, are mentioned immediately
after the conquest of the citadel of Zion, they must have occurred directly
afterwards. The arrangement of the different events in the chapter before us is
topical rather than strictly chronological. Of the two battles fought by David
with the Philistines (vv. 17-25), the first at any rate took place before the
erection of Davids palace, as it is distinctly stated in v. 17 that the Philistines
made war upon David when they heard that he had been anointed king over
Israel, and therefore in all probability even before the conquest of the fortress of
the Jebusites, or at any rate immediately afterwards, and before David had
commenced the fortification of Jerusalem and the erection of a palace. The
historian, on the contrary, has not only followed up the account of the capture
of the fortress of Zion, and the selection of it as Davids palace, by a description
of what David gradually did to fortify and adorn the new capital, but has also
added a notice as to Davids wives and the children that were born to him in
Jerusalem. Now, if this be correct, the object of Hirams embassy cannot have
been to congratulate David upon his ascent of the throne, as Thenius
maintains; but after he had ascended the throne, Hiram sent ambassadors to
form an alliance with this powerful monarch; and David availed himself of the
opportunity to establish an intimate friendship with Hiram, and ask him for
cedar-wood and builders for his palace.f7

2Sa. 5:12. And David perceived (sc., from the success of his enterprises) that
Jehovah had firmly established him king over Israel, and that He had exalted his
kingdom for His people Israels sake, i.e., because He had chosen Israel as His
people, and had promised to make it great and glorious.
To the building of Davids palace, there is appended in vv. 13-15 the account of
the increase of his house by the multiplication of his wives and concubines, and
of the sons who were born to him at Jerusalem (as in 1Ch. 14: 3ff.). Taking
many wives was indeed prohibited in the law of the king in Deu. 17:17; but as a
large harem was considered from time immemorial as part of the court of an
oriental monarch, David suffered himself to be seduced by that custom to
disregard this prohibition, and suffered many a heartburn afterwards in
consequence, not to mention his fearful fall in consequence of his passion for
Bathsheba. The concubines are mentioned before the wives, probably because
David had taken many of them to Jerusalem, and earlier than the wives. In the
Chronicles the concubines and omitted, though not intentionally, as they are
mentioned in 1Ch. 3: 9; but as being of no essential importance in relation to the
list of sons which follows, because no difference was made between those born
of concubines and those born of wives. Out of Jerusalem, i.e., away from

Jerusalem: not that the wives were all born in Jerusalem, as the words which
follow, after he was come from Hebron, clearly show. In the Chronicles,
therefore, it is explained as meaning in Jerusalem. The sons are mentioned
again both in 1Ch. 14: 5-7 and in the genealogy in 1Ch. 3: 5-8. Shammua is
called Shimea in 1Ch. 3: 5, according to a different pronunciation. Shammua,
Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon were sons of Bathsheba according to 1Ch. 3: 5.

2Sa. 5:15. Elishua is written incorrectly in 1Ch. 3: 6 as Elishama, because

Elishama follows afterwards. There are two names after Elishua in 1Ch. 3: 6,
7, and 14: 6, 7, viz., Eliphalet and Nogah, which have not crept into the text
from oversight or from a wrong spelling of other names, because the number of
the names is given as nine in 1Ch. 3: 8, and the two names must be included in
order to bring out that number. And, on the other hand, it is not by the mistake
of a copyist that they have been omitted from the text before us, but it has
evidently been done deliberately on account of their having died in infancy, or at
a very early age. This also furnishes a very simple explanation of the fact, that
the name Eliphalet occurs again at the end of the list, namely, because a son
who was born later received the name of his brother who had died young.
Eliada, the last but one, is called Beeliada in 1Ch. 14: 7, another form of the
name, compounded with Baal instead of El. David had therefore nineteen sons,
six of whom were born in Hebron (2Sa. 3: 2ff.), and thirteen at Jerusalem.
Daughters are not mentioned in the genealogical accounts, because as a rule
only heiresses or women who acquired renown from special causes were
included in them. There is a daughter named Thamar mentioned afterwards in
2Sa. 13: 1.

2Sa. 5:17-25. David gains two Victories over the Philistines (compare
1Ch. 14: 8-17). Both these victories belong in all probability to the interval
between the anointing of David at Hebron over all Israel and the conquest of
the citadel of Zion. This is very evident, so far as the first is concerned, from the
words, When the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over
Israel (v. 17), not when David had conquered the citadel of Zion. Moreover,
when the Philistines approached, David went down to the hold, or mountain
fortress, by which we cannot possibly understand the citadel upon Zion, on
account of the expression went down. If David had been living upon Zion at
the time, he would hardly have left this fortification when the Philistines
encamped in the valley of Rephaim on the west of Jerusalem, but would rather
have attacked and routed the enemy from the citadel itself. The second victory
followed very soon after the first, and must therefore be assigned to the same
period. The Philistines evidently resolved, as soon as the tidings reached them
of the union of all the tribes under the sovereignty of David, that they would at

once resist the growing power of Israel, and smite David before he had
consolidated his government.

2Sa. 5:17. The Philistines went up to seek David, i.e., to seek him out and

smite him. The expression q

BALi presupposes that David had not yet taken up
his abode upon Zion. He had probably already left Hebron to make preparations
for his attack upon the Jebusites. When he heard of the approach of the
Philistines, he went down into the mountain fortress. The hold cannot be the
citadel of Zion (as in vv. 7 and 9), because this was so high that they had to go
up to it on every side; and it is impossible to sustain the opinion advanced by
Bertheau, that the verb DRAYF (to go down) is used for falling back into a
fortification. HDFwCmiHA (the hold), with the definite article, is probably the
mountain stronghold in the desert of Judah, into which David withdrew for a
long time to defend himself from Saul (vid., 2Sa. 23:14 and 1Ch. 12: 8). In v.
18 the position of the Philistines is more minutely defined. The verse contains a
circumstantial clause: The Philistines had come and spread themselves out in
the valley of Rephaim, a valley on the west of Jerusalem, and only separated
from the valley of Ben-hinnom by a narrow ridge of land (see at Jos. 15: 8).
Instead of winFYI the Chronicles have wiPiY,I they had invaded, which is
perfectly equivalent so far as the sense is concerned.

2Sa. 5:19, 20. David inquired of the Lord by the Urim whether he should go
out against the foe, and whether God would give them into his hand;f8
and when he had received an answer in the affirmative to both these questions,
he went to Baal-perazim (lit. into Baal-perazim), and smote them there, and
said (v. 20), Jehovah hath broken mine enemies before me like a waterbreach, i.e., has smitten them before me, and broken their power as a flood
breaks through and carries away whatever opposes it. From these words of
David, the place where the battle was fought received the name of Baalperazim, i.e., possessor of breaches (equivalent to Bruch-hausen or
Brechendorf, Breach-ham or Break-thorpe). The only other passage in which
the place is mentioned is Isa. 28:21, where this event is alluded to, but it cannot
have been far from the valley of Rephaim.

2Sa. 5:21. The Philistines left their idols behind them there. They had
probably brought them to the war, as the Israelites once did their ark, as an
auxiliary force. And David took them away. The Chronicles have their
gods instead of their idols, and they were burned with fire instead of
J
vFY,I he took them away,f9 took them as booty. The reading in the
Chronicles gives the true explanation of the fact, as David would certainly
dispose of the idols in the manner prescribed in the law (Deu. 7: 5, 25). The

same reading was also most probably to be found in the sources employed by
our author, who omitted it merely as being self-evident. In this way David fully
avenged the disgrace brought upon Israel by the Philistines, when they carried
away the ark in the time of Eli.

2Sa. 5:22-25. Although thoroughly beaten, the Philistines soon appeared

again to repair the defeat which they had suffered. As David had not followed
up the victory, possibly because he was not sufficiently prepared, the Philistines
assembled again in the valley of Rephaim.

2Sa. 5:23. David inquired once more of the Lord what he was to do, and
received this answer: Thou shalt not go up (i.e., advance to meet the foe, and
attack them in front); turn round behind them, and come upon them (attack
them) opposite to the Baca-shrubs. YJIKFbi, a word which only occurs here
and in the parallel passage in 1Ch. 14:14, is rendered apiouj, pear-trees, by the
LXX, and mulberry-trees by the Rabbins. But these are both of them uncertain
conjectures. Baca, according to Abulfadl, is the name given in Arabic to a shrub
which grows at Mecca and resembles the balsam, except that it has longer
leaves and larger and rounder fruit, and from which, if a leaf be broken off,
there flows a white pungent sap, like a white tear, which is all probability gave
rise to the name JKFbF = HKFbF, to weep (vid., Celsii, Hierob. i. pp. 338ff., and
Gesenius, Thes. p. 205).

2Sa. 5:24.
And when thou hearest the rush of a going in the tops of the baca-shrubs, then
bestir thyself, or hasten; for Jehovah has gone out before thee, to smite the army
of the Philistines.

The sound of a going, i.e., of the advance of an army, was a significant sign
of the approach of an army of God, which would smite the enemies of Jehovah
and of His servant David; like the visions of Jacob (Gen. 32: 2, 3) and Elisha
(2Ki. 6:17). Then thou shalt bestir thyself, lit. be sharp, i.e., active, quick: this
is paraphrased in the Chronicles by then thou shalt go out to battle.

2Sa. 5:25. David did this, and smote the Philistines from Geba to the
neighbourhood of Gezer. In the Chronicles we find from Gibeon instead of
from Geba. The former is unquestionably the true reading, and Geba an error of
the pen: for Geba, the present Jeba, was to the north of Jerusalem, and on the
east of Ramah (see at Jos. 18:24); so that it is quite unsuitable here. But that is
not the case with Gibeon, the present el Jib, on the north-west of Jerusalem
(see at Jos. 9: 3); for this was on the way to Gezer, which was four Roman
miles to the north of Amws, and is probably to be sought for on the site of the
present el Kubab (see at Jos. 10:33). f10

Removal of the Ark to Jerusalem. Ch. 6.

2Sa. 6. After David had selected the citadel of Zion, or rather Jerusalem, as the
capital of the kingdom, he directed his attention to the organization and
improvement of the legally established worship of the congregation, which had
fallen grievously into decay since the death of Eli, in consequence of the
separation of the ark from the tabernacle. He therefore resolved first of all to
fetch out the ark of the covenant, as the true centre of the Mosaic sanctuary,
from its obscurity and bring it up to Zion; and having deposited it in a tent
previously prepared to receive it, to make this a place of worship where the
regular worship of God might be carried on in accordance with the instructions
of the law. That he should make the capital of his kingdom the central point of
the worship of the whole congregation of Israel, followed so naturally from the
nature of the kingdom of God, and the relation in which David stood, as the
earthly monarch of that kingdom, towards Jehovah the God-king, that there is
no necessity whatever to seek for even a partial explanation in the fact that
David felt it desirable to have the high priest with the Urim and Thummim
always close at hand. But why did not David remove the Mosaic tabernacle to
Mount Zion at Jerusalem at the same time as the ark of the covenant, and so
restore the divinely established sanctuary in its integrity? This question can only
be answered by conjectures. One of the principal motives for allowing the
existing separation of the ark from the tabernacle to continue, may have been
that, during the time the two sanctuaries had been separated, two high priests
had arisen, one of whom officiated at the tabernacle at Gibeon, whilst the other,
namely Abiathar, who escaped the massacre of the priests at Nob and fled at
once to David, had been the channel of all divine communications to David
during the time of his persecution by Saul, and had also officiated as high priest
in his camp; so that he could no more think of deposing him from the office
which he had hitherto filled, in consequence of the reorganization of the legal
worship, than he could of deposing Zadok, of the line of Eleazar, the officiating
high priest at Gibeon. Moreover, David may from the very first have regarded
the service which he instituted in connection with the ark upon Zion as merely a
provisional arrangement, which was to continue till his kingdom was more
thoroughly consolidated, and the way had been thereby prepared for erecting a
fixed house of God, and so establishing the worship of the nation of Jehovah
upon a more durable foundation. David may also have cherished the firm belief
that in the meantime the Lord would put an end to the double priesthood which
had grown out of the necessities of the times, or at any rate give him some
direct revelation as to the arrangements which he ought to make.
We have a parallel account of the removal of the ark of the covenant to Zion in
1Ch. 13:15 and 16, which agrees for the most part verbatim, at all events in all

essential points, with the account before us; but the liturgical side of this solemn
act is very elaborately described, especially the part taken by the Levites,
whereas the account given here is very condensed, and is restricted in fact to an
account of the work of removing the ark from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem as
carried out by David. David composed the 24th Psalm for the religious
ceremonies connected with the removal of the ark to Mount Zion.

2Sa. 6: 1-10. T HE ARK FETCHED FROM KIRJATH-JEARIM. V. 1. David

assembled together again all the chosen men in Israel, thirty thousand. S
YO
for S
JYO is the Kal of SAJ,F as in 1Sa. 15: 6, Psa. 104:29. DWO, again, once
more, points back to 2Sa. 5: 1 and 3, where all Israel is said to have assembled
for the first time in Hebron to anoint David king. It is true that that assembly
was not convened directly by David himself; but this was not the point in
question, but merely their assembling a second time (see Bertheau on
1Ch. 13: 5). RwXbF does not mean the young men here (neania, LXX), or
the fighting men, but, according to the etymology of the word, the picked
men. Instead of thirty thousand, the LXX have seventy chiliads, probably with
an intentional exaggeration, because the number of men in Israel who were
capable of bearing arms amounted to more than thirty thousand. The whole
nation, through a very considerable body of representatives, was to take part in
the removal of the ark. The writer of the Chronicles gives a more elaborate
account of the preparations for these festivities (1Ch. 13: 1-5); namely, that
David took counsel with the heads of thousands and hundreds, and all the
leaders, i.e., all the heads of families and households, and then with their
consent collected together the whole nation from the brook of Egypt to
Hamath, of course not every individual, but a large number of heads of
households as representatives of the whole. This account in the Chronicles is
not an expansion of the brief notice given here; but the account before us is a
condensation of the fuller description given in the sources that were employed
by both authors.

2Sa. 6: 2. David went with all the people that were with him to BaaleJehuda, to fetch up the ark of God from thence. The words HDFwHYi YL
bAMI
cause some difficulty on account of the MI, which is used instead of the
accusative with H loc., like HTFL
F bA in the Chronicles; yet the translators of the
Septuagint, Chaldee, Vulgate, and other versions, all had the reading MI in their
text, and YL
bA has therefore been taken as an appellative and rendered apo twn
arxontwn Iouda (from the rulers of Judah), or as Luther renders it, from the
citizens of Judah. This is decidedly incorrect, as the word thence which
follows is perfectly unintelligible on any other supposition than that BaaleJehudah is the name of a place. Baale-Jehudah is another name of the city of

Kirjath-jearim (Jos. 15:60; 18:14), which is called Baalah in Jos. 15: 9 and
1Ch. 13: 6, according to its Canaanitish name, instead of which the name
Kirjath-jearim (city of the woods) was adopted by the Israelites, though
without entirely supplanting the old name. The epithet of Judah is a
contraction of the fuller expression city of the children of Judah in Jos. 18:14,
and is added to distinguish this Baal city, which was situated upon the border of
the tribe of Judah, from other cities that were also named after Baal, such as
Baal or Baalath-beer in the tribe of Simeon (1Ch. 4:33, Jos. 19: 8), Baalath in
the tribe of Dan (Jos. 19:44), the present Kuryet el Enab (see at Jos. 9:17). The
MI (from) is either a very ancient error of the pen that crept by accident into the
text, or, if genuine and original, it is to be explained on the supposition that the
historian dropped the construction with which he started, and instead of
mentioning Baale-Jehudah as the place to which David went, gave it at once as
the place from which he fetched the ark; so that the passage is to be understood
in this way: And David went, and all the people who were with him, out of
Baale-Jehudah, to which they had gone up to fetch the ark of God (Kimchi). In
the sentence which follows, a difficulty is also occasioned by the repetition of
the word
in the clause WYLFF JRFQiNI REJ, upon which the name is
called, the name of Jehovah of hosts, who is enthroned above the cherubim.
The difficulty cannot be solved by altering the first
into F, as Clericus,
Thenius, and Bertheau suggest: for if this alteration were adopted, we should
have to render the passage where the name of Jehovah of hosts is invoked,
who is enthroned above the cherubim (which are) upon it (i.e., upon the ark);
and this would not only introduce an unscriptural thought into the passage, but
it would be impossible to find any suitable meaning for the word WYLFF, except
by making very arbitrary interpolations. Throughout the whole of the Old
Testament we never meet with the idea that the name of Jehovah was invoked
at the ark of the covenant, because no one was allowed to approach the ark for
the purpose of invoking the name of the Lord there; and upon the great day of
atonement the high priest was only allowed to enter the most holy place with
the cloud of incense, to sprinkle the blood of the atoning sacrifice upon the ark.
Moreover, the standing expression for call upon the name of the Lord is uYY

Bi JRFQ;F whereas up LA uYY

JRFQiNI signifies the name of Jehovah is called
above a person or thing. Lastly, even if WYLFF belonged to YBIRUkiHA B
Y,O it
would not only be a superfluous addition, occurring nowhere else in connection
with uKH B
YO , not even in 1Ch. 13: 6 (vid., 1Sa. 4: 4; 2Ki. 19:15; Isa. 37:16;
Psa. 99: 1), but such an addition if made at all would necessarily require WYLFF
REJ (vid., Exo. 25:22). The only way in which we can obtain a biblical thought
and grammatical sense is by connecting WYLFF with the REJ before JRFQiN:I
above which (ark) the name of Jehovah-Zebaoth is named, i.e., above which

Jehovah reveals His glory or His divine nature to His people, or manifests His
gracious presence in Israel. The name of God denotes all the operations of
God through which He attests His personal presence in that relation into which
He has entered to man, i.e., the whole of the divine self-manifestation, or of that
side of the divine nature which is turned towards men (Oehler, Herzogs RealEncycl. x. p. 197). From this deeper meaning of the name of God we may
probably explain the repetition of the word
, which is first of all written
absolutely (as at the close of Lev. 24:16), and then more fully defined as the
name of the Lord of hosts.

2Sa. 6: 3, 4. They set the ark of God upon a new cart, and took it away
from the house of Abinadab. BYkIRiHI means here to put (load) upon a cart,
and JVFNF to take away, i.e., drive off: for there are grammatical (or syntactical)
reasons which make it impossible to render wHJUvFYIWA as a pluperfect (they had
taken), on account of the previous WBKRYW.
The ark of the covenant had been standing in the house of Abinadab from the
time when the Philistines had sent it back into the land of Israel, i.e., about
seventy years (viz., twenty years to the victory at Ebenezer mentioned in
1Sa. 7: 1ff., forty years under Samuel and Saul, and about ten years under
David: see the chronological table on pp. 210f.). The further statement, that
Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, drove the cart, may easily be reconciled
with this. These two sons were either born about the time when the ark was
first taken to Abinadabs house, or at a subsequent period; or else the term sons
is used, as is frequently the case, in the sense of grandsons. The words from
HFDFX (the last word in v. 3) to Gibeah in v. 4 are wanting in the Septuagint,
and can only have been introduced through the error of a copyist, whose eye
wandered back to the first HLFGF in v. 3, so that he copied a whole line twice
over; for they not only contain a pure tautology, a merely verbal and altogether
superfluous and purposeless repetition, but they are altogether unsuitable to the
connection in which they stand. Not only is there something very strange in the
repetition of the HFDFX without an article after HLFGFHF; but the words which
follow, uH WROJ I (with the ark of God), cannot be made to fit on to the
repeated clause, for there is no sense whatever in such a sentence as this: They
brought it (the ark) out of the house of Abinadab, which is upon the hill, with
the ark of God. The only way in which the words with the ark can be made
to acquire any meaning at all, is by omitting the repetition referred to, and
connecting them with the new cart in v. 3: Uzzah and Ahio...drove the cart
with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark. GHANF, to drive (a carriage),
is construed here with an accusative, in 1Ch. 13: 7 with bi, as in Isa. 11: 6.

2Sa. 6: 5. And David and all the house (people) of Israel were YQIXVAMi ,

sporting, i.e., they danced and played, before Jehovah. YIWROBi YC

LKOb,i
with all kinds of woods of cypresses. This could only mean, with all kinds of
instruments made of cypress wood; but this mode of expression would be a
very strange one even if the reading were correct. In the Chronicles, however
(v. 8), instead of this strange expression, we find YRIYIBiw ZOLKFb,i with all
their might and with songs. This is evidently the correct reading, from which
our text has sprung, although the latter is found in all the old versions, and even
in the Septuagint, which really combines the two readings thus: en organoij
hrmosmenoij en isxui kai en wdaij , where en organoij hrmosmenoij is
evidently the interpretation of YIWROBi YC
LKOb;i for the text of the Chronicles
cannot be regarded as an explanation of Samuel. Moreover, songs would not be
omitted on such a festive occasion; and two of the instruments mentioned, viz.,
the kinnor and nebel (see at 1Sa. 10: 5), were generally played as
accompaniments to singing. The vav before YRIYIbi, and before the different
instruments, corresponds to the Latin et...et, both...and. tO, the timbrel.
YLICiLiCEBiw YIN
i ANAMibI, sistris et cymbalis (Vulg., Syr.), with bells and
cymbals (Luther). YIN
i ANAMi, from AwN, are instruments that are shaken, the
seistra, sistra, of the ancients, which consisted of two iron rods fastened
together at one end, either in a semicircle or at right angels, upon which rings
were hung loosely, so as to make a tinkling sound when they were shaken.
YLICiLiCE = YItALiCIMi are cymbals or castanets. Instead of YIN
i ANAMi, we find
TWROCiCOX, trumpets, mentioned in the Chronicles in the last rank after the
cymbals. It is possible that sistra were played and trumpets blown, so that the
two accounts complete each other.

2Sa. 6: 6, 7. When the procession had reached the threshing-floor of Nachon,

Uzzah stretched out his hand to lay hold of the ark, i.e., to keep it from falling
over with the cart, because the oxen slipped. And the wrath of the Lord was
kindled, and God slew Uzzah upon the spot. Goren nachon means the
threshing-floor of the stroke (nachon from HKFNF, not from wk); in the
Chronicles we have goren chidon, i.e., the threshing-floor of destruction or
disaster (WDOYkI = DYkI, Job. 21:20). Chidon is probably only an explanation of
nachon, so that the name may have been given to the threshing-floor, not from
its owner, but from the incident connected with the ark which took place there.
Eventually, however, this name was supplanted by the name Perez-uzzah (v. 8).
The situation of the threshing-floor cannot be determined, as all that we can
gather from this account is that the house of Obed-edom the Gathite was
somewhere near it; but no village, hamlet, or town is mentioned.f11

Jerome paraphrases RQFbFHA wMi F YkI thus: Because the oxen kicked and
turned it (the ark over. But MAF does not mean to kick; its true meaning is to
let go, or let lie (Exo. 23:11; Deu. 15: 2, 3), hence to slip or stumble. The
stumbling of the animals might easily have turned the cart over, and this was
what Uzzah tried to prevent by laying hold of the ark. God smote him there on
account of the offence (LA, ap . leg. from HLFF, in the sense of erring, or
committing a fault). The writer of the Chronicles gives it thus: Because he had
stretched out his hand to the ark, though of course the text before us is not to
be altered to this, as Thenius and Bertheau suggest.

2Sa. 6: 8. And David was angry, because Jehovah had made a rent on Uzzah,
and called the place Perez-uzzah (rent of Uzzah). REpE RAp,F to tear a rent, is
here applied to a sudden tearing away from life. Li RXAYI is understood by many
in the sense of he troubled himself; but this meaning cannot be grammatically
sustained, whilst it is quite possible to become angry, or fall into a state of
violent excitement, at an unexpected calamity. The burning of Davids anger
was not directed against God, but referred to the calamity which had befallen
Uzzah, or speaking more correctly, to the cause of this calamity, which David
attributed to himself or to his undertaking. As he had not only resolved upon
the removal of the ark, but had also planned the way in which it should be taken
to Jerusalem, he could not trace the occasion of Uzzahs death to any other
cause than his own plans. He was therefore angry that such misfortune had
attended his undertaking. In his first excitement and dismay, David may not
have perceived the real and deeper ground of this divine judgment. Uzzahs
offence consisted in the fact that he had touched the ark with profane feelings,
although with good intentions, namely to prevent its rolling over and falling
from the cart. Touching the ark, the throne of the divine glory and visible
pledge of the invisible presence of the Lord, was a violation of the majesty of
the holy God. Uzzah was therefore a type of all who with good intentions,
humanly speaking, yet with unsanctified minds, interfere in the affairs of the
kingdom of God, from the notion that they are in danger, and with the hope of
saving them (O. v. Gerlach). On further reflection, David could not fail to
discover where the cause of Uzzahs offence, which he had atoned for with his
life, really had lain, and that it had actually arisen from the fact that he (David)
and those about him had decided to disregard the distinct instructions of the law
with regard to the handling of the ark. According to Num. 4 the ark was not
only to be moved by none but Levites, but it was to be carried on the shoulders,
not in a carriage; and in v. 15, even the Levites were expressly forbidden to
touch it on pain of death. But instead of taking these instructions as their rule,
they had followed the example of the Philistines when they sent back the ark
(1Sa. 6: 7ff.), and had placed it upon a new cart, and directed Uzzah to drive it,

whilst, as his conduct on the occasion clearly shows, he had no idea of the
unapproachable holiness of the ark of God, and had to expiate his offence with
his life, as a warning to all the Israelites.

2Sa. 6: 9, 10. Davids excitement at what had occurred was soon changed
into fear of the Lord, so that he said, How shall the ark of Jehovah come to
me? If merely touching the ark of God is punished in this way, how can I have
it brought near me, up to the citadel of Zion? He therefore relinquished his
intention of bringing it into the city of David, and placed it in the house of
Obed-edom the Gathite. Obed-edom was a Levite of the family of the
Korahites, who sprang from Kohath (compare Exo. 6:21; 18:16, and
1Ch. 26: 4), and belonged to the class of Levitical doorkeepers, whose duty it
was, in connection with other Levites, to watch over the ark in the sacred tent
(1Ch. 15:18, 24). He is called the Gittite or Gathite from his birthplace, the
Levitical city of Gath-rimmon in the tribe of Dan (Jos. 21:24; 19:45).

2Sa. 6:11-19. REMOVAL OF THE ARK OF GOD T O T HE CITY OF DAVID (cf.

1Ch. 15). Vv. 11, 12. When the ark had been in the house of Obed-edom for
three months, and David heard that the Lord had blessed his house for the sake
of the ark of God, he went thither and brought it up to the city of David with
gladness i.e., with festal rejoicing, or a solemn procession. (For HXFMiV,I in the
sense of festal rejoicing, or a joyous fete, see Gen. 31:27, Neh. 12:43, etc.) On
this occasion, however, David adhered strictly to the instructions of the law, as
the more elaborate account given in the Chronicles clearly shows. He not only
gathered together all Israel at Jerusalem to join in this solemn act, but
summoned the priests and Levites, and commanded them to sanctify
themselves, and carry the ark according to the right, i.e., as the Lord had
commanded in the law of Moses, and to offer sacrifices during the procession,
and sin songs, i.e., psalms, with musical accompaniment. In the very condensed
account before us, all that is mentioned is the carrying of the ark, the sacrificing
during the march, and the festivities of the king and people. But even from
these few facts we see that David had discovered his former mistake, and had
given up the idea of removing the ark upon a carriage as a transgression of the
law.

2Sa. 6:13. The bearers of the ark are not particularly mentioned in this
account; but it is very evident that they were Levites, as the Chronicles affirm,
from the fact that the ark was carried this time, and not driven, as before. And
it came to pass, when the bearers of the ark of Jehovah had gone six paces, he
sacrificed an ox and a fatted calf (i.e., had them sacrificed). These words are
generally understood as meaning, that sacrifices of this kind were offered along
the whole way, at the distance of six paces apart. This would certainly have

been a possible thing, and there would be no necessity to assume that the
procession halted every six paces, until the sacrificial ceremony was completed,
but the ark might have continued in progress, whilst sacrifices were being
offered at the distances mentioned. And even the immense number of sacrificial
animals that would have been required is no valid objection to such an
assumption. We do not know what the distance really was: all that we know is,
that it was not so much as ten miles, as Kirjath-jearim was only about twelve
miles from Jerusalem, so that a few thousand oxen, and the same number of
fatted calves, would have been quite sufficient. But the words of the text do not
distinctly affirm that sacrifices were offered whenever the bearers advanced six
paces, but only that this was done was soon as the bearers had taken the first six
steps. So that, strictly speaking, all that is stated is, that when the procession
had started and gone six paces, the sacrifice was offered, namely, for the
purpose of inaugurating or consecrating the solemn procession. In 1Ch. 15 this
fact is omitted; and it is stated instead (v. 26), that when God helped the
Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, they offered seven
bullocks and seven rams, i.e., at the close of the procession, when the journey
was ended, to praise God for the fact that the Levites had been enabled to carry
the ark of God to the place appointed for it, without suffering the slightest
harm.f12

2Sa. 6:14.
And David danced with all his might before the Lord (i.e., before the ark), and was
girded with a white ephod (shoulder-dress).

Dancing, as an expression of holy enthusiasm, was a customary thing from time

immemorial: we meet with it as early as at the festival of thanksgiving at the
Red Sea (Exo. 15:20); but there, and also at subsequent celebrations of the
different victories gained by the Israelites, none but women are described as
taking part in it (Jud. 11:34; 21:19; 1Sa. 18: 6). The white ephod was, strictly
speaking, a priestly costume, although in the law it is not prescribed as the dress
to be worn by them when performing their official duties, but rather as the dress
which denoted the priestly character of the wearer (see at 1Sa. 22:18); and for
this reason it was worn by David in connection with these festivities in honour
of the Lord, as the head of the priestly nation of Israel (see at 1Sa. 2:18). In v.
15 it is still further related, that David and all the house (nation) of Israel
brought up the ark of the Lord with jubilee and trumpet-blast. HFwRti is used
here to signify the song of jubilee and the joyous shouting of the people. In the
Chronicles (v. 28) the musical instruments played on the occasion are also
severally mentioned.

2Sa. 6:16. When the ark came (i.e., was carried) into the city of David,
Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and there she saw king
David leaping and dancing before Jehovah, and despised him in her heart. HYFHFWi,
and it came to pass, for YHIYiWA , because there is no progress made, but only
another element introduced. JbF is a perfect: the ark had come,...and Michal
looked through the window,...there she saw, etc. Michal is intentionally
designated the daughter of Saul here, instead of the wife of David, because on
this occasion she manifested her fathers disposition rather than her husbands.
In Sauls time people did not trouble themselves about the ark of the covenant
(1Ch. 13: 3); public worship was neglected, and the soul for vital religion had
died out in the family of the king. Michal possessed teraphim, and in David she
only loved the brave hero and exalted king: she therefore took offence at the
humility with which the king, in his pious enthusiasm, placed himself on an
equality with all the rest of the nation before the Lord.

2Sa. 6:17. When the ark was brought to the place appointed for it upon
Mount Zion, and was deposited in the tent which David had prepared for it, he
offered burnt-offerings and thank-offerings before the Lord. In its place is still
further defined as in the midst of the tent which David, etc., i.e., in the Most
Holy Place; for the tent would certainly be constructed according to the type of
the Mosaic tabernacle. The burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were offered to
consecrate the newly erected house of God.

2Sa. 6:18, 19. When the offering of sacrifice was over, David blessed the
people in the name of the Lord, as Solomon did afterwards at the dedication of
the temple (1Ki. 8:55), and gave to all the (assembled) people, both men and
women, to every one a slice of bread, a measure (of wine), and a cake for a
festal meal, i.e., for the sacrificial meal, which was celebrated with the shelamim
after the offering of the sacrifices, and after the king had concluded the
liturgical festival with a benediction. XELE TlAXA is a round cake of bread, baked
for sacrificial meals, and synonymous with XELERkAkI (1Ch. 16: 3), as we may
see from a comparison of Exo. 29:23 with Lev. 8:26 (see the commentary on
Lev. 8: 2). But the meaning of the ap. leg. RpFiJE is uncertain, and has been
much disputed. Most of the Rabbins understand it as signifying a piece of flesh
or roast meat, deriving the word from J
and RpF ; but this is certainly false.
There is more to be said in favour of the derivation proposed by L. de Dieu,
viz., from the Ethiopic RP$, netiri, from which Gesenius and Roediger (Ges.
Thes. p. 1470) have drawn their explanation of the word as signifying a measure
of wine or other beverage. For HFYIJ, the meaning grape-cake or raisin-cake
is established by Son of Sol. 2: 5 and Hos. 3: 1 (vid., Hengstenberg, Christol.
on Hos. 3: 1). The people returned home after the festal meal.

2Sa. 6:20-23. When David returned home to bless his house, as he had
previously blessed the people, Michal came to meet him with scornful words,
saying,
How has the king of Israel glorified himself to-day, when he stripped himself
before the eyes of the maids of his servants, as only one of the loose people strips
himself!

The unusual combination TWLOGiNI TWLOgFHIki is explained by Ewald ( 240, e., p.

607) in this manner, that whilst, so far as the sense of the clause is concerned,
the second verb ought to be in the infinitive absolute, they were both written
with a very slight change of form in the infinitive construct; whereas others
regard TWLOGiNI as an unusual form of the infinitive absolute (Ges. Lehrgeb. p.
430), or a copyists error for HLOGiNI (Thenius, Olsh. Gr. p. 600). The proud
daughter of Saul was offended at the fact, that the king had let himself down on
this occasion to the level of the people. She availed herself of the shortness of
the priests shoulder-dress, to make a contemptuous remark concerning Davids
dancing, as an impropriety that was unbecoming in a king.
Who knows whether the proud woman did not intend to sneer at the rank of the
Levites, as one that was contemptible in her eyes, since their humble service may
have looked very trivial to her? (Berleb. Bible.)

2Sa. 6:21, 22. David replied, Before Jehovah, who chose me before thy
father and all his house, to appoint me prince over the people of Jehovah, over
Israel, before Jehovah have I played (lit. joked, given utterance to my joy). And
I will be still more despised, and become base in my eyes: and with the maidens
of whom thou hast spoken, with them will I be honoured. The copula vav
before YtIQiXAVI serves to introduce the apodosis, and may be explained in this
way, that the relative clause appended to before Jehovah acquired the power
of a protasis on account of its length; so that, strictly speaking, there is an
anakolouthon, as if the protasis read thus: Before Jehovah, as He hath chosen
me over Israel, I have humbled myself before Jehovah (for before him). With
the words who chose me before thy father and all his house, David humbles
the pride of the kings daughter. His playing and dancing referred to the Lord,
who had chosen him, and had rejected Saul on account of his pride. He would
therefore let himself be still further despised before the Lord, i.e., would bear
still greater contempt from men than that which he had just received, and be
humbled in his own eyes (vid., Psa. 131: 1): then would he also with the
maidens attain to honour before the Lord. For whoso humbleth himself, him
will God exalt (Mat. 23:12). YNAY
bi is not to be altered into YINAY
bi, as in the
LXX. This alteration has arisen from a total misconception of the nature of true
humility, which is of no worth in its own eyes. The rendering given by De Wette

is at variance with both the grammar and the sense (with the maidens,...with
them will I magnify myself); and so also is that of Thenius (with them will I
be honoured, i.e., indemnify myself for thy foolish contempt!).

2Sa. 6:23. Michael was humbled by God for her pride, and remained childless
to the time of her death.

Davids Resolution to Build a Temple. The Promised Perpetuity

of His Throne. Ch. 7.
2Sa. 7. To the erection of a sanctuary for the ark upon Mount Zion there is
appended an account of Davids desire to build a temple for the Lord. We find
this not only in the text before us, but also in the parallel history in 1Ch. 17.
When David had acquired rest from his enemies round about, he formed the
resolution to build a house for the Lord, and this resolution was sanctioned by
the prophet Nathan (vv. 1-3). But the Lord revealed to the prophet, and
through him to David, that He had not required the building of a temple from
any of the tribes of Israel, and that He would first of all build a house himself
for His servant David, and confirm the throne to his seed for ever, and then he
should build Him a temple (vv. 4-17). David then gave utterance to his
thanksgiving for this glorious promise in a prayer, in which he praised the
unmeasurable grace of God, and prayed for the fulfilment of this renewed
promised of divine grace (vv. 18-29).f13
Of the different exegetical treatises upon this passage, see Christ. Aug. Crusii
Hypomnemata, ii. 190-219, and Hengstenbergs Christol. i. 123ff.

2Sa. 7: 1-3. When David was dwelling in his house, i.e., the palace of cedar
(2Sa. 5:11), and Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies round about,
he said to Nathan the prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, and the
ark of God dwelleth within the curtains. HFYRIYiHA in the singular is used, In
Exo. 26: 2ff., to denote the inner covering, composed of a number of lengths of
tapestry sewn together, which was spread over the planks of the tabernacle, and
made it into a dwelling, whereas the separate pieces of tapestry are called
TOYRIYi in the plural; and hence, in the later writers, TWOYRIYi alternates
sometimes with LHEJO (Isa. 54: 2), and at other times with YLIHFJO (Son. 1: 5;
Jer. 4:20; 49:29). Consequently HFYRIYiHA refers here to the tent-cloth or tent
formed of pieces of tapestry. Within (i.e., surrounded by) the tent-cloth: in
the Chronicles we find under curtains. From the words when the Lord had
given him rest from all his enemies round about, it is evident that David did not
form the resolution to build the temple in the first years of his reign upon Zion,
nor immediately after the completion of his palace, but at a later period (see the

remarks on 2Sa. 5:11, note). It is true that the giving of rest from all his
enemies round about does not definitely presuppose the termination of all the
greater wars of David, since it is not affirmed that this rest was a definitive one;
but the words cannot possibly be restricted to the two victories over the
Philistines (2Sa. 5:17-25), as Hengstenberg supposes, inasmuch as, however
important the second may have been, their foes were not even permanently
quieted by them, to say nothing of their being entirely subdued. Moreover, in
the promise mentioned in v. 9, God distinctly says, I was with thee
whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies before thee.
These words also show that at that time David had already fought against all
the enemies round about, and humbled them. Now, as all Davids principal wars
are grouped together for the first time in 2Sa. 8 and 10, there can be no doubt
that the history is not arranged in a strictly chronological order. And the
expression after this in 2Sa. 8: 1 is by no means at variance with this, since
this formula does not at all express a strictly chronological sequence. From the
words of the prophet, Go, do all that is in thy heart, for the Lord is with thee,
it is very evident that David had expressed the intention to build a splendid
palatial temple. The word L
, go (equivalent to quite right), is omitted in the
Chronicles as superfluous. Nathan sanctioned the kings resolution from his
own feelings, and not by divine revelation (J. H. Michaelis); but he did not
afterwards perceive that the time for carrying out this intention had not yet
come, as Thenius and Bertheau maintain; on the contrary, the Lord God
revealed to the prophet that David was not to carry out his intention at all.

2Sa. 7: 4-17. T HE REVELATION AND PROMISE OF GOD. V. 4. That

night, i.e., the night succeeding the day on which Nathan had talked with the
king concerning the building of the temple, the Lord made known His decree to
the prophet, with instructions to communicate it to the king. uWGW HtFJAH,A
Shouldest thou build me a house for me to dwell in? The question involves a
negative reply, and consequently in the Chronicles we find thou shalt not.

2Sa. 7: 6, 7. The reason assigned for this answer: I have not dwelt in a house
from the day of the bringing up of Israel out of Egypt even to this day, but I
was wandering about in a tent and in a dwelling. And in a dwelling
(mishcan) is to be taken as explanatory, viz., in a tent which was my dwelling.
As a tent is a travellers dwelling, so, as long as Gods dwelling was a tent, He
himself appeared as if travelling or going from place to place. In the whole of
the time that I walked among all the children of Israel,...have I spoken a word
to one of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people, saying,
Wherefore have ye not built me a cedar house? A cedar house is equivalent
to a palace built of costly materials. The expression LJ
RFViYI Y
BiI DXAJA (one
of the tribes of Israel) is a striking one, as the feeding of the nation does not

appear to be a duty belonging to the tribes, and in the Chronicles we have

Y
PiO (judges) instead of Y
BiI (tribes). But if Y
P
i O had been the original
expression used in the text, it would be impossible to explain the origin and
general acceptance of the word Y
BiI. For this very reason, therefore, we must
regard Y
BiI as the original word, and understand it as referring to the tribes,
which had supplied the nation with judges and leaders before the tie of David,
since the feeding, i.e., the government of Israel, which was in the hands of the
judges, was transferred to the tribes to which the judges belonged. This view is
confirmed by Psa. 78:67, 68, where the election of David as prince, and of Zion
as the site of the sanctuary, is described as the election of the tribe of Judah and
the rejection of the tribe of Ephraim. On the other hand, the assumption of
Thenius, that Y
BiI, shepherd-staffs, is used poetically for shepherds, cannot
be established on the ground of Lev. 27:32 and Micah 7:14. Jehovah gave two
reasons why Davids proposal to build Him a temple should not be carried out:
(1) He had hitherto lived in a tent in the midst of His people;
(2) He had not commanded any former prince or tribe to build a temple.

This did not involve any blame, as though there had been something
presumptuous in Davids proposal, or in the fact that he had thought of
undertaking such a work without an express command from God, but simply
showed that it was not because of any negligence on the part of the former
leaders of the people that they had not thought of erecting a temple, and that
even now the time for carrying out such a work as that had not yet come.

2Sa. 7: 8. After thus declining his proposal, the Lord made known His
gracious purpose to David: Thus saith Jehovah of hosts (not only Jehovah, as
in v. 5, but Jehovah Sebaoth, because He manifests himself in the following
revelation as the God of the universe):
I have taken thee from the pasturage (grass-plat), behind the flock, to be prince
over my people Israel; and was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and
exterminated all thine enemies before thee, and so made thee, YTIYVIFWi (perfect with
vav consec.), a great name,...and created a place for my people Israel, and planted
them, so that they dwell in their place, and do not tremble any more (before their
oppressors); and the sons of wickedness do not oppress them any further, as at the
beginning, and from the day when I appointed judges over my people Israel: and I
create thee rest from all thine enemies. And Jehovah proclaims to thee, that Jehovah
will make thee a house.

The words uVYI YmIA WyOHA MILi are to be joined to HNFWOJRIb,F as in the
beginning, i.e., in Egypt, and from the time of the judges; that is to say, during
the rule of the judges, when the surrounding nations constantly oppressed and
subjugated Israel. The plan usually adopted, of connecting the words with

YTIXOYNIHW,A does not yield any suitable thought at all, as God had not given David
rest from the very beginning of the times of the judges; but the period of the
judges was long antecedent to the time of David, and was not a period of rest
for the Israelites. Again, YTIXOYNIHWA does not resume what is stated in v. 9, and is
not to be rendered as a preterite in the sense of I have procured thee rest, but
as a perfect with vav consec., and I procure thee rest from what is now about
to come to pass. And DYgIHIWi is to be taken in the same way: the Lord shows
thee, first of all through His promise (which follows), and then through the fact
itself, the realization of His word. YTIXOYNIHWA refers to the future, as well as the
building of Davids house, and therefore not to the rest from all his enemies,
which God had already secured for David, but to that which He would still
further secure for him, that is to say, to the maintenance and establishment of
that rest. The commentary upon this is to be found in Psa. 89:22-24. In the
Chronicles (v. 10) there is a somewhat different turn given to the last clauses:
and I bend down all thine enemies, and make it (the bending-down) known to
thee (by the fact), and a house will Jehovah build for thee. The thought is not
essentially changed by this; consequently there is no ground for any emendation
of the text, which is not even apparently necessary, unless, like Bertheau, we
misinterpret the words, and connect YtIiNAkiHIWi erroneously with the previous
clause.

2Sa. 7: 8-16. The connection between vv. 5-7 and 8-16 has been correctly
indicated by Thenius as follows: Thou shalt not build a house for Me; but I,
who have from the very beginning glorified myself in thee and my people (vv. 811), will build a house for thee; and thy son shall erect a house for me (v. 13).
This thought is not merely a play upon words entirely in the spirit of
prophecy, but contains the deep general truth that God must first of all build a
mans house, before the man can build Gods house, and applies it especially to
the kingdom of God in Israel. As long as the quiet and full possession of the
land of Canaan, which had been promised by the Lord to the people of God for
their inheritance, was disputed by their enemies round about, even the dwellingplace of their God could not assume any other form than that of a wanderers
tent. The kingdom of God in Israel first acquired its rest and consolation
through the efforts of David, when God had made all his foes subject to him
and established his throne firmly, i.e., had assured to his descendants the
possession of the kingdom for all future time. And it was this which ushered in
the time for the building of a stationary house as a dwelling for the name of the
Lord, i.e., for the visible manifestation of the presence of God in the midst of
His people. The conquest of the citadel of Zion and the elevation of this fortress
into the palace of the king, whom the Lord had given to His people, formed the
commencement of the establishment of the kingdom of God. But this

commencement received its first pledge of perpetuity from the divine assurance
that the throne of David should be established for all future time. And this the
Lord was about to accomplish: He would build David a house, and then his
seed should build the house of the Lord. No definite reason is assigned why
David himself was not to build the temple. We learn this first of all from
Davids last words (1Ch. 28: 3), in which he says to the assembled heads of the
nation, God said to me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because
thou art a man of wars, and hast shed blood. Compare with this the similar
words of David to Solomon in 1Ch. 22: 8, and Solomons statement in his
message to Hiram, that David had been prevented from building the temple in
consequence of his many wars. It was probably not till afterwards that David
was informed by Nathan what the true reason was. As Hengstenberg has
correctly observed, the fact that David was not permitted to build the temple on
account of his own personal unworthiness, did not involve any blame for what
he had done; for David stood in a closer relation to the Lord than Solomon did,
and the wars which he waged were wars of the Lord (1Sa. 25:28) for the
maintenance and defence of the kingdom of God. But inasmuch as these wars
were necessary and inevitable, they were practical proofs that Davids kingdom
and government were not yet established, and therefore that the time for the
building of the temple had not yet come, and the rest of peace was not yet
secured. The temple, as the symbolical representation of the kingdom of God,
as also to correspond to the nature of that kingdom, and shadow forth the
peace of the kingdom of God. For this reason, David, the man of war, was not
to build the temple; but that was to be reserved for Solomon, the man of peace,
the type of the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9: 5).

2Sa. 7:12-16. In vv. 12-16 there follows a more precise definition of the way
in which the Lord would build a house for His servant David: When thy days
shall become full, and thou shalt lie with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after
thee, who shall come from thy body, and establish his kingdom. He will build a
house for my name, and I shall establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
YQIH
, to set up i.e., to promote to royal dignity. JC
Y
REJ is not to be altered
into JCFYF REJ, as Thenius and others maintain. The assumption that Solomon
had already been born, is an unfounded one (see the note to 2Sa. 5:11, p. 582);
and it by no means follows from the statement in v. 1, to the effect that God
had given David rest from all his enemies, that his resolution to build a temple
was not formed till the closing years of his reign.

2Sa. 7:14ff.
I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me; so that if he go astray, I shall
chastise him with rods of men, and with strokes of the children of men (i.e., not with
moderate punishment, such as parents are accustomed to inflict, as Clericus

explains it, but with such punishments as are inflicted upon all men who go astray,
and from which even the seed of David is not to be excepted). But my mercy shall
not depart from him, as I caused it to depart from Saul, whom I put away before
thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee; thy
throne shall be established for ever.

It is very obvious, from all the separate details of this promise, that it related
primarily to Solomon, and had a certain fulfilment in him and his reign. On the
death of David, his son Solomon ascended the throne, and God defended his
kingdom against the machinations of Adonijah (1Ki. 2:12); so that Solomon
was able to say, The Lord hath fulfilled His word that He spoke; for I have
risen up in the stead of my father David, etc. (1Ki. 8:20). Solomon built the
temple, as the Lord said to David (1Ki. 5:19; 8:15ff.). But in his old age
Solomon sinned against the Lord by falling into idolatry; and as a punishment
for this, after his death his kingdom was rent from his son, not indeed entirely,
as one portion was still preserved to the family for Davids sake (1Ki. 11: 9ff.).
Thus the Lord punished him with rods of men, but did not withdraw from him
His grace. At the same time, however unmistakeable the allusions to Solomon
are, the substance of the promise is not fully exhausted in him. The threefold
repetition of the expression for ever, the establishment of the kingdom and
throne of David for ever, points incontrovertibly beyond the time of Solomon,
and to the eternal continuance of the seed of David. The word seed denotes the
posterity of a person, which may consist either in one son or in several children,
or in a long line of successive generations. The idea of a number of persons
living at the same time, is here precluded by the context of the promise, as only
one of Davids successors could sit upon the throne at a time. On the other
hand, the idea of a number of descendants following one another, is evidently
contained in the promise, that God would not withdraw His favour from the
seed, even if it went astray, as He had done from Saul, since this implies that
even in that case the throne should be transmitted from father to son. There is
still more, however, involved in the expression for ever. When the promise
was given that the throne of the kingdom of David should continue to
eternity, an eternal duration was also promised to the seed that should occupy
this throne, just as in v. 16 the house and kingdom of David are spoken of as
existing for ever, side by side. We must not reduce the idea of eternity to the
popular notion of a long incalculable period, but must take it in an absolute
sense, as the promise is evidently understood in Psa. 89:30: I set his seed for
ever, and this throne as the days of heaven. No earthly kingdom, and no
posterity of any single man, has eternal duration like the heaven and the earth;
but the different families of men become extinct, as the different earthly
kingdoms perish, and other families and kingdoms take their place. The
posterity of David, therefore, could only last for ever by running out in a person
who lives for ever, i.e., by culminating in the Messiah, who lives for ever, and

of whose kingdom there is no end. The promise consequently refers to the

posterity of David, commencing with Solomon and closing with Christ: so that
by the seed we are not to understand Solomon alone, with the kings who
succeeded him, nor Christ alone, to the exclusion of Solomon and the earthly
kings of the family of David; nor is the allusion to Solomon and Christ to be
regarded as a double allusion to two different objects.
But if this is established, namely, that the promise given to the seed of David
that his kingdom should endure for ever only attained its ultimate fulfilment in
Christ, we must not restrict the building of the house of God to the erection
of Solomons temple. The building of the house of the Lord goes hand in hand
with the eternity of the kingdom (Hengstenberg). As the kingdom endures for
ever, so the house built for the dwelling-place of the Lord must also endure for
ever, as Solomon said at the dedication of the temple (1Ki. 8:13): I have surely
built Thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for Thee to abide in for ever.
The everlasting continuance of Solomons temple must not be reduced,
however, to the simple fact, that even if the temple of Solomon should be
destroyed, a new building would be erected in its place by the earthly
descendants of Solomon, although this is also implied in the words, and the
temple of Zerubbabel is included as the restoration of that of Solomon. For it is
not merely in its earthly form, as a building of wood and stone, that the temple
is referred to, but also and chiefly in its essential characteristic, as the place of
the manifestation and presence of God in the midst of His people. The earthly
form is perishable, the essence eternal. This essence was the dwelling of God in
the midst of His people, which did not cease with the destruction of the temple
at Jerusalem, but culminated in the appearance of Jesus Christ, in whom
Jehovah came to His people, and, as God the Word, made human nature His
dwelling-place (eskhnwsen en hmin, Joh. 1:14) in the glory of the onlybegotten Son of the Father; so that Christ could say to the Jews, Destroy this
temple (i.e., the temple of His body), and in three days I will build it up again
(Joh. 2:19). It is with this building up of the temple destroyed by the Jews,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that the complete and
essential fulfilment of our promise begins. It is perpetuated with the Christian
church in the indwelling of the Father and Son through the Holy Ghost in the
hearts of believers (John 14:23; 1Co. 6:19), by which the church of Jesus Christ
is built up a spiritual house of God, composed of living stones (1Ti. 3:15,
1Pe. 2: 5; compare 2Co. 6:16, Heb. 3: 6); and it will be perfected in the
completion of the kingdom of God at the end of time in the new Jerusalem,
which shall come down upon the new earth out of heaven from God, as the true
tabernacle of God with men (Rev. 21: 1-3).
As the building of the house of God receives its fulfilment first of all through
Christ, so the promise, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son, is

first fully realized in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the heavenly Father
(vid., Heb. 1: 5). In the Old Testament the relation between father and son
denotes the deepest intimacy of love; and love is perfected in unity of nature, in
the communication to the son of all that the father hath. The Father loveth the
Son, and hath given all things into His hand (Joh. 3:35). Sonship therefore
includes the government of the world. This not only applied to Christ, the onlybegotten Son of God, but also to the seed of David generally, so far as they
truly attained to the relation of children of God. So long as Solomon walked in
the ways of the Lord, he ruled over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates)
to the border of Egypt (1Ki. 5: 1); but when his heart turned away from the
Lord in his old age, adversaries rose up against him (1Ki. 11:14ff., 23ff.), and
after his death the greater part of the kingdom was rent from his son. The seed
of David was chastised for its sins; and as its apostasy continued, it was
humbled yet more and more, until the earthly throne of David became extinct.
Nevertheless the Lord did not cause His mercy to depart from him. When the
house of David had fallen into decay, Jesus Christ was born of the seed of
David according to the flesh, to raise up the throne of His father David again,
and to reign for ever as King over the house of Jacob (Luk. 1:32, 33), and to
establish the house and kingdom of David for ever. In v. 16, where the
promise returns to David again with the words, thy house and thy kingdom
shall be established for ever, the expression YNEPFLi (before thee), which the
LXX and Syriac have arbitrarily changed into YNAPFLi (before me), should be
particularly observed. David, as the tribe-father and founder of the line of kings,
is regarded either as seeing all his descendants pass before him in a vision, as
O. v. Gerlach supposes, or as continuing to exist in his descendants.

2Sa. 7:17. According to all these words...did Nathan speak unto David,
i.e., he related the whole to David, just as God had addressed it to him in the
night. The clause in apposition, according to all this vision, merely introduces
a more minute definition of the peculiar form of the revelation. God spoke to
Nathan in a vision which he had in the night, i.e., not in a dream, but in a
waking condition, and during the night; for WYOzFXI = WZOXF is constantly
distinguished from WLOX, a revelation in a dream.

2Sa. 7:18-29. DAVIDS PRAYER AND T HANKSGIVING. V. 18. King David

came, i.e., went into the sanctuary erected upon Zion, and remained before
Jehovah. B
Y
, remained, tarried (as in Gen. 25:55; 29:19, etc.), not sat; for
the custom of sitting before the Lord in the sanctuary, as the posture assumed in
prayer, cannot be deduced from Exo. 17:12, where Moses is compelled to sit
from simple exhaustion. Davids prayer consists of two parts, thanksgiving
for the promise (vv. 18b -24), and supplication for its fulfilment (vv. 25-29).

The thanksgiving consists of a confession of unworthiness of all the great things

that the Lord had hitherto done for him, and which He had still further
increased by this glorious promise (vv. 18-21), and praise to the Lord that all
this had been done in proof of His true Deity, and to glorify His name upon His
chosen people Israel.

2Sa. 7:18b. Who am I, O Lord Jehovah? and who my house (i.e., my

family), that Thou hast brought me hitherto? These words recall Jacobs
prayer in Gen. 32:10, I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, etc.
David acknowledged himself to be unworthy of the great mercy which the Lord
had displayed towards him, that he might give the glory to God alone (vid., Pl.
8: 5 and 144: 3).

2Sa. 7:19.
And this is still too little in Thine eyes, O Lord Jehovah, and Thou still speakest
with regard to the house of Thy servant for a great while to come.

QWXORFM
Li , lit. that which points to a remote period, i.e., that of the eternal
establishment of my house and throne. And this is the law of man, O Lord
Jehovah. The law of man is the law which determines or regulates the
conduct of man. Hence the meaning of these words, which have been very
differently interpreted, cannot, with the context immediately preceding it, be
any other than the following: This namely, the love and condescension
manifested in Thy treatment of Thy servant is the law which applies to man,
or is conformed to the law which men are to observe towards men, i.e., to the
law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Lev. 19:18, compare Micah 6: 8).
With this interpretation, which is confirmed by the parallel text of the
Chronicles (in v. 17), Thou sawest (i.e., visitedst me, or didst deal with me)
according to the manner of man, that words are expressive of praise of the
condescending grace of the Lord. When God the Lord, in His treatment of
poor mortals, follows the rule which He has laid down for the conduct of men
one towards another, when He shows himself kind and affectionate, this must
fill with adoring amazement those who know themselves and God
(Hengstenberg). Luther is wrong in the rendering which he has adopted: This
is the manner of a man, who is God the Lord; for Lord Jehovah is not an
explanatory apposition to man, but an address to God, as in the preceding and
following clause.

2Sa. 7:20. And what more shall David speak to Thee? Thou knowest Thy
servant, Lord Jehovah. Instead of expressing his gratitude still further in many
words, David appeals to the omniscience of God, before whom his thankful
heart lies open, just as in Psa. 40:10 (compare also Psa. 17: 3).

2Sa. 7:21.
For Thy words sake, and according to Thy heart (and therefore not because I am
worthy of such grace), has Thou done all this greatness, to make it known to Thy
servant.

The word, for the sake of which God had done such great things for David,
must be some former promise on the part of God. Hengstenberg supposes it to
refer to the word of the Lord to Samuel, Rise up and anoint him (1Sa. 16:12),
which is apparently favoured indeed by the parallel in the corresponding text of
1Ch. 17:19, for Thy servants sake, i.e., because Thou hast chosen Thy
servant. But even this variation must contain some special allusion which does
not exclude a general interpretation of the expression for Thy words sake,
viz., an allusion to the earlier promises of God, or the Messianic prophecies
generally, particularly the one concerning Judah in Jacobs blessing
(Gen. 49:10), and the one relating to the ruler out of Jacob in Balaams sayings
(Num. 24:17ff.), which contain the germs of the promise of the everlasting
continuance of Davids government. For the fact that David recognised the
connection between the promise of God communicated to him by Nathan and
Jacobs prophecy in Gen. 49:10, is evident from 1Ch. 28: 4, where he refers to
his election as king as being the consequence of the election of Judah as ruler.
According to Thine own heart is equivalent to according to Thy love and
grace; for God is gracious, merciful, and of great kindness and truth
(Exo. 34: 6, compare Psa. 103: 8). HLFwDgi does not mean great things, but
greatness.
The praise of God commences in v. 22: wherefore Thou art great, Jehovah
God; and there is not (one) like Thee, and no God beside Thee, according to
all that we have heard with our ears. By the word wherefore, i.e., because
Thou hast done this, the praise of the singleness of God is set forth as the result
of Davids own experience. God is great when He manifests the greatness of
His grace to men, and brings them to acknowledge it. And in these great deeds
He proves the incomparable nature of His Deity, or that He alone is the true
God. (For the fact itself, compare Exo. 15:11; Deu. 3:24; 4:35.)

2Sa. 7:23.
And where is (any) like Thy people, like Israel, a nation upon earth, which God
went to redeem as a people for himself, that He might make Him a name, and do
great things for you, and terrible things for Thy land before Thy people, which Thou
hast redeemed for Thee out of Egypt, (out of the) nations and their gods?

YMI does not really mean where, but who, and is to be connected with the words
immediately following, viz., DXFJE YWgO (one nation); but the only way in which
the words can be rendered into good English (German in the original: Tr.) is,

where is there any people, etc. The relative REJ does not belong to wKLiHF,
which Elohim went to redeem. The construing of Elohim with a plural arises
from the fact, that in this clause it not only refers to the true God, but also
includes the idea of the gods of other nations. The idea, therefore, is not, Is
there any nation upon earth to which the only true God went? but, Is there
any nation to which the deity worshipped by it went, as the true God went to
Israel to redeem it for His own people? The rendering given in the Septuagint
to wKLiHF, viz., wdhghsen, merely arose from a misapprehension of the true
sense of the words; and the emendation YLIWHO, which some propose in
consequence, would only distort the sense. The stress laid upon the
incomparable character of the things which God had done for Israel, is merely
introduced to praise and celebrate the God who did this as the only true God.
(For the thought itself, compare the original passage in Deu. 4: 7, 34.) In the
clause KELF TWVOLAWi, and to do for you, David addresses the people of Israel
with oratorical vivacity. Instead of saying to do great things to (for) Israel, he
says to do great things to (for you. For you forms an antithesis to him, to
make Him a name, and to do great things for you (Israel). The suggestion
made by some, that KELF is to be taken as a dativ. comm., and referred to
Elohim, no more needs a serious refutation than the alteration into HEL.F There
have been different opinions, however, as to the object referred to in the suffix
attached to CERiJAL,i and it is difficult to decide between them; for whilst the
fact that CiRiJALi TWJORFWNO (terrible things to Thy land) is governed by TWVOLA
(to do) favours the allusion to Israel, and the sudden transition from the plural
to the singular might be accounted for from the deep emotion of the person
speaking, the words which follow (before Thy people) rather favour the
allusion to God, as it does not seem natural to take the suffix in two different
senses in the two objects which follow so closely the one upon the other, viz.,
for Thy land, and before Thy people; whilst the way is prepared for a
transition from speaking of God to speaking to God by the word KELF (to you).
The words of Deu. 10:21 floated before the mind of David at the time, although
he has given them a different turn. (On the terrible things, see the
commentary on Deu. 10:21 and Exo. 15:11.) The connection of TWJORFNO (terrible
things) with CiRiJALi (to Thy land) shows that David had in mind, when
speaking of the acts of divine omnipotence which had inspired fear and dread of
the majesty of God, not only the miracles of God in Egypt, but also the
marvellous extermination of the Canaanites, whereby Israel had been
established in the possession of the promised land, and the people of God
placed in a condition to found a kingdom. These acts were performed before
Israel, before the nation, whom the Lord redeemed to himself out of Egypt.
This view is confirmed by the last words, nations and their gods, which are in

apposition to from Egypt, so that the preposition MI should be repeated

before YIWgO (nations). The suffix to WYHFLOJW
(literally and its gods) is to be
regarded as distributive: the gods of each of these heathen nations. In the
Chronicles (v. 21) the expression is simplified, and explained more clearly by
the omission of to Thy land, and the insertion of R
GFLi, to drive out nations
from before Thy people. It has been erroneously inferred from this, that the
text of our book is corrupt, and ought to be emended, or at any rate interpreted
according to the Chronicles. But whilst CiRiJALi is certainly not to be altered
into R
GFLi, it is just as wrong to do as Hengstenberg proposes, namely, to
take the thought expressed in R
GFLi from the preceding TWVOLA by assuming a
zeugma; for HVF F, to do or make, has nothing in common with driving or
clearing away.

2Sa. 7:24.
And Thou hast established to thyself Thy people Israel to be a people unto Thee
for ever: and Thou, Jehovah, hast become a God to them.

The first clause does not refer merely to the liberation of Israel out of Egypt, or
to the conquest of Canaan alone, but to all that the Lord had done for the
establishment of Israel as the people of His possession, from the time of Moses
till His promise of the eternal continuance of the throne of David. Jehovah had
thereby become God to the nation of Israel, i.e., had thereby attested and
proved himself to be its God.
To this praise of the acts of the Lord there is attached in vv. 25ff. the prayer for
the fulfilment of His glorious promise. Would Jehovah set up (i.e., carry out)
the word which He had spoken to His servant that His name might be great,
i.e., be glorified, through its being said, The Lord of Sabaoth is God over
Israel, and the house of Thy servant will be firm before Thee. The prayer is
expressed in the form of confident assurance.

2Sa. 7:27. David felt himself encouraged to offer this prayer through the
revelation which he had received. Because God had promised to build him a
house, therefore Thy servant hath found in his heart to pray this prayer, i.e.,
hath found joy in doing so.

2Sa. 7:28, 29. David then briefly sums up the two parts of his prayer of

thanksgiving in the two clauses commencing with HtFAWi, and now. In v.

28 he sums up the contents of vv. 18b -24 by celebrating the greatness of the
Lord and His promise; and in v. 29 the substance of the prayer in vv. 25-27.
R
BFw LJ
WHO, may it please Thee to bless (LYJIWHO; see at Deu. 1: 5). And from
(out of) Thy blessing may the house of Thy servant be blessed for ever.

Davids Wars, Victories, and Ministers of State. Ch. 8.

2Sa. 8. To the promise of the establishment of this throne there is appended a
general enumeration of the wars by which David secured the supremacy of
Israel over all his enemies round about. In this survey all the nations are
included with which war had ever been waged by David, and which he had
conquered and rendered tributary: the Philistines and Moabites, the Syrians of
Zobah and Damascus, Toi of Hamath, the Ammonites, Amalekites, and
Edomites. It is very evident from this, that the chapter before us not only treats
of the wars which David carried on after receiving the divine promise
mentioned in 2Sa. 7, but of all the wars of his entire reign. The only one of
which we have afterwards a fuller account is the war with the Ammonites and
their allies the Syrians (2Sa. 10 and 11), and this is given on account of its
connection with Davids adultery. In the survey before us, the war with the
Ammonites is only mentioned quite cursorily in v. 12, in the account of the
booty taken from the different nations, which David dedicated to the Lord.
With regard to the other wars, so far as the principal purpose was concerned,
namely, to record the history of the kingdom of God, it was quite
sufficient to give a general statement of the fact that these nations were smitten
by David and subjected to his sceptre. But if this chapter contains a survey of all
the wars of David with the nations that were hostile to Israel, there can be no
doubt that the arrangement of the several events is not strictly regulated by their
chronological order, but that homogeneous events are grouped together
according to a material point of view. There is a parallel to this chapter in
1Ch. 18.

2Sa. 8: 1. SUBJUGATION OF T HE PHILISTINES . In the introductory formula,

And it came to pass afterwards, the expression afterwards cannot refer
specially to the contents of 2Sa. 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, 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
(cf. 2Sa. 13: 1). David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and took the
bridle of the mother out of the hand of the Philistines, i.e., wrested the
government from them and made them tributary. The figurative expression
Metheg-ammah, bridle of the mother, i.e., the capital, has been explained by
Alb. Schultens (on Job. 30:11) from an Arabic idiom, in which giving up ones
bridle to another is equivalent to submitting to him. Gesenius also gives several
proofs of this (Thes. p. 113). Others, for example Ewald, render it arm-bridle;
but there is not a single passage to support the rendering arm for ammah. The

word is a feminine form of J

, mother, and only used in a tropical sense.
Mother is a term applied to the chief city or capital, both in Arabic and
Phoenician (vid., Ges. Thes. 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, 47). In 1Ch. 18: 1 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).
This was the case even in the time of Samuel (1Sa. 6:16, 17). But in the closing
years of Samuel, Gath had a king who stood at the head of all the princes of the
Philistines (1Sa. 29: 2ff., cf. 27: 2). 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, 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 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, 4).

2Sa. 8: 2. SUBJUGATION OF MOAB.

He smote Moab (i.e., the Moabites), and measured them with the line, making them
lie down upon the ground, and measured two lines (i.e., two parts) to put to death,
and one line full to keep alive.

Nothing further is known about either the occasion or the history of this war,
with the exception of the cursory notice in 1Ch. 11:22, that Benaiah, one of
Davids heroes, smote two sons of the king of Moab, which no doubt took
place in the same war. In the earliest period of his flight from Saul, David had
met with a hospitable reception from the king of Moab, and had even taken his
parents to him for safety (1Sa. 22: 3, 4). But the Moabites must have very
grievously oppressed the Israelites afterwards, that David should have inflicted
a severer punishment upon them after their defeat, than upon any other of the
nations that he conquered, with the exception of the Ammonites (2Sa. 12:31),
upon whom he took vengeance for having most shamefully insulted his
ambassadors (2Sa. 10: 2ff.). The punishment inflicted, however, was of course
restricted to the fighting men who had been taken prisoners by the Israelites.

They were ordered to lie down in a row upon the earth; and then the row was
measured for the purpose of putting two-thirds to death, and leaving one-third
alive. The Moabites were then made servants to David (i.e., they became his
subjects), bringing gifts (i.e., paying tribute).

2Sa. 8: 3-8. CONQUEST AND SUBJUGATION OF T HE KING OF Z OBAH, AND OF

THE DAMASCENE SYRIANS. V. 3. The situation of Zobah cannot be
determined. The view held by the Syrian church historians, and defended by
Michaelis, viz., that Zobah was the ancient Nisibis in northern Mesopotamia,
has no more foundation to rest upon than that of certain Jewish writers who
suppose it to have been Aleppo, the present Haleb. Aleppo is too far north for
Zobah, and Nisibis is quite out of the range of the towns and tribes in
connection with which the name of Zobah occurs. In 1Sa. 14:47, compared
with v. 12 of this chapter, Zobah, or Aram Zobah as it is called in 2Sa. 10: 6
and Psa. 60: 2, is mentioned along with Ammon, Moab, and Edom, as a
neighbouring tribe and kingdom to the Israelites; and, according to vv. 3, 5, and
9 of the present chapter, it is to be sought for in the vicinity of Damascus and
Hamath towards the Euphrates. These data point to a situation to the north-east
of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and Euphrates, and in
fact extending as far as the latter according to v. 3, whilst, according to
2Sa. 10:16, it even reached beyond it with its vassal-chiefs into Mesopotamia
itself. Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 195) has therefore combined Zobah, which was no
doubt the capital, and gave its name to the kingdom, with the Sabe mentioned
in Ptol. v. 19, a town in the same latitude as Damascus, and farther east
towards the Euphrates. The king of Zobah at the time referred to is called
Hadadezer in the text (i.e., whose help is Hadad); but in 2Sa. 10:16-19 and
throughout the Chronicles he is called Hadarezer. The first is the original form;
for Hadad, the name of the sun-god of the Syrians, is met with in several other
instances in Syrian names (vid., Movers, Phnizier). David smote this king as
he was going to restore his strength at the river (Euphrates). WDOYF BYIHF does
not mean to turn his hand, but signifies to return his hand, to stretch it out again
over or against any one, in all the passage in which the expression occurs. It is
therefore to be taken in a derivative sense in the passage before us, and
signifying to restore or re-establish his sway. The expression used in the
Chronicles (v. 3), WDOYF BYcIH,A has just the same meaning, since establishing or
making fast presupposes a previous weakening or dissolution. Hence the
subject of the sentence as he went, etc., must be Hadadezer and not David;
for David could not have extended his power to the Euphrates before the defeat
of Hadadezer. The Masoretes have interpolated Prath (Euphrates) after the
river, as in the text of the Chronicles. This is correct enough so far as the
sense is concerned, but it is by no means necessary, as the nahar (the river k.
ec.) is quite sufficient of itself to indicate the Euphrates.

There is also a war between David and Hadadezer and other kings of Syria
mentioned in 2Sa. 10; and the commentators all admit that that war, in which
David defeated these kings when they came to the help of the Ammonites, is
connected with the war mentioned in the present chapter. But the connection is
generally supposed to be this, that the first of Davids Aramaean wars is given
in 2Sa. 8, the second in 2Sa. 10; for no other reason, however, than because
2Sa. 10 stands after 2Sa. 8. This view is decidedly an erroneous one. According
to the chapter before us, the war mentioned there terminated in the complete
subjugation of the Aramaean kings and kingdoms. Aram became subject to
David, paying tribute (v. 6). Now, though the revolt of subjugated nations from
their conquerors is by no means a rare thing in history, and therefore it is
perfectly conceivable in itself that the Aramaeans should have fallen away from
David when he was involved in the war with the Ammonites, and should have
gone to the help of the Ammonites, such an assumption is precluded by the fact
that there is nothing in 2Sa. 10 about any falling away or revolt of the
Aramaeans from David; but, on the contrary, these tribes appear to be still
entirely independent of David, and to be hired by the Ammonites to fight
against him. But what is absolutely decisive against this assumption, is the fact
that the number of Aramaeans killed in the two wars is precisely the same
(compare v. 4 with 2Sa. 10:18): so that it may safely be inferred, not only that
the war mentioned in 2Sa. 10, in which the Aramaeans who had come to the
help of the Ammonites were smitten by David, was the very same as the
Aramaean war mentioned in 2Sa. 8, but of which the result only is given; but
also that all the wars which David waged with the Aramaeans, like his war with
Edom (vv. 13ff.), arose out of the Ammonitish war (2Sa. 10), and the fact that
the Ammonites enlisted the help of the kings of Aram against David
(2Sa. 10: 6). We also obtain from 2Sa. 10 an explanation of the expression as
he went to restore his power (Eng. Ver. recover his border) at the river,
since it is stated there that Hadadezer was defeated by Joab the first time, and
that, after sustaining this defeat, he called the Aramaeans on the other side of
the Euphrates to his assistance, that he might continue the war against Israel
with renewed vigour (2Sa. 10:13, 15ff.). The power of Hadadezer had no doubt
been crippled by his first defeat; and in order to restore it, he procured auxiliary
troops from Mesopotamia with which to attack David, but he was defeated a
second time, and obliged to submit to him (2Sa. 10:17, 18). In this second
engagement David took from him (i.e., captured) seventeen hundred horsesoldiers and twenty thousand foot (v. 4, compare 2Sa. 10:18). This decisive
battle took place, according to 1Ch. 18: 3, in the neighbourhood of Hamath,
i.e., Epiphania on the Orontes (see at Num. 13:21, and Gen. 10:18), or,
according to 2Sa. 10:18 of this book, at Helam, a difference which may
easily be reconciled by the simple assumption that the unknown Helam was
somewhere near to Hamath. Instead of 1700 horse-soldiers, we find in the

Chronicles (1 Chr 18: 4) 1000 chariots and 7000 horsemen. Consequently the
word receb has no doubt dropped out after LEJE in the text before us, and the
numeral denoting a thousand has been confounded with the one used to denote
a hundred; for in the plains of Syria seven thousand horsemen would be a much
juster proportion to twenty thousand foot than seventeen hundred. (For further
remarks, see at 2Sa. 10:18.) And David lamed all the cavalry, i.e., he made
the war-chariots and cavalry perfectly useless by laming the horses (see at
Jos. 11: 6, 9), and only left a hundred horses. The word receb in these
clauses signifies the war-horses generally, not merely the carriage-horses,
but the riding-horses as well, as the meaning cavalry is placed beyond all
doubt by Isa. 21: 7, and it can hardly be imagined that David would have spared
the riding-horses.

2Sa. 8: 5, 6. After destroying the main force of Hadadezer, David turned

against his ally, against Aram-Damascus, i.e., the Aramaeans, whose capital
was Damascus. Dammesek (for which we have Darmesek in the Chronicles
according to its Aramaean form), Damascus, a very ancient and still a very
important city of Syria, standing upon the Chrysorrhoas (Pharpar), which
flows through the centre of it. It is situated in the midst of paradisaical scenery,
on the eastern side of the Antilibanus, on the road which unites Western Asia
with the interior. David smote 22,000 Syrians of Damascus, placed garrisons in
the kingdom, and made it subject and tributary. YBIYCINi are not governors of
officers, but military posts, garrisons, as in 1Sa. 10: 5; 13: 3.

2Sa. 8: 7. Of the booty taken in these wars, David carried the golden shields
which he took from the servants, i.e., the governors and vassal princes, of
Hadadezer, to Jerusalem.f14
Shelet signifies a shield, according to the Targums and Rabbins, and this
meaning is applicable to all the passages in which the word occurs; whilst the
meaning equivalent cannot be sustained either by the rendering panoplia
adopted by Aquila and Symmachus in 2Ki. 11:10, or by the renderings of the
Vulgate, viz., arma in loc. and armatura in Son. 4: 4, or by an appeal to the
etymology (vid., Gesenius Thes. and Dietrichs Lexicon).

2Sa. 8: 8. And from the cities of Betach and Berothai David took very much
brass, with which, according to 1Ch. 18: 8, Solomon made the brazen sea, and
the brazen columns and vessels of the temple. The LXX have also interpolated
this notice into the text. The name Betach is given as Tibhath in the Chronicles;
and for Berothai we have Chun. As the towns themselves are unknown, it
cannot be decided with certainty which of the forms and names are the correct
and original ones. XAbEMI appears to have been written by mistake for XBAEMI.
This supposition is favoured by the rendering of the LXX, ek thj Metebak; and

by that of the Syriac also (viz., Tebach). On the other hand, the occurrence of
the name Tebah among the sons of Nahor the Aramaean in Gen. 22:24 proves
little or nothing, as it is not known that he founded a family which perpetuated
his name; nor can anything be inferred from the fact that, according to the more
modern maps, there is a town of Tayibeh to the north of Damascus in 35 north
lat., as there is very little in common between the names Tayibeh and Tebah.
Ewald connects Berothai with the Barathena of Ptol. v. 19 in the
neighbourhood of Saba. The connection is a possible one, but it is not
sufficiently certain to warrant us in founding any conclusions upon it with
regard to the name Chun which occurs in the Chronicles; so that there is no
ground whatever for the opinion that it is a corruption of Berothai.

2Sa. 8: 9-12. After the defeat of the king of Zobah and his allies, Toi king of
Hamath sought for Davids friendship, sending his son to salute him, and
conveying to him at the same time a considerable present of vessels of silver,
gold, and brass. The name Toi is written Tou in the Chronicles, according to a
different mode of interpretation; and the name of the son is given as Hadoram
in the Chronicles, instead of Joram as in the text before us. The former is
evidently the true reading, and Joram an error of the pen, as the Israelitish name
Joram is not one that we should expect to find among Aramaeans; whilst
Hadoram occurs in 1Ch. 1:21 in the midst of Arabic names, and it cannot be
shown that the Hadoram or Adoram mentioned in 2Ch. 10:18 and 1Ki. 12:18
was a man of Israelitish descent. The primary object of the mission was to
salute David (to ask him of peace; cf. Gen. 43:27, etc.), and to congratulate
him upon his victory (to bless him because he had fought, etc.); for Toi had
had wars with Hadadezer. A man of wars signifies a man who wages wars
(cf. 1Ch. 28: 3; Isa. 42:13). According to 1Ch. 18: 3, the territory of the king of
Hamath bordered upon that of Hadadezer, and the latter had probably tried to
make king Toi submit to him. The secret object of the salutation, however, was
no doubt to secure the friendship of this new and powerful neighbour.

2Sa. 8:11, 12. David also sanctified Tois presents to the Lord (handed them
over to the treasury of the sanctuary), together with the silver and gold which
he had sanctified from all the conquered nations, from Aram, Moab, etc. Instead
of YdIQiHI REJ the text of the Chronicles has JVFNF REJ, which he took, i.e.,
took as booty. Both are equally correct; there is simply a somewhat different
turn given to the thought.f15
In the enumeration of the conquered nations in v. 12, the text of the Chronicles
differs from that of the book before us. In the first place, we find from Edom
instead of from Aram; and secondly, the clause and of the spoil of
Hadadezer, son of Rehob king of Zobah, is altogether wanting there. The text
of the Chronicles is certainly faulty here, as the name of Aram (Syria) could not

possibly be omitted. Edom could much better be left out, not because the
conquest of Edom belonged to a later period, as Movers maintains, but
because the conquest of Edom is mentioned for the first time in the subsequent
verses. But if we bear in mind that in v. 12 of both texts not only are those
tribes enumerated the conquest of which had been already noticed, but all the
tribes that David ever defeated and subjugated, even the Ammonites and
Amalekites, to the war with whom no allusion whatever is made in the present
chapter, we shall see that Edom could not be omitted. Consequently from
Syria must have dropped out of the text of the Chronicles, and from Edom
out of the one before us; so that the text in both instances ran originally thus,
from Syria, and from Edom, and from Moab. For even in the text before us,
from Aram (Syria) could not well be omitted, notwithstanding the fact that
the booty of Hadadezer is specially mentioned at the close of the verse, for the
simple reason that David not only made war upon Syria-Zobah (the kingdom of
Hadadezer) and subdued it, but also upon Syria-Damascus, which was quite
independent of Zobah.

2Sa. 8:13, 14.

And David made (himself) a name, when he returned from smiting (i.e., from the
defeat of) Aram, (and smote Edom) in the valley of Salt, eighteen thousand men.

The words enclosed in brackets are wanting in the Masoretic text as it has come
down to us, and must have fallen out from a mistake of the copyist, whose eye
strayed from RFJTJE to WDOJTJE; for though the text is not utterly
unintelligible without these words, since the passage might be rendered after
he had smitten Aram in the valley of Salt eighteen thousand men, yet this
would be decidedly incorrect, as the Aramaeans were not smitten in the valley
of Salt, but partly at Medeba (1Ch. 19: 7) and Helam (2Sa. 10:17), and partly
in their own land, which was very far away from the Salt valley. Moreover, the
difficulty presented by the text cannot be removed, as Movers supposes, by
changing RFJTJE (Syria) into WDOJTJE (Edom), as the expression WBOUbi
(when he returned) would still be unexplained. The facts were probably these:
Whilst David, or rather Israel, was entangled in the war with the Ammonites
and Aramaeans, 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 Aramaeans
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. This valley cannot have been any other than the Ghor adjoining
the Salt mountain on the south of the Dead Sea, which really separates the
ancient territories of Judah and Edom (Robinson, Pal. ii. 483). There Amaziah
also smote the Edomites at a later period (2Ki. 14: 7). We gather more

concerning this war of David from the text of the Chronicles (v. 12) taken in
connection with 1Ki. 11:15, 16, and Psa. 60: 2. According to the Chronicles, it
was Abishai the son of Zeruiah who smote the Edomites. This agrees very well
not only with the account in 2Sa. 10:10ff., to the effect that Abishai
commanded a company in the war with the Syrians and Ammonites under the
generalship of his brother Joab, but also with the heading to Psa. 60, in which it
is stated that Joab returned after the defeat of Aram, and smote the Edomites in
the valley of Salt, twelve thousand men; and with 1Ki. 11:15, 16, in which we
read that when David was in Edom, Joab, the captain of the host, came up to
bury the slain, and smote every male in Edom, and remained six months in
Edom with all Israel, till he had cut off every male in Edom. From this casual
but yet elaborate notice, we learn that the war with the Edomites was a very
obstinate one, and was not terminated all at once. The difference as to the
number slain, which is stated to have been 18,000 in the text before us and in
the Chronicles, and 12,000 in the heading to Psa. 60, may be explained in a very
simple manner, on the supposition that the reckonings made were only
approximative, and yielded different results;f16
and the fact that David is named as the victor in the verse before us, Joab in
Psa. 60, and Abishai in the Chronicles, admits of a very easy explanation after
what has just been observed. The Chronicles contain the most literal account.
Abishai smote the Edomites as commander of the men engaged, Joab as
commander-in-chief of the whole army, and David as king and supreme
governor, of whom the writer of the Chronicles affirms, The Lord helped
David in all his undertakings. After the defeat of the Edomites, David placed
garrisons in the land, and made all Edom subject to himself. Vv. 15-18. Davids
Ministers. To the account of Davids wars and victories there is appended a
list of his official attendants, which is introduced with a general remark as to the
spirit of his government. As king over all Israel, David continued to execute
right and justice.

2Sa. 8:16. The chief ministers were the following: Joab (see at 2Sa. 2:18)
was over the army, i.e., commander-in-chief. Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud,
of whom nothing further is known, was mazcir, chancellor; not merely the
national annalist, according to the Septuagint and Vulgate (epi twn
upomnhmatwn upomnhmatografoj; a commentariis), i.e., the recorder of the
most important incidents and affairs of the nation, but an officer resembling the
magister memoriae of the later Romans, or the waka nuvis 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 the kingdom, places his vis upon all
the kings commands, and keeps a special protocol of all these things (vid.,

Chardin, Voyages v. p. 258, and Paulsen, Regierung der Morgenlnder, pp.

279-80).

2Sa. 8:17. Zadok the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar (1Ch. 5:34; 6:37,
38), and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were cohanim, i.e., officiating high
priests; the former at the tabernacle at Gibeon (1Ch. 16:39), the latter probably
at the ark of the covenant upon Mount Zion. Instead of Ahimelech, the
Chronicles have Abimelech, evidently through a copyists error, as the name is
written Ahimelech in 1Ch. 24: 3, 6. But the expression Ahimelech the son of
Abiathar is apparently a very strange one, as Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech
according to 1Sa. 22:20, and in other passages Zadok and Abiathar are
mentioned as the two high priests in the time of David (2Sa. 15:24, 35; 17:15;
19:12; 20:25). This difference cannot be set aside, as Movers, Thenius, Ewald,
and other suppose, by transposing the names, so as to read Abiathar the son of
Ahimelech; for such a solution is precluded by the fact that, in 1Ch. 24: 3, 6,
31, Ahimelech is mentioned along with Zadok as head of the priests of the line
of Ithamar, and according to v. 6 he was the son of Abiathar. It would therefore
be necessary to change the name Ahimelech into Abiathar in this instance also,
both in v. 3 and v. 6, and in the latter to transpose the two names. But there is
not the slightest probability in the supposition that the names have been
changed in so many passages. We are therefore disposed to adopt the view held
by Bertheau and Oehler, viz., that Abiathar the high priest, the son of
Ahimelech, had also a son named Ahimelech, as it is by no means a rare
occurrence for grandfather and grandson to have the same names (vid.,
1Ch. 5:30-41), and also that this (the younger) Ahimelech performed the duties
of high priest in connection with his father, who was still living at the
commencement of Solomons reign (1Ki. 2:27), and is mentioned in this
capacity, along with Zadok, both here and in the book of Chronicles, possibly
because Abiathar was ill, or for some other reason that we cannot discover. As
Abiathar was thirty or thirty-five years old at the time when his father was put
to death by Saul, according to what has already been observed at 1Sa. 14: 3,
and forty years old at the death of Saul, he was at least forty-eight years old at
the time when David removed his residence to Mount Zion, and might have had
a son of twenty-five years of age, namely the Ahimelech mentioned here, who
could have taken his fathers place in the performance of the functions of high
priest when he was prevented by illness or other causes. The appearance of a
son of Abiathar named Jonathan in 2Sa. 15:27; 17:17, 20, is no valid argument
against this solution of the apparent discrepancy; for, according to these
passages, he was still very young, and may therefore have been a younger
brother of Ahimelech. The omission of any allusion to Ahimelech in connection
with Abiathars conspiracy with Adonijah against Solomon (1Ki. 1:42, 43), and
the reference to his son Jonathan alone, might be explained on the supposition

that Ahimelech had already died. But as there is no reference to Jonathan at the
time when his father was deposed, no stress is to be laid upon the omission of
any reference to Ahimelech. Moreover, when Abiathar was deposed after
Solomon had ascended the throne, he must have been about eighty years of age.
Seraiah was a scribe. Instead of Seraiah, we have Shavsha in the corresponding
text of the Chronicles, and Sheva in the parallel passage 2Sa. 20:25. Whether
the last name is merely a mistake for Shavsha, occasioned by the dropping of $,
or an abbreviated form of Shisha and Shavsha, cannot be decided. Shavsha is
not a copyists error, for in 1Ki. 4: 3 the same man is unquestionably mentioned
again under the name of Shisha, who is called Shavsha in the Chronicles, Sheva
(JYFi) in the text of 2Sa. 20:25, and here Seraiah. Seraiah also is hardly a
copyists error, but another form for Shavsha or Shisha. The scribe was a
secretary of state; not a military officer, whose duty it was to raise and muster
the troops, for the technical expression for mustering the people was not RPAS,F
but DQApF (cf. 2Sa. 24: 2, 4, 9; 1Ch. 21: 5, 6, etc.).

2Sa. 8:18. Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, a very brave hero of Kabzeel (see at
2Sa. 23:20ff.), was over the Crethi and Plethi. Instead of YTIR
kiHAWi, which gives
no sense, and must be connected in some way with 1Ki. 1:38, 44, we must read
YTIR
kiHA LA according to the parallel passage 2Sa. 20:23, and the corresponding
text of the Chronicles. The Crethi and Plethi were the kings body-guard,
swmatofulakej (Josephus, Ant. vii. 5, 4). The words are adjectives in form,
but with a substantive meaning, and were used to indicate a certain rank, lit. the
executioners and runners, like YIYLIFHA (2Sa. 23: 8). YTIR
ki, from TRAk,F to cut
down or exterminate, signifies confessor, because among the Israelites (see at
1Ki. 2:25), as in fact throughout the East generally, the royal halberdiers had to
execute the sentence of death upon criminals. YTIL
pi, from TLAPF (to fly, or be
swift), is related to LAp,F and signifies runners. It is equivalent to RF, a courier,
as one portion of the halberdiers, like the aggaroi of the Persians, had to
convey the kings orders to distant places (vid., 2Ch. 30: 6). This explanation is
confirmed by the fact that the epithet YCIRFHFWi YRIkFHA was afterwards applied to
the kings body-guard (2Ki. 11: 4, 19), and that YRIkFHA for YTIR
kiHA occurs as
early as 2Sa. 20:23. YRIk,F from RwK, fodit, perfodit, is used in the same sense.
f17

And Davids sons were YNIHkO (confidants); not priests, domestic priests,
court chaplains, or spiritual advisers, as Gesenius, De Wette, and others
maintain, but, as the title is explained in the corresponding text of the
Chronicles, when the title had become obsolete, the first at the hand (or side)
of the king. The correctness of this explanation is placed beyond the reach of
doubt by 1Ki. 4: 5, where the cohen is called, by way of explanation, the

kings friend. The title cohen may be explained from the primary signification
of the verb HAkF, as shown in the corresponding verb and noun in Arabic (res
alicujus gerere, and administrator alieni negotii). These cohanim,
therefore, were the kings confidential advisers.

Davids Kindness towards Mephibosheth. Ch. 9.

2Sa. 9. When David was exalted to be king over all Israel, he sought to show
compassion to the house of the fallen king, and to repay the love which his
noble-minded friend Jonathan had once sworn to him before the Lord
(1Sa. 20:13ff.; comp. 1Sa. 23:17, 18). The account of this forms the conclusion
of, or rather an appendix to, the first section of the history of his reign, and was
intended to show how David was mindful of the duty of gratitude and loving
fidelity, even when he reached the highest point of his regal authority and glory.
The date when this occurred was about the middle of Davids reign, as we may
see from the fact, that Mephibosheth, who was five years old when Saul died
(2Sa. 4: 4), had a young son at the time (v. 12).

2Sa. 9: 1-8. When David inquired whether there was any one left of the house
of Saul to whom he could show favour for Jonathans sake (DWOYE YKIH: is it
so that there is any one? = there is certainly some one left), a servant of Saul
named Ziba was summoned, who told the king that there was a son of Jonathan
living in the house of Machir at Lodebar, and that he was lame in his feet. YJI
DWO SPEJEHA, is there no one at all besides? The L before TYb
is a
roundabout way of expressing the genitive, as in 1Sa. 16:18, etc., and is
obviously not to be altered into TYb
MI, as Thenius proposes. The kindness of
God is love and kindness shown in God, and for Gods sake (Luke 6:36).
Machir the son of Ammiel was a rich man, judging from 2Sa. 17:27, who, after
the death of Saul and Jonathan, had received the lame son of the latter into his
house. Lodebar (RBFDiWLO, written RBFDiJLO in 2Sa. 17:27, but erroneously
divided by the Masoretes into two words in both passages) was a town on the
east of Mahanaim, towards Rabbath Amman, probably the same place as Lidbir
(Jos. 13:26); but it is not further known.

2Sa. 9: 5ff. David sent for this son of Jonathan (Mephibosheth: cf. 2Sa. 4: 4),
and not only restored his fathers possessions in land, but took him to his own
royal table for the rest of his life. Fear not, said David to Mephibosheth,
when he came before him with the deepest obeisance, to take away any anxiety
lest the king should intend to slay the descendants of the fallen king, according
to the custom of eastern usurpers. It is evident from the words, I will restore
thee all the land of Saul thy father, that the landed property belonging to Saul
had either fallen to David as crown lands, or had been taken possession of by

distant relations after the death of Saul. Thou shalt eat bread at my table
continually, i.e., eat at my table all thy life long, or receive thy food from my
table.

2Sa. 9: 8. Mephibosheth expressed his thanks for this manifestation of favour

with the deepest obeisance, and a confession of his unworthiness of any such
favour. On his comparison of himself to a dead dog, see at 1Sa. 24:15.

2Sa. 9: 9-13. David then summoned Ziba the servant of Saul, told him of the
restoration of Sauls possessions to his son Mephibosheth, and ordered him,
with his sons and servants, to cultivate the land for the son of his lord. The
words, that thy masters son may have food to eat, are not at variance with
the next clause, Mephibosheth shall eat bread alway at my table, as bread is
a general expression, including all the necessaries of life. Although
Mephibosheth himself ate daily as a guest at the kings table, he had to make
provision as a royal prince for the maintenance of his own family and servants,
as he had children according to v. 12 and 1Ch. 8:34ff. Ziba had fifteen sons and
twenty servants (v. 10), with whom he had probably been living in Gibeah,
Sauls native place, and may perhaps have hitherto farmed Sauls land.

2Sa. 9:11. Ziba promised to obey the kings command. The last clause of this
verse is a circumstantial clause in form, with which the writer passes over to the
conclusion of his account. But the words YNIXFL
i U LA, at my table, do not
tally with this, as they require that the words should be taken as Davids own.
This is precluded, however, not only by the omission of any intimation that
David spoke again after Ziba, and repeated what he had said once already, and
that without any occasion whatever, but also by the form of the sentence, more
especially the participle LK
JO. There is no other course left, therefore, than to
regard YNIXFL
i U (my table) as written by mistake for DWIdF XALiU: but
Mephibosheth ate at Davids table as one of the kings sons. The further
notices in vv. 12 and 13 follow this in a very simple manner. TYb
BAWMO LkO,
all the dwelling, i.e., all the inhabitants of Zibas house, namely his sons and
servants, were servants of Mephibosheth, i.e., worked for him and cultivated his
land, whilst he himself took up his abode at Jerusalem, to eat daily at the kings
table, although he was lamed in both his feet.

III. Davids Reign in its Decline.

2Sa. 10-20. In the first half of Davids reign he had strengthened and fortified
the kingdom of Israel, both within and without, and exalted the covenant nation
into a kingdom of God, before which all its enemies were obliged to bow; but in
the second half a series of heavy judgments fell upon him and his house, which

cast a deep shadow upon the glory of his reign. David had brought these
judgments upon himself by his grievous sin with Bathsheba. The success of all
his undertakings, and the strength of his government, which increased year by
year, had made him feel so secure, that in the excitement of undisturbed
prosperity, he allowed himself to be carried away by evil lusts, so as to stain his
soul not only with adultery, but also with murder, and fell all the deeper because
of the height to which his God had exalted him. This took place during the war
with the Ammonites and Syrians, when Joab was besieging the capital of the
Ammonites, after the defeat and subjugation of the Syrians (2Sa. 10), and when
David had remained behind in Jerusalem (2Sa. 11: 1). For this double sin, the
adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah, the Lord
announced as a punishment, that the sword should not depart from Davids
house, and that his wives should be openly violated; and notwithstanding the
sincere sorrow and repentance of the king, when brought to see his sin, He not
only caused the fruit of his sin, the child that was born of Bathsheba, to die
(2Sa. 12), but very soon afterwards allowed the threatened judgments to fall
upon his house, inasmuch as Amnon, his first-born son, violated his half-sister
Thamar, and was murdered in consequence by her own brother Absalom
(2Sa. 13), whereupon Absalom fled to his father-in-law at Geshur; and when at
length the king restored him to favour (2Sa. 14), he set on foot a rebellion,
which nearly cost David his life and throne (2Sa. 15-17:23). And even after
Absalom himself was dead (2Sa. 17:24-19: 1), and David had been reinstated in
his kingdom (2Sa. 19: 2-40), there arose the conspiracy set on foot by the
Benjaminite Sheba, which was only stopped by the death of the chief
conspirator, in the fortified city of Abel-Beth-Maachah (2Sa. 19:41-20:26).
The period and duration of these divine visitations are not stated; and all that
we are able to determine from the different data as to time, given in 2Sa. 13:23,
38; 14:28; 15: 7, when taken in connection with the supposed ages of the sons
of David, is that Amnons sin in the case of Thamar did not take place earlier
than the twentieth year of Davids reign, and the Absaloms rebellion broke out
seven or eight years later. Consequently the assumption cannot be far from the
truth, that the events described in this section occupied the whole time between
the twentieth and thirtieth years of Davids reign. We are prevented from
placing it earlier, by the fact that Amnon was not born till after David became
king over Judah, and therefore was probably about twenty years old when he
violated his half-sister Thamar. At the same time it cannot be placed later than
this, because Solomon was not born till about two years after Davids adultery;
and he must have been eighteen or twenty years old when he ascended the
throne on the death of his father, after a reign of forty years and a half, since,
according to 1Ki. 14:21, compared with vv. 11 and 42, 43, he had a son a year
old, named Rehoboam, at the time when he began to reign.

War with the Ammonites and Syrians. Ch. 10.

This war, the occasion and early success of which are described in the present
chapter and the parallel passage in 1Ch. 19, was the fiercest struggle, and, so
far as the Israelitish kingdom of God was concerned, the most dangerous, that
it ever had to sustain during the reign of David. The amount of distress which
fell upon Israel in consequence of this war, and still more because the first
successful battles with the Syrians of the south were no sooner over than the
Edomites invaded the land, and went about plundering and devastating, in the
hope of destroying the people of God, is shown very clearly in the two psalms
which date from this period (the 44th and 60th), in which a pious Korahite and
David himself pour out their lamentations before the Lord on account of the
distress of their nation, and pray for His assistance; and not less clearly in
Psa. 68, in which David foretels the victory of the God of Israel over all the
hostile powers of the world.

2Sa. 10: 1-5. OCCASION OF THE WAR WITH THE AMMONITES. V. 1. On

the expression it came to pass after this, see the remarks on 2Sa. 8: 1. When
Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, died, and Hanun his son reigned in his
stead, David thought that he would show him the same kindness that Nahash
had formerly shown to him. We are not told in what the love shown to David by
Nahash consisted. He had most likely rendered him some assistance during the
time of his flight from Saul. Nahash was no doubt the king of the Ammonites
mentioned in 1Sa. 11: 1, whom Saul had smitten at Jabesh. David therefore sent
an embassy to Hanun, to comfort him for his father, i.e., to show his
sympathy with him on the occasion of his fathers death, and at the same time to
congratulate him upon his ascent of the throne.

2Sa. 10: 3. On the arrival of Davids ambassadors, however, the chiefs of the
Ammonites said to Hanun their lord, Doth David indeed honour thy father in
thine eyes (i.e., dost thou really suppose that David intends to do honour to thy
father), because he has sent comforters to thee? Has David not sent his
servants to thee with the intention of exploring and spying out the town, and
(then) destroying it? The first question is introduced with H, because a
negative answer is expected; the second with JWLOH, because it requires an
affirmative reply. RYIHF is the capital Rabbah, a strongly fortified city (see at
2Sa. 11: 1). The suspicion expressed by the chiefs was founded upon national
hatred and enmity, which had probably been increased by Davids treatment of
Moab, as the subjugation and severe punishment of the Moabites (2Sa. 8: 2)
had certainly taken place a short time before. King Hanun therefore gave
credence to the suspicions expressed as to Davids honourable intentions, and
had his ambassadors treated in the most insulting manner.

2Sa. 10: 4. He had the half of their beard shaved off, and their clothes cut off
up to the seat, and in this state he sent them away. The half of the beard, i.e.,
the beard on one side. With the value universally set upon the beard by the
Hebrews and other oriental nations, as being a mans greatest ornament,f18
the cutting off of one-half of it was the greatest insult that could have been
offered to the ambassadors, and through them to David their king. The insult
was still further increased by cutting off the long dress which covered the body;
so that as the ancient Israelites wore no trousers, the lower half of the body was
quite exposed. HEYW
DiMA, from wDMF or HWEDiMA , the long robe reaching down to
the feet, from the root HDFMF = DDAMF, to stretch, spread out, or measure.

2Sa. 10: 5. When David received information of the insults that had been
heaped upon his ambassadors, he sent messengers to meet them, and direct
them to remain in Jericho until their beard had grown again, that he might not
have to set his eyes upon the insult they had received.

2Sa. 10: 6. When the Ammonites saw that they had made themselves stinking
before David, and therefore that David would avenge the insult offered to the
people of Israel in the persons of their ambassadors, they looked round for help
among the powerful kings of Syria. They hired as auxiliaries (with a thousand
talents of silver, i.e., nearly half a million of pounds sterling, according to
1Ch. 19: 6) twenty thousand foot from Aram-Beth-Rehob and Aram-Zoba, and
one thousand men from the king of Maacah, and twelve thousand troops from
the men of Tob. Aram-Beth-Rehob was the Aramaean kingdom, the capital of
which was Beth-Rehob. This Beth-Rehob, which is simply called Rehob in v. 8,
is in all probability the city of this name mentioned in Num. 13:21 and
Jud. 18:28, which lay to the south of Hamath, but the exact position of which
has not yet been discovered: for the castle of Hunin, in the ruins of which
Robinson imagines that he has found Beth-Rehob Bibl. Researches, p. 370), is
to the south-west of Tell el Kadi, the ancient Laish-Da, the northern boundary
of the Israelitish territory; so that the capital of this Aramaean kingdom would
have been within the limits of the land of Israel, a thing which is
inconceivable. Aram-Naharaim is also mentioned in the corresponding text of
the Chronicles, and for that reason many have identified Beth- Rehob with
Rehoboth, on the river (Euphrates), mentioned in Gen. 36:37. But this
association is precluded by the fact, that in all probability the latter place is to be
found in Rachabe, which is upon the Euphrates and not more than half a mile
from the river (see Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 128), so that from its situation it can
hardly have been the capital of a separate Aramaean kingdom, as the
government of the king of Zoba extended, according to v. 16, beyond the
Euphrates into Mesopotamia. On Aram-Zoba, see at 2Sa. 8: 3; and for Maacah

at Deu. 3:14. BWOYJI is not to be taken as one word and rendered as a proper
name, Ish-Tob, as it has been by most of the earlier translators; but YJI is a
common noun used in a collective sense (as it frequently is in the expression
LJ
RFViYI YJI), the men of Tob. Tob was the district between Syria and
Ammonitis, where Jephthah had formerly taken refuge (Jud. 11: 5). The
corresponding text of the Chronicles (1Ch. 19: 6, 7) is fuller, and differs in
several respects from the text before us. According to the Chronicles, Hanun
sent a thousand talents of silver to hire chariots and horsemen from AramNaharaim, Aram-Maacah, and Zobah. With this the Ammonites hired thirty-two
thousand receb (i.e., chariots and horsemen: see at 2Sa. 8: 4), and the king of
Maacah and his people. They came and encamped before Medeba, the present
ruin of Medaba, two hours to the south-east of Heshbon, in the tribe of Reuben
(see at Num. 21:30, compared with Jos. 13:16), and the Ammonites gathered
together out of their cities, and went to the war. The Chronicles therefore
mention Aram-Naharaim (i.e., Mesopotamia) as hired by the Ammonites instead
of Aram-Beth-Rehob, and leave out the men of Tob. The first of these
differences is not to be explained, as Bertheau suggests, on the supposition that
the author of the Chronicles took Beth-Rehob to be the same city as Rehoboth
of the river in Gen. 36:37, and therefore substituted the well-known Aram of
the two rivers as an interpretation of the rarer name Beth-Rehob, though
hardly on good ground. For this conjecture does not help to explain the
omission of the men of Tob. It is a much simpler explanation, that the writer
of the Chronicles omitted Beth-Rehob and Tob as being names that were less
known, this being the only place in the Old Testament in which they occur as
separate kingdoms, and simply mentioned the kingdoms of Maacah and Zoba,
which frequently occur; and that he included Aram of the two rivers, and
placed it at the head, because the Syrians obtained succour from Mesopotamia
after their first defeat. The account in the Chronicles agrees with the one before
us, so far as the number of auxiliary troops is concerned. For twenty thousand
men of Zoba and twelve thousand of Tob amount to thirty-two thousand,
besides the people of the king of Maacah, who sent a thousand men according
to the text of Samuel. But according to that of the Chronicles, the auxiliary
troops consisted of chariots and horsemen, whereas only foot-soldiers are
mentioned in our text, which appears all the more remarkable, because
according to 2Sa. 8: 4, and 1Ch. 18: 4, the king of Zoba fought against David
with a considerable force of chariots and horsemen. It is very evident, therefore,
that there are copyists errors in both texts; for the troops of the Syrians did not
consist of infantry only, nor of chariots and horsemen alone, but of footsoldiers, cavalry, and war-chariots, as we may see very clearly not only from the
passages already quoted in 2Sa. 8: 4 and 1Ch. 18: 4, but also from the
conclusion to the account before us. According to v. 18 of this chapter, when

Hadarezer had reinforced his army with auxiliaries from Mesopotamia, after
losing the first battle, David smote seven hundred receb and forty thousand
parashim of Aram, whilst according to the parallel text (1Ch. 19:18) he smote
seven thousand receb and forty thousand foot. Now, apart from the difference
between seven thousand and seven hundred in the case of the receb, which is to
be interpreted in the same way as a similar difference in 2Sa. 8: 4, the
Chronicles do not mention any parashim at all in v. 18, but foot-soldiers only,
whereas in v. 7 they mention only receb and parashim; and, on the other hand,
there are no foot-soldiers given in v. 18 of the text before us, but riders only,
whereas in v. 6 there are none but foot-soldiers mentioned, without any riders
at all. It is evident that in both engagements the Syrians fought with all three
(infantry, cavalry, and chariots), so that in both of them David smote chariots,
horsemen, and foot.

2Sa. 10: 7-14. When David heard of these preparations and the advance of
the Syrians into the land, he sent Joab and his brave army against the foe.
YRIWbOgIHA (the mighty men) is in apposition to JBFcFHALkF (all the host): the
whole army, namely the heroes or mighty men, i.e., the brave troops that were
well used to war. It is quite arbitrary on the part of Thenius to supply vav
before YRIWbOgIHA; for, as Bertheau has observed, as never find a distinction
drawn between the gibborim and the whole army.

2Sa. 10: 8. On the other hand, the Ammonites came out (from the capital,
where they had assembled), and put themselves in battle array before the gate.
The Syrians were alone on the field, i.e., they had taken up a separate position
on the broad treeless table-land (cf. Jos. 13:16) by Medeba. Medeba lay about
four geographical miles in a straight line to the south-west of Rabbath-Ammon.

2Sa. 10: 9. When Joab saw that the front of the war was (directed) against
him both before and behind, he selected a picked body out of the Israelitish
army, and posted them (the picked men) against the children of Aram (i.e., the
Syrians). The rest of the men he gave to his brother Abishai, and stationed them
against the Ammonites. The front of the battle: i.e., the face or front of the
hostile army, when placed in battle array. Joab had this in front and behind, as
the Ammonites had taken their stand before Rabbah at the back of the Israelitish
army, and the Syrians by Medeba in their front, so that Joab was attacked both
before and behind. This compelled him to divide his army. He chose out, i.e.,
made a selection. Instead of LJ
RFViYIBi YR
wXbi (the picked men in Israel) the
Chronicles have LJ
RFViYIbi RwXbF (the men in Israel), the singular RwXbF being
more commonly employed than the plural to denote the men of war. The bi
before LJ
RFViYI is not to be regarded as suspicious, although the early translators
have not expressed it, and the Masoretes wanted to expunge it. The choice of

Israel signifies those who were selected in Israel for the war, i.e., the Israelitish
soldiers. Joab himself took up his station opposite to the Syrians with a picked
body of men, because they were the stronger force of the two. He then made
this arrangement with Abishai (v. 11): If Aram becomes stronger than I (i.e.,
overpowers me), come to my help; and if the Ammonites should overpower
thee, I will go to help thee. Consequently the attack was not to be made upon
both the armies of the enemy simultaneously; but Joab proposed to attack the
Aramaeans (Syrians) first (cf. v. 13), and Abishai was merely to keep the
Ammonites in check, though there was still a possibility that the two bodies of
the enemy might make their attack simultaneously.

2Sa. 10:12.
Be firm, and let us be firm (strong) for our people, and for the towns of our God:
and Jehovah will do what seemeth Him good.

Joab calls the towns of Israel the towns of our God, inasmuch as the God of
Israel had given the land to the people of Israel, as being His own property.
Joab and Abishai were about to fight, in order that Jehovahs possessions might
not fall into the hands of the heathen, and become subject to their gods.

2Sa. 10:13, 14. Joab then advanced with his army to battle against Aram, and
they fled before him. V. 14. When the Ammonites perceived this, they
also fled before Abishai, and drew back into the city (Rabbah); whereupon Joab
returned to Jerusalem, probably because as we may infer from 2Sa. 11: 1, it was
too late in the year for the siege and capture of Rabbah.

2Sa. 10:15-19. The Aramaeans, however, gathered together again after the
first defeat, to continue the war; and Hadarezer, the most powerful of the
Aramaean kings, sent messengers to Mesopotamia, and summoned it to war. It
is very evident, not only from the words he sent and brought out Aram, which
was beyond the river, but also from the fact that Shobach, Hadarezers general
(Shophach according to the Chronicles), was at the head of the Mesopotamian
troops, that the Mesopotamian troops who were summoned to help were under
the supreme ruler of Hadarezer. This is placed beyond all possible doubt by v.
19, where the kings who had fought with Hadarezer against the Israelites are
called his servants, or vassals. LFYX
wJBOyFWA (v. 16) might be translated and
their army came; but when we compare with this the HMFJLFX
JBOyFWA of v. 17,
we are compelled to render it as a proper name (as in the Septuagint, Chaldee,
Syriac, and Arabic) and they (the men from beyond the Euphrates) came
(marched) to Helam and to take LFYX
as a contracted form of JLFX
. The
situation of this place has not yet been discovered. Ewald supposes it to be
connected with the Syrian town Alamatha upon the Euphrates (Ptol. Geogr. v.

15); but this is not to be thought of for a moment, if only because it cannot be
supposed that the Aramaeans would fall back to the Euphrates, and wait for the
Israelites to follow them thither before they gave them battle; and also on
account of 2Sa. 8: 4 and 1Ch. 18: 3, from which it is evident that Helam is to
be sought for somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hamath (see p. 608). For
HMFJLFX
JBOyFWA we find HEYL
J JBOyFWA, David came to them (The Aramaeans),
in the Chronicles: so that the author of the Chronicles has omitted the unknown
place, unless indeed HEYL
J has been written by mistake for JLFX
.

2Sa. 10:17ff. David went with all Israel (all the Israelitish forces) against the
foe, and smote the Aramaeans at Helam, where they had placed themselves in
battle array, slaying seven hundred charioteers and forty thousand horsemen,
and so smiting (or wounding) the general Shobach that he died there, i.e., that
he did not survive the battle (Thenius). With regard to the different account
given in the corresponding text of the Chronicles as to the number of the slain,
see the remarks on v. 6 (pp. 619f.). It is a fact worthy of notice, that the number
of men who fell in the battle (seven hundred receb and forty thousand
parashim, according to the text before us; seven thousand receb and forty
thousand ragli, according to the Chronicles) agrees quite as well with the
number of Aramaeans reported to be taken prisoners or slain, according to
2Sa. 8: 4 and 1Ch. 18: 4, 5 (viz., seventeen hundred parashim or a thousand
receb, and seven thousand parashim and twenty thousand ragli of Aram-Zoba,
and twenty-two thousand of Aram-Damascus), as could possibly be expected
considering the notorious corruption in the numbers as we possess them; so that
there is scarcely any doubt that the number of Aramaeans who fell was the same
in both accounts (2Sa. 8 and 10), and that in the chapter before us we have
simply a more circumstantial account of the very same war of which the result is
given in 2Sa. 8 and 1Ch. 13.

2Sa. 10:19.
And when all the kings, the vassals of Hadarezer, saw that they were smitten
before Israel, they made peace with Israel, and became subject to them; and Aram
was afraid to render any further help to the Ammonites.

It might appear from the first half of this verse, that it was only the vassals of
Hadarezer who made peace with Israel, and became subject to it, and that
Hadarezer himself did not. But the last clause, and the Aramaeans were
afraid, etc., shows very clearly that Hadarezer also made peace with the
Israelites, and submitted to their rule; so that the expression in the first half of
the verse is not a very exact one.

Siege of Rabbah. Davids Adultery. Ch. 11.

2Sa. 11: 1. (cf. 1Ch. 20: 1). SIEGE OF RABBAH.

And it came to pass at the return of the year, at the time when the kings marched
out, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they
destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah: but David remained in Jerusalem.

This verse is connected with 2Sa. 10:14, where it was stated that after Joab had
put to flight the Aramaeans who came to the help of the Ammonites, and when
the Ammonites also had fallen back before Abishai in consequence of this
victory, and retreated into their fortified capital, Joab himself returned to
Jerusalem. He remained there during the winter or rainy season, in which it was
impossible that war should be carried on. At the return of the year, i.e., at the
commencement of spring, with which the new years began in the month Abib
(Nisan), the time when kings who were engaged in war were accustomed to
open their campaign, David sent Joab his commander-in-chief with the whole of
the Israelitish forces to attack the Ammonites once more, for the purpose of
chastising them and conquering their capital. The Chethibh YKIJLFmiHA should
be changed into YKILFmiH,A according to the Keri and the text of the Chronicles.
The J interpolated is a perfectly superfluous mater lectionis, and probably crept
into the text from a simple oversight. The servants of David with Joab were
not the men performing military service, or soldiers, (in which case all Israel
could only signify the people called out to war in extraordinary circumstances),
but the kings military officers, the military commanders; and all Israel, the
whole of the military forces of Israel. Instead of the children of Ammon we
find the country of the children of Ammon, which explains the meaning more
fully. But there was no necessity to insert REJE (the land or country), as TYXIiHI
is applied to men in other passages in the sense of cast to the ground, or
destroy (e.g., 1Sa. 26:15). Rabbah was the capital of Ammonitis (as in
Jos. 13:25): the fuller name was Rabbath of the children of Ammon. It has been
preserved in the ruins which still exist under the ancient name of RabbatAmman, on the Nahr Amman, i.e., the upper Jabbok (see at Deu. 3:11). The
last clause, but David sat (remained) in Jerusalem, leads on to the account
which follows of Davids adultery with Bathsheba (vv. 2-27 and 2Sa. 12: 1-25),
which took place at that time, and is therefore inserted here, so that the
conquest of Rabbah is not related till afterwards (2Sa. 12:26-31).

2Sa. 11: 2-27. DAVIDS ADULTERY. Davids deep fall forms a turningpoint not only in the inner life of the great king, but also in the history of his
reign. Hitherto David had kept free from the grosser sins, and had only
exhibited such infirmities and failings as simulation, prevarication, etc., which
clung to all the saints of the Old Covenant, and were hardly regarded as sins in
the existing stage of religious culture at that time, although God never left them
unpunished, but invariably visited them upon His servants with humiliations and

chastisements of various kinds. Among the unacknowledged sins which God

tolerated because of the hardness of Israels heart was polygamy, which
encouraged licentiousness and the tendency to sensual excesses, and to which
but a weak barrier had been presented by the warning that had been given for
the Israelitish kings against taking many wives (Deu. 17:17), opposed as such a
warning was to the notion so prevalent in the East both in ancient and modern
times, that a well-filled harem is essential to the splendour of a princely court.
The custom to which this notion gave rise opened a dangerous precipice in
Davids way, and led to a most grievous fall, that can only be explained, as O.
v. Gerlach has said, from the intoxication consequent upon undisturbed
prosperity and power, which grew with every year of his reign, and occasioned
a long series of most severe humiliations and divine chastisements that marred
the splendour of his reign, notwithstanding the fact that the great sin was
followed by deep and sincere repentance.

2Sa. 11: 2-5. Towards evening David walked upon the roof of his palace,
after rising from his couch, i.e., after taking his mid-day rest, and saw from the
roof a woman bathing, namely in the uncovered court of a neighbouring house,
where there was a spring with a pool of water, such as you still frequently meet
with in the East. The woman was beautiful to look upon. Her outward
charms excited sensual desires.

2Sa. 11: 3. David ordered inquiry to be made about her, and found (RMEJyOW,A
he, i.e., the messenger, said; or indefinitely, they said) that she was
Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hethite. JWLOH, nonne, is used, as it frequently
is, in the sense of an affirmation, it is indeed so. Instead of Bathsheba the
daughter of Eliam, we find the name given in the Chronicles (1Ch. 3: 5) as
Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel. The form AwTbA may be derived from
WAETbA, in which B is softened into W; for Bathsheba (with beth) is the correct
and original form, as we may see from 1Ki. 1:11, 15, 28. Eliam and Ammiel
have the same signification; the difference simply consists in the transposition of
the component parts of the name. It is impossible to determine, however, which
of the two forms was the original one.

2Sa. 11: 4. The information brought to him, that the beautiful woman was
married, was not enough to stifle the sensual desires which arose in Davids
soul. When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin (Jam. 1:15). David sent
for the woman, and lay with her. In the expression he took her, and she came
to him, there is no intimation whatever that David brought Bathsheba into his
palace through craft or violence, but rather that she came at his request without
any hesitation, and offered no resistance to his desires. Consequently Bathsheba
is not to be regarded as free from blame. The very act of bathing in the

uncovered court of a house in the heart of the city, into which it was possible
for any one to look down from the roofs of the houses on higher ground, does
not say much for her feminine modesty, even if it was not done with an ulterior
purpose, as some commentators suppose. Nevertheless in any case the greatest
guilt rests upon David, that he, a man upon whom the Lord had bestowed such
grace, did not resist the temptation to the lust of the flesh, but sent to fetch the
woman. When she had sanctified herself from her uncleanness, she returned
to her house. Defilement from sexual intercourse rendered unclean till the
evening (Lev. 15:18). Bathsheba thought it her duty to observe this statute
most scrupulously, though she did not shrink from committing the sin of
adultery.

2Sa. 11: 5. When she discovered that she was with child, she sent word to
David. This involved an appeal to him to take the necessary steps to avert the
evil consequences of the sin, inasmuch as the law required that both adulterer
and adulteress should be put to death (Lev. 20:10).

2Sa. 11: 6-13. David had Uriah the husband of Bathsheba sent to him by
Joab, under whom he was serving in the army before Rabbah, upon some
pretext or other, and asked him as soon as he arrived how it fared with Joab and
the people (i.e., the army) and the war. This was probably the pretext under
which David had had him sent to him. According to 2Sa. 23:39, Uriah was one
of the gibborim (mighty men) of David, and therefore held some post of
command in the army, although there is no historical foundation for the
statement made by Josephus, viz., that he was Joabs armour-bearer or aide-decamp. The king then said to him, Go down to thy house (from the palace upon
Mount Zion down to the lower city, where Uriahs house was situated), and
wash thy feet; and when he had gone out of the palace, he sent a royal present
after him. The Israelites were accustomed to wash their feet when they returned
home from work or from a journey, to take refreshment and rest themselves.
Consequently these words contained an intimation that he was to go and refresh
himself in his own home. Davids wish was that Uriah should spend a night at
home with his wife, that he might afterwards be regarded as the father of the
child that had been begotten in adultery. TJ
viMA , a present, as in Amo. 5:11,
Jer. 50: 4, Est. 2:18.

2Sa. 11: 9. But Uriah had his suspicions aroused. The connection between his
wife and David may not have remained altogether a secret, so that it may have
reached his ears as soon as he arrived in Jerusalem. He lay down to sleep
before the kings house with all the servants of his lord (i.e., the retainers of the
court), and went not down to his house. Before, or at, the door of the kings

house, i.e., in the court of the palace, or in a building adjoining the kings
palace, where the court servants lived.

2Sa. 11:10. When this was told to David (the next morning), he said to Uriah,
Didst thou not come from the way (i.e., from a journey)? why didst thou not
go down (as men generally do when they return from a journey)? Uriah replied
(v. 11),
The ark (ark of the covenant), and Israel, and Judah, dwell in the huts, and my
lord Joab and the servants of my lord encamp in the field; and should I go to my
house to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? By thy life, and by the life of thy
soul, I do no such thing!

TWkOsUbA BAY,F to sit or sojourn in huts, is the same practically as being encamped
in the field. Uriah meant to say: Whereas the ark, i.e., Jehovah with the ark, and
all Israel, were engaged in conflict with the enemies of God and of His
kingdom, and therefore encamped in the open country, it did not become a
warrior to seek rest and pleasure in his own home. This answer expressed the
feelings and the consciousness of duty which ought to animate one who was
fighting for the cause of God, in such plain and unmistakeable terms, that it was
well adapted to prick the king to the heart. But Davids soul was so beclouded
by the wish to keep clear of the consequences of his sin in the eyes of the world,
that he did not feel the sting, but simply made a still further attempt to attain his
purpose with Uriah. He commanded him to stop in Jerusalem all that day, as he
did not intend to send him away till the morrow.

2Sa. 11:13. The next day he invited him to his table and made him drunken,
with the hope that when in this state he would give up his intention of not going
home to his wife. But Uriah lay down again the next night to sleep with the
kings servants, without going down to his house; for, according to the counsel
and providence of God, Davids sin was to be brought to lift to his deep
humiliation.

2Sa. 11:14-27. When the king saw that his plan was frustrated through
Uriahs obstinacy, he resolved upon a fresh and still greater crime. He wrote a
letter to Joab, with which he sent Uriah back to the army, and the contents of
which were these: Set ye Uriah opposite to the strongest contest, and then turn
away behind him, that he may be slain, and die.f19
David was so sure that his orders would be executed, that he did not think it
necessary to specify any particular crime of which Uriah had been guilty.

2Sa. 11:16. The kings wishes were fully carried out by Joab. When Joab
watched (i.e., blockaded) the city, he stationed Uriah just where he knew that
there were brave men (in the city).

2Sa. 11:17.
And the men of the city came out (i.e., made a sally) and fought with Joab, and
some of the people of the servants of David fell, and Uriah the Hethite died also.

The literal fulfilment of the kings command does not warrant us in assuming
that Joab suspected how the matter stood, or had heard a rumour concerning it.
As a general, who was not accustomed to spare human life, he would be a
faithful servant of his lord in this point, in order that his own interests might be
served another time.

2Sa. 11:18-21. Joab immediately despatched a messenger to the king, to give

him a report of the events of the war, and with these instructions: When thou
hast told all the things of the war to the king to the end, in case the anger of the
king should be excited (HLE t,A ascend), and he should say to thee, Why did ye
advance so near to the city to fight? knew ye not that they would shoot from
the wall? Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbosheth (i.e., Gideon, see at
Jud. 6:32)? did not a woman throw down a millstone from the wall, that he died
in Thebez (Jud. 9:53)? why went ye so nigh to the wall? then only say, Thy
servant Uriah the Hethite has perished. Joab assumed that David might
possibly be angry at what had occurred, or at any rate that he might express his
displeasure at the fact that Joab had sacrificed a number of warriors by
imprudently approaching close to the wall: he therefore instructed the
messenger, if such should be the case, to announce Uriahs death to the king,
for the purpose of mitigating his wrath. The messenger seems to have known
that Uriah was in disgrace with the king. At the same time, the words thy
servant Uriah is dead also might be understood or interpreted as meaning that
it was without, or even in opposition to, Joabs command, that Uriah went so
far with his men, and that he was therefore chargeable with his own death and
that of the other warriors who had fallen.

2Sa. 11:22ff. The messenger brought to David all the information with which

Joab had charged him (XLAF with a double accusative, to send or charge a
person with anything), but he so far condensed it as to mention Uriahs death at
the same time. When the men (of Rabbah) became strong against us, and came
out to us into the field, and we prevailed against them even to the gate, the
archers shot at thy servants down from the wall, so that some of the servants of
the king died, and thy servant Uriah the Hethite is dead also. The J in the
forms YJIRIWmOHA wJRiyOWA instead of YRIWmOHA wRyOWA is an Aramaic mode of writing
the words.

2Sa. 11:25. David received with apparent composure the intelligence which
he was naturally so anxious to hear, and sent this message back to Joab:

Let not this thing depress thee, for the sword devours thus and thus. Keep on with
the battle against the city, and destroy it.

The construction of RAY

LJA with TJ
obj. is analogous to the combination of a
passive verb with TJ
: Do not look upon this affair as evil (disastrous). David
then sent the messenger away, saying, Encourage thou him (lit. strengthen
him, put courage into him), to show his entire confidence in the bravery and
stedfastness of Joab and the army, and their ultimate success in the capture of
Rabbah. In v. 26 the account goes back to its starting-point. When Uriahs
wife heard of her husbands death, she mourned for her husband. When her
mourning was over, David took her home as his wife, after which she bore him
a son (the one begotten in adultery). The ordinary mourning of the Israelites
lasted seven days (Gen. 50:10; 1Sa. 31:13). Whether widows mourned any
longer we do not know. In the case before us Bathsheba would hardly prolong
her mourning beyond the ordinary period, and David would certainly not delay
taking her as his wife, in order that she might be married to the king as long as
possible before the time of childbirth. The account of these two grievous sins on
the part of David is then closed with the assurance that the thing that David
had done displeased the Lord, which prepares the way for the following
chapter.

Nathans Reproof and Davids Repentance. Conquest of

Rabbah. Ch. 12.
2Sa. 12. The Lord left David almost a whole year in his sin, before sending a
prophet to charge the haughty sinner with his misdeeds, and to announce the
punishment that would follow. He did this at length through Nathan, but not till
after the birth of Bathshebas child, that had been begotten in adultery (compare
vv. 14, 15 with 2Sa. 11:27). Not only was the fruit of the sin to be first of all
brought to light, and the hardened sinner to be deprived of the possibility of
either denying or concealing his crimes, but God would first of all break his
unbroken heart by the torture of his own conscience, and prepare it to feel the
reproaches of His prophet. The reason for this delay on the part of God in the
threatening of judgment is set forth very clearly in Psa. 32, where David
describes most vividly the state of his heart during this period, and the
sufferings that he endured as long as he was trying to conceal his crime. And
whilst in this Psalm he extols the blessedness of a pardoned sinner, and
admonishes all who fear God, on the ground of his own inmost experience after
his soul had tasted once more the joy and confidence arising from the full
forgiveness of his iniquities; in the fifty-first Psalm, which was composed after
Nathan had been to him, he shows clearly enough that the promise of divine
forgiveness, which the prophet had given him in consequence of his confession
of his guilt, did not take immediate possession of his soul, but simply kept him

from despair at first, and gave him strength to attain to a thorough knowledge
of the depth of his guilt through prayer and supplication, and to pray for its
entire removal, that his heart might be renewed and fortified through the Holy
Ghost. But Nathans reproof could not possibly have borne this saving fruit, if
David had still been living in utter blindness as to the character of his sin at the
time when the prophet went to him.

2Sa. 12: 1-14. NATHANS REPROOF. Vv. 1ff. To ensure the success of his
mission, viz., to charge the king with his crimes, Nathan resorted to a parable
by which he led on the king to pronounce sentence of death upon himself. The
parable is a very simple one, and drawn from life. Two men were living in a
certain city: the one was rich, and had many sheep and oxen; the other was
poor, and possessed nothing at all but one small lamb which he had bought and
nourished (HFyEXAYi , lit. kept alive), so that it grew up in his house along with his
son, and was treated most tenderly and loved like a daughter. The custom of
keeping pet-sheep in the house, as we keep lap-dogs, is still met with among the
Arabs (vid., Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 594). There came a traveller (LEH
,a
journey, for a traveller) to the rich man (YJILi without an article, the express
definition being introduced afterwards in connection with the adjective RYIFHE;
vid., Ewald, 293a, p. 741), and he grudged to take of his own sheep and oxen
to prepare (sc., a meal) for the traveller who had come to his house; and he
took the poor mans lamb, and dressed it for the man that had come to him.

2Sa. 12: 5, 6. David was so enraged at this act of violence on the part of the
rich man, that in the heat of his anger he pronounced this sentence at once: As
the Lord liveth, the man who did this deserves to die; and the lamb he shall
restore fourfold. The fourfold restoration corresponds to the law in
Exo. 21:37. The culprit himself was also to be put to death, because the forcible
robbery of a poor mans pet-lamb was almost as bad as man-stealing.

2Sa. 12: 7ff. The parable was so selected that David could not suspect that it
had reference to him and to his son. With all the greater shock therefore did the
words of the prophet, Thou art the man, come upon the king. Just as in the
parable the sin is traced to its root namely, insatiable covetousness so
now, in the words of Jehovah which follow, and in which the prophet charges
the king directly with his crime, he brings out again in the most unsparing
manner this hidden background of all sins, for the purpose of bringing
thoroughly home to his heart the greatness of his iniquity, and the
condemnation it deserved. Jehovah the God of Israel hath said, I anointed
thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave
thee thy masters house and thy masters wives into thy bosom. These words
refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king

died, his successor upon the throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David
was at liberty to take his predecessors wives; though we cannot infer from this
that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, since, according to
1Sa. 14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2Sa. 3: 7 only one
concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself. And gave thee the house of
Israel and Judah; i.e., I handed over the whole nation to thee as king, so that
thou couldst have chosen young virgins as wives from all the daughters of
Judah and Israel. AMi JIWi , and if (all this was) too little, I would have added
to thee this and that.

2Sa. 12: 9.
Why hast thou despised the word of Jehovah, to do evil in His eyes? Thou hast
slain Uriah the Hethite with the sword, and taken his wife to be thy wife, and slain
him with the sword of the Ammonites.

The last clause does not contain any tautology, but serves to strengthen the
thought by defining more sharply the manner in which David destroyed Uriah.
GRAHF, to murder, is stronger than HkFHI; and the fact that it was by the sword of
the Ammonites, the enemies of the people of God, that the deed was done,
added to the wickedness.

2Sa. 12:10-12. The punishment answers to the sin. There is first of all (v. 10)
the punishment for the murder of Uriah: The sword shall not depart from thy
house for ever, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife, etc.
For ever must not be toned down to the indefinite idea of a long period, but
must be held firmly in its literal signification. the expression thy house,
however, does not refer to the house of David as continued in his descendants,
but simply as existing under David himself until it was broken up by his death.
The fulfilment of this threat commenced with the murder of Amnon by Absalom
(2Sa. 13:29); it was continued in the death of Absalom the rebel (2Sa. 18:14),
and was consummated in the execution of Adonijah (1Ki. 2:24, 25).

2Sa. 12:11, 12. But David had also sinned in committing adultery. It was
therefore announced to him by Jehovah,
Behold, I raise up mischief over thee out of thine own house, and will take thy
wives before thine eyes, and give them to thy neighbour, that he may lie with thy
wives before the eyes of this sun (for the fulfilment of this by Absalom, see
2Sa. 16:21, 22). For thou hast done it in secret; but I will do this thing before all
Israel, and before (in the face of) the sun.

Davids twofold sin was to be followed by a twofold punishment. For his

murder he would have to witness the commission of murder in his own family,
and for his adultery the violation of his wives, and both of them in an intensified

form. As his sin began with adultery, and was consummated in murder, so the
law of just retribution was also carried out in the punishment, in the fact that the
judgments which fell upon his house commenced with Amnons incest, whilst
Absaloms rebellion culminated in the open violation of his fathers concubines,
and even Adonijah lost his life, simply because he asked for Abishag the
Shunammite, who had lain in Davids bosom to warm and cherish him in his old
age (1Ki. 2:23, 24).

2Sa. 12:13. These words went to Davids heart, and removed the ban of
hardening which pressed upon it. He confessed to the prophet, I have sinned
against the Lord. The words are very few, just as in the case of the publican
in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 18:13). But that is a good sign of a thoroughly
broken spirit.... There is no excuse, no cloaking, no palliation of the sin. There
is no searching for a loophole,...no pretext put forward, no human weakness
pleaded. He acknowledges his guilt openly, candidly, and without
prevarication (Berleb. Bible). In response to this candid confession of his sin,
Nathan announced to him,
The Lord also hath let thy sin pass by (i.e., forgiven it). Thou wilt not die. Only
because by this deed thou hast given the enemies of the Lord occasion to blaspheme,
the son that is born unto thee shall die.

J
N,I inf. abs. Piel, with chirek, because of its similarity in sound to the
following perfect (see Ewald, 240, c.). gA, with which the apodosis
commences, belongs to the b
HA which follows, and serves to give emphasis to
the expression: Nevertheless the son (vid., Ges. 155, 2, a.). David himself
had deserved to die as an adulterer and murderer. The Lord remitted the
punishment of death, not so much because of his heartfelt repentance, as from
His own fatherly grace and compassion, and because of the promise that He had
given to David (2Sa. 7:11, 12), a promise which rested upon the assumption
that David would not altogether fall away from a state of grace, or commit a
mortal sin, but that even in the worst cases he would turn to the Lord again and
seek forgiveness. The Lord therefore punished him for this sin with the
judgments announced in vv. 10-12, as about to break upon him and his house.
But as his sin had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord i.e., not only to
the heathen, but also to the unbelieving among the Israelites themselves to
blaspheme or ridicule his religion and that of all other believers also, the child
that was begotten in adultery and had just been born should die; in order, on the
one hand, that the father should atone for his adultery in the death of the son,
and, on the other hand, that the visible occasion for any further blasphemy
should be taken away: so that David was not only to feel the pain of punishment
in the death of his son, but was also to discern in it a distinct token of the grace
of God.

2Sa. 12:15-25. DAVIDS PENITENTIAL GRIEF, AND T HE BIRTH OF SOLOMON.

V. 15. The last-mentioned punishment was inflicted without delay. When
Nathan had gone home, the Lord smote the child, so that it became very ill.

2Sa. 12:16, 17. Then David sought God (in prayer) for the boy, and fasted,
and went and lay all night upon the earth. JBFw, he came, not into the
sanctuary of the Lord (v. 20 is proof to the contrary), but into his house, or into
his chamber, to pour out his heart before God, and bend beneath His chastising
hand, and refused the appeal of his most confidential servants, who tried to
raise him up, and strengthen him with food. The elders of his house, judging
from Gen. 24: 2, were the oldest and most confidential servants, the most
highly honoured of his servants, and those who had the greatest influence with
him (Clericus).

2Sa. 12:18. On the seventh day, when the child died, the servants of David
were afraid to tell him of its death; for they said (to one another), Behold,
while the child was still living, we spoke to him, and he did not hearken to our
voice; how should we say to him, now the child is dead, that he should do
harm? (i.e., do himself an injury in the depth of his anguish.)

2Sa. 12:19, 20. David saw at once what had happened from their whispering
conversation, and asked whether the child was dead. When they answered in the
affirmative, he rose up from the ground, washed and anointed himself, and
changed his clothes; that is to say, he laid aside all the signs of penitential grief
and mourning, went into the house of the Lord (the holy tent upon Mount Zion)
and worshipped, and then returned to his house, and had food set before him.

2Sa. 12:21ff. When his servants expressed their astonishment at all this,
David replied,
As long as the boy lived, I fasted and wept: for I thought (said), Perhaps (who
knows) the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may remain alive. But now he
is dead, why should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will
not return to me.

On this O. v. Gerlach has the following admirable remarks: In the case of a

man whose penitence was so earnest and so deep, the prayer for the
preservation of his child must have sprung from some other source than
excessive love of any created object. His great desire was to avert the stroke, as
a sign of the wrath of God, in the hope that he might be able to discern, in the
preservation of the child, a proof of divine favour consequent upon the
restoration of his fellowship with God. But when the child was dead, he
humbled himself under the mighty hand of God, and rested satisfied with His
grace, without giving himself up to fruitless pain. This state of mind is fully

explained in Psa. 51, though his servants could not comprehend it. The form
YNnXY is the imperfect Kal, YNIn
XFYi according to the Chethibh, though the
Masoretes have substituted as the Keri YNInAXAWi, the perfect with vav consec.

2Sa. 12:23b.. V. 23b is paraphrased very correctly by Clericus: I shall go to

the dead, the dead will not come to me. V. 24. David then comforted his
wife Bathsheba, and lived with her again; and she bare a son, whom he called
Solomon, the man of peace (cf. 1Ch. 22: 9). David gave the child this name,
because he regarded his birth as a pledge that he should now become a partaker
again of peace with God, and not from any reference to the fact that the war
with the Ammonites was over, and peace prevailed when he was born; although
in all probability Solomon was not born till after the capture of Rabbah and the
termination of the Ammonitish war. His birth is mentioned here simply because
of its connection with what immediately precedes. The writer adds (in vv. 24,
25), And Jehovah loved him, and sent by the hand (through the medium) of
Nathan the prophet; and he called his son Jedidiah (i.e., beloved of Jehovah),
for Jehovahs sake. The subject to XLAiyIWA (he sent) cannot be David, because
this would not yield any appropriate sense, but must be Jehovah, the subject of
the clause immediately preceding. To send by the hand, i.e., to make a
mission by a person (vid., Exo. 4:13, etc.), is equivalent to having a commission
performed by a person, or entrusting a person with a commission to another.
We learn from what follows, in what the commission with which Jehovah
entrusted Nathan consisted: And he (Nathan, not Jehovah) called his (the
boys) name Jedidiah. And if Nathan is the subject to called, there is
nothing to astonish in the expression because of the Lord. The idea is this:
Nathan came to David according to Jehovahs instructions, and gave Solomon
the name Jedidiah for Jehovahs sake, i.e., because Jehovah loved him. The
giving of such a name was a practical declaration on the part of Jehovah that He
loved Solomon, from which David could and was intended to discern that the
Lord had blessed his marriage with Bathsheba. Jedidiah, therefore, was not
actually adopted as Solomons name.

2Sa. 12:26-31. CONQUEST OF RABBAH, AND PUNISHMENT OF THE

AMMONITES (comp. 1Ch. 20: 1-3). Joab fought against Rabbah of the
children of Ammon, and took the kings city. HKFwLmiHA RYI, the capital of the
kingdom, is the city with the exception of the acropolis, as v. 27 clearly shows,
where the captured city is called the water-city. Rabbah was situated, as the
ruins of Amman show, on both banks of the river (Moiet) Amman (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 ii. pp. 612ff., and Ritter, Erdkunde 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 (i.e., the acropolis, which may have been peculiarly strong), and
take it, that I may not take the city (also), and my name be named upon it,
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.

2Sa. 12:29. Accordingly David gathered together all the people, i.e.,
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, and fought against the
acropolis, and took it.

2Sa. 12:30. He then took their kings crown (their king, viz., the king of
the Ammonites) from off his (the kings) head; so that he had either been taken
prisoner or slain at the capture of the city. The weight of the crown was a
talent of gold, and precious stones (sc., were upon it): as the writer of the
Chronicles has correctly explained it by supplying hbF. The Hebrew talent
(equal to 3000 shekels) was 83 1/2 Dresden pounds. But the strongest man
could hardly have borne a crown of this weight upon his head for however short
a time; and David could scarcely have placed it upon his own head. We must
therefore assume that the account of the weight is not founded upon actual
weighing, but simply upon an approximative estimate, which is somewhat too
high. David also took a great quantity of booty out of the city.

2Sa. 12:31. He also had the inhabitants executed, and that with cruel tortures.

He sawed them in pieces with the saw and with iron harrows. HRFG
mibA VEyFW,A
he put them into the saw, does not give any appropriate sense; and there can
be no doubt, that instead of VYW we should read RVAyFWA (from RwV): he cut
(sawed) them in pieces. LZERibAHA TROZiGiMABiw , and with iron cutting tools. The
meaning of the ap . leg. TWROZiGiMA cannot be more precisely determined. The
current rendering, axes or hatchets, is simply founded upon the circumstance
that RZAg,F to cut, is applied in 2Ki. 6: 4 to the felling of trees. The reading in the
Chronicles, TWROG
miBAw , is evidently a copyists error, as we have already had
HRFG
mib,A with the saw. The meaning of the next clause is a disputed point, as
the reading itself varies, and the Masoretes read b
LiMAbA instead of the Chethibh
KLMB, he made them go through brick-kilns, i.e., burnt them in brick-kilns,
as the LXX and Vulgate render it. On the other hand, Thenius takes the
Chethibh under his protection, and adopts Kimchis explanation: he led them
through Malchan, i.e., through the place where the Ammonites burned their

children in honour of their idol. Thenius would therefore alter kFLiMAbi into
kFLiMAbi or kOLimIbA: he offered them as sacrifices in their image of Moloch.
But this explanation cannot be even grammatically sustained, to say nothing of
the arbitrary character of the alteration proposed; for the technical expression
LEmOLA J
bF RYBI HE, to cause to go through the fire for Moloch
(Lev. 18:21), is essentially different from LEmObA RYBI HE, to cause to pass
through Moloch, an expression that we never meet with. Moreover, it is
impossible to see how burning the Ammonites in the image of Moloch could
possibly be an obvious mode of punishing idolatry, since the idolatry itself
consisted in the fact that the Ammonites burned their children to Moloch. So far
as the circumstances themselves are concerned, the cruelties inflicted upon the
prisoners are not to be softened down, as Daaz and others propose, by an
arbitrary perversion of the words into a mere sentence to hard labour, such as
sawing wood, burning bricks, etc. At the same time, the words of the text do
not affirm that all the inhabitants of Rabbah were put to death in this cruel
manner. hbF REJ FHF (without LkO) refers no doubt simply to the fighting men
that were taken prisoners, or at the most to the male population of the acropolis
of Rabbah, who probably consisted of fighting men only. In doing this, David
merely retaliated upon the Ammonites the cruelties with which they had treated
their foes; since according to Amo. 1:13 they ripped up women who were with
child, and according to 1Sa. 11: 2 their king Nahash would only make peace
with the inhabitants of Jabesh upon the condition that the right eye of every one
of them should be put out. It is sufficiently evident from this, that the
Ammonites had aimed at the most shameful extermination of the Israelites.
Thus did he unto all the cities of the Ammonites, i.e., to all the fortified cities
that resisted the Israelites. After the close of this war, David returned to
Jerusalem with all the men of war. The war with the Syrians and Ammonites,
including as it did the Edomitish war as well, was the fiercest in which David
was ever engaged, and was also the last great war of his life.

Amnons Incest, and Absaloms Fratricide. Ch. 13.

2Sa. 13. The judgments threatened to king David in consequence of his sin
with Bathsheba soon began to fall upon him and upon his house, and were
brought about by sins and crimes on the part of his own sons, for which David
was himself to blame, partly because of his own indulgence and want of
discipline, and partly because of the bad example that he had set them. Having
grown up without strict paternal discipline, simply under the care of their
different mothers, who were jealous of one another, his sons fancied that they
might gratify their own fleshly lusts, and carry out their own ambitious plans;
and from this there arose a series of crimes, which nearly cost the king his life

and throne. Amnon, Davids eldest son, led the way with his forcible violation
of his step-sister Tamar (vv. 1-22). The crime was avenged by her own brother
Absalom, who treacherously assassinated Amnon, in consequence of which he
was obliged to flee to Geshur and take refuge with his father-in-law (vv. 2339).

2Sa. 13: 1-22. AMNON S I NCEST. Vv. 1-14. The following occurrences are
assigned in a general manner to the times succeeding the Ammonitish war, by
the words And it came to pass after this; and as David did not marry Maacah
the mother of Absalom and Tamar till after he had been made king at Hebron
(see 2Sa. 3: 3), they cannot well have taken place before the twentieth year of
his reign. Amnon, the eldest son of David by Ahinoam the Jezreelite (2Sa. 3: 2),
loved Tamar, the beautiful sister of his step-brother Absalom, so passionately
that he became ill in consequence, because he could not get near to her as she
was a virgin. Vv. 1 and 2 form one period. RCEy
WA is a continuation of K
YR
XJA
YHIYiW;A and the words from WLOFBiJALiw to DWIdFbE are a circumstantial clause.
RCEY
WA: literally it became narrow (anxious) to Amnon, even to making himself
ill, i.e., he quite pined away, not he pretended to be ill (Luther), for it was
not till afterwards that he did this according to Jonadabs advice (v. 5).
TWlOXATiH:I to make ones self ill, here to become ill, in v. 5 to pretend to be ill.
The clause JYHI HLFwTBi YkI is to be joined to the one which follows: because
she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible to him to do anything to her. The
maidenly modesty of Tamar evidently raised an insuperable barrier to the
gratification of his lusts.

2Sa. 13: 3-5. Amnons miserable appearance was observed by his cousin
Jonadab, a very crafty man, who asked him what was the reason, and then gave
him advice as to the way in which he might succeed in gratifying his desires.
Shimeah is called Shammah in 1Sa. 16: 9.

2Sa. 13: 4. Why art thou so wasting away (LdA , thin, spare, here equivalent
to wasting away, looking miserable), kings son, from morning to morning?
i.e., day by day. The morning is mentioned because sick persons look worst in
the morning. The advice given in v. 5, viz., Lay thee down upon thy bed,
and pretend to be ill; and when thy father comes to visit thee, say to him, May
my sister Tamar come to me, and give me to eat? etc., was very craftily
devised, as Amnons wretched appearance would favour his pretence that he
was ill, and it might be hoped that an affectionate father would gratify him,
since even if the wish seemed a strange one, it might easily be accounted for
from the marvellous desires of persons who are ill, particularly with regard to
food, desires which it is often very difficulty to gratify.

2Sa. 13: 6ff. Amnon acted upon the advice, and begged his father, when he
came to ask him how he was, to allow his sister Tamar to come and bake two
heart-cakes for him before his eyes, which she very speedily did. Bb
LI is a
denom. from TWBOBILi, to make or bake heart-cakes. TWBOBILi is a heartstrengthening kind of pastry, a kind of pancake, which could be very quickly
made. It is evident from these verses that the kings children lived in different
houses. Probably each of the kings wives lived with her children in one
particular compartment of the palace.

2Sa. 13: 9ff. And she took the pan and shook out (what she had prepared)

before him. The ap . leg. TR

ViMA signifies a frying-pan or sauce-pan, according
to the ancient versions. The etymology is uncertain. But Amnon refused to eat,
and, like a whimsical patient, he then ordered all the men that were with him to
go out; and when this had been done, he told Tamar to bring the food into the
chamber, that he might eat it from her hand; and when she handed him the food,
he laid hold of her, and said, Come, lie with me, my sister!

2Sa. 13:12, 13. Tamar attempted to escape by pointing to the wickedness of

such a desire: Pray, do not, my brother, do not humble me; for they do not
such things in Israel: do not this folly. The words recall Gen. 34: 7, where the
expression folly (nebalah) is first used to denote a want of chastity. Such a
sin was altogether out of keeping with the calling and holiness of Israel (vid.,
Lev. 20: 8ff.). And I, whither should I carry my shame? i.e., shame and
contempt would meet me everywhere. And thou wouldst be as one of the fools
in Israel. We should both of us reap nothing but shame from it. What Tamar
still further said, Now therefore, I pray thee, speak to the king, for he will not
refuse me to thee, is no doubt at variance with the law which prohibits
marriage between step-brothers and sisters (Lev. 18: 9, 11; 20:17); but it by no
means proves that the laws of Leviticus were not in existence at the time, nor
does it even presuppose that Tamar was ignorant of any such law. She simply
said this, as Clericus observes, that she might escape from his hands by any
means in her power, and to avoid inflaming him still more and driving him to sin
by precluding all hope of marriage.f20
We cannot therefore even infer from these words of hers, that she really
thought the king could grant a dispensation from the existing hindrances to their
marriage.

2Sa. 13:14. Amnon would not listen to her, however, but overpowered her,
forced her, and lay with her.

2Sa. 13:15-22. Amnon had no sooner gratified his animal passion, than his
love to the humbled sister turned into hatred, which was even greater than his

(previous) love, so that he commanded her to get up and go. This sudden
change, which may be fully explained from a psychological point of view, and is
frequently exemplified still in actual life, furnishes a striking proof that lust is
not love, but simply the gratification of the animal passions.

2Sa. 13:16. Tamar replied, Do not become the cause of this great evil,
(which is) greater than another that thou hast done to me, to thrust me away,
i.e., do not add to the great wrong which thou hast done me the still greater one
of thrusting me away. This is apparently the only admissible explanation of the
difficult expression TDOWJOLJA, as nothing more is needed than to supply YHIt.i
Tamar calls his sending her away a greater evil than the one already done to her,
because it would inevitably be supposed that she had been guilty of some
shameful conduct herself, that the seduction had come from her; whereas she
was perfectly innocent, and had done nothing but what affection towards a sick
brother dictated, whilst it was impossible for her to call for help (as prescribed
in Deu. 22:27), because Amnon had sent the servants away, and Tamar could
not in any case expect assistance from them.

2Sa. 13:17. Amnon then called the boy who waited upon him, and ordered
him to put out this person (the sister he had humbled), and to bolt the door
behind her, so that it had the appearance of her having made a shameful
proposal to him.

2Sa. 13:18. Before stating that this command was obeyed, the writer inserts
this remark: She (Tamar) wore a long dress with sleeves (see Gen. 37: 3); for
in this manner did the virgin daughters of the king dress themselves with
mantles. YLIYIMi is an accusative belonging to HNFibALit,I and the meaning is
that the kings daughters, who were virgins, wore long dresses with sleeves as
cloaks. The cetoneth passim was not an ordinary under-garment, but was worn
over the plain cetoneth or tunic, and took the place of the ordinary LYIMi
without sleeves. Notwithstanding this dress, by which a kings daughter could
at once be recognised, Amnons servant treated Tamar like a common woman,
and turned her out of the house.

2Sa. 13:19. And Tamar took ashes upon her head, rent her sleeve-dress (as a
sign of grief and pain at the disgrace inflicted upon her), laid her hand upon her
head (as a sign that a grievous trouble had come upon her, that the hand of God
was resting as it were upon her: vid., Jer. 2:37), and went going and cried,
i.e., crying aloud as she went along.

2Sa. 13:20. Then Absalom said to her, namely when she came home
mourning in this manner, Has Amnon thy brother been with thee? This was a
euphemism for what had taken place (cf. Gen. 39:10), as Absalom immediately

conjectures. And now, my sister, be silent; it is thy brother, do not take this
thing to heart. Absalom quieted the sister, because he was determined to take
revenge, but wished to conceal his plan of vengeance for the time. So Tamar
remained in her brothers house, and indeed desolate, i.e., as one laid waste,
with the joy of her life hopelessly destroyed. It cannot be proved that M
O ever
means single or solitary.

2Sa. 13:21, 22. When David heard all these things, he became very
wrathful; but Absalom did not speak to Amnon from good to evil (i.e., either
good or evil, not a single word: Gen. 24:50), because he hated him for having
humbled his sister. The LXX add to the words he (David) was very wroth,
the following clause: He did not trouble the spirit of Amnon his son, because
he loved him, for he was his first-born. This probably gives the true reason
why David let such a crime as Amnons go unpunished, when the law enjoined
that incest should be punished with death (Lev. 20:17); at the same time it is
nothing but a subjective conjecture of the translators, and does not warrant us
in altering the text. The fact that David was contented to be simply angry is
probably to be accounted for partly from his own consciousness of guilt, since
he himself had been guilty of adultery; but it arose chiefly from his indulgent
affection towards his sons, and his consequent want of discipline. This
weakness in his character bore very bitter fruit.

2Sa. 13:23-39. ABSALOMS REVENGE AND FLIGHT. Vv. 23, 24. Absalom
postponed his revenge for two full years. He then kept sheep-shearing,
which was celebrated as a joyous festival (see 1Sa. 25: 2, 8), at Baal-Hazor,
near Ephraim, where he must therefore have had some property. The situation
of Baal-Hazor cannot be precisely determined. The clause which (was) beside
Ephraim points to a situation on the border of the tribe-territory of Ephraim
(juxta Ephraim, according to the Onom. s.v. Baalasor); for the Old Testament
never mentions any city of that name. This definition does not exactly tally with
v. Raumers conjecture (Pal. p. 149), that Baal- Hazor may have been
preserved in Tell Asur ((Rob. Pal. ii. p. 151, iii. p. 79); for this Tell is about five
Roman miles to the north-east of Bethel, i.e., within the limits of the tribe of
Ephraim. There is greater probability in the suggestion made by Ewald and
others, that Baal-Hazor is connected with the Hazor of Benjamin (Neh. 11:33),
though the situation of Hazor has not yet been thoroughly decided; and it is
merely a conjecture of Robinsons that it is to be found in Tell Asur. The
following statement, that Absalom invited all the kings sons (sc., to the
feast), somewhat anticipates the course of events: for, according to v. 24,
Absalom invited the king himself, together with his courtiers; and it was not till
the king declined the invitation for himself, that Absalom restricted his
invitation to the royal princes.

2Sa. 13:25. The king declined the invitation that he might not be burdensome
to Absalom. Absalom pressed him indeed, but he would not go, and blessed
him, i.e., wished him a pleasant and successful feast (see 1Sa. 25:14).

2Sa. 13:26. Then Absalom said, And not (i.e., if thou doest not go), may my
brother Amnon go with me? The king would not give his consent to this;
whether from suspicion cannot be determined with certainty, as he eventually
yielded to Absaloms entreaties and let Amnon and all the other kings sons go.
From the length of time that had elapsed since Amnons crime was committed,
without Absalom showing any wish for revenge, David might have felt quite
sure that he had nothing more to fear. But this long postponement of revenge,
for the purpose of carrying it out with all the more certainty, is quite in the spirit
of the East.

2Sa. 13:28. Absalom then commanded his servants to put Amnon to death
without fear, as he had commanded, as soon as his heart should become merry
with wine and he (Absalom) should tell them to smite him. The arrangement of
the meal is passed over as being quite subordinate to the main purpose of the
narrative; and the clause added by the LXX at the close of v. 27, kai epoihsen
Abessalwn poton kata ton poton tou basilewj, is nothing more than an
explanatory gloss, formed according to 1Sa. 25:36. The words Have not I
commanded you? implied that Absalom would take the responsibility upon
himself.

2Sa. 13:29. The servants did as he commanded, whereupon the other kings
sons all fled upon their mules. V. 30. But whilst they were on the road, the
report of what Absalom had done reached the ears of the king, and, as generally
happens in such cases, with very great exaggeration: Absalom hath slain all
the kings sons, and there is not one of them left.

2Sa. 13:31. The king rent his clothes with horror at such a deed, and sat
down upon the ground, and all his servants (courtiers) stood motionless by,
with their clothes rent as well. This is the rendering adopted by Bttcher, as
BcFNI has frequently the idea of standing perfectly motionless (e.g., Num. 22:23,
24; Exo. 5:20, etc.).

2Sa. 13:32. Then Jonadab, the same person who had helped Amnon to
commit his crime, said,
Let not my lord say (or think) that they have slain all the young men the kings
sons, but Amnon alone is dead; for it was laid upon the mouth of Absalom from the
day that he forced his sister Tamar.

The meaning is either they might see it (the murder of Amnon) by his mouth,
or they might gather it from what he said. HMFYVI HTFYiH:F it was a thing laid
down, i.e., determined (vid., Exo. 21:13). The subject, viz., the thing itself, or
the intended murder of Amnon, may easily be supplied from the context. JI YkI
is undoubtedly used in the sense of no but. The negation is implied in the
thought: Let the king not lay it to heart, that they say all the kings sons are
dead; it is not so, but only Amnon is dead. Jonadab does not seem to speak
from mere conjecture; he is much too sure of what he says. He might possibly
have heard expressions from Absaloms lips which made him certain as to how
the matter stood.

2Sa. 13:34. And Absalom fled. This statement follows upon v. 29. When
the kings sons fled upon their mules, Absalom also took to flight.

2Sa. 13:30-33. Vv. 30-33 are a parenthesis, in which the writer describes at
once the impression made upon the king and his court by the report of what
Absalom had done. The apparently unsuitable position in which this statement is
placed may be fully explained from the fact, that the flight of Absalom preceded
the arrival of the rest of the sons at the kings palace. The alteration which
Bttcher proposes to make in the text, so as to remove this statement
altogether on account of its unsuitable position, is proved to be inadmissible by
the fact that the account of Absaloms flight cannot possibly be left out, as
reference is made to it again afterwards (vv. 37, 38, Absalom had fled). The
other alterations proposed by Thenius in the text of vv. 34, 37, 38, are just as
arbitrary and out of place, and simply show that this critic was ignorant of the
plan adopted by the historian. His plan is the following: To the account of the
murder of Amnon, and the consequent flight of the rest of the kings sons
whom Absalom had invited to the feast (v. 29), there is first of all appended a
notice of the report which preceded the fugitives and reached the kings ears in
an exaggerated form, together with the impression which it made upon the king,
and the rectification of that report by Jonadab (vv. 30-33). Then follows the
statement that Absalom fled, also the account of the arrival of the kings sons
(vv. 34-36). After this we have a statement as to the direction in which
Absalom fled, the kings continued mourning, and the length of time that
Absaloms banishment lasted (vv. 37, 38), and finally a remark as to Davids
feelings towards Absalom (v. 39).
Jonadabs assertion, that Amnon only had been slain, was very speedily
confirmed (v. 34). The young man, the spy, i.e., the young man who was
looking out for the return of those who had been invited to the feast, lifted up
his eyes and saw, i.e., saw as he looked out into the distance, much people (a
crowd of men) coming from the way behind him along the side of the

mountain. WYRFXJA REdEMI, en th odw opisqen autou (LXX), per iter devium
(Vulg.), is obscure; and RXAJA, behind, is probably to be understood as
meaning to the west: from the way at the back of the spy, i.e., to the west of
his station. The following words, RHFHF DcAMI, also remain obscure, as the
position of the spy is not given, so that the allusion may be to a mountain in the
north-west of Jerusalem quite as well as to one on the west.f21
When the spy observed the crowd of men approaching, Jonadab said to the king
(v. 35), Behold, the kings sons are coming: as thy servant said, so has it come
to pass.

2Sa. 13:36. Jonadab had hardly said this when the kings sons arrived and
wept aloud, sc., as they related what had occurred; whereupon the king and all
his retainers broke out in loud weeping.

2Sa. 13:37. Only Absalom had fled and gone to Talmai the son of Ammihud,
the king of Geshur. These words form a circumstantial clause, which the writer
has inserted as a parenthesis, to define the expression the kings sons more
particularly. If we take these words as a parenthesis, there will be no difficulty
in explaining the following word mourned, as the subject (David) may very
easily be supplied from the preceding words the king, etc. (v. 36). To the
remark that David mourned all his life for his son (Amnon), there is attached,
just as simply and quite in accordance with the facts, the more precise
information concerning Absaloms flight, that he remained in Geshur three
years. The repetition of the words Absalom had fled and gone to Geshur may
be accounted for from the general diffuseness of the Hebrew style. Talmai the
king of Geshur was the father of Maacah, Absaloms mother (2Sa. 3: 3). The
LXX thought it necessary expressly to indicate this by inserting eij ghn
amaxaad (al. ghn Maxad).

2Sa. 13:39. And it (this) held king David back from going out to Absalom,
for he comforted himself concerning Amnon, because he was dead. In
adopting this translation of the difficult clause with which the verse commences,
we take LKAtiWA in the sense of JLFk,F as the verbs HLK and JLK frequently
exchange their forms; we also take the third pers. fem. as the neuter impersonal,
so that the subject is left indefinite, and is to be gathered from the context.
Absaloms flight to Geshur, and his stay there, were what chiefly prevented
David from going out to Absalom. Moreover, Davids grief on account of
Amnons death gradually diminished as time rolled on. uBJ LJE TJC
is used in
a hostile sense, as in Deu. 28: 7, to go out and punish him for his wickedness.
The YkI before XANI might also be rendered but, as after a negative clause, as
the principal sentence implies a negation: He did not go out against Absalom,

but comforted himself. There is not only no grammatical difficulty in the way
of this explanation of the verse, but it also suits the context, both before and
after. All the other explanations proposed are either at variance with the rules of
the language, or contain an unsuitable thought. The old Jewish interpretation
(adopted in the Chaldee version, and also by the Rabbins), viz., David longed
(his soul pined) to go out to Absalom (i.e., to see or visit him), is opposed, as
Gusset has shown (in his Lex. pp. 731-2), to the conduct of David towards
Absalom as described in 2Sa. 14, namely, that after Joab had succeeded by
craft in bringing him back to Jerusalem, David would not allow him to come
into his presence for two whole years (2Sa. 14:24, 28). Luthers rendering,
and king David left off going out against Absalom, is not only precluded by
the feminine LKAt,i but also by the fact that nothing has been said about any
pursuit of Absalom on the part of David. Other attempts at emendations there is
no need whatever to refute.

Absaloms Return, and Reconciliation to the King. Ch. 14.

2Sa. 14. As David did not repeal the banishment of Absalom, even after he
had comforted himself for Amnons death, Joab endeavoured to bring him back
to Jerusalem by stratagem (vv. 1-20); and when this succeeded, he proceeded to
effect his reconciliation to the king (vv. 21-33). He may have been induced to
take these steps partly by his personal attachment to Absalom, but the principal
reason no doubt was that Absalom had the best prospect of succeeding to the
throne, and Joab thought this the best way to secure himself from punishment
for the murder which he had committed. But the issue of events frustrated all
such hopes. Absalom did not succeed to the throne, Joab did not escape
punishment, and David was severely chastised for his weakness and injustice.

2Sa. 14: 1-20. When Joab perceived that the kings heart was against
Absalom, he sent for a cunning woman from Tekoah, to work upon the king
and change his mind, so that he might grant forgiveness to Absalom. V. 1 is
understood by the majority of commentators, in accordance with the Syriac and
Vulgate, as signifying that Joab learned that the kings heart was inclined
towards Absalom, was well disposed towards him again. But this explanation is
neither philologically sustained, nor in accordance with the context. BL
, written
with LA and without any verb, so that HYFHF has to be supplied, only occurs
again in Dan. 11:28, where the preposition has the meaning against. It is no
argument against this meaning here, that if David had been ill disposed towards
Absalom, there would have been no necessity to state that Joab perceived it; for
we cannot see why Joab should only have perceived or noticed Davids friendly
feelings, and not his unfriendly feelings as well. If, however, Joab had noticed
the re-awakening of Davids good feelings towards Absalom, there would have

been no necessity for him to bring the cunning woman from Tekoah to induce
him to consent to Absaloms return. Moreover, David would not in that case
have refused to allow Absalom to see his face for two whole years after his
return to Jerusalem (v. 24). Tekoah, the home of the prophet Amos, the present
Tekua, two hours to the south of Bethlehem (see at Jos. 15:59, LXX). The
wise woman was to put on mourning, as a woman who had been mourning
for a long while for some one that was dead (Lb
JATiHI, to set or show herself
mourning), and to go to the king in this attire, and say what Joab had put into
her mouth.

2Sa. 14: 4. The woman did this. All the old translators have given as the
rendering of HFJIHF RMEJtOWA the woman came (went) to the king, as if they
had read JBOtFW.A This reading is actually found in some thirty Codd. of De
Rossi, and is therefore regarded by Thenius and the majority of critics as the
original one. But Bttcher has very justly urged, in opposition to this, that
RMEJtOWA cannot possibly be an accidental corruption of JBTW, and that it is still
less likely that such an alteration should have been intentionally made. But this
remark, which is correct enough in itself, cannot sustain the conjecture which
Bttcher has founded upon it, namely that two whole lines have dropt out of
the Hebrew text, containing the answer which the woman of Tekoah gave to
Joab before she went to the king, since there is not one of the ancient versions
which contains a single word more than the Masoretic text. Consequently we
must regard RMEJtOWA as the original reading, and interpret it as a hysteronproteron, which arose from the fact that the historian was about to relate at
once what the woman said to the king, but thought it desirable to mention her
falling down at the feet of the king before giving her actual words, Help, O
king, which he introduces by repeating the word RMEJtOWA.

2Sa. 14: 5ff. When the king asked her, What aileth thee? the woman
described the pretended calamity which had befallen her, saying that she was a
widow, and her two sons had quarrelled in the field; and as no one interposed,
one of them had killed the other. The whole family had then risen up and
demanded that the survivor should be given up, that they might carry out the
avenging of blood upon him. Thus they sought to destroy the heir also, and
extinguish the only spark that remained to her, so as to leave her husband
neither name nor posterity upon the earth. The suffix attached to WkOyAWA , with the
object following (he smote him, the other, v. 6), may be explained from the
diffuseness of the style of ordinary conversation (see at 1Sa. 21:14). There is no
reason whatever for changing the reading into wkYA , as the suffix WO, though
unusual with verbs HL, is not without parallel; not to mention the fact that the
plural wkYF is quite unsuitable. There is also quite as little reason for changing

HDFYMIiNAWi into wDYMIiYAW,i in accordance with the Syriac and Arabic, as Michaelis
and Thenius propose, on the ground that the woman would have described her
relatives as diabolically malicious men, if she had put into their mouths such
words as these, We will destroy the heir also. It was the womans intention
to describe the conduct of the relations and their pursuit of blood-revenge in the
harshest terms possible, in order that she might obtain help from the king. She
begins to speak in her own name at the word wbKIWi (and so they shall quench
and), where she resorts to a figure, for the purpose of appealing to the heart of
the king to defend her from the threatened destruction of her family, saying,
And so they shall quench the burning coal which is left. TLEXEgA is used
figuratively, like to zwpuron, the burning coal with which one kindles a fresh
fire, to denote the last remnant. wYtILiBILi : so as not to set, i.e., to
preserve or leave name and remnant (i.e., posterity) to my husband.
This account differed, no doubt, from the case of Absalom, inasmuch as in his
case no murder had taken place in the heat of a quarrel, and no avenger of
blood demanded his death; so that the only resemblance was in the fact that
there existed an intention to punish a murderer. But it was necessary to disguise
the affair in this manner, in order that David might not detect her purpose, but
might pronounce a decision out of pity for the poor widow which could be
applied to his own conduct towards Absalom.

2Sa. 14: 8. The plan succeeded. The king replied to the woman, Go home, I
will give charge concerning thee, i.e., I will give the necessary commands that
thy son may not be slain by the avenger of blood. This declaration on the part of
the king was perfectly just. If the brothers had quarrelled, and one had killed the
other in the heat of the quarrel, it was right that he should be defended from the
avenger of blood, because it could not be assumed that there was any previous
intention to murder. This declaration therefore could not be applied as yet to
Davids conduct towards Absalom. But the woman consequently proceeded to
say (v. 9), My lord, O king, let the guilt be upon me and upon my fathers
house, and let the king and his throne be guiltless. Js
kI, the throne, for the
government or reign. The meaning of the words is this: but if there should be
anything wrong in the fact that this bloodshed is not punished, let the guilt fall
upon me and my family. The king replied (v. 10), Whosoever speaketh to thee,
bring him to me; he shall not touch thee any more. YILAJ
does not stand for
YIL
A F, against thee; but the meaning is, whoever speaks to thee any more
about this, i.e., demands thy son of thee again.

2Sa. 14:11. The crafty woman was not yet satisfied with this, and sought by
repeating her petition to induce the king to confirm his promise on oath, that
she might bind him the more firmly. She therefore said still further:

I pray thee, let the king remember Jehovah thy God, that the avenger of blood may
no more prepare destruction, and that they may not destroy my son.

The Chethib TYbIRiHA is probably a copyists error for TWBORiHA, for which the
Masoretes would write TbARiHA, the construct state of HbFRiHF, a form of the
inf. abs. which is not commonly used, and which may possibly have been chosen
because HbERiHA had become altogether an adverb (vid., Ewald, 240, e.). The
context requires the inf. constr. TWbORiH:A that the avenger of blood may not
multiply (make much) to destroy, i.e., may not add to the destruction; and
TYbIRiHA is probably only a verbal noun used instead of the infinitive. The king
immediately promised on oath that her son should not suffer the least harm.

2Sa. 14:12, 13. When the woman had accomplished so much, she asked
permission to speak one word more; and having obtained it, proceeded to the
point she wanted to reach:
And wherefore thinkest thou such things against people of God? And because the
king speaketh this word, he is as one inculpating himself, since the king does not let
his own rejected one return.

EJFki, like one who has laden himself with guilt, is the predicate to the
clause uWGW Rb
dAMIw . These words of the woman were intentionally kept
indefinite, rather hinting at what she wished to place before the king, than
expressing it distinctly. This is more particularly applicable to the first clause,
which needs the words that follow to render it intelligible, as TJZOkF HtFBiAXF is
ambiguous; so that Dathe and Thenius are wrong in rendering it, Why dost
thou propose such things towards the people of God? and understanding it as
relating to the protection which the king was willing to extend to her and to her
son. BAXF with LA does not mean to think or reflect with regard to, but
against a person. Ewald is quite correct in referring the word TJZOkF to what
follows: such things, i.e., such thoughts as thou hast towards thy son, whose
blood-guiltiness thou wilt not forgive. YHILOJ ALA, without the article, is
intentionally indefinite, against people of God, i.e., against members of the
congregation of God. This word refers to the decision which the king had
pronounced in favour of the widow. BYIHF YtILiBILi , literally, in not letting him
return.
In order to persuade the king to forgive, the crafty woman reminded him (v. 14)
of the brevity of human life and of the mercy of God:
For we must die, and (are) as water spilt upon the ground, which is not (cannot be)
gathered up, and God does not take a soul away, but thinks thoughts, that He may
not thrust from Him one expelled.

Although these thoughts are intentionally expressed quite generally, their

special allusion to the case in hand can easily be detected. We must all die, and
when dead our life is irrevocably gone. Thou mightest soon experience this in
the case of Absalom, if thou shouldst suffer him to continue in exile. God does
not act thus; He does not deprive the sinner of life, but is merciful, and does not
cast off for ever.

2Sa. 14:15. After these allusions to Davids treatment of Absalom, the

woman returned again to her own affairs, to make the king believe that nothing
but her own distress had led her to speak thus:
And now that I have come to speak this word to the king my lord, was (took place)
because the people have put me in fear (sc., by their demand that I should give up
my son to the avenger of blood); thy handmaid said (i.e., thought), I will indeed go
to the king, perhaps the king will do his handmaids word,

i.e., grant her request.

2Sa. 14:16. Yea, the king will hear, to save his handmaid out of the hand of

the man that would destroy me and my son from the inheritance of God. REJ
must be supplied before DYMIiHAL:i who is to destroy, i.e., who is seeking to
destroy (vid., Gesenius, 132, 3). The inheritance of God was the nation of
Israel (as in 1Sa. 26:19; cf. Deu. 32: 9).

2Sa. 14:17.
Then thine handmaid thought, may the word of my lord the king be for rest (i.e.,
tend to give me rest); for as the angel of God (the angel of the covenant, the
mediator of the blessings of divine grace to the covenant-nation), so is my lord the
king to hear good and evil (i.e., listening to every just complaint on the part of his
subjects, and granting help to the oppressed), and Jehovah thy God be with thee!

2Sa. 14:18ff. These words of the woman were so well considered and so
crafty, that the king could not fail to see both what she really meant, and also
that she had not come with her petition of her own accord. He therefore told
her to answer the question without disguise: whether the hand of Joab was with
her in all this. She replied, Truly there is not (JI) anything to the right hand
or to the left of all that my lord the king saith, i.e., the king always hits the
right point in everything that he said. Yea, thy servant Joab, he hath
commanded me, and he hath put all these words into thy servants mouth. JI
is not a copyists error, but a softer form of Y
, as in Micah 6:10 (vid., Ewald,
53c, and Olshausen, Gramm. p. 425).

2Sa. 14:20.

To turn the appearance of the king (i.e., to disguise the affair in the finest way)
Joab hath done this; my lord (i.e., the king), however, is wise, like the wisdom of the
angel of God, to know all that is (happens) upon earth.

She hoped by these flattering words to gain the king completely over.

2Sa. 14:21-33. David then promised Joab, that the request which he had
presented through the medium of the woman of Tekoah should be fulfilled, and
commanded him to fetch Absalom back. The Chethib YTIYVIF (v. 21) is the
correct reading, and the Keri TFYVI F has arisen from a misunderstanding.

2Sa. 14:22. Joab thanked the king for this, and blessed him:
To-day thy servant knoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord, O king,
in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant.

It is pretty evident from this, that Joab had frequently applied to David for
Absaloms return, without any attention being paid to his application. David
therefore suspected that Joab had instructed the woman of Tekoah. The
Chethib WDOB
i A is not to be exchanged for the Keri dEBiA.

2Sa. 14:23. Joab then went to Geshur (see 2Sa. 13:37), and fetched Absalom
back to Jerusalem.

2Sa. 14:24. But David could not forgive Absalom altogether. He said to Joab,
Let him turn to his own house, and my face he shall not see. This half
forgiveness was an imprudent measure, and bore very bitter fruit. The further
account of Absalom is introduced in vv. 25-27 with a description of his personal
appearance and family affairs.

2Sa. 14:25. There was no man in all Israel so handsome as Absalom. DJOMi

Ll
HAL,i to much praising, i.e., so that he was greatly praised. from the sole of
the foot even to the crown of his head, there was no fault (wM, bodily blemish)
in him.

2Sa. 14:26.
When he polled his head, and it took place from year to year that he polled it; for
it became heavy upon him (too heavy for him), and so he polled it: they weighed the
hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the kings weight.

A strong growth of hair was a sign of great manly power, and so far a proof of
Absaloms beauty. The statement as to the weight of the hair cut off, viz., two
hundred shekels, is in any case a round number, and much too high, although
we do not know what the difference between the royal and the sacred shekel
really was. According to the sacred reckoning, two hundred shekels would be

about six pounds; so that if we were to assume that the royal shekel was about
half the other, the number would be still much too high. It is evident, therefore,
that there is an error in the text, such as we frequently meet with in the case of
numbers, though we have no means of rectifying it, as all the ancient versions
contain the same number.

2Sa. 14:27. Unto Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter
named Tamar, who was beautiful in figure. Contrary to general usage, the
names of the sons are not given, in all probability for no other reason than
because they died in infancy. Consequently, as Absalom had no sons, he
afterwards erected a pillar to preserve his name (2Sa. 18:18). The daughters
name is probably given as a proof of Absaloms great affection for his sister
Tamar, whom Amnon had violated.f22

2Sa. 14:28-30. After Absalom had sat for two whole years in his house at
Jerusalem without seeing the kings face, he sent to Joab that he might obtain
for him the kings full forgiveness. But as Joab would not come to him, even
after he had sent for him twice, Absalom commanded his servants to set fire to
one of Joabs fields which adjoined his own and was then full of barley, for the
purpose of compelling him to come, as he foresaw that Joab would not take this
destruction of his property quietly, but would come to him to complain. YDIYF
LJE, literally at my hand, i.e., by the side of my field or property. The Chethib
HFYTIYCIWHOWi (come, I will set it on fire) is a Hiphil formation, according to
verbs WP, for which the Keri has HFwTYcIHAW,i the ordinary Hiphil form of TCAYF in
the second person plural, go and set it one fire.

2Sa. 14:31, 32. When Joab came to Absaloms house in consequence of this,
and complained of it, Absalom said to him, See, I have sent to thee, to say to
thee, Come hither, and I will send thee to the king, to say to him, Wherefore
have I come from Geshur? it were better for me that I were there still: and now
I will see the kings face; and if there is any iniquity in me, let him put me to
death. This half forgiving was really worse than no forgiveness at all. Absalom
might indeed very properly desire to be punished according to the law, if the
king could not or might not forgive him; although the manner in which he
sought to obtain forgiveness by force manifested an evident spirit of defiance,
by which, with the well-known mildness of Davids temper, he hoped to attain
his object, and in fact did attain it. For (v. 33) when Joab went to the king, and
announced this to him, the king sent for Absalom, and kissed him, as a sign of
his restoration to favour. Nothing was said by Absalom about forgiveness; for
his falling down before the king when he came into his presence, was nothing
more than the ordinary manifestation of reverence with which a subject in the
East approaches his king.

Absaloms Rebellion and Davids Flight. Ch. 15-16:14.

2Sa. 15: 1-16:14. After this restoration to favour, Absalom soon began to
aspire to the throne, setting up a princely court, and endeavouring to turn the
hearts of the people towards himself, by addressing in a friendly manner any
who came to seek redress from the king in matters in dispute, and by saying
things adapted to throw suspicion upon his fathers rule (vv. 1-6). When he had
succeeded in this, he asked permission from the king to take a journey to
Hebron, under the pretence of wanting to fulfil a vow which he had made
during his banishment; and when once there, he soon proceeded with his
rebellious intentions (vv. 7-12). As soon as David heard of it, he determined to
fly from Jerusalem, and crossed the Kidron with his faithful adherents. Having
sent the priests with the ark of the covenant back to the city, he went up to the
Mount of Olives, amidst the loud lamentations of the people. Hushai, who came
to meet him, he sent to the city, to frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel, who was
one of the conspirators, and to send information to him of what was going
forward (vv. 13-37). When he reached the top, Ziba, Mephibosheths servant,
came to meet him with provisions and succour (2Sa. 16: 1-4) whilst Shimei, a
relation of the house of Saul, followed him with curses and stones (vv. 5-14).
With this rebellion the calamities which Nathan had predicted to David on
account of his sin with Bathsheba began to burst upon him in all their fulness.
The success of the rebellion itself may be accounted for, from the fact that the
consciousness of his own fault not only made David weak towards his sons, but
produced a want of firmness in his resolutions; whilst the imperfections and
defects in the internal administration of the kingdom, when the time of the
brilliant victories was past, became more and more perceptible to the people,
and furnished occasion for dissatisfaction with his government, which Absalom
was skilful enough to bend to his own purposes. During the time that this
rebellion was in progress, David poured out his lamentations to the Lord (in
Psa. 41 and 55) as to the faithlessness of his most confidential councillors, and
prayed for the judgment of retribution upon the conduct of this wicked band.
After it had broken out, he uttered his longings to return to the sanctuary at
Jerusalem, and his firm confidence that he should be delivered out of his
distresses and reinstated in his kingdom, first of all in Psa. 3 and 63 during his
flight in the desert of Judah, and in Psa. 61 and 62 during his stay in the land to
the east of the Jordan.

2Sa. 15: 1-6. ABSALOM SEEKS T O SECURE T HE PEOPLES FAVOUR. V. 1.

Soon afterwards (this seems to be the meaning of K
YR
XJAM
as distinguished
from K
YR
XJA; cf. 2Sa. 3:28) Absalom set up a carriage (i.e., a state-carriage;
cf. 1Sa. 8:11) and horses, and fifty men as runners before him, i.e., to run

before him when he drove out, and attract the attention of the people by a
display of princely pomp, as Adonijah afterwards did (1Ki. 1: 5). He then went
early in the morning to the side of the road to the gate of the palace, and called
out to every one who was about to go to the king for judgment, i.e., seek
justice in connection with any matter in dispute, and asked him, Of what city
art thou? and also, as we may see from the reply in v. 3, inquired into his
feelings towards the king, and then said, Thy matters are good and right, but
there is no hearer for thee with the king. AM
O signifies the judicial officer, who
heard complainants and examined into their different causes, for the purpose of
laying them before the king for settlement. Of course the king himself could not
give a hearing to every complainant, and make a personal investigation of his
cause; nor could his judges procure justice for every complainant, however
justly they might act, though it is possible that they may not always have
performed their duty conscientiously.

2Sa. 15: 4. Absalom also said,

Oh that I might be judge in the land, and every one who had a cause might come
before me; I would procure him justice!

YNIM
VIYi YMI is a wish: who might (i.e., oh that one might) appoint me judge, an
analogous expression to t
YI YMI (vid., Gesenius, 136, 1, and Ewald, 329,
c.). YLA F placed before JBOYF for the sake of emphasis, may be explained from the
fact that a judge sat, so that the person who stood before him rose above him
(comp. Exo. 18:13 with Gen. 18: 8). QYdICiHI, to speak justly, or help to justice.

2Sa. 15: 5. And when any one came near to him to prostrate himself before
him, he took him by the hand and kissed him. It was by conduct of this kind that
Agamemnon is said to have secured the command of the Grecian army (Euripid.
Iphig. Aul. v. 337ff.).

2Sa. 15: 6. Thus Absalom stole the heart of the men of Israel. BL
Bn
gI does
not mean to deceive or cheat, like BL
BNAgF in the Kal in Gen. 31:20, but to steal
the heart, i.e., to bring a person over to his side secretly and by stratagem.

2Sa. 15: 7-12. ABSALOM S REBELLION. Vv. 7, 8. After the lapse of forty
(?) years Absalom said to the king,
Pray I will go (i.e., pray allow me to go) and perform a vow in Hebron which I
vowed to the Lord during my stay at Geshur (v. 8).

The number forty is altogether unsuitable, as it cannot possibly be understood

either as relating to the age of Absalom or to the year of Davids reign: for
Absalom was born at Hebron after David had begun to reign, and David only

reigned forty years and a half in all, and Absaloms rebellion certainly did not
take place in the last few weeks of his reign. It is quite as inappropriate to
assume, as the terminus a quo of the forty years, either the commencement of
Sauls reign, as several of the Rabbins have done, as well as the author of the
marginal note in Cod. 380 of De Rossi (LWJ TWKLML), or the anointing of
David at Bethlehem, as Luther (in the marginal note) and Lightfoot do; for the
word after evidently refers to some event in the life of Absalom, to which
allusion has previously been made, namely, either to the time of his
reconciliation with David (2Sa. 14:33), or (what is not so probable) to the
period of his return from Geshur to Jerusalem (2Sa. 14:23). Consequently the
reading adopted by the Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate, also by Theodoret and
others, viz., four years, must certainly be the correct one, and not forty
days, which we find in Codd. 70 and 96 in Kennicott, since forty days would
be far too short a time for maturing the rebellion. It is true, that with the reading
bARiJA we should expect, as a rule, the plural YNIF. At the same time, the
numbers from two to ten are sometimes construed with a singular noun (e.g.,
2Ki. 22: 1; cf. Gesenius, 120, 2). The pretended vow was, that if Jehovah
would bring him back to Jerusalem, he would serve Jehovah. HWFHOYiTJE DBAF,
to do a service to Jehovah, can only mean to offer a sacrifice, which is the
explanation given by Josephus. The Chethib BYIYF is not the infinitive, but the
imperfect Hiphil: si reduxerit, reduxerit me, which is employed in an unusual
manner instead of the inf. absol., for the sake of emphasis. The Keri BwYF
would have to be taken as an adverb again; but this is quite unnecessary.

2Sa. 15: 9. The king consented, and Absalom went to Hebron. Absalom had
selected this city, probably assigning as the reason that he was born there, but
really because his father David had been made king there, and also possibly
because there may have been many persons there who had been displeased by
the removal of the court to Jerusalem.

2Sa. 15:10. When Absalom went to Hebron, he sent spies into all the tribes of
Israel to say, When ye hear the sound of the trumpet, say, Absalom has
become king in Hebron. We must suppose the sending the spies to have been
contemporaneous with the removal of Absalom to Hebron, so that XLAiyIWA is
used quite regularly, and there is no reason for translating it as a pluperfect. The
messengers sent out are called spies, because they were first of all to ascertain
the feelings of the people in the different tribes, and were only to execute their
commission in places where they could reckon upon support. The conspiracy
had hitherto been kept very secret, as we may see from the statement in v. 11:
With Absalom there had gone two hundred men out of Jerusalem, invited (to

the sacrificial festival), and going in their simplicity, who knew nothing at all of
the affair. (RBFdFLkF JLO: nothing at all.)

2Sa. 15:12. Moreover, Absalom sent for Ahithophel, Davids councillor, to

come from his own town Giloh, when he offered the sacrifices. The unusual
construction of TJ
XLAiYI with WROYIM
may be explained from the pregnant
character of the expression: he sent and bade come, i.e., he summoned
Ahithophel out of his city. Giloh, Ahithophels home, was upon the mountains
of Judah, to the south or south-west of Hebron (see at Jos. 15:51). Ahithophel
had no doubt been previously initiated into Absaloms plans, and had probably
gone to his native city, merely that he might come to him with the greater ease;
since his general place of abode, as kings councillor, must have been in
Jerusalem. And the conspiracy became strong; for the people multiplied
continually with Absalom (the latter is a circumstantial clause). These words
give a condensed summary of the result of the enterprise.

2Sa. 15:13-21. DAVIDS FLIGHT FROM JERUSALEM. Vv. 13, 14. When
this intelligence reached David, The heart of the men of Israel is after
Absalom (RXAJA HYFH,F as in 2Sa. 2:10, to be attached to a person as king; see at
1Sa. 12:14), he said to his servants that were with him in Jerusalem,
Arise, let us flee, for there will be no escape for us from Absalom! Make speed to
depart, lest he overtake us suddenly, and drive the calamity (the judgment
threatened in 2Sa. 12:10, 11) over us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword.

David was perhaps afraid that Jerusalem might fall into Absaloms power
through treachery, and therefore resolved to fly as speedily as possible, not only
in order to prevent a terrible massacre, but also to give his own faithful
adherents time to assemble.

2Sa. 15:15, 16. As his servants declared themselves ready to follow him, the
king went out of the city with all his family in his train (lit. at his feet, as in
Jud. 4:10, 15, etc.), but left ten concubines behind to keep the palace.

2Sa. 15:17. When outside the city the king and all the people in his suite (i.e.,
the royal family and their servants) halted at the house of the distance.
QXFRiMEHA is probably a proper name given to a house in the neighbourhood of
the city and on the road to Jericho, which was called the farthest house, viz.,
from the city.

2Sa. 15:18. And all his servants, i.e., his state officers and attendants, went
along by his side, and the whole body-guard (the Crethi and Plethi: see at
2Sa. 8:18); and all the Gathites, namely the six hundred men who had come in
his train from Gath, went along in front of the king. David directed the fugitives

to all into rank, the servants going by his side, and the body-guard and the six
hundred old companions in arms, who probably also formed a kind of bodyguard, marching in front. The verb RBAF (passed on) cannot be understood as
signifying to file past on account of its connection with WDOYFLA (beside him, or
by his side). The expression Gittim is strange, as we cannot possibly think of
actual Gathites or Philistines from Gath. The apposition (the six hundred men,
etc.) shows clearly enough that the six hundred old companions in arms are
intended, the men who gathered round David on his flight from Saul and
emigrated with him to Gath (1Sa. 27: 2, 3), who afterwards lived with him in
Ziklag (1Sa. 27: 8; 29: 2; 30: 1, 9), and eventually followed him to Hebron and
Jerusalem (2Sa. 2: 3; 5: 6). In all probability they formed a separate company of
well-tried veterans or a kind of body-guard in Jerusalem, and were commonly
known as Gathites. f23

2Sa. 15:19. A military commander named Ittai, who had emigrated from Gath
and come over to David not long before, also accompanied the king from the
city. It is evident from 2Sa. 18: 2, where Ittai is said to have commanded a third
part of the army sent against Absalom, and to have been placed on an equality
with Joab and Abishai the most experienced generals, that Ittai was a Philistian
general who had entered Davids service. The reason for his going over to
David is not known. According to v. 22 of this chapter, Ittai did not come
alone, but brought all his family with him (taph: the little ones). The opinion
expressed by Thenius, that he had come to Jerusalem as a hostage, is merely
founded upon a false interpretation of the last two clauses of the verse before
us. David said to Ittai, Wherefore goest thou also with us? return and stay
with the king; for thou art a stranger, and also emigrating to thy place. There
is no irony in the words stay with the king, as Thenius and Clericus suppose
(viz., with the man who behaves as if he were king); nor is there an
acknowledgment of Absalom as king, which certainly could never have
emanated from David. The words contain nothing more than the simple though:
Do you remain with whoever is or shall be king, since there is no necessity for
you as a stranger to take sides at all. This is the explanation given by Seb.
Schmidt: It is not your place to decide this context as to who ought to be king;
but you may remain quiet and see whom God shall appoint as king, and whether
it be I or Absalom, you can serve the one that God shall choose. This is the
only way in which we can explain the reason assigned for the admonition, viz.,
Thou art a stranger, and not an Israelite. There is some difficulty connected
with the following words (rendered in the Eng. version and also an exile). In
the Septuagint and Vulgate they are rendered kai oti metwkhsaj su ek tou
topou sou, et egressus es de loco tuo (and thou hast gone out from thine own
place); but in adopting this rendering the translators have not only passed over

the gA (also), but have taken MiWQOMiLI for MiWQOmiMI . Nevertheless Thenius
proposes to bring the text into harmony with these versions for the purpose of
bringing out the meaning, and moreover thou art one carried away from his
own home. But this is decidedly a mistake; for David would never have made
a Philistine who had just before been carried away from his own home, or, as
Thenius understands it, who had been brought to Jerusalem as a hostage the
commander of a third of his army. The meaning is rather the following: And
thou hast still no fatherland, i.e., thou art still wandering about through the
earth like an exile from his country: wherever thou findest a place, and art
allowed to settle, there only canst thou dwell.

2Sa. 15:20. Thy coming is yesterday (from yesterday), and should I disturb
thee to-day to go with us, when I am going just where I go? i.e., wherever my
way may lie (I go I know not whither; Chald.: cf. 1Sa. 23:13). The Chethib
wNJ is a copyists error. The thought requires the Hiphil YNIJ (Keri), as
AwN in the Kal has the intransitive meaning, to totter, sway about, or move
hither and thither. Return and take thy brethren back; grace and truth be with
thee. It is evidently more in accordance with the train of thought to separate
mFI from the previous clause and connect it with TMEJWE DSEXE, though this is
opposed to the accents, than to adopt the adverbial interpretation, take back
thy brethren with thee in grace and truth, as Maurer proposes. (For the
thought itself, see Pro. 3: 3). The reference is to the grace and truth
(faithfulness) of God, which David desired that Ittai should receive upon his
way. In the Septuagint and Vulgate the passage is paraphrased thus: Jehovah
show thee grace and truth, after 2Sa. 2: 6; but it by no means follows from this
that miI HVEWA HWFHOYi has fallen out of the Hebrew text.

2Sa. 15:21. But Ittai replied with a solemn oath, Assuredly at the place
where my lord the king shall be (stay), whether for death or life, there will thy
servant be. JI YkI means only, as in Gen. 40:14, Job. 42: 8; here, in a
declaration on oath, it is equivalent to assuredly (vid., Ewald, 356, b.). The
Chethib is therefore correct, and the erasure of JI in the Keri is a bad
emendation. The YkI in the apodosis is either an emphatic declaration, yea, or
like oti merely introduces a distinct assertion.

2Sa. 15:22. After this assurance of his devotedness, David let Ittai do as he

pleased. RBOWA L
, go and pass on. RBAF does not mean to pass by, but to go
forward. Thus Ittai and his men and all his family that was with him went
forward with the king. By the little ones (taph) we are to understand a mans
whole family, as in many other instances (see at Exo. 12:37).

2Sa. 15:22-29. T HE KING CROSSES THE KIDRON , AND SENDS THE PRIESTS
BACK WITH THE ARK T O JERUSALEM. V. 23. All the land (as in 1Sa. 14:25)
wept aloud when all the people went forward; and the king went over the brook
Kidron, and all the people went over in the direction of (lit. in the face of) the
way to the desert. The brook Kidron is a winter torrent, i.e., a mountain torrent
which only flows during the heavy rains of winter (xeimarroj tou Kedrwn , John
18: 1). It is on the eastern side of Jerusalem, between the city and the Mount of
Olives, and derives its name from the appearance of the water when rendered
muddy through the melting of the snow (cf. Job. 6:16). In summer it is nothing
more than a dry channel in the valley of Jehoshaphat (see Robinson, Pal. i. 396,
and v. Raumer, Pal. p. 309, note 81). The wilderness (midbar) is the
northern part of the desert of Judah, through which the road to Jericho and the
Jordan lay.

2Sa. 15:24. Zadok the priest and all the Levites (who were in Jerusalem) left
the city with the fugitive king, bearing the ark of the covenant:
And they set down the ark of God, and Abiathar came up, till all the people had
come completely over from the city.

LAyAWA, anebh, ascendit (LXX, Vulg.), may probably be accounted for from the
fact that Abiathar did not come to join the fugitives till the procession halted at
the Mount of Olives; so that HLFF, like anabainein, merely refers to his actually
going up, and LAyAWA affirms that Abiathar joined them until all the people from
the city had arrived. The rendering proposed by Michaelis and Bttcher (he
offered sacrifices) is precluded by the fact that HLFF never means to sacrifice
when written without HLFWO, or unless the context points distinctly to sacrifices,
as in 2Sa. 24:22, 1Sa. 2:28. The ark of the covenant was put down, because
those who went out with the king made a halt, to give the people who were still
coming time to join the procession.

2Sa. 15:25ff. Then the king said to Zadok,

Take back the ark of God into the city! If I find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, He
will bring me back and let me see Him (i.e., himself: the reference is to God) and His
dwelling (i.e., the ark of the covenant as the throne of the divine glory in the tent that
had been set up for it). But if He thus say, I have not delight in thee; behold, here am
I, let Him do to me as seemeth good to Him.

Thus David put his fate in believing confidence into the hand of the Lord,
because he felt that it was the Lord who was chastising him for his sons through
this rebellion.

2Sa. 15:27. He also said still further to Zadok, Thou seer! return into the

city in peace. HtFJA HJEWROH, with H interrog., does not yield any appropriate
sense, as H cannot stand for JWLOH here, simply because it does not relate to a
thing which the person addressed could not deny. Consequently the word must
be pointed thus, HJEROHF (with the article), and rendered as a vocative, as it has
been by Jerome and Luther. HJERO, seer, is equivalent to prophet. He applies this
epithet to Zadok, as the high priest who received divine revelations by means of
the Urim. The meaning is, Thou Zadok art equal to a prophet; therefore thy
proper place is in Jerusalem (O. v. Gerlach). Zadok was to stand as it were
upon the watch there with Abiathar, and the sons of both to observe the events
that occurred, and send him word through their sons into the plain of the
Jordan. Behold, I will tarry by the ferries of the desert, till a word comes from
you to show me, sc., what has taken place, or how the things shape themselves
in Jerusalem. Instead of TWROBiAbi, the earlier translators as well as the
Masoretes adopted the reading TWBORiAbi, in the steppes of the desert. The
allusion in this case would be to the steppes of Jericho (2Ki. 25: 5). But
Bttcher has very properly defended the Chethib on the strength of 2Sa. 17:16,
where the Keri has TWBOR
i A again, though TWROBiA is the true reading (cf.
2Sa. 19:19). The ferries of the desert are the places where the Jordan could
be crossed, the fords of the Jordan (Jos. 2: 7; Jud. 3:28).

2Sa. 15:29. Zadok and Abiathar then returned to the city with the ark of God.
2Sa. 15:30-37. AHITHOPHEL AND HUSHAI. Vv. 30, 31. When David was
going by the height of the olive-trees, i.e., the Mount of Olives, weeping as he
went, with his head covered, and barefooted, as a sign of grief and mourning
(see Esther 6:12; Eze. 24:17), and with the people who accompanied him also
mourning, he received intelligence that Ahithophel (see at v. 12) was with
Absalom, and among the conspirators. DYgIHI DWIDFWi gives no sense; for David
cannot be the subject, because the next clause, and David said, etc., contains
most distinctly an expression of Davids on receiving some information.
Thenius would therefore alter DYgIHI into the Hophal DgAH,U whilst Ewald ( 131,
a) would change it into DYgIHU, an unusual form of the Hophal, David was
informed, according to the construction of the Hiphil with the accusative. But
although this construction of the Hiphil is placed beyond all doubt by
Job. 31:37; 26: 4, and Eze. 43:10, the Hiphil is construed as a rule, as the
Hophal always is, with Li of the person who receives information. Consequently
DWIdF must be altered into DWIDFLi, and DYgIHI taken as impersonal, they
announced to David. Upon receipt of this intelligence David prayed to the
Lord, that He would turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness, make it

appear as folly, i.e., frustrate it, a prayer which God answered (vid.,
2Sa. 17: 1ff.).

2Sa. 15:32, 33. On Davids arrival at the height where people were
accustomed to worship, i.e., upon the top of the Mount of Olives, the Archite
Hushai came to meet him with his clothes rent and earth upon his head, that is
to say, in the deepest mourning (see 1Sa. 4:12). It is evident from the words
uWGW HWEXt
A iYIREJ that there was a place of worship upon the top of the
Mount of Olives, probably a bamah, such as continued to exist in different
places throughout the land, even after the building of the temple. According to
v. 37, 2Sa. 16:16, and 1Ch. 27:33, Hushai was HER
, a friend of David, i.e.,
one of his privy councillors. YkIRiJAHF (the Archite), if we may judge from
Jos. 16: 2, was the name of a family whose possessions were upon the southern
boundary of the tribe of Ephraim, between Bethel and Ataroth. Hushai was
probably a very old man, as David said to him (vv. 33, 34), If thou goest with
me, thou wilt be a burden to me. But if thou returnest to the city and offerest
Absalom thy services, thou canst bring for me the counsel of Ahithophel to
nought. If thou sayest to Absalom, I will be thy servant, O king; servant of thy
father (i.e., as regards this) I was that of old, but now I am thy servant. The W
before YNIJ introduces the apodosis both times (vid., Ewald, 348, a.).

2Sa. 15:35, 36. David then commissioned him to communicate to the priests
Zadok and Abiathar all that he should hear of the kings house, and send word
to him through their sons.

2Sa. 15:37. So Hushai went into the city when Absalom came to Jerusalem.
The Wi before the second clause, followed by the imperfect JWBOYF, indicates
contemporaneous occurrence (vid., Ewald, 346, b.).

2Sa. 16: 1-4. ZIBA S FAITHLESS CONDUCT T OWARDS MEPHIBOSHETH . V.

1. When David had gone a little over the height (of the Mount of Olives: JROHF
points back to 2Sa. 15:32), Mephibosheths servant Ziba came to meet him,
with a couple of asses saddled, and laden with two hundred loaves, a hundred
raisin-cakes, a hundred date or fig-cakes, and a skin of wine. The word YQI
corresponds to the Greek opwra, as the LXX have rendered it in Jer. 40:10, 12,
and is used to signify summer fruits, both here and in Amo. 8: 1 (Symm.). The
early translators rendered it lumps of figs in the present passage (palaqai; cf.
Ges. Thes. p. 1209). The Septuagint only has ekaton foinikej. The latter is
certainly the more correct, as the dried lumps of figs or fig-cakes were called
YLIB
di (1Sa. 25:18); and even at the present day ripe dates, pressed together in

lumps like cakes, are used in journeys through the desert, as a satisfying and
refreshing food (vid., Winer, bibl. Realwrterbuch, i. 253).

2Sa. 16: 2. When the king asked him, What are these for thee? i.e., what
art thou going to do with them? Ziba replied, The asses are for the kings
family to ride upon (to ride upon in turn), the bread and summer fruits for the
young men (the kings servants) to eat, and the wine for those that are faint in
the desert to drink (see at 2Sa. 15:23). The Chethib XLHLW is evidently a
copyists error for XElEHAWi.

2Sa. 16: 3. To the further question put by the king, Where is thy lord
(Mephibosheth)? Ziba replied, Behold, he sits (is staying) in Jerusalem; for he
said, To-day will the house of Israel restore the kingship (government) of my
father. The kingship of my father, inasmuch as the throne would have
passed to Jonathan if he had outlived Saul. It is obvious enough, apart
altogether from 2Sa. 19:25ff., the Ziba was calumniating his master
Mephibosheth, in the hope of getting possession of the lands that he was
farming for him. A cripple like Mephibosheth, lame in both feet, who had never
put in any claim to the throne before, could not possibly have got the idea now
that the people of Israel, who had just chosen Absalom as king, would give the
throne of Saul to such a cripple as he was. It is true that Zibas calumny was
very improbable; nevertheless, in the general confusion of affairs, it was not
altogether an inconceivable thing that the oppressed party of Saul might avail
themselves of this opportunity to make an attempt to restore the power of that
house, which many greatly preferred to that of David, under the name of
Mephibosheth.

2Sa. 16: 4. And in the excited state in which David then was, he was weak
enough to give credence to Zibas words, and to commit the injustice of
promising the calumniator all that belonged to Mephibosheth, a promise for
which he most politely thanked him. YTIYW
XtAiHI, I bow myself, equivalent to,
I lay myself at thy feet. May I find favour in the eyes of my lord the king!
i.e., may the king grant me his favour (vid., 1Sa. 1:18).

2Sa. 16: 5-14. Shimeis cursing. Vv. 5, 6. When the king had come to
Bahurim, on the other side of the Mount of Olives, but not far off (see at
2Sa. 3:16), there came out of that place a man of the family of the house of
Saul, i.e., a distant relation of Saul, cursing him; and he pelted David and all his
servants with stones, although all the people and all the heroes (the household
troops and body-guard: 2Sa. 15:17, 18) were (marking) on the right and left of
the king. The words all the people, etc., are a circumstantial clause.

2Sa. 16: 7, 8. Shimei cursed thus:

Out, out (away, away), thou man of blood, and worthless man! Jehovah hath repaid
thee (now) for all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast become
king, and hath given the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son. Behold, now
thou art in thy misfortune, for thou art a man of blood.

YMIdF YJI , a man of drops of blood, i.e., one who has shed blood or committed
murder. What Shimei meant by all the blood of the house of Saul, which
David had shed, and because of which he was a man of blood, it is impossible to
determine with certainty. He may possibly have attributed to David the murder
of Ishbosheth and Abner, notwithstanding the fact that David was innocent of
the death of both (see 2Sa. 3:27ff., and 4, 6ff.). By in whose stead thou hast
reigned, he meant whose throne thou hast forcibly usurped; and by TEFRFbi
niH,I it is for this that punishment hat overtaken thee now.

2Sa. 16: 9, 10. Abishai wanted to put an end to this cursing (on the
expression dead dog, see 2Sa. 9: 8). Let me go, said he to David, and take
away his head, i.e., chop off his head. But David replied, What have I to do
with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? Joab probably joined with Abishai. The formula
what to me and you? signifies that a person did not wish to have anything in
common with the feelings and views of another (cf. 1Ki. 17:18, Jos. 22:24; and
ti emoi kai soi, John 2: 4. For the thing itself, comp. Luke 9:52-56). If he
curses, and if Jehovah hath said to him, Curse David, who shall then say,
Wherefore hast thou done so? For uHY YKIWi Ll
QAYi YkI (Chethib), the Masoretes
give us the Keri, uHY YkI Ll
QAYi HkO, so let him curse, for Jehovah, etc. This
thought lies at the foundation of the rendering adopted by the LXX, who have
inserted, by way of explanation, kai afete auton kai: so let him go, and so may
he curse. The Vulgate is just the same: dimittite eum ut maledicat. This
interpolation is taken from v. 11, and, like the Keri, is nothing more than a
conjecture, which was adopted simply because YkI was taken as a causal
particle, and then offence was taken at YKIW.i But YkI signifies if, quando, in this
passage, and the W before the following YMIw introduces the apodosis.

2Sa. 16:11, 12. David said still further to Abishai and all his servants:
Behold, my own son seeketh after my life; how much more then the
Benjaminite! (who belongs to a hostile race.) Let him curse, for Jehovah hath
bidden him. Perhaps Jehovah will look upon my guilt, and Jehovah will requite
me good for the curse which befals me this day. YNIW
O bA (Chethib) has been
altered by the Masoretes into YNIY
bi, upon mine eye, probably in the sense of
upon my tears; and YTILFLiQI into WTOLFLiQ,I from pure misapprehension.
YNIW
O bA does not mean upon my misery, for WOF never has this meaning, but
upon the guilt which really belongs to me, in contrast with that with which

Shimei charges me; and YTILFLiQI is the curse that has come upon me. Although
David had committed no murder upon the house of Saul, and therefore Shimeis
cursing was nothing but malicious blasphemy, he felt that it came upon him
because of his sins, though not for the sin imputed to him. He therefore forbade
their putting the blasphemer to death, and said Jehovah had commanded him to
curse; regarding the cursing as the consequence of the wrath of God that was
bringing him low (comp. the remarks on 1Sa. 26:19). But this consciousness of
guilt also excited the assurance that the Lord would look upon his sin. When
God looks upon the guilt of a humble sinner, He will also, as a just and merciful
God, avert the evil, and change the suffering into a blessing. David founded
upon this the hope, that the Lord would repay him with good for the curse with
which Shimei was pursuing him now.

2Sa. 16:13.
So David went with his men on the way, whilst Shimei went on the slope of the hill
opposite to him, cursing continually, and pelted with stones over against him, and
with earth.

WTOm
F ULi means over against him in both instances. It is not expressly stated that
Shimei threw stones and earth at David, but this is implied in the context.

2Sa. 16:14. The king came with his train, pursued in this manner, to Ayephim,
and refreshed himself there. The context requires that Ayephim should be taken
as the name of a place. If it were an appellative, signifying weary, there would
be no information as to the place to which David came, and to which the word
F (there) distinctly refers. Bahurim cannot be the place alluded to, for the
simple reason that, according to 2Sa. 17:18, the place where David rested was a
considerable distance beyond Bahurim, towards the Jordan, as we may see from
the fact that it is stated there that the priests sons, who were sent to carry
information to David of what was occurring in Jerusalem, hid themselves in a
well at Bahurim from the officers who were following them, and consequently
had to go still further in order to convey the news to David; so that it is out of
the question to supply this name from v. 5. It is true that we never meet with
the name Ayephim again; but this applies to many other places whose existence
is not called in question.f24

Absaloms Entrance into Jerusalem. Advice of Ahithophel and

Hushai. Ch. 16:15-17:23.
2Sa. 16:15-23. When Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, i.e.,
the people who had joined him out of all the tribes of Israel (2Sa. 15:10), came
to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him, Hushai the Archite also came and

greeted him warmly as king, by exclaiming again and again, Long live the
king!

2Sa. 16:17ff. Absalom, apparently astonished at this, said to him, Is this thy
love to thy friend (David)? why wentest thou not with thy friend? But Hushai
replied, No; but whom Jehovah hath chosen, and this people (i.e., the people
who had entered Jerusalem with Absalom), and all the men of Israel (i.e., the
whole nation), to him (JLO for WLO, Keri) will I belong, and will remain with him.
And again, whom should I serve? Is it not before his son? As I have served thy
father, so will I be before thee (i.e., serve thee). With great craftiness, Hushai
declared at the very outset that Jehovah had chosen Absalom at least he
could not come to any other conclusion, judging from the results. And under
such circumstances he could not have any doubt as to whom it was his duty to
serve. As he had formerly served the father, so now he would serve his son
Absalom. In this way he succeeded in completely deceiving Absalom, so that he
placed unbounded confidence in him.

2Sa. 16:20. After taking possession of the capital of the kingdom, the next
thing to do was to form the resolution to take and keep the throne. Absalom
therefore turned to Ahithophel, and said, Give ye counsel what we are to do.
The plural wBHF (give ye) may be explained on the supposition that the other
persons present were addressed as well as Ahithophel, as being capable of
giving advice.

2Sa. 16:21. Ahithophel gave the following counsel: Go to thy fathers

concubines, whom he hath left behind to keep the house (i.e., lie with them: for
LJE JWbO, compare 2Sa. 3: 7, etc.); so will all Israel hear that thou hast made
thyself stinking with thy father, and the hands of all those who are with thee will
strengthen themselves. This advice was sagacious enough. Lying with the
kings concubines was an appropriation of the royal harem, and, as such, a
complete usurpation of the throne (see at 2Sa. 3: 7), which would render any
reconciliation between Absalom and his father utterly impossible, and therefore
would of necessity instigate the followers of Absalom to maintain his cause with
all the greater firmness. This was what Ahithophel hoped to attain through his
advice. For unless the breach was too great to be healed, with the affection of
David towards his sons, which might in reality be called weakness, it was
always a possible thing that he should forgive Absalom; and in that case
Ahithophel would be the one to suffer. But under the superintendence of God
this advice of Ahithophel was to effect the fulfilment, without any such
intention on his part, of the threat held over David in 2Sa. 12: 8.

2Sa. 16:22. Absalom had a tent put up on the roof of the kings palace, that
his going in to the concubines might be done publicly in the sight of all Israel.
For (as the historian adds in v. 23 by way of explanation) the counsel of
Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was like a divine oracle both
with David and with Absalom. The words from TCAWA to H
HF are placed at the
commencement absolutely: and (as for) the counsel of Ahithophel,...as if one
inquired the word of God, so was every counsel of Ahithophel. The Masoretes
have supplied YJI as the Keri to LJAiY.I This is correct so far as the sense is
concerned, but it is quite unnecessary, as LJAiYI may be taken impersonally.
YHILOJHF RBADibI LJAF is to be explained from the formula YHILOJb
LJAF (see
at Jud. 1: 1).

2Sa. 17: 1-14. AHITHOPHELS ADVICE FRUSTRATED BY HUSHAI. Vv. 1-3.

Ahithophel said still further to Absalom, I will choose out twelve thousand
men, and arise, and pursue after David this night; and fall upon him when he is
exhausted and weak, and fill him with alarm: so shall all the people that are with
him flee; and I will smite the king alone (when he is alone), and will bring back
all the people to thee. HLFYilAH,A the night, is the night following the day of
Davids flight and Absaloms entrance into Jerusalem, as we may see very
clearly from v. 16. This advice was sagaciously conceived; for if David had been
attacked that night by a powerful army, he might possibly have been defeated.
HBFYIJF, to bring back, may be explained on the supposition that Ahithophel
regarded Absalom as king, and those who had fled with David as rebels, who
were to be brought back under Absaloms sceptre. The following words, uWGW
LkOHA Bwki, as the return of the whole (the whole nation) is the man, i.e.,
the return of all is dependent upon David, for whom thou liest in wait, are
somewhat difficult, though the meaning of Ahithophel is evident enough from
what precedes: viz., if he is beaten, they will all come over to thee; the whole
nation will be at peace (WLOF is used adverbially). f25

2Sa. 17: 4, 5. Although this advice pleased Absalom and all the elders of
Israel (present), Absalom sent for Hushai the Archite to hear his opinion.
JwHgA serves to strengthen the suffix in WYPIbi (cf. Ewald, 311, a.).

2Sa. 17: 6, 7. In answer to Absaloms inquiry, Shall we do his word (i.e.,

follow Ahithophels advice) or not? Hushai said, The advice is not good that
Ahithophel hath given this time; and then still further explained (v. 8): Thou
knowest thy father and his men, that they are heroes, and of a ferocious
disposition (like Jud. 18:25), like a bear in the field robbed of her young; and
thy father is a man of war, and will not pass the night with the people, sc., so
that it would be possible to come upon him unawares and slay him (YLI with

TJ
, as in Job. 19: 4). The idea that YLIYF is to be taken as a Hiphil, in the sense
of and does not let the people lodge for the night (Bttcher), is quite
untenable, since it does not tally with v. 9, Behold, he is hid now in one of the
pits, or one of the places (YTIXFpi are hiding-places that are strong by nature,
TMOWQOMi are places rendered strong by art); and it comes to pass that he falls
upon them at the first: so will men hear it, and say a defeat has taken place
among the people that follow Absalom. LPANF with bi, as in Jos. 11: 7, to fall
upon a person. The subject to LPONi is David, but it is not mentioned as being
evident enough from the context; so that there is no necessity for the
emendation WLOPiNF, which Thenius proposes. The suffix HEbF relates to those
making the attack, the hosts of Absalom. Thenius has given the meaning
correctly: The report that David has made an attack will be sufficient to give
rise to the belief that our men have sustained a severe defeat.

2Sa. 17:10. And even if he (the hearer, v. 9) be a brave man, who has a
lions heart (lion-like courage), he will be thrown into despair; for all Israel
knows that thy father is a hero, and brave men (are those) who are with him.

2Sa. 17:11. Yea (YkI , profecto), I advise: let all Israel be gathered round thee
from Dan to Beersheba (see at Jud. 20: 1), numerous as the sand by the sea;
and thou thyself go into the war. YNEp,F thy person, i.e., thou thyself be
marching. The plural YKILiHO is used because of YNEp.F For bi LAH,F to enter into
anything, see 1Ki. 19: 4, Isa. 45:16; 46: 2. BRFQi, war, the early translators have
confounded with BREQE.

2Sa. 17:12. And come we to him (if we come upon him) in one of the places
where he is found, we let ourselves down upon him, as the dew falls upon the
earth; and of him and all the men with him there will not be one left. wNXiNA
might be a contraction of wNXiNAJ, as in Gen. 42:11, Exo. 16: 7, 8, etc.: so we
upon him, equivalent to so shall we come upon him. But if this were the
meaning, we should expect WYLFF wNYYIHFW.i It is more correct, therefore, to take
wNXiNA as the first pers. perf. of XAwN, as the early translators have done: so do we
let ourselves down upon him. (For XAwN as applied to an army encamping, see
Isa. 7: 2, 19; and as denoting the swarming of flies and grasshoppers, Isa. 7:19
and Exo. 10:14.) In Ahithophels opinion, it would be possible with a very small
army to crush David and his little band, however brave his followers might be,
and in fact to annihilate them altogether.

2Sa. 17:13. And if he draw back into a city, all Israel lays ropes to that city,
and we drag it to the brook, till there is not even a little stone found there.

LXAnAHADA: inasmuch as fortified cities were generally built upon mountains.

RWROCi signifies a little stone, according to the ancient versions. Hushai speaks in
hyperboles of the irresistible power which the whole nation would put forth
when summoned together for battle, in order to make his advice appear the
more plausible.

2Sa. 17:14. And he secured his end. Absalom and all Israel thought his advice
better than that of Ahithophel; for it was intended to commend itself to
Absalom and his supporters. The counsel appeared safe; at the same time it
was full of a certain kind of boasting, which pleased the younger men
(Clericus). All that Hushai had said about the bravery and heroism of David and
his followers, was well founded. The deception lay in the assumption that all the
people from Dan to Beersheba would crowd around Absalom as one man;
whereas it might easily be foreseen, that after the first excitement of the
revolution was over, and great calmness ensued, a large part of the nation and
army would gather round David. But such a possibility as this never entered the
minds of Absalom and his supporters. It was in this that the divine sentence
referred to in v. 14b was seen: The Lord had commanded (appointed) it, to
defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, that he might bring the evil (intended)
upon Absalom.

2Sa. 17:15-23. DAVID I S INFORMED OF WHAT HAS OCCURRED. Vv. 15,

16. Hushai communicated without delay to the priests Zadok and Abiathar the
advice which had been given to Absalom both by Ahithophel and himself, and
requested them to make it known to David as quickly as possible. Stay not the
night, he said, by the ferries (TWROBiA, as in 2Sa. 15:28) of the desert; but
rather go over, lest the king and all the people with him be destroyed. GAWi ,
and indeed, or after a negative clause, but rather. LEMELA lABUYi is either
there will be a devouring, i.e., destruction, to the king, it will fall upon him; of
if we supply the subject from the previous clause RWBOtA RWBOF as Bttcher
proposes, that it (the crossing over) may not be swallowed up or cut off from
the king. There is nothing to justify Ewalds explanation, it (misfortune) is
swallowed by him. Hushai recommended of course an immediate crossing of
the Jordan; because he did not know whether Absalom would really act upon
his advice, although he had expressed his approval of it, or whether he might
not change his mind and follow Ahithophels counsel.

2Sa. 17:17.
Jonathan and Ahimaaz (the sons of the priests: 2Sa. 15:27) stood at the Rogel
spring (the present well of Job or Nehemiah, at the south-east corner of Jerusalem:
see at Job. 15: 7), and the maid-servant (of one of the high priests) went and told

them (Hushais message), and they went and told it to king David; for they durst not
let themselves be seen to come into the city.

They had therefore been staying at the Rogel spring outside the city. After what
had taken place publicly, according to 2Sa. 15:24ff., Absalom could not be in
any doubt as to the views of the high priests. Consequently their sons could not
come into the city, with the intention of leaving it again directly, to inform
David of the occurrences that had taken place there as he had requested
(2Sa. 15:28). The clause and they went and told David anticipates the course
of the affair, according to the general plan adopted by Hebrew historians, of
communicating the result at the very outset wherever they possibly could.

2Sa. 17:18. And a lad (servant) saw them, and told Absalom. Absalom had
most likely set spies to watch the priests and their sons. But the two sons who
had noticed the spy hurried into the house of a man at Bahurim, who had a well
(or cistern that was dry at the time) in his court, and went down into the well.

2Sa. 17:19. And the mans wife spread a covering (SFmFHA, the covering
which she had close at hand) over the well (over the opening into the cistern),
and scattered groats (TWPOYRI, peeled barley: Pro. 27:22) upon it, so that nothing
was noticed. The Vulgate explanation is a very good one: quasi siccans
ptisanas (as if drying peeled barley).

2Sa. 17:20. When Absaloms servants came and asked for the priests sons,

the woman said, They have gone over the little water-brook (YIMAHA LKAYMI , ap.
leg.), and thus led them wrong, so that they did not find them.

2Sa. 17:21, 22. When they had gone away, the priests sons came up out of
the well and brought David the news, saying, Go quickly over the water, for
thus hath Ahithophel counselled against you; whereupon David and all the
people with him went hastily over the Jordan. Till the morning dawn not one
was missed who had not gone over. DXAJA DA, lit. even to one there was not
any one missed.

2Sa. 17:23. It is still further stated in conclusion, that when Ahithophel saw
that his advice was not carried out, he saddled his ass and returned to his home,
and there set his house in order and hanged himself, because he could foresee
that Absalom would lose his cause through not taking his advice, and it would
then be all over with himself. Thus was Davids prayer (2Sa. 15:31) fulfilled.

Absaloms Defeat and Death. Ch. 17:24-19: 1.

2Sa. 17:24-19: 1. The account of the civil war, which terminated with
Absaloms defeat and death, is introduced in vv. 24-26 with a description of the

relative position of the two hostile parties. David had come to Mahanaim, a city
probably a fortified one, on the east of the Jordan, not far from the ford of the
Jabbok (see at 2Sa. 2: 8). Absalom had also gone over the Jordan, he and all
the men with him, i.e., all the fighting men that he had gathered together
according to Hushais advice, and encamped in the land of Gilead.

2Sa. 17:25. Absalom had made Amasa captain over his army instead of Joab,
who had remained true to David, and had gone with his king to Mahanaim.
Amasa was the son of a man named Jithra, YLIJ
RiViyIHA , who had gone in to (i.e.,
had seduced) Abigail, the daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah, Joabs
mother. He was therefore an illegitimate cousin of Joab. The description given
of Jithra as YLIJ
RiViYI is very striking, since there was no reason whatever why it
should be stated that Amasas father was an Israelite. The Seventy have
therefore given o Iezrahlithj, i.e., sprung from Jezreel, where Davids wife
Ahinoam came from (1Sa. 27: 3); but they have done so apparently from mere
conjecture. The true reading is evidently YLIJ
MiiyIHA, an Ishmaelite, according
to 1Ch. 2:17, where the name is written Jether, a contracted form of Jithra.
From the description given of Abigail as a daughter of Nahash and sister of
Zeruiah, not of David, some of the earlier commentators have very justly
concluded that Abigail and Zeruiah were only step-sisters of David, i.e.,
daughters of his mother by Nahash and not by Jesse.

2Sa. 17:27-29. When David came to Mahanaim, some of the wealthier

citizens of the land to the east of the Jordan supplied the men who were with
him with provisions. This is mentioned as the first sign that the people had not
all fallen away from David, but that some of the more distinguished men were
still firm in their adherence. Shobi, the son of Nahash or Rabbah, the capital of
the Ammonites (see 2Sa. 11: 1), was possibly a son of Nahash the deceased
king of the Ammonites, and brother of Hanun, who was defeated by David
(2Sa. 10: 1, 2), and one of those to whom David had shown favour and
kindness when Rabbah was taken. At the same time, it is also quite possible that
Shobi may have been an Israelite, who was merely living in the capital of the
Ammonites, which had been incorporated into the kingdom of David, as it is
evident from v. 25 that Nahash was not an uncommon name among the
Israelites. Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar (see at 2Sa. 9: 4), and
Barsillai of Roglim the Gileadite. Roglim was a town in Gilead, which is only
mentioned once again, viz., in 2Sa. 19:32, and of which nothing further is
known. They brought bedding, basins, earthenware, and wheat, barley, meal,
and parched grains, beans, lentils and parched. The position of the verb, which
is not placed between the subject and the object of the sentence, but only at the
close of the whole series of objects, is certainly unusual; but this does not
warrant any alteration of the text. For if we were to supply a verb before

BkFiMI, as having fallen out of the text, it would be necessary, since wYgIHI
follows without a copula, to divide the things enumerated into two classes, so
as to connect one portion of the objects with wYgIH,I which is obviously
unnatural. The early translators who interpolate a verb before the objects have
therefore also supplied the copula W before wYgIH.I There is still less ground for
supplying the number 10, as having dropped out before BkFiMI and TWpOSA , as
the LXX have done, since none of the translators of the other ancient versions
had any such reading. BkFiMI, couch or bed, is used here for bedding. TWpOS,A
basins, probably field-kettles. The repetition of YLIQFWi is very striking;
nevertheless the second must not be struck out without further ground as a
supposed copyists error. As they not only ate parched ears or grains of wheat
(see at Lev. 2:14), but were also in the habit of drying pulse, pease, and lentils
before eating them (vid., Harmar, Beobachtungen, i. pp. 255-6), the second
YLIQF may be understood as referring to parched pulse. The ap. leg. RQFbF TWPOi
signifies, according to the Chaldee and the Rabbins, cheese of oxen (i.e., of
cows), and according to the conjecture of Roediger (Ges. Thes. p. 1462), a
peculiar kind of cheese, such as the Aeneze in the province of Nedjid still
make,f26
and for which the term safwq bown retained by the LXX was probably the
technical name. Theodotus, on the other hand, has galaqhna mosxaria, milchcalves; and the Vulgate pingues vitulos, both of them renderings which can
certainly be sustained from the Arabic usage of speech, and would be more in
accordance with the situation of the words, viz., after JCO. wRMiJF YkI, for they
said (or thought) the people have become hungry and faint and thirty in the
desert, i.e., in their flight to Mahanaim.

2Sa. 18: 1-5. PREPARATION FOR WAR. Vv. 1, 2. David mustered the
people that were with him, and placed over them captains of thousands and
hundreds, and divided them into three companies, under the generals Joab,
Abishai, and Ittai the Gathite, who had given such decided proofs, according to
2Sa. 15:21, 22, of his fidelity to David. DYAbi XAl
I, to leave to the hand of a
person, i.e., to his power, is used here in the sense of placing under his
direction. The people opposed in the most decided manner the wish of the king
to go with them to the war, saying (v. 3), Thou shalt not go out: for if we flee,
they will take no heed of us (i.e., attach no importance to this); and if half of us
die, they will take no heed of us: for thou art as ten thousand of us (we must
evidently read HtFJA for HtFA, and HtFA has merely got into the text in
consequence of HtFAWi following): and now it is good that thou be ready to give
us help from the city (the Chethib RYZIiL,A inf. Hiphil for RYZIHAL,i is not to be

disputed). David was to stay behind in the city with a reserve, that he might be
able to come to their relief in case of need.

2Sa. 18: 4, 5. The king gave his consent to these proposals, and went to the
side of the gate, whilst the people went out by hundreds and thousands; but in
the hearing of all he commanded the principal generals, Mildly for me (i.e.,
deal gently for my sake) with the boy Absalom. JALi is not the imperative of
JAL,F to cover over, which would not suit the connection, and could not be
construed with Li, but an adverb from JA, as in Isa. 8: 6, 1Ki. 21:27,
Job. 15:11.

2Sa. 18: 6-18. BATTLE IN T HE WOOD OF EPHRAIM , AND DEATH OF

ABSALOM . Vv. 6, 7. When the people, i.e., Davids army, had advanced into
the field against Israel (those who followed Absalom), a battle was fought in
the wood of Ephraim, when Israel was smitten by Davids 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, 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 v. 23, 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 (Jud. 12: 1-5). The reasons
assigned are, first, that according to 2Sa. 17:26, Absalom had encamped in
Gilead, and it is not stated that he had crossed the Jordan again; secondly, that
v. 3 (that thou succour us out of the city) presupposes that the battle took
place in the neighbourhood of Mahanaim (Thenius); and thirdly, 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. 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 Davids victorious army, since all Israel fled to their tents after the fall of
Absalom and the defeat of his army (v. 17 and 2Sa. 19: 9); that is to say, such
of Absaloms 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 Davids 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 v. 6, where it is stated that the army advanced into the field
against Israel (v. 6), which evidently refers to such an advance on the part of
Davids 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, 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 v. 23, he ran after the manner of Kikkar, running, and therefore
overtook Kushi, 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.
The nature of the ground contributed a great deal to the utter defeat of
Absalom.

2Sa. 18: 8. The conflict extended over the surface of the whole land, i.e., the

whole of that region (the Chethib TWCPN is not the plural TWCOPONi, which would
be quite unsuitable, but is most probably a noun, TwCPiNA, signifying bursting
asunder, or wild flight; the Keri TCEPONF is a Niphal participle, fem. gen.); and
the wood devoured more of the people than the sword ate on the same day.
The woody region was most likely full of ravines, precipices, and marches, into
which the flying foe was pursued, and where so many perished.

2Sa. 18: 9.
And Absalom was lighted upon (JR
qFYI = HREqFYI) by the servants of David, riding
upon the mule; and the mule had come under the thick branches of the great
terebinth, and his head fastened itself (remained hanging) on the terebinth, so that
he was held (hung) between heaven and earth, as the mule under him went away.

The imperfects, JBOyFWA, QZAXyEWA, and tAyUWA , are only a combination of the
circumstantial clause BK
RO uBiJAWi . With regard to the fact itself, it is not clearly
stated in the words that Absalom hung only by his hair, but simply that his hair
entangled him in the thick branches, and his head was fastened in the terebinth,
namely, by being jammed between the strong boughs.

2Sa. 18:10. A man (one of Davids men) saw him in this situation, and told
Joab, Joab replied (v. 11), Behold, thou hast seen it, and wherefore has thou
not smitten him there to the ground? and it was for me to give thee ten
silverlings and a girdle; i.e., if thou hadst slain him, it would have been my duty
to reward thee.

2Sa. 18:12. But the man replied, And I...not weighing a thousand shekels in
my hand...might not stretch out my hand to the kings son, i.e., I could not do
it for a reward of a thousand shekels. This is the meaning of the Chethib JLOWi;
the Masoretes, on the other hand, have substituted wLWi, which is the reading
adopted in most of the ancient versions, and the one preferred by the majority
of expositors: if I weighed...I would not, etc. But there is no necessity for this
alteration, as the Chethib is quite in accordance with the character of the words.
For before our ears the king commanded (cf. v. 5): YMI wRMiI, take care
whoever (it be) of the boy Absalom. On this use of YMI, see Ewald, 104, d., a.
The Keri YLI is merely a conjecture, notwithstanding the fact that all the versions
follow it, and that one of the Codices in Kennicott has YLI . or, continued the
man (v. 13), should I have acted deceitfully towards his life (i.e., have slain
him secretly, which he calls RQEE, cheating, because it was opposed to the
kings open command): and nothing remains hidden from the king;...thou
wouldst have set thyself in opposition to me, i.e., have risen up against me
before the king. The middle clause is a circumstantial one, as the fact that
RBFdFLKFWi is placed first clearly shows; so that it cannot be regarded as
introducing the apodosis, which really follows in the clause commencing with
HtFJAW.i

2Sa. 18:14. Joab replied, Not so will I wait before thee, i.e., I will not leave
the thing to thee. He then took three staffs in his hand, and thrust them into
Absaloms heart. YIBF i is rendered by the LXX and Vulgate, belh, lanceas;
and Thenius would adopt YXIL
i I accordingly, as an emendation of the text.
But in the earlier Hebrew XLAE only occurs in poetical writings in the sense of a
missile or dart (Job. 33:18; 36:12; Joe. 2: 8); and it is not till after the captivity
that we find it used to denote a weapon generally. There is no necessity,
however, for altering the text. Joab caught up in his hurry the first thing that he
found, namely pointed staff, and pierced Absalom with them to the heart. This
explains the reason for his taking three, whereas one javelin or dart would have
been sufficient, and also the fact that Absalom was not slain, notwithstanding
their being thrust at his heart. The last clause of the verse belongs to what
follows: Still living (i.e., as he was still alive) in the midst of the terebinth, ten
young men, Joabs armour-bearers, surrounded him, and smote him to death.

2Sa. 18:16. Immediately afterwards Joab stopped any further pursuit, for
Joab spared the people, i.e., he wanted to spare them.

2Sa. 18:17. But Absalom they cast into a great pit in the wood, and threw up
over him a very large heap of stones, as an ignominious monument, like those
thrown up over Achan (Jos. 7:26) and the king of Air (Jos. 8:29). This was the
end of Absalom and his rebellion. All Israel (that had crowded round him) had
fled, every one to his tent (i.e., home: see at Deu. 16: 7).

2Sa. 18:18. Absalom had erected a monument to himself in the kings valley
during his lifetime; for he said, I have no son to preserve the remembrance of
my name, and he called the monument by his own name; and so it was called
hand (memorial) of Absalom unto this day. The XQALF before BcEyAWA is
apparently pleonastic; but it belongs to the diffuse and circumstantial character
of the antiquated Hebrew diction (as in Num. 16: 1). TBEcEMA, a memorial of
stone; whether in the form of a column, or an obelisk, or a monolith, cannot be
determined (vid., Gen. 28:22; 31:52). The kings valley, which received its
name from the event narrated in Gen. 14:17, was two stadia from Jerusalem
according to Josephus (Ant. vii. 10, 3), and therefore not close to the Dead
Sea, or in regione transjordanensi (Ges. Thes. pp. 1045, 1377), or in the
Jordan valley in Ephraim (Tuch and Winer). It was on the eastern side of
Jerusalem, in the Kidron valley; though Absaloms pillar, which ecclesiastical
tradition has transferred thither, a monument about forty feet in height and
pointed like a pyramid, is not of early Hebrew, but of Grecian origin. On the
words I have no son, see at 2Sa. 14:27.

2Sa. 18:19-32. DAVID I S INFORMED OF THE VICTORY , AND OF THE DEATH

OF ABSALOM . Vv. 19, 20. Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, wanted to carry the
news to David, that Jehovah had procured the king justice out of the hand of
his enemies (PAF with MI is a pregnant expression signifying to procure
justice and deliver out of); but Joab, knowing how David would receive the
tidings of the death of Absalom, replied, Thou art no man of good tidings today; thou shalt take the news on another day, not on this, even because (k
LA
YkI, see at Gen. 18: 5) the kings son is dead. The Keri k
LA YkI is to be
preferred to the Chethib LAYkI ; and k
has no doubt been dropt out merely
because of bE which follows. The Chethib does not give any suitable sense; for
the absence of the article before TM
is decisive against the explanation proposed
by Maurer, viz., for (tidings have to be carried) concerning the kings son
dead. If TM
were to be construed as an adverb with LEME bE, it would of
necessity have the article.

2Sa. 18:21. Joab therefore entrusted the Cushite with the duty of conveying
to David the announcement of what had occurred. It cannot be decided with
certainty whether YIwkHA or Cushi is the proper name of an Israelite, or whether
it signifies the Cushite, i.e., a descendant of Cush. The form of the name
rather favours the latter view, in which case it would suggest the idea of a
Moorish slave in the service of Joab.

2Sa. 18:22, 23. As Ahimaaz still expressed a wish to hasten to the king, even
after Cushi had been sent, and could not be induced to relinquish his purpose by
the repeated expostulations of Joab, the latter at length permitted him to run.
And he ran so fast, that he got before Cushi. HMF YHIYWI: let whatever will happen.
HKFLiw is the pronoun to thee, as in Gen. 27:37, and not the imperative of
LAH,F thou mayest go. The meaning is, and there is no striking message for
thee, no message that strikes the mark, or affects anything. We must supply
he said in thought before v. 23. There was the less necessity to write it here
(as in 1Sa. 1:20), since it is perfectly obvious from the repetition of HMF YHIYWI
that it is Ahimaaz who is speaking. Ahimaaz then ran by the way of the plain,
i.e., the way which lies through or across the plain of the Jordan. Now he could
not possibly have taken this road, if the battle had been fought in a wood on the
eastern side of the Jordan, and he had wanted to hurry from the scene of battle
to Mahanaim; for in that case he would have taken a circuitous route two or
three times the distance of the straight road, so that it would have been utterly
impossible for him to get there before the Cushite, however quickly he might
run. This notice therefore furnishes a decisive proof that the battle was fought
upon the mountains of Ephraim, in the land to the west of the Jordan, since the
straight road thence to Mahanaim would lie through the valley of the Jordan.

2Sa. 18:24. David was sitting between the two gates of Mahanaim waiting for
tidings of the result of the battle. The two gates are the outer and inner gate of
the fortified city wall, between which there was a small court, where David was
sitting. The watchman then went up to the roof of the gate by the wall, probably
the outer gate in the city wall, and as he looked he saw a man running alone.

2Sa. 18:25. When he announced this to the king, he said, If he (is or comes)
alone, there is good news in his mouth, namely, because several runners would
have shown themselves if it had been a flight. As the first messenger came
nearer and nearer, the watchman saw another man running, and shouted this
into the gate (R
OHA is wrongly pointed for RAAH,A according to the LXX,
Syr., and Vulgate); whereupon the king replied, This is also a good
messenger.

2Sa. 18:27. When the watchman saw by the running of the first that it was
Ahimaaz, recognising him probably by the swiftness of his running, and
announced it to the king, he replied, He is a good man, and cometh with good
tidings, because Joab would not have selected him to bring any other than
good news.

2Sa. 18:28. Ahimaaz then called out to the king, Shalom, i.e., Hail! and
fell down before him to greet him reverentially, and said, Blessed be Jehovah
thy God, who hath given up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord
the king.

2Sa. 18:29. In answer to the kings inquiry, Is it well with the young man
Absalom? Ahimaaz replied, I saw the great tumult (that arose) when Joab
sent off the kings servant, and thy servant, and know not what (sc., had
occurred). Ahimaaz spoke as if he had been sent off before Absaloms fate had
been decided or could be known. The kings servant is the Cushite, whom
Ahimaaz saw just approaching, so that he could point to him. Joab is the
subject, which is sometimes written after the object in the case of an infinitive
construction (vid., Gesenius, 133, 3 Anm.); and the expression thy servant
is a conventional one for me (viz., Ahimaaz).

2Sa. 18:30. And the king said, Turn, and stand here, that he might hear the
further news from the Cushite, who had just arrived.

2Sa. 18:31. The Cushite said, Let my lord the king receive good tidings, for
Jehovah hath procured thee justice to-day out of the hand of all who have risen
up against thee (cf. v. 19).

2Sa. 18:32. When asked about the welfare of Absalom, the Cushite replied,
May it happen to the enemies of my lord the king, and all who have risen up
against thee for evil (i.e., to do thee harm), as to the young man. The death of
Absalom was indicated clearly enough in these words.

2Sa. 18:33. The king understood the meaning of the words. He was agitated,
and went up to the balcony of the gate (the room above the entrance) and wept,
and said, walking about, My son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Oh that I
had died for thee, Absalom, my son, my son! To understand this passionate
utterance of anguish, we must bear in mind not only the excessive tenderness,
or rather weakness, of Davids paternal affection towards his son, but also his
anger that Joab and his generals should have paid so little regard to his
command to deal gently with Absalom. With the kings excitable temperament,
this entirely prevented him from taking a just and correct view of the crime of

his rebel son, which merited death, and of the penal justice of God which had
been manifested in his destruction.

David Reinstated in His Kingdom. Ch. 19: 1-39.

2Sa. 19. In his passionate and sinful sorrow on account of Absaloms death
David not only forgot altogether what it was his duty to do, in order to recover
the affections of the people, so that Joab was obliged to remind him of this duty
which was binding upon him as king (vv. 1-8); but he even allowed himself to
be carried away into the most inconsiderate measures (vv. 9-14), and into acts
of imprudence and injustice (vv. 16-23, 24-30), which could not contribute to
the strengthening of his throne, however much the affection with which he
wished to reward the old man Barzillai for his faithful services (vv. 31-40)
might show that the king was anxious to promote the welfare of his subjects.

2Sa. 19: 1-8. DAVIDS MOURNING, AND JOAB S REPROOF. Vv. 1-6. When
Joab was told that the king was mourning and weeping for Absalom, he went to
him into the house to expostulate with him. V. 5 introduces the continuation of
v. 1; vv. 2-4 contain parenthetical sentences, describing the impression made
upon the people by the kings mourning. Through the kings deep trouble, the
salvation (the victory) upon that day became mourning for all the people who
had fought for David, and they went by stealth in to the city (JWBOLF Bn
gATiY:I they
stole to come, came by stealth), as people steal away who have covered
themselves with shame, when they flee in battle.

2Sa. 19: 4. But the king had covered his face, and cried aloud, My son
Absalom, etc.

2Sa. 19: 5. Then Joab went into the house to the king, and said to him, Thou
hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants who have saved thy life, and
the life of thy sons and daughters, thy wives and concubines (covered them
with shame, by deceiving their hope that thou wouldest rejoice in the victory).

2Sa. 19: 6. HBFHJAL,i to love (i.e., in that thou lovest) those who hate thee,
and hatest those who love thee; for thou hast given to know to-day (through
thy conduct) that chiefs and servants (commanders and soldiers) are nothing
(are worth nothing); for I have perceived to-day (or I perceive to-day) that if
(JLU for wL) Absalom were alive, and we had all perished, that it would be right
in thine eyes.

2Sa. 19: 7. And now rise up, go out and speak to the heart of thy servants
(i.e., speak to them in a friendly manner: Gen. 34: 3; 50:21, etc.): for I swear by
Jehovah, if thou go not out, verily not a man will stay with thee to-night; and

this will be worse to thee than all the evil that has come upon thee from thy
youth until now. Joab was certainly not only justified, but bound in Davids
own interests, to expostulate with him upon his conduct, and to urge him to
speak in a friendly manner to the people who had exposed their lives for him,
inasmuch as his present conduct would necessarily stifle the affection of the
people towards their king, and might be followed by the most serious results
with reference to his throne. At the same time, he did this in so heartless and
lordly a manner, that the king could not fail to be deeply hurt by his words.

2Sa. 19: 8. Nevertheless David was obliged to yield to his representations.

The king rose up, and sat in the gate, and...all the people came before the
king, i.e., the troops marched before the king, who (as we may supply from
the context) manifested his good-will in both looks and words. But Israel, i.e.,
that portion of the people which had followed Absalom, had returned to its
tents (i.e., gone home: cf. 2Sa. 18:17). This sentence forms the transition to the
account which follows.

2Sa. 19: 9-14. PRELIMINARIES T O T HE RETURN OF DAVID TO JERUSALEM .

Vv. 9, 10. As the rebellion was entirely crushed by Absaloms death, and the
dispersion of his followers to their respective homes, there arose a movement
among all the tribes in favour of David. All the people were disputing (WDONF ,
casting reproaches at one another) in all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king
has saved us out of the hand of our enemies,...and now he is fled out of the land
before Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle;
and now why do ye keep still, to bring back the king? This movement arose
from the consciousness of having done an injustice to the king, in rising up in
support of Absalom.

2Sa. 19:11, 12. When these words of all Israel were reported to David, he
sent to the priests Zadok and Abiathar, saying, Speak to the elders of Judah,
why will ye be the last to bring back the king to his palace?...Ye are my
brethren, my bones and flesh (i.e., my blood relations): why then, etc.? The last
clause of v. 11, the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his
house, is a circumstantial clause inserted in the midst of Davids words, to
explain the appeal to the men of Judah not to be the last. In the LXX, and some
Codices of the Vulgate, this sentence occurs twice, viz., at the end of v. 10, and
also of v. 11; and Thenius, Ewald, and Bttcher regard the clause at the end of
v. 10 as the original one, and the repetition of it at the close of v. 11 as a gloss.
But this is certainly a mistake: for if the clause, and the speech of all Israel
came to the king to his house (at Mahanaim), ought to stand at the close of v.
10, and assigns the reason for Davids sending to Zadok and Abiathar, v. 11
would certainly, or rather necessarily, commence with LEMEHA XLAiyIWA: The

word of all Israel came to the king, and then king David sent, etc. But instead
of this, it commences with XLAF DWIdF LEMEHAWi, But king David sent. This
construction of the sentence decidedly favour the correctness of the Hebrew
text; whereas the text of the Septuagint, apart altogether from the tautological
repetition of the whole of the sentence in question, shows obviously enough
that it is nothing more than a conjecture, by which the attempt was made to
remove the difficulty occasioned by the striking position in which the
circumstantial clause occurred.

2Sa. 19:13. And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not my bone and flesh? so shall
God do to me, and so add, if thou shalt not be prince of the army (chief captain)
before me continually in the place of Joab.

2Sa. 19:14. Thus he (David) inclined the heart of all the people as of one
man, and they sent to the king, saying, Return thou, with all thy servants. The
result of Davids message to the priests is given summarily here. The subject to
yAWA is David, not Amasa or Zadok. So far as the fact itself is concerned, it was
certainly wise of David to send to the members of his own tribe, and appeal to
them not to be behind the rest of the tribes in taking part in his restoration to
the kingdom, lest it should appear as though the tribe of Judah, to which David
himself belonged, was dissatisfied with his victory, since it was in that tribe that
the rebellion itself first broke out; and this would inevitably feed the jealousy
between Judah and the rest of the tribes. But it was not only unwise, but unjust,
to give to Amasa, the traitor-general of the rebels, a promise on oath that he
should be commander-in-chief in the place of Joab; for even if the promise was
only given privately at first, the fact that it had been given could not remain a
secret from Joab very long, and would be sure to stir up his ambition, and lead
him to the commission of fresh crimes, and in all probability the enmity of this
powerful general would become dangerous to the throne of David. For
however Joab might have excited Davids anger by slaying Absalom, and by the
offensive manner in which he had reproved the king for giving way to his grief,
David ought to have suppressed his anger in his existing circumstances, and
ought not to have rendered evil for evil, especially as he was not only about to
pardon Amasas crime, but even to reward him as one of his faithful servants.

2Sa. 19:15-30. RETURN OF THE KING; AND OCCURRENCES AT THE

CROSSING OF T HE JORDAN. Vv. 15-23. Pardon of Shimei. Vv. 15, 16.
When David reached the Jordan on his return, and Judah had come to Gilgal to
meet him, to conduct the king over the Jordan, i.e., to form an escort at the
crossing, Shimei the Benjaminite hastened down from Bahurim (see
2Sa. 16: 5ff.) with the men of Judah to meet David.

2Sa. 19:17ff. There also came along with Shimei a thousand men of
Benjamin, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, with his fifteen sons and
twenty servants (see 2Sa. 9:10); and they went over the Jordan before the king,
viz., through a ford, and the ferry-boat had crossed over to carry over the
kings family, and to do whatever seemed good to him, i.e., to be placed at the
kings sole disposal. And Shimei fell down before the king, WROBiFbi, i.e., when
he (David) was about to cross over the Jordan, not when Shimei had crossed
over the Jordan; for after what has just been stated, such a remark would be
superfluous: moreover, it is very doubtful whether the infinitive with bi can
express the sense of the pluperfect. Shimei said, Let not my lord impute to me
any crime, and do not remember how thy servant hath sinned.

2Sa. 19:20. For thy servant knoweth (i.e., I know) that I have sinned, and
behold I have come to-day the first of the whole house of Joseph, to go to meet
my lord the king. By the whole house of Joseph we are to understand the
rest of the tribes with the exception of Judah, who are called all Israel in v.
12. There is no reason for the objection taken by Thenius and Bttcher to the
expression S
WYOTYb
. This rendering of the LXX (pantoj Israhl kai oikou
Iwshf) does not prove that LJ
RFViYILkF was the original reading, but only that
the translator thought it necessary to explain oikou Iwshf by adding the gloss
pantoj Israhl; and the assertion that it was only in the oratorical style of a
later period, when the kingdom had been divided, that Joseph became the party
name of all that were not included in Judah, is overthrown by 1Ki. 11:28. The
designation of the tribes that opposed Judah by the name of the leading tribe
(Joseph: Jos. 16: 1) was as old as the jealousy between these tribes and Judah,
which did not commence with the division of the kingdom, but was simply
confirmed thereby into a permanent distinction. Shimeis prayer for the
forgiveness of his sin was no more a proof of sincere repentance than the reason
which he adduced in support of his petition, namely that he was the first of all
the house of Joseph to come and meet David. Shimeis only desire was to
secure impunity for himself. Abishai therefore replied (v. 21), Shall not Shimei
be put to death for this (TJZO TXAt,A for this, which he has just said and done),
because he hath cursed the anointed of Jehovah? (vid., 2Sa. 16: 5ff.). But
David answered (v. 22), What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah (cf.
2Sa. 16:10), for ye become opponents to me to-day? FVF , an opponent, who
places obstacles in the way (Num. 22:22); here it signifies one who would draw
away to evil. Should any one be put to death in Israel to-day? for do I not
know that I am this day king over Israel? The reason assigned by David here
for not punishing the blasphemer as he had deserved, by taking away his life,
would have been a very laudable one if the king had really forgiven him. But as
David when upon his deathbed charged his successor to punish Shimei for this

cursing (1Ki. 2: 8, 9), the favour shown him here was only a sign of Davids
weakness, which was not worthy of imitation, the more especially as the king
swore unto him (v. 24) that he should not die.

2Sa. 19:24-30. Davids conduct towards Mephibosheth admits still less of

justification.

2Sa. 19:24. Mephibosheth, the son, i.e., grandson, of Saul, had also come
down (from Jerusalem to the Jordan) to meet David, and had not made his
feet and his beard, i.e., had not washed his feet or arranged his beard (HVFF,
as in Deu. 21:12), and had not washed his clothes all of them signs of deep
mourning (cf. Eze. 24:17) since the day that the king had gone (i.e., had fled
from Jerusalem) until the day that he came (again) in peace.

2Sa. 19:25. Now when Jerusalem (i.e., the inhabitants of the capital) came
to meet the king, f27
David said to him (i.e., to Mephibosheth, who was with the deputation from the
capital which welcomed David at the Jordan), Why wentest thou not with me,
Mephibosheth? David was justified in putting this question after what Ziba
had told him concerning Mephibosheth (2Sa. 16: 3).

2Sa. 19:26. Mephibosheth replied, My lord king, my servant hath deceived

me: for thy servant thought I will have the ass saddled and go to the king; for
thy servant is lame. If we understand HFbiXiJE as signifying that Mephibosheth
had the ass saddled by a servant, and not that he saddled it with his own hands,
the meaning is obvious, and there is no ground whatever for altering the text.
BAXF is certainly used in this sense in Gen. 22: 3, and it is very common for
things to be said to be done by a person, even though not done with his own
hands. The rendering adopted by the LXX and Vulgate, Thy servant said to
him (the servant), Saddle me the ass, is not true to the words, though correct
so far as the sense is concerned.

2Sa. 19:27, 28. And he (Ziba) slandered thy servant to my lord the king.
Mephibosheth had not merely inferred this from Davids words, and the tone in
which they were spoken, but had certainly found it out long ago, since Ziba
would not delay very long to put Davids assurance, that all the possessions of
Mephibosheth should belong to him, in force against his master, so that
Mephibosheth would discover from that how Ziba had slandered him. And my
lord the king is as the angel of God, i.e., he sees all just as it really is (see at
2Sa. 14:17); and do what is good in thy sight: for all my fathers house (the
whole of my family) were but men of death against my lord the king (i.e., thou
mightest have had us all put to death), and thou didst set thy servant among thy

companions at table (see 2Sa. 9: 7, 11); and what right or (what) more have I
still to cry (for help) to the king? The meaning is, I cannot assert any claims,
but will yield to anything you decide concerning me. It must have been very
evident to David from these words of Mephibosheth, that he had been deceived
by Ziba, and that he had formed an unfounded prejudice against Mephibosheth,
and committed an act of injustice in handing over his property to Ziba. He
therefore replied, in evident displeasure (v. 29), Why talkest thou still of thine
affairs? I have said, thou and Ziba shall divide the field? to which
Mephibosheth answered (v. 30), He may take the whole, since my lord the
king has returned in peace to his own house. This reply shows very clearly that
an injustice had been done to Mephibosheth, even if it is not regarded as an
expression of wounded feeling on the part of Mephibosheth because of Davids
words, but, according to the view taken by Seb. Schmidt and others, as a
vindication of himself, as said not to blame the king for the opinion he had
formed, but simply to defend himself. But this completely overthrows the
opinion held by Thenius and O. v. Gerlach, that Davids words in v. 30 contain
nothing more than a revocation of his hasty declaration in 2Sa. 16: 4, and a
confirmation of his first decision in 2Sa. 9: 7-10, and are to be understood as
signifying, Let everything be as I settled it at first; hold the property jointly,
inasmuch as Ziba and his sons had of course obtained their living from the
produce of the land. Moreover, the words thou and Ziba divide the land are
directly at variance with the promise in 2Sa. 9: 7, I will restore thee all the
land of Saul thy father, and the statement in 2Sa. 9: 9, I have given unto thy
masters son all that pertained to Saul, and to all his house. By the words, I
have said, thou and Ziba divide the land, David retracted the hasty decree in
2Sa. 16: 4, so as to modify to some extent the wrong that he had done to
Mephibosheth, but he had not courage enough to retract it altogether. He did
not venture to dispute the fact that Mephibosheth had really been calumniated
by Ziba, which was placed beyond all doubt by his mourning during the whole
period of Davids flight, as described in v. 24. There is no ground for Winers
statement, therefore, that it is impossible now to determine whether
Mephibosheth was really innocent or not.

2Sa. 19:31-39. BARZILLAI COMES T O GREET DAVID. V. 31. Barzillai the

octogenarian had also come down from Roglim and gone across the Jordan
with the king, to escort him over the river. d
RiYAbATJE is the portion in, or
over, the Jordan. TJE is the sign of the accusative, the piece in the Jordan, and
no further. This is the correct explanation as given by Bttcher, after Gesenius
and Maurer; and the Keri d
RiyAHA is a bad emendation.

2Sa. 19:32, 33. As Barzillai had supplied the king with provisions during his

stay in Mahanaim (HBFY I for HBFYIY,i like HJFWCO for HJFWCOYi, and other words of

the same kind), because he was very wealthy (lit. great), David would gladly
have taken him with him to Jerusalem, to repay him there for his kindness; but
Barzillai replied (vv. 34ff.), How many days are there of the years of my life
(i.e., how long shall I have yet to live), that I should go up with the king to
Jerusalem? I am now eighty years old; can I (still) distinguish good and evil, or
will thy servant taste what I eat and drink, or listen again to the voice of the
singing men and singing women? and why should thy servant be yet a burden
unto my lord the king? Thy servant would go over the Jordan with the king for
a short time (i.e., could not remain long with him), and why does the king wish
to repay me this favour? JNFBFY:F Let thy servant return, that I may die in my
city (my home), at the grave of my parents; and behold thy servant Chimham
(i.e., according to the explanation given by Josephus, Barzillais son, who had
come down with his father, as we may infer from 1Ki. 2: 7) may go over with
my lord the king; and do to him what seemeth good to thee, i.e., show him
favours at thy pleasure.

2Sa. 19:38. David consented to this, and said, All that thou desirest of me I
will do to him. RXAbF with LA is a pregnant construction, signifying to choose
and impose, choose upon me, i.e., the thing for me to grant thee.

2Sa. 19:39. Thus all the people went over the Jordan; and when the king had
crossed over, he kissed Barzillai (to take leave of him: vid., Rut. 1: 9); and he
(Barzillai) blessed him, and turned to his place (returned home). Barzillai only
escorted the king over the Jordan, and the conversation (vv. 31-38) probably
took place as they were crossing.

Discontent in Israel, and Shebas Rebellion. Ch. 19:40-20:26.

2Sa. 19:40-43. QUARREL BETWEEN ISRAEL AND JUDAH ABOUT THE
RESTORATION OF THE KING. V. 40. David went across to Gilgal (in the
plain of the Jordan: Jos. 4:19), and Chimham (Chimhan is a modified form for
Chimham: v. 37) had gone over with him, and all the people of Judah had
brought the king over (the Keri wRYBI HE is an easier reading than the Chethib
wRYBIyAWA, and as for the people, they had, etc.), and also half the people of
Israel, namely, beside the thousand Benjaminites who came with Shimei (v.
17), other Israelites who dwelt in the neighbourhood.

2Sa. 19:41. All the men of Israel, i.e., the representatives of the other tribes
of Israel, came to meet the king in Gilgal; and being annoyed at the fact that the
men of Judah had anticipated them, they exclaimed, Why have our brethren the
men of Judah stolen thee away? i.e., fetched thee thus secretly without saying

a word to us. All Davids men were all his faithful adherents who had fled
with him from Jerusalem (2Sa. 15:17ff.).

2Sa. 19:42. The men of Judah replied against (L) the men of Israel: The
king stands near to us (inasmuch as he belonged to their tribe), and wherefore
then art thou angry at this matter? Have we eaten from the king (i.e., derived
any advantage from our tribe-relationship to him, as the Benjaminites did from
Saul, according to 1Sa. 22: 7), or received anything for ourselves therefrom?
TJv
NI is an infinitive abs. Niph. with a feminine termination, borrowed from
HL; literally, or has taking been taken for us.

2Sa. 19:43. The Israelites were annoyed at this answer, and retorted, I
(Israel) have ten portions in the king, and also more than thou in David; and
wherefore hast thou despised me? They considered that they had ten shares in
the king, because they formed ten tribes, in opposition to the one tribe of Judah,
as the Levites did not come into consideration in the matter. Although David
was of the tribe of Judah, he was nevertheless king of the whole nation, so that
the ten tribes had a larger share than one tribe. YNITAlOQIH refers to the fact, that
Judah took no notice at all of the tribes of Israel when fetching back the king.
uWGW HYFHFJLOW,i and was not my speech the first to fetch back my king? (On
the fact itself, see 2Sa. 19:10, 11.) YLI is an emphatic dat. commodi, and is to be
taken in connection with BYIHFL,i notwithstanding the accents. And the speech
of the men of Judah became fiercer (more violent) than the speech of the men of
Israel. With these words the historian sums up briefly the further progress of
the dispute, for the purpose of appending the account of Shebas rebellion, to
which it gave rise.

2Sa. 20: 1-22. SHEBAS REBELLION. V. 1. There happened to be a

worthless man there, named Sheba, a Benjaminite. He blew the trumpet, and
said, We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man
to his tents, O Israel! To his tents, i.e., to his home, as in 2Sa. 19: 9, etc.

2Sa. 20: 2. All the men of Israel responded to this call, and went up (to the
mountains) away from David and after Sheba; but the men of Judah adhered to
their king from the Jordan to Jerusalem. The construction of QBAdF with DAWi
MI is a pregnant one: they adhered to and followed him. The expression from
Jordan does not prove that Shebas rebellion broke out at the Jordan itself,
and before Davids arrival in Gilgal, but may be accounted for from the fact that
the men of Judah had already fetched the king back across the Jordan.

2Sa. 20: 3. As soon as David returned to his palace at Jerusalem, he brought

the ten concubines whom he had left behind, and with whom Absalom had lain,

into a place of safety, and took care of them, without going in unto them any
more. The masculine suffixes attached to N
tiYI , L
kiLiKAY,i and HEYL
J are used,
as they frequently are, as being the more general and indefinite, instead of the
feminine, which is the more definite form. Thus were they shut up in lifelong
widowhood until the day of their death. TwNMiLiJA is an adverbial accusative, and
TwyXA signifies condition in life; literally, in widowhood of life.

2Sa. 20: 4. David then ordered Amasa to call the men of Judah to pursue
Sheba the rebel, and attack him within three days, and then to present himself to
him again. This commission was intended as the commencement of the
fulfilment of the promise which David had given to Amasa (2Sa. 19:14). It was
no doubt his intention to give him the command over the army that marched
against Sheba, and after the defeat of the rebel to make him commander-inchief. But this first step towards the fulfilment of the promise was a very
imprudent act, like the promise itself, since Joab, who had been commander of
the army for so many years, was grievously offended by it; and moreover, being
a well-tried general, he had incomparably more distinction in the tribe of Judah
than Amasa, who had taken part in Absaloms rebellion and even led the rebel
army, could possibly have.

2Sa. 20: 5, 6. But when Amasa stayed out beyond the time fixed for the

execution of the royal commission (the Chethib RXYYW is the Piel RX

YAYiWA , whilst
the Keri is either the Hiphil RX
WyOWA, or the imperfect Kal of RXAYF = RXAJ,F cf.
ZX
tO, v. 9, and is quite unnecessary), probably because the men of Judah
distrusted him, and were not very ready to respond to his summons, David said
to Abishai, Now will Sheba the son of Bichri be more injurious (more
dangerous) to us than Absalom. Take thou the servants (soldiers) of thy lord
and pursue after him, lest he reach fortified cities, and tear out our eye, i.e., do
us a serious injury. This is the correct explanation given by Bttcher, who refers
to Deu. 32:10 and Zec. 2:12, where the apple of the eye is the figure used to
signify the most valuable possession; for the general explanation, and withdraw
from our eye, cannot be grammatically sustained.

2Sa. 20: 7. Thus there went after him (Abishai) Joabs men (the corps
commanded by Joab), and the Crethi and Plethi (see at 2Sa. 8:18), out of
Jerusalem, to pursue Sheba.

2Sa. 20: 8. When they were by the great stone at Gibeon, and Amasa came
to meet them (there), Joab was girded with his armour-coat as his clothing, and
the girdle of the sword was bound over it upon his loins in its sheath, which
came out, and it fell (i.e., the sheath came out of the sword-belt in which it was
fastened, and the sword fell to the ground), Joab said to Amasa, etc. The

eighth verse contains only circumstantial clauses, the latter of which (from
BJFWYOWi onwards) are subordinate to the earlier ones, so that RMEJyOWA (v. 9) is
attached to the first clause, which describes the meeting between the advancing
army and Amasa.
There is something striking, however, in the fact that Joab appears among them,
and indeed, as we see from what follows, as the commander of the forces; for
according to v. 6, David had commissioned Abishai, Joabs brother, to pursue
Sheba, and even in v. 7 Joabs men only are mentioned. This difficulty can
hardly be solved in any other manner than by the simple assumption that David
had told Abishai to go out with Joab, and that this circumstance is passed over
in the brief account in v. 6, in which the principal facts alone are given, and
consequently the name of Joab does not occur there. Clericus adopts the
following explanation. Mention, he says, has hitherto been made simply of
the command given to Abishai, but this included an order to Joab to go as well;
and there is nothing to preclude the supposition that Joabs name was
mentioned by the king, although this is not distinctly stated in the brief account
before us.f28

2Sa. 20: 9. Joab asked Amasa how he was, and laid hold of his bear with his
right hand to kiss him. And as Amasa took no heed of the sword in Joabs hand,
he smote him with it in the paunch (abdomen), and shed out his bowels upon
the ground, and repeated not (the stroke) to him (cf. 1Sa. 26: 8). Laying
hold of the beard to kiss is still customary among Arabs and Turks as a sign of
friendly welcome (vid., Arvieux, Merkwrdige Nachrichten, iv. p. 182, and
Harmar, Beobachtungen, ii. p. 61). The reason for this assassination was Joabs
jealousy of Amasa. Joab and Abishai then followed Sheba.

2Sa. 20:11. One of Joabs attendants remained standing by him (Amasa), no

doubt at Joabs command, and said to the people who came thither, i.e., to the
men of Judah who were collected together by Amasa (vid., v. 4), He that
favoureth Joab, and he that (is) for David, let him (go) after Joab, i.e., follow
him to battle against Sheba.

2Sa. 20:12, 13. Amasa lay wallowing in blood in the midst of the road; and
when the man (the attendant) saw that all the people stood still (by the corpse),
he turned (pushed) Amasa from the road to the field, and threw a cloth over
him, whereupon they all passed by and went after Joab.

2Sa. 20:14. But Joab went through all the tribes of Israel to Abela, and
Beth-Maacah, and all Berim. Abela (v. 15), or Abel (v. 18), has been
preserved in the large Christian village of Abil, a place with ruins, and called
Abil-el-Kamh on account of its excellent wheat (Kamh), which lies to the north-

west of Lake Huleh, upon a Tell on the eastern side of the river Derdara; not in
Ibl-el-Hawa, a place to the north of this, upon the ridge between Merj Ayun
and Wady et Teim (vid., Ritter, Erdk. xv. pp. 240, 241; Robinson, Bibl.
Researches, pp. 372-3; and v. de Velde, Mem. p. 280). Beth-Maacah was quite
close to Abela; so that the names of the two places are connected together in v.
15, and afterwards, as Abel-Beth-Maacah (vid., 1Ki. 15:20, and 2Ki. 15:29),
also called Abel-Maim in 2Ch. 16: 4. Berim is the name of a district which is
unknown to us; and even the early translators did not know how to render it.
There is nothing, however, either in the pantej en xarri is the LXX or the
omnes viri electi of the Vulgate, to warrant an alteration of the text. The latter,
in fact, rests upon a mere conjecture, which is altogether unsuitable; for the
subject to wLHqFyIWA cannot be YRIb
HALkF on account of the vav consec., but
must be obtained from LJ
RFViYI Y
BiILKFb.i The Chethib WHLQYW is evidently a
slip of the pen for wLHqFyIWA.

2Sa. 20:15. They besieged him (Sheba) in Abel-Beth-Maacah, and piled up a

rampart against the city, so that it rose up by the town-moat (LX
, the moat
with the low wall belonging to it); and all the people with Joab destroyed to
throw down the wall.

2Sa. 20:16ff. Then a wise woman of the city desired to speak to Joab, and
said (from the wall) to him (v. 18), They were formerly accustomed to say, ask
Abel; and so they brought (a thing) to pass. These words show that Abel had
formerly been celebrated for the wisdom of its inhabitants.

2Sa. 20:19. I am of the peaceable, faithful in Israel: thou seekest to slay a

city and mother in Israel; wherefore wilt thou destroy the inheritance of
Jehovah? The construing of YKINOJF with a predicate in the plural may be
explained on the simple ground that the woman spoke in the name of the city as
well as in its favour, and therefore had the citizens in her mind at the time, as is
very evident from the figurative expression J
(mother) for mother-city or
f29
capital.
The woman gave Joab to understand, in the first place, that he ought to have
asked the inhabitants of Abela whether they intended to fight for Sheba before
commencing the siege and destruction of the town, according to the law laid
down in Deu. 20:10ff. with reference to the siege of foreign towns; and
secondly, that he ought to have taken into consideration the peaceableness and
fidelity of the citizens of Abela, and not to destroy the peace-loving citizens and
members of the nation of God.

2Sa. 20:20. The womans words made an impression upon Joab. He felt the
truthfulness of her reproaches, and replied, Far be it, far be it from me, to
swallow up or destroy. JI, as in the case of oaths: truly not.

2Sa. 20:21. It is not so (sc., as thou sayest), but a man of the mountains of
Ephraim (which extended into the tribe of Benjamin: see at 1Sa. 1: 1), Sheba
the son of Bichri, hath lifted up his hand against the king David. Only give him
up, and I will draw away from the city. The woman promised him this:
Behold, his head shall be thrown out to thee over the wall.

2Sa. 20:22. She then came to all the people (i.e., the citizens of the town)
with her wisdom, i.e., with the wise counsel which she had given to Joab, and
which he had accepted; whereupon the citizens cut off Shebas head, and threw
it out to Joab. Then Joab had a trumpet blown for a retreat, and the men
disbanded, whilst he himself returned to Jerusalem to the king.

2Sa. 20:23-26. Davids Ministers of State. The second section of the

history of Davids reign closes, like the first (2Sa. 8:16ff.), with a list of the
leading ministers of state. The author evidently found the two lists in his
sources, and included them both in his work, for the simple reason that they
belonged to different periods, as the difference in the names of some of the
officers clearly shows, and that they supplemented on another. The list before
us belongs to a later period of Davids reign than the one in 2Sa. 8:16-18. In
addition to the office-bearers mentioned in 2Sa. 8, we find here Adoram over
the tribute, and Ira the Kairite a confidential counsellor (cohen: see at
2Sa. 8:18), in the place of the sons of David noticed in 2Sa. 8:18. The others
are the same in both lists. The Chethib YRKH is to be read YRIkFHA (cf. 2Ki. 11: 4,
19), from Rwk, perfodit, and is synonymous with YTIR
kiHA (see at 2Sa. 8:18).
Adoram is the same person as Adoniram, who is mentioned in 1Ki. 4: 6 and
5:28 as overseer over the tributary service in the time of Solomon; as we may
see from the fact, that the latter is also called Adoram in 1Ki. 12:18, and
Hadoram in 2Ch. 10:18. Hadoram is apparently only a contracted form of the
name, and not merely a copyists mistake for Adoniram. But when we find that,
according to the passage cited, the same man filled this office under three kings,
we must bear in mind that he did not enter upon it till the close of Davids
reign, as he is not mentioned in 2Sa. 8:16ff., and that his name only occurs in
connection with Rehoboams ascent of the throne; so that there is no ground
for assuming that he filled the office for any length of time under that monarch.
SMAHA does not mean vectigal, i.e., tribute or tributary service, but tributary
labourers. The derivation of the word is uncertain, and has been disputed. The
appointment of a special prefect over the tributary labourers can hardly have
taken place before the closing years of Davids reign, when the king organized

the internal administration of the kingdom more firmly than before. On the
tributary labourers, see at 1Ki. 5:27. Ira the Jairite is never mentioned again.
There is no ground for altering Jairi (the Jairite) into Jithri (the Jithrite), as
Thenius proposes, since the rendering given in the Syriac (from Jathir) is
merely an inference from 2Sa. 23:38; and the assumption upon which this
conclusion is founded, viz., that Ira, the hero mentioned in 2Sa. 23:38, is the
same person as Ira the royal cohen, is altogether unfounded.

IV. Close of Davids Reign.

2Sa. 21-24. After the suppression of the rebellion headed by Sheba, David
spent the remaining years of his reign in establishing the kingdom upon a firmer
basis, partly by organizing the army, the administration of justice, and the
general government of the realm, and partly by making preparations for the
erection of the temple, and enacting rules for the service of the Levites; that he
might be able to hand over the government in a firm and satisfactory state to his
youthful son Solomon, whom the Lord had appointed as his successor. The
account of these regulations and enactments fills up the whole of the last
section of the history of Davids reign in the first book of Chronicles. But in the
book before us, several other things
(1) two divine punishments inflicted upon Israel, with the expiation of the sins that
occasioned them (2Sa. 21: 1-14, and 2Sa. 24);
(2) Davids psalm of praise for deliverance out of the hand of all his enemies
(2Sa. 22), and his last prophetic words (2Sa. 23: 1-7); and
(3) a few brief notices of victorious acts performed in the wars with the Philistines
(2Sa. 21:15-22), and a longer list of Davids heroes (2Sa. 23: 8-39) form, as it
were, a historical framework for these poetical and prophetic portions.

Of the two divine visitations mentioned, the pestilence occasioned by the

numbering of the people (2Sa. 24) occurred undoubtedly in the closing years of
Davids reign; whereas the famine, and the expiation connected with it
(2Sa. 21: 1-14), happened most probably at an earlier period, and are merely
introduced here because no fitting opportunity had presented itself before. The
kernel and centre of this last section of the history of David is to be found
unquestionably in the psalm of thanksgiving in 2Sa. 22, and the prophetic
announcement of an exalted and blessed king. In the psalm of thanksgiving
David looks back at the close of his life upon all the mercy and faithfulness
which he had experienced throughout his reign, and praises the Lord his God
for the whole. In his last words he looks forward into the time to come, and
on the strength of the promise which he has received, of the eternal duration of
the dominion of his house, sees in spirit the just Ruler, who will one day arise
from his seed, and take the throne of his kingdom for ever. These two lyrical

and prophetic productions of David, the ripest spiritual fruit of his life, form a
worthy conclusion to this reign. To this there is appended the list of his heroes,
in the form of a supplement (2Sa. 23: 8-39); and finally in 2Sa. 24 the account
of the numbering of the people, and the pestilence which fell upon Israel, as a
punishment for this fault on the part of David. This account is placed at the
close of the books of Samuel, merely because the altar which was built to
expiate the wrath of God, together with the sacrifices offered upon it, served to
consecrate the site for the temple, which was to be erected after Davids death,
in accordance with the divine promise (2Sa. 7:13), by his son and successor
Solomon.

Three Years Famine. Heroic Acts Performed in the Wars with

the Philistines. Ch. 21.
2Sa. 21: 1-14. THREE YEARS FAMINE . A three years famine in the land,
the occasion of which, as Jehovah declared to the king, was Sauls crime with
regard to the Gibeonites, was expiated by Davids delivering up to the
Gibeonites, at their own request, seven of Sauls descendants, who were then
hung by them upon a mountain before Jehovah. This occurrence certainly did
not take place in the closing years of Davids reign; on the other hand, it is
evident from the remark in v. 7, to the effect that Mephibosheth was spared,
that it happened after David had received tidings of Mephibosheth, and had
taken him to his own table (2Sa. 9). This is mentioned here as a practical
illustration, on the one hand of the manner in which Jehovah visited upon the
house of Saul, even after the death of Saul himself, a crime which had been
committed by him; and, on the other hand, of the way in which, even in such a
case as this, when David had been obliged to sacrifice the descendants of Saul
to expiate the guilt of their father, he showed his tenderness towards him by the
honourable burial of their bones.

2Sa. 21: 1-6a. A famine, which lasted for three successive years, induced
David to seek the face of Jehovah, i.e., to approach God in prayer and ask the
cause of this judgment which had fallen upon the land. The Lord replied,
Because of Saul, and because of the house of blood-guiltiness, because he hath
slain the Gibeonites. The expression because of the house of blood-guiltiness
is in apposition to Saul, and determines the meaning more precisely: because
of Saul, and indeed because of the blood-guiltiness which rests upon his house.
YMIdFHA TYb
signifies the house upon which blood that had been shed still rested
as guilt, like YMIdFHA RYI in Eze. 22: 2; 24: 6, 9, and YMIdF YJI in Psa. 5: 7;
27: 9, etc. Nothing further is known about the fact itself. It is simply evident
from the words of the Gibeonites in v. 5, that Saul, in his pretended zeal for the
children of Israel, had smitten the Gibeonites, i.e., had put them to death.

Probably some dissatisfaction with them had furnished Saul with a pretext for
exterminating these Amoritish heathen from the midst of the people of God.

2Sa. 21: 2. In consequence of this answer from God, which merely indicated
in a general manner the cause of the visitation that had come upon the land,
David sent for the Gibeonites to ask them concerning the wrong that had been
done them by Saul. But before the historian communicates their answer, he
introduces an explanation respecting the Gibeonites, to the effect that they were
not Israelites, but remnants of the Amorites, to whom Joshua had promised on
oath that their lives should be preserved (vid., Jos. 9: 3ff.). They are called
Hivites in the book of Joshua (Jos. 9: 7); whereas here they are designated
Amorites, according to the more general name which is frequently used as
comprehending all the tribes of Canaan (see at Gen. 10:16 and 15:16). David
said to the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I expiate
(sc., the wrong done you), that ye may bless the inheritance (i.e., the nation) of
Jehovah? On the use of the imperative wKRBFw to denote the certain
consequences, see Ewald, 347.

2Sa. 21: 4. The Gibeonites answered, I have not to do with silver and gold
concerning Saul and his house (lit. it is not, does not stand, to me at silver and
gold with Saul and his house), i.e., I have no money to demand of Saul, require
no pecuniary payment as compensation for the blood which he shed among us
(vid., Num. 35:31). The Chethib YLI is not to be touched, notwithstanding the
wNLF which follows. The use of the singular may be explained on the simple
ground that the speaker thought of the Gibeonites as a corporation. And it
does not pertain to us to put any one to death in Israel (sc., of our own
accord). When David inquired still further, What do you mean, then, that I
should do to you? they replied, (As for) the man who consumed us, and who
thought against us, that we should be destroyed (wNDiMAiNI without YkI,
subordinately to HmFd,I like HVEJE in the previous verse), so as not to continue
in the whole of the territory of Israel, let seven men of his sons be given us, that
we may crucify them to Jehovah at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of Jehovah. uWGW
REJ YJI is placed at the head absolutely (cf. Gesenius, 145, 2). On
crucifixion as a capital punishment, see at Num. 25: 4, where it has already been
observed that criminals were not impaled or fastened to the cross alive, but
were first of all put to death. Consequently the Gibeonites desired that the
massacre, which had taken place among them by the command of Saul, should
be expiated by the execution of a number of his sons blood for blood,
according to Num. 35:31. They asked for the crucifixion for Jehovah, i.e., that
the persons executed might be impaled, as a public exhibition of the punishment
inflicted, before the face of the Lord (vid., v. 9), as the satisfaction required to

expiate His wrath. Seven was a sacred number, denoting the performance of a
work of God. This was to take place in Gibeah, the home and capital of Saul,
who had brought the wrath of God upon the land through his crime. There is a
sacred irony in the epithet applied to Saul, chosen of the Lord. If Saul was the
chosen of Jehovah, his actions ought to have been in accordance with his divine
election.

2Sa. 21: 6-10. David granted the request, because, according to the law in
Num. 35:33, blood-guiltiness when resting upon the land could only be expiated
by the blood of the criminal; but in delivering up the members of Sauls house
for whom they asked, he spared Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan and
grandson of Saul, for the sake of the bond of friendship which he had formed
with Jonathan on oath (1Sa. 18: 3; 20: 8, 16), and gave up to the Gibeonites
two sons of Rizpah, a concubine of Saul (vid., v. 11 and 2Sa. 3: 7), and five
sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel of Meholah.
The name of Michal, which stands in the text, is founded upon an error of
memory or a copyists mistake; for it was not Michal, but Merab, Sauls eldest
daughter, who was given to Adriel the Meholathite as his wife (1Sa. 18:19).
The Gibeonites crucified those who were delivered up to them upon the
mountain at Gibeah before Jehovah (see the remarks on v. 6). Thus fell seven
at once. The Chethib YITA FBiI, at which the Masoretes took such offence that
they wanted to change it into tFiBAi, is defended by Bttcher very properly,
on the ground that the dual of the numeral denotes what is uniformly repeated
as if by pairing; so that here it expresses what was extraordinary in the even tin
a more pictorial manner than the Keri: They fell sevenfold at once, i.e., seven
in the same way. The further remark, they were slain in the first days of
harvest, at the beginning of the barley harvest, belongs to what follows, for
which it prepares the way. The two Keris, HmFH
Wi for H
W,i and TlAXITibI for
TlAXIti, are needless emendations. TlAXIti is an adverbial accusative (vid., Ges.
118, 2). The harvest began with the barley harvest, about the middle of Nisan,
our April.

2Sa. 21:10. And Rizpah took sackcloth, i.e., the coarse hairy cloth that was
worn as mourning, and spread it out for herself by the rock not as a tent, as
Clericus supposes, still less as a covering over the corpses of those who had
been executed, according to the exegetical handbook, but for a bed from
the beginning of the harvest till water was poured out upon them (the crucified)
from heaven, i.e., till rain came as a sign that the plague of drought that had
rested upon the land was appeased; after which the corpses could be openly
taken down from the stakes and buried, a fact which is passed over in the
account before us, where only the principal points are given. This is the
explanation which Josephus has correctly adopted; but his assumption that the

rain fell at once, and before the ordinary early rain, has no foundation in the text
of the Bible. And suffered not the birds of heaven to settle upon the corpses by
day, or the wild beasts by night. Leaving corpses without burial, to be
consumed by birds of prey and wild beasts, was regarded as the greatest
ignominy that could befal the dead (see at 1Sa. 17:44). According to
Deu. 21:22, 23, persons executed were not to remain hanging through the night
upon the stake, but to be buried before evening. This law, however, had no
application whatever to the case before us, where the expiation of guilt that
rested upon the whole land was concerned. In this instance the expiatory
sacrifices were to remain exposed before Jehovah, till the cessation of the
plague showed that His wrath had been appeased.

2Sa. 21:11-14. When this touching care of Rizpah for the dead was told to
David, he took care that the bones of the whole of the fallen royal house should
be buried in the burial-place of Sauls family. He therefore sent for the bones of
Saul and Jonathan, which the men of Jabesh had taken away secretly from the
wall of Beisan, where the Philistines had fastened the bodies, and which had
been buried in Jabesh (1Sa. 31:10ff.), and had the bones of the sons and
grandsons of Saul who had been crucified at Gibeah collected together, and
interred all these bones at Zela in the land of Benjamin, in the family grave of
Kish the father of Saul. BNAgF, to take away secretly. ATYb
BXORiM
, from the
market-place of Bethshan, does not present any contradiction to the statement
in 1Sa. 31:10, that the Philistines fastened the body to the wall of Bethshan, as
the rechob or market-place in eastern towns is not in the middle of the town,
but is an open place against or in front of the gate (cf. 2Ch. 32: 6; Neh. 8: 1, 3,
16). This place, as the common meeting-place of the citizens, was the most
suitable spot that the Philistines could find for fastening the bodies to the wall.
The Chethib wLtF is the true Hebrew form from HLFt,F whereas the Keri
wJLFti is a formation resembling the Aramaean (cf. Ewald, 252, a.). The
Keri YtIiLIpi HmFF is correct, however, as YtIiLIp,i being a proper name,
does not take any article. In TWkOHA WYObi the literal meaning of WYO (day) must
not be strictly pressed, but the expression is to be taken in the sense of at the
time of the smiting; for the hanging up of the bodies did not take place till the
day after the battle (1Sa. 31: 8ff.). In v. 14 the account is abridged, and the
bones of the crucified persons are not mentioned again. The situation of Zela is
unknown (see at Jos. 18:28). After this had been carried out in accordance with
the kings command, God suffered himself to be entreated for the land, so that
the famine ceased.

2Sa. 21:15-22. HEROIC ACTS PERFORMED IN T HE WARS WITH T HE

PHILISTINES . The brief accounts contained in these verses of different heroic

feats were probably taken from a history of Davids wars drawn up in the form
of chronicles, and are introduced here as practical proofs of the gracious
deliverance of David out of the hand of all his foes, for which he praises the
Lord his God in the psalm of thanksgiving which follows, so that the
enumeration of these feats is to be regarded as supplying a historical basis for
the psalm.

2Sa. 21:15-17. The Philistines had war with Israel again. DWO (again) refers

generally to earlier wars with the Philistines, and has probably been taken
without alteration from the chronicles employed by our author, where the
account which follows was attached to notices of other wars. This may be
gathered from the books of the Chronicles, where three of the heroic feats
mentioned here are attached to the general survey of Davids wars (vid.,
1Ch. 20: 4). David was exhausted in this fight, and a Philistian giant thought to
slay him; but Abishai came to his help and slew the giant. He was called Yishbo
benob (Keri, Yishbi), i.e., not Yishbo at Nob, but Yishbobenob, a proper name,
the meaning of which is probably his dwelling is on the height, and which may
have been given to him because of his inaccessible castle. He was one of the
descendants of Raphah, i.e., one of the gigantic race of Rephaim. Raphah was
the tribe-father of the Rephaim, an ancient tribe of gigantic stature, of whom
only a few families were left even in Moses time (vid., Deu. 2:11; 3:11, 13, and
the commentary on Gen. 14: 5). The weight of his lance, i.e., of the metal point
to his lance, was three hundred shekels, or eight pounds, of brass, half as much
as the spear of Goliath (1Sa. 17: 7); and he was girded with new armour.
Bttcher has no doubt given the correct explanation of the word HFDFX; he
supposes the feminine to be used in a collective sense, so that the noun
(armour, WYLFk
) could be dispensed with. (For parallels both to the words and
facts, vid., Jud. 18:11 and Deu. 1:41.) RMEJyOW,A he said (sc., to himself), i.e., he
thought.

2Sa. 21:17. The danger into which the king had been brought in this war, and
out of which he had been rescued solely by Abishais timely help, induced his
attendants to make him swear that he would not go into battle any more in
person. WLO bAiN,I administered an oath to him, i.e., fixed him by a promise on
oath. HbEKATi JLOWi, and shalt not extinguish the light of Israel. David had
become the light of Israel from the fact that Jehovah was his light (2Sa. 22:29),
or, according to the parallel passage in Psa. 18:29, that Jehovah had lighted his
lamp and enlightened his darkness, i.e., had lifted him out of a state of
humiliation and obscurity into one of honour and glory. The light (or lamp) is a
figure used to represent the light of life as continually burning, i.e., life in
prosperity and honour. Davids regal life and actions were the light which the

grace of God had kindled for the benefit of Israel. This light he was not to
extinguish, namely by going into the midst of war and so exposing his valuable
life to danger.

2Sa. 21:18. (compare 1Ch. 20: 4). In a second war, Sibbechai and Hushathite
slew Saph the Rephaite at Gob. According to 1Ch. 27:11, Sibbechai, one of the
gibborim of David (1Ch. 11:29), was the leader of the eighth division of the
army (see at 2Sa. 23:27). YTIFXUHA is a patronymic from HFwX in 1Ch. 4: 4. The
scene of conflict is called Gob in our text, and Gezer in the Chronicles. As Gob
is entirely unknown. Thenius supposes it to be a slip of the pen for Gezer; but
this is improbable, for the simple reason that Gob occurs again in v. 19. It may
possibly have been a small place somewhere near to Gezer, which some
suppose to have stood on the site of el Kubab, on the road from Ramleh to
Yalo (see at Jos. 10:33). The name Saph is written Sippai in the Chronicles.

2Sa. 21:19. (vid., 1Ch. 20: 5). In another war with the Philistines at Gob,
Elhanan the son of Yaare-Orgim of Bethlehem smote Goliath of Gath, whose
spear was like a weavers beam. In the Chronicles, however, we find it stated
that Elhanan the son of Jair smote Lahmi the brother of Goliath of Gath,
whose spear, etc. The words of our text are so similar to those of the
Chronicles, if we only leave out the word YGRJ, which probably crept in from
the next line through oversight on the part of a copyist, that they presuppose
the same original text, so that the difference can only have arisen from an error
in copying. The majority of the expositors (e.g., Piscator, Clericus, Michaelis,
Movers, and Thenius) regard the text of the Chronicles as the true and original
one, and the text before us as simply corrupt. But Bertheau and Bttcher
maintain the opposite opinion, because it is impossible to see how the reading in
2Sa. could grow out of that in the Chronicles; whereas the reading in the
Chronicles might have arisen through conscious alteration originating in the
offence taken by some reader, who recalled the account of the conflict between
David and Goliath, at the statement that Elhanan smote a giant named Goliath,
and who therefore altered TJ YMXLH TYB into YXJ YMXL TJ. But apart from
the question whether there were two Goliaths, one of whom was slain by David
and the other by Elhanan, the fact that the conjecture of Bertheau and Bttcher
presupposes a deliberate alteration of the text, or rather, to speak more
correctly, an intentional falsification of the historical account, is quite sufficient
to overthrow it, as not a single example of anything of the kind can be adduced
from the whole of the Chronicles. On the other hand, the recollection of
Davids celebrated officer Elhanan of Bethlehem (2Sa. 23:24; 1Ch. 11:26)
might easily lead to an identification of the Elhanan mentioned here with that
officer, and so occasion the alteration of YMXL TJ into YMXLH TYB. This

alteration was then followed by that of TYLG YXJ into TYLG TJ, and all the
more easily from the fact that the description of Lahmis spear corresponds
word for word with that of Goliaths spear in 1Sa. 17: 7. Consequently we must
regard the reading in the Chronicles as the correct one, and alter our text
accordingly; since the assumption that there were two Goliaths is a very
improbable one, and there is nothing at all strange in the reference to a brother
of Goliath, who was also a powerful giant, and carried a spear like Goliath.
Elhanan the son of Jairi is of course a different person from Elhanan the
Bethlehemite, the son of Dodo (2Sa. 23:24). The Chronicles have RwYF , instead
of Jairi (the reading according to the Chethib), and the former is probably the
correct way of writing the name.

2Sa. 21:20, 21. (cf. 1Ch. 20: 6, 7). In another war at Gath, a Philistian
warrior, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot,f30
defied Israel, and was slain by Jonathan the son of Shimeah, the brother of
David (see at 2Sa. 13: 3). The Chethib YDM is probably to be read YdIMA, an
archaic plural (a man of measures, or extensions: de Dieu, etc.); in the
Chronicles we find the singular HdFMI instead.

2Sa. 21:22. (cf. 1Ch. 20: 8). This verse contains a postscript, in which the

previous verses are summed up. The accusative TAbARiJATJE may be explained
from a species of attraction, i.e., from the fact that the historian had wHk
YA (v.
21) still in his mind: As for these four, they were born to Rapha, i.e., they
were descendants of the Rephaite family at Gath, where remnants of the
aboriginal Canaanitish tribes of gigantic stature were still to be found, as in
other towns of the Philistines (vid., Jos. 11:22). They fell by the hand of David,
and by the hand of his servants. By the hand of David refers to the fact that
David had personally fought with Yishbobenob (v. 16).

Davids Psalm of Thanksgiving for Victory over All His

Enemies. Ch. 22.
2Sa. 22. In the following psalm of thanksgiving, David praises the Lord as his
deliverer out of all dangers during his agitated life and conflicts with his foes
(vv. 2-4). In the first half he pictures his marvellous deliverance out of all the
troubles which he passed through, especially in the time of Sauls persecutions,
under the image of an extraordinary theophany (vv. 5-20), and unfolds the
ground of this deliverance (vv. 21-28). In the second half he proclaims the
mighty help of the Lord, and his consequent victories over the foreign enemies
of his government (vv. 29-46), and closes with renewed praise of God for all
His glorious deeds (vv. 47-51). The psalm is thus arranged in two leading

divisions, with an introductory and concluding strophe. But we cannot discover

any definite system of strophes in the further arrangement of the principal
divisions, as the several groups of thoughts are not rounded off symmetrically.
The contents and form of this song of praise answer to the fact attested by the
heading, that it was composed by David in the later years of his reign, when
God had rescued him from all his foes, and helped his kingdom to victory over
all the neighbouring heathen nations. The genuineness of the psalm is
acknowledged to be indisputable by all the modern critics, except J. Olshausen
and Hupfeld,f31
who, with hypercritical scepticism, dispute the Davidic origin of the psalm on
subjective grounds of aesthetic taste. This psalm is found in the Psalter as
Psa. 18, though with many divergences in single words and clauses, which do
not, however, essentially affect the meaning. Commentators are divided in
opinion as to the relation in which the two different forms of the text stand to
one another. The idea that the text of 2Sa. rests upon a careless copy and
tradition must decidedly be rejected: for, on the one hand, by far the larger
portion of the deviations in our text from that of the Psalter are not to be
attributed to carelessness on the part of copyists, but are evidently alterations
made with thoughtfulness and deliberation: e.g., the omission of the very first
passage (v. 1), I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength; the change of YRIwC
YLIJ
(my God, my strength, or rock) into YRIwC YH
LOJ (the God of my rock), as
the God of the rock occurs again in v. 47 of the text before us; or the
substitution of JRFy
WA (He was seen, v. 11) for JDEy
WA (He did fly), etc. On the
other hand, the original reading has undoubtedly been retained in many passages
of our text, whilst simpler and more common forms have been substituted in
that of the Psalms; e.g., in v. 5, TWEMF YR
biiMI instead of TWEMF YL
BiXE; in v. 8,
YIMAFHA TWDOSiWMO (the foundations of the heavens) for YRIHF YD
SiWMO (the
foundations of the hills); in v. 12, YIMATRAiXA for YIMATKAiXE; in v. 16, YF
YQ
YPIJ for YIMA YQ
YPIJ; in v. 28, LYpI itA YMIRFLA YNEY
Wi for LYpI itA TWMORF
YINAY
Wi; in v. 33, WkORidA YMItF Rt
yAWA for YkIRidA YMItF t
yIWA; and in v. 44, JROLi
YNIR
MiitI for JROLi YNIM
YVIt,i and several others. In general, however, the text of
the Psalms bears the stamp of poetical originality more than the text before us,
and the latter indicates a desire to give greater clearness and simplicity to the
poetical style. Consequently neither of the two texts that have come down to us
contains the original text of the psalm of David unaltered; but the two
recensions have been made quite independently of each other, one for the
insertion of the psalm in the Psalter intended for liturgical use, and the other
when it was incorporated into the history of Davids reign, which formed the
groundwork of our books of Samuel. The first revision may have been made by

David himself when he arranged his Psalms for liturgical purposes; but the
second was effected by the prophetic historian, whose object it was, when
inserting Davids psalm of praise in the history of his reign, not so much to give
it with diplomatic literality, as to introduce it in a form that should be easily
intelligible and true to the sense.

2Sa. 22: 1. The heading is formed precisely according to the introductory

formula of the song of Moses in Deu. 31:30, and was no doubt taken from the
larger historical work employed by the author of our books. It was probably
also adopted from this into the canonical collection of the Psalter, and simply
brought into conformity with the headings of the other psalms by the alteration
of DWIdF Rb
DAYiWA (and David said) into RbEdI REJ DWIDFLi HWFHOYi DBEELi (Of David,
the servant of the Lord, who spake: Eng. ver.), and the insertion of XAc
NAMiLA
(to the chief musician: Eng. ver.) at the head (see Delitzsch on the Psalms).
In the day, i.e., at the time, when Jehovah had delivered him. Deliverance
out of the hand of Saul is specially mentioned, not because this was the last,
but because it was the greatest and most glorious, a deliverance out of the
deepest misery into regal might and glory. The psalm is opened by RMAJyOWA in
both texts.

2Sa. 22: 2-4. Vv. 2-4 form the introduction.

2 Jehovah is my rock, my castle, and my deliverer to me;
3 My Rock-God, in whom I trust:
My shield and horn of my salvation, my fortress and my refuge,
My Saviour; from violence Thou redeemest me.
4 I call upon the praised one, Jehovah,
And I am saved from my enemies.

This introduction contains the sum and substance of the whole psalm, inasmuch
as David groups the many experiences of divine deliverance in his agitated life
into a long series of predicates, in all of which he extols God as his defence,
refuge, and deliverer. The heaping up of these predicates is an expression both
of liveliest gratitude, and also of hope for the future. The different predicates,
however, are not to be taken as in apposition to Jehovah, or as vocatives, but
are declarations concerning God, how He had proved himself faithful to the
Psalmist in all the calamities of his life, and would assuredly do so still. David
calls God YTIDFcUMiw YILiSA (my rock, and my castle) in Psa. 31: 4 as well (cf.
Psa. 71: 4). The two epithets are borrowed from the natural character of
Palestine, where steep and almost inaccessible rocks afford protection to the
fugitive, as David had often found at the time when Saul was pursuing him
(vid., 1Sa. 24:23; 22: 5). But whilst David took refuge in rocks, he placed his

hopes of safety not in their inaccessible character, but in God the Lord, the
eternal spiritual rock, whom he could see in the earthly rock, so that he called
Him his true castle. YLI YILiPAMi (my deliverer to me) gives the real explanation
of the foregoing figures. The YLI (to me) is omitted in Psa. 18: 2, and only
serves to strengthen the suffix, my, yea my deliverer. My Rock-God,
equivalent to, God who is my Rock: this is formed after Deu. 32: 4, where
Moses calls the Lord the Rock of Israel, because of His unchangeable
faithfulness; for zur, a rock, is a figure used to represent immoveable firmness.
In Psa. 18: 3 we find YRIwC YLIJ
, my God (strong one), my rock, two
synonyms which are joined together in our text, so as to form one single
predicate of God, which is repeated in v. 47. The predicates which follow, my
horn and my salvation-shield, describe God as the mighty protector and
defender of the righteous. A shield covers against hostile attacks. In this respect
God was Abrahams shield (Gen. 15: 1), and the helping shield of Israel
(Deu. 33:29; cf. Psa. 3: 4; 59:12). He is the horn of salvation, according to
Luther, because He overcomes enemies, and rescues from foes, and gives
salvation. The figure is borrowed from animals, which have their strength and
defensive weapons in their horns (see at 1Sa. 2: 1). My fortress: misgab is a
high place, where a person is secure against hostile attacks (see at Psa. 9:10).
The predicates which follow, viz., my refuge, etc., are not given in Psa. 18: 3,
and are probably only added as a rhythmical completion to the strophe, which
was shortened by the omission of the introductory lines, I love thee heartily,
Jehovah (Psa. 18: 1). The last clause, My Saviour, who redeemest me from
violence, corresponds to WbOHSEXJE in the first hemistich. In v. 4, David sums
up the contents of his psalm of thanksgiving in a general sentence of experience,
which may be called the theme of the psalm, for it embraces the result of the
long life which lay behind him, so full of dangers and deliverances. LlFHUMi , the
praised one, an epithet applied to God, which occurs several times in the
Psalms (Psa. 48: 2; 96: 4; 113: 3; 145: 3). It is in apposition to Jehovah, and is
placed first for the sake of emphasis: I invoke Jehovah as the praised one. The
imperfects JRFQiJE and A
wFJI are used to denote what continually happens. In v.
5 we have the commencement of the account of the deliverances out of great
tribulations, which David had experienced at the hand of God.
5 For breakers of death had compassed me,
Streams of wickedness terrified me.
6 Cords of hell had girt me about,
Snares of death overtook me.

7 In my distress I called Jehovah,

And to my God I called;
And He heard my voice out of His temple,
And my crying came into His ears.

2Sa. 22: 5-7. David had often been in danger of death, most frequently at the
time when he was pursued by Saul, but also in Absaloms conspiracy, and even
in several wars (cf. 2Sa. 21:16). All these dangers, out of which the Lord
delivered him, and not merely those which originated with Saul, are included in
vv. 5, 6. The figure breakers or waves of death is analogous to that of the
streams of Belial. His distress is represented in both of them under the image
of violent floods of water. In the psalm we find TWEMF YL
BiXE, snares of death,
as in Psa. 116: 3, death being regarded as a hunger with a net and snare (cf.
Psa. 91: 3): this does not answer to well to the parallel YL
XNA, and therefore is
not so good, since LWJOi YL
BiXE follows immediately. LAyALIbi (Belial),
uselessness in a moral sense, or worthlessness. The meaning mischief, or
injury in a physical sense, which many expositors give to the word in this
passage on account of the parallel death, cannot be grammatically sustained.
Belial was afterwards adopted as a name for the devil (2Co. 6:15). Streams of
wickedness are calamities that proceed from wickedness, or originate with
worthless men. d
QI, to come to meet with a hostile intention, i.e., to fall upon
(vid., Job. 30:27). LKFYH
, the temple out of which Jehovah heard him, was the
heavenly abode of God, as in Psa. 11: 4; for, according to vv. 8ff., God came
down from heaven to help him.
8 Then the earth swayed and trembled,
The foundations of the heavens shook
And swayed to and fro, because He was wroth.
9 Smoke ascended in His nose,
And fire out of His mouth devoured,
Red-hot coals burned out of Him.
10 And He bowed the heavens and came down,
And cloudy darkness under His feet.

2Sa. 22: 8-10. Jehovah came down from heaven to save His servant, as He
had formerly come down upon Sinai to conclude His covenant with Israel in the
midst of terrible natural phenomena, which proclaimed the wrath of the
Almighty. The theophany under which David depicts the deliverance he had
experienced, had its type in the miraculous phenomenon which accompanied the
descent of God upon Sinai, and which suggested, as in the song of Deborah
(Jud. 5: 4, 5), the idea of a terrible storm. It is true that the deliverance of David
was not actually attended by any such extraordinary natural phenomena; but the

saving hand of God from heaven was so obviously manifested, that the
deliverance experienced by him could be poetically described as a miraculous
interposition on the part of God. When the Lord rises up from His heavenly
temple to come down upon the earth to judgment, the whole world trembles at
the fierceness of His wrath. Not only does the earth tremble, but the
foundations of the heavens shake: the whole universe is moved. In the psalm we
have the foundations of the hills instead of the foundations of the heavens,
a weaker expression, signifying the earth to its deepest foundations. The
Hithpael AgFTiY,I lit., to sway itself, expresses the idea of continuous swaying
to and fro. WLO HRFXF YkI, for it (sc., wrath) burned to him, it flamed up like a
fire; cf. Deu. 32:22; 29:19. Smoke, the forerunner of fire, ascended in His
nose. The figurative idea is that of snorting or violent breathing, which
indicates the rising of wrath. Smoke is followed by fire, which devours out of
the mouth, i.e., bursts forth devouring or consuming all that opposes it. The
expression is strengthened still further by the parallel: red-hot coals come out
of Him, i.e., the flame of red-hot coals pours out of Him as out of a glowing
furnace (cf. Gen. 15:17). This description is based entirely upon Exo. 19:18,
where the Lord comes down upon Sinai in smoke and fire. We are not to
picture to ourselves flashes of lightning; for all these phenomena are merely the
forerunners of the appearance of God in the clouds, which is described in v. 10,
He bowed the heavens to come down. LPERF , which is frequently connected
with NFF, signifies cloudy darkness, or dark clouds. The substratum of this
description is the fact that in a severe storm the heavens seem to sink down
upon the earth with their dark clouds. The Lord draws near riding upon black
thunder-clouds, that the wicked may not behold His serene countenance, but
only the terrible signs of His fierce wrath and punishment (J. H. Michaelis).
11 He rode upon a cherub and flew hither,
And appeared upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness round about Him as pavilions,
Water-gathering, thick clouds.
13 Out of the splendour before Him
Burned red-hot coals of fire.

2Sa. 22:11-13. These three verses are a further expansion of v. 19, and v. 11
of v. 10a. The cherub is not a personified earthly creature, for cherubim are
angels around the throne of God (see at Gen. 3:22). The poetical figure riding
upon the cherub is borrowed from the fact that God was enthroned between
the two cherubim upon the lid of the ark of the covenant, and above their
outspread wings (Exo. 25:20, 21). As the idea of His dwelling between the
cherubim (2Sa. 6: 2; 1Sa. 4: 4; Psa. 80: 2) was founded upon this typical

manifestation of the gracious presence of God in the Most Holy place, so here
David depicts the descent of Jehovah from heaven as riding upon a cherub,
picturing the cherub as a throne upon which God appears in the clouds of
heaven, though without therefore imagining Him as riding upon a sphinx or
driving in a chariot-throne. Such notions as these are precluded by the addition
of the term OyFWA, did fly. The flying is also suggested by the wings of the
cherubim. As the divine shechinah was enthroned above the ark of the
covenant upon the wings of the cherubim, David in his poetical description
represents the cherub and his wings as carrying the throne of God, to express
the thought that Jehovah came down from heaven as the judge and saviour of
His servants in the splendour of His divine glory, surrounded by cherubim who
stand as His highest servants around His throne, just as Moses in his blessing
(Deu. 33: 2) speaks of Jehovah as coming out of myriads of His holy angels.
The elementary substratum of this was the wings of the wind, upon which He
appeared. In the psalm we have JDEy
WA, from HJFd,F to soar (Deu. 28:39;
Jer. 48:40), which suggests the idea of flying better than JRFy
WA (He was seen),
though the latter gives the real explanation. In vv. 12 and 13, the cloudy
darkness under His feet (v. 10b) is still further expanded, so as to prepare the
way for the description of thunder and lightning in vv. 14ff. God in His wrath
withdraws His face from man. He envelopes himself in clouds. The darkness
round about him is the black thunder-cloud which forms His hut or tent. The
plural succoth is occasioned by the plural WYTFBOYBISi , His surroundings: it is
used with indefinite generality, and is more probably the original term than
WTOkFSU in the psalm. The darkness is still further explained in the second
clause, YIMA TRAiXA, water-gatherings. HRFiXA (ap. leg.) signifies, according to
the Arabic, a gathering or collection. The expression used in the psalm is YIMA
TKAiXE, water-darkness, which, if not less appropriate, is at any rate not the
original term. YQIX
F i YB
F, clouds of clouds, i.e., the thickest clouds; a kind of
superlative, in which a synonym is used instead of the same noun.

2Sa. 22:13. The splendour of the divine nature enveloped in clouds breaks
through the dark covering in burning coals of fire. The coals of fire which burst
forth, i.e., which break out in flame from the dark clouds, are the lightning
which shoots forth from the dark storm-clouds in streams of fire.
14 Jehovah thundered from the heavens,
And the Most High gave His voice.
15 He sent arrows, and scattered them;
Lightning, and discomfited them.

16 Then the beds of the sea became visible;

The foundations of the world were uncovered,
Through the threatening of Jehovah,
By the snorting of the breath of His nostrils.

2Sa. 22:14-16. God sent lightning as arrows upon the enemies along with
violent thunder, and threw them thereby into confusion. MAHF, to throw into
confusion, and thereby to destroy, is the standing expression for the destruction
of the foe accomplished by the miraculous interposition of God (vid.,
Exo. 14:24; 23:27; Jos. 10:10; Jud. 4:15; 1Sa. 7:10). To the thunder there were
added stormy wind and earthquake, as an effect of the wrath of God, whereby
the foundations of the sea and land were laid bare, i.e., whereby the depth of the
abyss and of the hell in the interior of the earth, into which the person to be
rescued had fallen, were disclosed.f32
17 He reached out of the height, He laid hold of me;
Drew me out of great waters:
18 Saved me from my enemy strong;
From my haters, because they were too strong for me.
19 They fell upon me in my day of calamity:
Then Jehovah became my stay,
20 And led me out into a broad place;
Delivered me, because He had pleasure in me.

2Sa. 22:17-20. The Lord stretched His hand from the height into the deep
abysses, which had been uncovered through the threatening of the wrath of
God, and drew out the sinking man. XLAiYI without DYF is used to denote the
stretching out of the hand, and in the sense of reaching out to a thing (as in
2Sa. 6: 6). YbIRA YIMA (great waters) does not refer to the enemy, but to the
calamities and dangers (waves of death and streams of Belial, v. 5) into which
the enemies of the Psalmist had plunged him. YNI
MiYA , from HFMF (Exo. 2:10),
from which the name of Moses was derived, to whom there is probably an
allusion made. As Moses was taken out of the waters of the Nile, so David was
taken out of great (many) waters. This deliverance is still further depicted in a
more literal terms in vv. 18ff. ZF YBIYiJ,O my enemy strong, poetical for my strong
enemy, does not refer to one single enemy, namely Saul; but, as the parallel my
haters shows, is a poetical personification of all his enemies. They were
stronger than David, therefore the Lord had to deliver him with an almighty
hand. The day of calamity in which the enemy fell upon him (d
Q:I see at v.
6) was the time when David wandered about in the desert helpless and
homeless, fleeing from the pursuit of Saul. The Lord was then his support, or a

staff on which he could support himself (vid., Psa. 23: 4), and led him out of the
strait into the broad, i.e., into a broad space where he could move freely,
because God had pleasure in him, and had chosen him in His grace to be His
servant. This reason for his deliverance is carried out still further in what
follows.
21 Jehovah rendered to me according to my righteousness,
According to the cleanness of my hands He recompensed me.
22 For I have observed the ways of Jehovah,
And have not wickedly departed from my God.
23 For all His rights are before my eyes;
And His statutes, I do not depart from them.
24 And I was innocent towards Him,
And kept myself from mine iniquity.

2Sa. 22:21-24. LMAgF signifies to do to a person good or evil, like the Greek eu
and kakwj prattein tina. The righteousness and cleanness of hands, i.e., the
innocence, which David attributed to himself, were not perfect righteousness or
holiness before God, but the righteousness of his endeavours and deeds as
contrasted with the unrighteousness and wickedness of his adversaries and
pursuers, and consisted in the fact that he endeavoured earnestly and sincerely
to walk in the ways of God and to keep the divine commandments. MI AR,F to
be wicked from, is a pregnant expression, signifying to depart wickedly from
God. YdIGiNEL,i i.e., as a standard before my eye. In the psalm we find WmOI YMIt,F
innocent in intercourse with the Lord, instead of WLO YMItF (see Deu. 18:13);
and for the fact itself, Davids own testimony in 1Sa. 26:23, 24, the testimony
of God concerning him in 1Ki. 14: 8, and the testimony of history in 1Ki. 15: 5.
YNIW
O M
, from mine iniquity, i.e., from the iniquity which I might have committed.
25 Thus Jehovah repaid me according to my righteousness,
According to my cleanness before His eyes.
26 Towards the pious Thou showest thyself pious,
Towards the perfectly innocent Thou showest thyself innocent.
27 Towards the genuine Thou showest thyself genuine,
And towards the perverse Thou showest thyself crooked.
28 And afflicted people Thou helpest,
And Thine eyes are against the haughty; them Thou humblest.

2Sa. 22:25-28. The motive for deliverance, which was expounded in vv. 2124, is summed up briefly in v. 25; and then in vv. 26 and 27 it is carried back to

the general truth, that the conduct of God towards men is regulated according
to the conduct of men towards God. The vav cons. in BEyFWA expresses the
logical consequence. YRIBOki is used instead of YDAYF RBOki in v. 21, which is
repeated in the psalm simply for the sake of variation. The truth that God treats
every man in accordance with his conduct towards Him, is expounded in four
parallel clauses, in which the conduct of God is expressed in verbs in the
Hithpael, formed from the adjectives used to describe the conduct of men
towards God. To the DYSIX,F the pious or devoted to God, He also shows
himself pious; and innocent, blameless, to the YMItF RWbOgI, the man strong in
innocence, who walks in perfect innocence. RBFNF , a Niphal participle, from
RRAb,F he who keeps himself pure, strives after purity of walk. RBAtFtI, an
anomalous contraction of RRAbFTitI (Ps.), analogous to the formation of RBANF for
RRABiN.I The form LpAtAtI for LtApATitI, to show ones self perverse of crooked, is
still more anomalous. God shows himself so towards the perverse, by giving
him up to his perverseness (Rom. 1:28). This general truth is applied in v. 28 to
the congregation of God, in the contrast which it presents of humble and
haughty, and is expounded from the conduct of God, as displayed in the history
of Israel, towards these two classes of men, into which the nation was divided.
In the psalm, therefore, we find HtFJA YkI, for which the simple W is substituted
here, because the verse does not contain any actual reason for what goes
before. YNI F A, afflicted people, is used to denote the pious and depressed in
the nation; YMIRF , the high, i.e., the haughty, or godless rich and mighty in the
nation. LYpI itA is to be taken as a relative: whom Thou humblest (see Ewald,
332, b.; and for the thought, Isa. 2:11). In the psalm the unusual mode of
expression in the second clause is changed into the more common phrase,
Thou bringest down high, i.e., proud looks (cf. Pro. 6:17; 21: 4; 30:13;
Psa. 131: 1, etc.).

2Sa. 22:29. V. 29 commences the description of the help which David had
already received from God in his conflict with the enemies of Israel, and which
he would still receive.
29 For Thou art my lamp, O Jehovah!
And Jehovah maketh my darkness bright.
30 For through Thee I run troops,
And through my God I leap walls.
31 God innocent is His way.
The word of Jehovah is refined,
A shield is He to all who trust in Him.

The explanatory YkI, with which the new description of the divine mercy
commences, refers to the thought implied in v. 28, that David belonged to the
afflicted people, whom the Lord always helps. As the Lord delivered him out
of the danger of death, because He took pleasure in him, so He also gave him
power over all his enemies. For He was his lamp, i.e., He had lifted him out of a
condition of depression and contempt into one of glory and honour (see at
2Sa. 21:17), and would still further enlighten his darkness, i.e., would cause
the light of His salvation to shine upon him and his tribe in all the darkness of
their distress (Hengstenberg). In the psalm the verse reads thus: For Thou
lightest (makest bright) my lamp (or candle), Jehovah my God enlighteneth my
darkness; the bold figure Jehovah the lamp of David being more literally
explained. The figure is analogous to the one in Psa. 27: 1, The Lord is my
light; whilst the form RYN
is a later mode of writing RN
.

2Sa. 22:30. In the strength of his God he could run hostile troops and leap
walls, i.e., overcome every hostile power. wRJF, not from CARF , to smash in
pieces, but from wR, to run; construed with the accusative according to the
analogy of verbs of motion.

2Sa. 22:31. He derives this confidence from the acts of God, and also from

His word. LJ
HF (God) is written absolutely, like RwcHA in Deu. 32: 4. The
article points back to YHALOJb
. Jehovah is the God (LJ
HF), whose way is perfect,
without blemish; and His word is refined brass, pure silver (cf. Psa. 12: 7). He
who trusts in Him is safe from all foes. The last two clauses occur again in
Agurs proverbs (Pro. 30: 5). The thought of the last clause is still further
explained in vv. 32ff.
32 For who is God save Jehovah,
And who a rock save our God?
33 This God is my strong fortress,
And leads the innocent his way.
34 He makes my feet like the hinds,
And setteth me upon my high places;
35 He teacheth my hands to fight,
And my arms span brazen bows.

2Sa. 22:32-35. There is no true God who can help, except or by the side of
Jehovah (cf. Deu. 32:31; 1Sa. 2: 2). RwC, as in v. 2. This God is my strong
fortress: for this figure, comp. Psa. 31: 5 and 27: 1. LYIXA , strength, might, is
construed with YZIwMF, by free subordination: my fortress, a strong one, like

ZO YSIXMA (Psa. 71: 7; cf. Ewald, 291, b.). Rt

YA for RT
Y,F from Rwt (vid., Ges.
72; Olshausen, Gram. p. 579), in the sense of leading or taking round, as in
Pro. 12:26. God leads the innocent his way, i.e., He is his leader and guide
therein. The Keri YkIRidA rests upon a misunderstanding. There is an important
difference in the reading of this verse in Psa. 18, viz., The God who girdeth me
with strength, and makes my way innocent. The last clause is certainly an
alteration which simplifies the meaning, and so is also the first clause, the
thought of which occurs again, word for word, in v. 40a, with the addition of
HMFXFLimIL.A HLFyFJA or TLEyEJ,A the hind, or female stag, is a figure of speech
denoting swiftness in running. Like the hinds: a condensed simile for like
the hinds feet, such as we frequently meet with in Hebrew (vid., Ges. 144,
Anm.). The reference is to swiftness in pursuit of the foe (vid., 2Sa. 2:18;
1Ch. 12: 8). WYLFGiRA , his feet, for YLAGiRA (my feet) in the psalm, may be accounted
for from the fact, that David had spoken of himself in the third person as the
innocent one. My high places were not the high places of the enemy, that
became his by virtue of conquest, but the high places of his own land, which he
maintained triumphantly, so that he ruled the land for them. The expression is
formed after Deu. 32:13, and is imitated in Hab. 3:19. DMALI is generally
construed with a double accusative: here it is written with an accusative and Li,
and signifies to instruct for the war. TXANI, in the psalm HTFXNI, on account of the
feminine YTAOWROZ,i is not the Niphal of TTAXF, to be broken in pieces, but the Piel
of TXANF, to cause to go down, to press down the bow, i.e., to set it. The bow of
brass is mentioned as being the strongest: setting such a bow would be a sign of
great heroic strength. The two verses (34 and 35) are simply a particularizing
description of the power and might with which the Lord had endowed David to
enable him to conquer all his foes.
36 And Thou reachest me the shield of my salvation,
And Thy hearing makes me great.
37 Thou makest my steps broad under me,
And my ankles have not trembled.

2Sa. 22:36, 37. The Lord bestows the true strength for victory in His
salvation. The shield of salvation is the shield which consists of salvation, of the
helping grace of the Lord. TiNO, for which we find in the psalm TiWFNiA, thy
humility, i.e., Gods condescending grace, does not mean thy humiliation, but
thy hearkening, i.e., that practical hearkening on the part of God, when
called upon for help, which was manifested in the fact that God made his steps
broad, i.e., provided the walker with a broad space for free motion, removing
obstructions and stumbling-blocks out of the way. God had done this for David,
so that his ankles had not trembled, i.e., he had not been wanting in the power

to take firm and safe steps. In this strength of his God he could destroy all his
foes.
38 I will pursue my enemies and destroy them,
I will not turn till they are consumed.
39 I will consume them and dash them in pieces,
that they may not arise,
And may fall under my feet.
40 And Thou girdest me with strength for war,
Thou bowest mine adversaries under me.
41 And Thou makest mine enemies turn the back to me;
My haters, I root them out.

2Sa. 22:38-41. The optative form HPFdiRiJE serves to make the future
signification of DORiJE (in the psalm) the more apparent. Consequently it is
quite out of the question to take the other verbs as preterites. We are not
compelled to do this by the interchange of imperfects c. vav consec. with simple
imperfects, as the vav consec. is not used exclusively as expressive of the past.
On the contrary, the substance of the whole of the following description shows
very clearly that David refers not only to the victories he has already won, but
in general to the defeat of all his foes in the past, the present, and the future; for
he speaks as distinctly as possible not only of their entire destruction (vv. 38,
39, 43), but also of the fact that God makes him the head of the nations, and
distant and foreign nations to him homage. Consequently he refers not only to
his own personal dominion, but also, on the strength of the promise which he
had received from God, to the increase of the dominion of the throne of his
house, whilst he proclaims in the Spirit the ultimate defeat of all the enemies of
the kingdom of God. This Messianic element in the following description comes
out in a way that cannot be mistaken, in the praise of the Lord with which he
concludes in vv. 47-51. D
YMIiJAWF, I destroy them, is stronger than G
YvIJAW,i
I reach them (in the psalm). In v. 39 the words are crowded together, to
express the utter destruction of all foes. In the psalm l
KAJWF is omitted. YNIR
ZitAWA
for YNIR
ziJAtiWA in the psalm is not a poetical Syriasm, and still less a careless
solecism (Hupfeld), but a simple contraction, such as we meet with in many
forms: e.g., wNP
liMA for wNP
liJAMi (Job. 35:11; cf. Ewald, 232, b.). The form
HtFtA for HtFTANF (in the psalm) is unusual, and the aphaeresis of the N can only be
accounted for from the fact that this much-used word constantly drops its N as a
radical sound in the imperfect (see Ewald, 195, c.). The phrase REO YlI HtFtA
is formed after Exo. 23:27. Giving the enemy to a persons back means
causing them to turn the back, i.e., putting them to flight.

42 They look out, but there is no deliverer;

For Jehovah, but He answereth them not.
43 And I rub in pieces as the dust of the earth,
Like the mire of the streets I crush them and stamp upon them.

2Sa. 22:42, 43. The cry of the foe for help is not attended to; they are
annihilated without quarter. wiY,I to look out to God for help (with LJE and
LA; vid., Isa. 17: 7, 8), is more poetical than wwiAYi , they cry (in the psalm);
and REJERPAkA is more simple than XAwRYN
piLA RPFFki (in the psalm), I
crush them as dust before the wind, for the wind does not crush the dust, but
carries it away. In the second clause of v. 43, q
DIJ is used instead of Q
YRIJ
in the psalm, and strengthened by
QFRiJE. q
DIJ, from QQAD,F to make thin, to
crush; so that instead of I pour them out like mire of the streets which is
trodden to pieces, the Psalmist simply says, I crush and stamp upon them like
mire of the streets. Through the utter destruction of the foe, God establishes
the universal dominion to which the throne of David is to attain.
44 And Thou rescuest me out of the strivings of my people,
Preservest me to be the head of the heathen.
People that I knew not serve me.
45 The sons of the stranger dissemble to me,
Upon hearsay they obey me.
46 The sons of the stranger despair,
And tremble out of their castles.

2Sa. 22:44-46. By the strivings of my people the more indefinite

expression in the psalm, strivings of the people, is explained. The words refer
to the domestic conflicts of David, out of which the Lord delivered him, such as
the opposition of Ishbosheth and the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba. These
deliverances formed the prelude and basis of his dominion over the heathen.
Consequently YNIR
MiitI (Thou preservest me to be the head of the nations)
occurs quite appropriately in the second clause; and YNIM
YVIti , Thou settest
me, which occurs in the psalm, is a far less pregnant expression. A before
YtIiDAYF JLO is used indefinitely to signify foreign nations. Toi king of Hamath
(2Sa. 8:10) was an example, and his subjugation was a prelude of the future
subjection of all the heathen to the sceptre of the Son of David, as predicted in
Psa. 72. In v. 45 the two clauses of the psalm are very appropriately transposed.
The Hithpael wXKATiY,I as compared with wXKAY,i is the later form. In the
primary passage (Deu. 33:29) the Niphal is used to signify the dissembling of
friendship, or of involuntary homage on the part of the vanquished towards the

victor. ZEJO AWMOiL,I by the hearing of the ear, i.e., by hearsay, is a simple
explanation of ZEJO MA
L,i at the rumour of the ears (vid., Job. 42: 5), i.e., at
the mere rumour of Davids victories. The foreign nations pine away, i.e.,
despair of ever being able to resist the victorious power of David. wRgiXiY,A they
gird themselves, does not yield any appropriate meaning, even if we should
take it in the sense of equipping themselves to go out to battle. The word is
probably a misspelling of wGRiXiYA, which occurs in the psalm, GRAXF being a ap.
leg. in the sense of being terrified, or trembling: they tremble out of their
castles, i.e., they come trembling out of their castles (for the thought itself, see
Micah 7:17). It is by no means probable that the word RGAXF, which is so
frequently met with in Hebrew, is used in this one passage in the sense of to
limp, according to Syriac usage.
In conclusion, the Psalmist returns to the praise of the Lord, who had so highly
favoured him.
47 Jehovah liveth, and blessed is my rock,
And the God of my refuge of salvation is exalted.
48 The God who giveth me vengeance,
And bringeth nations under me;
49 Who leadeth me out from mine enemies,
And exalteth me above mine adversaries,
Delivereth me from the man of violence.

2Sa. 22:47-49. The formula HWFHOYiYXA does not mean let Jehovah live, for
the word YXIYi would be used for that (vid., 2Sa. 16:16, 1Sa. 10:24), but is a
declaration: the Lord is living. The declaration itself is to be taken as praise of
God, for praising God is simply ascribing to Him the glorious perfections
which belong to him; we have only to give Him what is His own
(Hengstenberg). The following clauses also contain simply declarations; this is
evident from the word wRYF, since the optative ROYF would be used to denote a
wish. The Lord is living or alive when He manifests His life in acts of
omnipotence. In the last clause, the expression RwC (rock) is intensified into
YIiYI RwC YH
LOJ (the God of my refuge, or rock, of salvation), i.e., the God
who is my saving rock (cf. v. 3). In the predicates of God in vv. 48, 49, the
saving acts depicted by David in vv. 5-20 and 29-46 are summed up briefly.
Instead of DYRIWMO, He causes to go down under me, i.e., He subjects to me,
we find in the psalm Rb
DiyAWA, He drives nations under me, and YIliPAMi instead
of YJIYCIWMO; and lastly, instead of SMFXF YJI in the psalm, we have here YSIMFX

YJI, as in Psa. 140: 2. Therefore the praise of the Lord shall be sounded among
all nations.
50 Therefore will I praise Thee,
O Jehovah, among the nations,
And sing praise to Thy name.
51 As He who magnifies the salvation of His king,
And showeth grace to His anointed,
To David, and his seed for ever.

2Sa. 22:50, 51. The grace which the Lord had shown to David was so great,
that the praise thereof could not be restricted to the narrow limits of Israel.
With the dominion of David over the nations, there spread also the knowledge,
and with this the praise, of the Lord who had given him the victory. Paul was
therefore perfectly justified in quoting the verse before us (v. 50) in Rom. 16: 9,
along with Deu. 32:43 and Psa. 117: 1, as a proof that the salvation of God was
intended for the Gentiles also. The king whose salvation the Lord had
magnified, was not David as an individual, but David and his seed for ever,
that is to say, the royal family of David which culminated in Christ. David could
thus sing praises upon the ground of the promise which he had received
(2Sa. 7:12-16), and which is repeated almost verbatim in the last clause of v.
51. The Chethib LYDGM is the Hiphil participle LYdIGiM,A according to Psa. 18:51;
and the Keri LWDOGiMI, tower of the fulness of salvation, is a singular
conjecture.

Davids Last Words. Ch. 23: 1-7.

2Sa. 23: 1-7. The psalm of thanksgiving, in which David praised the Lord for
all the deliverances and benefits that he had experienced throughout the whole
of his life, is followed by the prophetic will and testament of the great king,
unfolding the importance of his rule in relation to the sacred history of the
future. And whilst the psalm may be regarded (2Sa. 22) as a great hallelujah,
with which David passed away from the stage of life, these last words contain
the divine seal of all that he has sung and prophesied in several psalms
concerning the eternal dominion of his seed, on the strength of the divine
promise which he received through the prophet Nathan, that his throne should
be established for ever (2Sa. 7). These words are not merely a lyrical expansion
of that promise, but a prophetic declaration uttered by David at the close of his
life and by divine inspiration, concerning the true King of the kingdom of God.
The aged monarch, who was not generally endowed with the gift of prophecy,
was moved by the Spirit of God at the close of his life, and beheld a just Ruler
in the fear of God, under whose reign blessing and salvation sprang up for the

righteous, and all the wicked were overcome. The pledge of this was the eternal
covenant which God had concluded with him (Tholuck: die Propheten and
ihre Weissagungen, p. 166). The heading these are the last words of David
serves to attach it to the preceding psalm of thanksgiving.
1 Divine saying of David the son of Jesse,
Divine saying of the man, the highly exalted,
Of the anointed of the God of Jacob,
And of the lovely one in the songs of praise of Israel.
2 The Spirit of Jehovah speaks through me,
And His word is upon my tongue.

2Sa. 23: 1, 2. This introduction to the prophetic announcement rests, both as

to form and substance, upon the last sayings of Balaam concerning the future
history of Israel (Num. 24: 3, 15). This not only shows to what extent David
had occupied himself with the utterances of the earlier men of God concerning
Israels future; but indicates, at the same time, that his own prophetic utterance
was intended to be a further expansion of Balaams prophecy concerning the
Star out of Jacob and the Sceptre out of Israel. Like Balaam, he calls his
prophecy a JUNF, i.e., a divine saying or oracle, as a revelation which he had
received directly from God (see at Num. 24: 3). But the recipient of this
revelation was not, like Balaam the son of Beor, a man with closed eye, whose
eyes had been opened by a vision of the Almighty, but the man who was
raised up on high (LF, adverbially above, is, strictly speaking, a
substantive, height, used in an adverbial sense, as in Hos. 11: 7, and probably
also 2Sa. 7:16), i.e., whom God had lifted up out of humiliation to be the ruler
of His people, yea, even to be the head of the nations (2Sa. 22:44). Luthers
rendering, who is assured of the Messiah of the God of Jacob, is based upon
the Vulgate, cui constitutum est de Christo Dei Jacob, and cannot be
grammatically sustained. David was exalted on the one hand as the anointed
of the God of Jacob, i.e., as the one whom the God of Israel had anointed king
over His people, and on the other hand as the lovely one in Israels songs of
praise, i.e., the man whom God had enabled to sing lovely songs of praise in
celebration of His grace and glory. RYMIZi = HRFMiZI does not mean a song
generally, but a song of praise in honour of God (see at Exo. 15: 2), like RWMOZiMI
in the headings to the psalms. As David on the one hand had firmly established
the kingdom of God in an earthly and political respect as the anointed of
Jehovah, i.e., as king, so had he on the other, as the composer of Israels songs
of praise, promoted the spiritual edification of that kingdom. The idea of JUNi is
explained in v. 2. The Spirit of Jehovah speaks through him; his words are the
inspiration of God. The preterite RbEdI relates to the divine inspiration which

preceded the utterance of the divine saying. bi RbEdI, literally to speak into a
person, as in Hos. 1: 2. The saying itself commences with v. 3.
3 The God of Israel saith,
The Rock of Israel speaketh to me:
A Ruler over men, just,
A Ruler in the fear of God.
4 And as light of the morning, when the sun rises,
As morning without clouds:
From shining out of rain (springeth) green out of the earth.
5 For is not my house thus with God?
For He hath made me an everlasting covenant,
Provided with all, and attested;
For all my salvation and all good pleasure,
Should He then not cause it to grow?

2Sa. 23: 3. As the prophets generally preface their saying with thus saith the
Lord, so David commences his prophetic saying with the God of Israel
saith, for the purpose of describing it most emphatically as the word of God.
He designates God the God and The Rock (as in 2Sa. 22: 3) of Israel, to
indicate that the contents of his prophecy relate to the salvation of the people of
Israel, and are guaranteed by the unchangeableness of God. The saying which
follows bears the impress of a divine oracle even in its enigmatical brevity. The
verbs are wanting in the different sentences of vv. 3b and 4. A ruler over
men, sc., will arise, or there will be. DFJFbF does not mean among men,
but over men; for bi is to be taken as with the verb LAMF, as denoting the
object ruled over (cf. Gen. 3:16; 4: 7, etc.). DFJFHF does not mean certain men,
but the human race, humanity. This ruler is just in the fullest sense of the
word, as in the passages founded upon this, viz., Jer. 23: 5, Zec. 9: 9, and
Psa. 72: 2. The justice of the ruler is founded in his fear of God. YHILOJ
TJARiYI is governed freely by L
WMO. (On the fact itself, see Isa. 11: 2, 3.) The
meaning is, A ruler over the human race will arise, a just ruler, and will
exercise his dominion in the spirit of the fear of God.

2Sa. 23: 4. V. 4 describes the blessing that will proceed from this ruler. The
idea that v. 4 should be connected with v. 3b so as to form one period, in the
sense of when one rules justly over men (as I do), it is as when a morning
becomes clear, must be rejected, for the simple reason that it overlooks
Nathans promise (2Sa. 7) altogether, and weakens the force of the saying so
solemnly introduced as the word of God. The ruler over men whom David sees
in spirit, is not any one who rules righteously over men; nor is the seed of David
to be regarded as a collective expression indicating a merely ideal personality,

but, according to the Chaldee rendering, the Messiah himself, the righteous
Shoot whom the Lord would raise up to David (Jer. 23: 5), and who would
execute righteousness and judgment upon earth (Jer. 33:15). V. 4 is to be taken
by itself as containing an independent thought, and the connection between it
and v. 3 must be gathered from the words themselves: the appearance (the rise)
of this Ruler will be as light of the morning, when the sun rises. At the same
time, the Messiah is not to be regarded as the subject to RQEbO RWJO (the light of
the morning), as though the ruler over men were compared with the morning
light; but the subject compared to the morning light is intentionally left
indefinite, according to the view adopted by Luther in his exposition, In the
time of the Messiah it will be like the light of the morning. We are precluded
from regarding the Messiah as the subject, by the fact that the comparison is
instituted not with the sun, but with the morning dawn at the rising of the sun,
whose vivifying effects upon nature are described in the second clause of the
verse. The words MEE XRAZiYI are to be taken relatively, as a more distinct
definition of the morning light. The clause which follows, morning without
clouds, is parallel to the foregoing, and describes more fully the nature of the
morning. The light of the rising sun on a cloudless morning is an image of the
coming salvation. The rising sun awakens the germs of life in the bosom of
nature, which had been slumbering through the darkness of the night. The state
of things before the coming of the ruler resembles the darkness of the night
(Hengstenberg). The verb is also wanting in the second hemistich. From the
shining from rain (is, comes) fresh green out of the earth. hGANO signifies the
brightness of the rising sun; but, so far as the actual meaning is concerned, it
relates to the salvation which attends the coming of the righteous ruler. RFmFMI
is either subordinate to hGAnOM,I or co-ordinate with it. In the former case, we
should have to render the passage, from the shining of the sun which proceeds
out of rain, or from the shining after rain; and the allusion would be to a
cloudless morning, when the shining of the sun after a nights rain stimulates the
growth of the plants. In the latter case, we should have to render it from the
shining (and) from the rain; and the reference would be to a cloudless morning,
on which the vegetation springs up from the ground through sunshine followed
by rain. Grammatically considered, the first view (? the second) is the easier of
the two; nevertheless we regard the other (? the first) as the only admissible
one, inasmuch as rain is not to be expected when the sun has risen with a
cloudless sky. The rays of the sun, as it rises after a night of rain, strengthen the
fresh green of the plants. The rain is therefore a figurative representation of
blessing generally (cf. Isa. 44: 3), and the green grass which springs up from the
earth after the rain is an image of the blessings of the Messianic salvation
(Isa. 44: 4; 45: 8).

In Psa. 72: 6, Solomon takes these words of David as the basis of his
comparison of the effects resulting from the government of the true Prince of
peace to the coming down of the rain upon the mown grass.

2Sa. 23: 5. In v. 5, the prophecy concerning the coming of the just ruler is
sustained by being raced back to the original promise in 2Sa. 7, in which David
had received a pledge of this. The first and last clauses of this verse can only be
made to yield a meaning in harmony with the context, by being taken
interrogatively: for is not my house so with God? The question is only
indicated by the tone (JLO YkI = JLOH YkI: 2Sa. 19:23), as is frequently the case,
even before clauses commencing with JLO (e.g., Hos. 11: 5, Mal. 2:15: cf.
Ewald, 324, a.). KEJLO (not so) is explained by the following clause, though
the YkI which follows is not to be taken in the sense of that. Each of the two
clauses contains a distinct thought. That of the first is, Does not my house
stand in such a relation to God, that the righteous ruler will spring from it?
This is then explained in the second: for He hath made an everlasting covenant
with me. David calls the promise in 2Sa. 7:12ff., that God would establish his
kingdom to his seed for ever, a covenant, because it involved a reciprocal
relation, namely, that Jehovah would first of all found for David a permanent
house, and then that the seed of David was to build the house of the Lord. This
covenant is LkOBA HKFwR, equipped (or provided) with all that could help to
establish it. This relates more especially to the fact that all eventualities were
foreseen, even the falling away of the bearers of the covenant of God, so that
such an event as this would not annul the covenant (2Sa. 7:14, 15). HRFwMiw,
and preserved, i.e., established by the assurance that even in that case the
Lord would not withdraw His grace. David could found upon this the certainty,
that God would cause all the salvation to spring forth which had been pledged
to his house in the promise referred to. YIiYI LkF , all my salvation, i.e., all
the salvation promised to me and to my house. PEX
LkF, not all my desire,
but all the good pleasure of God, i.e., all the saving counsel of God
expressed in that covenant. The YkI before JLO is an energetic repetition of the
YkI which introduces the explanatory thought, in the sense of a firm assurance:
for all my salvation and all good pleasure, yea, should He not cause it to
spring forth?
6 But the worthless, as rejected thorns are they all;
For men do not take them in the hand.
7 And the man who touches them
Provides himself with iron and spear-shaft,
And they are utterly burned with fire where they dwell.

2Sa. 23: 6, 7. The development of salvation under the ruler in righteousness

and the fear of God is accompanied by judgment upon the ungodly. The
abstract LAyALIbi , worthlessness, is stronger than LAyALIbi YJI, the worthless
man, and depicts the godless as personified worthlessness. DNFMU, in the Keri
DnFM,U the Hophal of DwN or DDANF, literally scared or hunted away. This epithet
does not apply to the thorns, so well as to the ungodly who are compared to
thorns. The reference is to thorns that men root out, not to those which they
avoid on account of their prickles. HAlFkU, an antiquated form for lFkU (see
Ewald, 247, d.). To root them out, or clean the ground of them, men do not
lay hold of them with the bare hand; but whoever would touch them equips
himself (JL
mFY,I sc., WDOY,F to fill the hand with anything: 2Ki. 9:24) with iron,
i.e., with iron weapons, and spear-shaft (vid., 1Sa. 17: 7). This expression
also relates to the godless rather than to the thorns. They are consumed TBEEb,A
at the dwelling, i.e., as Kimchi explains, at the place of their dwelling, the
place where they grow. For TBEEbA cannot mean on the spot in the sense of
without delay. The burning of the thorns takes place at the final judgment upon
the ungodly (Mat. 13:30).

Davids Heroes. Ch. 23: 8-39.

2Sa. 23: 8-39. The following list of Davids heroes we also find in
1Ch. 11:10-47, and expanded at the end by sixteen names (vv. 41-47), and
attached in v. 10 to the account of the conquest of the fortress of Zion by the
introduction of a special heading. According to this heading, the heroes named
assisted David greatly in his kingdom, along with all Israel, to make him king,
from which it is evident that the chronicler intended by this heading to justify his
appending the list to the account of the election of David as king over all the
tribes of Israel (1Ch. 11: 1), and of the conquest of Zion, which followed
immediately afterwards. In every other respect the two lists agree with one
another, except that there are a considerable number of errors of the text, more
especially in the names, which are frequently corrupt in both texts, to that the
true reading cannot be determined with certainty. The heroes enumerated are
divided into three classes. The first class consists of three, viz., Jashobeam,
Eleazar, and Shammah, of whom certain brave deeds are related, by which they
reached the first rank among Davids heroes (vv. 8-12). They were followed by
Abishai and Benaiah, who were in the second class, and who had also
distinguished themselves above the rest by their brave deeds, though they did
not come up to the first three (vv. 18-23). The others all belonged to the third
class, which consisted of thirty-two men, of whom no particular heroic deeds
are mentioned (vv. 24-39). Twelve of these, viz., the five belonging to the first
two classes and seven of the third, were appointed by David commanders of the

twelve detachments into which he divided the army, each detachment to serve
for one month in the year (1Ch. 27). These heroes, among whom we do not
find Joab the commander-in-chief of the whole of the forces, were the kings
aides-de-camp, and are called in this respect YILIFHA (v. 8), though the term
YILO iHA (the thirty, vv. 13, 23, 24) was also a very customary one, as their
number amounted to thirty in a round sum. It is possible that at first they may
have numbered exactly thirty; for, from the very nature of the case, we may be
sure than in the many wars in which David was engaged, other heroes must
have arisen at different times, who would be received into the corps already
formed. This will explain the addition of sixteen names in the Chronicles,
whether the chronicler made us of a different list from that employed by the
author of the books before us, and one belonging to a later age, or whether the
author of our books merely restricted himself to a description of the corps in its
earlier condition.

2Sa. 23: 8-12. HEROES OF THE FIRST CLASS. The short heading to our
text, with which the list in the Chronicles also beings (1Ch. 11:11), simply gives
the name of these heroes. But instead of the names of the mighty men, we
have in the Chronicles the number of the mighty men. This variation is all the
more striking, from the fact that in the Chronicles the total number is not given
at the close of the list as it is in our text. At the same time, it can hardly be a
copyists error for RXABiMI (selection), as Bertheau supposes, but must be
attributable to the fact that, according to vv. 13, 23, and 24, these heroes
constituted a corps which was named from the number of which it originally
consisted. The first, Jashobeam, is called the chief of the thirty in the
Chronicles. Instead of FBiFYF (Jashobeam), the reading in the Chronicles, we
have here TBEEbA BEYO (Josheb-basshebeth), unquestionably a spurious reading,
which probably arose, according to Kennicotts conjecture, from the
circumstance that the last two letters of BY were written in one MS under
TBEEbA in the line above (v. 7), and a copyist took TBB from that line by
mistake for . The correctness of the reading Jashobeam is established by
1Ch. 27: 2. The word YNIMOkiXitA is also faulty, and should be corrected,
according to the Chronicles, into YNIWMOkiXAbE (Ben-hachmoni); for the
statement that Jashobeam was a son (or descendant) of the family of Hachmon
(1Ch. 27:32) can easily be reconciled with that in 1Ch. 27: 2, to the effect that
he was a son of Zabdiel. Instead of YILO iHA JRO (head of the thirty), the
reading in the Chronicles, we have here YILIFHA JRO (head of the three).
Bertheau would alter our text in accordance with the Chronicles, whilst Thenius
proposes to bring the text of the Chronicles into accordance with ours. But
although the many unquestionable corruptions in the verse before us may

appear to favour Bertheaus assumption, we cannot regard either of the

emendations as necessary, or even warrantable. The proposed alteration of
YILIFHA is decidedly precluded by the recurrence of YILIFHA JRO in v. 18, and
the alteration of YIL
O iHA in the Chronicles by the repeated allusion to the
YILO i, not only in vv. 15, 42, ch. 12: 4, and ch. 27: 6 of the Chronicles, but
also in vv. 13, 23, and 24 of the chapter before us. The explanation given of
YILI F and YIL
I F, as signifying chariot-warriors, is decidedly erroneous;f33 for
the singular YLIFHA is used in all the passages in which the word occurs to
signify the royal aide-de-camp (2Ki. 7: 2, 17, 19; 9:25; 15:25), and the plural
YIYLI F the royal body-guard, not only in 2Ki. 1:25, but even in 1Ki. 9:22, and
Exo. 14: 7; 15: 4, from which the meaning chariot-warriors has been derived.
Consequently YILIFHA JRO is the head of the kings aides-de-camp, and the
interchange of YILIFHA with the YIL
O iHA of the Chronicles may be explained on
the simple ground that Davids thirty heroes formed his whole body of
adjutants. The singular YIL
I F is to be explained in the same manner as YTIR
kiHA
(see at 2Sa. 8:18). Luther expresses the following opinion in his marginal gloss
with regard to the words which follow (WNOCiEHF WNOYDI JwH): We believe the
text to have been corrupted by a writer, probably from some book in an
unknown character and bad writing, so that orer should be substituted for
adino, and ha-eznib for eth hanitho: that is to say, the reading in the
Chronicles, he swung his spear, should be adopted (cf. v. 18). This
supposition is certainly to be preferred to the attempt made by Gesenius (Lex.)
and v. Dietrich (s. v. YDIF) to find some sense in the words by assuming the
existence of a verb d
I and a noun CE
, a spear, since these words do not
occur anywhere else in Hebrew; and in order to obtain any appropriate sense, it
is still necessary to resort to alterations of the text. He swung his spear over
eight hundred slain at once. This is not to be understood as signifying that he
killed eight hundred men at one blow, but that in a battle he threw his spear
again and again at the foe, until eight hundred men had been slain. The
Chronicles give three hundred instead of eight hundred; and as that number
occurs again in v. 18, in the case of Abishai, it probably found its way from that
verse into this in the book of Chronicles.

2Sa. 23: 9, 10.

After him (i.e., next to him in rank) was Eleazar the son of Dodai the Ahohite,
among the three heroes with David when they defied the Philistines, who had
assembled there, and the Israelites drew near.

The Chethib YDD is to be read YDAWDO, Dodai, according to 1Ch. 27: 4, and the
form WDOWDO (Dodo) in the parallel text (1Ch. 11:12) is only a variation in the

form of the name. Instead of YXIXOJbE (the son of Ahohi) we find YXIXOJHF (the
Ahohite) in the Chronicles; but the bE must not be struck out on that account as
spurious, for the son of an Ahohite is the same as the Ahohite. For YRIbOGI
HFL
O ibI we must read YRIbOgIHA HFL
O ibI, according to the Keri and the
Chronicles. HFL
O i is not to be altered, since the numerals are sometimes
attached to substantives in the absolute state (see Ges. 120, 1). The three
heroes are Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah (v. 11), who reached the first
rank, according to v. 19, among the heroes of David. Instead of YtIiLIpibA
PFRiXFbi (when they defied the Philistines), we find in the Chronicles
YtIiLIpiHAWi YmIdA SpAbA, at Pas-dammim, i.e., most probably Ephesdammim (1Sa. 17: 1), where the Philistines were encamped when Goliath defied
the Israelites. Thenius, Bertheau, and Bttcher therefore propose to alter our
text so as to make it correspond to that of the Chronicles, and adduce as the
reason the fact that in other passages R
X
is construed with the accusative, and
that F, which follows, presupposes the previous mention of the place referred
to. But the reasons are neither of them decisive. R
X
is not construed with the
accusative alone, but also with Li (2Ch. 32:17), so that the construction with b
is quite a possible one, and is not at variance with the idea of the word. F
again may also be understood as referring to the place, not named, where the
Philistines fought with the Israelites. The omission of REJ before wPSiJENE is
more difficult to explain; and YtI iLIpiHAWi, which we find in the Chronicles, has
probably dropped out after YtIiLIpib.A The reading in the Chronicles (SPEJEbi)
YmIdA SpAbA is probably only a more exact description of the locality, which is
but obscurely indicated in our text by YtIiLIpibA PFRiXFbi; for these words
affirm that the battle took place where the Israelites had once been defied by the
Philistines (1Sa. 17:10), and where they repaid them for this defiance in a
subsequent conflict. The Philistines are at any rate to be regarded as the subject
to wPSiJEN,E and these words are a circumstantial clause: the Philistines had
assembled together there to battle, and the Israelites had advanced to the attack.
The heroic act of Eleazar is introduced with he arose. He arose and smote the
Philistines till his hand was weary and clave to his sword, i.e., was so cramped
as to be stiffened to the sword. Through this Jehovah wrought a great salvation
for Israel on that day, and the people (the soldiers) turned after him only to
plunder, sc., because he had put the enemy to flight by himself. WYRFXJA Bw
does not mean to turn back from flight after him, but is the opposite of YR
XJAM
Bw, to turn away from a person (1Sa. 15:11, etc.), so that it signifies to turn
to a person and follow behind him. Three lines have dropped out from the

parallel text of the Chronicles, in consequence of the eye of a copyist having

wandered from wPSiJENE YtIiLIpi in v. 9 to YtI iLIPi wPSiJFy
WA in v. 11.

2Sa. 23:11, 12. The third leading hero was Shammah, the son of Age the
Hararite (YRIRFHF is probably contracted from YRIRFHHA , v. 33). He also made
himself renowned by a great victory over the Philistines. The enemy had
gathered together HyFXAL,A as a troop, or in a crowd. This meaning of HyFXA
(here and v. 13, and possibly also in Psa. 68:11) is thoroughly established by the
Arabic (see Ges. Thes. p. 470). But it seems to have fallen into disuse
afterwards, and in the Chronicles it is explained in v. 13 by HMFXFLiMI, and in v.
15 by HNEXMA. On a portion of a field of lentils there, sc., where the Philistines
had gathered together, the people (of Israel) were smitten. Then Shammah
stationed himself in the midst of the field, and HFLEYcIYA, wrested it, from the
foe, and smote the Philistines. Instead of YIDF, lentils, we find in the
Chronicles YRIW OV,i barley, a very inconsiderable difference.

2Sa. 23:13-17. To this deed there is appended a similar heroic feat performed

by three of the thirty heroes whose names are not given. The Chethib YL$ is
evidently a slip of the pen for HFL
O i (Keri and Chronicles). The thirty chiefs are
the heroes named afterwards (see above at p. 698). As HFLO i has no article
either in our text or the Chronicles, the three intended are not the three already
mentioned (Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah), but three others out of the
number mentioned in vv. 24ff. These three came to David in the harvest time
unto the cave of Adullam (see at 1Sa. 22: 1), when a troop of the Philistines
was encamped in the valley of Rephaim, and David was on the mountain
fortress, and a Philistian post was then in Bethlehem. And David longed for
water, and said, Oh that one would bring me water to drink out of the well of
Bethlehem at the gate! The encampment of the Philistines in the valley of
Rephaim, and the position of David on the mountain fortress (HDFwCmibA ), render
it probable that the feat mentioned here took place in the war with the
Philistines described in 2Sa. 5:17ff. Robinson could not discover any well in
Bethlehem, especially none by the gate, except one connected with the
aqueduct on the south (Palestine, vol. ii. p. 158). RAAbA need not be
understood, however, as signifying that the well was in or under the gate; but
the well referred to may have been at the gate outside the city. The well to
which tradition has given the name of Davids well (cisterna David), is about
a quarter of an hours walk to the north-east of Bethlehem, and, according to
Robinsons description, is merely a deep and wide cistern or cavern now dry,
with three or four narrow openings cut in the rock. But Ritter (Erdk. xvi. p.
286) describes it as deep with clear cool water, into which there are three

openings from above, which Tobler speaks of as bored; and again as a cistern
built with peculiar beauty, from seventeen to twenty-one feet deep, whilst a
house close by is pointed out to pilgrims as Jesses house.

2Sa. 23:16. The three heroes then broke through the camp of the Philistines at
Bethlehem, i.e., the outpost that occupied the space before the gate, fetched
water out of the well, and brought it to David. He would not drink it, however,
but poured it out upon the ground to the Lord, as a drink-offering for Jehovah.
He poured it out upon the earth, rendering Him thanks for the return of the
three brave men (Clericus). And he said, Far be it from me, O Jehovah, to do
this! The blood of the men who went with their lives (i.e., at the risk of their
lives), sc., should I drink it? The verb HtEiJE is wanting in our text, but is not
to be inserted according to the Chronicles as though it had fallen out; the
sentence is rather to be regarded as an aposiopesis. HWFHOYi after YlI HLFYLIXF is a
vocative, and is not to be altered into HWFHOYM
, according to the YH
LOJM
of the
Chronicles. The fact that the vocative does not occur in other passages after YlI
HLFYLIXF proves nothing. It is equivalent to the oath HWFHOYi YXA (1Sa. 14:45). The
chronicler has endeavoured to simplify Davids exclamation by completing the
sentence. TFWOPiNAbi, for the price of their souls, i.e., at the risk of their lives.
The water drawn and fetched at the risk of their lives is compared to the soul
itself, and the soul is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). Drinking this water, therefore,
would be nothing else than drinking their blood.

2Sa. 23:18-23. HEROES OF THE SECOND CLASS . Vv. 18, 19. Abishai,
Joabs brother (see 1Sa. 26: 6), was also chief of the body-guard, like
Jashobeam (v. 8: the Chethib YILIFHA is correct; see at v. 8). He swung his
spear over three hundred slain. He had a name among the three, i.e., the three
principal heroes, Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. The following words,
HFL
O iHAMI, make no sense. HFL
O iHA is an error in writing for YIL
O iHA, as v.
23 shows in both the texts (v. 25 of the Chronicles): an error the origin of
which may easily be explained from the word HFL
O i, which stands immediately
before. He was certainly honoured before the thirty (heroes of David), and
became their chief, but he did not come to the three, i.e., he was not equal to
Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah. YKIH has the force of an energetic
assurance: Is it so that, i.e., it is certainly so (as in 2Sa. 9: 1; Gen. 27:36;
29:15).

2Sa. 23:20-23. Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, Jehoiada the priest according
to 1Ch. 27: 5, possibly the one who was prince for Aaron, i.e., of the family
of Aaron, according to 1Ch. 12:27, was captain of the Crethi and Plethi
according to 2Sa. 8:18 and 20:23. He was the son of a brave man, rich in deeds

(YXA is evidently an error for LYIXA in the Chronicles), of Kabzeel in the south of
Judah (Jos. 15:21). He smote the two Ariels of Moab. The Arabs and
Persians call every remarkably brave man Ariel, or lion of God (vid., Bochart,
Hieroz. ii. pp. 7, 63). They were therefore two celebrated Moabitish heroes.
The supposition that they were sons of the king of the Moabites is merely
founded upon the conjecture of Thenius and Bertheau, that the word YN
bi (sons
of) has dropped out before Ariel. He also slew the lion in the well on the day
of the snow, i.e., a lion which had been driven into the neighbourhood of
human habitations by a heavy fall of snow, and had taken refuge in a cistern.
The Chethib HY
RiJAHF and RJ
bi are the earlier forms for the Keris substituted by
the Masoretes YRIJHF and RWbOH,A and consequently are not to be altered. He also
slew an Egyptian of distinguished size. According to the Keri we should read
HJERiMA YJI (instead of HJERiMA REJ), a man of appearance, i.e., a
distinguished man, or a man of great size, andra oraton (LXX); in the
Chronicles it is simplified as HdFMI YJI, a man of measure, i.e., of great height.
This man was armed with a spear or javelin, whereas Benaiah was only armed
with a stick; nevertheless the latter smote him, took away his spear, and slew
him with his own weapon. According to the Chronicles the Egyptian was five
cubits high, and his spear like a weavers beam. Through these feats Benaiah
acquired a name among the three, though he did not equal them (vv. 22, 23, as
in vv. 18, 19); and David made him a member of his privy council (see at
1Sa. 22:14).

2Sa. 23:24-39. HEROES OF THE T HIRD CLASS. V. 24. Asahel, the

brother of Joab, among the thirty, i.e., belonging to them. This definition also
applies to the following names; we therefore find at the head of the list in the
Chronicles, YLIYFXHA YR
WbOGIW,i and brave heroes (were). The names which
follow are for the most part not further known. Elhanan, the son of Dodo of
Bethlehem, is a different man from the Bethlehemite of that name mentioned in
2Sa. 21:19. Shammah the Harodite also must not be confounded with the
Shammahs mentioned in vv. 11 and 33. In the Chronicles we find Shammoth, a
different form of the name; whilst YRIWROHiHA is an error in writing for YDIROXH,A
i.e., sprung from Harod (Jud. 7: 1). This man is called Shamhut in 1Ch. 27: 8;
he was the leader of the fifth division of Davids army. Elika or Harod is
omitted in the Chronicles; it was probably dropped out in consequence of the
homoioteleuton YDIROXHA .

2Sa. 23:26. Helez the Paltite; i.e., sprung from Beth-Pelet in the south of
Judah (Jud. 15:27). He was chief of the seventh division of the army (compare
1Ch. 27:10 with 1Ch. 11:27, though in both passages YILipAHA is misspelt

YNILOpiH)A . Ira the son of Ikkesh of Tekoah in the desert of Judah (2Sa. 14: 2),
chief of the sixth division of the army (1Ch. 27: 9).

2Sa. 23:27. Abiezer of Anathoth (Anata) in Benjamin (see at Jos. 18:24),

chief of the ninth division of the army (1Ch. 27:12). Mebunnai is a mistake in
spelling for Sibbechai the Hushathite (compare 2Sa. 21:18 and 1Ch. 11:29).
According to 1Ch. 27:11, he was chief of the eighth division of the army.

2Sa. 23:28. Zalmon the Ahohite, i.e., sprung from the Benjaminite family of
Ahoah, is not further known. Instead of Zalmon we find Ilai in the Chronicles
(v. 29); but which of the two names is the correct one it is impossible to decide.
Maharai of Netophah: according to Ezr. 2:22 and Neh. 7:26, Netophah was a
place in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, but it has not yet been discovered, as
Beit Nattif, which might be thought of, is too far from Bethlehem (vid., Rob.
Pal. ii. p. 344, and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, pp. 117-8). According to
1Ch. 27:13, Maharai belonged to the Judahite family of Serah, and was chief of
the tenth division of the army.

2Sa. 23:29. Cheleb, more correctly Cheled (1Ch. 11:30; or Cheldai,

1Ch. 27:15), also of Netophah, was chief of the twelfth division of the army.
Ittai (Ithai in the Chronicles), the son of Ribai of Gibeah of Benjamin, must be
distinguished from Ittai the Gathite (2Sa. 15:19). Like all that follow, with the
exception of Uriah, he is not further known.

2Sa. 23:30. Benaiah of Phiraton in the tribe of Ephraim, a place which has
been preserved in the village of Ferata, to the south-west of Nablus (see at
Jud. 12:13). Hiddai (wrongly spelt Hudai in the Chronicles), out of the valleys
of Gaash, in the tribe of Ephraim by the mountain of Gaash, the situation of
which has not yet been discovered (see at Jos. 24:30).

2Sa. 23:31. Abi-Albon (written incorrectly Abiel in the Chronicles) the

Arbathite, i.e., from the place called Beth-haarabah or Arabah (Jos. 15:61 and
18:18, 22) in the desert of Judah, on the site of the present Kasr Hajla (see at
Jos. 15: 6). Azmaveth of Bahurim: see at 2Sa. 16: 5.

2Sa. 23:32, 33. Eliahba of Shaalbon or Shaalbin, which may possibly have
been preserved in the present Selbit (see at Jos. 19:42). The next two names,
TFNFWHOYi
YF YN
bi and YRIRFHHA HmFA (Bneyashen Jehonathan and Shammah the
Hararite), are written thus in the Chronicles (v. 34), YRIRFHHA JG
F bE TFNFWYO
YNIWZOgIHA
HF YN
bi: Bnehashem the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Sage the
Hararite, The text of the Chronicles is evidently the more correct of the two,
as Bne Jashen Jehonathan does not make any sense. The only question is
whether the form
HF YN
bi is correct, or whether YN
bi has not arisen merely

through a misspelling. As the name does not occur again, all that can be said is
that Bne hashem must at any rate be written as one word, and therefore should
be pointed differently. The place mentioned, Gizon, is unknown. HmFA for
JG
JFbE probably arose from v. 11. Ahiam the son of Sharar or Sacar (Chron.)
the Ararite (in the Chronicles the Hararite).

2Sa. 23:34. The names in 34a, Eliphelet ben-Ahasbai ben-Hammaacathi,

read thus in the Chronicles (vv. 35, 36): Eliphal ben-Ur; Hepher hammecerathi.
We see from this that in ben-Ahasbai ben two names have been fused together;
for the text as it lies before us is rendered suspicious partly by the fact that the
names of both father and grandfather are given, which does not occur in
connection with any other name in the whole list, and partly by the
circumstance that b
cannot properly be written with YTIK
F MAH,A which is a
Gentile noun. Consequently the following is probably the correct way of
restoring the text, YTIK
F MAHA RPEX
RwJbE LEPEYLIJ , Eliphelet (a name which
frequently occurs) the son of Ur; Hepher the Maachathite, i.e., of Maacah in
the north-east of Gilead (see at 2Sa. 10: 6 and Deu. 3:14). Eliam the son of
Ahithophel the Gilonite, the clever but treacherous counsellor of David (see at
2Sa. 15:12). This name is quite corrupt in the Chronicles.

2Sa. 23:35. Hezro the Carmelite, i.e., of Carmel in the mountains of Judah
(1Sa. 25: 2). Paarai the Arbite, i.e., of Arab, also in the mountains of Judah
(Jos. 15:52). In the Chronicles we find Naarai ben-Ezbi: the latter is evidently
an error in writing for ha-Arbi; but it is impossible to decide which of the two
forms, Paarai and Naarai, is the correct one.

2Sa. 23:36. Jigal the son of Nathan of Zoba (see at 2Sa. 8: 3): in the
Chronicles, Joel the brother of Nathan. Bani the Gadite: in the Chronicles we
have Mibhar the son of Hagri. In all probability the names inf the Chronicles are
corrupt in this instance also.

2Sa. 23:37. Zelek the Ammonite, Nacharai the Beerothite (of Beeroth: see at
2Sa. 4: 2), the armour-bearer of Joab. Instead of YJ
ViN,O the Keri and the
Chronicles have JV
N:O the latter reading is favoured by the circumstance, that if
more than one of the persons named had been Joabs armour-bearers, their
names would most probably have been linked together by a copulative vav.

2Sa. 23:38. Ira and Gareb, both of them Jithrites, i.e., sprung from a family in
Kirjath-jearim (1Ch. 2:53). Ira is of course a different man from the cohen of
that name (2Sa. 20:26).

2Sa. 23:39. Uriah the Hittite is well known from 2Sa. 11: 3. Thirty and
seven in all. This number is correct, as there were three in the first class (vv.
8-12), two in the second (vv. 18-23), and thirty-two in the third (vv. 24-39),
since v. 34 contains three names according to the amended text.

Numbering of the People, and Pestilence. Ch. 24.

2Sa. 24. For the purpose of ascertaining the number of the people, and their
fitness for war, David ordered Joab, his commander-in-chief, to take a census of
Israel and Judah. Joab dissuaded him from such a step; but inasmuch as the king
paid no attention to his dissuasion, he carried out the command with the help of
the military captains (vv. 1-9). David very speedily saw, however, that he had
sinned; whereupon the prophet Gad went to him by the command of Jehovah to
announce the coming punishment, and give him the choice of three different
judgments which he placed before him (vv. 10-13). As David chose rather to
fall into the hand of the Lord than into the hand of men, God sent a pestilence,
which carried off seventy thousand men in one day throughout the whole land,
and had reached Jerusalem, when the Lord stopped the destroying angel in
consequence of the penitential prayer of David (vv. 14-17), and sent Gad to the
king to direct him to build an altar to the Lord on the spot where the destroying
angel had appeared to him (v. 18). Accordingly David bought the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite, built an altar upon it, and sacrificed burntofferings and thank-offerings, after which the plague was stayed (vv. 19-25).
This occurrence, which is introduced in the parallel history in 1Ch. 21 between
Davids wars and his arrangements for a more complete organization of the
affairs of the nation, belongs undoubtedly to the closing years of Davids reign.
The mere taking of a census, as a measure that would facilitate the general
organization of the kingdom, could not in itself be a sinful act, by which David
brought guilt upon himself, or upon the nation, before God. Nevertheless it is
not only represented in v. 1 as a manifestation of the wrath of God against
Israel, but in v. 3 Joab seeks to dissuade the king from it as being a wrong
thing; and in v. 10 David himself admits that it was a grievous sin against God,
and as a sin it is punished by the Lord (vv. 12ff.). In what, then, did Davids sin
consist? Certainly not in the fact that, when taking the census, he neglected to
demand the atonement money, which was to be raised, according to
Exo. 30:12ff., from all who were numbered, because the numbering of the
people was regarded in itself as an undertaking by which the anger of God
might easily be excited, as Josephus and Bertheau maintain; for the Mosaic
instructions concerning the atonement money had reference to the incorporation
of the people into the army of Jehovah (see at Exo. 30:13, 14), and therefore
did not come into consideration at all in connection with the census appointed
by David as a purely political measure. Nor can we imagine that Davids sin

consisted merely in the fact that he entered upon the whole affair from pride
and vain boasting, or that he commanded the census from vanity, inasmuch as
he wanted to have it distinctly set before his own eyes how strong and mighty
he was (Buddeus, Hengstenberg, and others); for although pride and vanity
had something to do with it, as the words of Joab especially seem to indicate,
David was far too great a man to allow us to attribute to him a childish delight
in the mere number of souls in his kingdom. The census had certainly a higher
purpose than this. It is very evident from 1Ch. 27:23, 24, where it is mentioned
again that it was connected with the military organization of the people, and
probably was to be the completion of it. David wanted to know the number of
his subjects, not that he might be able to boast of their multitude, nor that he
might be able to impose all kinds of taxes upon every town and village
according to their houses and inhabitants, as Ewald maintains; but that he might
be fully acquainted with its defensive power, though we can neither attribute to
him the definite purpose of transforming the theocratic sacred state into a
conquering world-state (Kurtz), nor assume that through this numbering the
whole nation was to be enrolled for military service, and that thirst for conquest
was the motive for the undertaking. The true kernel of Davids sin was to be
found, no doubt, in self-exaltation, inasmuch as he sought for the strength and
glory of his kingdom in the number of the people and their readiness for war.
This sin was punished. Because David was about to boast proudly and to glory
in the number of his people, God determined to punish him by reducing their
number either by famine, war, or pestilence (Seb. Schmidt). At the same time,
the people themselves had sinned grievously against God and their king,
through the two rebellions headed by Absalom and Sheba.

2Sa. 24: 1-9. Again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel; and He

moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. TWROXLA
SEyOWA points back to the manifestation of the wrath of God, which Israel had
experienced in the three years famine (2Sa. 21). Just as that plague had burst
upon the land on account of the guilt which rested upon the people, so the
kindling of the wrath of God against Israel a second time also presupposes guilt
on the part of the nation; and as this is not expressly pointed out, we may seek
for it generally in the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba against the divinely
established government of David. The subject to moved is Jehovah, and the
words against them point back to Israel. Jehovah instigated David against
Israel to the performance of an act which brought down a severe judgment
upon the nation. With regard to the idea that God instigates to sin, see the
remarks on 1Sa. 26:19. In the parallel text of the Chronicles, Satan is mentioned
as the tempter to evil, through whom Jehovah had David to number the people.

2Sa. 24: 2. David entrusted the task to his commander-in-chief Joab. WtOJI

REJ, who was with him: the meaning is, when he was with him (David).
We are not warranted in attempting any emendations of the text, either by the
expression WtOJI REJ, or by the reading in the Chronicles, FHF YR
VFLJEWi (and
to the rulers of the people); for whilst the latter reading may easily be seen to
be a simplification founded upon v. 4, it is impossible to show how WtOJI REJ
LYIXAHARVA, which is supported by all the ancient versions (with the sole
exception of the Arabic), could have originated in FHF YR
VFLJEW.i Go now
through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba (see at Jud. 20: 1), and
muster the people. DQApF, to muster or number, as in Num. 1:44ff. The change
from the singular wto the plural wDQipI may be explained very simply, from
the fact that, as a matter of course, Joab was not expected to take the census by
himself, but with the help of several assistants.

2Sa. 24: 3. Joab discountenanced the thing: Jehovah thy God add to the
nation, as it is, a hundredfold as many, and may the eyes of my lord the king see
it. But why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? The W before S
WYO
stands at the commencement, when what is said contains a sequel to something
that has gone before (vid., Ges. 255, 1, a.). The thought to which Joabs
words are appended as a sequel, is implied in what David said, that I may
know the number of the people; and if expressed fully, his words would read
somewhat as follows: If thou hast delight in the greatness of the number of the
people, may Jehovah, etc. Joab evidently saw through the kings intention, and
perceived that the numbering of the people could not be of any essential
advantage to Davids government, and might produce dissatisfaction among the
people, and therefore endeavoured to dissuade the king from his purpose.
H
KFWi H
kF, as they (the Israelites) just are, i.e., in this connection, just as
many as there are of them. From a grammatical point of view, H
kF is to be
taken as the object to S
WYO , as in the parallel passages, Deu. 1:11, 2Sa. 12: 8.
Not only did he desire that God would multiply the nation a hundredfold, but
that He would do it during the lifetime of David, so that his eyes might be
delighted with the immense numbers.

2Sa. 24: 4, 5. But as the kings word prevailed against Joab and against the
captains of the army, they (Joab and the other captains) went out to number
Israel. wNXY,A they encamped, i.e., they fixed their headquarters in the open field,
because great crowds assembled together. This is only mentioned here in
connection with the place where the numbering commenced; but it is to be
understood as applying to the other places as well (Thenius). In order to
distinguish Aroer from the place of the same name in the Arnon, in the tribe of

Reuben (Jos. 12: 2; Num. 32:34, etc.), it is defined more precisely as the town
in the brook-valley of Gad, i.e., Aroer of Gad before Rabbah (Jos. 13:25;
Jud. 11:33), in the Wady Nahr Amman, to the north-east of Amman (see at
Jos. 13:25). RZ
iYALJEWi (and to Jazer): this is a second place of encampment,
and the preposition LJE is to be explained on the supposition that wJBOYF (they
came), which follows, was already in the writers thoughts. Jazer is probably to
be found in the ruins of es Szir, at the source of the Nahr Szir (see at
Num. 21:32).

2Sa. 24: 6. And they came to Gilead, i.e., the mountainous district on the
two sides of the Jabbok (see at Deu. 3:10). The words which follow, viz., into
the land YIDiXF YtIXitA are quite obscure, and were unintelligible even to the
earlier translators. The Septuagint has ghn Eqawn Adasai , or ghn Qabaswn
(also ghn xettieim) h estin Adasai. Symmachus has thn katwteran odon;
Jonathan YIDiXFLi JMFWRODF JFRiJALi (into the southland Chodshi); and the
Vulgate in terram inferiorem. The singular form YtIXit,A and the fact that we
never read of a land called Chodshi, render the conjecture a very probable one
that the text is corrupt. But it is no longer possible to discover the correct
reading. Ewald imagines that we should read Hermon instead of the
unintelligible Chodshi; but this is not very probable. Bttcher supposes YTXT
to be a mistake in writing for YF TXAtA, below the lake, namely the lake of
Gennesareth, which might have been called Chodshi (the new-moon-like), since
it had very much the appearance of a crescent when seen from the northern
heights. This is ingenious, but incredible. The order of the places named points
to the eastern side of the sea of Galilee; for they went thence to Dan-Jaan, i.e.,
the Dan in northern Peraea, mentioned in Gen. 14:14, to the south-west of
Damascus, at that time probably the extreme north-eastern boundary of the
kingdom of David, in the direction towards Syria (see at Gen. 14:14): and
round to Sidon, the extreme north-western boundary of the kingdom.

2Sa. 24: 7. Thence southwards to the fortress of Zor, i.e., Tyre (see at
Jos. 19:29), and into all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites, i.e., the
towns in the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun, and Issachar, or the (subsequent)
province of Galilee, in which the Canaanites had not been exterminated by the
Israelites, but had only been made tributary.

2Sa. 24: 8, 9. When they had traversed the whole land, they came back to
Jerusalem, at the end of nine months and twenty days, and handed over to the
king the number of the people mustered: viz., 800,000 men of Israel fit for
military service, drawing the sword, and 500,000 men of Judah. According to
the Chronicles (v. 5), there were 1,100,000 Israelites and 470,000 Judaeans.

The numbers are not given by thousands, and therefore are only approximative
statements in round numbers; and the difference in the two texts arose chiefly
from the fact, that the statements were merely founded upon oral tradition,
since, according to 1Ch. 27: 4, the result of the census was not inserted in the
annals of the kingdom. There is no ground, however, for regarding the numbers
as exaggerated, if we only bear in mind that the entire population of a land
amounts to about four times the number of those who are fit for military
service, and therefore 1,300,000, or even a million and a half, would only
represent a total population of five or six millions, a number which could
undoubtedly have been sustained in Palestine, according to thoroughly reliable
testimony as to its unusual fertility (see the discussion of this subject at Num. 14, Pentateuch, pp. 651-57). Still less can we adduce as a proof of exaggeration
the fact, that according to 1Ch. 27: 1-15, David had only an army of 288,000;
for it is a well-known fact, that in all lands the army, or number of men in actual
service, is, as a rule, much smaller than the total number of those who are
capable of bearing arms. According to 1Ch. 21: 6, the tribes of Levi and
Benjamin were not numbered, because, as the chronicler adds, giving his own
subjective view, the word of the king was an abomination to Joab, or, as it is
affirmed in 1Ch. 27: 4, according to the objective facts, because the numbering
was not completed. It is evident from this, that in consequence of Joabs
repugnance to the numbering of the people, he had not hurried with the
fulfilment of the kings command; so that when David saw his own error, he
revoked the command before the census was complete, and so the tribe of
Benjamin was not numbered at all, the tribe of Levi being of course eo ipso
exempt from a census that was taken for the sake of ascertaining the number of
men who were capable of bearing arms.

2Sa. 24:10-18. Davids heart, i.e., his conscience, smote him, after he had
numbered the people, or had given orders for the census to be taken. Having
now come to a knowledge of his sin, he prayed to the Lord for forgiveness,
because he had acted foolishly. The sin consisted chiefly in the self-exaltation
which had led to this step (see the introductory remarks).

2Sa. 24:11-13. When he rose up in the morning, after he had calmly reflected
upon the matter during the night upon his bed, and had been brought to see the
folly of his determination, the prophet Gad came to him by the command of
God, pointed out to him his fault, and foretold the punishment that would come
from God. Shall seven years of famine come upon thy land, or three months of
flight before thine oppressors that they may pursue thee, or shall there be three
days of pestilence in thy land? Now mark and see what answer I shall bring to
Him that sendeth me. These three verses form one period, in which DGF JBOyFWA
(v. 134) answers as the consequent to uWGW DWIdF QFyFWA in v. 11, and the words

from HWFHOYi RBADiw (v. 11b) to lFHVEJEWi (v. 12) form a circumstantial clause
inserted between. uWGW HWFHOYi RBADiw: and the word of the Lord had taken place
(gone forth) to Gad, Davids seer, saying, Go...thus saith Jehovah, I lay upon
thee three (things or evils); choose thee one of them that I may do it to thee.
Instead of LA L
N,O to lay upon, we find HENO in the Chronicles, to turn upon
thee. The three things are mentioned first of all in connection with the
execution of Gads commission to the king. Instead of seven years of famine,
we find three years in the Chronicles; the Septuagint has also the number three
in the passage before us, and apparently it is more in harmony with the
connection, viz., three evils to choose from, and each lasting through three
divisions of time. But this agreement favours the seven rather than the three,
which is open to the suspicion of being intentionally made to conform to the
rest. SiNU is an infinitive: thy fleeing, for that thou fliest before thine enemies.
In the Chronicles the last two evils are described more fully, but the thought is
not altered in consequence.

2Sa. 24:14. David replied, I am in great trouble. Let us fall into the hand of
the Lord, for His mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of men. Thus
David chose the third judgment, since pestilence comes directly from God. On
the other hand, in flight from the enemy, he would have fallen into the hands of
men. It is not easy to see, however, how far this could apply to famine;
probably inasmuch as it tends more or less to create dependence upon those
who are still in possession of the means of life.

2Sa. 24:15. God then gave (sent) a pestilence into (upon) Israel, from the
morning till the time of the assembly; and there died of the people in the whole
land (from Dan to Beersheba) seventy thousand men. From the morning: on
which Gad had foretold the punishment. The meaning of D
WMO T
DAWi is
doubtful. The rendering to the time appointed, i.e., till the expiration of the
three days, in support of which the Vulgate (ad tempus constitutum) is
wrongly appealed to, is precluded not only by the circumstance that, according
to v. 16, the plague was stayed earlier because God repented Him of the evil, so
that it did not last so long as was at first appointed, but also by the grammatical
difficulty that D
WMO T
has no article, and can only be rendered for an (not
for the) appointed time. We meet with two different explanations in the ancient
versions: one in the Septuagint, ewj wraj aristou, till the hour of breakfast,
i.e., till the sixth hour of the day, which is the rendering also adopted by the
Syriac and Arabic as well as by Kimchi and several of the Rabbins; the other in
the Chaldee (Jonathan), from the time at which the sacrifice is commonly slain
until it is consumed. Accordingly Bochart explains D
WMO TJ
as signifying the
time at which the people came together for evening prayers, about the ninth

hour of the day, i.e., the third hour in the afternoon (vid., Acts 3: 1). The same
view also lies at the foundation of the Vulgate rendering, according to the
express statement of Jerome (traditt. Hebr. in 2 libr. Regum): He calls that the
time appointed, in which the evening sacrifice was offered. It is true that this
meaning of D
WMO cannot be established by precisely analogous passages, but it
may be very easily deduced from the frequent employment of the word to
denote the meetings and festivals connected with the worship of God, when it
generally stands without an article, as for example in the perfectly analogous
D
WMO WYO (Hos. 9: 5; Lam. 2: 7, 22); whereas it is always written with the
article when it is sued in the general sense of a fixed time, and some definite
period is referred to. f34
We must therefore decide in favour of the latter. But if the pestilence did not
last a whole day, the number of persons carried off by it (70,000 men) exceeded
very considerably the number destroyed by the most violent pestilential
epidemics on record, although they have not unfrequently swept off hundreds of
thousands in a very brief space of time. But the pestilence burst upon the people
in this instance with supernatural strength and violence, that it might be seen at
once to be a direct judgment from God.

2Sa. 24:16. The general statement as to the divine judgment and its terrible
effects is followed by a more minute description of the judgment itself, and the
arrest of the plague. When the destroying angel (the angel is defined
immediately afterwards as the angel that destroyed the people) stretched out
his hand towards Jerusalem to destroy it, Jehovah repented of the evil (for this
expression, see Exo. 32:14, Jer. 26:13, 19, etc.; and for the repentance of God,
the remarks on Gen. 6: 6), and He commanded the angel, Enough! stay now
thine hand. This implies that the progress of the pestilence was stayed before
Jerusalem, and therefore that Jerusalem itself was spared. And the angel of
Jehovah was at the threshing-floor of Aravnah the Jebusite. These words
affirm most distinctly that the destroying angel was visible. According to v. 17,
David saw him there. The visible appearance of the angel was to exclude every
thought of a natural land plague. The appearance of the angel is described more
minutely in the Chronicles: David saw him standing by the threshing-floor of
Aravnah between heaven and earth with a drawn sword in his hand, stretched
out over Jerusalem. The drawn sword was a symbolical representation of the
purpose of his coming (see at Num. 22:23 and Jos. 5:13). The threshing-floor
of Aravnah was situated, like all other threshing-floors, outside the city, and
upon an eminence, or, according to the more precise statement which follows,
to the north-east of Zion, upon Mount Moriah (see at v. 25). According to the
Chethib of v. 16, the name of the owner of the floor was HNFRiWAJHF, of v. 18
HYFNiRAJ, and of v. 20 (twice) HNFWiRAJ. This last form also occurs in vv. 22, 23,

and 24, and has been substituted by the Masoretes as the Keri in vv. 16 and 18.
In the Chronicles, on the other hand, the name is always written NFRiJF (Ornan),
and hence in the Septuagint we find Orna in both texts. The form HNFWiRAJ
(Aravnah) has not a Hebrew stamp, whereas Orna and Ornan are true Hebrew
formations. But for this very reason Aravnah appears to be derived from an
ancient tradition (Bertheau).

2Sa. 24:17. When David saw the angel, he prayed to the Lord (he and the
elders being clothed in mourning costume: Chron.): Behold, I have sinned, and
I have acted perversely; but these, the flock, what have they done? Let Thy
hand come upon me and my house. The meaning is: I the shepherd of Thy
people have sinned and transgressed, but the nation is innocent; i.e., not indeed
free from every kind of blame, but only from the sin which God was punishing
by the pestilence. It belongs to the very nature of truly penitential prayer, that
the person praying takes all the blame upon himself, acknowledges before God
that he alone is deserving of punishment, and does not dwell upon the
complicity of others for the sake of palliating his own sin in the sight of God.
We must not infer, therefore, from this confession on the part of David, that the
people, whilst innocent themselves, had had to atone only for an act of
transgression on the part of their king.

2Sa. 24:18. Davids prayer was heard. The prophet Gad came and said to him
by command of Jehovah, Go up, and erect an altar to the Lord upon the floor
of Aravnah the Jebusite. This is all that is communicated here of the word of
Jehovah which Gad was to convey to the king; the rest is given afterwards, as is
frequently the case, in the course of the subsequent account of the fulfilment of
the divine command (v. 21). David was to build the altar and offer burntofferings and supplicatory-offerings upon it, to appease the wrath of Jehovah.
The plague would then be averted from Israel.

2Sa. 24:19-25. David went up to Aravnah according to the command of

God.

2Sa. 24:20, 21. When Aravnah saw the king coming up to him with his
servants (Q
iyAWA, he looked out, viz., from the enclosure of the threshingfloor), he came out, bowed low even to the earth, and asked the king what was
the occasion of his coming; whereupon David replied, To buy the floor from
thee, to build an altar to the Lord, that the plague may be turned away from the
people.

2Sa. 24:22. Aravnah replied, Let my lord the king take and offer up what
seemeth good unto him: behold (i.e., there thou hast) the ox for the burntoffering, and the threshing-machine, and the harness of the ox for wood (i.e.,

for fuel). RQFbFHA, the pair of oxen yoked together in front of the threshingmachine. RQFbFHA YL
ki, the wooden yokes. All this giveth Aravnah, O king, to
the king. LEMEHA is a vocative, and is simply omitted by the LXX, Vulgate,
Syriac, and Arabic, because the translators regarded it as a nominative, which is
quite unsuitable, as Aravnah was not a king. When Thenius, on the other hand,
objects to this, for the purpose of throwing suspicion upon the passage, that the
sentence is thus stamped as part of Aravnahs address to the king, and that in
that case the words that follow, and Aravnah said, would be altogether
superfluous; the former remark is correct enough, for the words all this giveth
Aravnah...to the king must form part of what Aravnah said, inasmuch as the
remark, all this gave Aravnah to the king, if taken as the historians own
words, would be in most glaring contradiction to what follows, where the king
is said to have bought the floor and the oxen from Aravnah. And the words that
follow (and Aravnah said) are not superfluous on that account, but simply
indicate that Aravnah did not proceed to say the rest in the same breath, but
added it after a short pause, as a word which did not directly bear upon the
question put by the king. RMEJyOWA (and he said) is often repeated, where the same
person continues speaking (see for example 2Sa. 15: 4, 25, 27). Jehovah thy
God accept thee graciously, i.e., fulfil the request thou presentest to Him with
sacrifice and prayer.

2Sa. 24:24. The king did not accept the offer, however, but said, No; but I
will buy it of thee at a price, and will not offer burnt-offerings to the Lord my
God without paying for them. Thus David bought the threshing-floor and the
oxen for fifty shekels of silver. Instead of this, the Chronicles give shekels of
gold, in weight six hundred. This difference cannot be reconciled by assuming
that David paid his fifty shekels in gold coin, which would have been worth as
much as six hundred shekels of silver, since gold was worth twelve times as
much as silver. For there is nothing about gold shekels in our text; and the
words of the Chronicles cannot be interpreted as meaning that the shekels of
gold were worth six hundred shekels of silver. No other course is left, therefore,
than to assume that the number must be corrupt in one of the texts. Apparently
the statement in the Chronicles is the more correct of the two: for if we
consider that Abraham paid four hundred shekels of silver for the site of a
family burial-place, at a time when the land was very thinly populated, and
therefore land must certainly have been much cheaper than it was in Davids
time, the small sum of fifty shekels of silver (about 6) appears much too low a
price; and David would certainly pay at least fifty shekels of gold. But we are
not warranted in any case in speaking of the statement in the Chronicles, as
Thenius does, as intentionally exaggerated. This style of criticism, which
carries two kinds of weights and measure in its bag, explaining the high

numbers in the books of Samuel and Kings as corruptions of the text, and those
in the Chronicles as intentional exaggerations on the part of the chronicler, is
sufficiently dealt with by the remark of Bertheau, that this (i.e., the charge of
exaggeration) could only be sustained if it were perfectly certain that the
chronicler had our present text of the books of Samuel before him at the time.

2Sa. 24:25. After acquiring the threshing-floor by purchase, David built an

altar to the Lord there, and offered burnt-offerings and supplicatory-offerings
(shelamim: as in Jud. 20:26; 21: 4; 1Sa. 13: 9) upon it to the Lord. So Jehovah
was entreated, and the plague was turned away from Israel.
This remark brings to a close not only the account of this particular occurrence,
but also the book itself; whereas in the Chronicles it is still further stated that
Jehovah answered David with fire from heaven, which fell upon the burntoffering; and that after his prayer had been answered thus, David not only
continued to offer sacrifice upon the floor of Aravnah, but also fixed upon it as
the site for the temple which was afterwards to be built (1Ch. 21:27; 22: 1); and
to this there is appended, in 2Sa. 22: 2ff., an account of the preparations which
David made for the building of the temple. It is not affirmed in the Chronicles,
however, that David fixed upon this place as the site for the future temple in
consequence of a revelation from God, but simply that he did this, because he
saw that the Lord had answered him there, and because he could not go to
Gibeon, where the tabernacle was standing, to seek the Lord there, on account
of the sword of the angel, i.e., on account of the pestilence. The command of
God build an altar upon the threshing-floor of Aravnah, and offer expiatory
sacrifices upon it, when connected with His answering his prayer by turning
away the plague, could not fail to be taken as a distinct intimation to David, that
the site of this altar was the place where the Lord would henceforth make
known His gracious presence to His people; and this hint was quite sufficient to
determine the site for the temple which is son Solomon was to build.

FOOTNOTES
ft1

Thy mouth hath testified against thee, and out of it thou art judged (Luke
19:22), whether thou hast done it or not. If thou hast done it, thou receivest
the just reward of thy deeds. If thou hast not done it, then throw the blame
upon thine own lying testimony, and be content with the wages of a wicked
flatterer; for, according to thine own confession, thou art the murderer of a
king, and that is quite enough to betray thine evil heart. David could see
plainly enough that the man was no murderer: he would show by his
example that flatterers who boast of such sins as these should get no hearing
from their superiors. Berleb. Bible.

ft2

In the Septuagint we find Qasiri or Qasour, an equally mistaken form. The

Chaldee has over the tribe of Asher, which is also unsuitable, unless we
include the whole of the northern portion of Canaan, including the territory
of Zebulun and Naphtali. But there is no proof that the name Asher was
ever extended to the territory of the three northern tribes. We should be
rather disposed to agree with Bachienne, who supposes it to refer to the city
of Asher (Jos. 17: 7) and its territory, as this city was in the south-east of
Jezreel, and Abner may possibly have conquered this district for Ishbosheth
with Gilead as a base, before he ventured to dispute the government of
Israel with the Philistines, if only we could discover any reason why the
inhabitants (the Ashurites) should be mentioned instead of the city Asher,
or if it were at all likely that one city should be introduced in the midst of a
number of large districts. The Syriac and Vulgate have Geshuri, and
therefore seem to have read or conjectured YRIw giHA; and Thenius decides in
favour of this, understanding the name Geshur to refer to the most northerly
portion of the land on both sides of the Jordan, from Mount Hermon to the
Lake of Gennesareth (as in Deu. 3:14, Jos. 12: 5; 13:13, 1Ch. 2:23). But no
such usage of speech can be deduced from any of these passages, as
Geshuri is used there to denote the land of the Geshurites, on the north-east
of Bashan, which had a king of its own in the time of David (see at
2Sa. 3: 3), and which Abner would certainly never have thought of
conquering.

ft3

From the fact that in vv. 10, 11, Ishbosheths ascending the throne is
mentioned before that of David, and is also accompanied with a statement
of his age, whereas the age of David is not given till 2Sa. 5: 4, 5, when he
became king over all Israel, Ewald draws the erroneous conclusion that the
earlier (?) historian regarded Ishbosheth as the true king, and David as a

pretender. But the very opposite of this is stated as distinctly as possible in

vv. 4ff.) compared with v. 8). The fact that Ishbosheth is mentioned before
David in v. 10 may be explained simply enough from the custom so
constantly observed in the book of Genesis, of mentioning subordinate lines
or subordinate persons first, and stating whatever seemed worth recording
with regard to them, in order that the ground might be perfectly clear for
relating the history of the principal characters without any interruption.
ft4
The LXX thought it desirable to explain the possibility of Rechab and Baanah
getting into the kings house, and therefore paraphrased the sixth verse as
follows: kai idou h qurwroj tou oikou ekaqaire purouj kai enustace kai
ekaqeude kai hxab kai Baana oi adelfoi dielaqon (and behold the
doorkeeper of the house was cleaning wheat, and nodded and slept. And
Rahab and Baana the brothers escaped, or went in secretly). The first part
of this paraphrase has been retained in the Vulgate, in the interpolation
between vv. 5 and 6: et ostiaria domus purgans triticum obdormivit;
whether it was copied by Jerome from the Itala, or was afterwards
introduced as a gloss into his translation. It is very evident that this clause in
the Vulgate is only a gloss, from the fact that, in all the rest of v. 6, Jerome
has closely followed the Masoretic text, and that none of the other ancient
translators found anything about a doorkeeper in his text. When Thenius,
therefore, attempts to prove the evident corruption of the Masoretic text,
by appealing to the nonsense (Unsinn) of relating the murder of Ishbosheth
and the flight of the murderers twice over, and in two successive verses (see
v. 7), he is altogether wrong in speaking of the repetition as nonsense
whereas it is simply tautology, and has measured the peculiarities of Hebrew
historians by the standard adopted by our own. J. P. F. Knigsfeldt has
given the true explanation when he says: The Hebrews often repeat in this
way, for the purpose of adding something fresh, as for example, in this
instance, their carrying off the head. Comp. with this 2Sa. 3:22, 23, where
the arrival of Joab is mentioned twice, viz., in two successive verses; or
2Sa. 5: 1-3, where the assembling of the tribes of Israel at Hebron is also
referred to a second time, a repetition at which Thenius himself has taken
no offence, and many other passages of the same kind.
ft5
The earliest translators have only resorted to guesses. The Seventy, with their
aptesqw en paracifidi, have combined RWnOCI with HnFCI, which they render
now and then maxaira or romfaia. This is also done by the Syriac and
Arabic. The Chaldee paraphrases in this manner: who begins to subjugate
the citadel. Jerome, who probably followed the Rabbins, has et tetigisset
domatum fistulas (and touched the water-pipes); and Luther, und erlanget
die Dachrinnen (like the English version, whosoever getteth up to the
gutter: Tr.). Hitzigs notion, that zinnor signifies ear (whosoever boxes

the ears of the blind and lame) needs no refutation; nor does that of Fr.
Bttcher, who proposes to follow the Alexandrian rendering, and refer
zinnor to a sword of honour or marshals staff, which David promised to
the victor.
ft6

This is also inserted in the passage before us by the translators of the English
version: he shall be chief and captain. Tr.
ft7
The statements of Menander of Ephesus in Josephus (c. Ap. i. 18), that after
the death of Abibal his son Hirom (Eirwmoj) succeeded him in the
government, and reigned thirty-four years, and died at the age of fifty-three,
are at variance with the biblical history. For, according to these statements,
as Hiram was still reigning at the end of twenty years (according to
1Ki. 9:10, 11), when Solomon had built his palaces and the house of the
Lord, i.e., twenty-four years after Solomon began to reign, he cannot have
ascended the throne before the sixty-first year of Davids life, and the thirtyfirst of his reign. But in that case the erection of Davids palace would fall
somewhere within the last eight years of his life. And to this we have to add
the repeated statements made by Josephus (l.c. and Ant. viii. 3, 1), to the
effect that Solomon commenced the building of the temple in Hirams
twelfth year, or after he had reigned eleven years; so that Hiram could only
have begun to reign seven years before the death of David (in the sixty-third
year of his life), and the erection of the palace by David must have fallen
later still, and his determination to build the temple, which he did not form
till he had taken possession of his house of cedar, i.e., the newly erected
palace (2Sa. 7: 2), would fall in the very last years of his life, but a very
short time before his death. As this seems hardly credible, it has been
assumed by some that Hirams father, Abibal, also bore the name of Hiram,
or that Hiram is confounded with Abibal in the account before us (Thenius),
or that Abibals father was named Hiram, and it was he who formed the
alliance with David (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 287). But all these assumptions are
overthrown by the fact that the identity of the Hiram who was Solomons
friend with the contemporary and friend of David is expressly affirmed not
only in 2Ch. 2: 2 (as Ewald supposes), but also in 1Ki. 5:15. For whilst
Solomon writes to Hiram in 2Ch. 2: 3, as thou didst deal with David my
father, and didst send him cedars to build him an house to dwell therein, it
is also stated 1Ki. 5: 1 that Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants unto
Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of
his father: for Hiram was a lover of David all days (all his life). Movers
(Phnizier ii. 1, p. 147ff.) has therefore attempted to remove the
discrepancy between the statements made in Josephus and the biblical
account of Hirams friendship with David and Solomon, by assuming that in
the narrative contained in the books of Samuel we have a topical and not a

chronological arrangement, and that according to this arrangement the

conquest of Jerusalem by David is followed immediately by the building of
the city and palace, and this again by the removal of the holy ark to
Jerusalem, and lastly by Davids resolution to build a temple, which really
belonged to the close of his reign, and indeed, according to 2Sa. 7: 2, to the
period directly following the completion of the cedar palace. There is a
certain amount of truth at the foundation of this, but it does not remove the
discrepancy; for even if Davids resolution to build a temple did not fall
within the earlier years of his reign at Jerusalem, as some have inferred from
the position in which it stands in the account given in this book, it cannot be
pushed forward to the very last years of his life and reign. This is decidedly
precluded by the fact, that in the promise given to David by God, his son
and successor upon the throne is spoken of in such terms as to necessitate
the conclusion that he was not yet born. This difficulty cannot be removed
by the solution suggested by Movers (p. 149), that the historian necessarily
adhered to the topical arrangement which he had adopted for this section,
because he had not said anything yet about Solomon and his mother
Bathsheba: for the expression which shall proceed out of thy bowels
(2Sa. 7:12) is not the only one of the kind; but in 1Ch. 22: 9, David says to
his son Solomon, The word of the Lord came to me, saying, A son shall be
born to thee Solomon he shall build an house for my name; from
which it is very obvious, that Solomon was not born at the time when David
determined to build the temple and received this promise from God in
consequence of his intention.
To this we have also to add 2Sa. 11: 2, where David sees Bathsheba, who
gave birth to Solomon a few years later, from the roof of his palace. Now,
even though the palace is simply called the kings house in this passage,
and not the house of cedar, as in 2Sa. 7: 2, and therefore the house
intended might possibly be the house in which David lived before the house
of cedar was built, this is a very improbable supposition, and there cannot
be much doubt that the kings house is the palace (2Sa. 5:11; 7: 1) which
he had erected for himself. Lastly, not only is there not the slightest
intimation in the whole of the account given in 2Sa. 7 that David was an old
man when he resolved to build the temple, but, on the contrary, the
impression which it makes throughout is, that it was the culminating point
of his reign, and that he was at an age when he might hope not only to
commence this magnificent building, but in all human probability to live to
complete it. The only other solution left, is the assumption that there are
errors in the chronological date of Josephus, and that Hiram lived longer
than Menander affirms. The assertion that Solomon commenced the
erection of the temple in the eleventh or twelfth year of Hirams reign was

not derived by Josephus from Phoenician sources; for the fragments which
he gives from the works of Menander and Dius in the Antiquities (viii. 5, 3)
and c. Apion (i. 17, 18), contain nothing at all about the building of the
temple (vid., Movers, p. 141), but he has made it as the result of certain
chronological combinations of his own, just as in Ant. viii. 3, 1, he
calculates the year of the building of the temple in relation both to the
exodus and also to the departure of Abraham out of Haran, but
miscalculates, inasmuch as he places it in the 592nd year after the exodus
instead of the 480th, and the 1020th year from Abrahams emigration to
Canaan instead of the 1125th. And in the present instance his calculation of
the exact position of the same event in relation to Hirams reign was no
doubt taken from Menander; but even in this the numbers may be faulty,
since the statements respecting Balezorus and Myttonus in the very same
extract from Menander, as to the length of the reigns of the succeeding
kings of Tyre, can be proved to be erroneous, and have been corrected by
Movers from Eusebius and Syncellus; and, moreover, the seven years of
Hirams successor, Baleazar, do not tally with Eusebius and Syncellus, who
both give seventeen years. Thus the proof which Movers adduces from the
synchronism of the Tyrian chronology with the biblical, the Egyptian, and
the Assyrian, to establish the correctness of Menanders statements
concerning Hirams reign, is rendered very uncertain, to say nothing of the
fact that Movers has only succeeded in bringing out the synchronism with
the biblical chronology by a very arbitrary and demonstrably false
calculation of the years that the kings of Judah and Israel reigned.
ft8
Through the express statement that David inquired of Jehovah (viz., by the
Urim) in both these conflicts with the Philistines (vv. 19 and 23), Diestels
assertion, that after the death of Saul we do not read any more about the
use of the holy lot, is completely overthrown, as well as the conclusion
which he draws from it, namely, that David probably employed it for the
purpose of giving a certain definiteness to his command over his followers,
over whom he had naturally but little authority (1Sa. 22: 2?), rather than
because he looked upon it himself with any peculiar reverence.
ft9
This is the marginal reading in the English version, though the text has he
burned them. Tr.
ft10

There is no force in the objection brought by Bertheau against this view, viz.,
that it is a priori improbable that the Philistines who were fighting against
David and his forces, whose base of operations was Jerusalem, should have
taken possession of the whole line from Gibeon to Gezer, as the
improbability is by no means apparent, and has not been pointed out by
Bertheau, whilst the assumption that Jerusalem was Davids base of
operations has no foundation whatever. Moreover, Bertheaus opinion, that

Geba was the same as Gibeah in the tribe of Judah (Jos. 15:57), is
decidedly erroneous: for this Gibeah is not to be identified with the present
village of Jeba on the south side of the Wady Musurr, half-way between
Shocoh and Jerusalem, but was situated towards the desert of Judah (see at
Jos. 15:57); and besides, it is impossible to see how the Philistines, who had
invaded the plain of Rephaim, could have been beaten from this Gibeah as
far as to Gezer.
ft11
If it were possible to discover the situation of Gath-rimmon, the home of
Obed-edom (see at v. 10), we might probably decide the question whether
Obed-edom was still living in the town where he was born or not. But
according to the Onom., Kirjath-jearim was ten miles from Jerusalem, and
Gath-rimmon twelve, that is to say, farther off. Now, if these statements are
correct, Obed-edoms house cannot have been in Gath-rimmon.
ft12
There is no discrepancy, therefore, between the two different accounts; but
the one supplements the other in a manner perfectly in harmony with the
whole affair, at the outset, a sacrifice consisting of one ox and one fatted
calf; and at the close, one of seven oxen and seven rams. Consequently
there is no reason for altering the text of the verse before us, as Thenius
proposes, according to the senseless rendering of the LXX, kai hsan met
autou airontej thn kibwton epta xoroi kai quma mosxoj kai arnej (with
David there were bearers of the ark, seven choirs, and sacrifices of a calf
and lambs), which has also found its way into the Vulgate, though Jerome
has rendered our Hebrew text faithfully afterwards (i.e., after the gloss,
which was probably taken from the Itala, and inserted in his translation).
ft13
With regard to the historical authenticity of this promise, Tholuck observes,
in his Prophets and their Prophecies (pp. 165-6), that it can be proved,
with all the evidence which is ever to be obtained in support of historical
testimony, that David actually received a prophetic promise that his family
should sit upon the throne for ever, and consequently an intimation of a
royal descendant whose government should be eternal. Anything like a
merely subjective promise arising from human combinations is precluded
here by the fact that Nathan, acting according to the best of his knowledge,
gave his consent to Davids plan of building a temple; and that it was not till
afterwards, when he had been instructed by a divine vision, that he did the
very opposite, and assured him on the contrary that God would build him a
house. Thenius also affirms that there is no reason for assuming, as De
Wette has done, that Nathans prophecies were not composed till after the
time of Solomon; that their historical credibility is attested by Psa. 89 (vv.
4, 5, 20-38, and especially v. 20), Psa. 132:11, 12, and Isa. 55: 3; and that,
properly interpreted, they are also Messianic. The principal evidence of this
is to be found in the prophetic utterance of David in 2Sa. 23, where, as is

generally admitted, he takes a retrospective glance at the promise, and

thereby attests the historical credibility of Nathans prophecy (Thenius, p.
245). Nevertheless, Gust. Baur maintains that a closer comparison of this
more elaborate and simple description (2Sa. 7) with the brief and altogether
unexampled last words of David, more especially with 2Sa. 23: 5, can
hardly leave the slightest doubt, that the relation in which the chapter before
us stands to these words, is that of a later expansion to an authentic
prophetic utterance of the king himself. For example, the distinct allusion
to the birth of Solomon, and the building of the temple, which was to be
completed by him, is said to have evidently sprung from a later development
of the original promise after the time of Solomon, on account of the
incongruity apparent in Nathans prediction between the ideal picture of the
Israelitish monarchy and the definite allusion to Solomons building of the
temple. But there is no such incongruity in Nathans prediction; it is only
to be found in the naturalistic assumptions of Baur himself, that the
utterances of the prophets contained nothing more than subjective and ideal
hopes of the future, and not supernatural predictions. This also applies to
Diestels opinion, that the section vv. 4-16 does not harmonize with the
substance of Davids glorious prayer in vv. 18-29, nor the latter again with
itself, because the advice given him to relinquish the idea of building the
temple is not supported by any reasons that answer either to the character
of David or to his peculiar circumstances, with which the allusion to his son
would have been in perfect keeping; but the prophets dissuasion merely
alludes to the fact that Jehovah did not stand in need of a stately house at
all, and had never given utterance to any such desire. On account of this
obvious fact, Diestel regards it as credible that the original dissuasion
came from God, because it was founded upon an earlier view, but that the
promise of the son of David which followed proceeded from Nathan, who
no doubt looked with more favourable eyes upon the building of the temple.
This discrepancy is also arbitrarily foisted upon the text. There is not a
syllable about any original dissuasion in all that Nathan says; for he simply
tells the king that Jehovah had hitherto dwelt in a tent, and had not asked
any of the tribes of Israel to build a stately temple, but not that Jehovah did
not need a stately house at all.
ft14
The LXX has this additional clause: And Shishak the king of Egypt took
them away, when he went up against Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam
the son of Solomon, which is neither to be found in the Chronicles nor in
any other ancient version, and is merely an inference drawn by the Greek
translator, or by some copyists of the LXX, from 1Ki. 14:25-28, taken in
connection with the fact that the application of the brass is given in
1Ch. 18: 8. But, in the first place, the author of this gloss has overlooked

the fact that the golden shields of Rehoboam which Shishak carried away,
were not those captured by David, but those which Solomon had had made,
according to 1Ki. 10:16, for the retainers of his palace; and in the second
place, he has not observed that, according to v. 11 of this chapter, and also
of the Chronicles, David dedicated to the Lord all the gold and silver that he
had taken, i.e., put it in the treasury of the sanctuary to be reserved for the
future temple, and that at the end of his reign he handed over to his son and
successor Solomon all the gold, silver, iron, and brass that he had collected
for the purpose, to be applied to the building of the temple (1Ch. 22:14ff.,
29: 2ff.). Consequently the clause in question, which Thenius would adopt
from the LXX into our own text, is nothing more than the production of a
presumptuous Alexandrian, whose error lies upon the very surface, so that
the question of its genuineness cannot for a moment be entertained.
ft15

ft16

Bertheau erroneously maintains that JVFNF REJ, which he took, is at variance

with 2Sa. 8: 7, as, according to this passage, the golden shields of
Hadadezer did not become the property of the Lord. But there is not a word
to that effect in 2Sa. 8: 7. On the contrary, his taking the shields to
Jerusalem implies, rather than precludes, the intention to devote them to the
purposes of the sanctuary.

Michaelis adduces a case in point from the Seven Years War. After the
battle of Lissa, eight or twelve thousand men were reported to have been
taken prisoners; but when they were all counted, including those who fell
into the hands of the conquerors on the second, third, and fourth days of the
flight, the number amounted to 22,000.
ft17
Gesenius (Thes. s. vv.) and Thenius (on 1Ki. 1:38) both adopt this
explanation; but the majority of the modern theologians decide in favour of
Lakemachers opinion, to which Ewald has given currency, viz., that the
Crethi or Cari are Cretes or Carians, and the Pelethi Philistines (vid.,
Ewald, Krit. Gramm. p. 297, and Gesch. des Volkes Israel, pp. 330ff.;
Bertheau, zur Geschichte Israel, p. 197; Movers, Phnizier i. p. 19). This
view is chiefly founded upon the fact that the Philistines are called Crethi in
1Sa. 30:14, and Crethim in Zep. 2: 5 and Eze. 25:16. But in both the
passages from the prophets the name is used with special reference to the
meaning of the word TYRIkiHI , viz., to exterminate, cut off, as Jerome has
shown in the case of Ezekiel by adopting the rendering interficiam
interfectores (I will slay the slayers) for YTIR
kiTJE YtIRAkiH.I The same play
upon the words takes place in Zephaniah, upon which Strauss has correctly
observed: Zephaniah shows that this violence of theirs had not been
forgotten, calling the Philistines Crethim for that very reason, ut sit nomen
et omen. Besides, in both these passages the true name Philistines stands

by the side as well, so that the prophets might have used the name Crethim
(slayers, exterminators) without thinking at all of 1Sa. 30:14. In this passage
it is true the name Crethi is applied to a branch of the Philistine people that
had settled on the south-west of Philistia, and not to the Philistines
generally. The idea that the name of a portion of the royal body-guard was
derived from the Cretans is precluded, first of all, by the fact of its
combination with YTIL
piHA (the Pelethites); for it is a totally groundless
assumption that this name signifies the Philistines, and is a corruption of
YtIiLIp.i There are no such contractions as these to be found in the Semitic
languages, as Gesenius observes in his Thesaurus (l.c.), quis hujusmodi
contractionem in linguis Semiticis ferat? Secondly, it is also precluded by
the strangeness of such a combination of two synonymous names to denote
the royal body-guard. Who could believe it possible that two synonymous
epithets should be joined together in this manner, which would be
equivalent to saying Englishmen and Britons? (Ges. Thes. p. 1107).
Thirdly, it is opposed to the title afterwards given to the body-guard,
YCIRFHFWi YRIkFHA (2Ki. 11: 4, 19), in which the Cari correspond to the Crethi,
as in 2Sa. 20:23, and ha-razim to the Pelethi; so that the term pelethi can
no more signify a particular tribe than the term razim can. Moreover, there
are other grave objections to this interpretation. In the first place, the
hypothesis that the Philistines were emigrants from Crete is merely founded
upon the very indefinite statements of Tacitus (Hist. v. 3, 2), Judaeos
Creta insula profugos novissima Libyae insedisse memorant, and that of
Steph. Byz. (s. v. Gaza ), to the effect that the city of Gaza was once called
Minoa, from Minos a king of Crete, statements which, according to the
correct estimate of Strauss (l.c.), have all so evidently the marks of fables
that they hardly merit discussion, at all events when opposed to the
historical testimony of the Old Testament (Deu. 2:23; Amo. 9: 7), to the
effect that the Philistines sprang from Caphtor. And secondly, it is a priori
altogether improbable, that a man with so patriotic a heart, and so devoted
to the worship of the one God, should have surrounded himself with a
foreign and heathen body-guard (Thenius). This argument cannot be
invalidated by the remark that it is well known that at all times kings and
princes have preferred to commit the protection of their persons to foreign
mercenaries, having, as they thought, all the surer pledge of their
devotedness in the fact that they did not spring from the nation, and were
dependent upon the ruler alone (Hitzig). For, in the first place, the
expression at all times is one that must be very greatly modified; and
secondly, this was only done by kings who did not feel safe in the presence
of their own people, which was not the case with David. And the Philistines,
those arch-foes of Israel, would have been the last nation that David would

have gone to for the purpose of selecting his own body-guard. It is true that
he himself had met with a hospitable reception in the land of the Philistines;
but it must be borne in mind that it was not as king of Israel that he found
refuge there, but as an outlaw flying from Saul the king of Israel, and even
then the chiefs of the Philistines would not trust him (1Sa. 29: 3ff.). And
when Hitzig appeals still further to the fact, that according to 2Sa. 18: 2,
David handed over the command of a third of his army to a foreigner who
had recently entered his service, having emigrated from Gath with a
company of his fellow-countrymen (2Sa. 15:19, 20, 22), and who had
displayed the greatest attachment to the person of David (v. 21), it is hardly
necessary to observe that the fact of Davids welcoming a brave soldier into
his army, when he had come over to Israel, and placing him over a division
of the army, after he had proved his fidelity so decidedly as Ittai had at the
time of Absaloms rebellion, is no proof that he chose his body-guard from
the Philistines. Nor can 2Sa. 15:18 be adduced in support of this, as the
notion that, according to that passage, David had 600 Gathites in his service
as body-guard, is simply founded upon a misinterpretation of the passage
mentioned.
ft18
Cutting off a persons beard is regarded by the Arabs as an indignity quite
equal to flogging and branding among ourselves. Many would rather die
than have their beard shaved off (Arvieux, Sitten der Beduinen-araber).
Niebuhr relates a similar occurrence as having taken place in modern times.
In the years 1764, a pretender to the Persian throne, named Kerim Khan,
sent ambassadors to Mir Mahenna, the prince of Bendervigk, on the Persian
Gulf, to demand tribute from him; but he in return cut off the ambassadors
beards. Kerim Khan was so enraged at this, that he went the next year with
a large army to make war upon this prince, and took the city, and almost the
whole of his territory, to avenge the insult.
ft19

We may see from this how deep a soul may fall when it turns away from
God, and from the guidance of His grace. This David, who in the days of his
persecution would not even resort to means that were really plausible in
order to defend himself, was now not ashamed to resort to the greatest
crimes in order to cover his sin. O God! how great is our strength when we
lay firm hold of Thee! And how weak we become as soon as we turn away
from Thee! The greatest saints would be ready for the worst of deeds, if
Thou shouldst but leave them for a single moment without Thy protection.
Whoever reflects upon this, will give up all thought of self-security and
spiritual pride. Berleburg Bible.
ft20
Josephus adopts this explanation: This she said, as desirous to avoid her
brothers violent passion at present (Ant. viii. 8, 1).

ft21

The LXX have very comprehensive additions here: first of all, after ek
pleuraj tou orouj, they have the more precise definition en th katabasei,
and then the further clause, and the spy came and announced to the king,
Andraj ewraka ek thj odou thj wrwnhn (?) ek merouj tou orouj, partly to
indicate more particularly the way by which the kings sons came, and partly
to fill up a supposed gap in the account. But they did not consider that the
statement in v. 35, and Jonadab said to the king, Behold, the kings sons
are coming, does not square with these additions; for if the spy had already
informed the king that his sons were coming, there was no necessity for
Jonadab to do it again. This alone is sufficient to show that the additions
made by the LXX are nothing but worthless glosses, introduced according
to subjective conjectures and giving no foundation for alterations of the
text.
ft22
The LXX have this additional clause, kai ginetai gunh obaam uiw Salwmwn
kai tiktei autw ton Abia (and she became the wife of Rehoboam the son of
Solomon, and bore him a son named Abia). Although this is quite at
variance with 1Ki. 15: 2, where it is stated that the wife of Rehoboam and
mother of Abia (Abijam) was named Maacah, the clause had been adopted
by Thenius, who regards it as original, though for reasons which Bttcher
has shown to be worthless.
ft23
The Septuagint also has pantej oi Geqaioi, and has generally rendered the
Masoretic text correctly. But WYDFBFLkF has been translated incorrectly, or
at all events in a manner likely to mislead, viz., pantej oi paidej autou. But
in the Septuagint text, as it has come down to us, another paraphrase has
been interpolated into the literal translation, which Thenius would adopt as
an emendation of the Hebrew text, notwithstanding the fact that the critical
corruptness of the Alexandrian text must be obvious to every one.
ft24
The meaning of the word, wearied or weariness, does not warrant any
conjectures, even though they should be more felicitous than that of
Bttcher, who proposes to alter Ayephim into Ephraim, and assumes that
there was a place of this name near Mahanaim, though without reflecting
that the place where David rested was on this side of the Jordan, and
somewhere near to Gilgal or Jericho (2Sa. 17:16ff. and 22).
ft25
Consequently no conjectures are needed as to the rendering of the words in
the LXX, viz., kaqwj (al. on tropon) epistrefei h numfh proj ton andra
auths plhn yuxhn androj enoj su zhteij, such as Ewald, Thenius, and
Bttcher have attempted. For it is very obvious that h numfh proj ton
andra authj owes its origin simply to a false reading of YJIHF LkOHA as YJI
HlFkAHA, and that plhn yuxhn androj enoj has been interpolated by way of

explanation from nothing but conjecture. No other of the ancient versions

contains the slightest trace of a different reading from that given in the text.
ft26
According to Burckhardts account (Die Beduinen, p. 48), after they have
taken the butter from the butter-milk, they beat the latter again till it
coagulates, and then dry it till it is quite hard. It is then rubbed to pieces,
and in the spring every family stores up two or three lasts of it, which they
eat mixed with butter.
ft27

ft28

Dathe and Thenius propose to alter YIL

A FwRYi into YIL
A FwRYMI (from
Jerusalem), from a simple misunderstanding of the true meaning of the
words; for, as Bttcher has observed, the latter (from Jerusalem) would be
quite superfluous, as it is already contained in the previous DRAYF . But
Bttchers emendation of JbF into HJFb,F because Jerusalem or the
population of Jerusalem is a feminine notion, is equally unnecessary, since
towns and lands are frequently construed as masculines when the inhabitants
are intended (vid., Ewald, 318, a.). On the other hand, the rendering
adopted by the LXX, and by Luther, Michaelis, and Maurer, in which
YIL
A FwRYi is taken as an accusative in the sense of when Mephibosheth
came to Jerusalem to meet the king, is altogether wrong, and has been very
properly given up by modern expositors, inasmuch as it is at variance not
only with the word DRAY,F but also with 2Sa. 16: 3 and 9:13, where
Mephibosheth is said to have lived in Jerusalem.

This difficulty cannot be removed by emendations of the text, inasmuch as all

the early translators, with the exception of the Syriac, had our Hebrew text
before them. Thenius does indeed propose to alter Abishai into Joab in v. 6,
after the example of Josephus and the Syriac; but, as Bttcher observes, if
Joab had originally formed part of the text, it could not have been altered
into Abishai either accidentally or intentionally, and the Syriac translators
and Josephus have inserted Joab merely from conjecture, because they
inferred from what follows that Joabs name ought to be found here. But
whilst this is perfectly true, there is no ground for Bttchers own
conjecture, that in the original text v. 6 read as follows: Then David said to
Joab, Behold, the three days are gone: shall we wait for Amasa? and
through the copyists carelessness a whole line was left out. For this
conjecture has no tenable support in the senseless reading of the Cod. Vat.,
proj Amessai for Abisai.
ft29
The correctness of the text is not to be called in question, as Thenius and
Bttcher suppose, for the simple reason that all the older translators have
followed the Hebrew text, including even the LXX with their egw eimi
eirhnika twn sthrigmatwn en Israhl; whereas the words a eqento oi
pistoi tou Israhl, which some of the MSS contain at the close of v. 18

after ei ecelipon, and upon which Thenius and Bttcher have founded their
conjectures, are evidently a gloss or paraphrase of wmTAH
K
Wi, and of so
little value on critical grounds, that Tischendorf did not even think the
reading worth mentioning in his edition of the Septuagint.
ft30
Men with six fingers and six toes have been met with elsewhere. Pliny (h.
nat. xi. 43) speaks of certain sedigiti (six-fingered) Romans. This peculiarity
is even hereditary in some families. Other examples are collected by Trusen
(Sitten, Gebruche, und Krankheiten der alten Hebrer, pp. 198-9, ed. 2)
and Friedreich (zur Bible, i. 298-9).
ft31
Even Hitzig observes (die Psalmen, i. p. 95): There is no ground whatever
for calling in question the Davidic authorship of the psalm, and therefore the
statement made in the heading; and, in fact, there is all the more reason for
adhering to it, because it is attested twice. The recurrence of the psalm as
one of Davidic origin in 2Sa. 22 is of some weight, since not the slightest
suspicion attaches to any of the other songs of sayings attributed to David
in the second book of Samuel (e.g., 2Sa. 3:33, 34; 5: 8; 7:18-29; 23: 1-7).
Moreover, the psalm is evidently ancient, and suited to the classical period
of the language and its poetry. V. 31 is quoted as early as Pro. 30: 5, and v.
34 in Hab. 3:19. The psalm was also regarded as Davidic at a very early
period, as the diaskeuast of the second book of Samuel met with the
heading, which attributes the psalm to David. No doubt this opinion might
be founded upon v. 51; and with perfect justice if it were: for if the psalm
was not composed by David, it must have been composed in his name and
spirit; and who could have been this contemporaneous and equal poet?
Again, after quoting several thoroughly Davidic signs, he says at p. 96: It is
very obvious with how little justice the words of v. 51, relating to
2Sa. 7:12-16, 26, 29, have been pronounced spurious. Besides, the psalm
can no more have concluded with WXYML (v. 51) than with v. 50; and if
David refers to himself by name at the commencement in 2Sa. 23: 1, and in
the middle in 2Sa. 7:20, why should he not do the same at the close?
ft32
In vv. 13-16 the text of the Psalms deviates greatly and in many instances
from that before us. In v. 13 we find J
YL
XGAWi DRFbF wRBiF WYBFF instead of
J
YL
XgA wRbF; and after v. 14 J
YL
XGAWi DRFbF is repeated in the psalm. In
v. 15 we have BRF YQIRFBiw for QRFbF, and in v. 16 YIMA YQ
YPIJ for YF
YQ
YPIJ. The other deviations are inconsiderable. So far as the repetition of
J
YL
XGAWi DRFbF at the end of v. 14 is concerned, it is not only superfluous,
but unsuitable, because the lightning following the thunder is described in v.
15, and the words repeated are probably nothing more than a gloss that has
crept by an oversight into the text. The YIMA YQ
YPIJ in v. 16 is an obvious

softening down of the YF YQ

YPIJ of the text before us. In the other
deviations, however, the text of the Psalms is evidently the more original of
the two; the abridgment of the second clause of v. 13 is evidently a
simplification of the figurative description in the psalm, and BRF YQIRFbi in
the 15th verse of the psalm is more poetical and a stronger expression than
the mere QRFbF of our text.
This explanation, which we find in Gesenius (Thes. and Lex.) and Bertheau,
rests upon no other authority than the testimony of Origen, to the effect that
an obscure writer gives this interpretation of tristathj, the rendering of
YLI F, an authority which is completely overthrown by the writer of the
gloss in Octateuch. (Schleussner, Lex. in LXX t. v. p. 338), who gives this
explanation of tristataj: touj para xeira tou basilewj aristeran trithj
moiraj arxontaj. Suidas and Hesychius give the same explanation (s. v.
tristatai). Jerome also observes (ad Eze. 23): It is the name of the second
rank next to the king.
ft34
The objections brought against this have no force in them, viz., that,
according to this view, the section must have been written a long time after
the captivity (Clericus and Thenius), and that the perfectly general
expression the time of meeting could not stand for the time of the
afternoon or evening meeting (Thenius): for the former rests upon the
assumption that the daily sacrifice was introduced after the captivity, an
assumption quite at variance with the historical facts; and the latter is
overthrown by the simple remark, that the indefinite expression derived its
more precise meaning from the legal appointment of the morning and
evening sacrifice as times of meeting for the worship of God, inasmuch as
the evening meeting was the only one that could be placed in contrast with
the morning.]
ft33